Comunicacao - Oxford Handbook of Digital Technology and Society

Copyright Page
Copyright Page
Edited by Simeon J. Yates and Ronald E. Rice
The Oxford Handbook of Digital Technology and Society
Print Publication Date: Aug 2020 Subject: Sociology Online Publication Date: Aug 2020
(p. iv) Copyright Page
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.

It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.
© Oxford University Press 2020
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with
the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning
reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the
Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2020938283
ISBN 978–0–19–093259–6
1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2
Printed by LSC Communications, United States of America
Page 1 of 1
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Preface
Preface
(p. v) Preface
Introduction
THIS book is based upon work undertaken as part of the UK Economic and Social Re
search Council commissioned project “Ways of Being in a Digital Age”—for which Simeon
was Principal Investigator and Ronald was a member of the Steering Group. The primary
goal of the project was to identify the upcoming research questions and challenges facing
the social sciences as they address the impacts that digital media and technologies are
having and may have. This included a systematic review of prior work and a “horizon
scanning” derived from expert opinion. This book is therefore as full of questions as it is
of findings or answers. In particular, it identifies the topics that the social sciences, often
in interdisciplinary collaboration, will need to tackle—probably sooner rather than later.
The book is structured around the themes of the project—slightly reworked in the light of
the findings. We have called these “domains.” The following list presents their initial de
scriptions, while the last part of Chapter 1 describes the ESRC and subsequent confer
ence and workshops in more detail, the final domains, and their main questions.
Initial Domains and Scoping Questions
1. Citizenship and politics

How does digital technology impacts on our autonomy, agency, and privacy—illus
trated by the paradox of emancipation and control?
Whether and how our understanding of citizenship is evolving in the digital age—
for example whether technology helps or hinders us in participating at individual
and community levels?
2. Communities and identities

How we define and authenticate ourselves in a digital age?
What new forms of communities and work emerge as a result of digital technolo
gies—for example, new forms of coordination including large-scale and remote
collaboration?
Page 1 of 7
Preface
3. Communication and relationships

How are our relationships being shaped and sustained in and between various do
mains, including family and work?
4. Health and well-being

(p. vi)
Does technology make us healthier, better educated, and more productive?
5. Economy and sustainability

How do we construct the digital to be open to all, sustainable, and secure?
What impacts might the automation of the future workforce bring?
6. Data and representation

How we live with and trust the algorithms and data analysis used to shape key
features of our lives?
7. Governance and security

What are the challenges of ethics, trust, and consent in the digital age?
How we define responsibility and accountability in the digital age?
Challenges
Interdisciplinary Views of the Digital Society
The project, the book, and research on the social impacts of digital media and technology
have faced and will continue to face a number of key challenges. One of the great chal
lenges of working in this field is that of avoiding simplistic “technological determinism”—
or what Grint and Woolgar (2013) call “technism”—an inherent or implied reliance on
“obvious or intrinsic” features of the technology in explanations of technology develop
ment, use, or effects. Technism falls short of “technological determinism”—an approach
that Grint and Woolgar argue is very rarely fully taken—but implies the assumption that
technologies have intrinsic features that determine outcomes. We hope that we have
sought to avoid this as much as we can, and to have captured the reflective and reflexive
nature of the interactions among technologies, social systems and structures, and people.
Another major challenge is that of interdisciplinary collaboration. Many questions require

multiple disciplinary perspectives—across the social sciences, into health and engineer
ing, but very often in collaboration with computer science and information studies col
leagues. How does one understand the uses, implications, and role of the smartphone in
any social domain without also understanding the telecommunications infrastructure,
hardware, software, security, and design issues underlying the device? As a result, many
of the contributions to this book are from very different disciplines (see Chapter 1), and
this has enriched the perspective and critical analysis that have been considered.
The interdisciplinary perspectives and the way new technologies have been developing
have also introduced new ethical challenges in our research objects as well as our prac
tices as researchers. Questions around automation, security, surveillance, and privacy
Page 2 of 7
Preface
(chapters 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 22) have complicated how we think about the
(p. vii) relationship between humans and machines and what are the roles of govern
ments, technology companies, and civil society in their design, use, and regulation. When
it comes to conducting research on these subjects or using digital technologies to exam
ine them, researchers also face new ethical challenges of what they can and should ac
cess, collect, analyze, and then present or publish. Digital media and technologies, then,
have complicated how we do research, how we think about our research objects and sub
jects, and who is involved in these processes.
Volume of Literature and Digital Tools
Another challenge is the volume of work out there needing to be reviewed and assessed.
As we note in chapter 2, it is a feature of our contemporary world that the volume of aca
demic work continues to increase at a far greater rate than can be followed. As Petticrew
and Roberts note:
The problem is not just one of inconsistency, but one of information overload. The
past 20 years have seen an explosion in the amount of research information avail
able to decision makers and social researchers alike. With new journals launched
yearly, and thousands of research papers published, it is impossible for even the
most energetic policymaker or researcher to keep up-to-date with the most recent
research evidence, unless they are interested in a very narrow field indeed.
(Petticrew & Roberts, 2008, p. 7)
In the ESRC project, and in many of the non-ESRC chapters, we have turned to digital
tools to help manage this mass of literature—to extract topics and concepts from close to
thousands of articles in few hours rather than in tens of thousands of hours. This is an ex
ample of the well-documented fact that digital tools are therefore transforming how we
undertake many aspects of social research. The project therefore provided an opportunity
to experiment with several of these tools and methods (see chapter 2). Thus, two charac
teristics of this Handbook of Digital Technology and Society is the broad range of litera
ture covered in most chapters, and the frequent use of computer-based programs and
techniques for collecting, analyzing, and displaying the results of that literature.
Constant Change
Another key challenge for work in this field is the constantly changing nature of the arte
facts, contexts, and social practices as technologies develop and change, and are adapted
and socially constructed. This is often a clearly two-way street as social change (p. viii)
and regulation change systems and new systems create new opportunities, debates, and
challenges. This influences research as scholars seek to address current issues, new tech
nologies, new behaviors, and new implications. The ESRC chapters have reflected on this
by contrasting the development of concepts and topics over the period of the sampled lit
erature and through the reflections of the experts involved in the ESRC project.
Page 3 of 7
Preface
This constant change generates a specific set of challenges for theory and methods: Do
we need new theory and methods? Or do our existing tools still work—if slightly modi
fied? We have found in exploring the literature a highly varied mix of work. In many cases
the work is inductive, documenting and evidencing digital media and technology use and
impacts but not testing or evaluating theory—with a good number of papers being “theo
ry free.” Having said this, many papers draw on key social theories—with the notable re-
use and revision of older theory. Uses and Gratifications is one notable “older” social the
ory that has been given new life by examinations of digital media use (see chapters 8, 9,
18, and 21). In other cases, new theory has had to be developed and honed to explore
specific issues or to address challenges specific to digital technology use. An example
here would be “unified user acceptance” theory or models (see chapter 13). Questions
concerning theory that we might address include,
• How is the digital socially and technically conceptualized?

• Which theories are predominant in which domains?
• What new theory has been developed, and/or is “old theory” adequate to the task of
explaining the social impacts and use of the digital?
• To what extent is digital research theoretically or empirically driven?
• Which concepts and key themes cluster and link regardless of theoretical or empiri
cal approach?
• Can a new “theoretical framework” for understanding the digital be generated, and
is this needed?
• To what extent have interdisciplinary approaches modified or developed theory?
• Which methods predominate in which domains of work?
• Does the availability of large volumes of digital data change how the digital is stud
ied and/or the approaches taken to the social in a digital world?
• Are certain methods intrinsically linked to certain domains or theories? How are
methods tied to the social contexts around digital research?
• Have interdisciplinary approaches modified or prioritized certain methods in the
study of the digital?
We hope that by documenting issues of theory and method the book can help colleagues
reflect on issues of theory selection and testing, as well as appropriate methodology. In
this way, the book provides a snapshot from a brief period in time, assembling what has
been studied in the area of digital media and technologies with an eye to the future of this
research.
(p. ix) Chapters in the Book
The chapters in the book either present the outcomes from the respective domains of the
ESRC project or they are developed from responses to an open call as part of the Ways of
Being Conference held in 2017 (both of which are described more fully in chapter 1). The
non-ESRC contribution chapters represent reviews, reflections on the state of the art, or
Page 4 of 7
Preface
the application of reviews to various kinds of evidence in each of the domains. The Table
of Contents provides detailed listings of the sections of each chapter as a guide to their
content and focus. The online versions of each chapter also provide an abstract.
All of the chapters should help provide overviews for, and spark ideas for and debates
about, future research directions in the broad and evolving area of digital technology and
society. As such, we would hope that current and future scholars can draw upon these as
a resource when planning their work, using these chapters as foundations and baselines
for literature reviews, as well as identifying central concepts and topics and larger re
search areas that need more attention and explication. We have also provided a range of
supporting materials and visualizations via the project website at https://
waysofbeingdigital.com.
The production of the materials presented in the ESRC chapters was a complex process
involving contributions of the core research team, the project post-doctoral researchers,
and other colleagues. The ESRC chapters follow a fairly similar and standard initial for
mat developed by the core team—especially Sim Yates, Jordana Blejmar, and Elinor Carmi
—and revised and finalized by Ron Rice. In listing the authorships of these chapters, we
have tried to reflect as accurately as we can the contributions to these chapters from core
project team members, either directly or via Delphi or workshop materials. We more gen
erally acknowledge the contributions made by all across the project.
Ron conceptualized the structure and flow of chapters, worked with Oxford University
Press to develop a shared approach to the book, worked with the chapter authors through
multiple versions of all 25 chapters, and developed and continually updated the surround
ing material to ensure consistency of text and reference format, correspondence of terms,
cross-referencing, and style.
Ron and Sim engaged in multiple iterations of the materials, raising questions, resolving
questions, and sharing detailed descriptions of all the things going on in our personal and
academic lives that continually got in the way of completing the book. Irony, dark humor,
encouragement, promises, arcane analysis details, Byzantine university politics, strikes,
Brexit, floods, fires, emergency administration meetings, changes in contributors’ affilia
tions, reshuffling of chapter order, and debates about the proper use of “concept” or “top
ic” pervaded these email and Skype conversations.
(p. x) Potential Audiences
Primary audiences for the Oxford Handbook of Digital Technology and Society are re
searchers, faculty, and graduate students, in one or more of the seven theme areas. The
entire book, and certainly specific chapters, provide required reading for anyone interest
ed in the multifaceted nature of relationships between digital technology and society. Se
condary audiences are policymakers, research funding agencies, libraries, and upper-lev
el college students working on academic projects. The chapters should provide exception
al resources for those working on projects needing literature background and sources for
deeper insights, research results, and theoretical foundations. Readers will benefit from
Page 5 of 7
Preface
this book’s disciplinary, multidisciplinary, and interdisciplinary perspectives. Given the

seven theme sections—Health, Age, and Home; Communication and Relationships; Orga
nizational Contexts; Communities, Identities, and Class; Citizenship, Politics, and Partici
pation; Data, Representation, and Sharing; Governance and Accountability—as well as a
Synthesis section, different portions of the proposed book could be of interest to diverse
audiences, including, for example, those interested in sociology, political science, commu
nication, psychology, media policy, management, organizational community, community
studies, environment, economics, public administration, political communication, digital
design, socio-technical systems, public health, and media research. No prior training or
expertise is required to read or benefit from the chapters.
Conclusion
This book was born out of a need to understand what the future research challenges will
be for social research in understanding the relationships among digital technology and
society. It is not meant as a definitive guide to this, but as rather a set of starting points
and provocations to fellow scholars (and ourselves) as to the next steps in research, prac
tice, and policy.
Simeon J. Yates, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom
Ronald E. Rice, University of California, Santa Barbara, United States
(p. xi) Acknowledgments
Particular thanks need to go to our colleagues Jordana Blejmar and Elinor Carmi. Jordana
was instrumental in organizing the conference from which the non-ESRC chapters came.
Both Jordana and Elinor managed many of the practicalities of getting the ESRC chapters
together, and they were quick and detailed in providing additional literature reviews and
editorial suggestions for all the ESRC chapters. We obviously need to thank all the con
tributors to the project and to the book without whose input neither the research nor the
contributions to this volume would have been possible.
Sim thanks the ESRC, which funded the project, and the UK Defence Science Technology
Laboratory and the US National Science Foundation, which funded the workshops. He al
so thanks Ron, Jordana, and Elinor for their patience as he got distracted over the life of
the project and book writing by role changes, a secondment to government, and a univer
sity promotion. As ever, thanks to his family: Rachel, Ciaran, Ethan, and Niamh for just
being there (and typing up workshop “yellow stickies”—if only for extra pocket money!).
Ron thanks the Arthur N. Rupe Foundation for funding his UC Santa Barbara endowed
professorship, which supported travel and other resources involved in this project. He al
so thanks Claire for her ongoing tolerance of his frequent late-night editing work, and our
cats Tinker and Belle for their frequent occupation of his desk and keyboard during those
times.
Page 6 of 7
Preface
We very much appreciate the enthusiastic initial response to our book proposal by Hallie
Stebbins at Oxford University Press, and the ongoing support by the Oxford University
Press Editor Sarah Humphreville. Thanks, too, to the copyeditor Suzanne Copenhagen,
the production team at SPi Global, and indexer Robert Swanson.
Grint, K., & Woolgar, S. (2013). The machine at work: Technology, work and organization.
New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical
guide. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Page 7 of 7
List of Figures
List of Figures
(p. xxi) List of Figures

1.1 Trends over time in mention of four major digital terms in books through 2008,
based on Google Ngram Viewer. 11
1.2 Hierarchical clustering of main codes based on co-occurrence (correlation) of
main and subcodes within each source text. 25
2.1 Delphi process. 41
2.2 Bubble map of concept pairs. 48
2.3 Tree map of concept pairs. 49
2.4 Interactive topic modelling graph–topic. 50
2.5 Interactive topic modelling graph–keyword. 51
2.6 WordStat topic modelling. 52
3.1 Health and Well-Being 2000–2004: Most frequent concept pairs. 60
3.2 Health and Well-Being 2012–2016: Most frequent concept pairs. 61
4.1 Distribution of nine core topics over time. 94
4.2 Top 20 journals. 94
4.3 Distribution of articles per discipline over time. 95
4.4 Distribution of mental health concepts over time. 96
8.1 Communication 2000–2004: Most frequent concept pairs. 226
8.2 Communication 2012–2016: Most frequent concept pairs. 227
11.1 Economy 2000–2004: Most frequent concept pairs. 327
11.2 Economy 2012–2016: Most frequent concept pairs. 328
13.1 Digital roll-outs (or not) by company size. 375
13.2 Number of digital roll-outs by organization size (area represents proportion of
cases). 375
13.3 Roll-outs or not by sector. 376
13.4 Digital solution roll-outs by sector (area represents proportion of cases). 377
13.5 Increase in roll-outs over the last two years by sector. 378
13.6 Reasons for digital roll-outs. 379
13.7 Knowledge worker and number of roll-outs. 384
13.8 Proportion of digital roll-outs UK workforce thought successful. 384
Page 1 of 2
List of Figures
13.9 Level of employment and number of roll-outs experienced. 385

(p. xxii)
13.10 Positive impacts of new digital tools. 386

13.11 Reasons for a negative attitude. 387
13.12 Organization size and challenges to implementation of digital solutions. 389
13.13 Levels of organizational challenge and successful digital roll-outs. 389
13.14 Communication channels used. 390
13.15 Adequate communication and communication channel. 391
13.16 Communications channels and successful roll-outs. 392
13.17 Leadership and successful roll-outs. 392
13.18 Leadership by sector. 393
13.19 Regression model of perceptions of successful digital roll-outs. 397
14.1 Communities and Identities 2000–2004: Most frequent concept pairs. 409
14.2 Communities and Identities 2012–2016: Most frequent concept pairs. 410
15.1 Mean of frequency of social media use by social class (NS-SEC). 437
15.2 Type of Internet user by social class (NRS). 438
15.3 MCA analysis—overall results. 440
15.4 Mean number of social media platforms used by class. 443
15.5 Social media platforms used by social class (NS-SEC). 444
16.1 Citizenship 2000–2004: Most frequent concept pairs. 453
16.2 Citizenship 2012–2016: Most frequent concept pairs. 454
18.1 Data and representation 2000–2004: Most frequent concept pairs. 506
18.2 Data and representation 2012–2016: Most frequent concept pairs. 507
21.1 Summary of review of motivations for online knowledge sharing. 592
22.1 Governance and security 2000–2004: Most frequent concept pairs. 610
22.2 Governance and security 2012–2016: Most frequent concept pairs. 611
23.1 Governance tools and their application at different levels of IoT activity. (Smith,
2012) 632
24.1 Productivity graph. 662
24.2 Clustering of ideas: ESRC-NSF workshop. 665
24.3 Political, economic, social, technical, legal, and environmental clustering:
ESRC-NSF workshop. 666
24.4 Final research topic template: ESRC-DSTL workshop. 667
25.1 All seven domains 2000–2004: Most frequent concept pairs. 701
25.2 All seven domains 2012–2016: Most frequent concept pairs. 702
25.3 Hierarchical clustering of non-ESRC chapters based on co-occurrence of coded
themes. 716
Page 2 of 2
List of Tables
List of Tables
(p. xxiii) List of Tables

1.1 First Appearances of Four Major Digital Terms in Web of Science 7
1.2 First Appearances of Four Major Digital Terms in ScienceDirect 7
1.3 First Appearances of Four Major Digital Terms in Nexis Uni (News) 8
1.4 First Appearances of Four Major Digital Terms in Proquest Periodicals Index On
line 9
1.5 First Substantive Entries of Four Major Digital Terms in Books, from Google
NGram 10
1.6 Themes, Main Codes and Subcodes Used to Identify Issues and Concerns in Re
cent Books on Digital Technology and Society 12
2.1 Steering Group 37
2.2 Initial Scoping Questions 39
2.3 Example Concept Mapping by Digital Humanities Institute at the University of
Sheffield 47
3.1 Analysis Concepts Ranked 58
3.2 Concept Pairings—Main and Secondary Concepts 59
3.3 Wordstat Analysis of Topics 62
3.4 Comparison between Concepts and WordStat Topics 63
3.5 Epistemological Approach 70
3.6 Empirical Approach 71
3.7 Analytic Approach 71
3.8 Research Method 72
3.9 Study Population 72
3.10 Delphi Review Scoping Questions 73
3.11 Delphi Review Scoping Questions Ranked by Importance 73
3.12 Key Topics Ranked by Percentage of Delphi Survey Responses 74
3.13 Key Topics Ranked by Importance from Delphi Survey 74
3.14 Challenges Ranked by Percent of Cases 75
3.15 Challenges Ranked by Importance from Delphi Survey 76
4.1 Search Terms, Databases, and Concept Operationalization 87
Page 1 of 5
List of Tables
4.2 CTM with 15 Manually Selected Topics Merged into Nine Thematically
(p. xxiv)
Overlapping Topic Clusters, Sorted by Aggregated Frequencies (k = 110, N = 1780,

Max. 2 topics/Document, Prob ≥ 0.1) 90
4.3 Mental Health Concepts Distributed over Disciplines 97
4.4 Mental Health Concepts Distributed over Topics 97
5.1 Range of Theories and Methods Identified in Review 117
6.1 Mainstream and Specialist Outlets Included in the Review 138
6.2 Terms Related to Older People Used to Select Papers for Inclusion in the Review
139
6.3 The 16 Topics of the Research in the Papers Reviewed 140
7.1 Summary of Approaches, Key Concepts, Methodologies, and Studies in Each Sec
tion 190
8.1 Scoping Questions 222
8.4 WordStat Analysis of Topics 225
8.10 Scoping Questions Ranked by Number of Cases 240
8.11 Scoping Questions Ranked by Importance 240
8.12 Consultation Workshop Scoping Categories and Example Questions 241
8.13 Key Topics Ranked by Percent of Cases 242
8.15 Challenges Ranked by Percentage of Cases 243
9.1 Media Mastery Typology Codes and Sublevels 257
9.2 Co-occurrences of Media Mastery Subcodes with Social and Individual Aspects
Subcodes 260
(p. xxv) 11.5 Empirical Approach 335

11.9 Key Topics Ranked by Percent of Cases 339
13.1 Defining Digital Solutions 373
Page 2 of 5
List of Tables
13.2 Organization Size and Number of Digital Roll-Outs 376

13.3 Confidence at Home 380
13.4 Access to Technology at Home 381
13.5 K-Means Clustering with a Target of Six Clusters 382
13.6 Correlations of Age, Personal Confidence, and Work Confidence 382
13.7 Factor Analysis 394
13.8 Key Predictors of UK Workforce Perceptions of Successful Digital Roll-Outs 397
14.3 Wordstat Analysis of Topics 411
14.10 Key Topics Ranked by Percent of Delphi Survey Responses 419
15.1 NRS Social Grades and NS-SEC Classifications 436
15.2 Key Features of Non-users 439
15.3 Key Features of Limited Users 439
15.4 MCA Clustering of Arts Attendance 441
(p. xxvi)

16.10 Delphi Review Scoping Questions Ranked by Number of Cases and by Impor
tance 463
17.1 List of Keywords Used in the Process of Literature Review 474
17.2 Free Speech Challenges Posed by Digital Technologies and Practices 486
Page 3 of 5
List of Tables

18.13 Data-focused Topics and Challenges 522
20.1 Analysis of Journal of Big Data, 2014–2017 559
20.2 NASA’s Earth Observing System Data Information System (EOS DIS) 563
(p. xxvii) 22.3 WordStat Analysis of Topics 608

22.6 Research Methods 621
23.1 Key Emergent Themes and the Case Studies to Which They Particularly Relate
636
23.2 Mapping of Themes in EU Governance 638
23.3 Mapping of Themes in United States Governance 640
23.4 Mapping of Themes in UK Governance 642
24.1 Expertise Represented at the Two Workshops 663
24.2 ESRC-NSF Workshop: Topics by Issues 669
24.3 ESRC-DSTL Workshop: Topic Areas by Level of Impact 670
24.4 ESRC-DSTL Workshop: Social and Cultural Perceptions by Level of Impact 671
24.5 ESRC-DSTL Workshop: Technology Acceptance and Systems Design by Level of
Impact 672
24.6 ESRC-DSTL Workshop: Trust and Automation by Level of Impact 673
24.7 ESRC-DSTL Workshop: Work and Organizational Topics by Level of Impact 678
24.8 ESRC-DSTL Workshop: Areas of Inequality by Level of Impact 679
24.9 ESRC-DSTL Workshop: Research Impact Questions by Level of Impact 681
25.1 Main Themes of Concept Pairs, 2000–2004 703
Page 4 of 5
List of Tables
25.2 Main Themes of Concept Pairs, 2012–2016 704

25.3 Cross-cutting Topics in ESRC Themes 705
25.4 Most Frequent Cross-cutting Challenges in ESRC Themes 705
25.5 Non-ESRC Chapters: Number of Themes and Subthemes by Chapters and by
Total Instances 709
25.6 Non-ESRC Chapters Including at Least One Instance of Each Theme 715
Page 5 of 5
About the Contributors

(p. xxviii) (p. xxix) About the Contributors

Editors
Simeon J. Yates
(PhD, Open University UK, 1993) is Professor of Digital Culture and Associate Pro-
Vice-Chancellor Research Environment and Postgraduate Research at University of
Liverpool. His research on the social, political, and cultural impacts of digital media
includes a long-standing focus on digital media and interpersonal interaction. More
recently, he has worked on projects that address issues of digital inclusion and exclu
sion. He was seconded to the UK Government’s Department of Digital, Culture, Me
dia, and Sport (DCMS) in 2017 to act as research lead for the Digital Culture team.
He remains the joint-chair of the DCMS Research Working Group on Digital Skills and
Inclusion. His prior work covered topics such as the use of digital technologies in the
workplace, digital media use during crises, and ICT use by the security services. The
majority of his research has been funded by the Economic and Social Research Coun
cil (ESRC), the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), EU, and industry.
Simeon’s work has often been interdisciplinary and has predominantly involved cre
ative and digital industry partners. He led on a major Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) funded interdisciplinary program (Engineering
for Life) while at Sheffield Hallam. Simeon has been researching the impacts of the
internet and digital media on language and culture since 1990. His PhD thesis (1993)
is a large-scale linguistic comparison of speech, writing, and online interaction. Sub
sequent published work has covered analyses of gender differences in computer-me
diated communication (CMC), gender and computer gaming, email and letter writing,
and science in the mass media. Simeon has written text books on social research
Page 1 of 20
methods—in particular, linguistic and discourse analytic methods. https://

www.liverpool.ac.uk/communication-and-media/staff/simeon-yates/
Ronald E. Rice
(PhD, Stanford University, 1982) is the Arthur N. Rupe Chair in the Social Effects of
Mass Communication in the Department of Communication at University of Califor
nia, Santa Barbara. Dr. Rice has been awarded an Honorary Doctorate from Universi
ty of Montreal (2010), an International Communication Association (ICA) Fellow, se
lected President of the ICA (2006–2007), awarded a Fulbright Award to Finland
(2006), and appointed as the Wee Kim Wee Professor at the School of Communication
and Information and the Visiting University Professor, both at Nanyang Technological
University in Singapore (Augusts 2007–2009 and June 2010). (p. xxx) His co-authored
or co-edited books include Organizations and unusual routines: A systems analysis of
dysfunctional feedback processes (2010); Media ownership: Research and regulation
(2008); The Internet and health care: Theory, research and practice (2006); Social
consequences of internet use: Access, involvement and interaction (2002); The Inter
net and health communication (2001); Accessing and browsing information and com
munication (2001); Public communication campaigns (1981, 1989, 2001, 2012); Re
search methods and the new media (1988); Managing organizational innovation
(1987); And The new media: Communication, research and technology (1984). He has
published over 150 refereed journal articles and 70 book chapters. Dr. Rice has con
ducted research and published widely in communication science, public communica
tion campaigns, computer-mediated communication systems, methodology, organiza
tional and management theory, information systems, information science and biblio
metrics, social uses and effects of the Internet, and social networks. http://
www.comm.ucsb.edu/people/ronald-e-rice
Authors
Audrey N. Abeyta
(MA, UCSB) is a doctoral candidate at the University of California, Santa Barbara and
an instructor in the Department of Communication at the University of Missouri. Her
research explores the creation and consumption of online information, focusing
specifically on individuals’ motivations to share information online and their assess
Page 2 of 20
ment of that information. Audrey teaches courses in public speaking, group communi
cation, research methods, and statistics.
Sarah Barnard
is an Assistant Professor in Sociology of Contemporary Work and a member of the

Centre for Professional Work in Society in the School of Business and Economics at
Loughborough University, United Kingdom. Her research focuses largely on gender,
organizations, sociology of higher education, and sociological research in Science, En
gineering, and Technology (SET). Her research investigates inequalities in society; ex
plores the social impact of construction and engineering; how digital technology can
inform and influence professional working practices; and gender and higher educa
tion. She has extensive experience applying quantitative and qualitative social re
search methods over a range of research and consultancy projects. She has written
and published 20 conference papers, 7 journal articles and 11 reports on these sub
jects. She is a member of the British Sociological Association and the Women in High
er Education Management (WHEM) network.
Jordana Blejmar
(MPhil, PhD as a Gates Scholar, University of Cambridge) is Lecturer in Visual Media

and Cultural Studies in the School of the Arts, University of Liverpool, after previous
ly working on an Arts and Humanities Research Center–funded project on Latin Amer
ican Digital Art. Before Liverpool, she was Lecturer in Hispanic Studies at the Insti
tute of Modern Languages Research, University of London. Her research is (p. xxxi)
situated at the meeting point of Latin American visual cultures, memory studies, and
digital humanities. She is the author of Playful Memories: The Autofictional Turn in
Post-Dictatorship Argentina (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017). She has co-edited several
books and has also published articles and book chapters on contemporary Latin
American, especially Argentine, literature, art, photography, theater, digital artworks,
and film.
Catherine Brooks
Page 3 of 20
(PhD, University of California) is the Founder and Director of the Center for Digital
Society and Data Studies (CDSDS), Director of Arizona’s iSchool, and an Associate
Professor in the School of Information. Catherine’s primary research interests focus
on issues of language and culture, with particular concern about data privacy and dig
ital exclusion. She established the CDSDS as an interdisciplinary research center
meant to explore today’s grand challenges related to a digital society and data-driven
culture. Catherine has spent more than 20 years in higher education, she developed
the new Information Science and eSociety degree program for the School of Informa
tion at UA, and has published work on a variety of topics to include supporting faculty
online and training students for life and work in a digital society.
Elinor Carmi
(PhD, Media and Communications Department at Goldsmiths, University of London) is

a digital rights advocate, feminist, researcher, and journalist who has been working,
writing, and teaching on deviant media, internet standards, feminist-technoscience,
sound studies, internet history, and internet governance. Currently, she is a postdoc
toral research associate in digital culture and society at Liverpool University (UK),
where she works on several ESRC and AHRC projects around digital ways of being,
digital inclusion, and digital literacies. In addition to writing her book about spam,
she is also working on two special journal issues: One about “sonic publics,” together
with Ram Sinnreich for the International Journal of Communication, and the other
about (re)designing time, together with Britt Paris, for Theory, Culture & Society.
Marta E. Cecchinato
is an Senior Lecturer at Northumbria University, working in human-computer interac

tion (HCI). Prior to this, she has worked at the UCL Interaction Centre and at Mi
crosoft Research in Cambridge (UK). She has a BS and MS in Psychology from Uni
versity of Padua (Italy) and has a PhD in HCI from the UCL Interaction Centre. Her
current research focuses on understanding complexities of dealing with digital tech
nologies in everyday life especially for work-life balance, and has been investigating
strategies that support people in feeling in control of their digital lives. Her work has
been consistently published in top tier HCI conferences and has been featured in the
New Scientist, The Conversation, and The Psychologist.
Page 4 of 20
Rob Comber
is a human-computer interaction researcher working at the Swedish Institute for

Computing Science at RI.SE, where he is an ERCIM Fellow. His research explores the
ethics, methods, and tools to promote citizen participation in social and civic issues.
His current research examines topics such as activism, citizen science, community ed
ucation, and food and technology, all through a lens of designing for community.
(p. xxxii) Louise Cooke
is Professor of Information and Knowledge Management in the School of Business

and Economics at Loughborough University. Her main research interests focus on the
ethical aspects of information, data and knowledge use, and the societal value of ac
cess to information. In particular, her work has focused on challenges to freedom of
expression in the online environment. She led the Arts and Humanities Research Cen
ter–funded MAIPLE (Managing Access to the Internet in Public Libraries) and JISC-
funded staff access to Information and Communication Technology in UK Further Ed
ucation and Higher Education projects. Her PhD thesis investigated the impact on
freedom of expression of measures taken to regulate internet access and content. She
has published widely in the field of information science.
Crispin Coombs
is a Reader in Information Systems (Associate Professor) and Head of the Information

Management group in the School of Business and Economics at Loughborough Uni
versity, UK. He is an expert in the organizational impacts of new technologies, their
successful implementation, and people’s attitudes and behaviors towards IT. Particu
lar interests include the robotization of knowledge and service work, the behavioral
impacts of new technologies, and benefits realization management from information
systems. He has led several externally funded research projects from Engineering and
Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Chartered Institute of Personnel and
Development (CIPD), British Academy, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR),
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), and Department of Health. He has
published over 80 outputs and is a senior editor for Information Technology and Peo
ple and associate editor for the European Journal of Information Systems. He was ap
Page 5 of 20
pointed to the Board of the UK Academy of Information Systems in 2015 and is a Vis
iting Professor at the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Caitlin D. Cottrill
is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Geography and Environment at the Univer

sity of Aberdeen. Her primary research interests span the interrelated topics of trans
port, individual behavior, technology, and data, linked by an underlying commitment
to encouraging sustainable and efficient mobility. Her work has a strong focus on fa
cilitating data sharing between transport service providers and travelers in a privacy-
preserving manner, in order to encourage better decision making. She has, additional
ly, worked to ensure that this research takes place in a multidisciplinary context, with
collaborators from the areas of computing science, engineering, statistics, and infor
mation sciences.
Anna L. Cox
is Professor of Human-Computer Interaction at the University College London Inter

action Centre. Her research focuses on productivity at work, work-life balance, and
well-being. She has published nearly 200 papers, many of which in top-tier HCI con
ferences and journals. She co-edited the first textbook on Research methods for hu
man-computer interaction. Her work has been featured, among others, in The Conver
sation, The Psychologist, Men’s Health, BPS Occupation Digest, and most recently in
the Guardian.
(p. xxxiii) Jenny S. Darzentas
was the Marie Curie Advanced Researcher Fellow in the Department of Computer
Science at the University of York 2016–2018 during the writing of the chapter. She is
currently Assistant Professor at the Department of Product and Systems Design Engi
neering, University of the Aegean, Greece. Her research interests are in accessibility,
service design and systems thinking, and information design. She has worked on col
laborative research projects funded by the European Union on HCI, intelligent tutor
ing, decision support, library and information systems, and universal design. She also
has an interest in accessibility issues in international (ISO) and European (CEN/CEN
Page 6 of 20
ELEC) standardization efforts through her voluntary work with ANEC (www.anec.gr).
She has published widely on all these subjects.
Emese Domahidi
is an Assistant Professor for Computational Communication Science at the Technische

Universität Ilmenau in Germany. Her research focuses on the psychosocial conse
quences of online media use and on (biased) information processing in digital media.
Emese is especially interested in computational communication science methods and
their use to gain insights into her research questions. She is an expert in computa
tional systematic reviews and meta-analysis.
William H. Dutton
is an Emeritus Professor at the University of Southern California, Senior Fellow of the

Oxford Internet Institute, and Oxford Martin Fellow with the Global Cyber Security
Capacity Centre, Department of Computer Science at the University of Oxford, and
Visiting Professor in the School of Media and Communication at the University of
Leeds. He was the Quello Professor of Media and Information Policy in the Depart
ment of Media and Information, College of Communication Arts and Sciences, Michi
gan State University, where he was also Director of the Quello Center.
Jennifer Edmond
is Associate Professor of Digital Humanities at Trinity College Dublin and the co-di
rector of the Trinity Center for Digital Humanities. She holds a PhD in Germanic Lan
guages and Literatures from Yale University, and applies her training as a scholar of
language, narrative, and culture to the study and promotion of advanced methods in
and infrastructures for the arts and humanities. Jennifer is President of the Board of
Directors of the pan-European research infrastructure for the arts and humanities,
DARIAH, and was the Principal Investigator for the European Commission-funded
KPLEX Project.
Page 7 of 20
Peter Edwards
is Professor of Computing Science at the University of Aberdeen. Between 2009 and

2015 he was Director of the RCUK Digital Economy Hub dot.rural—a large interdisci
plinary research effort which explored how digital technologies could transform rural
life; from 2006 to 2012 he was Director of the ESRC Digital Social Research Node,
PolicyGrid—exploring the role of computational models of provenance in documenting
social policy formulation. He has over 25 years of experience of research into distrib
uted information systems and their applications, working in domains as diverse as
transport, health care, environmental modelling, and food safety.
(p. xxxiv) Alexander Frame
is an Associate Professor in Communication Science at the Languages and Communi

cation Faculty of the University of Burgundy (Dijon, France), where he runs the MA
course in Intercultural Management. Born in Britain, he graduated from the Universi
ty of Oxford in 1998, before settling in France and completing his PhD in Communica
tion Science at the University of Burgundy, in 2008. He is a member of the TIL (“Text,
Image, Language”) research group (EA 4182), where he specializes in intercultural
communication, political communication on Twitter, organizational communication,
and comparative cross-cultural communication studies. Recent publications include
Citizen participation and political communication in a digital world (Routledge, 2015).
Jerome Fuselier
has been an Associate Researcher at the University of Liverpool since 2008. Before
that he was a Postdoc at Xerox Research Centre Europe. He was awarded his PhD in
2006 at the Université Savoie Mont Blanc.
Nicola Green
is a Research Associate with the OpenLab, Newcastle University. She is a sociologist

by trade and a qualitative interdisciplinary researcher by inclination. Her background
Page 8 of 20
has run the gamut of social sciences, HCI, science and technology studies, media and
cultural studies, and surveillance studies; all intersecting via projects on digital media
technologies and/or sustainabilities of various sorts. Her projects have included work
on virtual reality technologies; mobile devices and everyday mobilities; the rise and
spread of mobile data and “big data”; digital trust, risk, and privacy; and lifestyles,
consumption, and environment. Issues explored across these projects have included
embodiment and identity, organization and discourse, popular media and culture, as
well as the development of qualitative research methodologies and their use in both
HCI research and within social sciences more generally—particularly in respect of
ethnographic, mixed, feminist, and participatory methodologies.
Elisabeth Günther
is a PhD candidate at the Department of Communication, University of Münster, Ger

many. Her research interests are in computational methods, especially topic model
ing, and online journalism. Elisabeth works as a data scientist at Axel Springer Digi
tal.
Ingunn Hagen
(PhD) is a Professor in Psychology at the Department of Psychology, Norwegian Uni

versity of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway. Her main research
interests include topics related to media and communication psychology, such the role
of media and ICT in children and young people’s lives. She has been involved in re
search projects on Internet-related risks (EU Kids Online). Her research also includes
such fields as audience reception studies, political communication, consumption of
popular culture, children and consumption, and yoga and well-being. See https://
www.ntnui.edu/employees/ingunn.hagen
Paul Hepburn
is a Research Associate at Heseltine Institute for Public Policy and Practice, Universi
ty of Liverpool. His research interests lie in exploring the potential of the new digital
media to enhance local democracy and local governance. He is also (p. xxxv) interested
in methods and tools for analyzing and explaining the structure of online networks.
Page 9 of 20
Prior to pursuing an academic career, Paul worked in local government conducting re
search, developing policy, and, lately, implementing an e-government program.
Iona C. Hine
is a postdoctoral researcher at the Urban Institute at the University of Sheffield. To

gether with Digital Humanities developers and colleagues in the School of English,
she has modelled discursive concepts in text collections ranging from the earliest
English print to comments on YouTube videos. She has a particular interest in context
and translation, as well as the challenges of unruly metadata. Her work spans several
disciplines, including biblical studies, early modern literature, and translation studies.
Arne Hintz
is Senior Lecturer at the School of Journalism, Media and Culture at Cardiff Universi
ty, where he leads the MA Digital Media and Society, and co-directs the Data Justice
Lab. His research addresses questions of digital democracy, datafication, and commu
nication policy. He has led several collaborative research projects, including Digital
Citizenship and Surveillance Society: State-Media-Citizen Relations after the Snow
den Leaks and Towards Democratic Auditing: Civic Participation in the Scoring Soci
ety. His publications include, among others, Beyond WikiLeaks (Palgrave, 2013) and
Digital Citizenship in a Datafied Society (Polity, 2018).
Donald Hislop
is Professor in the Business School at the University of Aberdeen. Prior to this he

worked at Loughborough University and Sheffield University. His research interests
are in two main areas: knowledge management and mobile working. He has pub
lished on knowledge management in a range of journals, including Management
Learning, Journal of Information Technology, Technology Analysis & Strategic Man
agement, and the Journal of Knowledge Management. He is also the author of a popu
lar and well-regarded textbook called Knowledge management in organizations: A
critical introduction (now in its fourth edition, published in 2018). He is on the editori
al board of the journal New Technology, Work and Employment.
Page 10 of 20
Kristin Page Hocevar
(PhD, UC Santa Barbara) is an Assistant Professor at Southern Oregon University.

She has worked in television, documentary film, and web production for multiple Pub
lic Broadcasting Service stations and affiliated organizations. Her current research
focuses on online health information sharing, selection, and evaluation, and the social
and health implications of the interactions, communities, and pooled information facil
itated by the Internet.
Naomi Jacobs
is a Research Fellow currently based at the University of Aberdeen, whose interdisci

plinary work focuses on social impacts of technology for interaction in digital and
physical spaces. Her research to date has included examining the nature and impacts
of the digital public space, developing new tools for interdisciplinary collaboration
and knowledge exchange, and using design ethnography and speculative design to in
vestigate factors affecting trust by citizens and communities with regard to the Inter
net of Things.
(p. xxxvi) Adam Joinson
is Professor of Information Systems at the University of Bath. He conducts inter-disci

plinary research on the interaction between human behavior and technology, with
specific foci on issues of how the design of systems influences behavior ranging from
privacy and self-disclosure, cyber-security, social relations, and patterns of influence.
He is a program lead for the national Centre for Research and Evidence on Security
Threats, as well as currently running funded projects on individual susceptibility to
malevolent influence techniques (e.g., scams, phishing), communication accommoda
tion, and behavioral change and technology. Adam’s work has been funded by the
ESRC, EPSRC, EU, British Academy, DSTL, and UK Government. He also has an inter
est in “big data” generally and the use of computational social science to gain in
sights into social and workplace behaviors.
Page 11 of 20
Gerwyn Jones
is a Senior Research Fellow working at Liverpool John Moores University’s Screen

School. He is currently program leader for the MA in Cities, Culture, and Creativity.
Gerwyn has over 15 years academic and consultancy experience relating to urban
policy, governance, and regeneration. In recent years, Gerwyn has undertaken ESRC
funded research and published articles on the impact of austerity on the cities of Liv
erpool and Bristol.
Sharron Kuznesof
is a Senior Lecturer and applied qualitative social scientist working in an interdiscipli

nary environment in the School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle
University. Her research focuses on conceptual exploration of the behaviors and prac
tices of food consumers and innovative research methods to support that endeavor.
Related research includes Food Standards Agency–funded research with HCI staff at
Newcastle University’s OpenLab to examine domestically situated food safety prac
tices.
Yenn Lee
(PhD, University of London) is a widely published researcher in the sociology of digi

tal technologies, participation, and social change, with a special interest in the Asia–
Pacific region. She has also long collaborated with various activist and non-profit or
ganizations outside academia, including Freedom House for its annual report Free
dom on the Net since its first edition in 2011. In her current position as Senior Lectur
er in Research Methodology at SOAS University of London, she teachesPhD students.
interdisciplinary and technology-enhanced research methods.
Rich Ling
(PhD, University of Colorado) has focused his work on the social consequences of mo
bile communication. He was a professor at the IT University of Copenhagen, where he
Page 12 of 20
has served in department management, and he works at Telenor near Oslo, Norway.
Ling has been the Pohs visiting professor of communication studies (2005) at the Uni
versity of Michigan in Ann Arbor, where he has an adjunct position. He is the author
of the book Taken for grantedness (2012 MIT Press), which was recently the subject
of a complementary review in the journal Science. He has also written New tech, new
ties (2008, MIT), The mobile connection (Morgan Kaufmann) and, along with Jonathan
Donner, he has written the book Mobile phones and mobile communication (2009,
Polity). Ling is a founding co-editor of the Sage journal Mobile Media and (p. xxxvii)
Communication. He is the co-editor of the Oxford University Press series Studies in
Mobile Communication with Gerard Goggin and Leopoldina Fortunati. Along with
Scott Campbell he is the founding editor of The Mobile Communication Research
Series and he is an associate editor for The Information Society, The Journal of Com
puter Mediated Communication, and Information Technology and International Devel
opment.
Eleanor Lockley
is Research Fellow and Associate Lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University. Her re
search falls broadly under communication studies and information studies, and work
ing in C3RI means that she has worked on a variety of different interdisciplinary
projects since 2008. One day she can be a human-computer interaction researcher—
the next she can be investigating issues associated with user centered design! Her
previous role in C3RI involved engaging with knowledge transfer activity—meaning
that she has worked on commercial consultancy, as well as on academic projects. She
has recently worked on several European-funded projects; two of note are COURAGE
(2014–2016) and ATHENA (2013–2016). The former involved developing a research
agenda for cybercrime and cyberterrorism based upon user-centered research. Her
role in the latter focused upon human factors and best practices for crisis sense-mak
ing and communication and, in particular, how social media can be best used for cri
sis and disaster management. ATHENA is creating a prototype to enhance the ability
of Local Education Agencies of police, first responders, and citizens in their use of
mobile and smart devices in crisis situations.
Adrian Meier
is a PhD candidate at the Department of Communication, Johannes Gutenberg-Univer

sity Mainz, Germany. His research revolves around the question of whether and how
Page 13 of 20
communication technologies can improve or impair mental health and well-being.

Specifically, he investigates the relationship between technology usage and mental
health through the lens of self-regulation processes, using intensive longitudinal sur
veys (e.g., diaries, experience sampling), and systematic review methodology.
Georgina Nugent-Folan
is Assistant Professor of Modern English Literature, Department of English and Amer

ican Studies, Ludwig Maximillians University of Munich, Germany. She completed her
PhD on the works of Samuel Beckett and Gertrude Stein at Trinity College Dublin in
2016. Georgina is currently preparing a digital genetic edition of the Compagnie/
Company module as part of the Beckett Digital Manuscript Project (forthcoming,
2020). Articles on Beckett, Stein, and/or James Joyce have been published in the Jour
nal of Beckett Studies, The Southern Review, Samuel Beckett Today/Aujourd’hui, and
the James Joyce Quarterly. Her article, “Samuel Beckett: Going On in Style,” received
a Special Mention in the 2017 Pushcart Prize.
Helen Petrie
is Professor of Human Computer Interaction in the Department of Computer Science

at the University of York in the UK. Her research centers on the use of new technolo
gies for people with disabilities and older people, particularly the web. She has been
involved in many British and international projects and has published extensively. She
has advised numerous private and public sector organizations on web (p. xxxviii) acces
sibility and accessibility issues of other new technologies. She directed the largest
study in the world on web accessibility for the Disability Rights Commission of Great
Britain and a similar study for the UK Museums, Libraries, and Archive Council, and
she has conducted many smaller studies of web accessibility. In 2009 she was award
ed an Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Award for the social impact of her
research, and in 2017 she was honored with a Lifetime Achievement Award from the
Royal National Institute for Blind People.
Michael Pidd
Page 14 of 20
is Digital Director of HRI Digital at the Humanities Research Institute, University of

Sheffield, one of the United Kingdom’s leading Digital Humanities centers. Michael
has over 20 years of experience in developing, managing, and delivering large collab
orative research projects in the humanities and heritage subject domains.
Laura Robinson
is Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology at Santa Clara University. She

earned her PhD from UCLA, where she held a Mellon Fellowship in Latin American
Studies and received a Bourse d’Accueil at the École Normale Supérieure. In addition
to holding a postdoctoral fellowship on a John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Founda
tion–funded project at the USC Annenberg Center, Robinson has served as Visiting
Assistant Professor at Cornell University and Affiliated Faculty at the UC Berkeley In
stitute for the Study of Societal Issues. She is a series co-editor for Emerald Studies
in Media and Communications and previously served as the Chair of CITAMS (former
ly CITASA). Her research has earned awards from CITASA, AOIR, and NCA IICD.
Robinson’s current multi-year study examines digital and informational inequalities.
Her other publications explore interaction and identity work, as well as new media in
Brazil, France, and the United States.
Liz Robson
is a Research Associate at the University of Newcastle. She has a background in eco

nomic development with expertise in understanding labor markets, employment, and
skills. Liz Robson joined Center for Urban and Regional Development Studies in
September 2000 as a research associate, leaving in 2004 to work for the Regional De
velopment Agency as a skills and employment analyst. She returned in 2011 as a Vis
iting Fellow supporting the work of Ranald Richardson and the SIDE (Social Inclusion
through the Digital Economy) project to better understand how young people might
access the life-changing benefits offered by digital technologies. Her recent research
at CURDS has focused on the digital age, which throws up all kinds of questions re
garding how technology, social media, and the so-called fourth industrial will impact
on institutional and organizational arrangements. In June 2017, she joined the depart
ment of sociology to work on a prestigious AHRC (Arts and Humanities Research
Council) project, which is investigating the different ways audiences engage with spe
cialized film outside of London. Research questions encompass the range of special
Page 15 of 20
ized film venues and events within regional provision, as well as how digital platforms
feature in the venue and event-based film experience.
Karen Salt
is Director of the Centre for Research in Race and Rights (C3R) and Assistant Profes
sor at the University of Nottingham. She is an interdisciplinary scholar with (p. xxxix)
strong interests in transnational American studies and Afrodiasporic studies. A signifi
cant portion of her work investigates how black nation-states have fought for their
continued existence within a highly racialized world. As this work has developed, Dr.
Salt has considered the relationship of sovereignty and race to environmental con
sumption and protection, enabling her to craft new research on racial ecologies. In
addition to this work, she currently leads or co-leads projects on reparative trust, col
lective activism, racial equity, and transformative justice politics.
Alison Scott-Baumann
is Professor of Society and Belief in the Department of Religions and Philosophies at

SOAS University of London. She is a scholar with an international reputation in Islam
in Britain, and her recent book Islamic Education in Britain, with Cheruvallil-Contrac
tor (2015), is highly regarded in British Muslim communities. She recently completed
her leadership of Re/presenting Islam on Campus (2015–2018), a major project fund
ed by the Arts and Humanities Research Council of the United Kingdom. In 2017 she
gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights in their investigation of free
dom of speech in universities.
Boyka Simeonova
is Lecturer in Information Management at Loughborough University, United King

dom. Boyka is Director of the Knowledge and the Digital Economy Network and
Deputy Director of the Centre for Information Management at Loughborough Univer
sity. Boyka is a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. Boyka is the recipient of the
Dean’s Early Career Researcher Award at Loughborough University and has pub
lished in Information Systems and Management.
Page 16 of 20
Stanimira Taneva
is currently Senior Researcher and REF Impact Officer, School of Sociology and So
cial Policy, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom. During the work on her chap
ter, she was a Senior Research and Enterprise Associate and a member of the Centre
for Professional Work and Society at the School of Business and Economics at Lough
borough University. Her background is in developmental and work/organizational psy
chologies, as well as psychometrics. Stanimira’s work experience is a combination of
academia and practice—she has been in academic, research, management, and ex
pert roles in the public, private, and third-sector. Stanimira has conducted a variety of
academic and applied research programs in areas such as developing and managing
careers, (age-) diversity, well-being, and performance in organizations. In 2013 she
was awarded a Marie Curie Fellowship from the European Commission for her cross-
cultural research on successful aging at work. Stanimira’s most recent research inter
ests include cross-disciplinary research impact and the exploration of the impacts of
new technology (e.g., AI) on work. She is a fellow at the UK Research and Innovation
Future Leaders Fellowships program Peer Review College.
Claire Taylor
is Gilmour Chair of Spanish and Professor of Hispanic Studies at the University of Liv
erpool. She is a specialist in Latin American literature and culture and has published
widely on a range of writers, artists, and genres from across the region. Her particu
lar geographical areas of interest are Colombia, Argentina, and Chile, although she
also worked on literature, art, and culture from other regions. Within (p. xl) Latin
American Cultural Studies, she takes a particular interest in the varied literary and
cultural genres being developed online by Latin(o) Americans, especially hypertext
novels, e-poetry, and net art. She has published numerous articles and book chapters
on these topics, and she is the co-author of the recent volume Latin American identity
in online cultural production (New York: Routledge, 2012) and author of the recent
monograph Place and politics in Latin America digital culture: Location and Latin
American net art (New York: Routledge, 2014). She is currently working on an AHRC-
funded project focusing on memory, victims, and representation of the Colombian
conflict.
Page 17 of 20
Leanne Townsend
is a Senior Social Scientist working within the Social, Economic, and Geographical
Sciences Group at the James Hutton Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland. Leanne leads re
search on a number of projects exploring digitization and innovation in various rural
contexts, including agriculture, rural entrepreneurship, and rural community develop
ment.
Sharon Wagg
is a doctoral researcher in the Centre of Information Management, part of the School

of Business and Economics at Loughborough University, United Kingdom. She is the
recipient of the Mark Hepworth PhD scholarship, and her research interests include
digital inclusion and social change, information literacy, and lifelong learning. Sharon
worked as part of the research team at the digital inclusion charity Good Things
Foundation, and has a master’s degree in Librarianship (Distinction) from the Univer
sity of Sheffield. Her PhD dissertation investigated digital inclusion initiatives in the
context of rural communities in the United Kingdom.
Paul Watry
is Principal Investigator for the Multivalent Digital Preservation Architecture project

and the Cheshire digital library system. His primary area of interest is in computa
tional linguistics and in bibliographic analysis. A core activity is to develop and imple
ment a strategy which will embrace both electronic and traditional information re
sources and address the needs of both research and learning.
Vishanth Weerakkody
joined the School of Management at University of Bradford in March 2017 as Profes

sor in Management Information Systems and Governance. He was previously a Pro
fessor of Digital Governance at the Business School in Brunel University, London,
where he held several leadership roles. Prior to his academic career, Prof. Weer
Page 18 of 20
akkody worked in a number of multinational organizations, including IBM UK. He has

a successful track record of research and enterprise and has secured numerous re
search grants from funding bodies such as the European Commission (FP7 & H2020),
Economic and Social Research Council, Qatar Foundation, and UK Local Government.
His R&D expertise spans several disciplines, including management decision making,
ICT evaluation, public administration, social innovation, and process transformation.
He is the editor-in-chief of the International Journal of Electronic Government Re
search and a handling editor for Information Systems Frontiers. He is a chartered IT
professional and fellow of the UK Higher Education Academy.
(p. xli) Bridgette Wessels
is Professor of Social Inequality, Department of Sociology, at the School of Social and

Political Sciences, University of Glasgow. Her research focuses on the innovation, de
velopment, and use of digital technology and services in social and cultural life. Re
cent books include Open data and knowledge society (2017, Amsterdam University
Press) and Communicative civic-ness: Social media and political culture (2018, Rout
ledge). She is a co-investigator on the ESRC project Ways of Being in the Digital Age,
and she is Principal Investigator on the AHRC funded project “Beyond the Multiplex:
Audiences for Specialized Film in English Regions,” which is using digital humanities
methods. Other examples of funded work include research on telehealth, social me
dia, digital social research methodologies, women, work and technology (NordWit
project), journalism in the digital age (REGPRESS project), and mobile networks
(COST network: Social Networks and Travel Behaviour).
Monica Whitty
is Professor of Human Factors in Cyber Security at the University of Melbourne, Aus

tralia and the University of Warwick, WMG, United Kingdom. She is also on the Glob
al Futures committee for cybersecurity for the World Economic Forum. Her research
over the last 20 years has focused on the ways individuals behave in cyberspace. Her
work, in particular, examines identities created in cyberspace, cyberscams, online se
curity risks, behavior in cyberspace, insider threat, as well as detecting and prevent
ing cybercrimes. Monica is the author of over 100 articles, and five books, the latest
being Cyberpsychology: The study of individuals, society and digital technologies
(Wiley, 2017, with Garry Young). She is currently leading an interdisciplinary project
funded by TIPS (ESPRC) titled, Detecting and Preventing Mass-Marketing Fraud.
Page 19 of 20
Nicole Zamanzadeh
received her PhD from the University of California, Santa Barbara. Her research in
terests include new media, stress, and family resilience. Her current work investi
gates questions about media use habits such as media multitasking as a potential
source of stress or resilience for individuals and the family system. (p. xlii)
Page 20 of 20
Introduction to the Oxford Handbook of Digital Technology and Society:
Terms, Domains, and Themes
Introduction to the Oxford Handbook of Digital Tech

nology and Society: Terms, Domains, and Themes
Ronald E. Rice, Simeon J. Yates, and Jordana Blejmar
Print Publication Date: Aug 2020 Subject: Sociology, Social and Cultural Anthropology
Online Publication Date: Aug 2020 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190932596.013.1
Abstract and Keywords
This chapter summarizes the main themes associated with relationships between digital
technology and society. It first proposes four central characteristics of digital technology
that differentiate this concept from the more general term “information society.” Then it
maps the growth of the use of terms associated with digital technology in articles in acad
emic databases from 1972 through 2018, and in books from 1967 through 2008. Howev
er, the main focus is on summarizing the emergent themes associated with 89 recent
books on digital technology society: (A) theory and conceptualization of this vast social
change; (B) technology (venues and characteristics), (C) issues (content, creation; big da
ta; civic issues; participation, engagement; inclusion, exclusion, discrimination; ethics,
ethical issues; and managing the digital experience), (D) contexts (digitization of self and
others; health; relationships; user groups; culture, everyday life, education, learning;
work and organizations; and law, policy, regulation), and (E) effects (negative; positive;
societal; contradictions, paradoxes, tensions, unintended). Finally, it describes the origins
and motivations for this handbook and its main themes.
Keywords: academic databases, books on digital technology, digital technology, digital technology society, infor
mation society, social change
Introduction
MANY developed countries have become information or knowledge societies, whereby
cognitive activities, symbolic and data analysis, and information resources are replacing
agriculture and manufacturing as the primary sectors of developed countries’ economies.
This idea of the information society or economy has been identified, discussed, and ana
lyzed since the 1960s. For example, Machlup’s (1962) analysis of the US economy identi
fied an information sector, primarily devoted to information activities necessary to pro
duce physical goods and services. Porat (1971) reanalyzed Machlup’s data to define the
key components of the growing information society. Bell (1973) explained the post-indus
Page 1 of 46
trial economy, whereby knowledge becomes the primary resource, allowing freedom from
constraints of labor, land, and machines.
But we can argue that the concept of an information society does not, in itself, require
computers or digitization (Beniger, 1989). The extensive collection and analysis of infor
mation, especially about transactions and inventory, but also about local and regional ad
ministration, has existed from early civilizations (Egypt, Mesoamerica, Mesopotamia).
Nevertheless, it can be argued that the information society as we see it now has roots in
the growth of the British Empire and systematic organizational management (Yates,
1993); the need to control and market industrial revolution technologies and products
(p. 4) (Beniger, 1989); and even the development of dictionaries, maps, and classification
schemes during the “age of enlightenment” (Headrick, 2002). The core argument is that
the basis of wealth is shifting to the collecting, management, analysis, and application of
data and information (Daley, 2015; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). This shift is also a manifes
tation of the rise of information capitalism and the exploitation of knowledge labor
(Castells, 2000; Curtin & Sanson, 2016; Fuchs, 2014). Thus, information is a crucial as
pect of modern economies, as well as everyday life, in most countries, although with con
siderable disparities across countries and even within regions, cities, and towns.
But the digital society involves additional dimensions. While mainframe digital computers
had played major roles in WWII and after in telephone switching, office automation, and
manufacturing in the 1960s and 1970s, the advent of end-user computing, widescale so
cial uses of computing, and networked communication such as email and the Internet re
quired the interaction of several factors. Although literature on the history of computing,
transmission networks, the Internet, and programming is vast, we need to note only four
basic components that underpin the transformative nature of the digital world.
The first is digitization, or more specifically, the encoding of information into bits (binary
digits). Negroponte (1995) was an early (but not the first) popularizer of the understand
ing that “being digital” was the foundation for widespread, pervasive, and unique
changes in our social, economic, and political world. He articulated the main difference
between the analog and digital world: the first, traditional, world was based on atoms
(physical material), while the second, digital, world was based on bits, standing for “bina
ry digits”: symbolic or electronic signals indicating presence or absence, “on” or “off,” or
more colloquially, “0s” and “1s.” By converting information from analogue to digital rep
resentation the information contained within or collected about a process or artefact
(Zuboff, 1985), one could “free” the information from its material “packaging.” For exam
ple, in the analog world, a book means the paper-based bound set of pages on which
words and images are printed. However, in the digital world, the content becomes inde
pendent of any particular physical form. So digital information is freed from the analog,
material world. In 1987 (though he had earlier raised this point in a 1984 Hacker’s Con
ference; http://www.rogerclarke.com/II/IWtbF.html), Brand (1987) claimed that “Informa
tion wants to be free,” in a slightly different way. First, its cost approaches zero because
it is freed from material resources and so is easily storable, copyable, and distributable—
although today we can recognize the infrastructural and environmental costs of moving
Page 2 of 46
data around. He also noted at the same time that information wants to be expensive be
cause it may require exceptional resources to create initially, and can be extremely valu
able if held privately or used in combination with other information. Importantly, he noted
that there seemed to be a tension between these two tendencies, which may rise or fall in
different contexts. He also noted that information sought to be politically free as access to
high-quality information and free speech fosters political freedom—though we might to
day note that propaganda and misinformation are just as easily distributed. The key point
is that digitizing information—converting frequencies, symbols, material dimensions, etc.
to bits in a flow of information—means that content (p. 5) in general is wholly or partly in
dependent from the material used to convey the information (such as a the text in a print
ed book). This is one of the foundations for digital convergence: the same or different por
tions of content can appear via multiple devices, at the same or different times; and all
digital media can partake of the same content in different forms.
The second component is computing. Digitization also means that this content can now be
treated as data by computer processes, vastly increasing what can be done with, or by,
that content. For example, instead of one or two “see also” cards in a library’s card cata
log associating a given book with other books, now almost any content in a digitized
source can be searched and associated with similar or related content in the same or oth
er sources. At present it is not perfect for all content (such as images, sounds, smells) but
iterations of improved computing power and algorithms make this easier and easier.
Thus, any kind of content (information in various forms) can be processed through com
puting programs. Information becomes a powerful raw resource and can be transformed,
combined, integrated, and analyzed. This is the essence of datafication and digitization:
anything that can be formally and systematically represented in a digital form can then
be processed, combined, and analyzed, for a vast and growing range of purposes.
Practically related but conceptually distinct, the third component is microprocessors via
integrated circuits, the increasingly small and powerful devices for performing a wide ar
ray of computer processes. The integration of basic computing functions into one chip in
creased computing functionality, speed, and power, yet reduced computing size and com
puting power cost, leading to the ability to embed computing power into ever smaller ob
jects. Current smartphones and games consoles easily outperform super computers of the
1980s and early 1990s (as measured by calculations per second). Recent developments in
massive multiprocessing and quantum computing, and embedding of computing power
onto and into tiny devices and our bodies, will extend this growth in power and decrease
in size.
The fourth component is digital networking, or transmission of digitized information

among nodes that are themselves computers. Information can be conveyed in analog
form, through material carriers (books, photographs), and amplitude or frequency modu
lation (pre-digital radio, television). But digital networks allow much faster, more error-
corrected, more distant, and more robust ways of processing, accessing, and distributing
information (content of any form). Digital networks can interconnect with local, “last-
mile” analog transmission lines. The Internet is a vast interconnected set of subnetworks,
Page 3 of 46
using various protocols to standardize and facilitate exchange of digital information from
source to receiver. Wireless networking allows devices and people to communicate with
each other without constraints of physical wiring, also enabling computing power to be
distributed throughout space (such as in the Internet of things, radio-frequency identifica
tion [RFID], and mobile phones).
The transformative power of the digital comes from combining these elements. If we put
these together, we can move artefacts and ideas around the globe, and at increasing
speed. We can undertake a 3D scan of a contemporary artwork or new product, send the
data around the world, and print it out on a 3D printer minutes later. Citizen journalists
(p. 6) can live-stream news events as they happen. Doctors can diagnose patients from
thousands of miles away. Consumers can watch almost any film or listen to almost any
music ever recorded. Grandparents can see and talk to the grandkids in Australia. Politi
cians can directly message followers to their heart’s content. The examples are ever ex
panding.
Terms and Growth of These Developments

The smart mobile phone has become the most general exemplar of the integration of
these four transformative components in one device. However, our focus in this book is
not on these four crucial components of digital technologies, or any one technology, but,
rather, on how their integration shapes, and is shaped by, social factors. Hence the title is
the Handbook of digital technology and society. While technology has developed, and con
tinues to evolve over time, we become more aware of the implications of these changes—
positive and negative, intended and unintended, short-term and long-term, individual and
collective, and straightforward and contradictory—for digital technology, individuals,
groups, communities, organizations, societies, nations, and the world. So along with in
creasing mention of the technologies in the academic and general literature, ways of
characterizing the role and implications of digital technologies have also arisen.
The four primary terms that have been used to refer to such changes are digital age, digi
tal era, digital society, and digital technology. In the spirit of some of the literature analy
ses to follow that utilize digital tools to extract and evaluate academic discussions about
the social impacts of digital, we have used databases to explore how these terms were
first used. Tables 1.1 through 1.4 show the first entries that used these terms in major
academic reference, news, and periodicals databases (Web of Science, Science Direct,
Nexis Uni News, and Proquest Periodicals Index Online, respectively). While in general all
four terms began being mentioned in publications covered by these four sources between
1972 and 1983, the earliest terms used were “digital technology” (1967) and “digital soci
ety” (1968), followed by “digital era” (1970) and then “digital age” (1982). Naturally,
most were mentioned in reference to the growth and development of computers and digi
tization. For example, “digital technology” typically referred to computers, computerized
control, data flow, and the computer-based telephone switching network. “Digital society”
noted the diffusion of technology use in everyday contexts. “Digital era” highlighted the
Page 4 of 46
introduction of the personal computer, digital satellites, and industrial automation; while
the “digital age” referenced the transition of technology to digital forms, and twice with
specific reference to analog models. However, not all mentions of these terms related on
ly to new technological developments at the time. Both “digital technology” and “digital
society” were associated with new training and education, and the first discussion of “dig
ital technology” (in 1967) specifically emphasized its potential social and economic im
pacts. Some of these (p. 7) (p. 8) (p. 9) impacts of the “digital age” were quite novel: for
example, an early concern about the switch to digital clocks was that people would no
longer know what “clockwise” meant. So we see that right from the beginning that social
aspects and implications (both positive and negative) were part of the discussion, even
though the very first uses of these four terms were stimulated by technological develop
ments.
Table 1.1 First Appearances of Four Major Digital Terms in Web of

Science
Term First-year entries
digital Zenman, M. J. (1982). Even in a digital age, scopes re

age main the instrument. Electronic Design, 30(18), 129ff.
digital Electronics. (1970). Bold new inroads for computer as

era digital era gets under way. Electronics, 43(1), 105 ff.
digital Cazes, B. (1984). The digital society: New technologies

society in everyday use. Quinzaine Litteraire, 421, 8–9.
digital Fenik, F., & Stopper, H. (1968). Rapid switching circuits

technol in digital technology. Elektrotechnische Zeitschrift B-
ogy Ausgabe, 29(7–8), 229ff.
Ulrich, G. (1968). Comparison between analogue and
digital technology in information flow. Periodica Poly
technica Electrical Engineering, 12(2), 145ff.
Note: Based on Topics (in title)
Page 5 of 46
Table 1.2 First Appearances of Four Major Digital Terms in ScienceDi

rect
digital Geballe, T. H. (1984). Materials: Analogue answers in a

age digital age. Physica B&C, 172(1–3), 50–58.
digital Dement, D. K. (1980). Developing the next phase in NASAs

era satellite communications program. Acta Astronautica,
7(11), 1275–1286. “In the coming digital era, maximizing
the use of frequency spectrum allocations will require spe
cial techniques for transmitting television signals within
allowable bandwidths …”
Latour, P. R. (1980). S2: Requirements for successful
closed-loop optimization of petroleum refining processes.
IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 13(9), 11–23. “DIGITAL ERA:
Adequate Hardware and General: Software for Automation
of Industrial Plants. Costs are still Dropping. …”
digital Delorme, J-C. (1985). Education in a digital world. Educa

society tion and Computing 1(2), 117–124. “These questions not
only have pertinence from the perspective of or as a conse
quence of the emergence of the digital society …”
digital Beaverstock, M. C. & Bernard, J. W. (1977). Advanced con

tech trol: Ready able accepted? IFAC Proceedings Volumes,
nology 10(16), 335–341. “Further application of more advanced
control systems to industrial processes is limited by accep
tance of the newer digital technologies.”
Rony, P. R. & Larsen, D. G. (1977). Teaching microcomput
er interfacing to non-electrical engineers. Euromicro
Newsletter, 3(2), 57–62. “Rather, we are providing them
with specific training in digital technology that may be
useful to them professionally.”
Benvenuto, F., DiTomaso, C., Donati, L. F., Sbragia, D., &
Valcada, A. (1977). Digital control system for uninterrupt
ible power supply. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 10(10), 973–
979. “The most peculiar characteristic of the system just
described consists in the fact that the control has been
carried out using the digital technology in almost every
part of it.”
Page 6 of 46
Newstead, A. (1977). Australia’s telecom 2000. Telecom
munications Policy, 1(2), 158–162. “Continue network studies
on optimum rate of transition to digital technologies in
transmission and switching …”
Schnieder, E. (1977). Control of DC-drives by microproces
sors. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 19(10), 603–608. “The
current signal is the only analogue variable requiring A/D
conversion, since speed measurement can be performed
by digital techniques thus disposing of analogue trans
mitters such as DC tachometers.”
Fujii, K., Takeda, N., Kogure, Y., Neda, T., … Abe, M.
(1977). Recent computerized power generation plant au
tomation and advanced man-machine interface system.
IFAC Proceedings Volumes,10(1), 16–20. “In the future,
their reliability will have to be highly improved using mi
crocomputerized digital technology for example.”
Nyborg, P. S. (1977). Computer technology and US com
munications law. Telecommunications Policy, 1(5), 374–
380. “Significant technologies, among others, are large-
scale integration, software control of switching devices
and terminals, digital technology, and new services and
techniques relating to audio transmission (including satel
lite).”
Owen, E. W. & Moseley, E. C. (1977). A user-compatible
terminal for medical applications. Computers in Biology
and Medicine, 7(2), 165–176. “He is currently working on
the application of microprocessor and related digital
technologies to these fields.”
Note: Based on Abstract, Title, Keywords, Text in Research Articles
Page 7 of 46
Table 1.3 First Appearances of Four Major Digital Terms in Nexis Uni
(News)
digital Williams, E. (1982). Comdial system ready for switch to

age the digital age. Financial Times.
Mulligan, H. A. (1982). [no headline]. The Associated
Press. “Urchins raised in this digital age do not know
which direction is clockwise.”
Safire, W. (1982). Watch what you say. The New York
Times. “… moving finger has written that we are now in
the Digital Age.”
digital Heine, C. (1970). This diabolical hipster hoodwinker al

era most sold a bag of Brooklyn air for $20,000. Adweek. “…
scenario could be that it was modern art for the digital
era, an existential exhibit, if you will.”
digital Salisbury, D. F. (1983). Life in the computer age: Social

society choices in a futuristic world. The Christian Science Moni
tor. “In its extreme form, a ‘Digital Society’ would be
come simply a giant, clean, well-ordered Disneyworld,
Vallee warns …”
digital Chapman, W. (1978). High stakes race: Japanese search

tech for breakthrough in field of giant computers. The Washing
nology ton Post. “It [Japan] took transistors and digital technol
ogy, added automation and superior quality control, and
transformed those innovations into profitable exports.”
Anon. (1978). Scientific and technical exchanges in China.
Xinhua General Overseas News Service (China). “… the
first conference on digital technology was recently held
in Kochiu in Yunnan province.”
Ostry, B. (1978). The Mermaid Inn: The wiring of Canada:
A danger, a challenge, a certainty. The Global and Mail
(Canada). “One writer insists digital technology will turn
the international telephone network into the biggest
blooming computer the world has ever seen.”
Page 8 of 46
Table 1.4 First Appearances of Four Major Digital Terms in Proquest

Periodicals Index Online
Term First year entries
digital Julesz, B. (1983). The role of analog models in our digital

age age. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(4), 668–669.
digital Stauffacher, J. (1985). The Transylvanian Phoenix: The

era Kis-Janson types in the digital era. Visible Language,
19(1), 61–76.
digital Bixby, J. L. (1968). Public opinion and school music. Music

society Journal, 26(3), 48–53. “Effects of reduced privacy, restric
tions on individualism (in a computerized digital society;
shall we tattoo the Social Security number on the new
born?)”
digital Baran, P. (1967). The future computer utility. The Public

tech Interest, 8(summer), 75–87. “These new developments in
nology computer technology are of such significance as to af
fect materially the nature of our economic and social life.”
Table 1.5 lists the earliest mentions of these same four terms in books that Google has
digitized and indexed, and that were retrieved through their Ngram Viewer (https://
books.google.com/ngrams). For some of these, the plots do indicate entries before 1967,
but either those do not retrieve an entry, do not retrieve a book entry, or are snippets
from journals whose starting publishing date was in that time range, but the document
with the term occurred in a much later issue. Ngram Viewer provides results through
2008. Figure 1.1 shows the trends in these four sets of terms over time. In books, the
“digital technology” focus is the most frequently mentioned over time, really increasing
during 1975–1995. However, the terms “digital society” (1965) and “digital era” (1969)
appeared a bit earlier. The term “digital age” was the last to be introduced, around 20
years later, but quickly became the most used term indicating the societal aspects of digi
tal technology.
Page 9 of 46
Figure 1.1 Trends over time in mention of four major

digital terms in books through 2008, based on
Google Ngram Viewer.
Page 10 of 46
Table 1.5 First Substantive Entries of Four Major Digital Terms in

Books, from Google NGram
Term First substantive entry Percentage of

all Ngram en
tries that year;
in 2008; and
times greater
digi Watkinson, J. (1990). Coding for digital .00000040;

tal recording. Focal Press. https:// 0.00000770;
age books.google.com/books? 18.25
id=cjBTAAAAMAAJ “Perhaps some fu
ture historian will classify this as the
digital age, when everyday processes
increasingly came to be performed us
ing discrete numbers.”
Unites States. Congress. Senate. Com
mittee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. Subcommittee on Com
munications. (1990). Hearings on …
Digital Audio Tape Recorder Act of
1990. U.S. Government Printing Office.
https://books.google.com/books?
id=DTGqJhRf4jsC With the passage of
S. 2358, such synergy will extend into
the digital age, to the benefit of every
one.”
digi Parrish, L. (1969). Space flight simula .00000002;

tal tion technology. H. W. Sams. https:// 0.00000140;
era books.google.com/books? 69
id=k7NZAAAAYAAJ “… the accom
plished simulation designer … will, of
necessity, have qualified as a digital-
computer programmer (this latter ac
complishment being a forced require
ment of the digital era).”
Page 11 of 46
digi White, T. H. (1965). The making of the .00000000;

tal president 1964. Antheneum. https:// 0.00003800;
soci books.google.com/books? 3800+
ety id=NIVkmNgX7_UC “The emotions of
normal people resist the general condi
tion of a Digital Society—digits for the
boys who are drafted, digits for Social
Security and income-tax people, digits
on credit cards and union cards, digits
replacing familiar telephone exchanges,
the electronic recordings that answer
the telephone at airports and railway
stations.”
digi Canada. Department of Communica .00000100;

tal tions. (1971). The future of communi 0.00004700;
tech cations technology. Department of 46
nolo Communications. https://
gy books.google.com/books?
id=lBe4AAAAIAAJ “6.5 DIGITAL
TECHNOLOGY The evolving carrier
network will be composed mainly of
digital sub-systems, which can offer the
complete range of digital and analogue
capability required by any user on a
switched network basis.”
Main Digital Technology and Society Issues

and Contexts in Recent Books
Method
Presuming that books integrate and distill considerable prior work, and represent topics
that are important, salient, and likely of broad and timely concern, we turn to recent
(p. 10) books for indicators of the main issues and contexts about digital technology and
society. Using the same four sets of terms, we searched Amazon Books for relevant titles,
and relevant recommended titles, in the past decade. We ended up with 89 books, from
2009 to 2018 (M = 2015.2). There are of course many more books related to various as
pects of digital technology and society, both those retrievable through other terms and
from earlier (p. 11) years, but this seems a reasonable sample (in both size and source) to
represent the most frequent and important issues and contexts. Within this sample 77
Page 12 of 46
were (co)authored, and 12 were edited (including one encyclopedia); 16 were general
(i.e., textbook, overview or coverage of many issues), and 73 were specific (about an iden
tifiable issue or topic; e.g., youth and media, or Internet governance). Again, as our goal
was to identify main issues and contexts, we did not analyze the text of each book; rather,
we collected information about each book, including summaries, reviews, prefaces, and
table of contents; that is, what do the authors and others think the book is “about,” or
what topics do they emphasize? We combined all those materials about each book into a
file for each book. The total text across all books constituted around 29,000 words. We
read each file, compiling a list of possible issues and contexts from each one. We then re
viewed that compilation, reorganizing, regrouping, and combining terms into an alpha
betized list of main codes and subcodes. This grouped list provided our initial a priori
coding scheme. Needless to say, others might have developed a more or less different list,
many of the subcodes could have been included with other main codes, and more or less
different main codes could have been developed. We will return to a possible different
grouping of the main codes later on. The purpose of the following overview is to identify
some of the primary themes and topics of recent books in this domain.
We entered those 89 book summary files and the initial coding taxonomy into NVivo 11.
Then we re-read each book file and coded the materials using the initial codes, as well as
adding new codes as they arose. After coding all files, we revisited the coding taxonomy
and again reorganized, regrouped, and combined terms, and then re-coded the book files.
For the following overview of the issues and contexts covered in these books, we re-orga
nized the main codes by general themes: (A) Theory and Conceptualization, (B) Digital
Technology, (C) Issues, (D) Contexts, and (E) Effects. Table 1.6 lists the general themes,
their main codes and their subcodes, along with the number of sources that used that
code and the number of times (references) that code was used.
Page 13 of 46
Table 1.6 Themes, Main Codes and Subcodes Used to Identify Issues
and Concerns in Recent Books on Digital Technology and Society
Theme, Code, and Subcodes
A. Theory and Conceptualization
A1. Theory [17]
Actor-network theory (48)
Critical studies, theory (9,22)
Diffusion (39)
Digital divide (38)
Digital media & social change (51)
Mediation theories (23, 31, 33)
Model of digital coping with illness (68)
Network theory (35, 39, 51)
Public good (23)
Science & technology studies (33)
Social capital (54)
Sociological (4, 21)
Socio-technical (4, 10, 26)
Various (51, 53)
A2. Names for new digital technology and society era [49]
Age of big data (56)
Attention economy (89)
Page 14 of 46
Culture of connectivity (85)
Digital age/society/revolution (6, 7, 9, 51)
Digital natives, immigrants (12, 64)
Ecosystem of connective media in a culture of connectivity (85)
Fourth industrial revolution (77)
Fourth wave (digital health) (79)
Global information society (58)
Global network society (17, 48)
Information society (14, 38)
Integrate technological, social, political, cultural, economic dimen

sions (4, 9, 13, 17, 18, 21, 26, 28, 33, 39, 41, 47, 57, 58, 69)
Marketplace of attention (86)
Mass surveillance society (75)
Media ecologies (44)
Mediation (interrelated technical, social, biological processes) (4, 22,

23)
Network as “defining concept of our era” (20)
New mobile age (49)
Next Internet (59)
Participatory condition (5)
Second machine age (13)
Softwarization of society (9)
Superconnected society (18)
Page 15 of 46
Third wave of computing technologies (25, 32)
B. Technology
B1. Technology venues [68]
3D printing, fabrication (32, 77)
Algorithms (10, 19, 24, 29, 33, 51, 63, 84)
Artificial Intelligence (13, 30, 49)
Blockchain (81)
Cloud computing (4, 11, 39, 42, 59)
Constant change and development of technology (4, 11)
Data storage (24)
Drones (59, 77)
Gaming (57, 69, 71, 82)
Internet of things (11, 15, 26, 56, 59, 81)
Mobility (11, 26, 51, 84)
Robots & social robots (30, 49, 59, 82)
Search engines (63)
Smart homes, cities, e-government (5, 11, 37, 39, 41, 77, 81)
Social media-networking sites (4, 11, 39, 51, 57, 79, 80, 85)
Ubiquitous computing (26, 59)
Wearable computing, devices, sensors (26, 59, 77, 79)
B2. Technology characteristics [9]
Affordances (68, 71, 82)
Page 16 of 46
Habitual, updating (20, 82)
Materiality (33, 42)
Mediation vs. objects, devices, apps (47)
C. Issues
C1. Content, creation [33]
Art, performance (5, 10, 23, 40, 52, 54, 81)
Collective intelligence (70)
Creative production, industry, digital media production (44)
Crowdfunding (7)
Design (5, 71)
Humor & memes (46, 66, 78)
Online expression (66)
Producers, users, produsers (2, 5, 28, 43, 69, 76)
Public, online debate (66)
Storytelling (5, 7, 66)
C2. Big data, data mining, data storage, analytics, user data [56]
Attention industry, marketplace, merchants, customers (2, 13, 24, 39,

50, 75, 83, 84, 86, 89)
Audience behaviors and meaning changing, fragmentation, overlap

(7, 33,62, 86)
Big data, data mining, data analytics (5, 11, 14, 29, 39, 51, 56, 59, 71,
84)
Data user, personal, online, digital traces (22, 35, 51, 55, 61, 73, 75,
83, 84)
Page 17 of 46
Privacy, surveillance, security, anonymity (5, 10, 12, 15, 18, 19, 26, 39,
40, 45, 48, 53, 59, 61, 64, 69, 82, 84, 87)
C3. Civic issues [50]
Civic media, citizenship, democracy, public sphere, the news press

(3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 29, 33, 39, 40, 51, 59, 65, 69, 81, 87)
Digital countercultures, underground (52)
Engagement, participation civic (3, 5, 27, 37, 46, 53, 59, 65)
Political, politics (17, 21, 25, 39, 55, 69)
Power (5, 7, 21, 42, 51)
Social movements & digital activism (incl. feminist activism, play as

resistance), collective action (5, 17, 25, 31, 37, 39, 51, 69, 87)
C4. Participation, engagement [7] (5, 12, 27, 45, 48, 70)
C5. Inclusion, exclusion, discrimination [26]
Digital divide (6, 38, 39)
Disability (22, 69)
Discrimination (19, 29, 63)
Gender (25, 39, 63, 69)
Inclusion, exclusion; equality, inequality (7, 18, 37, 53, 54, 59, 69, 81,
88)
Race (39, 63, 69)
C6. Ethics, ethical issues [6] (28, 29, 45, 47, 64)
C7. Manage digital experience [8] (23, 29, 35, 38, 39, 41, 53, 57, 60,
79, 81)
D. Contexts
Page 18 of 46
D1. Digitization of self & others [13]
Biosensing, quantified self & animals (5, 10, 47, 49, 52, 55, 59, 61, 67,
84)
Qualified self (45)
D2. Health [12]
Digital health (13, 30, 61, 71, 79)
End of life (68)
Healthspan and lifespan (49)
Online information, interventions (68)
Support, coping (68, 82)
D3. Relationships [40]
Community (4, 51)
Families (38, 44, 54, 72, 80)
Friendship (44)
Identity, selfhood (12, 18, 19, 22, 38, 40, 43, 44, 51, 54, 64, 65, 82, 87)
Individual, collective; public, private (35, 70, 87)
Intimacy (44, 82)
Sex, sexuality (69)
Social (interactions, relationships, networks (6, 18, 35, 46, 54, 70, 72,
82)
D4. User groups [19]
African-Americans (38)
College students (72)
Page 19 of 46
Elderly (68, 71)
LGBTQ (31, 37)
Worshippers (8)
Youth (6, 12, 39, 44, 45, 53, 54, 64, 69, 80)
D5. Culture, everyday life, education, learning [35]
Culture (6, 10, 25, 37, 39, 51, 69, 88)
Domesticity (26)
Education, learning (5, 13, 30, 37, 41, 44, 53, 54, 64, 69)
Everyday life, practice (4, 9, 21, 26, 38, 39, 53, 54, 58, 80)
Literacy (46, 53, 70, 88)
D6. Work and organizations [37]
Business models (7, 24, 49, 81, 89)
Innovation (11, 27, 37, 71, 77, 79)
Labor, creative, digital, employment (7, 13, 30, 33, 39, 76, 77)
Organizations & business (10, 21, 24, 39, 41, 57, 71, 79, 81)
Work, work-life boundaries (1, 44, 46, 71, 77, 82)
D7. Law, policy, regulation [12] (23, 29, 35, 38, 39, 41, 53, 57, 60, 79,
81)
E. Effects
E1. Effects negative [25]
Addiction (1, 82)
Attention, brain, overload (6, 16, 64, 70, 82)
Page 20 of 46
Cyberbullying (6, 12)
Danger, harm, risk (6, 12, 46, 53, 56, 82)
Disconnection (among people) (54)
Multitasking (82)
Online hate and shaming (72)
Pressure for access, connectedness, response (82)
Wasting time (34, 82)
E2. Effects positive [13]
Collaboration, cooperation, sharing (5, 12, 13, 34, 70, 71)
Connectivity, connectedness (1, 2, 38)
Creativity (34)
Safety (12, 82)
Social capital (38)
E3. Effects societal [23]
Crime (36)
Economy, economics (13, 30, 39, 41, 58, 71, 81, 87)
Environment implications of digital media (23, 42, 59, 69)
Global impacts (17, 18, 22, 58, 69, 71)
ICTs for development (41, 57, 87)
Institutions (18, 41)
E4. Effects contradictions, paradoxes, tensions, unintended [21] (1,

6, 9, 10, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 41, 48, 50, 52, 66, 69, 82, 86)
Page 21 of 46
Note: [# times code was referenced], aggregated from # times each

subcode was referenced (number of the specific publication refer
enced); see References of Books for Issues and Contexts Analysis for
correspondence between number and reference.
(p. 12) (p. 13) (p. 14) A. Theory and Conceptualization
A1. Theory. Theoretical perspectives are not likely to be highlighted in book summaries
or reviews, especially in edited books. However, of those mentioned, several appear multi
ple times. A socio-technical approach appears in Athique’s (2013) overview of digital me
dia and society; Beyes, Leeker, and Schipper’s (2017) analysis of digital performance: and
Dourish and Bell’s (2011) discussion of ubiquitous computing. Network theory is an obvi
ous framework for considering digital technologies due to their networked nature and the
rise of a global network society, and how they connect people through social networks
and social networking sites (González-Bailón, 2017; Graham & Dutton, 2014; Krieger &
Belliger, 2014; Lindgren, 2017). Similarly, as digital technologies provide mediated com
munication, representation, and interaction, mediation and materiality theories are rele
vant (Cubitt, 2016; Fotopoulou, 2017; Gillespie, Boczkowski, & Foot, 2014). Other speci
fied theoretical approaches include critical studies, sociological theories, and others rang
ing from public goods and social capital to diffusion of innovations and digital divide. Sev
eral books emphasize multiple theories, related to areas such social media, cyber-opti
mism, social interaction, social change, identity, development, education, and participa
tion (Lindgren, 2017; Livingstone, 2009).
Names for new social era. Based on the article and NGram analysis, we might refer to
the emergence of relationships between digital technology and society as the “Digital
Age.” Indeed, several books use some variant of that (Bauerlein, 2011; Bennett, Chin, &
Jones, 2015; Berry, 2015; Lindgren, 2017). However, in recent books authors have used a
wide variety of terms. Some refer to a broad phenomenon (culture of connectivity, digital
age/society/revolution, ecosystem of connective media in a culture of connectivity, fourth
industrial revolution, global information/network society, the familiar term (p. 15) informa
tion society, next Internet, the participatory condition, second machine age, super con
nected society, and third wave of computing technologies). Several of these emphasize
the increased opportunities for connecting, communicating, and networking (Barney et
al., 2016; Castells, 2015; Chayko, 2017; Chun, 2017; James, 2014; Van Dijck, 2013).
Barney et al. (2016) refers to this as the “participatory condition,” whereby participation
has become the theme for most everyday activities; similarly, Van Dijck (2013) shows how
social media in particular have created a “culture of connectivity,” and Chayko (2017) ar
gues that the Internet and digital media in general have made social life “superconnect
ed.” Others indicate more specific aspects (age of big data, the attention economy, mass
surveillance society, new mobile age, and the “softwarization” of society; Berry, 2015;
Kvedar, Colman, & Cella, 2017; Lynch, 2016; Schneier, 2015; Wu, 2017). Note that all but
one of these are concerned with how large-scale collection of user behavior both fuels the
Page 22 of 46
economy as well as enables individual, corporate, and government surveillance. More
common, however, is a general reference to the integration of biological, cultural, eco
nomic, environmental, political, psychological, social, and technological dimensions.
Athique (2013) and Berry (2015), for example, discuss how digital systems pervade all as
pects of our lives, especially given vast global information and communication networks
(Castells, 2015). Many of these broader approaches emphasize how the technological and
the social are interrelated (e.g., Graham & Dutton, 2014).
B. Digital Technology
B1. Technology venues. Many other books explain and study specific digital technolo
gies, but those mentioned in the context of societal concerns in these books range from
3D printing/fabrication to online gaming and ubiquitous computing. More frequent are
associations with algorithms, cloud computing, Internet of things, mobility, robots (includ
ing social robots), smart homes and cities, social media, and wearable computing devices/
sensors. Algorithms are both based on, and influence, our search behaviors, news view
ing, online friends, and shopping (Cheney-Lippold, 2017; Turow, 2017), shape who gets
access to social services (Eubanks, 2018), and affect how race and gender are portrayed
in search engine results (Noble, 2018). Cloud computing seems abstract and ethereal, yet
requires massive infrastructure and energy (Hu, 2015), and raises issues of privacy (Gra
ham & Dutton, 2014). The miniaturization of computing power and the increasing reach
and strength of wireless networking provide the foundations for the Internet of things
(Bunz & Meikle, 2017), ranging from interactive refrigerators to worldwide tracking of
shipping containers (Dourish & Bell, 2011), as well as “smart” cities and governments
(Barney et al., 2016; Hanna, 2016). Robots have already replaced many manufacturing
jobs (Ford, 2015), while social robots can provide physical, and emotional support to pa
tients, the elderly, and coworkers (Mosco, 2017). Turkle (2011) argues that mobile phones
are social robots.
B2. Technology characteristics. While not much mentioned at the general level
(p. 16)
of our source documents, some work does approach digital technologies not from their
purely physical or technical aspects, but, rather, from their main functions or capabilities,
the ways in which they mediate. The argument here is that particular technologies and
their manifestations are always changing, so a more conceptual approach is more endur
ing and generalizable. This approach is variously labeled here as affordances, habit, ma
teriality, and mediation. For example, from a patient’s or a physician’s perspective, persis
tent awareness of the patient’s condition is more crucial than a particular medical device
(Rains, 2018), or from a project team’s perspective, searchability of a database in order to
share knowledge is critical independent of the system used (Rossignoli, Virili, & Za,
2017). Continuing, everyday use of a digital technology may, however, make these capa
bilities and affordances become taken-for-granted, habitual, and invisible (Chun, 2017).
Page 23 of 46
C. Issues
C1. Content, creation. Digital technologies make it possible for all kinds of people to
find, create, share, reshape, and link a dizzying array of existing and unforeseeable con
tent. Familiar content issues include produsage, crowdfunding/sourcing, digital media
production, and online expression. Yet less common topics are discussed as well. Soft
ware, computing, devices, and networks enable new kinds of and ways of presenting, art,
performance, dance, music, and design (Beyes, Leeker, & Schipper, 2017; Gronlund, 2016).
New kinds of digital images (from space and the deep sea) may foster more engaged re
sponses to environmental threats (Cubit, 2016). A major motivation for creating, viewing,
and sharing online content is its humorous nature (Phillips & Milner, 2018), while consid
erable research attempts to understand the power and rapid diffusion of certain memes
(Shifman, 2014). Digital storytelling can be multi-modal, collaborative, and interactive
(Barney et al., 2016).
C2. Big data, data mining, data storage, analytics, user data. Transforming informa
tion and communication from analog to digital has a major, inherent implication: the con
tent is (potentially, depending on the context and laws) now easily captured, stored, ana
lyzed, associated, separated, (re)combined, transmitted, and networked. Thus, there is
considerable recent coverage of issues relating to both specific and very large scale (big)
user data. Such data capture and mining provide the economic model for much digital
media, marketers, and vendors (think social media and search engines, especially), lead
ing to terms such as the attention economy or the attention market, and fundamental
changes in the nature of media audiences (Anand, 2016; Daley, 2015; Napoli, 2011; Sch
neier, 2015; Turow, 2012, 2017; Webster, 2014).
But big data, from personal biosensors to Google searches, also allow both scientific and
commercial analyses of topics otherwise not possible (González-Bailón, 2017; Graham &
Dutton, 2014; Lupton, 2016; Rudder, 2014). For example, Webster (2014) argues that the
expansion of multiple media sources and content allows audiences to (p. 17) both concen
trate attention on, as well as overlap with other audiences across, some outlets and con
tent. The generation, access, analysis, and selling of such personal data also lead to con
cerns about anonymity, privacy, and surveillance. Several have noted the irony in the fact
that while digital technology inspires so much participation and sharing, that very partici
pation generates information that may be used to control, influence, or otherwise shape
us and our possibilities (Barney et al., 2016; Bunz & Meikle, 2017). As Turkle (2011, p.
243) wrote, “Facebook looks like ‘home,’ but you know that it puts you in a public square
with a surveillance camera turned on.”
C3. Civic issues. For some, civic issues are at the heart of debates about digital technol
ogy and society. Awareness, participation, freedom of speech, and exposure to diverse
ideas are crucial for the practice and maintenance of democracy. The public sphere is
now online, but not necessarily civil. Digital and online technology can both facilitate and
constrain, improve and harm, these activities. It provides opportunities for political en
gagement and citizen marketing as well as tools for political message targeting, and opin
Page 24 of 46
ion control by both governments and corporations (Anduiza et al., 2012; Athique, 2013;
Penney, 2017; White, 2014), but increasingly also by interest groups and individuals. Of
fline divides by class, disability, ethnicity, gender, and race potentially may be overcome
online, but often are reinforced (Reed, 2014). Online spaces provide meeting ground, sup
port, and solidarity for countercultural communities (Lingel, 2017), and citizen and politi
cal activism and collective action, from small towns to governments, and from nations to
global regions, sometimes successful, sometimes not (Castells, 2015; Graham & Dutton,
2014). Online citizen engagement also represents opportunities for and means of identity
expression (Penney, 2017). Some work discusses implications of site and system design,
accessibility, and use on the nature of civic engagement (Godron & Mihailidis, 2016). Un
derlying these civic issues are questions about power and politics shape and are shaped
by new forms of participation and their actors (Barney et al., 2016; Hu, 2015).
C4. Participation, engagement. As noted in the overview about labeling this changing
social condition, a central underlying theme is the increased amount, diversity, forms, and
actors in online participation in general (i.e., other than civic or political). Social media in
particular enable people to engage in communication and activities in multiple ways, con
tinuously (boyd, 2014), often leading to over-dependence and disconnection from ethical
and moral behavior (James, 2014). Yet features and designs, as well as online attitudes
and behavior, still limit participation by those with disabilities (Ellcessor, 2016).
C5. Inclusion, exclusion, discrimination. Thus an explicit or implicit thread running

throughout much of the discussions about digital technology concerns inclusion, exclu
sion, and discrimination, both in terms of accessing and using these technologies, as well
as in how designs, data mining, site features or policies, and other users affect which peo
ple and what content are allowed online. The major throughline here is about the general
digital divide (Graham, 2014, discussing African Americans’ digital practices; Graham &
Dutton, 2014); but other specific distinctions appear too, such as disability, ethnicity, gen
der, and race (Ellcessor, 2016; Reed, 2014). And a wide variety of factors (p. 18) affects
forms of inclusion and exclusion, including algorithms shaping data mining and search
engine results (Cheney-Lippold, 2017; Eubanks, 2018). Noble (2018), for example, shows
how algorithm design, commercial interests, and oligopolies of search engine and social
media companies serve to privilege whiteness while discriminating against people of col
or (especially women). Young users, while nearly continuously online, nonetheless experi
ence exclusion and disconnections due to their pre-existing networks, digital literacy, and
attitudes (Livingstone, Sefton, & Green, 2016; Wiesinger & Believau, 2016)). However,
online communities and social media provide opportunities for digital activism on the ba
sis of gender, feminism, LBGTQ, among others (Dey, 2018; Fotopoulou, 2017; Gordon &
Mihailidis, 2016), and are empowering people around the world (Mosco, 2017).
Blockchain technology may both increase and circumvent exclusion (Tapscott & Tapscott,
2018), by concentrating wealth and increasing energy demands, while bypassing control
by financial institutions and intermediaries.
Page 25 of 46
C6. Ethics, ethical issues. As most commenters note, ethical issues receive limited cov
erage in digital technology discussions. The online environment provides extensive and
new challenges to professional journalism ethics (Elliott & Spence, 2017), data mining
and algorithms distance consequences from ethical criteria (Eubanks, 2018), and youth
users seldom make connections between their online behaviors and more general moral
ethical implications, experiencing ethical blind spots (James, 2014). The very process of
mediation often distances awareness or knowledge of ethical implications (Palfrey &
Gasser, 2016), and the beneficial use of social robots nonetheless has ethical implications
such as emotional dependency and privacy (Kvedar, Colman, & Cella, 2017).
C7. Managing the digital experience. While nearly all books on digital technology and
society have sections on policy, implementation, and individual recommendations, some
specifically focus on advice, based on research, on how to manage and improve one’s dig
ital experience. James (2014), for example, explicates the concept of conscientious con
nectivity, which involves both ethical thinking as well as awareness of and sensitivity to
online dilemmas. Other approaches include exercises for mindful technology use (Levy,
2016), and thriving online (Rheingold, 2012). Johnson (2015) develops the idea of an in
formation diet, or how to evaluate and balance one’s online behaviors and use of informa
tion. Other guides are designed for parents interested in protecting their family from the
negative aspects of the digital age (Steiner, Adair, & Barker, 2013), attempting to protect
your online data and identity (Schneier, 2015), and reducing online shame and hate (Sch
eff & Schorr, 2017). Rowan-Kenyon, Aleman, and Savitz-Romer (2018) specifically honed
in on how universities can improve the experience and retention of first-generation col
lege students through their engagement with digital technology.
D. Contexts
D1. Digitization of self and others. As devices become smaller, and more powerful,
wireless, and connected, very personalized uses have developed, creating the quantified
(p. 19) self movement. People use biosensors (such as fitness trackers, smartphones, eye-
and face-scanners, and even implants) to record their activities and responses, both for
personal interest and health monitoring (Kvedar, Colman, & Cella, 2017; Lupton, 2016),
but also for advertising and consumer user behavior (Turow, 2017). Interestingly, while in
one way this allows people to develop a more detailed sense of their own identity, shared
quantified self data creates online communities who compare and even compete (includ
ing, for example, brain scans; Barney et al., 2016). To some extent, this is one form of the
cyborg or the singularity, or the melding of humans and machines (Beyes, Leeker, &
Schipper, 2017; Kember & Zylinska, 2012; Mosco, 2017). Further, large-scale collection of
such data can be used for medical diagnoses, genetic and epidemiological analyses, and
possible threats to insurance and employment. As a form of the Internet of things, these
applications extend to animals as well, for tracking their diet and health, as well as prove
nance, ownership, location, and migration, from cats to cattle to whales (Pschera & Lauf
fer, 2016). As a complement to this digital data collection via bodily devices and social
media, Humphreys (2018) shows how people have been recording and commenting on
Page 26 of 46
their personal information for ages, through baby books, photo albums, pocket diaries,
and postcards, to account for their everyday lives.
D2. Health. Health is another major context for digital technology, including computer
ized medical instrumentation, digital device implants, data collection and analysis, health
information monitoring, digital records, network sharing of medical information, online
health information seeking, and mediated communication within support communities
and between patients and caregivers (Rains, 2018; Turkle, 2011). Such technologies can
be used for large-scale as well as personalized health interventions, improve one’s life-
span and health-span (Kvedar, Colman, & Cella, 2017), as well as help manage end-of-life
and bereavement (Rains, 2018).
D3. Relationships. From a communication and interaction perspective, personal and so
cial relationships are a major context for the use and implications of digital technologies.
A frequent focus is on how people create, manage, promote, and try to protect, their
(multiple) online identities and selfhood (Lindgren, 2017). This is especially salient for
youth users (boyd, 2014; Ito et al., 2009; Palfrey & Gasser, 2016; Turkle, 2011), in their
social and classroom lives (Livingstone, Sefton, & Green, 2016). Other central foci are
about online ethnic, gender, racial, and sexual identities (Graham, 2014; Reed, 2014), and
about how data mining entities construct and constrain our online and even offline identi
ties (Cheney-Lippold, 2017). Online communities and services also hold the promise for
bringing together individual identities to create a more powerful and positive (or nega
tive) collective identity (González-Bailón, 2017; Rheingold, 2012), but also blur the dis
tinctions between public and private, and offline and online, identities (White, 2014).
Digital technology and society of course involve far more than just individual-level identi
ty. More relational contexts include engaging in online intimacy even though the content
may be public (Ito et al., 2009). Yet our technologies may be distorting intimacy; as Turkle
(2011) notes, immersion in social media and mobile phones may create an illusion of inti
macy while distancing actual personal relationships. The mobile phone (p. 20) and social
media may help maintain family relationships, especially when children move away to col
lege (Rowan-Kenyon, Aleman, & Savitz-Romer, 2018), but also serve to wrest control
away from parental monitoring and socialization (Graham, 2014; Ito et al., 2009; Living
stone & Green, 2016), both by youth and by their peers and marketing companies (Stein
er, Adair, & Barker, 2013). And, of course, much work concerns the nature, engagement
in, and effects of online communities, ranging from political to health and culture (Lind
gren, 2017).
D4. User groups. Different kinds of audiences, groups, or users have different motiva
tions for and experiences with online and digital technology, so some books focus on spe
cific user groups. These include how African Americans use such technologies to deal
with inequalities (Graham, 2014), how students engage with technology to manager their
transition from home to their first year at college (Rowan-Kenyon, Aleman, & Savitz-
Romer, 2018), how the elderly can manage the end of their lifespan (Rains, 2018), how
LGBTQ members engage in media activism, promote visibility, and work to combat sui
Page 27 of 46
cide (Fotopoulou, 2017 Gordon & Mihailidis, 2016), and how worshippers participate in
mediated liturgy practices, such as digital prayer chapels and live-streaming of religious
services (Berger, 2017). Much work looks at how youth use digital media, with both posi
tive and negative implications (Bauerlein, 2011). For example, boyd (2014) considers why
youth share so much online and why they are so obsessed with social media, Graham and
Dutton’s book (2014) includes chapters on children’s Internet use and next generation
digital divides, and Steiner, Adair, and Barker (2013) consider how the digital age is sig
nificantly affecting childhood.
D5. Culture, everyday life, education, learning. More general daily concerns include
the ways in which ubiquitous computing might affect the form and meaning of domestici
ty (Dourish & Bell, 2011) and everyday life practices, such as how society is becoming
embedded in software (Berry, 2015), the digital experiences of African Americans (Gra
ham, 2014), and how the Internet is interwoven throughout children’s lives at home,
school, and play (Livingstone, 2009). Research investigates the role of digital technology
in education and learning, such as the participatory potential for education (Barney et al.,
2016; Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014), the need for greater civic education (Gordon & Mi
hailidis, 2016), how young people do, or do not, learn through digital media within their
daily class contexts (Livingstone, Sefton, & Green, 2016), the need for greater digital lit
eracy (Johnson 2015; Rheingold, 2012) and ways in which educational technologies such
as MOOCs and scholarly publishing are changing the nature of teaching and research
(Reed, 2014). Concerns about digital culture include how digital technology shapes and is
influenced by broad societal culture (Wiesinger & Beliveau, 2016), artistic and creative
culture (Reed, 2014), and the culture(s) associated with particular media, such as mobile
phones (Lindgren, 2017).
D6. Work and organizations. Another major context, work and organizations, is consid
ered much more in the management and information systems literature. However, recent
digital technology and society books discuss how business models, industries, and
economies are being transformed, such as through crowdsourcing, crowdfunding, (p. 21)
and microcelebrity (Bennett, Chin, & Jones, 2015); the “gig” economy such as Uber and
Airbnb (Daley, 2015); and the ability to identify and monetize attention (Wu, 2017). They
also discuss how the very nature of organizations and industries is changing, towards
more networked, virtual, and distributed forms (Graham & Dutton, 2014).
Note that these opportunities and challenges also apply to not necessarily commercial or
for-profit contexts, such as health provision and caregiving (Kvedar, Colman, & Cells,
2017), and smart cities and technology parks (Hanna, 2016). Not only are innovation
processes crucial to the development and diffusion of new digital technologies, but such
technologies are also necessary for implementing other innovations. For example, innova
tions in medical technologies can transform experiences and possibilities for the disabled
(Ellcessor, 2016), patients (Sonnier, 2017), and caregivers (Rossignoli, Virili, & Za, 2017),
and innovative designs for egovernment (such as ways to visualize data, involvement in
open policymaking, engaging young and feminist activists) can foster greater civic en
gagement (Gordon & Mihailidis, 2016). Digital innovations are making work-life bound
Page 28 of 46
aries more permeable (Alter, 2017; Schwab, 2017), increasing the ability to share and
manage knowledge (Botto & Resende, 2017), and threatening the loss of traditional and
even knowledge work through artificial intelligence, algorithms, blockchain technology,
and robots (Ford, 2015; Tapscott & Tapscott, 2018).
D7. Law, policy, regulation. As many have noted, technology develops and diffuses
faster than laws, policy, and regulation can keep up with. Should the Internet and social
media be regulated as a common carrier, or subject to the same regulations and liabilities
as other publishers (Graham & Dutton, 2014)? Who should govern what aspects of the In
ternet (Mueller, 2010)? What are the effects of supporting or removing net neutrality?
Should algorithms affecting search results and service provision be regulated and made
explicit (Eubanks, 2018)? What policies and regulations best stimulate public ICT provi
sion (Hanna, 2016)? Is a HIPAA sufficient to protect personal digital medical records
(Sonnier, 2017)?
E. Effects
E1. Negative effects. An enduring research, policy, and popular topic is the extent to
which digital technologies are associated with negative or positive effects. The list of pos
sible implications is endless. The books included here refer to just a few. Addiction is at
the top of many people’s list, both alphabetically and behaviorally (Alter, 2017). As Turkle
(2011, p. 154) notes, “Always on and (now) always with us, we tend the Net, and the Net
teaches us to need it.” But she argues that addiction is not inherent to the technology;
rather it’s to how we practice the use of that technology. For example, social pressures to
be constantly accessible and to respond quickly create stress and reinforce dependencies
(Turkle, 2011). Excessive use also ends up wasting considerable time, often fostering feel
ings of guilt (Goldsmith, 2016). Watching YouTube music videos, and endlessly scrolling
friends’ text messages, do not strengthen personal relations or get one’s (home) work
done.
As noted in the terms associated with digital technology and society, attention has
(p. 22)
gained a lot of attention, not only in regard to the commercial focus on collecting and an
alyzing user attention, but also about the cognitive effects of excessive screen use and
multitasking on attention span (Bauerlein, 2011; Carr, 2011). Further, excessive attention
to our devices reduces our attention to those people around us (Turkle, 2011, p. 268). Re
search has identified a wide array of possible dangers, harms, and risk, including cyber
bullying (Bauerlein, 2011), information overload (Johnson, 2015), threats to children (Liv
ingstone, 2009), and loss of control over one’s identity in the present and the future.
Turkle (2011), for example, notes people’s vulnerability is not just limited to their commu
nication or site content, but also to anyone taking a photo of them or posting comments
about them. There is thus a constant worry about one’s offline behavior being recorded
and distributed. This leads some to self-censor and self-surveil both their online and of
fline comments and behavior. Another kind of harm is online harassment, shaming, hat
Page 29 of 46
ing, and trolling (Scheff & Schorr, 2017), negatively affecting everyone from children to
CEOs and celebrities.
E2. Positive effects. Needless to say, digital technologies are associated with many posi
tive benefits. Chief among these is the ability to connect and communicate with others,
from family and friends to fellow group members, and with people and organizations oth
erwise unknown and inaccessible, allowing the co-creation of meaning and sharing of re
sources, from emotional support to complex information (Barney et al., 2016). Computing
and networking support new and distributed forms of collaboration and cooperation, in
creasingly between humans and machines, necessary for accomplishing tasks, creating
content, and generating innovative ideas (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014; Rheingold, 2012;
Rossignoli, Virili, & Za, 2017). Tools such as mobile phones and GPS also improve one’s
safety (boyd, 2014), and keep others aware of your locations and activities (Turkle, 2011).
This support for connectivity and relationships also develops social and cultural capital
(Graham, 2014).
E3. Societal effects. More societal negative effects include the uses of digital technolo
gies for crime, including hacking and identity theft, fomenting hate crimes, and drug and
sex trafficking, among many others (Goodman, 2015). Also, little understood is the in
creasingly devastating environmental implications of digital technology, including cloud
computing (with its need for massive server farms consuming increasingly more energy)
and toxic materials recycling (Cubitt, 2016, Hu, 2015, Mosco, 2017). Digital, networked
ICTs have a wide range of negative and positive implications for economies and econom
ics, such as facilitating rapid and global financial crises, and threats to particular indus
tries and jobs, but also making information and transactions more transparent and effi
cient, and supporting micro-economic and entrepreneurial activities and produsage (Gra
ham & Dutton, 2014; Hanna, 2016; Martin, 2017). ICTs have held great promise for the
developing world, from markets and health, to farming and education (Hanna, 2016;
White, 2014). Other global impacts include occasions for (more or less successful) citizen
participation (Castells, 2015), and broader intercultural communication (Cover, 2015).
E4. Contradictions, paradoxes, tensions, and unintended effects. Interwoven

(p. 23)
throughout discussions of effects of digital technology is the awareness of contradictions,

paradoxes, tensions, and unintended consequences. The very concept of online expression
is ambivalent, indicating helpful as well as harmful intent and content (Phillips & Milner,
2018). Both positive and negative implications may be associated with a particular tech
nology or use, often simultaneously, and paradoxically. Online feminist and queer activist
communities can use the same technologies that mis-portray or exclude them as ways to
construct and promote valued identities (Fotopoulou, 2017). Digital technologies are both
highly useful and entertaining, but also create stress, overload, and complications (Levy,
2016); they blur boundaries between work and home, private and public (Krieger & Bel
liger, 2014). Online and social media communication can strengthen relationships and
promote intimacy while also generating user data that are processed by other digital
technologies and software around the world to group, categorize, and target audiences
Page 30 of 46
(Beyes, Leeker, & Schipper, 2017). For example, Turkle (2011) identifies the following
paradoxes (p. 176, 280):
• Connectivity brings us closer, but some use technology to hide from others
• In order to feel like themselves, users must be connected to their devices and others
• It is easy to find others to interact with, but also to become tired by demands to per
form
• It is possible to make many new connections, but they are often tentative and tempo
rary
• Mobile phones enable as well as inhibit separation from parents, partners, work
• Nonstop connection also means limited attention by self or others
• People can play with identity but are less free from their past
• People like online linkages and features that are based on knowledge about one’s
use, but they are also concerned about the loss of privacy and are constrained by ex
ternally created online identity
• People reject real-time phone but get lost in real-time online gaming
• Providing online content may be available to immediate and broad audiences, but the
content is often depersonalized and abbreviated
• The ability to work from anywhere means one cannot escape work
• Users develop expectations of instant connections to and response from others, but
they themselves are then expected to always be available and respond ourselves
• Users themselves acknowledge tensions between good and bad aspects, and often
say they are resigned to this condition.
What some researchers or users may perceive as a positive aspect may be considered
negative by others. For example, increased ability to participate online may take the form
of reading and posting only to groups with the same interest or political position, thus
limiting exposure to diverse ideas and strengthening polarization (though Webster, 2014,
argues that audiences are fragmented, but also participate in various venues, (p. 24) cre
ating overlapping audiences). By accident or user intent, technology may be used in ways
that designers, vendors, or implementers did not intend, expect, or imagine (Lingel,
2017). For example, González-Bailón (2017) shows how data mining and network analysis
can reveal unintended consequences of individual behavior for collective outcomes. Even
use of digital technology that might be critiqued as “wasting time” can provide a context
for allowing thoughtfulness and creativity (Goldsmith, 2016). The same systems and fea
tures can promote support and caring (Rains, 2018) as well as international crime and
terrorism (Goodman, 2015), democratization as well as authoritarianism (Berry, 2015),
learning as well as fragmented attention (Bauerlein, 2011), empowerment as well as ad
diction (Alter, 2017). ICTs may increase the pace of development and economic growth,
but also increase inequities, work dislocation, and environmental degradation (Cubitt,
2016; Gershenfeld, Gershenfeld, & Cutcher-Gershenfeld, 2017; Hanna, 2016).
Page 31 of 46
Summary
The preceding sections reviewed the main arguments and concerns about digital technol
ogy and society, organized by the emergent coding of subthemes and then the main codes
of Theory and Conceptualization, Technology, Issues, Contexts, and Effects. This provides
a subjective conceptual framework for identifying the most noted and discussed topics of
89 recent books. Another way to identify general arguments and concerns is to assess
how those coded themes co-occur across the material about the 89 books. Figure 1.2
shows the hierarchical clustering of the coded themes, based on the Jaccard similarity co
efficients derived from the co-occurrence of the codes in each source text (provided
through NVivo 11). What constitutes a cluster, or main theme, depends on the cutoff be
tween sets of codes one wants to use. The most general distinction is among three prima
ry clusters.
Figure 1.2 Hierarchical clustering of main codes

based on co-occurrence (correlation) of main and
subcodes within each source text.
The first cluster includes Content, creation; Digitization of self & others; Ethics, ethical
issues; Participation, engagement; and Manage digital experience. Given that many of the
Ethics, ethical issues have to do with personal data privacy, much of the Content, creation
material has to do with individual use or production of content, and Manage digital expe
rience emphasizes how individual can (more, or less, effectively) attempt to manage their
own digital usage, this cluster could be considered to represent a major general theme of
Individual uses.
The second cluster contains two subclusters. The first subcluster consists of Theory; Cul
ture, everyday life, education, learning; Relationships; and User groups. This as a some
what diverse grouping, but seems to represent the central social and theoretical contexts
of digital technology: groups, relationships, culture. The second subcluster reflects more
societal issues, such as policy, societal effects, civic and public sphere behavior, inequali
ties, organizations and technology, and very broad issues of the nature of the developing
Page 32 of 46
societal changes, along with big data. Thus, the entire two-fold cluster might be labeled
Societal and technological issues.
The third cluster is mostly about Effects, notably in the health arena, as well as as
(p. 25)
pects of technologies that might shape or influence those effects. Note that specific nega
tive or positive effects are subsumed within the more complex topic of contradictory and
unintended effects.
Related Work
A detailed analysis of the full content of these books would provide a comprehensive re
view of topics associated with digital technology and society, to say nothing of what indi
vidual articles and chapters discuss. There is, of course, a huge range of review articles,
chapters, books, and handbooks on the many aspects of digital media and society. There
are journals in specific disciplines that publish reviews, and there are handbooks in a
wide variety of related research areas. Almost all of those, however, focus on one disci
pline (e.g., management, information systems, sociology), or one dimension (organization
al communication, privacy, identity), or one technology (e.g., Internet, social media,
videogames). Further, edited books or handbooks in these areas bring together diverse,
expert authors who contribute on the topic of their own specialty, often without an under
lying integrative foundation. Finally, many books on the “digital age” are more popular,
applied, or oriented toward marketing, technology, management, or consulting practice.
For example, Salganik’s Bit by bit: Social research in the digital age (2017) is
(p. 26)
about the conduct and design of research in the digital environment, such as using big
data, experiments, and collaborative studies. Baym’s Personal connections in the digital
age (2015) emphasizes the communication discipline and relationships. Similarly, the
book edited by Wright and Web, Computer-mediated communication in personal relation
ships (2011) exclusively focuses on relational communication. Other books, such as Noble
and Tynes’ (2016) The intersectional Internet: Race, sex, class, and culture online do take
a more interdisciplinary and multi-dimensional approach, applied to a range of digital me
dia, platforms, and infrastructures, in more global and social contexts, but is primarily fo
cused on the issue of intersectionality instead of on more general life in the digital age.
Perhaps the single best overview is that of Mansell et al. (2015) International encyclope
dia of digital communication and society, which covers 150 topics, ranging in length from
2,000 to 10,000 words.
More relevant to this book, there are also handbooks on specific topics and media such as
The Oxford handbook of Internet studies (Dutton, 2014); Routledge handbook of Internet
politics (Chadwick & Howard, 2009); Oxford handbook of Internet psychology (Joinson &
McKenna, 2009); Internet studies (Consalvo & Ess, 2012)–their book’s chapters do cover
a number of similar topics, such as society, and culture, but again focus on the Internet;
and Economics of the Internet (Bauer & Latzer, 2016). The two-volume Handbook of re
search on computer-mediated communication (Kelsey & St.-Amant, 2008) also covers
some similar areas, such as identity (though from a credibility perspective), community
Page 33 of 46
and information exchange, and culture, but also different areas, such as instruction, de
sign, discourse, and libraries, as well as chapters on specific technology contexts. Similar
ly, more handbooks on the mobile phone are appearing: Handbook of mobile communica
tion studies (Katz, 2008) and Research on human social interaction in the age of mobile
devices (Xu, 2016); as well as for related new media, such as Handbook of digital games
(Angelides & Angus, 2014), and Sage handbook of social media (Poell & Marwick, 2018).
Some handbooks are focused on particular populations, such as Handbook of children and
the media (Singer & Singer, 2011). Sundar’s (2015) Handbook of the psychology of com
munication technology covers a wider array of digital contexts than many of the other
books but does take a primarily individual and group perspective (reasonable, given the
title), though also includes health issues. However, our book does not in any way overlap
with the intriguing Handbook of porous media (Vafal, 2015).
The only recent book that provides a similar multi-dimensional, interdisciplinary, and the
matic review of recent research on life in the digital age is Graham and Dutton’s (2014,
Oxford University Press) edited book Society & the Internet: How networks of informa
tion and communication are changing our lives. That excellent book frames the work as a
major foundation for the new field of Internet studies (along with Dutton’s 2014 Oxford
Handbook of Internet studies). Somewhat similar to the UK Economic and Social Re
search (ESRC) project theme chapters in our book (see the next section), the chapters in
Graham and Dutton’s book evolved from research work and a lecture series at the Oxford
Internet Institute. Their 23-chapter book covers some of the same main areas as (p. 27)
our book (with main sections called: Internet studies of everyday life; Information and
culture on the line; Networked politics and governments; Networked businesses, indus
tries, and economics; and Technological and Regulatory histories and futures). That book
complements this book, but is primarily focused on the Internet, and does not have the
organizing framework of the ESRC project reviews.
Purpose and Origins of This Book

Purpose and Domains
The purpose of chapters in this handbook is to provide detailed reviews of central topics
about digital technology and society within our seven domain sections. It includes inter
disciplinary, comprehensive reviews on central aspects of the current digital age. After
the following chapter on project methodology, the next sections move from more individ
ual and relational domains (Section 2: Health, Age, and Home; Section 3: Communication
and, Relationships) to more organizational, community, and citizenship domains (Section
4: Organizational Contexts; Section 5: Communities, Identities, and Class; Section 6: Citi
zenship, Politics, and Participation), and then to more societal and governance domains
(Section 7: Data, Representation, and Sharing; and Section 8: Governance and Account
ability). It ends with Section 9: Synthesis. The chapters within each section provide a sol
id foundation for understanding the current state of research and theory in each of these
areas and for grounding future research, theory, and practice. They also bring to bear lit
Page 34 of 46
erature from a wide variety of disciplines, necessary for understanding the interrelation
ships between digital technology and society.
Origins
How did these chapters come to life? In 2016, the UK Economic and Social Research
Council (http://www.esrc.ac.uk/) noted that
“[t]he 21st century has witnessed significant changes due to digital technological
advancements, which impacts the way we communicate, receive, consume and
process information, travel, shop and do our work. The presence of digital technol
ogy mediates our perceptions, behaviours and practices across these areas and in
fluences our ways of living, learning, sharing, engaging and seeing the world
around us. This raises a number of fundamental questions about our ways of being
in a digital age, the risks and opportunities associated with digital living, and our
understanding of the individual, community and society [. …] It is apparent that
there is a real need for meta-analytic work to synthesise and interpret the existing
literature and data, to refine and consolidate existing understanding of the social,
cultural, economic, political, psychological and other effects of digitalisation. This
(p. 28) will enable the development of new insights, ideas and methods to be ap
plied to a practical context. This approach will facilitate the exploitation of exist
ing research, but also build new knowledge on synthetic work” (p. 2).
The University of Liverpool, in collaboration with a core project team, and 17 other part
ner Universities and organizations from the UK, EU, USA and Singapore, lead the UK
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) scoping review on Ways of Being in a Digi
tal Age (see https://waysofbeingdigital.com/ for details on the project, people, events, and
reports). That scoping study developed a multi-domain holistic view of how digital tech
nology mediates our lives, and of the way technological and social change co-evolve and
shape each other. The project involved an interdisciplinary research team across the so
cial sciences, arts and humanities, engineering, physical sciences and health. The final re
port included reviews and analyses in six domains: Communication, community, and iden
tity; Citizens, politics, and governance; Understanding the platform economy; Data and
digital literacies for engaged and included citizens; Everyday digital health and well-be
ing; and Digital inequalities.
Conclusions and Recommendations from the ESRC Project
The final ESRC report recommended funding initiatives to emphasize these six core ar
eas. The work should have a strongly social science focus, even where it is interdiscipli
nary. The topics should avoid areas that are already well researched or have been sup
ported by recent or current funding programs. Research efforts need to look more holisti
cally at the social, economic, political, cultural, and community impacts and roles of digi
tal technologies. The ESRC report proposed the following six areas, each with associated
Page 35 of 46
research topics derived from the literature reviews and analyses, the Delphi surveys and
discussions, and the stakeholder workshops and discussions.
Communication, community, and identity
• The norms and values of digital communication and relationships

• The “affordances” different platforms provide for digital communication and relation
ships
• The quality of relationships and communication supported by digital media and tech
nologies
• The management of relationships via digital media and technologies
• Social and community aspects of everyday digital technology use
• Digital community exclusion/inclusion
• Digital community participation, action and social change
• Power in online communities
• Understanding global diaspora as digital communities
• Understanding function of aspects of identity online (Gender/Race/Ethnicity/Sexuali
ty)
(p. 29) Citizens, politics, and governance
• Digital technologies, radicalization, mobilization and political action

• Digital technologies and the disruption of current political institutions
• Digital technologies and new forms of citizenship
• Digital technologies, political communication, debate and media
• Digital technologies and state control–especially in non-democratic regimes
• Impact of social media on governance
• Success factors in digital governance at local, national and international level
• Privacy, citizenship, the state and surveillance in the digital age
• Regulation and governance of automated systems
Understanding the platform economy
• Role and impact of major corporate digital platforms (Impacts on firms of digital plat
forms, Role of digital monopolies and large corporations)
• Forms of digital labor (Impacts of digital labor on people’s life experience, Gig econo
my, linked to platforms)
Data and digital literacies for engaged and included citizens
• Citizen and community use of data
Page 36 of 46
• Citizen interaction with data and algorithms

• Data literacy in everyday life
• Power and accountability for data and algorithms
• Social construction of data and algorithms
• Citizens/everyday life experiences and uses of data
• Understanding open data/algorithm transparency/accountability
• Digital identity and data
• Data Exclusion/Inclusion/Divides
Everyday digital health and well-being
• Understanding and addressing the governance of digital health technologies.

• Need for detailed systematic evidence of the impact and lived experience of everyday
health technologies (e.g., fitbits).
• Questions of health and well-being in the digital workplace.
• Digital technologies and health communication and health behavior change.
Digital inequalities

• The two-way interaction between digital inequities and other areas of social inequity
• Data exclusion/inclusion/divides
• Digital cultural capital and cultural exclusion/inclusion
• Digital governance, policy and inclusion
• Digital health inequalities
For this book, these have been reorganized into the following seven ESRC domain
(p. 30)
chapters:
• Chapter 3. ESRC Review: Health and well-being

• Chapter 8. ESRC Review: Communication and relationships
• Chapter 11. ESRC Review: Economy and organizations
• Chapter 14. ESRC Review: Communities and identities
• Chapter 16. ESRC Review: Citizenship and politics
• Chapter 18. ESRC Review: Data and representation
• Chapter 22. ESRC Review: Governance and security
Page 37 of 46
Beyond the ESRC Project
As culmination of this project, a conference to present project findings and provide a con
text for debate was held on October 10 and 11 2017 at the University of Liverpool
(https://waysofbeingdigital.com/conference/). To complement and critique the work of the
ESRC project reviews, a call was publicized (through association email lists and websites,
and the conference website) to invite others to submit their extended abstracts for pre
sentation at the conference. Each presentation was attended by at least one of the edi
tors. After the conference, the editors went through the program and decided which of
the other researchers to invite to prepare their abstracts, presentations, or papers as full
reviews for the edited book. We were particularly interested in papers that built on re
views to offer analysis of research gaps and challenges for social research in the digital
age. Contributions come from established, early career, and PhD scholars who systemati
cally reviewed a research issue within one of the seven foci of the ESRC project.
Two further workshops developed a closer focus on issues of work and automation. The
joint UK ESRC and Defence Science and Technology Laboratory workshop held on 7th
and 8th of October 2016 at University of Liverpool in London considered the topic of The
Automation of Future Roles. This meeting brought together 33 academics, policy makers,
and industry stakeholders to explore the likely future impact of digital tools in the work
place, in particular the possible implications of the continued “automation” of human
tasks, roles, and jobs; knowledge, skills, and attributes; organizational structures, cul
tures, and development; workforce training, recruitment, engagement, and motivation;
and decision-making in organizations. A joint UK ESRC and US National Science Founda
tion workshop was held on October 12 and 13 2017 at the University of Liverpool on the
topic of Changing Work, Changing Lives in the New Technological World. This brought to
gether 35 experts from the academic and professional community, as well as top execu
tive and program directors from the U.K. Economic and Social Research Council and the
U.S. National Science Foundation to discuss shared programmatic research. In both cases
the two days consisted of intensely interactive group activities, generating extensive in
formation about issues, research programs, and timelines for possible impacts. The write-
up (p. 31) and analysis of these insights provided the basis for chapter 24, which synthe
sizes the implications of the domains for research and practice.
Thus, two primary contributions of the book’s review chapters are their unifying ap
proach and review focus, as well as the diversity of the authors’ expertise and disciplines.
The central ESRC domain reviews are the product of extensive, multi-method, cumulative
work, and provide a macro context for the associated more focused reviews of specific ar
eas within that section. The non-ESRC chapters hone in on more specific topics within
each of the domains, bringing to bear multi-disciplinary reviews and analyses. Overall,
the sections and chapters provide a multi-dimensional perspective on one of the most
consequential aspects of contemporary times: relationships between digital technology
and society.
Page 38 of 46
References in Main Text
Bell, D. (1973). The coming of post-industrial society: A venture in social forecasting. New
York: Basic Books.
Beniger, J. (1989). The control revolution: Technological and economic origins of the infor
mation society. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brand, S. (1987). The Media Lab: Inventing the future at MIT. New York: Viking Penguin.
Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Curtin, M. & Sanson, K. (Eds.) (2016). Precarious creativity: Global media, local labor.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Daley, B. (2015). Where data is wealth: Profiting from data storage in a digital society.
Stoke-On-Trent, UK: Play Technologies.
Fuchs, C. (2014). Digital Labour and Karl Marx. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.
Headrick, D. R. (2002). When information came of age: Technologies of knowledge in the

age of reason and revolution, 1700–1850. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Machlup, F. (1962). The production and distribution of knowledge in the United States
(Vol. 278). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Vintage.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company. NY: Oxford Univer
sity Press.
Porat, M. U. (1971). The information economy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Li
brary.
Yates, J. (1993). Control through communication: The rise of system in American manage
ment. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Zuboff, S. (1985). Automate/informate: The two faces of intelligent technology. Organiza

tional Dynamics, 14(2), 5–18.
References of Books for Issues and Contexts Analysis
[Numbers refer to their use in Table 6]
1. Alter, A. (2017). Irresistible: The rise of addictive technology and the business of keep
ing us hooked. London: Penguin.
2. Anand, B. (2016). The content trap: A strategist’s guide to digital change. New York:
Random House Group.
Page 39 of 46
3. Anduiza, E., Perea, E. A., Jensen, M. J., & Jorba, L. (Eds.). (2012). Digital media
(p. 32)
and political engagement worldwide: A comparative study. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.
4. Athique, A. (2013). Digital media and society: An introduction. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
& Sons.
5. Barney, D., Coleman, G., Ross, C., Sterne, J., & Tembeck, T. (Eds.) (2016). The participa
tory condition in the digital age. University of Minnesota Press.
6. Bauerlein, M. (2011). The digital divide: Arguments for and against Facebook, Google,
texting, and the age of social networking. London: Penguin.
7. Bennett, L., Chin, B., & Jones, B. (Eds.). (2015). Crowdfunding the future: Media indus
tries, ethics, and digital society (No. 98). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
8. Berger, T. (2017). @ Worship: Liturgical practices in digital worlds. New York: Rout
ledge.
9. Berry, D. M. (2015). Critical theory and the digital. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing
USA.
10. Beyes, T., Leeker, M., & Schipper, I. (Eds.). (2017). Performing the digital: Perfor
mance studies and performances in digital cultures. Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript-Ver
lag.
11. Botto, R. & Resende, L.M. (2017). Digital transformations: Technological innovations
in society in the connected future. Independently published via Amazon Digital Services.
12. Boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
13. Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and
prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. New York: WW Norton & Company.
14. Buckland, M. (2017). Information and society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15. Bunz, M., & Meikle, G. (2017). The Internet of things. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons.
16. Carr, N. (2011). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. New York: WW
Norton & Company.
17. Castells, M. (2015). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the Internet
age. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
18. Chayko, M. (2017). Superconnected: The internet, digital media, and techno-social
life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Page 40 of 46
19. Cheney-Lippold, J. (2017). We are data: Algorithms and the making of our digital
selves. New York: NYU Press.
20. Chun, W. H. K. (2017). Updating to remain the same: Habitual new media. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
21. Couldry, N. (2012). Media, society, world: Social theory and digital media practice.
Cambridge, UK: Polity.
22. Cover, R. (2015). Digital identities: Creating and communicating the online self. Cam
bridge, MA: Academic Press.
23. Cubitt, S. (2016). Finite media: Environmental implications of digital technologies.

Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
24. Daley, B. (2015). Where data is wealth: Profiting from data storage in a digital society.
Play Technologies.
25. Dey, A. (2018). Nirbhaya, New media and digital gender activism. Bingley, UK: Bing
ley, UK: Emerald Group Pub Ltd.
26. Dourish, P., & Bell, G. (2011). Divining a digital future: Mess and mythology in ubiqui
tous computing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
27. Ellcessor, E. (2016). Restricted access: Media, disability, and the politics of participa
tion. New York: NYU Press.
28. Elliott, D., & Spence, E. H. (2017). Ethics for a digital era. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons.
(p. 33) 29. Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police,
and punish the poor. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
30. Ford, M. (2015). Rise of the robots: Technology and the threat of a jobless future. New
York: Basic Books.
31. Fotopoulou, A. (2017). Feminist activism and digital networks: Between empowerment
and vulnerability. New York: Springer.
32. Gershenfeld, N., Gershenfeld, A., & Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. (2017). Designing reality:
How to survive and thrive in the third digital revolution. New York: Basic Books.
33. Gillespie, T., Boczkowski, P. J., & Foot, K. A. (Eds.). (2014). Media technologies: Essays
on communication, materiality, and society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
34. Goldsmith, K. (2016). Wasting time on the Internet. New York: Harper Perennial.
35. González-Bailón, S. (2017). Decoding the social world: Data science and the unintend
ed consequences of communication. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Page 41 of 46
36. Goodman, M. (2015). Future crimes: Inside the digital underground and the battle for
our connected world. New York: Random House.
37. Gordon, E., & Mihailidis, P. (Eds.). (2016). Civic media: Technology, design, practice.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38. Graham, M. & Dutton, W. H. (Eds.) (2014). Society & the Internet: How networks of
information and communication are changing our lives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
39. Graham, R. (2014). The digital practices of African Americans: An approach to study
ing cultural change in the information society. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
40. Gronlund, M. (2016). Contemporary art and digital culture. New York: Routledge.
41. Hanna, N. K. (Ed.). (2016). Mastering digital transformation: Towards a smarter soci
ety, economy, city and nation. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
42. Hu, T. H. (2015). A prehistory of the cloud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43. Humphreys, L. (2018). The qualified self: Social media and the accounting of everyday
life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44. Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., boyd, d., Cody, R., Stephenson, B. H., Horst, H. A., …
& Tripp, L, (2009). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learn
ing with new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
45. James, C. (2014). Disconnected: Youth, new media, and the ethics gap. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
46. Johnson, C. A. (2015). The information diet: A case for conscious consumption. Se
bastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.
47. Kember, S., & Zylinska, J. (2012). Life after new media: Mediation as a vital process.
48. Krieger, D. J., & Belliger, A. (2014). Interpreting networks: Hermeneutics, actor-net
work theory & new media (Vol. 4). Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript-Verlag.
49. Kvedar, J. C., Colman, C., & Cella, G. (2017). The new mobile age: How technology will
extend the healthspan and optimize the lifespan. Amazon Digital Services.
50. Levy, D. M. (2016). Mindful tech: How to bring balance to our digital lives. New
Haven, CN: Yale University Press.
51. Lindgren, S. (2017). Digital media and society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52. Lingel, J. (2017). Digital countercultures and the struggle for community. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Page 42 of 46
53. Livingstone, S. (2009). Children and the Internet. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
54. Livingstone, S., & Sefton-Green, J. (2016). The class: Living and learning in the
(p. 34)
digital age. New York: NYU Press.
55. Lupton, D. (2016). The quantified self. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
56. Lynch, M. P. (2016). The internet of us: Knowing more and understanding less in the
age of big data. New York: WW Norton & Company.
57. Mansell, R., Ang, P. H, Steinfield, C., van der Graaf, S., Ballon, P., Kerr, A., …
Grimshaw, D. J. (Eds.). (2015). The International encyclopedia of digital communication
and society (3 volume set). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
58. Martin, W. J. (2017). The global information society. New York: Routledge.
59. Mosco, V. (2017). Becoming digital: Toward a post-Internet society. Bingley, UK: Emer
ald Publishing Limited.
60. Mueller, M. L. (2010). Networks and states: The global politics of Internet
governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
61. Nafus, D. (Ed.). (2016). Quantified: Biosensing technologies in everyday life. Cam
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
62. Napoli, P. M. (2011). Audience evolution: New technologies and the transformation of
media audiences. New York: Columbia University Press.
63. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism.
New York: NYU Press.
64. Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2016). Born digital: How children grow up in a digital age.
New York: Basic Books.
65. Penney, J. (2017). The citizen marketer: Promoting political opinion in the social media
age. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
66. Phillips, W., & Milner, R. M. (2018). The ambivalent Internet: Mischief, oddity, and an
tagonism online. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
67. Pschera, A. & Lauffer, E. (translator) (2016). Animal Internet: Nature and the digital
revolution. New York: New Vessel Press.
68. Rains, S. A. (2018). Coping with illness digitally. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
69. Reed, T. V. (2014). Digitized lives: Culture, power, and social change in the Internet
era. New York: Routledge.
70. Rheingold, H. (2012). Net smart: How to thrive online. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
Page 43 of 46
71. Rossignoli, C., Virili, F., & Za, S. (Eds.). (2017). Digital technology and organizational
change: Reshaping technology, people, and organizations towards a global society. New
York: Springer.
72. Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., Alemán, A. M. M., & Savitz-Romer, M. (2018). Technology and
engagement: Making technology work for first generation college students. New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
73. Rudder, C. (2014). Dataclysm: Love, sex, race, and identity—What our online lives tell
us about our offline selves. Crown.
74. Scheff, S., & Schorr, M. (2017). Shame nation: The global epidemic of online hate.
Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks, Inc.
75. Schneier, B. (2015). Data and Goliath: The hidden battles to collect your data and con
trol your world. New York: WW Norton & Company.
76. Scholz, T. (Ed.). (2012). Digital labor: The Internet as playground and factory. New
York: Routledge.
77. Schwab, K. (2017). The fourth industrial revolution. New York: Crown Business.
78. Shifman, L. (2014). Memes in digital culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
(p. 35) 79. Sonnier, P. (2017). The fourth wave: Digital health. https://
storyofdigitalhealth.com/fourth-wave-book
80. Steiner-Adair, C. & Barker, T. H. (2013). The big disconnect: Protecting childhood and
family relationships in the digital age. New York: Harper Business.
81. Tapscott, D. & Tapscott, A. (2018). Blockchain revolution: How the technology behind
Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies is changing the world. New York: Portfolio-Penguin.
82. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from
each other. New York: Basic Books.
83. Turow, J. (2012). The daily you: How the new advertising industry is defining your
identity and your worth. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
84. Turow, J. (2017). The aisles have eyes: How retailers track your shopping, strip your
privacy, and define your power. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
85. Van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. Ox
ford, UK: Oxford University Press.
86. Webster, J. G. (2014). The marketplace of attention: How audiences take shape in a
digital age. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Page 44 of 46
87. White, A. (2014). Digital media and society: Transforming economics, politics and so
cial practices. New York: Springer.
88. Wiesinger, S., & Beliveau, R. (2016). Digital literacy: A primer on media, identity, and
the evolution of technology. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
89. Wu, T. (2017). The attention merchants: The epic scramble to get inside our heads.
New York: Vintage
Ronald E. Rice
Ronald E. Rice (PhD, Stanford University, 1982) is the Arthur N. Rupe Chair in the
Social Effects of Mass Communication in the Department of Communication at Uni
versity of California, Santa Barbara. Dr. Rice has been awarded an Honorary Doctor
ate from University of Montreal (2010), an International Communication Association
(ICA) Fellow, selected President of the ICA (2006–2007), awarded a Fulbright Award
to Finland (2006), and appointed as the Wee Kim Wee Professor at the School of
Communication and Information and the Visiting University Professor, both at
Nanyang Technological University in Singapore (Augusts 2007–2009 and June 2010).
His co-authored or co-edited books include Organizations and unusual routines: A
systems analysis of dysfunctional feedback processes (2010); Media ownership: Re
search and regulation (2008); The Internet and health care: Theory, research and
practice (2006); Social consequences of internet use: Access, involvement and inter
action (2002); The Internet and health communication (2001); Accessing and brows
ing information and communication (2001); Public communication campaigns (1981,
1989, 2001, 2012); Research methods and the new media (1988); Managing organi
zational innovation (1987); And The new media: Communication, research and tech
nology (1984). He has published over 150 refereed journal articles and 70 book chap
ters. Dr. Rice has conducted research and published widely in communication sci
ence, public communication campaigns, computer-mediated communication systems,
methodology, organizational and management theory, information systems, informa
tion science and bibliometrics, social uses and effects of the Internet, and social net
works. http://www.comm.ucsb.edu/people/ronald-e-rice
Simeon J. Yates
Simeon J. Yates (PhD, Open University UK, 1993) is Professor of Digital Culture and
Associate Pro-Vice-Chancellor Research Environment and Postgraduate Research at
University of Liverpool. His research on the social, political, and cultural impacts of
digital media includes a long-standing focus on digital media and interpersonal inter
action. More recently, he has worked on projects that address issues of digital inclu
sion and exclusion. He was seconded to the UK Government’s Department of Digital,
Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) in 2017 to act as research lead for the Digital Cul
ture team. He remains the joint-chair of the DCMS Research Working Group on Digi
tal Skills and Inclusion. His prior work covered topics such as the use of digital tech
nologies in the workplace, digital media use during crises, and ICT use by the securi
Page 45 of 46
ty services. The majority of his research has been funded by the Economic and Social
Research Council (ESRC), the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), EU,
and industry. Simeon’s work has often been interdisciplinary and has predominantly
involved creative and digital industry partners. He led on a major Engineering and
Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) funded interdisciplinary program (Engi
neering for Life) while at Sheffield Hallam. Simeon has been researching the impacts
of the internet and digital media on language and culture since 1990. His PhD thesis
(1993) is a large-scale linguistic comparison of speech, writing, and online interac
tion. Subsequent published work has covered analyses of gender differences in com
puter-mediated communication (CMC), gender and computer gaming, email and let
ter writing, and science in the mass media. Simeon has written text books on social
research methods—in particular, linguistic and discourse analytic methods. https://
Jordana Blejmar
Jordana Blejmar (MPhil, PhD as a Gates Scholar, University of Cambridge) is Lectur

er in Visual Media and Cultural Studies in the School of the Arts, University of Liver
pool, after previously working on an Arts and Humanities Research Center–funded
project on Latin American Digital Art. Before Liverpool, she was Lecturer in Hispanic
Studies at the Institute of Modern Languages Research, University of London. Her
research is situated at the meeting point of Latin American visual cultures, memory
studies, and digital humanities. She is the author of Playful Memories: The Autofic
tional Turn in Post-Dictatorship Argentina (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017). She has co-
edited several books and has also published articles and book chapters on contempo
rary Latin American, especially Argentine, literature, art, photography, theater, digi
tal artworks, and film.
Page 46 of 46
ESRC Review: Methodology

Simeon J. Yates, Iona C. Hine, Michael Pidd, Jerome Fuselier, and Paul Watry
This chapter summarizes and describes the methodology used to generate and analyze
the literature for the ESRC Review Chapters (3, 8, 11, 14, 16, 18, and 22). A core goal of
the project was to undertake a systematic literature review and synthesis to identify gaps
in current research. This process included Delphi reviews, digital and manual coding of
the literature to identify topics and trends, and stakeholder engagement. The first section
describes the project team and its participants, what they contributed, and how other
stakeholders were engaged. The second section identifies the initial scoping areas and
how these were used to identify seven primary domains, to which separate project teams
were assigned. These scoping areas included the use of theory and methods. The next
section introduces the Delphi process, the eight administrations and six related work
shops, based on the initial scoping areas. Key questions, topics, challenges, and literature
identified through the Delphi and workshop activities were then used as comparisons to,
and guidelines for, the literature reviews. The project developed narrative reviews from
the database of over 6,000 publications, using a variety of digital humanities tools and
manual content analysis (to code for theory, method, and population sample). The digital
tools included concept mapping and topic analysis, and were used to identify the most
frequent topics or concepts and related terms or themes. Manual content analysis was
used to summarize main discipline, theories used in empirical work, theory development,
empirical methods, population studies, and data analysis methods.
Keywords: digital and manual coding, digital humanities tools, Delphi reviews, ESRC Review, manual content
analysis, narrative reviews
Introduction
AS noted in chapter 1 of this book, many of the chapters are developed from the findings
of the “Ways of Being in a Digital Age” project commissioned by the UK Economic and So
cial Research Council (ESRC). This scoping review project was commissioned to provide a
more holistic view of research on how digital technology mediates our lives, and of the
ways technological and social change co-evolve and impact each other. A core goal of the
Page 1 of 23
project was to undertake a systematic literature review and synthesis of expert opinions
so as to identify gaps in current research. This chapter sets out how the data and results
presented in the ESRC overview chapters of this book were generated (chapters 3, 8, 11,
14, 16, 18, and 22). The methods used were in part defined by the nature of the chal
lenge: as the project was commissioned to complete the review in just under 12 months, a
considerable part of the project had to be automated in some manner. This provided the
opportunity to examine a range of “digital” methods by which a large body of literature,
data, and evidence could be summarized.
Participants
Project Team
The core project team consisted of staff who, at the time, were based at the University of
Liverpool, University of Sheffield, and University of Newcastle. A broader group of UK co-
investigators and non-UK advisors from 16 universities across the UK, EU, USA, and Sin
gapore also supported the project. This provided expertise across a range of social (p. 37)
(p. 38) science, arts, engineering, and science backgrounds (see Table 2.1). Overall these
colleagues predominantly provided input to the Delphi elements of the project, work
shops, and conferences. The key contribution from all these colleagues was the provision
of initial inclusion criteria, key words, and key citations for the systematic reviews. The
main technical partner for this project was the Digital Humanities Institute (DHI) at the
University of Sheffield. In this project the DHI provided the technical and analytical skills
to undertake the concept-modelling work needed to explore the full range of literature
covered by the review chapters. The work of the DHI was complimented by University of
Liverpool researchers using related methods.
Page 2 of 23
Table 2.1 Steering Group
Group mem Role Group Institution Discipline Research

ber
Simeon Yates PI, Core SG University of Social science Digital culture

Liverpool
Michael Pidd Co-I, Core DH University of History Digital humani

Sheffield ties
Adam Joinson Co-I SG University of Psychology Computer-medi

Bath ated communi
cation
Ann Light Co-I SG University of HCI and design Human comput

Sussex er interaction
and design
Simon Maskell Co-I SG University of Computer sci Data analytics

Liverpool ence
Claire Taylor Co-I SG University of Modern lan Digital culture

Liverpool guages and community
Leanne Co-I SG University of Sociology Communities

Townsend Aberdeen and digital
Page 3 of 23
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individ
ual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Vishanth Weer Co-I SG Brunel Universi Information e-Government

akkody ty studies
Bridgette Wes Co-I, Core SG University of Sociology Internet studies

sels Newcastle
Monica Whitty Co-I SG University of Psychology Identity and se

Leicester curity online
Naomi Baron SG American Uni Linguistics Computer-medi

versity, Wash ated communi
ington, D.C. cation
Catherine SG University of Information Identity online

Brookes Arizona studies
William Dutton SG Michigan State Communication Internet studies

University studies
Alex Frame SG University of Linguistics Digital media

Bourgogne, Di and politics
jon
Ellen Helsper SG London School Communication Digital inclusion

of Economics studies
Page 4 of 23
Rich Ling SG Nanyang Tech Sociology Media technolo

nological Uni gy
versity, Singa
pore
Alison Preston SG Ofcom Media policy Head of media

Literacy re
search
Ronald E. Rice SG University of Communication New media, dif

California, San fusion
ta Barbara
Laura Robinson SG Santa Clara Sociology Digital exclu

University/Uni sion
versity of Cali
fornia Berkley
Alison Vincent SG Cisco CDI sector Chief technolo

gy officer for
Cisco
Paul Watry DH University of School of Histo Digital humani

Liverpool ries, Lan ties
guages, and
Cultures
Page 5 of 23
Note: SG = steering group; DH = digital humanities group
Page 6 of 23
Stakeholder Engagement
In order for both academics and potential stakeholders to have an opportunity to inform
the review within the short time frame, the team made use of key networks of which they
were already members. As will be detailed in the section on the Delphi methods, these ex
isting networks were key to the initial data collection. To connect with non-academics, the
project worked with the Digital Leaders network as a route to engage private sector, pub
lic sector, and third sector partners (http://digileaders.com). Established by Martha Lane
Fox, the Digital Leaders network provides access to around 40,000 corporate, Small and
Medium Sized Enterprise (SME), national government, local government, academic, and
charity staff and organizations. The project lead (Yates) ran the Digital Leaders Research
theme. Yates and Helsper are also members of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media
and Sport’s (DCMS) Digital Skills and Inclusion Research Working Group, which under
takes reviews of UK digital engagement strategy and policy research. All of the UK Steer
ing Group members have been members of relevant ESRC, Arts and Humanities Research
Council, or Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council networks, funded pro
grams, or have had senior roles in UK Research and Innovation policy and practice in re
gard to digital research. Other networks that the overall team are part of include the
Communities and Cultures Network; New Social Media, New Social Science Network; Eu
ropean Sociological Association (Communities and Digital Cultures groups); International
Communication Association (Communication and (p. 39) Technology Section); US Partner
ship for Progress on the Digital Divide; Digital Latin American Cultures Network; Centre
for Research and Evidence on Security Threats; the Cabinet Office Behavioural Science
Expert Group; ESRC Emoticon Network; EU COST Action on Social Media and Social
Networks; ECREA Material Digital Cultures group; British Sociological Association Digi
tal Sociology group; the EU e-forum; and the Meccsa Policy Group.
Initial Outline for the Scoping Areas

Domains and Goals
The ESRC commission identified a number of potential questions for future research
work. The scoping review took these as a starting point that could be added to, devel
oped, and validated. The team separated these into seven major foci for the review (see
Table 2.2). We have called these seven foci “domains.” The goal of the review was to as
sess the following for each domain:
• What existing literature addressed these domains and what central topics
(p. 40)
emerged from them

• How the reported research addressed these domains
• What experts viewed as the gaps in understanding in regard to these domains
• Some suggestions of future research directions and challenges for each of these do
mains
Page 7 of 23
Table 2.2 Initial Scoping Questions
1. Citizenship and politics

How does digital technology impact our autonomy, agency, and priva
cy—illustrated by the paradox of emancipation and control?
Is our understanding of citizenship evolving in the digital age—for
example does technology help or hinder us in participating at individ
ual and community levels? If so how?
2. Communities and identities

How do we define and authenticate ourselves in a digital age?
What new forms of communities and work emerge as a result of digi
tal technologies—for example, new forms of coordination including
large-scale and remote collaboration?
3. Communication and relationships

How are our relationships being shaped and sustained in and be
tween various domains, including family and work?
4. Health and well-being

Does technology makes us healthier, better educated, and more pro
ductive?
5. Economy and sustainability

How do we construct the digital to be open to all, sustainable, and
secure?
What impacts might the automation of the future workforce bring?
6. Data and representation

How do we live with and trust the algorithms and data analysis used
to shape key features of our lives?
7. Governance and security

What are the challenges of ethics, trust, and consent in the digital
age?
How do we define responsibility and accountability in the digital age?
The reviews also sought to describe and assess the use of theory and of methods in each
of the domains.
Page 8 of 23
Use of Theory
This element of the analysis considered how theories are used both deductively to set up
empirical work and/or to provide explanation and conclusions from inductive work. Some
key questions around theory included: How is the digital socially and technically concep
tualized? Which theories are predominant in which domains? What new theory has been
developed, and/or is “old theory” adequate to the task of explaining the social impacts
and use of the digital? To what extent is digital research theoretically or empirically dri
ven? Which concepts and key themes cluster and link regardless of theoretical or empiri
cal approach? Can a new “theoretical framework” for understanding the digital be gener
ated, and is this needed? To what extent have interdisciplinary approaches modified or
developed theory?
Use of Methods
This element emphasized the range of methods, types of data, and research contexts in
the examined literature. Some key questions that were addressed include: Which meth
ods predominate in which domains of work? Does the availability of large volumes of digi
tal data change how the digital is studied and/or the approaches taken to the social in a
digital world? Are certain methods intrinsically linked to certain domains or theories?
How are methods tied to the social contexts around digital research? Have interdiscipli
nary approaches modified or prioritized certain methods in the study of the digital?
Approaches for the Review

The project explored these questions for each domain through both established and new
digital approaches to systematic reviewing and expert opinion elicitation:
(p. 41) • Delphi reviews of expert opinion for each domain

• Stakeholder engagement
• Digital examination of and systematic review of a citation-led sampling of the litera
ture
Delphi Process
As a starting point the project undertook seven sets of Delphi process interviews (Lin
stone & Turoff, 1975). An eighth set, run with non-academic stakeholders, was undertak
en via a series of workshops and “salon events.” Round one of the Delphi process was un
dertaken with the project Steering Group. The results from this were used to develop a
snowball sample of additional domain experts. Round two was undertaken with this iden
tified sample. Round three consisted of a confirmatory survey of international scholars
and a consultation workshop with the UK Steering Group and a set of invited UK acade
mics. Delphi methods have a long history going back to the 1950’s and were initially de
signed as a method for forecasting or predicting outcomes in complex situations. More re
Page 9 of 23
cently, the methods have been employed as a set of tools for systematic knowledge elicita
tion in complex domains.
Figure 2.1 Delphi process.
The Delphi method in most cases is a structured iterative communication technique or

method by which a panel of experts provide evidence and then review this evidence, look
ing to move to a broad consensus position (Figure 2.1). Delphi methods are based on the
principle that knowledge, decisions, or forecasts from a selected group of individuals
(experts) who iteratively review information are more accurate than those from un
(p. 42)
structured groups. In a standard Delphi process the selected experts answer question
naires or semi-structured surveys in two or more rounds. The results of each round are
summarized by the team managing the process and provided back as an anonymized sum
mary to the expert panel. The panel is then provided the opportunity to revise their an
swers in light of these summaries, with the goal of reaching either an overall consensus,
or statistically acceptable “mean” or average, where numeric predictions are being
sought.
We modified our Delphi process to incorporate the outcomes of the literature review
work. Rounds one and two helped to provide the basis of both the literature work and po
tential research gaps. Round one was conducted with the project Steering Group (see Ta
ble 2.1). This included the opportunity for the team to identify key scholars in the field for
round two of the Delphi process as well as starting points for the literature review. Delphi
reviews are often undertaken anonymously—in that the experts do not know who the oth
er contributors are—and are also conducted remotely. In our case Round one was con
ducted with the steering group, so this was not anonymous. Round two was undertaken
anonymously among the experts identified in Round one. Invitations to contribute were
sent out by email, and the data were collected via an online survey tool. Experts were in
vited to contribute answers around one of the seven domains relevant to their back
grounds as identified by the core team. The team only changed this allocation when ex
perts notably self-identified with a different domain to that which they had been allocat
ed. Round three consisted of a consultation workshop based on the Delphi and literature
Page 10 of 23
review findings and a confirmatory survey. The survey was sent to all prior participants,
asking asked them to rank the identified topics and challenges in terms of importance for
future research. The Delphi process therefore identified four sets of data for each do
main:
1) Initial scoping questions for future programs of research

2) Key authors and key literature for each domain
3) Key topics to be addressed within these programs of work
4) Key challenges when undertaking these programs of research
Initial scoping questions for future programs of research. Though Table 2.2 details
the initial scoping questions set by the ESRC, we utilized rounds one and two of the Del
phi process to validate and expand these as required. In all cases, this led to the initial
scoping questions being modified. The specific changes to each of these domains are de
tailed in the ESRC review chapters (Chapters 3, 8, 11, 14, 16, 18, and 22). In some cases,
this involved expansion of the questions (e.g., in the Communication and Relationships
domain), or focusing on specific interpretations of terms (e.g., in the Health and Well-be
ing domain). Delphi respondents were asked to use their interpretation of the domain
scoping questions as the basis for their answers to the Delphi survey.
Key authors and key literature for each domain. The experts were asked for key au
thors, key items of literature, and key search terms (derived from their scoping ques
tions) for the (p. 43) collection of the domain literature. This information was then used to
systematically collect literature from key databases (Web of Science-ISI Web of Knowl
edge; Social Sciences Citation Index; Google Scholar).
Key topics to be addressed within these programs of work. The survey first explored
which “topics” the experts believed needed further research within the domain. These
might be areas where there is a lack of research, where further research was needed, or
where specific questions needed to be unpacked further. The responses provided the ba
sis for assessing future research areas in the domain. They could also be matched against
and compared with the concepts and topics identified in the literature review.
Key challenges when undertaking these programs of research. The survey next
asked experts to highlight the methodological, practical, and other challenges that might
be faced when attempting to address the topic areas they had identified. These might be
existing challenges for relevant research but also new ones due to the digital context of
the research. The methodological challenges could be compared to and contrasted with
the methods and approaches identified in the literature. One of the key features of the
Delphi process results was the commonality of responses to the “challenges” questions
across all seven domains. We have therefore reported these cross-cutting challenges as a
separate chapter (Chapter 25) and sought to identify specific challenges when reporting
on each domain.
Page 11 of 23
Stakeholder Engagement: Workshops
The project organized a range of facilitated workshops to engage academic and non-acad
emic stakeholder partners. The main one of these was a final consultation workshop to re
view the outcomes of the Delphi process. This was attended by the majority of the UK
members of the Steering Group as well as UK colleagues identified in the Delphi process,
via the literature review and the other workshops. Two additional workshops explored the
impacts of Automation on work and society and were supported by the ESRC, the UK De
fence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL), and the US National Science Founda
tion (NSF). A total of six workshop programs contributed to the project:
1) Salon events in collaboration with Digital Leaders (www.digileaders.com). Salon

events involved short presentations to develop discussion followed by open
“Chatham house rules” (https://www.chathamhouse.org/chatham-house-rule) discus
sions among academic, industry, and policy partners. Salon events were led by acad
emics based on the domains and the team attended industry led Salon events. These
allowed for non-academic input to the Delphi process.
2) A joint ESRC and DSTL funded facilitated workshop to explore research topics
around the social impacts of automation and augmentation in the workplace.
(p. 44) 3) A further joint ESRC and NSF workshop on “Work at the Human Technolo
gy Interface.”
4) A joint MECSSA and project supported workshop on “digital policy,” which exam
ined the policy and policy-making issues arising from digital media.
5) A project and UK Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport workshop to
explore the impacts of digital on the arts and cultural sector.
6) An academic symposium discussing the results from the project and seeking fur
ther invited review papers, some of which are in this volume, conducted by the
project just prior to the ESRC and NSF workshop.
Systematic Literature Reviews
Approach. As noted above the Delphi process provided the literature survey with three
initial starting points for the literature review:
• Key authors
• Key words—from the scoping questions
• Key literature—as the starting point for citation searchers
The collection of literature was undertaken twice, following rounds one and two of the
Delphi process. This produced two overlapping sets of key literature that were combined
for the final analytical work and content analysis. Given the volume of published work
within the seven domains, undertaking a meta-analysis to synthesise the quantitative re
sults of available empirical studies (Blundell, 2013) was not possible. Nor, as the ESRC
Review chapters (Chapters 3, 8, 11, 14, 16, 18, and 22) point out, were there enough em
Page 12 of 23
pirical studies of similar design and focus (either deductive or inductive) to undertake
such a process. Rather, to address the challenges of dealing with such a large body of da
ta, a partly automated systematic narrative review (Popay et al., 2006) was undertaken
with the goal of synthesizing primary studies and descriptively exploring the heterogene
ity of work.
This hopefully provides the basis for targeted systematic literature reviews for hypothesis
generation (Petticrew & Roberts, 2008) likely to be undertaken by future studies. A key
element defining the approach was the need to address the large volume of work in each
domain within the limited timescale of a few months. The project had an overall database
of just under 6,000 potential target publications from key authors and flowing from cita
tions of key papers, identified by the two rounds of the Delphi work. The databases
searched to collect this material were the ISI Web of Science (http://
webofknowledge.com/), the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences and Google
Scholar. Google Scholar produced results outside the date range and some non-academic
“grey literature.” Other bibliographic studies, especially social studies of science, under
taking citation analyses have been able to gain formally agreed commercial access to
publisher APIs (application programming interfaces)—so as to be able to “scrape”
searched-for (p. 45) items—this was not feasible within the budget and timescale of the
project. As a result, the majority of papers were downloaded manually or by utilizing tools
with limits on downloads. Of the initial 6,000 target cases, once non-academic “grey liter
ature,” papers published outside the main sampling frame date range (2000–2016), and
items not available in digital format were removed, this left 3,971 publications included in
the analysis. We estimated that to systematically read, review, and code these by hand for
all of the various aspects discussed in the review chapters of the analyses below (that is,
coding for all overlapping concepts and topics, theory, methods and analytical approach)
would have taken as a minimum 12,000 person hours or around seven person years of
work. This challenge is not unique to contemporary research in all academic fields, and
reflects a growing problem for academic work, as Petticrew and Roberts note:
The problem is not just one of inconsistency, but one of information overload. The
past 20 years have seen an explosion in the amount of research information avail
able to decision makers and social researchers alike. With new journals launched
yearly, and thousands of research papers published, it is impossible for even the
most energetic policymaker or researcher to keep up-to-date with the most recent
research evidence, unless they are interested in a very narrow field indeed.
(Petticrew & Roberts, 2008, p. 7)
We would also argue that this issue is compounded for inherently interdisciplinary work,
such as the study of the social impacts of digital media and technologies. Relevant papers
on a question such as the role of digital media in interpersonal interaction may be found
in psychology, sociology, linguistics, computer science, information studies, philosophy,
and health care publications. To solve this dilemma, we looked to digital technology solu
tions. The survey was therefore in part an “experimental” consideration of the use of digi
Page 13 of 23
tal tools developed in digital humanities, social sciences, and linguistics to analyze large
bodies of text. These tools supported the core team in undertaking the review through lin
guistic, content, and reflective methods. Similar, both automated and non-automated,
methods have been applied to the contents of this volume in chapter 25.
More specifically, undertaking a systematic review in the social sciences involves a num
ber of challenges that are less of a concern in other science contexts. First, a large pro
portion of the work will be case study based. Second, a considerable amount of work will
be in long form (books and edited collections) and will contain mostly narrative and theo
retical content. Third, other work, mainly in journals, will be predominantly empirical. We
therefore needed:
• An overall content analysis across theory, method, research topic, and context
• A predominantly narrative systematic review across the material to address descrip
tive, case study, theoretical, qualitative, and quantitative publications
Digital tools. As a first step, the literature was analyzed using linguistic, text mining and
computational tools to identify predominant topics and concepts within each domain,
(p. 46) involving three approaches: concept-modelling and two kinds of topic analysis.
Then a traditional manual content analysis was applied to assess theory and methods.
Concept-modelling—Linguistic DNA. First, literature identified after round one of the

Delphi process was subjected to a lengthy and detailed concept analysis. Concept-model
ling procedures, developed at the Digital Humanities Institute at the University of Sh
effield, in association with the University of Sheffield’s School of English, analyzed pat
terns within the literature to identify recurrent associations and themes. The procedures
output groups of words (or more specifically, lemmas) representing dominant associations
within each given dataset. For the current project, groups were limited to pairs accompa
nied by a non-ranked list of further associates, i.e. words repeatedly located alongside
those pairs (Fitzmaurice et al., 2017a; 2017b; also http://linguisticdna.org
linguisticdna.org). This process is underpinned by the notion of a discursive concept, as
theorized by Fitzmaurice et al. (2017a, 2017b). Though sometimes referenced by a single
word, the discursive concept cannot be reduced to that word but is a complex meaning
with wider inference. This inference can be detected by the other language that sur
rounds the word. For example, when an author uses the word “society” (or “societies”) we
can determine the inferred conceptual characteristics by identifying other words found
repeatedly in proximity (e.g. within the same paragraph), and modelling such patterns of
proximate words in the given text and in other texts. Importantly, concept-modelling en
ables us to detect how ideas, theories, and methods emerge and evolve within discourse,
by detecting changes in proximate words across texts and across time.
In the initial sample of documents supplied to the DHI team, “business” was discovered to
be strongly linked to “competence” (and vice versa), “consumer” with “self-service,” and
“knowledge” with “seeker.” Table 2.3 shows these concept-pairs with the first 20 associat
ed words arranged alphabetically (ranking of the associated words represents a further
Page 14 of 23
analytical step). This type of concept-modelling is distinct from topic modelling, in that it
focuses on sections of discourse that are shorter than a text, with a goal of extracting
conceptual structure and tracing patterns and change in language and thought.
Page 15 of 23
Table 2.3 Example Concept-Mapping by Digital Humanities Institute

at the University of Sheffield
business, compe consumer, self-ser knowledge,

tence vice seeker
administration academy ability
area addition action
awareness adoption ambiguity
breadth amount anticipation
capability anxiety average
category attitude awareness
client attribute beginning
collaboration banking bit
competency behavior capacity
component characteristic caution
concept checkout choice
construct comparison colleague
contribution control complexity
core customer condition
creation customization conjunction
definition delay correlation
deployment delivery cross
depth determinant decision
development difference delay
Page 16 of 23
dimension ease description

… … …
Note: Only the first 20 associated alphabetic terms are listed under
the three example concepts.
In practice, the process begins by identifying parts of speech and lemmas (in this case we
used Helmut Schmidt’s TreeTagger). The machine-readable texts then pass through a fur
ther algorithm pipeline that uses frequency and location to identify prominent lemma
pairs, applying a refined statistical probability calculation based on Pointwise Mutual In
formation. The core process can be repeated to identify other lemmas co-occurring re
peatedly with each pair, which have here been termed “associates.” These lexical rela
tionships can then be visualized via clustering algorithms and network diagrams. Con
cept-modelling is considered more nuanced than topic modelling, because it pays atten
tion to the relative location of words. The end result is a “concept model” that enables
users to explore how ideas, theories, and methods relating to ways of being in the digital
age emerge and evolve across the literature. As a tool, it provides a data-driven map for
identifying trends and anomalies that might warrant further study. Concept-modelling
outputs were presented via a range of visualizations including bubble maps (Figure 2.2)
and tree maps (Figure 2.3), with specific versions in each of (p. 47) the ESRC Review
chapters. An interactive browser-friendly version and further documentation may be
found online at https://dhi.ac.uk/waysofbeingdigital/.
Figure 2.2 Bubble map of concept pairs.
Page 17 of 23
Figure 2.3 Tree map of concept pairs.
Topic analysis. As a follow up to this analysis, the team applied two further digital meth
ods to the full data set of literature gathered after round 2 of the Delphi process. The first
involved the application of project-specific tools developed using Python to extract topics
through the statistical analysis of word frequency within individual documents. This work
was undertaken by a team at the University of Liverpool following methods outlined by
Sievert and Shirley (2014) and Chuang et al. (2012). This produced interactive maps of
topics (Figure 2.4) and key words (Figure 2.5).
Figure 2.4 Interactive topic modelling graph–topic.
Page 18 of 23
Figure 2.5 Interactive topic modelling graph–key

word.
Second, the same data were examined utilizing the commercial WordStat tool (https://
provalisresearch.com). The data were examined in WordStat at a paragraph (p. 48) rather
than document level. WordStat split the papers into paragraph segments and then con
structed a word-by-segment frequency matrix. This matrix is subjected to an exploratory
factor analysis using a Varimax rotation, from which a set of “factors” is extracted—these
should map onto consistent topics in the data. All words with a loading higher than a tar
get criterion (we used 0.3) are then defined as being an extracted topic (Figure 2.6). Us
ing this tool produced similar results to those from the University of Liverpool topic
analysis. Combining these three results allowed the team to develop a thematic meta-
analysis of the overall themes and issues in the literature (Petticrew & Roberts, 2008).
Figure 2.6 WordStat topic modelling.
The results from these three approaches are presented in the ESRC Review chapters for
each of the domains (chapters 3, 8, 11, 14, 16, 18, and 22). Though the underlying text-
mining methods are relatively established, these are novel and experimental approaches
Page 19 of 23
within the context of a study review such as this. In using these tools it was hoped that
the team would gain an overall appreciation of their usefulness for future research. Im
portantly they provided a route to understanding key concepts and topics within this very
large (p. 49) literature set within a short time frame, and allowed the team to compare the
literature topics with the proposed future topics identified in the Delphi process. Interac
tive visualizations of the topic-based data can be examined at https://
waysofbeingdigital.com/literature-analysis-interactive-results/; these are also explained as
a note in relevant ESRC Review chapters.
Content analysis. The final stage of the literature review was a content analysis focus
ing on the methods, theory, and data in the collected papers. The initial plan was to con
duct a random sample of papers so as to manage both volume and timescale, as this work
could not be done easily via digital tools. An initial test run found that nearly all of the re
quired information could be found in the abstracts, methods, and conclusion sections of
the papers, cutting down the time needed to code papers. This allowed a team of six re
searchers working in parallel to code the full corpus over a period of six weeks. The
project took inspiration from a recent in-depth content analysis of the Communication
Studies literature (Borah, 2017) on the social impact of the Internet, covering 56 journals
over a 16-year period (1998 to 2014). Borah’s analysis found that 70 percent of journal
papers on this subject did not employ any core theoretical position, nor use theory to de
fine a research question. Instead, papers predominantly reported on case studies or pre
sented analyses of empirical data sets. Following a similar method to Borah, the content
analysis systematically documented six aspects the publications in each domain:
1) Main discipline: as in sociology, communication studies, computer science, etc.,

primarily determined by the discipline of the lead or main authors.
(p. 50) (p. 51) (p. 52) 2) Theories used in empirical work: the project coded actual use
of theory to define hypotheses or to explore data. Very often theoretical positions

were mentioned but not used to define hypotheses or explore data. For example, the
works of Castells (2011) were often cited as well as those of van Dijk (2013). But
such references were used as scene-setting or as justifications for why studies of dig
ital media are important; they were rarely used to construct models nor explanations
of findings.
3) Theory development: either inductively from new data or deductively via empiri
cal testing.
4) Empirical methods used: whether qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods.
5) Type of population studied: from nationally representative surveys to target popu
lation or case studies.
6) Data analysis methods: including whether methods were described as “big data.”
The results of this content analysis are presented in each of the ESRC review chapters
(chapters 3, 8, 11, 14, 16, 18, and 22). The results show considerable variation across do
mains, with some favoring strongly quantitative work and others more varied approaches.
Page 20 of 23
As with Borah’s (2017) work, the formal use of theory to either develop hypotheses or ex
plore data was fairly limited in most domains.
Conclusion
This chapter has presented the approach to the analysis of both the literature review and
Delphi processes undertaken by the ESRC project “Ways of being in a digital age.” The
methods used addressed two challenges:
(p. 53) • Undertaking the analysis within a limited time frame of less than one calendar
year
• Utilizing and evaluating digital tools as far as possible in the analysis
It is important to note that the digital processes utilized by the project can be coupled
with tools to present the results in interactive—often visual—forms. Such processes there
by provide an opportunity to explore the data and literature in novel ways. This allows re
searchers to make use of the different views and representations as routes into the litera
ture and data in ways not previously available. The use of tools and processes in this
project was effectively experimental, exploring their to manage, review, and assess a
large body of literature. One of the team’s future research area recommendations is to
further assess such approaches to examining prior research publications. As we noted
earlier in this chapter, the challenge of having to deal with a large body of literature, or a
considerable body of academic evidence or opinion, is not specific to this project or this
research area. It is somewhat ironic that in support of an ever-growing range of academic
publications, and facilitating their ready access, digital media are also making it harder to
overview and assess these bodies of knowledge. Again, somewhat ironically, digital tools
(including algorithmic solutions) provide a route to manage this volume. In reflecting on
the process, the team would note that having multiple views, and importantly different
“algorithmic solutions” underlying these views, provides routes to cross-reference and
cross-validate results, as well as provide different insights. This digitally-derived insight
must also be combined with the insights from the extensive engagement of the re
searchers with the source materials.
References
Blundell, M. (2013). Understanding and synthesising my numerical data. In A. Boland, M.
G. Cherry, & R. Dickson (Eds.), Doing a systematic review: A student’s guide (pp. 94–124).
London: Sage.
Borah, P. (2017). Emerging communication technology research: Theoretical and method

ological variables in the last 16 years and future directions. New Media & Society, 19(4),
616–636.
Castells, M. (2011). The rise of the network society (Vol. 12). New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Page 21 of 23
Chuang, J., Manning, C. D., & Heer, J. (2012, May). Termite: Visualization techniques for
assessing textual topic models. In Proceedings of the international working conference on
advanced visual interfaces (pp. 74–77). New York: ACM.
Fitzmaurice, S., Robinson, J. A., Alexander, M., Hine, I. C., Mehl, S., & Dallachy, F.
(2017a). Linguistic DNA: Investigating conceptual change in early Modern English dis
course. In Studia Neophilogica, 89 Suppl, 1: Interfacing individuality and collaboration:
Patterns in English language research (Guest editors: I. Taavitsa, J. Smith, & M. Kytö).
2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00393274.2017.1333891.
Fitzmaurice, S., Robinson, J. A., Alexander, M., Hine, I. C., Mehl, S., & Dallachy, F.
(2017b). Reading into the past: Materials and methods in historical semantics research.
In T. Säily, A. Nurmi, M. Palander-Collin, & A. Auer (Eds.), Exploring future paths for his
torical sociolinguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Okoli, C. & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An ex
(p. 54)
ample, design considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42(1), 15–29.
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical
guide. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., … Duffy, S. (2006).
Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. ESRC Methods
Programme. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
233866356_Guidance_on_the_conduct_of_narrative_synthesis_in_systematic_reviews_A_produ
download doi:10.13140/2.1.1018.4643
Sievert, C. & Shirley, K. (2014). LDAvis: A method for visualizing and interpreting topics.
In Proceedings of the workshop on interactive language learning, visualization, and inter
faces (pp. 63–70). Baltimore, MD.
Van Dijk, J. A. (2013). A theory of the digital divide. In The digital divide (pp. 49–72). New
York: Routledge.
Simeon J. Yates
Page 22 of 23
Iona C. Hine
Iona C. Hine is a postdoctoral researcher at the Urban Institute at the University of

Sheffield. Together with Digital Humanities developers and colleagues in the School
of English, she has modelled discursive concepts in text collections ranging from the
earliest English print to comments on YouTube videos. She has a particular interest
in context and translation, as well as the challenges of unruly metadata. Her work
spans several disciplines, including biblical studies, early modern literature, and
translation studies.
Michael Pidd
Michael Pidd is Digital Director of HRI Digital at the Humanities Research Institute,
University of Sheffield, one of the United Kingdom’s leading Digital Humanities cen
ters. Michael has over 20 years of experience in developing, managing, and deliver
ing large collaborative research projects in the humanities and heritage subject do
mains.
Jerome Fuselier
Jerome Fuselier has been an Associate Researcher at the University of Liverpool

since 2008. Before that he was a Postdoc at Xerox Research Centre Europe. He was
awarded his PhD in 2006 at the Université Savoie Mont Blanc.
Paul Watry
Paul Watry is Principal Investigator for the Multivalent Digital Preservation Architec
ture project and the Cheshire digital library system. His primary area of interest is in
computational linguistics and in bibliographic analysis. A core activity is to develop
and implement a strategy which will embrace both electronic and traditional infor
mation resources and address the needs of both research and learning.
Page 23 of 23
ESRC Review: Health and Well-Being

Simeon J. Yates, Leanne Townsend, Monica Whitty, Ronald E. Rice, and Elinor
Carmi
This chapter describes the analyses and results for the ESRC Domain of Health and Well-
Being, guided by a three-part main question: “whether technology makes us healthier,
better educated, and more productive.” It first provides an initial overview of the major
insights from the literature review and analysis, the Delphi surveys, and workshop discus
sions about the relevant range of the concepts of health and well-being in a digital age.
The resulting focus is initially mostly about the technology but later on users, health, and
research. Eight main topics emerged, including health care, measures and measurement,
mobile and smartphone devices, social support, and weight loss. The analyses also high
lighted theory, methods, and approaches in the literature, showing a relatively even dis
tribution of deductive–inductive approaches and quantitative–qualitative approaches, us
ing several well-known theories from psychology (e.g., theories of behavior change) and
sociology (social networks). The review provides examples of literature from the project’s
study period that illustrate these topics. The chapter concludes with a discussion of fu
ture research directions (e.g., cross-platform or holistic assessments examining the ef
fects of broad, everyday digital technology use on health and well-being) and research
challenges (e.g., methods, rapid change in health care technology, big data for health,
and linking of personal and clinical health data with well-being outcomes).
Keywords: digital technology, ESRC Review, health, health care, mobile and smartphone devices, psychology, so
cial networks, social support, sociology, weight loss
Introduction
THIS chapter provides an overview of the results from analyses of the literature, the Del
phi process, and any relevant workshops for the Health and Well-Being domain. The ini
tial ESRC scoping question for this area of work was: “whether technology makes us
healthier, better educated, and more productive?” We first explore the results of the vari
ous digital humanities analyses of the literature and the review of methods and theory,
Page 1 of 41
and then set out the results of the Delphi process. We compare these results, and we con
clude with recommendations for areas of future study.
Initial Comments
This domain generated the largest set of literature of all. This appears to reflect discipli
nary differences with other domains. Much of the literature was within health studies and
health research journals. There was a stronger tendency to report experimental and em
pirical findings and there were far fewer general reviews. The responses to the Delphi
process focused on health and mainly health-based, well-being issues but not much on the
education element. We have also bracketed off the productivity issue in the health domain
as this was extensively addressed in the Automation Workshop and therefore is presented
in chapter 24. Workshops we ran with stakeholders via the UK Digital Leaders network
focused on two main areas: health inequalities and access to digital technologies and pri
vatization of health delivery through digitization. As a result, the one element of (p. 58)
the ESRC brief that is under-represented here is the question, “Does digital media make
us better educated?” We would argue that in relation to formal education this area is well
served by work on educational technology, so that issue is not analyzed here. In regard to
informal learning and also the specifics of both basic and complex digital skills—digital
literacies—this issue clearly runs through many of the chapters and analyses in this vol
ume.
Literature Analysis
Topics
As with the other literature analysis chapters in this volume, we aimed to identify two
sets of data. The first was key concept pairs and topics within the existing literature. This
allowed the comparison with areas of importance identified by the Delphi review. The sec
ond was a content analysis of the literature to explore the predominance of specific theo
ries, methods, and approaches.
The 11 most common concept pairs identified in the Round-1 literature are listed in Table
3.1. These represent the topics covering 2% or more of the identified cases. Table 3.2 lists
the main and second (sub) concepts identified.
Page 2 of 41
Table 3.1 Analysis Concepts Ranked
Concepts Percent
Disease 7.3
Body 4.6
Care 4.0
Health 3.8
Behavior 3.7
Loss 3.3
Activity 3.2
Network 2.6
Communication 2.4
Child 2.2
Intervention 2.1
Note: Topics occurring in at least 2% of the cases.
Page 3 of 41
Table 3.2 Concept Pairings—Main and Secondary Concepts
Page 4 of 41
Concepts Percent Concepts Percent Concepts Percent
disease 18.60 health 9.66 communica 6.14

tion
outbreak 6.26 promotion 9.66 conflict 1.91
prevention 4.59 loss 8.47 mail .95
sufferer 1.07 weight 8.47 stress 3.28
surveillance 6.68 activity 8.17 behaviour 9.36
body 11.69 conduct 2.09 counselling 3.10
device 2.44 isolation 1.25 recycling 2.03
embodiment 2.15 leisure 1.13 smoking 3.58
mass 3.22 pedometer 1.31 taxonomy .66
mother .95 sport 2.39 child 5.66
object 1.91 network 6.56 donation 1.13
self 1.01 outbreak 1.43 mother 4.53
Page 5 of 41
care 10.26 rice .89 intervention 5.43
caregiver 3.22 stress 2.92 mobile 1.91
clinic 2.74 vaccination 1.31 vegetable 3.52
follow-up 4.29
Note: bolded term is the main concept; the unbolded terms below that and above the line are the related subcon
cepts.
Page 6 of 41
Figures 3.1 and 3.2 display the changing nature and frequency of concept pairs from the
periods 2000–2004 and 2012–2016.1 Clearly the focus in the early period was on the tech
nology (computers, system, information, Internet, data, navigation, space, robot, phone)
with some relationships with people (user, scientist, and group), and only an emerging fo
cus explicitly on the health context (care, health, support, intervention, (p. 59) effects,
weight). By the later period, the most frequent concepts involve health (health, care, in
tervention, participant, patient, group, support) with the most frequent concept pairs in
volving those items, and then some emphasis on research (study, intervention, analysis,
data, control, outcome, effect, trial).
Figure 3.1 Health and Well-Being 2000–2004: Most

frequent concept pairs.
Figure 3.2 Health and Well-Being 2012–2016: Most

frequent concept pairs.
Page 7 of 41
All the literature collected from both rounds was analyzed using Wordstat. Wordstat iden
tified 18 topics, presented in Table 3.3.
Page 8 of 41
Table 3.3 Wordstat Analysis of Topics
Topic Keywords Eigenvalue Freq Cases Cases (%)
Educational LEARN; STU 9.38 21,504 752 92.7

technology DENT;
TEACHER;
LEARNER;
EDUC; COLLA
BOR; TECH
NOLOGI
Health care CARE; 2.97 54,753 775 95.6

HEALTH;
PATIENT;
MEDIC; IN
FORM; PRAC
TIC; PRO
FESSION
Measures ITEM; SCALE; 2.35 25,758 759 93.6

MEASUR;
SCORE; WA;
QUESTION
NAIR; ASSESS
Page 9 of 41
Social support WEAK; TIE; TI; 2.26 13,485 739 91.1

network analy NETWORK;
sis SUPPORT
Mobile devices MOBIL; DEVIC; 2.11 11,251 680 83.9

PHONE; APP;
DIGIT; MONI
TOR; TRACK
Weight loss WEIGHT; LOSS; 2.00 4616 419 51.7

OBES
Ethnicity and ETHNIC; GEN 1.88 7575 640 78.9

gender DER; AG;
STATU; BLACK
Disease out OUTBREAK; 1.86 6349 469 57.8

break surveil SURVEIL;
lance DISEAS; IN
FECT; IN
FLUENZA; VAC
CIN; UENZA
Stopping smok SMOKE; 1.71 2363 183 22.6

ing CESSAT;
SMOKER
Page 10 of 41
Efficacy EF; CACI; FECT 1.68 2798 304 37.5
Family MOTHER; IN 1.66 3764 537 66.2

FANT; PARENT;
CHILDREN;
BODI
Product quality HEDON; 1.61 5776 634 78.3

BEAUTI;
USABL; PROD
UCT; QUALITI
Social media FACEBOOK; 1.54 23,283 746 92.0

MEDIA; TWIT
TER; SOCIAL;
SITE; BLOG;
POST; SHARE;
CONTENT
Hypertension PRESSUR; 1.52 1537 269 33.2

BLOOD
Chronic dis CHRONIC; 1.48 3190 452 55.7

eases PAIN; DISEAS;
ILL
Page 11 of 41
Palliative care PALLI; TELE 1.46 510 25 3.1

CONSULT
Activity ACTIV; TECH 1.45 22,405 764 94.2

NIQU; AR
Controlled trial TRIAL; INTER 1.42 17,838 677 83.5

VENT; RAN
DOM; CON
TROL
Page 12 of 41
Page 13 of 41
Table 3.4 Comparison between Concepts and WordStat Topics
Con Dis Body Care Healt Be Loss Activ Net Com Child Inter
cept/ ease h hav ity work mu ven
Topic ior nica tion
tion
Pallia X X
tive
care
Stop X X
ping
smok
ing
Hy X
perte
nsion
Effi
cacy
Weigh X X
t loss
Page 14 of 41
Chron X
ic dis
eases
Dis X
ease
out
break
sur
veil
lance
Fami X
ly
Prod X
uct
quali
ty
Eth
nicity
and
gen
der
Page 15 of 41
Con
trolle
d trial
Mo X X
bile
de
vices
Social X
sup
port
net
work
analy
sis
Social X
media
Edu X
cation
al
tech
nolo
gy
Page 16 of 41
Mea
sures
Activi X
ty
Healt X
h care
Page 17 of 41
As we can see in Table 3.4, there is a good overlap between the two analyses. We would
argue that the analyses point to literature that is focused on the use of digital technolo
gies and social media in three main areas. First, monitoring and supporting individuals in
changing health behaviors (such as weight loss or stopping smoking); second, using digi
tal technologies to monitor and support patients with chronic illness (e.g., hypotension);
and third, using digital technologies to support health communication or as part of health
support communities.
Separate from this, the literature is focused on the measurement and evaluation of the ef
ficacy of such interventions. This evaluation fits with the content analysis on methods and
theory that follows. A section of the literature also included work on educational technol
ogy with some crossover to technologies to support health education.
Six key areas stand out from the analysis (Table 3.3): educational technology, health care,
measures and measurement, mobile and smartphone devices, social support, and weight
loss. As noted earlier, we put the “educational technology” issue to one (p. 60) side, ex
cept where it overlaps with issues of health and well-being. In the following sections we
consider some examples of how these issues have been examined in the recent literature.
Health care. Work on the interaction in health care provision between social, occupa
tional, and organizational roles and digital media has a long history. For example, Aydin
and Rice (1991) argued that membership of specific occupational and departmental social
worlds can help to explain attitudes toward medical information systems within health
care organizations. They noted that
Physicians, for example, expected involvement in decision-making and felt the sys
tem had become primarily an administrative system, while other medical employ
ees were more concerned with computer use as infringement on their patient care
activities.
(p. 132)
More recently the focus has moved to the role of digital systems in the range of health
services including public health and personalized health. The analysis by the University
(p. 61) of Sheffield shows that literature before 2004 had a stronger emphasis on informa
tion systems and users, whereas more recent work has focused on care, intervention, and
health information for patients. For example, Bennett and Glasgow (2009) discuss advan
tages in public health interventions conducted via the Internet and Web 2.0. Within this
domain they point out that there are also challenges, such as reach (access), sustainabili
ty of effects, reporting in standardized measures, and attrition. Bennett and Glasgow ar
gue that these challenges could be overcome with more tailored messages and greater
use of social networking functions. This shift from a system focus to a user or “person” fo
cus can be found in a lot of the literature on digital media use. This represents a shift
from the novelty and specifics of technologies to the integration of these into everyday
practice. ennett and Glasgow see advantages for digital media in reach and efficacy in
health-related interventions, as “Internet-based implementation allows participants to ac
Page 18 of 41
cess intervention content at their convenience, in a manner that can feel largely
anonymous” (p. 276). Combined with available data, “Internet interventions can be struc
tured to provide highly personalized messages” (p. 276). As digital technologies (p. 62) of
ten have low marginal costs, providing specific services can be undertaken while lower
ing costs. As a result they conclude that
[g]iven their potential for low costs, scalability, adaptability, and effectiveness, In
ternet interventions may be appropriate for dissemination to a range of settings
(e.g., health systems, health plans, employers, municipalities). However, each of
these settings varies considerably with regard to their resources, expertise, inter
est, and ability to implement Internet interventions independently.
(p. 279)
(p. 63) This shift also reflects the rise of new digital forms such as social media. For
(p. 64)
example, Chou et al. (2009) pointed out that US-based health-related communication pro
grams, which seek to impact population health (such as smoking cessation and dietary in
terventions), should consider carefully key social factors when looking to communicate
via social media. They argue that
social networking sites by far attract the most users, making them an obvious tar
get for maximizing the reach and impact of health communication and eHealth in
terventions.
(p. 9)
In looking specifically at communication around cancer they found that among family
members who had cancer, there was a high prevalence of Internet and social media use.
This therefore made social media a potentially fruitful route to “‘secondary audiences,’
that is, caregivers, family, and friends of cancer patients” (pp. 9–10). Thus they concluded
that “social media promise to be a way to reach the target population regardless of so
cioeconomic and health-related characteristics” (p. 10).
Househ et al. (2014) also explored the role of social media, in community empowerment
in US health care contexts. They argued that
there is a promising future for social media in community engagement, informa

tion sharing, data collection functions, appointment setting, prescription notifica
tions, providing health information, engagement of the elderly, improved participa
tion, autonomy, motivation, trust, and perceived self-efficacy.
(p. 56)
On the other hand, they point out key challenges related to the use of social media for
health care, such as
Page 19 of 41
privacy, security, the usability of social media programs, the manipulation of iden
tity, and misinformation. These factors can pose serious threats to patient safety if
not addressed appropriately by those who wish to engage patients through social
media.
(p. 56)
Measures and measurement. Another theme in the literature is the interplay between
using digital media derived data, using digital tools to collect data, and measuring the im
pacts of digital media use or digital media interventions in the health context. Very often
these three elements are combined. In the early 2000s the focus around measurement ap
pears to be on tools such as Internet surveys. For example, Eysenbach and Wyatt (2002)
examined the use of the Internet to conduct research as well as other parts of the analy
sis. They provided recommendations for implementing Internet-based surveys as well as
emphasizing ethical considerations. They focused on Internet survey methods and did not
address the use of “big data” nor data scraped from social media, issues that have be
come more prevalent in recent years. But two of their key warnings are still very rele
vant:
In ‘open’ surveys conducted via the Internet where Web users, newsgroup read
ers, or mailing list subscribers are invited to participate by completing a question
naire, (p. 65) selection bias is a major factor limiting the generalizability (external
validity) of results … The ethical issues involved in any type of online research
should not be forgotten. These include informed consent as a basic ethical tenet of
scientific research on human populations, protection of privacy, and avoiding psy
chological harm.
(p. 4)
As noted earlier, the analysis of the literature sees a strong shift towards issues of digital
media in health interventions. For example, Glasgow (2007) examines the measurement
and assessment of eHealth intervention and behavior change programs and provides rec
ommendations on design, measurement, and methods, concluding with four main recom
mendations, First, explore outside of research silos, meaning work across different ill
nesses taking into account multiple variables. Second, explore the role of human support,
which could be the most important contextual factor. Third, tailor experiment design and
reporting criteria to eHealth questions, meaning that they have to be interactive, user-
centered, dynamic, and evolving. Fourth, follow translation and diffusion theories of tech
nology uptake and innovation. They point out that
[t]he majority of evidence-based health care procedures fail to translate into prac
tice. Part of the reason for this failure to translate is because of the research
methods most often used to evaluate interventions. In particular, typical designs
do not address external validity concerns or provide information relevant to poli
cymakers or to those considering program adoption.
Page 20 of 41
(p. 120)
He concludes that “eHealth is complex, contextual, evolving, and has effects at multiple
levels. The designs and measures for eHealth research need to have these same
characteristics” (p. 125).
Given the nature of this domain, the focus of many papers is on the empirical evaluation
of specific digital interventions from bespoke digital tools to general social media cam
paigns. Often these involve the application of a digital media format to a specific health
intervention. One example is provided by Coyle and Doherty (2009), who examined the
use of a 3D computer game developed to support adolescent mental health interventions.
This was a goal-oriented computer game that adolescents and therapists could play to
gether in sessions. In the evaluation, the shortcomings that therapists mentioned are ap
plicable to many digital technology interventions. These included an over-reliance on lit
eracy skills, lack of engagement with the specific technology, and a need to adapt to
clients’ needs (for example, choosing more suitable characters). As we have noted else
where in this volume (especially chapters 18, 19, and 20), issues of digital literacy and
digital efficacy underpin many aspects of digital media use. Having noted these shortcom
ings, Cole and Doherty argue, “The initial clinical evaluation of [the game] has provided
evidence that computer games have the potential to assist therapists working with ado
lescent clients” (p. 2058). But they add that
[f]uture projects in the MHC [mental health care] domain may benefit from more
rigorously applying traditional user-centered requirements gathering techniques.
However, the problem of access to clients by HCI researchers still remains. (p. 66)
Techniques are required which help HCI researchers to gain access to the tacit
knowledge of MHC professionals.
(p. 2058)
Such work points out a challenge found in many other domains (e.g., social care, govern
ment policy interventions, etc.), where existing design and evaluation tools are designed
around existing practice and need to take on methods from digital and computer science
disciplines. Coyle and Doherty also note that development and evaluation of digital sys
tems is time-consuming; therefore “systems should aim to be useful to a broad range to
therapists, in a broad range of settings and with a broad range of clients” (p. 2059).
Not only are digital media forms (e.g., games and social media) being applied in health
settings, but also digital devices are now key to monitoring and evaluating health, both
personal (e.g., wearables) and public (e.g., environmental monitoring and sensors). Again
the number and range of papers in this area is vast. An example from our corpus is Pan
telopoulos and Bourbakis (2008), who reviewed the research and development of wear
able biosensor systems for health monitoring. These can provide low-cost unobtrusive so
lutions for continuous all-day and any-place health, mental, and activity status monitor
ing. The article outlines the technical challenges of these technologies. As with many oth
er evaluations in this area, they found that many of the systems in fact remain poorly de
Page 21 of 41
signed for wearability, for many practical reasons to do with size, weight, and complexity.
Alternatively, they propose that integration of these tools into clothing and textile mod
ules is an efficient alternative approach, though it has the disadvantage of being less scal
able. There is then a tension between scalability (e.g., mass availability) and wearability.
As with other digital technologies in the medical domain, security is a key concern. They
concluded that “integration of proper encryption and authentication mechanisms is re
quired to ensure privacy and security of personal health data” (p. 4890).
Mobile and smart phone devices. Over the same period, mobile and smartphone de
vices have increased in popularity globally. They clearly have become a major target for
digital health solutions from health and activity monitoring to information and advice to
supporting behavior change. It is unsurprising therefore that this is a topic identified in
the literature. For example, Dennison et al. (2013) argue that young, currently healthy
adults have interest in apps that attempt to support health-related behavior change. The
factors that most influence their app use were accuracy and legitimacy, security, effort re
quired, and immediate effects on their mood and well-being. However, they point to draw
backs, such as context skepticism and security and privacy of health-related data, espe
cially keeping control over what apps can do with the user’s health data. Dennison et al.
raise doubts “around whether users will use behaviour change apps for long periods of
time, a critical issue that will affect the effectiveness of many behavior change apps” (p.
8). As was noted in the work on wearables, there are concerns about usability and accura
cy. Dennison et al. noted that “participants lacked faith in the accuracy with which a
smartphone could sense relevant states (e.g., mood, activity levels) (p. 67) and expected
that incorrect and irritating suggestions would make them mistrust the app and cease us
ing it” (p. 9). Importantly, this work identified concerns among users as to whether health
apps were linked to digital media such as social networks.
One of the areas of intervention in the literature is that of self-diagnosis. As an example,

Lupton and Jutel (2015) analyzed the way lay people negotiated the use of self-diagnosis
smartphone apps in mid-2014. Their main findings are that they represent a contested
and ambiguous site for meaning and practice in relation to personal health. Importantly,
they point out that many apps purport a level of medical authority that they may not pos
sess, and that much of this is undertaken through the presentation of information and im
agery related to broader societal discourse around “healthy living” (p. 131). As they note:
Self-diagnosis apps (…) state and engage with the discourses of healthism and
control that pervade contemporary medicine. They also participate in the quest for
patient ‘engagement’ and ‘empowerment’ that is a hallmark of digital health
rhetoric
(p. 132)
Lupton and Jutel point out that the implied medical authority combined with the apparent
accuracy of “algorithms” provides a basis for both their promotion and use. Yet the users
themselves are well aware of their own status as “not medically qualified.” The combina
tion of both user uncertainty and, in some cases, the lack of robust medical evaluation
Page 22 of 41
and transparent algorithms means that there remain many challenges to making such
systems work. Such work highlights the challenge found elsewhere outside the health do
main, that digital technologies disrupt (for good or ill) existing systems and in many cases
both individual practice and necessary societal regulation may take time to catch up.
One area that is strongly prevalent in the literature is that of using mobile and smart
phone devices to support patients with long-term (chronic) conditions. For example, Gol
lamudi et al. (2016) find that smartphones data allow these patients to make informed
health decisions, though they point out that this changes the dynamics of health care re
lationships:
[O]ne of the more intriguing aspects of this technology as a tool to enhance indi
vidual health is that data is collected, stored, and presented digitally without the
need for direct interaction between the user and (as traditional) health profession
al.
(p. 12)
Another area of work we noted in the literature and which may need to be better devel
oped and formalized within the medical domain is the systematic comparison of digital so
lutions. For example, in the case of enhanced self-management of the chronic arthritic-
like condition of gout, Nguyen et al. (2016) reviewed 57 mobile health apps. Very few
apps met the internationally accepted gout management guidelines, with only one meet
ing all requirements. As noted previously, it is clear that more systematic work (p. 68) is
needed to assess the viability of such apps. Nguyen et al. point out a range of limitations
in the apps with regard to this specific condition, especially the lack of routes for access
ing health care professionals, but still argue that
[T]he use of mobile applications to support self-management of chronic conditions

presents much potential. The extent to which such apps contain content consis
tent with treatment guidelines and are user-friendly is central to their likely adop
tion and effectiveness.
(p. 71)
Social support. With the rise of social media, we also see a range of literature con
cerned with social support in health contexts. This work goes back to some of the earliest
work around online communities with a focus on Internet fora. For example, Richardson
(2004) explored issues of Internet use and heath debates across Cancer, SARS, and the
debate about the measles/mumps/rubella vaccine and Autism. Such work has taken on
much greater importance in recent years as citizens and patients have become able to en
gage others, often of like minds, on such issues via social media. This range of work is
very broad and overlaps with research around online communities, issues of identity, and
political debate where health issues are tied to policy issues. We will focus here on the
more clinical health and well-being issues. As with other material discussed in this chap
ter, many of the publications evaluate a specific intervention or compare across technolo
Page 23 of 41
gy contexts, with foci ranging from perceptions to behavior change to the links between
digital media use and health.
An example of comparative work is Barrera et al. (2002), who examined if diabetes pa
tients change their perception about support following their participation in Internet-
based support groups. The study finds that after three months of intervention, patients
who participated in Internet-based social support significantly changed their views com
pared to those patients who had only participated in computer access to information
about diabetes. This was achieved with patients who did not have previous experience
with the Internet. In another comparative study, Barak et al. (2009) review the literature
about Internet-supported psychological therapeutic interventions, conceptualizing them
into four categories: web-based interventions, online counselling and therapy, Internet
operated therapeutic software, and other online activities (e.g., as supplements to face-to-
face therapy). They concluded that
[T]he ability to develop feasible and effective alternatives by exploiting the Inter
net for clinical work—alternatives that suit many people and distress areas—
should be regarded as broadening and expanding the availability of professional
help, especially for those who feel comfortable in the virtual environment.
(p. 14)
Such work highlights the conceptual challenge of tidying up the conceptualization of, and
regulating and assessing different forms of, digital media-based interventions in the med
ical context.
Overall, much of the work in this area is not about direct clinical support interventions
but rather about fostering patient and citizen empowerment in online support (p. 69)
groups. As an example, earlier work by Barak et al. (2008) point out that online support
groups encourage well-being, a sense of control, self-confidence, feeling of more indepen
dence, social interactions and self-image, loneliness, optimism, and mood state. There
fore, the authors argue that participation in online support groups can foster personal
empowerment, which can help in dealing with feelings of distress, but do not necessarily
help in producing therapeutic changes. These groups also have drawbacks, such as devel
oping dependence, developing distance from interpersonal contacts, and experiencing un
comfortable situations which are part of online social interactions. Barak et al. argue that
It seems that the basic factors identified by quantitative research, as well as by

our qualitative study—impact of writing, expressing emotions, gathering informa
tion and improving knowledge, developing interpersonal relationships, and better
ing decision-making skills—generate, each and all of them, a personal sense of em
powerment.
(p. 1878)
Page 24 of 41
They conclude, however, that such groups are not a substitute for professional treatment
where such clinical intervention is needed but can offer a complementary component to
such interventions. Yet, there are always challenges in regard to communication, digital
skills, and competences in such circumstances. These may interact with and influence
both outcomes and well-being in and of themselves. Wright et al. (2013) argue that inter
personal motives, increased face-to-face communication, communication competence,
and computer competence can predict whether college students are feeling more de
pressed. One of the most important skills to reduce depression was found to be communi
cation competence, which is a set of skills that enable college students to mobilize social
support in a better way.
Weight loss. One area that brings all these issues of health care, social support, device
use, monitoring, measurement, and personal digital technology use is that of weight loss.
This is a domain where online groups, digital media, and apps have all been both promot
ed and critiqued as routes to intervention (or not). It is not unsurprising then that this has
been highlighted as one of the few specific health topics in the analysis of the literature.
One immediate question is the extent of the link between digital media use (or at least da
ta on digital media use) and the prevalence of obesity. For example, Chunara et al. (2013)
examined the relationship between online social environments via web-based social net
works and population obesity prevalence. Their main finding is that activity-related inter
ests (such as television watching as opposed to sports) across the United States and
neighborhoods in New York City were significantly linked with obesity. They argue that
their study
corroborates the association of social environments and obesity, and also begins to
uncover aspects of the environment, such as interests in the online medium, and
how they are positively or negatively related to this outcome. Sharing of these
norms through Facebook may also be magnified because network connections are
‘friends’; people who likely share demographic profiles, meaning there messages
are better focused.
Issues of digital self-monitoring are also found in the literature. Steinberg and oth
(p. 70)
ers (2013) examine the impact of weight loss interventions that focus on self-monitoring
digital techniques such as “smart scales” (which displayed current weight and sent it di
rectly to a website), a web-based weight loss graph, and weekly tailored feedback via
emails. These interventions have proved to be successful when combined with other inter
vention elements. They found that
a lower intensity weight loss intervention that focused on daily self-weighing as

the main self-monitoring strategy and also included emailed tailored feedback and
skills training with no regular face-to face-contact or focus on self-monitoring of
diet and physical activity behaviors produced clinically significant weight losses.
(p. 8)
Page 25 of 41
With regard to mobile and smartphone interventions, Svetkey et al. (2015) examined the
efficacy of mobile health weight loss intervention apps in young adults: smartphone self-
monitoring, or personal coaching enhanced by smartphone self-monitoring (PC), com
pared with a control group. They concluded that digital interventions were not success
ful. This lead them to the conclusion that a combination of methods, both digital and so
cial support of human interaction which are adaptive can be more beneficial. The re
searchers found that relative to the control group: “neither a mobile app alone nor per
sonal coaching with mobile self-monitoring resulted in statistically significant weight loss
after 24 months” (p. 2139). Like many other studies, they concluded that iterative and
rapid development and testing of health interventions in context are needed to ensure the
best outcomes.
Summary. We would argue that there has been a shift in focus from health care tech
nologies, to interaction with health care technologies, to a greater focus on the role of
digital technologies in intervention, especially in regard to health behaviors and percep
tions. Where the focus is on non-clinical and community interventions, there is notable
overlap with the literature around digital communities. In regard to digital clinical inter
ventions from this selection of literature, it is clear that much more work is needed on the
veracity, development, and regulation of such tools.
Theory, Method, and Approach
As with the other review chapters, this analysis builds on Borah (2017). A slight majority
of the analyzed papers (52%) were deductive, applying existing theory (Table 3.5). Nearly
(p. 71) half of papers utilized primary collected data (48%), with 43% of the papers using
secondary data (Table 3.6). In line with the focus on health interventions and health be
havior, the main disciplines from which theory was used or for which theory was devel
oped were psychology (50%), sociology (19%), health studies (8%), communication and
media (8%), and information studies (5%). There was considerable variety in the specific
theories applied from these disciplines. Theories of behavior change, social cognition, and
planned behavior (each 8% of total) were the main theories in psychology studies, while
social network analysis was the most frequent theory (2% of total) in sociology articles.
There was a fairly even split between statistical and qualitative approaches (Table 3.7).
For those items that undertook empirical research, the main research methods were pre
dominantly quantitative: experiments or comparisons (19%), surveys (11%), social net
work analysis (3%), and meta-analysis (4%) (Table 3.8). The majority of the empirical
work focused on specific groups, but with a larger proportion of general population stud
ies (31.5%) than in the other domains (Table 3.9). Less than 2% of the work described it
self as using a “big data” approach.
Page 26 of 41
(p. 72) Table 3.5 Epistemological Approach
Percent
Deductive (testing of existing theory) 51.5
Inductive (conclusions driven by data) 48.5
Table 3.6 Empirical Approach
Percent
Primary empirical (data collected and analyzed) 48.0
Secondary empirical (analysis of existing data) 43.4
Discursive/descriptive (no new data or theory) 8.2
Theoretical (synthesis of current or prior work) .5
Table 3.7 Analytic Approach
Percent
Qualitative (textual—non-discourse) 48.4
Statistical (numerical) 42.6
Not applicable 8.3
Discourse (textual—linguistic-discourse) .7
Page 27 of 41
Table 3.8 Research Method
Percent
Literature Review (general or narrative) 28.6
Other 22.0
Experiment 18.8
Survey 10.8
Interview(s) 6.6
Content analysis 4.5
Meta-analysis or systematic review 3.3
Social network analysis 2.6
Focus groups 2.0
Textual (linguistic-discourse analysis) .4
Ethnography .4
Table 3.9 Study Population
Percent
Specific group 53.8
General population 31.5
Not applicable 12.8
Case study (studies) 1.9
This domain is notably different than the others in two clear respects. First, the number
of published papers by identified authors was much higher, and second, the majority of
these reported quantitative empirical studies. Much of the work was broadly psychologi
cal and focused on the role of digital technologies in supporting or driving health behav
ior changes. This is reflected in the main theories identified in the literature. Unlike the
Page 28 of 41
other domains, there is a limited amount of reflection on the broader social or health im
pacts of digital media.
Delphi Review
This section provides details of the results of the Delphi process for the Health and Well-
Being domain, covering suggested scoping or research questions, key topics to address
within these questions, and key challenges to researching these questions.
Future Research and Scoping Questions

The Delphi review identified a set of scoping questions for the domain, which were coded
into four categories: design for positive health impacts of digital technology use; health
behavior and using digital technologies; health user needs; and negative health impacts
of digital technology use (Table 3.10). Their ranked importance from the confirmatory
survey is given in Table 3.11. It is important to note that ranked importance is almost the
inverse of the number of questions allocated to the category.
Page 29 of 41
Table 3.10 Delphi Review Scoping Questions
Question catego Example questions

ry
Design for positive What types and amounts of technology make

health impacts of us healthier, better educated and more se
digital technology cure?
use How can we design technology assist in mak
ing us healthier, better educated and more se
cure?
How can we design technology to support us
being healthier and thrive psychologically?
What are the best practices/processes in the
design of technology that will make us health
ier, better educated and more secure?
Health behavior How do people engage with technology to im

and using digital prove health and well-being?
technologies You could extend well-being to personal and
social well-being
What motivates people to be healthier, better
educated and more secure, and how can
these motivational drivers be incorporated in
to technology?
Health user needs What are the factors that lead to development
of health information technology programs
that meet the needs and capacities of differ
ent users?
How can research be used to guide the strate
gic development of health information tech
nology programs that meet the needs of dif
ferent users?
How can we engage different technology
users in developing and implementing strate
gic health information systems that will meet
their health information and support needs?
Page 30 of 41
Negative health im What isn’t asked here though is if technology

pacts of digital is also hurting health. I.e., is it replacing go
technology use ing to the doctor, moving around (not just sit
ting in front of a computer all the time), too
much sitting, lack of social ties, etc.?
Does the use of digital technology contribute
positively to our health and well-being?
Table 3.11 Delphi Review Scoping Questions Ranked by Importance
Question category Percent
Design for positive health impacts of digital technology 30.8

use
Health behavior and using digital technologies 30.8
Negative health impacts of digital technology use 20.5
Health user needs 17.9
(p. 73) The consultation workshop found these scoping areas too broad and noted that the
issue of “design” created a focus on devices and away from a more holistic view of soci
etal health and well-being. The workshop suggested other scoping areas or questions.
These include that more should be done to understand the role of digital technologies in
health inequalities (do they help to alleviate, reproduce or deepen these inequalities?)
and to link educational technology and health (for example, to think about learning
(p. 74) about well-being and the role of digital technology in this). The workshop also sug
gested addressing the governance of digital health technologies and the need for detailed
systematic evidence of the impact and lived experience of everyday health technologies
(e.g., fitbits). Finally, they recommended looking at the broader socio-economic and tech
nical challenges of “joining up” health providers and services through digital technolo
gies, and examining more questions of health and well-being in the digital workplace.
The topics identified in the Delphi review were then coded into 11 categories as detailed
in Table 3.12, with their ranked importance from the confirmatory survey are presented
in Table 3.13. As with the scoping questions, those topics that were most (p. 75) common
ly cited in the Delphi workshop were not those deemed most important in the review. The
four most frequent were device, environment, and service design; benefits and harm from
digital technology use; health communication; and education. Benefits and harm from
digital technology use received by far the highest importance ratings, followed by health
communication and privacy.
Page 31 of 41
Table 3.12 Key Topics Ranked by Percentage of Delphi Survey Re

sponses
Topic Percent
Device, environment and service design 31
Benefits and harm from digital technology use 15
Health communication 15
Education 10
Device and service design 5
Digital literacy 5
Other 5
Preventative and long-term condition support 5
Digital divide 3
Organizational change 3
Privacy 3
Page 32 of 41
Table 3.13 Key Topics Ranked by Importance from Delphi Survey
Topic Very impor Important Neutral Unimportant Very unimpor

tant tant
Benefits and 76.9% 23.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

harm from digi
tal technology
use
Health commu 46.2 46.2 7.7 0.0 0.0

nication
Privacy 46.2 38.5 7.7 7.7 0.0
Device, environ 38.5 53.8 7.7 0.0 0.0

ment, and ser
vice design
Preventative 38.5 46.2 15.4 0.0 0.0

and long-term
condition sup
port
Digital divide 38.5 30.8 15.4 15.4 0.0
Digital literacy 30.8 38.5 23.1 7.7 0.0
Page 33 of 41
Organizational 7.7 76.9 15.4 0.0 0.0

change
Page 34 of 41
The consultation workshop identified a set of additional potential topics within the health
care domain. These were: what are “healthy” environments or “life worlds” and what role
can digital technologies have in these; how do or can digital technologies help people to
generate their own definition of a healthy “lifeworld”; and finally, understanding the im
pact of major digital platforms on behavior, perception of health and well-being, and
routes to health information.
Research Challenges
The challenges in undertaking research in this area identified by the Delphi panel were
placed into seven categories. These categories are detailed in Table 3.14 and ranked by
the percentage of coded items. The ranking of these by the confirmation survey are pre
sented in Table 3.15. The methods category was twice as frequent as the next category,
processes of co-design, followed by collecting and accessing data. Methods were also rat
ed as the most important challenge, followed by rapid changes, big data for health, and
interdisciplinarity.
Table 3.14 Challenges Ranked by Percent of Cases
Challenge Percent
Methods to analyses digital health 46
Processes of co-design 21
Collecting and accessing data on digital health 14
Rapid change in digital and health technology 7
Big data for health 4
Education 4
Interdisciplinarity 4
Page 35 of 41
Table 3.15 Challenges Ranked by Importance from Delphi Survey
Challenge Very impor Important Neutral Unimportant Very unimpor

tant tant
Methods to ana 61.5% 30.8% 7.7% 0.0% 0.0%

lyze digital
health
Rapid change in 38.5 61.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

digital and
health technolo
gy
Big data for 38.5 46.2 15.4 0.0 0.0

health
Interdisciplinar 38.5 46.2 15.4 0.0 0.0

ity
Collecting and 30.8 61.5 7.7 0.0 0.0

accessing data
on digital health
Processes of co- 30.8 46.2 15.4 7.7 0.0

design
Page 36 of 41
The consultation workshop agreed with the challenges identified by the Delphi process, in
particular focusing on “big” health data, personal and commercial uses of health data,
linking personal and clinical health data with well-being outcomes, governance in digital
health care, and digital technologies’ role in the rich pathways of health and social care.
Combining this broad range of ideas with the material in the literature provides a clearer
picture. The next section undertakes this reflection.
(p. 76) Conclusion

As in the Communication and Relationships (chapter 8), and the Communities and Identi
ties domains (chapter 14), much of the work in the Health and Well-Being domain appears
to be focused on specific technologies, in this case the use of bespoke or platform tech
nologies to impact health behavior. There are few if any examples of cross-platform or
holistic assessments examining the effects of broad, everyday digital technology use on
health and well-being. There were also clear crossovers with the Communication and Re
lationships (see chapter 8) and the Communities and Identities domains (see chapter 14).
Much of the work involved aspects of health communication supported by digital tech
nologies, or at least interaction with digital technologies that afforded aspects of patient-
carer-doctor-service interactions. There were also a good number of cases focused on the
role of online health support communities. Health and well-being may therefore be a con
text for applied communications and community research.
To summarize, the majority of the literature in the Health and Well-Being domain is fo
cused on the evaluation of digital health technologies. There appears to be a limited liter
ature on the broader question of the impacts of digital lifestyles on health and well-being
and limited work on the negative impacts of the digital technologies. Moreover, the
broader social questions identified in the Delphi work and consultation workshops that
appear to go beyond the literature include the following:
• Understanding and addressing the governance of digital health technologies

• Need for detailed systematic evidence of the impact and lived experience of everyday
health technologies (e.g., fitbits)
• Questions of health and well-being in the digital workplace
(p. 77) • Digital technologies and health communication and health behavior change
• Broader socio-economic challenges and issues in “joining up” health providers and
services through digital technologies
References
Aydin, C. E., & Rice, R. E. (1991). Social worlds, individual differences, and implementa
tion: Predicting attitudes toward a medical information system. Information & Manage
ment, 20(2), 119–136.
Page 37 of 41
Barak, A., Boniel-Nissim, M., & Suler, J. (2008). Fostering empowerment in online support
groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1867–1883.
Barak, A., Klein, B., & Proudfoot, J. G. (2009). Defining internet-supported therapeutic in
terventions. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 38(1), 4–17.
Barrera, M., Glasgow, R. E., Mckay, H. G., Boles, S. M., & Feil, E. G. (2002). Do Internet-
based support interventions change perceptions of social support? An experimental trial
of approaches for supporting diabetes self-management. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 30(5), 637–654.
Bennett, G. G., & Glasgow, R. E. (2009). The delivery of public health interventions via the
Internet: Actualizing their potential. Annual Review of Public Health, 30, 273–292.
Bennett, G. G., Steinberg, D. M., Stoute, C., Lanpher, M., Lane, I., Askew, S., … & Baskin,
M. L. (2014). Electronic health (eHealth) interventions for weight management among
racial/ethnic minority adults: A systematic review. Obesity Reviews, 15, 146–158.

616–636.
(p. 78) Chou, W. Y. S., Hunt, Y. M., Beckjord, E. B., Moser, R. P., & Hesse, B. W. (2009). So
cial media use in the United States: Implications for health communication. Journal of
Medical Internet Research, 11(4).
Chunara, R., Bouton, L., Ayers, J. W., & Brownstein, J. S. (2013). Assessing the online so
cial environment for surveillance of obesity prevalence. PloS One, 8(4), e61373.
Coyle, D., & Doherty, G. (2009, April). Clinical evaluations and collaborative design: De
veloping new technologies for mental healthcare interventions. In Proceedings of the
SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2051–2060). ACM.
Dennison, L., Morrison, L., Conway, G., & Yardley, L. (2013). Opportunities and challenges
for smartphone applications in supporting health behavior change: Qualitative study. Jour
nal of Medical Internet Research, 15(4).
Eysenbach, G., & Wyatt, J. (2002). Using the Internet for surveys and health research.
Journal of Medical Internet Research, 4(2).
Glasgow, R. E. (2007). eHealth evaluation and dissemination research. American Journal

of Preventive Medicine, 32(5), S119–S126.
Gollamudi, S. S., Topol, E. J., & Wineinger, N. E. (2016). A framework for smartphone-en
abled, patient-generated health data analysis. PeerJ: Life and Environment, 4, e2284.
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2284
Page 38 of 41
Househ, M., Borycki, E., & Kushniruk, A. (2014). Empowering patients through social me
dia: The benefits and challenges. Health Informatics Journal, 20(1), 50–58.
Lupton, D., & Jutel, A. (2015). “It’s like having a physician in your pocket!” A critical
analysis of self-diagnosis smartphone apps. Social Science & Medicine, 133, 128–135.
Nguyen, A. D., Baysari, M. T., Kannangara, D. R., Tariq, A., Lau, A. Y., Westbrook, J. I., &
Day, R. O. (2016). Mobile applications to enhance self-management of gout. International
Journal of Medical Informatics, 94, 67–74.
Pantelopoulos, A., & Bourbakis, N. (2008, August). A survey on wearable biosensor sys
tems for health monitoring. In Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2008. EMBS
2008. 30th annual international conference of the IEEE (pp. 4887–4890). IEEE.
Richardson, K. (2004). Internet discourse and health debates. New York: Palgrave
MacMillan.
Steinberg, D. M., Tate, D. F., Bennett, G. G., Ennett, S., Samuel-Hodge, C., & Ward, D. S.
(2013). The efficacy of a daily self-weighing weight loss intervention using smart scales
and e-mail. Obesity, 21(9), 1789–1797.
Svetkey, L. P., Batch, B. C., Lin, P. H., Intille, S. S., Corsino, L., Tyson, C. C., … & Gallis, J.
A. (2015). Cell phone intervention for you (CITY): A randomized, controlled trial of behav
ioral weight loss intervention for young adults using mobile technology. Obesity, 23(11),
2133–2141.
Wright, K. B., Rosenberg, J., Egbert, N., Ploeger, N. A., Bernard, D. R., & King, S. (2013).
Communication competence, social support, and depression among college students: A
model of Facebook and face-to-face support network influence. Journal of Health Commu
nication, 18(1), 41–57.
Notes:
(1.) As part of the review, The Digital Humanities Institute at the University of Sheffield
applied concept modelling techniques to a curated corpus of 1,900 journal articles from
the period 1968 to 2017. Concept modelling is a computational linguistic process that in
volves identifying the emergence of concepts, or key ideas, via lexical relationships. For
the purposes of the review, lexical relationships were limited to high frequency co-occur
rences of terms as pairs and trios. The process is entirely data driven and resulted in 2
million rows of data. The website https://www.dhi.ac.uk/waysofbeingdigital/ provides ac
cess to the top 50 most frequently occurring pairs and trios through a series of data visu
alizations. Click on View Data Visualizations at the top. Then check/submit which of the
seven ESRC domains you are interested in (including all). Then choose the visualization.
These show configurations across selected time frames. Choose bubble chart, tree map,
zoomable pack layout, or network diagram, by individual subject or by all seven subjects
combined, by document or concept frequency. You can similarly search the analyzed doc
uments (all, by subject, author, concept, concept trio, and year) by clicking on Browse Ar
Page 39 of 41
ticles at the top. Also, see https://waysofbeingdigital.com/literature-analysis-interactive-

results/ for interactive visualizations with mouse-overs of the main clusters of concepts
within each domain, and the relative frequency of concepts associated with each cluster.
Simeon J. Yates
Leanne Townsend
Leanne Townsend is a Senior Social Scientist working within the Social, Economic,
and Geographical Sciences Group at the James Hutton Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland.
Leanne leads research on a number of projects exploring digitization and innovation
in various rural contexts, including agriculture, rural entrepreneurship, and rural
community development.
Monica Whitty
Monica Whitty is Professor of Human Factors in Cyber Security at the University of

Melbourne, Australia and the University of Warwick, WMG, United Kingdom. She is
also on the Global Futures committee for cybersecurity for the World Economic Fo
rum. Her research over the last 20 years has focused on the ways individuals behave
in cyberspace. Her work, in particular, examines identities created in cyberspace, cy
berscams, online security risks, behavior in cyberspace, insider threat, as well as de
tecting and preventing cybercrimes. Monica is the author of over 100 articles, and
Page 40 of 41
five books, the latest being Cyberpsychology: The study of individuals, society and
digital technologies (Wiley, 2017, with Garry Young). She is currently leading an in
terdisciplinary project funded by TIPS (ESPRC) titled, Detecting and Preventing
Mass-Marketing Fraud.
Ronald E. Rice
Elinor Carmi
Elinor Carmi (PhD, Media and Communications Department at Goldsmiths, Universi

ty of London) is a digital rights advocate, feminist, researcher, and journalist who has
been working, writing, and teaching on deviant media, internet standards, feminist-
technoscience, sound studies, internet history, and internet governance. Currently,
she is a postdoctoral research associate in digital culture and society at Liverpool
University (UK), where she works on several ESRC and AHRC projects around digital
ways of being, digital inclusion, and digital literacies. In addition to writing her book
about spam, she is also working on two special journal issues: One about “sonic
publics,” together with Ram Sinnreich for the International Journal of Communica
tion, and the other about (re)designing time, together with Britt Paris, for Theory,
Culture & Society.
Page 41 of 41
Computer-Mediated Communication and Mental Health: A Computational
Scoping Review of an Interdisciplinary Field
Computer-Mediated Communication and Mental

Health: A Computational Scoping Review of an Inter
disciplinary Field
Adrian Meier, Emese Domahidi, and Elisabeth Günther
The relationship between computer-mediated communication (e.g., Internet or social me

dia use) and mental health has been a long-standing issue of debate. Various disciplines
(e.g., communication, psychology, sociology, medicine) investigate computer-mediated
communication in relation to a great variety of negative (i.e., psychopathology) and posi
tive (i.e., well-being) markers of mental health. We aim at charting this vast, highly frag
mented, and fast growing literature by means of a scoping review. Using methods of com
putational content analysis in conjunction with qualitative analyses, we map 20 years of
research based on 1,780 study abstracts retrieved through a systematic database search.
Results reveal the most common topics investigated in the field, as well as its disciplinary
boundaries. Our review further highlights emerging trends in the literature and points to
unique implications for how future research should address the various relationships be
tween computer-mediated communication and mental health.
Keywords: computational content analysis, computer-mediated communication, Internet mental health, scoping
review, social media
Introduction
SINCE the earliest days of Internet, mobile phone, and social media use, researchers and
the general public have debated how computer-mediated communication (CMC) is relat
ed to mental health (e.g., Kraut et al., 1998; Kross et al., 2013; Turkle, 2011; Twenge,
Martin, & Campbell, 2018). Today, various disciplines (e.g., communication, psychology,
sociology, medicine) investigate a smorgasbord of CMC variables in relation to a great va
riety of negative (i.e., psychopathology) and positive (i.e., psychological well-being) mark
ers of mental health. Research in this field asks questions as diverse as, is loneliness a
driver or outcome of Facebook use (Song et al., 2014)? Does passively browsing through
Instagram increase depression levels by eliciting upward social comparison and envy
Page 1 of 40
(Verduyn, Ybarra, Résibois, Jonides, & Kross, 2017)? Does mobile voice communication in
crease social capital and, hence, affective well-being (Chan, 2015)?
This diverse interdisciplinary field has become seemingly impossible to overview, with
both primary research studies and reviews being published at what appears to be a rapid
ly increasing rate. Currently, various reviews exist, each synthesizing only a fraction of
the available evidence on the relation between CMC and mental health (e.g., Domahidi,
2018; Huang, 2010; Huang, 2017; Liu, Ainsworth, & Baumeister, 2016). This fragmented
state of the research landscape calls for a higher-level integration. (p. 80) We answer this
call in the form of a scoping review (Colquhoun et al., 2014; Pham et al., 2014), using both
computational and qualitative methods to chart the boundaries of this emerging research
field and to identify its core topics.
In defining and mapping the field of CMC and mental health research, we integrate this
fast-growing and interdisciplinary literature in the hopes of assisting researchers in navi
gating through it. Therefore, this review has three main goals:
1. To assess the scope, growth, and current state of the field by tracing the develop
ment of core topics in research on CMC and mental health for the last 20 years.
2. To characterize the publication behavior in the field, specifically by illuminating
who contributes to it (i.e., journals and disciplines).
3. To identify patterns of how the key construct of mental health has been studied in
relation to CMC.
We first define our key constructs, CMC and mental health, and provide a brief overview
of the state of the field. Guided by five research questions and three hypotheses, our
scoping review then addresses the goals outlined. Results of this comprehensive assess
ment of the literature are discussed with regard to implications for a future research
agenda.
Computer-Mediated Communication and Men

tal Health
Defining Key Constructs
As a first step towards an overview of the research field, the key constructs—CMC and
mental health—require thorough definition. We understand both terms as umbrella con
structs for a variety of technological (i.e., CMC) and psychological (i.e., mental health)
phenomena and consequently define them broadly.
We reviewed classical and more contemporary uses of the term (e.g., Hiltz & Turoff,
1978; Lee & Oh, 2015; Walther, 1992), and arrived at a broad definition of computer-me
diated communication (CMC) as multimodal human-to-human social interaction mediated
by information and communication technologies (ICTs). Social interaction here encom
passes all forms of interpersonal behavior, including everything from mere social atten
Page 2 of 40
tion (e.g., browsing through the Facebook News Feed) to deep communication (e.g., a
conversation via voice call; cf. Hall, 2018). We also limit our definition to those ICTs
whose primary and original—though not exclusive—function is the facilitation of CMC as
social interaction (e.g., email, chat, mobile text messaging, instant messenger, social net
work sites, but not, e.g., games).
Turning to our second umbrella construct, mental health is commonly understood from
two distinct perspectives: mental illness (psychopathology) and mental (p. 81) thriving
(psychological well-being). Psychopathology (PTH) refers to “any pattern of behavior—
broadly defined to include actions, emotions, motivations, and cognitive and regulatory
processes—that causes personal distress or impairs significant life functions, such as so
cial relationships, education, work, and health maintenance” (Lahey, Krueger, Rathouz,
Waldman, & Zald, 2017, p. 143). Psychological well-being (PWB), in contrast, is under
stood as a positive condition characterized by “optimal psychological functioning and
experience” (Ryan & Deci, 2001, p. 142). Note that we exclude physical health, as well as
socio-economic well-being, with these definitions.
This review is based on the extended two-continua model of mental health developed by
Meier and Reinecke (2020). Based on previous two-continua models (Greenspoon &
Saklofske, 2001; Keyes, 2007), they integrate the PTH and PWB perspective into a coher
ent framework and argue for a simultaneous assessment of both the negative (PTH) and
positive (PWB) side of mental health in relation to CMC. Based on a review of recent PTH
and PWB literature (e.g., Huta & Waterman, 2014; Lahey et al., 2017), Meier and Rei
necke (2020) further differentiate indicators of PTH (into externalizing and internalizing
disorders and symptoms) and PWB (into hedonic and eudaimonic dimensions) and com
plement the two mental health continua with risk factors (e.g., loneliness, stress, poor
sleep) and resilience factors (e.g., social resources, self-esteem), which are frequently
studied in relation to CMC. Note that these risk and resilience factors are understood as
important predictors of PTH and PWB, but not indicators of mental health in a strict
sense.
Next, we specify how CMC and mental health can relate to each other and which of these
relationships is eligible for our proposed definition of the field. This review is motivated
by the long-standing public and research debate on the key question of whether the avail
ability and usage of CMC hampers or contributes to “the good life” (e.g., Kraut et al.,
1998). Accordingly, we limit our review to two perspectives that address how the usage of
CMC relates to indicators of mental health. In the first perspective, CMC is understood as
a causal factor contributing to declines or improvements in mental health (i.e., the tech
nology effects perspective), while in the second, mental health is understood as a causal
factor explaining amount or types of CMC usage (i.e., the technology selection perspec
tive). Other approaches to CMC and mental health (e.g., inferring mental health from
CMC data traces or delivering mental health treatments via CMC) go beyond the focus of
this review.
Page 3 of 40
The State of the Research Field
This section provides a brief narrative overview of the development and current state of
research on CMC and mental health in order to illustrate why we believe the field can
benefit from a higher-level scoping review.
Following a long-standing research debate about the quality of social interaction via CMC
vs. face-to-face communication (e.g., Rice, 1980; Walther, 1992), the first study to explicit
ly investigate CMC in relation to mental health and hence virtually constitute (p. 82) this
field was Kraut et al.’s (1998) HomeNet study. In a longitudinal panel, 73 households
were surveyed during their first two years of Internet use. Although the authors found
that participants had frequently used the Internet for social interaction, higher levels of
Internet use were negatively related to indicators of social involvement and mental
health. The authors explained these negative effects through the displacement of offline
social activity and strong tie communication. The study received various critical respons
es (e.g., Walther & Parks, 2002) and follow-up studies both succeeded (e.g., Nie, Hillygus,
& Erbring, 2002) and failed (e.g., Kraut et al., 2002) to replicate its findings. Specifically,
the same authors in a later wave of the HomeNet panel found no evidence for social dis
placement (Kraut et al., 2002). Instead, in a second sample, they reported evidence for
positive effects of Internet use on mental health, at least for users high in extraversion
and social support, labeling this a “rich get richer” or social enhancement effect (as com
pared to a “poor get richer” or social compensation effect). For reviews of this early re
search, see, for example, Bargh and McKenna (2004), Huang (2010), Katz and Rice
(2002), or Valkenburg and Peter (2009). Since then, numerous studies have addressed the
core question of whether Internet use and CMC impact social resources, and, hence,
mental health (for recent reviews, see, e.g., Domahidi, 2018; Forsman & Nordmyr, 2015;
Liu et al., 2016; Mikal, Rice, Abeyta, & DeVilbiss, 2013).
However, beyond the focus on social resources, the field has markedly branched out in re
cent years, specifically since CMC via social network sites (SNS) and mobile
(smart)phones has permeated much of daily life. While researchers continue to address
social resources in relation to these newer ICTs (e.g., Chan, 2015; Ellison, Steinfield, &
Lampe, 2007), numerous other lines of inquiry have emerged. Researchers have, for in
stance, started to address how passively consuming others’ positively biased self-presen
tations in SNS is linked to mental health, specifically through the lenses of social compar
ison and envy (Verduyn et al., 2017). The authenticity of SNS self-presentations has also
been linked to the mental health of the presenters themselves (Twomey & O’Reilly, 2017).
Furthermore, studies have repeatedly linked “screen time” as a global indicator of ICT us
age to the mental health of adolescents (Przybylski & Weinstein, 2017; Twenge, Martin et
al., 2018). Various theoretical links between CMC and decreased or increased mental
health have also been confirmed, including self-affirmation (Toma & Hancock, 2013), so
cial sharing of emotions (Choi & Toma, 2014), extended self theory (Clayton, Leshner, &
Almond, 2015), multitasking (van der Schuur, Baumgartner, Sumter, & Valkenburg, 2015),
or deficient self-regulation (Meier, Reinecke, & Meltzer, 2016), among many others. Si
multaneously, a more clinical “addiction” or “problematic usage” approach to CMC and
Page 4 of 40
mental health has gained traction (for reviews, see, e.g., Carli et al., 2013; Tokunaga &
Rains, 2010).
Overall, the field appears to have grown considerably in recent years and has become in
creasingly difficult to overview for individual researchers. While several reviews of specif
ic relationships between forms of CMC (e.g., SNS use) and single indicators of mental
health (e.g., depression) exist (e.g., Baker & Algorta, 2016), there is little awareness of
the research field as a whole. This is problematic for at least two reasons: First, re
searchers may simply not be aware of similar or related work being done outside of their
“disciplinary bubbles” or “invisible colleges” (Zuccala, 2006). Without awareness (p. 83) of
a field as a whole, researchers may unnecessarily “reinvent the wheel,” especially every
time a new ICT grasps (younger) users’ attention. Second, while the diversity of research
questions and theoretical concepts in this field seems staggering, several of the topics
outlined earlier also show considerable conceptual overlap. Integrating this literature to
achieve consensus about its basic concepts (i.e., CMC and mental health), their relation,
as well as its core underlying themes and topics, thus appears paramount.
The Present Study: Foci, Hypotheses, and Research Questions
Based on the available literature on CMC and mental health and its deficient higher-level
integration as a larger research field, we arrive at three distinct foci for our review: (1)
core topics, (2) publication behavior in the field, and (3) mental health concepts.
1. While our brief narrative review highlights some of the issues that research on CMC
and mental health has addressed, it does so in an inherently selective manner. In con
trast, here we aim to systematically identify a variety of core topics that have received
considerable research attention in the field. Moreover, the development of these topics
over time and their relative impact on the field as a whole remain unclear: While some
topics may continuously dominate the field, others may have fallen or risen in research
attention. Accordingly, we ask the following research questions:
RQ1: What are the core topics of research on CMC and mental health?
RQ2: How are the core topics distributed over time?
2. Beyond identifying core topics, we also aim to characterize the publication behavior in
the research field, that is, the publication rate, publication outlets, and contribution of
different disciplines. These criteria allow an assessment of the trajectory of research on
CMC and mental health (publication rate) and a critical examination of who (journals and
disciplines) contributes to this field. The latter, in particular, may have implications for
the kind of research questions asked, the concepts studied (see focus 3: mental health
concepts), and the representativeness of research findings.
First, based on the increasing public debate on the relationship between CMC and mental
health (e.g., Turkle, 2011; Twenge, Martin et al., 2018), a rise in systematic review arti
cles on this issue in recent years (Meier & Reinecke, 2020), and a general upward trend
Page 5 of 40
in overall publication output (Günther & Domahidi, 2017), we assume that this research
field is growing:
H1: The number of publications in CMC and mental health research has in
creased over time.
Second, we aim to identify key publication outlets that particularly contribute to research
on CMC and mental health. This is important for two reasons: First, researchers previous
ly unfamiliar with this field can benefit from knowing which key outlets to turn to for both
(p. 84) targeted literature searches and to submit publications that reach an audience
likely to be interested in their work. Second, publication outlets can serve as proxies to
identify the contributions of different disciplines to this field (see H2 and RQ4). Accord
ingly, we ask:
RQ3: What are the key outlets that publish research on CMC and mental health?
Third, beyond assessing the publication outlets, another approach to mapping a research
field lies in assessing its disciplinary boundaries (e.g., de Chavez, Backett-Milburn, Parry,
& Platt, 2005). Interdisciplinary research creates a rich and multifaceted literature, but
may come at the price of insufficient research integration, for example, because re
searchers are not aware of relevant work being published outside of their discipline. Our
review attempts to further integration by making visible who contributes to the field of
CMC and mental health.
However, based on our narrative review and the nature of the subject matter studied, we
feel safe to assume that the field has been particularly driven by researchers with a back
ground in psychology (e.g., Twenge, Martin et al., 2018) and by papers published in psy
chological journals (e.g., Kraut et al., 1998; Meier & Reinecke, 2020). Accordingly, we ex
pect:
H2: The relative majority of research on CMC and mental health is published in

outlets from psychology.
Beyond psychology, however, there may be various other disciplines contributing to this
research field due to the increasing concern over and recognition of technology’s impact
on society and the individual (see this Handbook). We thus ask:
RQ4: Based on the publication outlets, which other disciplines contribute to re

search on CMC and mental health?
3. Our definition of mental health encompasses two distinct perspectives or meta-con

cepts, that is, psychopathology (PTH) and psychological well-being (PWB). However, past
reviews have shown little attempts to reflect upon these two mental health concepts that
have been studied in relation to CMC (Meier & Reinecke, 2020). For instance, Huang
(2017) reviewed the literature on time spent on SNS in relation to “psychological well-be
ing,” operationalized via self-esteem, life satisfaction, depression, and loneliness (i.e.,
Page 6 of 40
lumping together PTH and PWB indicators under the PWB label). Researchers in this field
often fail to address whether the mental health indicators they empirically assessed allow
statements about PTH or PWB or both (e.g., Kraut et al., 1998). Moreover, at least from a
media effects perspective, the choice of mental health indicators in empirical studies
should depend on whether one expects CMC to impair mental health, which should favor
PTH indicators, or contribute to mental health, which should favor PWB. The choice of
mental health concepts—that is, whether researchers measure indicators of PTH or PWB
—thus at least partly reflects researchers’ (implicit) (p. 85) assumptions about whether
CMC is more relevant for mental illness (PTH) or mental thriving (PWB). These assump
tions may vary over time (e.g., due to researchers shifting their focus from negative to
positive technology effects, or because some mental health indicators become more rele
vant with the emergence of new ICTs) as well as discipline and topic (e.g., some disci
plines focus on topics that relate CMC only to PTH while others focus on CMC in relation
to PWB; cf. de Chavez et al., 2005). This leads us to ask:
RQ5: How are the mental health concepts PTH and PWB distributed (a) over
time, (b) within and between disciplines, and (c) within and between topics?
While we are interested in the general trajectory of both concepts, there is some reason
to believe that, overall, studies will address PTH more often than PWB. Typically, new me
dia and communication technologies are met with cultural critique, skepticism, or even
moral panic (e.g., Jensen, 1990; Buckingham & Strandgaard Jensen, 2012). This is cer
tainly the case with CMC, as illustrated by fierce public and research debates about the
impact of each new and popular ICT, especially on younger users (e.g., Kraut et al., 1998;
Turkle, 2011; Twenge, Joiner, Rogers, & Martin, 2018; Walther & Parks, 2002). With re
gard to mental health, researchers are then more likely to address CMC in relation to im
pairments of mental health (i.e., PTH) rather than to contributions to optimal psychologi
cal functioning (i.e., PWB). Accordingly, we expect:
H3a: Overall, there will be more research investigating PTH than PWB.
However, over time, researchers typically go beyond a “negative effects” paradigm and
start investigating the positive potentials of media and communication technologies. Tele
vision research, for instance, started by addressing the potentially negative impact on ag
gression, people’s tendency to seek escape, or cultivation effects, but later turned to posi
tive potentials for mood management and meaningful entertainment (for an overview, see
Reinecke & Oliver, 2017). We expect a similar shift with regard to CMC and mental
health. Specifically, we expect to see a larger increase in research studying CMC in rela
tion to the positive (PWB) than the negative side of mental health (PTH).
H3b: Over time, the rate of research investigating PWB will increase more than
the rate of research investigating PTH.
Page 7 of 40
Method
Scoping Review Methodology
To chart the vast, highly fragmented, and fast growing literature on CMC and mental
health we make use of scoping review methodology (Colquhoun et al., 2014; Pham et al.,
2014). In reaction to the exponential rise in research output (Günther & Domahidi, 2017),
scoping reviews have become a popular approach for research synthesis in many disci
plines. The main function of this type of review is “to map a vast body of research litera
ture in a field of interest in terms of the volume, nature, and characteristics of the prima
ry research” (Pham et al., 2014, p. 371). Scoping reviews are particularly relevant when a
field of interest is highly heterogeneous in nature (Mays, Roberts, & Popay, 2001) and
helpful in tracing the emergence of new (sub-)fields. Moreover, they can illuminate a
field’s main lines of inquiry (i.e., its topics) as well as its disciplinary boundaries; uncover
gaps and trends in the literature; and, most importantly, point to future directions for fur
ther research integration.
Scoping reviews have rarely been applied in the field of communication (e.g., Peng,
Zhang, Zhong, & Zhu, 2013), although research on mass media, ICTs, and CMC is inher
ently interdisciplinary and growing fast (Günther & Domahidi, 2017). We believe that this
type of review represents a useful method to assess the state of research on the relation
ship between CMC and mental health. As research in this area is currently particularly
fragmented and likely growing exponentially, a “classical” review approach that involves
hand searches and manual coding would be highly resource-intensive. We therefore make
use of economical and effective computational methods that have recently gained popu
larity in communication (e.g., Günther & Domahidi, 2017; Peng et al., 2013; Rauchfleisch,
2017). Besides allowing us to conduct a scoping review based on a great amount of infor
mation (Tsafnat et al., 2014), computational methods facilitate thematically comprehen
sive reviews, as they are typically based on large-scale systematic sampling and quantita
tive analysis (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009). To also provide more in-
depth and detailed accounts of the reviewed body of literature, we combine these compu
tational methods with qualitative manual coding wherever necessary (e.g., to select the
topics relevant for our research question, or to further illustrate the meaning of topics
identified by our quantitative analysis).
Sample
To realize our sample of relevant studies, we systematically developed a search string

covering both CMC and mental health concepts (see Table 4.1). An original string was de
veloped and then iteratively refined and validated manually in multiple steps (e.g., by as
sessing the number of false-positive search results). During this procedure, it became ap
parent that certain highly prevalent terms (e.g., sex, suicide, therapy, or cancer) as well
as technology and media terms not meeting our definition of CMC (e.g., games, robots,
porn) needed to be explicitly excluded in order to reduce high numbers of false-positives.
Page 8 of 40
Table 4.1 Search Terms, Databases, and Concept Operationalization
Search String of the Systematic Database Search

AB(((Internet or cyber* or “online media” or “online communication”
or “online social network*” or “online communit*” or chat* or email or
“computer-mediated” or “mobile phone” or smartphone or “instant
mess*” or “mobile mess*” or “social media” or “social network* site*”
or “information and communication technolog*” or facebook or
instagram or snapchat or twitter or wechat or weibo or texting) not
gam* not robot* not porn*) and ((“well-being” or “psych* functioning”
or “life satisfaction” or “satisfaction with life” or “positive affect” or
“negative affect” or psychopatholog* or “mental health” or anxiety or
loneliness or “self W1 esteem” or depression) not sex* not suicid* not
disabil* not trauma* not patient* not emergency not therap* not
training not protocol not intervent* not prevent* not care not program
not cancer)).
EBSCO Host Databases Searched

Academic Search Ultimate; Business Source Premier; Communica
tion Source; EconLit; ERIC; Library, Information Science & Technolo
gy Abstracts; MEDLINE; PsycARTICLES; PsycINFO; SocINDEX with
Full Text.
Operationalization of Mental Health Concepts for Concept

Analysis
Concept 1, psychological well-being (very broadly defined, incl. re
silience factors): “well-being” or “psych* functioning” or “life satisfac
tion” or “satisfaction with life” or “positive affect” or “negative affect”
or happiness or “social support” or “social capital” or “self-esteem”
Concept 2, psychopathology (very broadly defined, incl. risk factors):
psychopatholog* or anxiety or loneliness OR depress* or stress or
phobia or fear or disorder or “substance abuse” or “attention-deficit”
or “hyperactivity” or “ADHD” or “AD/HD” or aggress*
The final search string was then applied to search articles’ abstracts via the meta-data
base EBSCO Host from 1998 (i.e., the year of publication of Kraut et al.’s pivotal article)
until April 4th 2018. EBSCO Host offers access to a wide range of databases and journals
and (p. 87) allows downloading abstracts and metadata (though not full texts) for all
search results as an .xml file. We searched 10 databases within EBSCO Host representing
a broad variety of disciplines that may conduct research on CMC and mental health (see
Table 4.1). Automated content analysis is highly dependent on language; thus, only publi
cations in English were included. Included publication formats were journal articles, dis
sertations, and conference proceedings.
Page 9 of 40
After downloading, we excluded all duplicates and entries with missing abstract and/or ti
tle data, resulting in our final sample of 4,118 potentially relevant documents. All our
analyses are based on articles’ abstracts and metadata (i.e., title, year of publication,
journal title).
Analytical Approach
Topic modeling. To process the large sample, we opted for an automated content analy
sis, specifically topic modeling. Topic modeling is an unsupervised machine learning ap
proach “inferring topics from recurring patterns of word occurrence in
documents” (Maier et al., 2018, p. 94). Note that topic models are mixed membership ap
proaches, meaning that documents can be associated with multiple topics (Maier et al.,
2018). Given the characteristics of our sample (i.e., topics are likely to be correlated), we
estimated a (p. 88) Correlated Topic Model (CTM) based on the text in articles’ abstracts
(Blei & Lafferty, 2009). Common preprocessing steps such as word stemming and TFIDF
weighting were implemented (Manning, Raghavan, & Schütze, 2008) with the R package
tm:0.7-3 (Feinerer, Hornik, & Meyer, 2008). Following a common approach, we estimated
90 topic models from k = 20 to k = 200 in order to find the number of topics k that deliv
ers the best model fit for our data. We then estimated our CTM with the resulting para
meter value of k = 110 topics using the R topicmodels_0.2-7 package (Grün & Hornik,
2011). Based on the estimated hyperparameter values, we observed a few dominant top
ics per document (instead of a high number of equally distributed topics). To avoid
skewed results, we selected the two topics with the highest probability, meaning the like
lihood that a topic k occurs in a given abstract. Additionally, we only considered topics
with a minimum probability of 0.1 in a given abstract.
Manual topic selection and merger. After the automated analysis, we manually
checked abstracts and titles for all topics that appeared as first or second most probable
in more than 50 documents (Maier et al., 2018). Out of the identified 110 topics, we man
ually selected only those topics that fit our specific research focus for further analysis
(see the section on Defining key constructs). This manual topic selection resulted in a re
duction of our sample to 15 topics (N = 1780 abstracts). All analyses are based on this re
duced sample. We then merged the 15 topics into nine based on our qualitative assess
ment that they showed high thematic overlap. That is, we retained the algorithmically
identified 15 topics, but manually grouped them together on a more general level, based
on common research themes investigated in these topics. This merger was done to en
sure a parsimonious yet still exhaustive analysis. For each of the nine merged topics, we
chose a label that best represents its content on a conceptual level above and beyond the
words associated with each topic (see Table 4.2).
Publication behavior in the field. Journal names were determined from article metada
ta. Additionally, we manually coded journals’ disciplinary affiliations for all journals that
had published three or more articles in our sample. Coding was based on a journal’s So
cial Science Citation Index (SSCI) categorization (see end of chapter for URL). In a few
cases, journals were not listed in the SSCI; disciplinary affiliations were then coded based
Page 10 of 40
on the journal’s self-description taken from its web presence. In a next step, SSCI sub-dis
cipline categories (e.g., developmental psychology, social psychology, clinical psychology)
were grouped in broad disciplines (e.g., psychology) to ensure comparability of results
across a reasonable number of disciplines. Note that journals can be listed for multiple
disciplines in the SSCI and were coded and analyzed accordingly (71 journals belonged to
only one discipline, 30 belonged to two disciplines, five belonged to three disciplines, and
two belonged to four disciplines). Publication outlets other than journals (e.g., Disserta
tion Abstracts databases) were not coded for disciplinary affiliation.
Concepts. The two key mental health concepts, psychopathology (PTH) and psychologi
cal well-being (PWB), were identified via a keyword search based on lists of relevant ex
pressions which we applied to the downloaded abstracts, title, and keywords of all (p. 89)
1780 documents (see Table 4.1). The keyword search included terms from our literature
search string as well as additional terms originally not included in the literature search
string due to high rates of false-positive search results (e.g., “social capital” or “disor
der”). We ensured that both concepts were operationalized with roughly the same num
ber of keywords to avoid bias.
Software. All data management, cleaning, and analysis was performed using R (R Core
Team, 2018). All visualization was done with the R package ggplot2_2.2.1 (Wickham,
2009).
Results
Core Topics
To answer RQ1, we illustrate each topic based on example research themes derived from
documents associated with each of the 15 topics grouped into nine core topics (see Table
4.2). Due to the high number of documents, we can only include exemplary citations for
each topic, taken from the complete topic modeling dataset (N = 1780). These only serve
to illustrate a topic and do not represent the definitive state of the respective sub-field.
However, we generally chose the most recent and most thematically fitting publications in
order to provide an accurate description of the current state of the topic. The complete
references for these citations can be found in the appendix. Topics are sorted in descend
ing order based on the (aggregated) number of documents associated with each topic.
Page 11 of 40
Table 4.2 CTM with 15 Manually Selected Topics Merged into Nine
Thematically Overlapping Topic Clusters, Sorted by Aggregated Fre
quencies (k = 110, N = 1780, Max. 2 topics/Document, Prob ≥ 0.1)
Top Label Most relevant preprocessed Freq

ic words
1a Internet addic addict, selfesteem, impuls, iad, 265

tion & problem iat, turkey, comorbid, sclr, ex
atic Internet use cess, nonaddict
1b Internet addic problemat, alcohol, piu, drink, 167

tion & problem addict, fomo, cellphon, excess,
atic Internet use impuls, heavi
2a Facebook & SNS facebook, selfesteem, updat, 322

use lone, extravers, passiv, gratif,
impress, upward, selfpresent
2b Facebook & SNS sns, selfpresent, authent, un 70

use certainti, reconnect, passiv,
snapchat, offlin, acquaint, tie
3a Mobile & smart mobil, phone, spiritu, nurs, 233

phone use leisur, app, send, nomophobia,
recreat, smart, dses
3b Mobile & smart smartphon, selfefficaci, exercis, 153

phone use app, taiwan, disposit, gratif,
tablet, locus, multitask
4a Relationships & attach, style, gay, men, stressor, 105

CMC homoneg, secur, bisexu, ro
mant, insecur
4b Relationships & selfdisclosur, intimaci, romant, 89

CMC computermedi, disclosur, wei
bo, avatar, cue, partner, wechat
4c Relationships & friendship, girl, violenc, date, 84

CMC boy, sibl, domest, violent,
grade, parentchild
Page 12 of 40
5a Chatting & tex loneli, chat, room, selfesteem, 141

ting selfconcept, ciu, compuls, in
stant, clariti, teenag
5b Chatting & tex text, partner, talk, instant, voic, 63

ting channel, afford, retic, sms,
textmessag,
6 Cyberbullying victim, cyberbulli, bulli, cyber, 185

aggress, peer, cybervictim, per
petr, selfesteem, harass
7 ICT adoption ict, incom, rural, swb, house 136

hold, inequ, farm, agricultur,
urban, broadband
8 Work-related job, employe, workplac, worker, 115

CMC workrel, worklif, intrus,
burnout, supervisor, turnov
9 ICT use & sleep sleep, insomnia, disturb, hy 72

gien, sensor, pittsburgh, perfec
tionist, telepressur, perfection,
baselin
Internet addiction & problematic Internet use. Internet addiction (IA; topic 1a) is a
controversially debated, but dominant, approach to the study of CMC and mental health
since the earliest days of commercial Internet use (e.g., Young & Rodgers, 1998). It postu
lates that excessive Internet use—for some—can result from or reflect impulse control,
substance abuse, or compulsive disorders (Widyanto & Griffiths, 2006). While some use
the terminology interchangeably, problematic or pathological Internet use (PIU; 1b) often
represents one of several alternative approaches to this issue (e.g., Caplan, 2003; Karde
felt-Winther, 2014; Tokunaga, 2014). PIU recognizes problematic behaviors surrounding
(excessive) Internet use, but does not necessarily see these behaviors as indicative of be
havioral addiction.
Numerous studies have linked IA/PIU to various psychopathological symptoms and disor
ders (e.g., Floros, Siomos, Stogiannidou, Giouzepas, & Garyfallos, 2014) or lacking social
resources (e.g., Wu et al., 2016). However, beyond providing evidence of construct validi
ty and assessing comorbidity, studies finding negative relationships between IA/PIU and
mental health appear somewhat tautological, as its measures often include impaired men
tal health as a diagnostic criterion. Furthermore, a much contended issue pertains to the
causal direction between comorbid psychopathology and IA/PIU (e.g., Carli et al., 2013).
Page 13 of 40
(p. 90)Facebook & SNS use. With the rise of SNS, specifically Facebook, a second large
research topic has emerged. Often, studies extend classic research on CMC and mental
health (e.g., on the displacement of face-to-face contact) to the SNS context (e.g., Dienlin,
Masur, & Trepte, 2017). While some studies appear largely atheoretical and “effects-
driven” (e.g., Huang, 2017; Shakya & Christakis, 2017), increasingly research (p. 91) illu
minates how the passive consumption of others’ (often positively biased) self-presenta
tions on SNS elicits upward social comparison and emotional reactions such as envy (e.g.,
Blease, 2015; Kross et al., 2013; Tromholt, 2016; Verduyn et al., 2015). Some of this re
search gathers under the label of “Facebook depression” (Steers, 2016). In contrast to
this negative perspective on SNS and mental health, much work has assessed positive
mental health effects of social support and social capital derived from SNS use (e.g.,
Nabi, Prestin, & So, 2013), albeit also finding mixed results (e.g., Utz & Breuer, 2017).
Another theme within this broader topic has been the relationship between individuals’
loneliness and their SNS use (i.e., social compensation vs. social enhancement; e.g., Song
et al., 2014). It should be noted that the Facebook sub-topic (2a) was considerably more
frequent than the general SNS topic (2b), reflecting a “Facebook bias” in this research
(see Table 4.2).
Mobile & smartphone use. Research on the role of mobile phones (3a) and smart
phones (3b) in mental health shows a variety of themes: Epidemiological and medical
work, for example, is linking mobile screen time to impaired mental health, especially
among adolescent users (e.g., Babic et al., 2017). Early mobile research, in contrast, has
identified the emotional attachment that users have to their mobile devices as a double-
edged sword (Vincent, 2006), providing positive feelings of connectedness to social ties,
but eliciting anxiety once the mobile is absent (sometimes termed “nomophobia”; e.g.,
Hoffner, Lee, & Park, 2016). Another recent line of research investigates “phubbing,” the
snubbing of conversation partners by using mobiles phones during face-to-face talk,
which has been linked to reduced quality of social interactions and relationship satisfac
tion (e.g., Rotondi, Stanca, & Tomasuolo, 2017). Studies have also investigated the posi
tive (Pearson, Mack, & Namanya, 2017) and negative (Xie, Zhao, Xie, & Lei, 2016) sides
of mobile phone usage in rural and developing areas.
Relationships & CMC. This topic encompasses three—partly overlapping—research foci

that are tied together by their common theme of how people use CMC to develop and
maintain relationships: attachment theory, self-disclosure, and friendship and dating via
CMC.
Research on attachment theory (4a) investigates how different attachment styles (e.g.,
anxious vs. avoidant) impact CMC usage in (romantic) relationships (Oldmeadow, Quinn,
& Kowert, 2013) and its effects on relationship well-being (e.g., intimacy or satisfaction).
Morey, Gentzler, Creasy, Oberhauser, and Westerman (2013), for instance, find that at
tachment style moderated most of the effects between CMC and relationship quality. Oth
er work has studied how attachment style is related to using CMC for break-ups or moni
toring of ex-partners via SNS (Weisskirch & Delevi, 2012).
Page 14 of 40
Self-disclosure (4b) crucially contributes to maintaining interpersonal relationships and
receiving social support, and is hence beneficial for mental health. Often coming from a
hyperpersonal perspective (e.g., High & Caplan, 2009), this line of research investigates
how social anxiety relates to more disinhibited disclosures in CMC (Schouten, Valken
burg, & Peter, 2007) and provides evidence for social compensation (“poor get richer”) ef
fects (Weidman et al., 2012).
Finally, research on friendship and dating via CMC (4c) finds further evidence for
(p. 92)
such compensation effects (e.g., Desjarlais & Willoughby, 2010; Selfhout, Branje, Delsing,
ter Bogt, & Meeus, 2009), but also for social enhancement (“rich get richer”) effects in
online dating (Valkenburg & Peter, 2007). In dating relationships among adolescents, the
role of social anxiety has further been studied with regard to “electronic intrusion,” that
is, overcontrolling behavior towards one’s partner via CMC (Reed, Tolman, Ward, & Safy
er, 2016).
Chatting & texting. The research clustered around chatting (5a) and texting (5b) inves
tigates several of the issues outlined previously with a specific focus on text-based CMC.
Partly in reaction to Kraut et al.’s (1998) survey, researchers have, for instance, assessed
the relation between chatting and mental health experimentally and found positive effects
—specifically, reductions in depression and loneliness as well as increases in social sup
port and self-esteem (e.g., Shaw & Gant, 2002). However, researchers have also studied
chatting and texting from an addiction perspective, sometimes under the label of compul
sive Internet use (CIU; van den Eijnden, Meerkerk, Vermulst, Spijkerman, & Engels,
2008), and found CIU to be linked longitudinally to higher depression levels. Text messag
ing has also been differentially associated with relationship well-being (Park, Lee, &
Chung, 2016) and affective well-being (Hall, 2017). Notably, many studies in this topic as
sess and confirm mental health variables as predictors (e.g., loneliness, social anxiety, or
depression symptoms), rather than outcomes of texting behavior (e.g., Coyne, Padilla-
Walker, & Holmgren, 2018; Reid & Reid, 2010).
Cyberbullying. The phenomenon of cyberbullying (6) has received much research atten
tion over the past 20 years (Chen, Ho, & Lwin, 2017). Researchers have, for instance,
studied whether cyberbullying extends or replaces offline bullying (Kubiszewski,
Fontaine, Potard, & Auzoult, 2015) and tested whether cyberbullying uniquely contributes
to victims’ mental health impairments when controlling for offline bullying (Hase, Gold
berg, Smith, Stuck, & Campain, 2015; Sjursø, Fandrem, & Roland, 2014). Typical out
comes of cyber victimization include internalizing and externalizing psychopathology
(Schultze-Krumbholz, Jäkel, Schultze, & Scheithauer, 2012), and stress (Wright, 2015).
Researchers have also found psychopathology to predict whether adolescents become cy
berbullies (Chen et al., 2017). Research on this topic shows a unique focus on children
and adolescents, but has also recognized cyberbullying as a prevalent phenomenon in the
workplace (Vranjes, Baillien, Vandebosch, Erreygers, & de Witte, 2018) and in the form of
online trolling behavior (Hong & Cheng, 2018).
Page 15 of 40
ICT adoption. This topic (7) focusses on how the adoption of or access to ICTs affect the
well-being of different (marginalized) populations (e.g., elderly, rural inhabitants, low-in
come individuals, inhabitants of developing regions; Greyling, 2018; Ihm & Hsieh, 2015;
Tseng & Hsieh, 2015). Some of this research comes from a digital divide or digital in
equality perspective (e.g., Nie, Sousa-Poza, & Nimrod, 2017), studying differences in ac
cess, adoption, and effects depending on various sociodemographic factors. In contrast to
emphasizing the desirability of equal access to ICTs, researchers have also proposed that
increased ICT access can negatively affect well-being, for instance, by (p. 93) raising ma
terial aspirations (Lohmann, 2015). Overall, research on this topic takes a more sociologi
cal and economical macro perspective.
Work-related CMC. With the radical shift in work-environments towards email and mo
bile communication, research has been paying attention to the role that CMC plays for
workers’ well-being (8). For instance, research has explored how email usage contributes
to “technostress” and burnout (Carmago, 2008; Ninaus, Diehl, Terlutter, Chan, & Huang,
2015) or the well-being tradeoffs made when resisting interruptions from emails during
work tasks (Russell, Woods, & Banks, 2017). Research by Sonnentag, Reinecke, Mata,
and Vorderer (2018), however, shows that the effects of interruptions through messages
at work are not uniformly negative and depend on the user’s responsiveness. The impact
of incivility in email communication on well-being within organizations is another theme
within this topic (e.g., Giumetti, McKibben, Hatfield, Schroeder, & Kowalski, 2012). Con
cerning positive effects, researchers also recognize the potential of CMC technologies to
allow for micro-breaks at work, facilitating recovery and, hence, well-being (Ivarsson &
Larsson, 2011).
ICT use & sleep. Finally, emerging research increasingly links ICT use to poor sleep
quality (9), for example, through sleep displacement (e.g., Rosen, Carrier, Miller, Rokkum,
& Ruiz, 2016; Thomée, Eklöf, Gustafsson, Nilsson, & Hagberg, 2007). Poor sleep is a cru
cial risk factor for various psychopathologies. Research on this topic has found increased
social media use, both overall and nighttime-specific, to be linked to decreased sleep
quality among adolescents (Woods & Scott, 2016). A study also found that the collapse of
social contexts resulting from constant connectivity via ubiquitously used ICTs created
“telepressure” among college students (Barber & Santuzzi, 2017), which contributed to
poorer sleep hygiene (e.g., not going to bed at a regular time).
Changes over Time
Concerning the development of these nine core topics over time (RQ2), some topics did
increase particularly sharply in the last decade (see Figure 4.1). While topic 2 “Facebook
& SNS use” is only represented with one publication in 1998 and only two in 2008, in the
year 2017 we already find 62 publications on the topic. The same is true for topic 1 “In
ternet addiction & problematic Internet use,” a topic only represented with four publica
tions in 1998 and eleven in 2008, but 74 in 2017. Other topics such as topic 6 “cyberbul
lying” (2002: n = 1, 2008: n = 1, 2017: n = 28) increased less in the last decade. Overall,
Page 16 of 40
we observe a sharp increase in research on CMC and mental health since 1998. Accord
ingly, H1 was supported.
Figure 4.1 Distribution of nine core topics over time.
Publication Behavior in the Field
Concerning RQ3, the number of outlets for research on CMC and mental health is very
high, with 715 different publication outlets in our final sample. However, the number of
(p. 94) (p. 95) documents per outlet is often low (i.e., the distribution is highly skewed to
wards a few outlets that publish most of the research in the field). Figure 4.2 displays the
output of the 20 outlets with the highest number of documents in our sample. When inter
preting these results, it is important to keep in mind that outlets differ both in terms of
how far their archives date back, and in their yearly output (affected by number of issues
per year and articles per issue). We clearly find two psychological journals, Computers in
Human Behavior (n = 174) and Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking (n =
110) to have published the largest relative share of research on CMC and mental health.
Interestingly, genuine communication journals do not play an important role, with only
the Journal of Computer Mediated Communication (n = 14) among the top 20 publication
outlets. Note that while journals dominate the publication outlets, there is also a high
number of dissertations on CMC and mental health both in the “Sciences and
Engineering” (Diss. Abstract B, n = 133) and “Humanities and Social Sciences” (Diss. Ab
stracts A, n = 51).
Page 17 of 40
Figure 4.2 Top 20 journals.
We also analyzed the relative importance of disciplines for this research field. Clearly (see
Figure 4.3), psychology is the discipline publishing most research on CMC and mental
health (n = 510). We thus find support for H2. To answer RQ4, we look at the other disci
plines and find psychiatry (117), other social sciences (101), health and medicine (74),
and other (the residual category; 70), followed by communication (69), computer and in
formation science (60), and education (55) to considerably contribute to this field. The re
maining publications (n = 832) were either scattered over other outlets (e.g., Diss. Ab
stracts), which we could not clearly classify by discipline, or they were (p. 96) published in
journals with fewer than three articles on CMC and mental health and hence not included
in this analysis.
Disciplines vary with regard to their growth rates of publications on CMC and mental
health. Communication is not represented in the year 1998, has three articles in 2008,
while the rate increased fourfold to 13 articles in 2017. Psychology has a similar output of
only three articles in 1998 and 11 in 2008, but an almost sevenfold increase to 73 articles
in 2017. The interest of psychology in CMC and mental health research thus seems to
have increased particularly sharply.
Page 18 of 40
Figure 4.3 Distribution of articles per discipline over

time.
Mental Health Concepts
In order to answer RQ5a and test H3, we searched for terms representing each of the two
concepts, psychopathology (PTH) and psychological well-being (PWB), in our sample. In
general (see Figure 4.4), we found that research on PTH (n = 1205) is more prevalent
than on PWB (n = 808). We thus find support for H3a. However, a number of publications
addressed both concepts simultaneously (n = 368)—that is, they included both terms as
sociated with PTH and terms associated with PWB. Note that 135 abstracts could not be
classified in our sample as they included neither a term indicative of PTH or of PWB;
specifically, the search term “mental health” was considered to capture both concepts
and thus not included in the concept analysis (see Table 4.1 for details on the terms used).
In order to test H3b we look at the increase over time in number of publications contain
ing each concept. While PTH is represented with seven publications in the year 1998, and
32 in 2008, in 2017 we find 176 publications. PWB is represented with five publications in
1998, 19 in 2008, and 128 in 2017. While the increase rate is the same for both concepts
(p. 97) for the last two decades (factor 25), we find a slightly higher increase for PWB in
the last decade (factor 6.7) than for PTH (factor 5.5). Hence, we find weak support for
H3b.
Page 19 of 40
Figure 4.4 Distribution of mental health concepts

over time.
With regard to RQ5b, we find differences concerning the disciplines that publish research
on both concepts (see Table 4.3). While in communication journals the concept PTH (n =
49) is only 1.1 times as common as the concept PWB (n = 37), in psychology the rate is
1.8 (PTH: n = 397; PWB: n = 222), and in psychiatry studies on PTH (n = 90) were three
times more common than on PWB (n = 31).
Page 20 of 40
Computer-Mediated Communication and Mental Health: A Computational Scoping Review of an Interdisciplinary
Field
Table 4.3 Mental Health Concepts Distributed over Disciplines
Discipline PTH PWB Both Not classified
Communication 49 37 21 4
Psychology 397 222 121 12
Psychiatry 90 31 16 12
Education 40 27 14 2
Health & Medical 43 30 13 14

Sciences
Computer & Infor 37 32 14 5

mation Sciences
Social Sciences 65 51 19 4
(Other)
Other disciplines 45 32 11 4
Note: PTH = psychopathology; PWB = psychological well-being. Based on the data from our CTM with manual se
lection of 15 relevant topics, merged into nine topics based on high thematic overlap, k = 110, N = 1780, max. 2 top
ics/document with topic probability ≥ 0.1.
Page 21 of 40
Regarding the question of how the two mental health concepts are distributed over topics
(RQ5c), we find several noteworthy differences (see Table 4.4). In most topics such as “In
ternet addiction & PIU,” “mobile & smartphone use,” “relationships & CMC,” (p. 98)
“chatting & texting,” “cyberbullying,” and “ICT use & sleep,” we find a clear focus on
PTH. On the contrary, research on “Facebook & SNS use” shows an almost balanced dis
tribution of the concepts, while in the topics “ICT adoption” and “work-related ICT use”
we find more publications on PWB.
Page 22 of 40
Field
Table 4.4 Mental Health Concepts Distributed over Topics
Topic PTH PWB Both Not Classified
Internet addiction 355 138 88 27

& PIU
Facebook & SNS 254 231 105 12

use
Mobile & smart 231 159 52 48

phone use
Relationships & 194 113 50 21

CMC
Chatting & texting 180 82 63 5
Cyberbullying 151 66 43 11
ICT adoption 47 96 17 10
Work-related CMC 67 81 41 8
ICT use & sleep 52 25 13 8
Page 23 of 40
Field
Note: PTH = psychopathology; PWB = psychological well-being; based on the data from our CTM with manual se
lection of 15 relevant topics, merged into nine topics based on high thematic overlap, k = 110, N = 1780, max. 2 top
ics/document with topic probability ≥ 0.1.
Page 24 of 40
Discussion
Summary and Contribution
Since the mid-1990s, Internet and ICT use has firmly established itself in the everyday
lives of billions of people around the globe (International Telecommunications Union,
2018). As this Handbook summarizes, a large part of our daily social behavior is now me
diated by technology. The question of whether and how such computer-mediated commu
nication is related to the mental health of users has been the center of much public de
bate and research attention. With the emergence of new, heterogeneous, and interdisci
plinary lines of research on CMC and mental health (Meier & Reinecke, 2020), the chal
lenge of defining and navigating this field has arisen. We face this challenge by present
ing this scoping review, which identifies core topics as well as structural properties of the
field.
Our results underline that research interest in CMC and mental health has increased dra
matically in the last 10 years. Beyond the general increase in publication output across
disciplines (e.g., Günther & Domahidi, 2017), a likely explanation for this is the radical es
tablishment of social media (e.g., SNS) and smartphones in daily life, and an increase in
societies’ and researchers’ concerns surrounding their potential impact (e.g., Twenge,
Martin et al., 2018). With regard to the core topics, research on Internet addiction and
problematic Internet usage clearly dominates the field. However, there is a variety of top
ics that offer alternative approaches to the study of CMC and mental health. Specifically,
there is a strong and fast growing research focus on Facebook and SNS, as well as on mo
bile (smart)phone usage, and the role that CMC plays in close interpersonal relationships.
Our qualitatively derived topic descriptions imply that, instead of largely atheoretical
overpathologizing of everyday life behavior (Billieux, Schimmenti, Khazaal, Maurage, &
Heeren, 2015), researchers now also apply more fine-grained theoretical approaches that
specify both how CMC can impact mental health (e.g., social comparison or attachment
theory) and how mental health can be a predictor rather than an outcome of CMC (e.g.,
social compensation vs. social enhancement). The topics also highlight that while the fo
cus of the first research decade (i.e., how CMC impacts social resources) is still very
much present in the literature (Domahidi, 2018), there are numerous other important
connections between CMC and users’ mental health that receive considerable research
attention.
Our qualitative topic descriptions also further specify the fragmentation and lack of theo
retical integration of the research field. While research on some topics such as (p. 99)
“ICT adoption” or “ICT use & sleep” seems to focus more on global usage indicators such
as access to ICTs or time spent in front of screens, research on other topics investigates
the interpersonal communication unfolding within a specific ICT channel (see, e.g., “rela
tionships & CMC”). That is, research on different topics focuses on different aspects and
indicators of CMC, with potentially unique implications for its relation to mental health. A
Page 25 of 40
much needed systematization and integration of these different operationalizations of
CMC would go beyond the focus of this scoping review, representing an important im
pulse for future research.
Concerning mental health, both topics and disciplines differed in how much they ad
dressed the two key concepts, psychopathology and psychological well-being. Overall, the
research in this field emphasizes PTH, which may indicate a dominant presumption that
CMC is more related to mental illness than to mental thriving. While this could also be in
terpreted as studies investigating how CMC reduces risks of mental illness (hence also fo
cusing on PTH instead of PWB), the topics identified here suggest that this was not a
common approach in our sample. However, some topics showed a focus on PWB, while
only research on the topic “Facebook & SNS use” overall equally addressed both PTH and
PWB concepts. We also found research on PWB to increase slightly more frequently in the
last decade, potentially indicating researchers’ increasing—or reemerging (cf. Hiltz &
Turoff, 1978)—recognition of the positive potentials of CMC for PWB. We encourage fu
ture researchers to further reflect upon whether a sole focus on negative (PTH) or posi
tive (PWB) markers of mental health is justified for their specific research question and
whether their investigation can benefit from a more comprehensive appreciation of the
full mental health spectrum (Meier & Reinecke, 2020).
Concerning the structural properties of the field, we find clear evidence for a dominance
of psychological research. This appears understandable, given that any study of human
behavior in relation to mental health requires a thorough understanding of the human
psyche. However, it may also affect the kind of research questions that are (not) studied
with regard to CMC and mental health. While psychological research typically focusses
on an individual’s cognition, affect, and behavior vis-à-vis CMC, sociological research, for
instance, may seek to explain relationships between CMC and mental health by investi
gating differences in users’ network structures (e.g., Haythornthwaite, 2005). Similarly,
communication research may add a more detailed conceptualization of different aspects
of communication unfolding within CMC channels (e.g., Walther & Parks, 2002), instead
of conflating them in global “time spent” or “screen time” indicators of technology use.
More research from perspectives beyond psychology may thus help fully understand how
CMC affects and is affected by ICT users’ mental health.
Limitations
The results of this scoping review need to be interpreted in light of several limitations
concerning both sampling and analysis. First, our review only includes publications that
explicitly mentioned both CMC and mental health concepts (as operationalized by our
(p. 100) search string) in their abstracts. Many more empirical and theoretical articles
may inform research on how CMC relates to mental health and vice versa, but fail to men
tion this in their abstracts.
Second, our review relies on a systematically drawn sample of publications on CMC and
mental health. Systematic reviews, in general, can hardly include all available literature
Page 26 of 40
or even draw a representative sample, as the population of relevant documents is typical
ly unknown. Instead, we aimed to balance the precision of our search (e.g., by excluding
certain terms that resulted in high numbers of false-positives) with an adequately com
prehensive recall of eligible articles (e.g., by relying on a broad interdisciplinary database
search). Still, some research that may be relevant to this field could not be included here.
For instance, we explicitly excluded the search term “suicide” due to very high numbers
of false-positives in our initial literature searches. Research on how some forms of CMC
(e.g., SNS use) may be related to suicide is thus not represented here (e.g., Twenge, Join
er et al., 2018). Third, the accessibility of databases used for sampling is contingent on a
researcher’s institutional access to EBSCO Host, which in our case was provided by the
Free University of Berlin, Germany. Fourth, each journal’s terms of publication (frequen
cy of issues and number of articles per year), the year in which a journal was launched,
and the extent to which older issues are digitized determine the availability and total
number of abstracts and metadata online. Not all journal archives are fully digitized; thus,
some relevant abstracts may be missing from our dataset. Fifth, we only included re
search published in English. Research from some parts of the world is likely underrepre
sented in this review.
Concerning our topic modeling analysis, a number of characteristics of this approach

need to be taken into account when interpreting the results. First, given the generally in
creasing rates of scientific outputs (Günther & Domahidi, 2017), a characteristic of our
sample is that the number of journals and abstracts has increased over time. As such, the
choice of the most relevant words per topic (see Table 4.2) is likely to be skewed towards
recently published research. It should also be emphasized that a traditional manual cod
ing of research topics may have resulted in a different set of topics. Topic modeling repre
sents a large-scale, data-driven, and bottom-up approach to the identification of research
topics and does not require an a priori coding scheme that predefines what constitutes a
research topic. As the two approaches (computational vs. manual) are analytically (bot
tom-up vs. top-down) and pragmatically different (feasibility for large vs. small samples),
they are likely to arrive at different results. None of these arguments represents a limita
tion in a strict sense, but should be kept in mind when evaluating the topic modeling re
sults.
Concerning the impact of different disciplines on the research field, we only assessed dis
ciplines based on journals’ SSCI categories and our manual aggregation of these cate
gories into broad groups of disciplines. However, researchers from various disciplines
may publish in journals relevant to their research topics, not just those from their home
discipline. For example, communication researchers also publish in psychological journals
(e.g., Meier et al., 2016). Accordingly, our statements about disciplinary impact are only
based on journals’, not researchers’, disciplinary affiliations. Moreover, 34% of (p. 101)
coded journals belonged to more than one discipline, indicating that many journals them
selves are somewhat interdisciplinary. Also, while our sample includes over 700 publica
tion outlets, some of these may be duplicates due to slightly different spelling in different
databases searched by EBSCO Host. We only deduplicated outlets with three or more
Page 27 of 40
documents in our sample. Accordingly, the actual number of unique outlets may be slight
ly lower.
Finally, with regard to our two umbrella constructs, CMC and mental health, we only ana
lyzed the mental health concepts PTH and PWB in detail. A similar analysis with regard to
CMC concepts could not be realized, as a consistent typology of CMC concepts is current
ly missing from the literature and would go beyond the scope of this review.
Future Research Agenda
Based on this review, we suggest several directions for future research. First, researchers
should reflect more on whether their research question implies a relation between CMC
and PTH, or PWB, or both. Addressing both PWB and PTH appears preferable, as it
avoids overlooking potential positive associations between CMC and mental health that
are difficult to capture with PTH indicators only (and vice versa). Second, future research
syntheses on this field should treat PTH and PWB in a more detailed manner than was
possible here. For instance, research on CMC and mental health could be further differ
entiated by whether externalizing versus internalizing PTH or hedonic versus eudaimonic
PWB is addressed (Meier & Reinecke, 2020). Third, theory-driven research beyond a psy
chological and clinical (e.g., addiction) paradigm is much needed to achieve a fuller un
derstanding of the complex relationships between CMC and mental health. Fourth, a
more in-depth and systematic synthesis of research from some of the broader topics (e.g.,
“Facebook & SNS use,” “relationships & CMC,” or “mobile & smartphone use”) appears
warranted in order to assess how relationships between specific aspects of CMC (e.g., ac
tive vs. passive SNS use) differ with regard to mental health. Finally, while our concept
analysis only focused on mental health, we encourage researchers to develop analytical
frameworks for the analysis of the various concepts and indicators of CMC that have been
studied in relation to mental health. Without a more systematic approach to both umbrel
la constructs, CMC and mental health, further integration of the fast growing literature is
hampered. We believe that our review represents one step in this direction by providing a
first higher-level overview of the emerging research field and by charting its development
over the last 20 years.
References
Baker, D. A., & Algorta, G. P. (2016). The relationship between online social networking
and depression: A systematic review of quantitative studies. Cyberpsychology, Behavior,
and Social Networking, 19(11), 638–648. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0206
Bargh, J. A., & McKenna, K. Y. A. (2004). The internet and social life. Annual Re
(p. 102)
view of Psychology, 55, 573–590. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.

55.090902.141922
Billieux, J., Schimmenti, A., Khazaal, Y., Maurage, P., & Heeren, A. (2015). Are we over
pathologizing everyday life? A tenable blueprint for behavioral addiction research. Jour
nal of Behavioral Addictions, 4(3), 119–123. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.4.2015.009
Page 28 of 40
Blei, D. M., & Lafferty, J. D. (2009). Topic models. In A. N. Srivastava & M. Sahami (Eds.),
Text mining: Classification, clustering, and applications (pp. 71–94). Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P.T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to
meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Buckingham, D., & Strandgaard Jensen, H. (2012). Beyond “media panics”: Reconceptual
ising public debates about children and media. Journal of Children and Media, 6(4), 413–
429. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2012.740415
Carli, V., Durkee, T., Wasserman, D., Hadlaczky, G., Despalins, R., Kramarz, E., … Kaess,
M. (2013). The association between pathological internet use and comorbid psychopathol
ogy: A systematic review. Psychopathology, 46(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/
10.1159/000337971
Chan, M. (2015). Mobile phones and the good life: Examining the relationships among
mobile use, social capital and subjective well-being. New Media & Society, 17(1), 96–113.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813516836
Choi, M., & Toma, C. L. (2014). Social sharing through interpersonal media: Patterns and
effects on emotional well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 530–541. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.026
Clayton, R. B., Leshner, G., & Almond, A. (2015). The extended iSelf: The impact of iPhone
separation on cognition, emotion, and physiology. Journal of Computer-Mediated Commu
nication, 20(2), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12109
Colquhoun, H. L., Levac, D., O’Brien, K. K., Straus, S., Tricco, A. C., Perrier, L., … Moher,
D. (2014). Scoping reviews: Time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. Journal
of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(12), 1291–1294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.
2014.03.013
De Chavez, A. C., Backett-Milburn, K., Parry, O., & Platt, S. (2005). Understanding and re
searching wellbeing: Its usage in different disciplines and potential for health research
and health promotion. Health Education Journal, 64(1), 70–87. https://doi.org/
10.1177/001789690506400108
Domahidi, E. (2018). The associations between online media use and users’ perceived so
cial resources: A meta-analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 23, 181–
200. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmy007
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” So
cial capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168.
Feinerer, I., Hornik, K., & Meyer, D. (2008). Text mining infrastructure in R. Journal of
Statistical Software, 25(5). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v025.i05
Page 29 of 40
Forsman, A. K., & Nordmyr, J. (2015). Psychosocial links between Internet use and mental
health in later life: A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence. Journal
of Applied Gerontology, 36(12), 1471–1518. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0733464815595509
Greenspoon, P. J., & Saklofske, D. H. (2001). Toward an integration of subjective well-be

ing and psychopathology. Social Indicators Research, 54(1), 81–108. https://doi.org/
10.1023/A:1007219227883
Grün, B., & Hornik, K. (2011). Topicmodels: An R package for fitting topic models. Journal
of Statistical Software, 40(13). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v040.i13
Günther, E., & Domahidi, E. (2017). What communication scholars write about: An
(p. 103)
analysis of 80 years of research in high-impact journals. International Journal of Commu

nication, 11, 3051–3071.
Hall, J. A. (2018). When is social media use social interaction? Defining mediated social
interaction. New Media & Society, 20(1), 162–179. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1461444816660782
Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Social networks and Internet connectivity effects. Informa

tion, Communication & Society, 8(2), 125–147. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13691180500146185
Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1978). The network nation: Human communication via comput
er. London: Addison-Wesley.
Huang, C. (2010). Internet use and psychological well-being: a meta-analysis. Cyberpsy

chology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(3), 241–249. https://doi.org/10.1089/cy
ber.2009.0217
Huang, C. (2017). Time spent on social network sites and psychological well-being: A
meta-analysis. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 20(6), 346–354.
Huta, V., & Waterman, A. S. (2014). Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia: Devel
oping a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational defi
nitions. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(6), 1425–1456. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10902-013-9485-0
International Telecommunications Union. (2018). Statistics. Retrieved from https://

www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx
Jensen, J. (1990). Redeeming modernity: Contradictions in media criticism. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.
Katz, J. E., & Rice, R. E. (2002). Social consequences of Internet use: Access, involvement,
and interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Page 30 of 40
Keyes, C. L. M. (2007). Promoting and protecting mental health as flourishing: A comple
mentary strategy for improving national mental health. The American Psychologist, 62(2),
95–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.2.95
Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2002). In
ternet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 49–74. https://doi.org/
10.1111/1540-4560.00248
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W.
(1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psycho
logical well-being? American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017–1031. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0003-066X.53.9.1017
Kross, E., Verduyn, P., Demiralp, E., Park, J., Lee, D. S., Lin, N., … Sueur, C. (2013). Face
book use predicts declines in subjective well-being in young adults. PLOS One, 8(8),
e69841. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069841
Lahey, B. B., Krueger, R. F., Rathouz, P. J., Waldman, I. D., & Zald, D. H. (2017). A hierar
chical causal taxonomy of psychopathology across the life span. Psychological Bulletin,
143(2), 142–186. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000069
Lee, E.-J., & Oh, S. Y. (2015). Computer-mediated communication. Retrieved from http://
www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756841/
obo-9780199756841-0160.xml
Liu, D., Ainsworth, S. E., & Baumeister, R. F. (2016). A meta-analysis of social networking
online and social capital. Review of General Psychology, 20(4), 369–391. https://doi.org/
10.1037/gpr0000091
Maier, D., Waldherr, A., Miltner, P., Wiedemann, G., Niekler, A., Keinert, A., … Adam, S.
(2018). Applying LDA topic modeling in communication research: Toward a valid and reli
able methodology. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(2–3), 93–118. https://
doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2018.1430754
Manning, C. D., Raghavan, P., & Schütze, H. (2008). Introduction to information

(p. 104)
retrieval. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mays, N., Roberts, E., & Popay, J. (2001). Synthesising research evidence. In N. Fulop, P.
Allen, A. Clarke, & N. Black (Eds.), Studying the organisation and delivery of health ser
vices: Research methods. London: Routledge.
Meier, A., & Reinecke, L. (2020, April 6). Computer-mediated communication, social me
dia, and mental health: A conceptual and empirical meta-review. https://doi.org/10.31234/
osf.io/573ph.
Meier, A., Reinecke, L., & Meltzer, C. E. (2016). “Facebocrastination”? Predictors of using
Facebook for procrastination and its effects on students’ well-being. Computers in Human
Behavior, 64, 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.011
Page 31 of 40
Mikal, J. P., Rice, R. E., Abeyta, A., & DeVilbiss, J. (2013). Transition, stress and computer-
mediated social support. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), A40–A53. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.012
Nie, N. H., Hillygus, D. S., & Erbring, L. (2002). Internet use, interpersonal relations and
sociability: Findings from a detailed time diary study. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornth
waite (Eds.), The Internet in everyday life (pp. 215–243). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Peng, T.-Q., Zhang, L., Zhong, Z.-J., & Zhu, J. J. H. (2013). Mapping the landscape of inter
net studies: Text mining of social science journal articles 2000–2009. New Media & Soci
ety, 15(5), 644–664. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812462846
Pham, M. T., Rajić, A., Greig, J. D., Sargeant, J. M., Papadopoulos, A., & McEwen, S. A.
(2014). A scoping review of scoping reviews: Advancing the approach and enhancing the
consistency. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(4), 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.
1123
Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N. (2017). A large-scale test of the goldilocks hypothesis:
Quantifying the relations between digital-screen use and the mental well-being of adoles
cents. Psychological Science, 28(2), 204–215. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0956797616678438
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna,
Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-
project.org/
Rauchfleisch, A. (2017). The public sphere as an essentially contested concept: A co-cita

tion analysis of the last 20 years of public sphere research. Communication and the
Public, 2(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047317691054
Reinecke, L., & Oliver, M. B. (2017). Media use and well-being: Status quo and open ques
tions. In L. Reinecke & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of media use and
well-being: International perspectives on theory and research on positive media effects
(pp. 3–13). New York, NY: Routledge.
Rice, R. E. (1980). The impacts of computer-mediated organizational and interpersonal

communication. In M. Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technolo
gy (Vol. 15). Whiteplains, NY: Knowledge Industry Publications.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of re
search on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–
166.
Song, H., Zmyslinski-Seelig, A., Kim, J., Drent, A., Victor, A., Omori, K., & Allen, M. (2014).
Does Facebook make you lonely? A meta analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 36,
446–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.011
Page 32 of 40
Tokunaga, R. S., & Rains, S. A. (2010). An evaluation of two characterizations of the rela
tionships between problematic Internet use, time spent using the Internet, and psychoso
cial problems. Human Communication Research, 36(4), 512–545. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01386.x
Toma, C. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2013). Self-affirmation underlies Facebook use. Per
(p. 105)
sonality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(3), 321–331. https://doi.org/

10.1177/0146167212474694
Tsafnat, G., Glasziou, P., Choong, M. K., Dunn, A., Galgani, F., & Coiera, E. (2014). Sys
tematic review automation technologies. Systematic Reviews, 3, 74. https://doi.org/
10.1186/2046-4053-3-74
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from
each other. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Twenge, J. M., Joiner, T. E., Rogers, M. L., & Martin, G. N. (2018). Increases in depressive
symptoms, suicide-related outcomes, and suicide rates among U.S. adolescents after 2010
and links to increased new media screen time. Clinical Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–17.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702617723376
Twenge, J. M., Martin, G. N., & Campbell, W. K. (2018). Decreases in psychological well-
being among American adolescents after 2012 and links to screen time during the rise of
smartphone technology. Emotion. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/
emo0000403
Twomey, C., & O’Reilly, G. (2017). Associations of self-presentation on Facebook with

mental health and personality variables: A systematic review. Cyberpsychology, Behavior
and Social Networking, 20(10), 587–595. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2017.0247
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2009). Social consequences of the Internet for adolescents.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1467-8721.2009.01595.x
Van der Schuur, W. A., Baumgartner, S. E., Sumter, S. R., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2015). The
consequences of media multitasking for youth: A review. Computers in Human Behavior,
53, 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.035
Verduyn, P., Ybarra, O., Résibois, M., Jonides, J., & Kross, E. (2017). Do social network
sites enhance or undermine subjective well-being? A critical review. Social Issues and Pol
icy Review, 11(1), 274–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12033
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction. Communica

tion Research, 19(1), 52–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365092019001003
Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediat
ed communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of in
terpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 529–563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Page 33 of 40
Wickham, H. (2009). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer.
Zuccala, A. (2006). Modeling the invisible college. Journal of the American Society for In
formation Science and Technology, 57(2), 152–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20256
Appendix: Publications Analyzed from the Topic Modeling Dataset (N

= 1780) Used for Topic Description
Babic, M. J., Smith, J. J., Morgan, P. J., Eather, N., Plotnikoff, R. C., & Lubans, D. R. (2017).
Longitudinal associations between changes in screen-time and mental health outcomes in
adolescents. Mental Health and Physical Activity, 12, 124–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.mhpa.2017.04.001
Barber, L. K., & Santuzzi, A. M. (2017). Telepressure and college student employment:
The costs of staying connected across social contexts. Stress and Health, 33(1), 14–23.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2668
Blease, C. R. (2015). Too many ‘friends,’ too few ‘likes’? Evolutionary psychology and
‘Facebook depression’. Review of General Psychology, 19(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/
10.1037/gpr0000030
(p. 106) Caplan, S. E. (2003). Preference for online social interaction: A theory of problem
atic Internet use and psychosocial well-being. Communication Research, 30(6), 625–648.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650203257842
Carli, V., Durkee, T., Wasserman, D., Hadlaczky, G., Despalins, R., Kramarz, E., … Kaess,
M. (2013). The association between pathological internet use and comorbid psychopathol
ogy: A systematic review. Psychopathology, 46(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/
10.1159/000337971
Carmago, M. R. (2008). A grounded theory study of the relationship between e-mail and
burnout. Information Research, 13(4), paper 383.
Chen, L., Ho, S. S., & Lwin, M. O. (2017). A meta-analysis of factors predicting cyberbully
ing perpetration and victimization: From the social cognitive and media effects approach.
New Media & Society, 19(8), 1194–1213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816634037
Coyne, S. M., Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Holmgren, H. G. (2018). A six-year longitudinal

study of texting trajectories during adolescence. Child Development, 89(1), 58–65.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12823
Desjarlais, M., & Willoughby, T. (2010). A longitudinal study of the relation between ado
lescent boys’ and girls’ computer use with friends and friendship quality: Support for the
social compensation or the rich-get-richer hypothesis? Computers in Human Behavior,
26(5), 896–905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.004
Page 34 of 40
Dienlin, T., Masur, P. K., & Trepte, S. (2017). Reinforcement or displacement? The reci
procity of FtF, IM, and SNS communication and their effects on loneliness and life satis
faction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(2), 71–87. https://doi.org/
10.1111/jcc4.12183
Floros, G., Siomos, K., Stogiannidou, A., Giouzepas, I., & Garyfallos, G. (2014). The rela
tionship between personality, defense styles, Internet addiction disorder, and psy
chopathology in college students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking,
17(10), 672–676. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0182
Giumetti, G. W., McKibben, E. S., Hatfield, A. L., Schroeder, A. N., & Kowalski, R. M.
(2012). Cyber incivility @ work: The new age of interpersonal deviance. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior and Social Networking, 15(3), 148–154. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.
2011.0336
Greyling, T. (2018). Internet access and its relationship to subjective well-being in a de
veloping region. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 21(1),
a1841. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajems.v21i1.1841
Hall, J. (2017). The experience of mobile entrapment in daily life. Journal of Media Psy
chology, 29(3), 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000228
Hase, C. N., Goldberg, S. B., Smith, D., Stuck, A., & Campain, J. (2015). Impacts of tradi
tional bullying and cyberbullying on the mental health of middle school and high school
students. Psychology in the Schools, 52(6), 607–617. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.
21841
High, A. C., & Caplan, S. E. (2009). Social anxiety and computer-mediated communication
during initial interactions: Implications for the hyperpersonal perspective. Computers in
Human Behavior, 25(2), 475–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.10.011
Hoffner, C. A., Lee, S., & Park, S. J. (2016). “I miss my mobile phone!”: Self-expansion via
mobile phone and responses to phone loss. New Media & Society, 18(11), 2452–2468.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815592665
Hong, F.-Y., & Cheng, K.-T. (2018). Correlation between university students’ online trolling
behavior and online trolling victimization forms, current conditions, and personality
traits. Telematics and Informatics, 35(2), 397–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.
2017.12.016
Huang, C. (2017). Time spent on social network sites and psychological well-be
(p. 107)
ing: A meta-analysis. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 20(6), 346–354.
Ihm, J., & Hsieh, Y. P. (2015). The implications of information and communication technol
ogy use for the social well-being of older adults. Information, Communication & Society,
18(10), 1123–1138. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1019912
Page 35 of 40
Ivarsson, L., & Larsson, P. (2011). Personal Internet usage at work: A source of recovery.
Journal of Workplace Rights, 16(1), 63–81. https://doi.org/10.2190/WR.16.1.e
Kardefelt-Winther, D. (2014). A conceptual and methodological critique of internet addic

tion research: Towards a model of compensatory internet use. Computers in Human Be
havior, 31, 351–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.059
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W.
(1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psycho
logical well-being? American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017–1031. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0003-066X.53.9.1017
Kross, E., Verduyn, P., Demiralp, E., Park, J., Lee, D. S., Lin, N., … Sueur, C. (2013). Face
book use predicts declines in subjective well-being in young adults. PLOS ONE, 8(8),
e69841. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069841
Kubiszewski, V., Fontaine, R., Potard, C., & Auzoult, L. (2015). Does cyberbullying overlap
with school bullying when taking modality of involvement into account? Computers in Hu
man Behavior, 43, 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.049
Lohmann, S. (2015). Information technologies and subjective well-being: Does the Inter
net raise material aspirations? Oxford Economic Papers, 67(3), 740–759. https://doi.org/
10.1093/oep/gpv032
Morey, J. N., Gentzler, A. L., Creasy, B., Oberhauser, A. M., & Westerman, D. (2013). Young
adults’ use of communication technology within their romantic relationships and associa
tions with attachment style. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1771–1778. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.019
Nabi, R. L., Prestin, A., & So, J. (2013). Facebook friends with (health) benefits? Exploring
social network site use and perceptions of social support, stress, and well-being. Cy
berpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(10), 721–727. https://doi.org/
10.1089/cyber.2012.0521
Nie, P., Sousa-Poza, A., & Nimrod, G. (2017). Internet use and subjective well-being in
China. Social Indicators Research, 132(1), 489–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11205-015-1227-8
Ninaus, K., Diehl, S., Terlutter, R., Chan, K., & Huang, A. (2015). Benefits and stressors—
Perceived effects of ICT use on employee health and work stress: An exploratory study
from Austria and Hong Kong. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and
Well-Being, 10, 28838. https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v10.28838
Oldmeadow, J. A., Quinn, S., & Kowert, R. (2013). Attachment style, social skills, and Face
book use amongst adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1142–1149. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.006
Page 36 of 40
Park, N., Lee, S., & Chung, J. E. (2016). Uses of cellphone texting: An integration of moti
vations, usage patterns, and psychological outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 62,
Pearson, A. L., Mack, E., & Namanya, J. (2017). Mobile phones and mental well-being: Ini
tial evidence suggesting the importance of staying connected to family in rural, remote
communities in Uganda. PLOS One, 12(1), e0169819. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0169819
Reed, L. A., Tolman, R. M., Ward, L. M., & Safyer, P. (2016). Keeping tabs: Attach
(p. 108)
ment anxiety and electronic intrusion in high school dating relationships. Computers in
Human Behavior, 58, 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.019
Reid, F. J. M., & Reid, D. J. (2010). The expressive and conversational affordances of mo
bile messaging. Behaviour & Information Technology, 29(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01449290701497079
Rosen, L., Carrier, L. M., Miller, A., Rokkum, J., & Ruiz, A. (2016). Sleeping with technolo
gy: Cognitive, affective, and technology usage predictors of sleep problems among col
lege students. Sleep Health, 2(1), 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleh.2015.11.003
Rotondi, V., Stanca, L., & Tomasuolo, M. (2017). Connecting alone: Smartphone use, qual
ity of social interactions and well-being. Journal of Economic Psychology, 63, 17–26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2017.09.001
Russell, E., Woods, S. A., & Banks, A. P. (2017). Examining conscientiousness as a key re
source in resisting email interruptions: Implications for volatile resources and goal
achievement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 90(3), 407–435.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12177
Schouten, A. P., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Precursors and underlying process
es of adolescents’ online self-disclosure: Developing and testing an “Internet-attribute-
perception” model. Media Psychology, 10(2), 292–315. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15213260701375686
Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Jäkel, A., Schultze, M., & Scheithauer, H. (2012). Emotional and
behavioural problems in the context of cyberbullying: A longitudinal study among Ger
man adolescents. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 17(3-4), 329–345. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2012.704317
Selfhout, M. H. W., Branje, S. J. T., Delsing, M., ter Bogt, T. F. M., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2009).
Different types of Internet use, depression, and social anxiety: The role of perceived
friendship quality. Journal of Adolescence, 32(4), 819–833. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.adolescence.2008.10.011
Page 37 of 40
Shakya, H. B., & Christakis, N. A. (2017). Association of Facebook use with compromised
well-being: A longitudinal study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 185(3), 203–211.
https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kww189
Shaw, L. H., & Gant, L. M. (2002). In defense of the Internet: The relationship between In
ternet communication and depression, loneliness, self-esteem, and perceived social sup
port. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5(2), 157–171. https://doi.org/
10.1089/109493102753770552
Sjursø, I. R., Fandrem, H., & Roland, E. (2014). Emotional problems in traditional and cy
ber victimization. Journal of School Violence, 15(1), 114–131. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15388220.2014.996718
Song, H., Zmyslinski-Seelig, A., Kim, J., Drent, A., Victor, A., Omori, K., & Allen, M. (2014).
Does Facebook make you lonely? A meta analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 36,
Sonnentag, S., Reinecke, L., Mata, J., & Vorderer, P. (2018). Feeling interrupted–being re
sponsive: How online messages relate to affect at work. Journal of Organizational Behav
ior, 39(3), 369–383. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2239
Steers, M.-L. N. (2016). ‘It’s complicated’: Facebook’s relationship with the need to be
long and depression. Current Opinion in Psychology, 9, 22–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.copsyc.2015.10.007
Thomée, S., Eklöf, M., Gustafsson, E., Nilsson, R., & Hagberg, M. (2007). Prevalence of
perceived stress, symptoms of depression and sleep disturbances in relation to informa
tion and communication technology (ICT) use among young adults: An explorative
prospective (p. 109) study. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1300–1321. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.12.007
Tokunaga, R. S. (2014). A unique problem or the manifestation of a preexisting disorder?

The mediating role of problematic Internet use in the relationships between psychosocial
problems and functional impairment. Communication Research, 41(4), 531–560. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0093650212450910
Tromholt, M. (2016). The Facebook experiment: Quitting Facebook leads to higher levels
of well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19(11), 661–666.
https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0259
Tseng, S.-F., & Hsieh, Y. P. (2015). The implications of networked individualism for social
participation. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(9), 1157–1172. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0002764215580620
Utz, S., & Breuer, J. (2017). The relationship between use of social network sites, online
social support, and well-being: Results from a six-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Me
dia Psychology, 29(3), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000222
Page 38 of 40
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Who visits online dating sites? Exploring some char
acteristics of online daters. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(6), 849–852. https://
doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.9941
Van den Eijnden, R. J. J. M., Meerkerk, G.-J., Vermulst, A. A., Spijkerman, R., & Engels, R.
C. M. E. (2008). Online communication, compulsive Internet use, and psychosocial well-
being among adolescents: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 44(3), 655–
665. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.3.655
Verduyn, P., Lee, D. S., Park, J., Shablack, H., Orvell, A., Bayer, J., … Kross, E. (2015). Pas
sive Facebook usage undermines affective well-being: Experimental and longitudinal evi
dence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(2), 480–488. https://doi.org/
10.1037/xge0000057
Vincent, J. (2006). Emotional attachment and mobile phones. Knowledge, Technology &
Policy, 19(1), 39–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12130-006-1013-7
Vranjes, I., Baillien, E., Vandebosch, H., Erreygers, S., & de Witte, H. (2018). When work
place bullying goes online: Construction and validation of the inventory of cyberbullying
acts at work (ICA-W). European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27, 28–
39. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1363185
Weidman, A. C., Fernandez, K. C., Levinson, C. A., Augustine, A. A., Larsen, R. J., & Rode
baugh, T. L. (2012). Compensatory internet use among individuals higher in social anxiety
and its implications for well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(3), 191–195.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.03.003.
Weisskirch, R. S., & Delevi, R. (2012). Its ovr b/n u n me: Technology use, attachment
styles, and gender roles in relationship dissolution. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social
Networking, 15(9), 486–490. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0169
Widyanto, L., & Griffiths, M. (2006). ‘Internet addiction’: A critical review. International
Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 4(1), 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11469-006-9009-9
Woods, H. C., & Scott, H. (2016). #Sleepyteens: Social media use in adolescence is asso
ciated with poor sleep quality, anxiety, depression and low self-esteem. Journal of Adoles
cence, 51, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.05.008
Wright, M. F. (2015). Cyber victimization and perceived stress. Youth & Society, 47(6),
789–810. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X14537088
Wu, X.-S., Zhang, Z.-H., Zhao, F., Wang, W.-J., Li, Y.-F., Bi, L., … Sun, Y.-H. (2016). Preva
lence of Internet addiction and its association with social support and other related fac
tors among (p. 110) adolescents in China. Journal of Adolescence, 52, 103–111. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.07.012
Page 39 of 40
Xie, X., Zhao, F., Xie, J., & Lei, L. (2016). Symbolization of mobile phone and life satisfac
tion among adolescents in rural areas of China: Mediating of school-related relationships.
Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 694–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.
2016.07.053
Young, K. S., & Rodgers, R. C. (1998). The relationship between depression and Internet
addiction. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 1(1), 25–28. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.
1998.1.25
Adrian Meier
Adrian Meier is a PhD candidate at the Department of Communication, Johannes

Gutenberg-University Mainz, Germany. His research revolves around the question of
whether and how communication technologies can improve or impair mental health
and well-being. Specifically, he investigates the relationship between technology us
age and mental health through the lens of self-regulation processes, using intensive
longitudinal surveys (e.g., diaries, experience sampling), and systematic review
methodology.
Emese Domahidi
Emese Domahidi is an Assistant Professor for Computational Communication Science

at the Technische Universität Ilmenau in Germany. Her research focuses on the psy
chosocial consequences of online media use and on (biased) information processing
in digital media. Emese is especially interested in computational communication sci
ence methods and their use to gain insights into her research questions. She is an ex
pert in computational systematic reviews and meta-analysis.
Elisabeth Günther
Elisabeth Günther is a PhD candidate at the Department of Communication, Universi

ty of Münster, Germany. Her research interests are in computational methods, espe
cially topic modeling, and online journalism. Elisabeth works as a data scientist at
Axel Springer Digital.
Page 40 of 40
Digital Inclusion and Women’s Health and Well-Being in Rural Communi
ties
Digital Inclusion and Women’s Health and Well-Being

in Rural Communities
Sharon Wagg, Louise Cooke, and Boyka Simeonova
This review explores the role of digital inclusion in women’s health and well-being in rur
al communities. This involves reviewing existing research that focuses on the information
experiences of women, specifically those who were digitally excluded or limited users of
the Internet, who have benefitted from the support of digital inclusion initiatives and
technology. There is a global gender digital divide in which more women than men often
lack access to information and digital skills, particularly in rural areas. Digital inclusion
initiatives are attempting to close this divide and to enable women to make informed deci
sions about their health and well-being and their families. The review also identifies that
digital inclusion is a complex situation of enquiry; there is limited, fragmented research
in which the concepts of information literacy and digital inclusion have been brought to
gether; and significant tensions and contradictions exist within digital inclusion practice.
The review also highlights the opportunity for further research and theory development.
Keywords: digital inclusion, digital inclusion initiatives, digital skills, gender, Internet, rural communities,
women’s health
Introduction
DIGITAL inclusion is of global importance as government digital-by-default agendas in
creasingly recognize the need for society to possess strong digital skills and capabilities
to fully benefit from living in a digital world. Yet a global gender digital divide exists
where women lack access to information and digital skills, particularly in rural areas
(IFLA & TASCHA, 2017). Women are 14% less likely to own a mobile phone than men in
low and middle income countries (GSMA, 2015); globally, the proportion of women using
the Internet is 12% lower than that of men using the Internet (ITU, 2017a); and while the
gender gap in Internet access has narrowed in most regions since 2013, it has widened in
Africa, where the proportion of women using the Internet is 25% lower than the propor
tion of men (ITU, 2017a, p. 3).
Page 1 of 28
ties
Digital inclusion initiatives around the world, designed to provide access and the develop
ment of digital skills, are critical to bridging the digital divide in local communities
(Mervyn et al. 2014). However, the multiple factors that contribute to digital exclusion are
complex and make the task of implementing workable digital inclusion solutions particu
larly challenging for policymakers (Bach et al., 2013).
Information literacy helps people make informed choices and decisions about their lives,
including the health and well-being of individuals and their families (CILIP, 2018, p. 5).
However, as argued by Dunn (2013), “insufficient attention is being paid to the urgency of
information literacy as a key component to any strategy to redress the digital (p. 112)
divide” (p. 326), potentially leaving those newly connected to the Internet or with low in
formation literacy vulnerable to poor information content and choices. Anderson and
Johnston (2016) argue that without the development of information literacy, “the benefits
of digital participation will be significantly diminished” (p. 8). Challenges to access and
meaningful use of online information underline the necessity of increased levels of infor
mation literacy. “While this may affect both men and women, the challenges are often
greater for women (particularly in developing countries) because past information isola
tion leaves them less equipped to deal with these challenges” (IFLA & TASCHA, 2017, p.
80).
What Is Digital Inclusion?
Broadly, digital inclusion refers to the activities necessary to ensure that all individuals
and communities, including the most disadvantaged, have access to and meaningful use
of information and communication technologies (ICTs). Digital inclusion activities essen
tially include five key elements: (1) affordable, broadband Internet service, (2) Internet-
enabled devices, (3) quality technical support, (4) applications and online content de
signed to enable and encourage self-sufficiency, participation, and collaboration, and (5)
access to digital skills training (NDIA, 2017, n.p.). Such activities are driven by govern
ments to address the digital divide (those without access, skills or the motivation to use
ICTs), and implement the digital-by-default agenda (the drive to replace services deliv
ered through face-to-face, telephone and paper-based interactions, with web-based ser
vices), and are delivered by a plethora of organizations and community partners (ITU,
2017b; Rhinesmith, 2016).
Digital inclusion research emerged from research on the digital divide, a topic widely ac
cepted as a complex and dynamic issue, that continues to evolve, particularly as ICTs
evolve and diffuse (Jaeger et al., 2012; Van Dijk, 2005). Digital inclusion is addressed by
researchers across various disciplines, but compared to the established area of research
on the digital divide, digital inclusion research is relatively new (Jaeger et al., 2012). In
deed, the Rapid review of evidence for basic digital skills (McGillivray et al., 2017) con
cluded that there is a notable dearth of academic research in relation to digital inclusion
solutions and initiatives, and particularly in relation to the role and responsibilities digital
inclusion intermediaries and actors play. Similar to research on the digital divide, digital
inclusion is a complex area of enquiry and suffers from conceptual inconsistencies and di
Page 2 of 28
ties
chotomies that lead to ambiguities in understanding why and what it takes to be included
in the information society (Nemer, 2015).
What Is Information Literacy?
The Library and Information Association defines information literacy as “the ability to
think critically and make balanced judgements about any information we find and use.
(p. 113) It empowers us as citizens to develop informed views and to engage fully with
society” (CILIP, 2018, p. 3). This definition relates to information in all its forms, including
digital and online, reinforcing the relevance and need to consider information literacy
when using and accessing the Internet for online information (Anderson & Johnston,
2016; CILIP, 2018; Dunn, 2013). While some scholars advocate information literacy as a
set of skills (Andretta, 2005; Burke, 2010), others advocate information literacy as a way
of learning (Kuhlthau, 1993), or as an appreciation of the complex ways of interacting
with information (Bruce, 2000, p. 97).
Yet information literacy research as a concept has traditionally been siloed in the library
and information science sector. While there is a significant amount of information literacy
research within educational (Corrall, 2008; Secker & Coonan, 2013) and workplace
(Lloyd, 2010) settings, and an emerging body of research in information literacy in every
day life contexts (Martzoukou & Abdi, 2017), information literacy research within commu
nity settings (relevant to digital inclusion) is barely recognized as a research area (Hep
worth & Walton, 2013). However, the CILIP definition emphasizes how information litera
cy is relevant to everyone in a wide variety of contexts, specifically the contexts of every
day life, health, citizenship, education, and the workplace (Secker, 2018), and as such
makes information literacy relevant to digital inclusion and an essential part of this re
view.
Women’s Health and Well-Being in Rural Communities
The importance of digital inclusion and information literacy has been emphasized in a few
areas including health and well-being (Ferreira et al., 2016; Park, 2017. It is further em
phasized that access to online services could lead to improved health and well-being, par
ticularly in rural areas (Freeman et al., 2016; Hart et al., 2004). However, the specific
benefits of digital inclusion and information literacy to women’s health and well-being in
rural communities have not been explicated. Therefore, the review aims to examine the
literature to outline the specific benefits of digital inclusion initiatives on women’s health
and well-being in rural communities.
Rationale for Review
This systematic literature review considers research that focuses on the information ex
periences of women, specifically those who were previously digitally excluded or limited
users of the Internet, especially in rural communities, and have benefitted from the sup
port of digital inclusion initiatives and technology. The review provides an opportunity to
Page 3 of 28
ties
unpack the complexity of this situation of enquiry by problematizing the concept of digital
inclusion; exploring if and how digital inclusion has been linked with the concept of infor
mation literacy and digital skills training; providing insight on the role of digital inclusion
on women’s health and well-being in rural communities; and revealing tensions and con
tradictions within digital inclusion practice.
To guide this systematic literature review, the following two questions are ad
(p. 114)
dressed. (1) What role do digital inclusion initiatives play with regard to women’s health
and well-being in rural communities? (2) How have the concepts of digital inclusion with
information literacy been linked with regard to digital inclusion skills training? The chap
ter concludes with an agenda for future research within the realms of digital inclusion
and information literacy. The chapter includes the following sections: an outline of the
methodology of the systematic literature review; description of the reviewed literature;
the findings from the selected papers (with respect to theory and methodologies, termi
nologies, approaches to digital inclusion initiatives, digital inclusion training, digital inclu
sion, information literacy, health, and well-being); a brief discussion; and a conclusion.
Methods
The review was conducted on journal articles—excluding conference proceedings, PhD
theses and book chapters—reporting primary research published worldwide in English
language sourced from the Web of Science and Scopus. Search terms included the phras
es information literacy, and digital inclusion, combined with the terms rural, gender,
health and well-being appearing in the topic. The search yielded 194 results, which fol
lowing the exclusion of conference proceedings, duplicates, articles that were irrelevant,
or in a non-English language, was refined to a final set of 66 journal articles. Articles
were identified and selected on the basis of their relevance to digital inclusion and
women’s health and well-being in rural communities and links to the concept of informa
tion literacy within that context.
Due to the multidisciplinary nature of the topic, articles were identified across different
research domains such as information science, educational research, computer science,
and the broader field of social science research. Drawing on the researcher’s previous ex
perience in digital inclusion and librarianship, a small collection of relevant grey litera
ture (16 items) was also selected to provide richness, context, and currency to the review.
These items were predominantly in the form of reports published by third-sector, corpo
rate, and public policy organizations, such as Development and Access to Information
(IFLA & TASCHA, 2017), Lloyds Bank consumer digital index (Lloyds, 2017), and “Smart
phone by default” internet users (Ofcom, 2016). Grey literature is cited hereafter with an
asterisk (*) to differentiate it from journal articles.
The final set of materials (n = 82) of 66 journal articles and 16 grey literature items was
coded using thematic analysis. This first involved a general categorization of the articles
into a number of foci important on the basis of digital inclusion and information literacy,
such as Internet access, digital skills, social inclusion, and learning. The second level of
Page 4 of 28
ties
analysis involved the meticulous reading of the texts in order to identify and refine
themes and subthemes. Through this process the following themes and subthemes
emerged: Theory and Methodologies; Terminology (including subthemes on Digital
(p. 115) Inclusion, Information Literacy, and Rurality); Approaches to Digital Inclusion (in
cluding subthemes on Differentiation of Digital Inclusion Initiatives, Examples of Digital

Inclusion Initiatives Intended for Women, the Use of Mobile Technology in Digital Inclu
sion, Digital Inclusion Frameworks, Measurements and Evaluations); Digital Inclusion
Training; and Digital Inclusion, Information Literacy, Health, and Well-Being.
Although all the papers were coded, for the purpose of conciseness not every paper is re
ferred to in the text of the analysis; however, a supplementary reference list provides the
complete set of analyzed journal articles and grey literature.
Description of the Reviewed Literature

The reviewing identified a number of key themes and relationships that paint a complex
landscape of enquiry, scope for critique, and opportunities for further research.
Journal articles focused across a range of demographics, with a limited number related to
just women. Indeed, only a fraction of the academic studies sourced, such as Freeman et
al. (2016), Jiménez-Cortés et al. (2015), Martínez-Cantos (2017), Potnis (2015), Rashid
(2016), and Rebollo and Vico (2014) specifically link digital inclusion and women’s health
and well-being in rural communities.
The majority of the journal articles tended to be more focused on the digital divide
(Adhikari et al., 2016) and digital inclusion initiatives across a range of sub-groups in de
veloping countries (Correa & Pavez, 2016) and developed countries (Freeman & Park,
2015; Shade, 2014; Turkalj et al., 2013); the development of information literacy (Papen,
2013; Yu et al., 2017) and health information literacy (Enwald et al., 2016; Niemelä et al.,
2012) or digital literacy skills (Hughes et al., 2017); gender differences in attitudes and
use of ICTs and the Internet (Singh, 2017); and the relationships between digital inclu
sion, digital inequalities, and social inclusion (Park, 2017). Journal articles related to in
formation literacy tended to come from the discipline of information science, although re
searchers in other fields used varying terminology such as multiliteracy, transliteracy, or
digital literacy to describe aspects of information literacy (Aires, 2014). In comparison,
journal articles related to digital inclusion came from a wider selection of disciplines such
as ICT for Development (ICT4D), Human Computer Interaction, Geography, Education,
Health, Rural Studies, and Information Science.
There was only a limited crossover between the concepts of digital inclusion and informa
tion literacy. Journal articles related to information literacy tended to focus on effective
use of the Internet (Berger & Croll, 2012) or Internet/technology adoption (Chiu & Liu,
2017; Yu et al., 2017). Whereas journal articles regarding digital inclusion referred to a
plethora of vocabulary related to digital skills and literacies, and technology and infra
structure, the angle of the articles was often influenced by the research discipline of the
Page 5 of 28
ties
journal. For example, journal articles from Computer Science and ICT4D (p. 116) tended
to have more of a bias towards digital infrastructure, technology and access (Ferreira et
al., 2016; Whitney et al., 2011) whereas Geography focused more on rurality (Roberts et
al., 2015) and Information Science on digital skills and motivation (Thompson & Paul,
2016).
Journal articles referred to a plethora of organizations where people would go to access

computers and the Internet such as public libraries (Fourie & Meyer, 2016; Real et al.,
2014); community centers, cybercafés, and local agencies (Berger & Croll, 2012); telecen
ters (Ferreira, 2016; Kapondera & Hart, 2016); and education centers and schools (Sali
nas & Sánchez, 2009; Wei et al., 2013). Bertot et al. (2014) state that public libraries were
often the only providers of free broadband Internet service and computer terminals for
communities.
Overall, the limited number of journal articles specifically on the review topic highlights
that there is little academic research in relation to digital inclusion on women’s health
and well-being in rural communities. While the majority of the journal articles focused
more broadly around the subject of the review, academic research on this topic appears
fragmented, meaning research is spread across a range of disciplines and the focus of the
articles, theoretical stance, and methods used vary, thus potentially hampering the devel
opment of a coherent body of work (Meijer & Bekkers, 2015). The inclusion of some grey
literature was essential in addition to the academic literature in order to provide further
understanding, richness, and currency. Therefore, the review includes interdisciplinary
research in the area and the grey literature, while highlighting gaps and setting an agen
da for future research.
Theory and Methods

As Table 5.1 summarizes, the studies used a variety of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods. While the review highlights some use of theory, only a very small number of
journal articles used any underpinning theory (8 out of the 66 journal articles). For exam
ple, apart from Diffusion of Innovation Theory (Rogers, 2003), which appears in two arti
cles, all the other theories have only been used in one paper.
Page 6 of 28
ties
Table 5.1 Range of Theories and Methods Identified in Review
Theories Methods
Activity theory (1) Action research

Diffusion of innovation theory (2) Case study
Global model of human information behav Ethnography
iour (1) Interviews
Informed learning theory (1) Literature reviews
Institutional theory (1) Observations
Media richness theory (1) Questionnaire sur
Relational/network approach (1) veys
Structuration theory (1)
Note: (#) = Number of papers using that theory (n = 8 papers);
(*) = same paper
Activity Theory is discussed by Aires (2014) to explore the opinions of parents and teach
ers on the Magellan (Magalhães) digital inclusion Initiative in Portugal, to investigate
common understandings and contradictions in the dissemination of the digital technolo
gies and digital inclusion in families and schools in rural communities; Diffusion of Inno
vation (DOI) theory is used in two articles. Correa et al. (2017) use elements of DOI com
bined with Van Dijk’s (2005) Relational/Network approach to understanding digital inclu
sion, where consideration of people’s context, position in a community, resources, and so
cial networks are necessary to understand their adoption of ICTs. Kapondera and Hart
(2016) invoke DOI as a theoretical framework to examine the factors influencing the use
of telecentres in rural areas by means of a case study of Lupaso Community Telecentre, in
a remote region of Malawi. Potnis (2015) employs the Global Model of (p. 117) Human In
formation Behavior as a conceptual model using three constituent constructs—(1) context
of information needs, (2) information-seeking behavior, and (3) information processing
and use—to examine the information use of poor female mobile phone users in rural In
dia. Hughes et al. (2017) use Informed Learning theory to underpin the development of a
new framework to support digital literacy learning through social living labs examined
through, a voluntary community organisation in North Queensland, Australia. Madon et
al. (2009) apply Institutional theory to analyze three digital inclusion projects to identify
processes of institutionalization crucial to the long-term value, sustainability, and scalabil
ity of digital inclusion projects. Yu et al. (2017) use Media Richness theory to discover the
psychological factors that influence ICT adoption behavior of residents in a rural village
in Taiwan. Finally, Structuration theory is used by Correa and Pavez (2016) to explore In
ternet adoption in isolated rural communities in remote villages in Chile, considering
people’s capabilities to choose what they value (i.e., psychological resources, attitudes to
Page 7 of 28
ties
ward technologies) and social structures (social institutions, cultural norms, and social
context).
Terminology
Due to the interdisciplinary nature of the review topic, the theme of the need for shared
vocabulary and standardization of terminology emerged from the journal articles, particu
larly in relation to the concepts of digital inclusion and information literacy.
Digital Inclusion
Very few journal articles defined or attempted to describe or explain the concept of digi
tal inclusion. Indeed, not all journal articles specifically included the phrase “digital inclu
sion,” (p. 118) but were clearly focused on research in relation to digital inclusion activi
ties using alternative phrases such as adoption of the Internet and ICT access. Jaeger et
al. (2012) define digital inclusion as “the policy developed to close the digital divide” and
to “promote digital literacy through outreach to unserved and underserved
populations” (p. 3). Thompson et al. (2016) state that digital inclusion is a key component
of modern social justice as “the ability of the individual to participate fully in society is in
creasingly tied to the ability to access and to use digital technologies in a meaningful way
for social, political, and economic participation” (p. 93). Hashim et al. (2012) propose that
digital inclusion encompasses three areas: access, technology literacy, and content ser
vices. According to Rashid (2016), digital inclusion focuses not just on levels of access to
ICTs, but also on factors such as motivation, knowledge, and skills that enable individuals
to have the ability to meaningfully engage with technology and online information.
Information Literacy
Journal articles related to information literacy sometimes included a definition or clarifi

cation of the concept such as the Association of College and Research Libraries’ Informa
tion Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (Dorner & Gorman, 2011), the
American Library Association and the Australian and New Zealand Information Literacy
Framework (Williamson & Asla, 2009), or the 2005 Alexandria Proclamation on Informa
tion Literacy (Jacobs & Berg, 2011, p. 384).
Further clarification of the concept of information literacy was provided by Martzoukou

and Abdi (2017) within the context of everyday life, stating that information literacy “is
regarded as an important condition for civic participation and engagement, informed citi
zenship, health and well-being” (p. 634). Drawing on theories from information science
and new literacy studies, Papen (2013) presents a view of information literacy not primar
ily as a skill but as a social information practice. Papen argues that researchers studying
information literacy need to look beyond people’s abilities to search for and understand
information; rather, they need to focus their attention on the contexts within which such
information is used. As Yu et al. (2017) highlight, information literacy is about making
sense of information found online that is relevant to an individual’s circumstances and
Page 8 of 28
ties
specific context, and argue that “information literacy is an important factor in new ICT
adoption and increased ICT usage” (p. 206).
Information literacy is also clarified in relation to how it helps make informed choices re
lating to the health and well-being of individuals and families, such as in articles referring
to the concepts of health information literacy (HIL) (Martzoukou & Abdi, 2017) and every
day life health information literacy (EHIL) (Niemelä et al., 2012). The presence of HIL “is
essential for making health decisions and is considered an important prerequisite for pro
moting and maintaining an individual’s health” (Martzoukou & Abdi, 2017 p. 649) and for
“engaging in an informed dialogue with healthcare professionals” (CILIP, 2018, p. 5).
(p. 119) Rurality
The issue of rurality was discussed within the journal articles but with limited clarifica
tion of the actual meaning of the term. Despite the high levels of connectivity in devel
oped countries and growing Internet access in developing countries, digital inclusion in
rural areas remains a strong concern for policymakers (Correa & Pavez, 2016; Yueh et al.,
2013). Indeed, despite many policymaking efforts that have promoted Internet connection
in rural areas, the evidence suggests that digital inclusion is a multifaceted and complex
phenomenon that is not “solved” after access is provided (Correa et al., 2017).
Boulos et al. (2015) discuss how the higher costs associated with the installation of digital
infrastructure for mobile and broadband in rural areas compared to urban areas is over
come through the concept of “distributed cities,” where small neighboring towns and vil
lages (e.g., the Scottish Highlands and Islands) unite together and pool their resources to
form a larger “distributed city” and improved economies of scale.
Pavez et al. (2017) highlight the importance of understanding rurality, and exploring how
people from rural and geographically isolated contexts may experience digital connection
differently from an urban perspective. This supports findings by Correa and Pavez (2016)
which showed that remote rural communities face specific characteristics, such as lack of
economic resources, geographic isolation, an aging population, and out-migration of
young people, that need to be considered when thinking about digital inclusion initiatives
for their particular context.
Approaches to Digital Inclusion Initiatives

The following section provides details of approaches to digital inclusion initiatives, follow
ing the subthemes of Differentiation of Digital Inclusion Initiatives; Examples of Digital
Inclusion Initiatives Intended for Women; The Use of Mobile Technology in Digital Inclu
sion; and Digital Inclusion Frameworks, Measurements, and Evaluations.
Page 9 of 28
ties
Differentiation of Digital Inclusion Initiatives: Levels and Approaches
When describing approaches to digital inclusion initiatives, journal articles tend to use a
macro- or micro-level perspective. Journal articles using a macro-level perspective take a
top-down approach to describing digital inclusion and focus primarily on digital inclusion
policy and agenda setting issues on a national or international scale (Hughes et al., 2017;
Shade, 2014; Martínez-Cantos, 2017). This compares with journal articles taking a
(p. 120) micro-level perspective, which look at specific local or regional digital inclusion
projects and case studies (Madon et al., 2009). Some journal articles initially provide a
macro perspective and then provide an example of an initiative at micro-level (Berger &
Croll, 2012; Broadbent & Papadopoulos, 2013).
Digital inclusion initiatives are also described in relation to their activities. For example,
Armenta et al. (2012) differentiates digital inclusion initiatives between those that take an
access driven/infrastructure approach and those that take a user-centric approach. In
deed, the debate that the provision of technology, infrastructure, and access alone is not
enough to get people online is acknowledged in several journal articles (Correa et al.,
2017; Freeman & Park, 2015; Haenssgen, 2018; Livingstone & Helsper, 2007).
Haenssgen (2018) adds that the techno-centric focus in ICT4D has been criticized for its
emphasis on the social embeddedness of technology, user behavior, and different forms of
use, yet highlights that the discipline is gradually transitioning towards broader research
on technological and social development that permits locally grounded conclusions. Ar
menta et al. (2012) provide an example of how a techno-centric approach in Mexico was
not effective and lacked community participation. Correa and Pavez (2016) note similar
findings when evaluating the experiences of individuals in rural communities in Chile that
had benefitted from a public/private initiative called Todo Chile Comunicado (All Chile
Connected), which provided subsidies for 3G wireless connections. They found a lack of
motivation and a level of skepticism among the community participants in adopting the
new mobile technologies, again confirming physical access alone is not sufficient.
Correa et al. (2017) highlight government top-down approaches to digital inclusion initia
tives by discussing programs in Latin America targeting rural areas in Argentina, Bolivia,
Brazil, Chile, and Colombia. Their research confirmed that most of these policymaking
initiatives focused on the provision of infrastructure; yet while access to both devices and
infrastructure connection cannot be dismissed as a logical first step, it does not necessar
ily entail Internet adoption, particularly in isolated, rural contexts. The researchers rec
ommend that policymakers take into account the social, cultural, and economic context of
where these initiatives are implemented.
In comparison, Madon et al. (2009) provide a micro-level analysis of three digital inclu
sion projects: the Akshaya e-literacy project in the state of Kerala in India, a community-
based ICT project in South Africa, and a telecenter project in Sau Paulo in Brazil. The re
searchers describe how the projects changed significantly over time and demonstrate a
Page 10 of 28
ties
complex mix of success and failure, and how, while the projects are unique in themselves,
they also share common features:
• Enrolling government support

• Generating linkage to viable revenue streams
• Getting symbolic acceptance by the community
• Stimulating valuable social activity in relevant social groups
The Kerala project, for example, got symbolic acceptance by the community by linking the
e-literacy project to Kerala’s development philosophy through grassroots (p. 121) cam
paigning; and stimulated valuable social activity in relevant social groups by widespread
participation of groups, such as Muslim women who are often part of the socially exclud
ed. Madon et al. (2009) argue these successful common features are of relevance to digi
tal inclusion projects, particularly in the developing world.
Examples of Digital Inclusion Initiatives Intended for Women
The main drivers behind most digital inclusion initiatives aimed at women are related to
ensuring access, improving digital literacy, and working towards gender equality and par
ticipation of women in the digital world (ITU, 2017a*). ITU’s Gender Digital Inclusion Map
(2017b*) provides a list of digital inclusion initiatives from 97 countries around the world
aimed at women.
In the grey literature, the report Development and access to information (IFLA &
TASCHA, 2017*) has a specific focus on women and the need for meaningful access to in
formation and information capabilities, and it provides examples of digital inclusion initia
tives, mainly in public libraries. In Uganda, the National Library’s digital skills training
program is offered in local languages and is designed for female farmers. In Burkina Fa
so, the Girls’ Mobile Health Clubs located in village libraries provide access to health in
formation while providing information literacy and technology skills. In Chile, women,
young adults, and low-income families receive preferential access to all BiblioRedes,
Chile’s national network of some 400 library-based infocentros, which offer free digital lit
eracy classes. Additionally, governments have started to consolidate public-private collab
oration with different organizations, driving initiatives that empower women through
technology. Some examples are Intel’s “She Will Connect” program in Kenya, Nigeria,
and South Africa; Mexico’s “Código X;” and India’s “Internet Saathi” (IFLA & TASCHA,
2017*). In most cases these digital inclusion initiatives, through the use of technology,
empowered women by ensuring that they have equal access to information and educa
tion, enabling them to gain knowledge and confidence and make informed decisions on is
sues such as family planning and health care. Chile’s network of Infocentros, designed to
be women-friendly spaces, is an example of an initiative that has empowered women
through the combination of providing a trusted, safe place with digital skills training that
has enabled them to develop knowledge and skills which they can use in their everyday
life. Importantly, this initiative has stepped away from the “macho culture found in Inter
Page 11 of 28
ties
net cafés,” enabling women to talk and help each other and get help from directors of the
centers (often female), in a way not possible with men (IFLA & TASCHA, p. 81, 2017*).
However, for any of this digital inclusion work to happen, social barriers such as cultural
demands, illiteracy, and lack of access to education need to be overcome (IFLA &
TASCHA, 2017*). The World Wide Web Foundation (2015*) supports this point, stating
that “the Internet can support women in making informed choices about their bodies and
health, but without adequate access to safe, legal and affordable sexual and reproductive
(p. 122) health services and action against practices such as early marriage, these choices
cannot be implemented” (p. 47).
As alluded to earlier, only a very small proportion of the journal articles sourced in the re
view—such as Freeman et al. (2016), Jiménez-Cortés et al. (2015), Martínez-Cantos
(2017), Potnis (2015), Rashid (2016), and Rebollo and Vico (2014)—specifically related to
digital inclusion initiatives aimed at women, with reference to health and well-being in
rural communities. This therefore highlights the limited amount of research on this topic
and the potential for further research. The gender digital divide was clearly referenced in
the literature and was particularly evidenced in case studies from the developing world
and in rural areas (Ferreira et al., 2016; Rashid, 2016; Rebollo & Vico, 2014). These out
lined the information experiences of women, particularly in relation to their access and
adoption of using technology and the Internet and the barriers that they faced. A recent
report by Intel (2013*) entitled Women and the Web reported that one in five women in
India believes the Internet is “not appropriate” for them or useful, and that their families
would disapprove. Yet positive aspects about being more connected included how moth
ers noted that it supports their children with homework and education (Correa et al.,
2016).
Rashid (2016) states that research on gender and ICTs has for the most part been cen
tered on the concept of the gender digital divide, particularly in relation to access to pro
vision and the fact that proportionally more men than women use the Internet. However,
other articles, such as Martínez-Cantos (2017), looked more towards gender differences
in attitudes, self-efficacy, and the experiences of men and women in using computers and
the Internet. Shade (2014) provides a critical overview of the changing digital inclusion
agenda in Canada, describing how that country played an international role in promoting
gender equity in access to the Internet. Yet in recent years, despite the continued persis
tent issue of digital exclusion, the government agenda of online gender equity has signifi
cantly diminished and there has been a gradual disinvestment in funding for programs for
Internet access.
As highlighted by Rashid (2016), to reduce the gender digital divide there is a need for
digital inclusion policy interventions to not only focus on the supply-side of providing ICT
equipment and connectivity infrastructure, but to also include “a more nuanced under
standing of the behavior and use of ICTs by women in meaningful ways to enable them to
fulfil specific individual motivations and needs” (p. 327).
Page 12 of 28
ties
The Use of Mobile Technology in Digital Inclusion
The use of mobile technology was identified as a key element in digital inclusion activities
in the review. In the grey literature, IFLA and TASCHA, (2017*) confirm that “for the bil
lions of people coming online for the first time, mobile phone and increasingly smart
phones are their point of entry to the Internet” (p. 31). GSMA’s report Bridging the gen
der gap: Mobile access and usage in low-and middle-income countries (2015*), and the
report Development and access to information (IFLA & TASCHA, 2017*), both provide in
sights (p. 123) into the use of mobile technology by women and its impact on digital inclu
sion. Although not specifically focused on women, the UK Ofcom report “Smartphone by
default” internet users (2016*) provides further insight into the use and behavior of indi
viduals whose only access to the Internet is via a smartphone, and the implications this
has in relation to the user experience and digital inclusion. For example, completing on
line forms (for government services) and creating and editing a document (such as for a
CV) via a mobile phone were cited as being particularly challenging. In the Good Things
Foundation’s Library Digital Inclusion Fund Action Research project evaluation, the use
of mobile technology was a key enabler for the research participants getting online
through public library WiFi (Good Things Foundation, 2016c*).
The use of mobile technology was also referenced in the academic literature. Correa et al.
(2016) found that despite not being able to get good service, many people from Chilean
rural communities purchased mobile phones to use when they travelled outside their vil
lage. Haenssgen’s (2018) study in rural India argued that households without mobile
phones are increasingly disadvantaged in their health care access, stating that “phone
diffusion leads [healthcare] providers to expect health-related phone use among the
population” (p. 371).
Rashid (2016; based on research in developing countries) found that although women re
ly less on computers and the Internet, they are more likely to use mobile phones com
pared to men. Yet Potnis’s (2016) research on rural women in India highlighted that
women often spoke about rumors and gossip on how mobile phones can cause health
problems, thus deterring them from adopting and using mobile phones. Focus group dis
cussions in research by Pavez et al. (2017) also revealed negative perceptions of how the
Internet and mobile devices were viewed as intrusive and disruptive to their way of life,
with participants referring to the “adverse and harmful consequences attributed to the
Internet, including addiction and isolation” (p. 17).
Haenssgen (2018) also states that mobile technology has become so pervasive in some
domains of Western urban life that it is simply expected of everyone to use it so as to not
inconvenience others. Yet as stated by Freeman et al. (2016), not everyone has access,
the motivation, or indeed the skills to use online services, and many rural regions strug
gle with slow or unreliable broadband and mobile phone connectivity.
Page 13 of 28
ties
Digital Inclusion Frameworks, Measurements, and Evaluations
Only a limited number of articles focused on the actual process of measuring or evaluat
ing the success and outcomes of digital inclusion initiatives, highlighting a lack of both
underpinning theory as well as evaluation procedures to guide digital inclusion research.
Smith (2015) provides a conceptual framework for analyzing the success of digital inclu
sion projects, and Madon et al. (2009) identify three crucial factors that must be consid
ered when planning digital inclusion initiatives: the value, sustainability, and scalability of
the project. Armenta et al. (2012) provide a seven-stage framework for rural, under
served and less-privileged populations: (1) identification and evaluation of regional so
cioeconomic condition, (2) assessment of external factors that impact the region’s sus
tainable development, (3) identification of those ICT more favorable to (p. 124) support
sustainable development, (4) analysis of financial viability of ICT infrastructure and oper
ations deployment, (5) development and implementation of a technology adoption and
training program, (6) development and implementation of and ICT application focused on
the regional sustainable development needs, and (7) evaluation of the project.
The work of Boulos et al. (2015) related to digital inclusion provides well-being measures
calculated through the Organization for Economic Co-operation Development (OECD)
Better Life Index for the 34 OECD member countries, and the related OECD Regional
Well-Being “How’s life where you are?” tool that covers 362 OECD regions. In addition,
digital inclusion research by Jones et al. (2015) include Tennant’s Short Warwick-Edin
burgh Mental Well-Being Scale (SWEMWBS) to measure well-being.
The grey literature contains examples of “outcomes-based evaluation” of digital inclusion

initiatives often in the form of a logic model, as an evaluation and communication tool.
According to Rhinesmith and Siefer (2017*), this method is useful for communicating the
goals and the “theory of change” underlying the work of digital inclusion initiatives to
funders. The grey literature also included two frameworks to measure the level of
people’s digital skills. The UK Essential Digital Skills Framework (Tech Partnership,
2018*) includes five categories of essential digital skills for life and work: communicating,
handling information and content, transacting, problem solving, and being safe and legal
online. The European Commission’s Digital Competence Framework for Citizens 2.1 (Car
retero et al., 2017*), includes five competence areas: information and data literacy, com
munication and collaboration, digital content creation, safety, and problem solving. Both
frameworks have been updated to remain relevant. Using the UK Essential Digital Skills
Framework (Tech Partnership, 2018*) measures, the Lloyds Bank Digital Index reported
that there is a small but increasing digital skills gap between men and women in the Unit
ed Kingdom (Lloyds Bank, 2017*). Rashid’s (2016) research on gender differences in ICT
access and use in five developing countries also involves the development of a digital in
clusion index. Based on five broad categories—skills, attitude, frequency of use, location
of use, and breadth of use—Rashid developed the index specifically to challenge a com
monly held assumption in the discourse on technology and gender that “compared to men
women are more likely to be lacking in digital competencies” (p. 326).
Page 14 of 28
ties
Digital Inclusion Training
The review identified digital skills training as an important aspect of digital inclusion and
the effective use of ICT (Hughes et al., 2017; Yueh et al., 2013). For example, Martinez-
Cantos (2017) note that the EU, in line with academic research and other political institu
tions around the world, “considers that digital literacy and associated competences play a
key role in the development of the Information Society, and is becoming a priority in ini
tiatives for social inclusion and human capital” (p. 420). As stated by Ferreira (2016)
“users need to feel capable of using ICT administered through (p. 125) training classes
and peer support to overcome lack of experience and to encourage participation” (p. 39).
References were made to training and interventions, referring to varying terminology

such as digital literacy or digital skills (Martinez-Cantos, 2017) or other inter-related
terms such as digital competence (Hatlevik et al., 2015), digital capabilities (Britz et al.,
2012), online skills (Zhou & Purushothaman, 2015), Internet literacy (Livingstone &
Helsper, 2007), Internet skills (Van Deursen, 2012), computer literacy (Hart et al., 2004),
and information literacy (Yu et al., 2017). However, in general few explanations are pro
vided about each of these terms, leaving the reader unclear of the meaning of such termi
nology.
Only a small fraction of the studies linked the concepts of digital inclusion and informa
tion literacy. For example, the research of Yu et al. (2017) on understanding factors influ
encing ICT adoption behavior found that when a digital divide exists, it is important to
keep on investing in information literacy development activities for rural communities to
help them develop their ICT competence. Wyatt et al. (2005) extend this point by clarify
ing that while there needs to be an ability to find and make sense of information found
online, it is also important to have “the ability to make sense of generic information that
is relevant to one’s own circumstances” (p. 213).
Approaches to digital inclusion digital skills training are also discussed. Pischetola (2011)
emphasizes the need for investment in education and training in schools to use the ICT
infrastructure and enhance learning. Berger and Croll (2012), in their work on training in
basic Internet skills for special target groups in non-formal educational settings, discuss
the trainer/learner relationship and the importance of trust. The researchers highlight a
successful intervention in Germany where a female teacher was appointed for a group of
female learners to prevent them from feeling intimidated and to help create an open
learning atmosphere where any question could be raised without embarrassment. Madon
et al.’s (2009) research confirms the importance of this approach, highlighting how a digi
tal inclusion project in Mpumalanga, South Africa failed for a number of reasons, includ
ing that the trainers were outsiders whose motives were often suspected.
While the review identified the importance of digital skills training, and provided details
of specific approaches, there appeared to be a lack of depth in relation to what and how
was actually being taught, and this thus provides another opportunity for further re
search.
Page 15 of 28
ties
Digital Inclusion, Information Literacy, Health,

and Well-Being
The health and well-being benefits of digital inclusion initiatives received few mentions in
the literature (Ferreira et al., 2016; Park, 2017; Rashid, 2016) and did not always relate
(p. 126) specifically to women in rural areas, or provide specific examples of how health
and well-being benefits are gained through digital inclusion initiatives.
For example, Broadbent and Papadopoulos (2013) found that participants reported some
improvement in their sense of well-being attributed to the provision of ICT, citing con
necting with relatives, reading news in their own language, and getting access to online
services as important conduits to improved health and well-being. Other journal articles
referred specifically to health practices. For instance, Freeman et al. (2016) state how
poor connectivity inhibits basic health practices, such as contact between patients, physi
cians, and colleagues, and how rural health services would benefit enormously from effec
tive mobile and Internet services, particularly to communicate with their patients. Hart et
al. (2004) highlight how the use of the Internet can increase patients’ knowledge about
their health conditions, although patients in their study were often too overwhelmed by
the information available on the Internet to make an informed decision about their own
care.
In the grey literature, as part of their evaluation of the NHS Widening Digital Participa
tion, Good Things Foundation (2016a*) stated there is “a huge crossover between those
who are digitally excluded, and those at risk of poor health” (p. 8). Although not specifi
cally aimed at women or rural areas, the project was set up to help improve the digital
health skills of people in hard-to-reach communities. Similarly, the English My Way
project, also evaluated by Good Things Foundation, designed to help people gain English
language skills through a blend of digital tools and face-to-face training sessions, found
that participants gained health and well-being benefits (Good Things Foundation,
2016b*). Both projects depended on a network of hyperlocal community organizations
and agents who were able to reach out to hard-to-reach communities. Deloitte’s (2014*)
report highlights how an empirical study undertaken in rural villages in India to analyze
the impact of Internet access on child mortality rates found that villages with Internet ac
cess that “provided specific online health information to women during and after preg
nancy had 14% lower child mortality rates than villages without the Internet” (p. 19*).
As referred to earlier, information literacy is important for health and well-being (Mart
zoukou & Abdi, 2017) and people’s adoption of the Internet (Yu et al., 2017). Williamson
and Asla (2009) state that information literacy is crucial to the well-being of people in the
“fourth age” (a stage of increasing dependence and disability, for those aged 85+). Mart
zoukou and Abdi’s (2017) work on information literacy in everyday life makes a specific
reference to the significant role information literacy can play in both the physical and
psychological well-being of women. This is particularly the case in a critical life situation,
for example, during pregnancy and childbirth, where the way in which women evaluate
Page 16 of 28
ties
different sources of information can have a significant impact. Adekannbi and Adeniran’s
(2017) work on the information literacy of women in rural communities in Nigeria discov
ered that women had limited, basic knowledge of family planning and that the acquisition
of information on family planning was accidental, as a majority of research participants
did not have access to health centers.
(p. 127) Discussion

The review highlights a number of specific tensions and contradictions in relation to digi
tal inclusion initiatives, definitions, and the relationship with public policy.
Vague and Inconsistent Terminology
For example, very few journal articles defined or attempted to describe or explain the
concept of digital inclusion, which as evidenced from conducting this review, has led to
ambiguities in the understanding and meaning of digital inclusion in academic research.
Further confirmation of this tension was revealed by practitioners, funders, policymakers,
and other key digital inclusion stakeholders at the 2016 Net Inclusion Summit, who iden
tified a lack of a shared vocabulary in defining digital inclusion (Rhinesmith & Siefer,
2017*). Jaeger et al. (2012) neatly sum up the consequence of this tension stating, “it is a
challenge to solve a problem you cannot define, and the inconsistency of definitions has
affected policymaking processes that have attempted to address these issues” (p. 4).
Relations between Information Literacy and Digital Inclusion
Similarly, tensions in relation to information literacy and how it relates to digital inclusion
are also identified through the review. For example, information literacy, despite its asso
ciation with critical thinking skills (Bingham et al., 2016) and its clear relevance to digital
literacy and digital inclusion (Adhikari et al., 2016; Turkalj et al., 2015), continues to be
overlooked in digital inclusion policy and practice. This is also confirmed by the lack of
linkages found between digital inclusion and information literacy in the review (Wyatt et
al., 2005; Yu et al., 2017), as highlighted earlier. The reason for this is partly explained in
the work by Jaeger et al. (2012), which explores the inter-relationships between digital lit
eracy, digital inclusion, and public policy, and the fragmented nature of research in this
area. They highlight that “while the terms digital divide and digital literacy have entered
into common usage, the term digital inclusion is still in its infancy” (p. 3). This suggests
that the use of digital inclusion as a term may grow over the forthcoming years, thus pro
viding future opportunities to reveal linkages with information literacy.
Another explanation for the lack of linkages found between digital inclusion and informa
tion literacy within the review, and a further tension, as alluded to earlier, is that re
searchers in other fields use varying terminology to describe information literacy and dig
ital inclusion concepts. For example, a small selection of authors including Britz et al.
(2012) referred to the application of Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach in relation to an
(p. 128) information-based rights framework, in which an individuals’ ability to use infor
Page 17 of 28
ties
mation is influenced by their relative capabilities. Whilst this approach displays similari
ties with the concepts of information literacy and digital inclusion, it is also highlights the
need for a shared vocabulary within digital inclusion research to reduce ambiguities and
fragmentation of the research landscape.
Differences between Developing and Developed Country Contexts
Contradictions were also revealed within the review. For example, a clear split was identi
fied between digital inclusion initiatives in developing countries and those in developed
countries, which were often discussed in contradictory terms. Research in developed
countries tended to make a number of assumptions in relation to access, knowledge, and
skills. For example, Whitney et al. (2011) ascertained through their research in five Euro
pean countries that there is increasingly an assumption that people should be able to par
ticipate in a wide range of formal activities such as eGovernment, eHealth and eEduca
tion via their computers and mobile phones. Research in developing countries, however,
tended to be more about access and infrastructure; how access does not necessarily en
tail Internet adoption, particularly in isolated contexts; and how digital inclusion needs
the support of reliable broadband and electricity (Correa, et al., 2017; Pavez et al., 2017;
Potnis, 2015).
Contradictions were also highlighted in relation to digital inclusion in public libraries in

developed countries. For example, Jaeger (2012) states that libraries report across-the-
board increases in the use of their public-access technologies, Wi-Fi, training classes, and
online resources. Indeed Real et al. (2014) state that public libraries—and rural public li
braries in particular—are still the primary source of broadband access for many, high
lighting the importance of public libraries for digital inclusion activities. Yet as highlight
ed by Fourie and Meyer (2016), Jaeger (2012), and Real et al. (2014), this increase in use
has occurred concurrently with dramatic decreases in library budgets, government sup
port, and well-trained staff.
Complexity of and Theoretical Approaches toward Initiatives
Another major insight identified from the review is the tension regarding the need to bet
ter understand the complexity of digital inclusion initiatives (Madon et al., 2009). For ex
ample, only a small number of journal articles, as noted earlier, contain an underpinning
theory to guide the research and attempt to unpick the complexity of digital inclusion
projects. This in turn has led to clear gaps in digital inclusion research, such as (p. 129)
the lack of insight on the content of digital skills training, leaving scope for criticism, but
also providing opportunities for future research into this area.
Conclusion
This review provides a number of contributions to the existing literature on digital inclu
sion and information literacy. First, while the review confirms that there is a global gen
der digital divide where women lack access to information and digital skills, particularly
Page 18 of 28
ties
in rural areas, there is limited research with regard to the role of digital inclusion in
women’s health and well-being in rural communities. Second, the review identifies that
digital inclusion initiatives are attempting to close the digital divide by providing infra
structure and access to digital technologies; by building capabilities and skills in how to
use such technologies and online information; and that mobile technology is playing an
increasing role in digital inclusion initiatives. Third, from the limited research that does
exist, the review confirms that digital inclusion has the potential to contribute to the im
provement of women’s health and well-being in rural communities and that information
literacy can play a key role in digital inclusion. Fourth, the review confirms that digital in
clusion is a complex area of enquiry, and that digital inclusion research appears frag
mented and requires more depth (particularly in relation to terminology, digital skills
training, linkages with information literacy and use of theory). Indeed, the inclusion of
some grey literature was essential in the review in order to provide further understand
ing, richness and currency. Finally, the review reveals that significant tensions and con
tradictions exist within digital inclusion practice and policy.
The review does come with its limitations. This review was limited to using two databas
es, and a selection of grey literature, and so is by no means exhaustive. The exclusion of
books and conference papers rendered the search more manageable, as did the omission
of the phrase “digital divide” from the search terms which, if included, would have pro
duced a far greater number of articles but perhaps with less specific relevance.
The identification of such issues in the literature and limitations of this study helps identi
fy a future research agenda. First, there is a need for further systematic reviews across
more databases and grey literature on the research topic with inclusion of a greater num
ber of search terms/phrases. Second, there is opportunity for further research, particular
ly in relation to (1) the processes and mechanisms of digital inclusion initiatives, (2) digi
tal inclusion digital skills training where the concepts of information literacy and digital
inclusion are brought together, and (3) the experiences of women who have benefitted
from digital inclusion initiatives. Finally, there is scope to incorporate more underpinning
research theory in digital inclusion research to make sense of this complex situation of
enquiry and provide a deeper foundation for both shaping research in this area as well as
in understanding and evaluating the process and results.
References Not in Review Database

Anderson, A. & Johnston, B. (2016). From information literacy to social epistemology: In
sights from psychology. Cambridge, UK: Chandos Publishing.
Andretta, S. (2005). Information literacy: A practitioner’s guide. Oxford, UK: Chandos

Publishing.
Bach, A., Shaffer, G., & Wolfson, T. (2013). Digital human capital: Developing a framework
for understanding the economic impact of digital exclusion in low-income communities.
Journal of Information Policy, 3, 247–266.
Page 19 of 28
ties
Bruce, C. (2000). Information literacy research: Dimensions of the emerging collective
consciousness. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 31(2), 91–109.
Burke, M. (2010). Overcoming challenges of the technological age by teaching informa

tion literacy skills. Community & Junior College Libraries, 16(4), 247–254.
Corrall, S. (2008). Information literacy strategy development in higher education: An ex

ploratory study. International Journal of Information Management, 28(1), 26–37.
Dunn, H. S. (2013). Information literacy and the digital divide: Challenging e-exclusion in
the Global South. In Information Resources Management Association (2013) digital litera
cy: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 20–38). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Hepworth, M., & Walton, G. (2013). Developing people’s information capabilities: Foster
ing information literacy in educational, workplace and community contexts. Bingley, UK:
Emerald Publishing.
Kuhlthau, C. (1993). A principle of uncertainty for information seeking. Journal of Docu

mentation, 49, 339–355.
Lloyd, A. (2010). Framing information literacy as information practice: Site ontology and
practice theory. Journal of Documentation, 66(2), 245–258.
McGillivray, D., Jenkins, N., & Mamattah, S. (2017). Rapid review of evidence for basic
digital skills. School of Media, Culture & Society, University of the West of Scotland, Ayr,
Scotland. https://digitalparticipation.storage.googleapis.com/reports/
Tackling_Digital_Exclusion_Literature_Review.pdf
Meijer, A., & Bekkers, V. (2015). A metatheory of e-government: Creating some order in a
fragmented research field. Government Information Quarterly, 32, 237–245.
Mervyn, K., Simon, A., & Allen, D. K. (2014). Digital inclusion and social inclusion: A tale
of two cities. Information, Communication & Society, 17(9), 1086–1104.
NDIA (2017). Definitions. National Digital Inclusion Alliance.https://

www.digitalinclusion.org/definitions/
Nemer, D. (2015). From digital divide to digital inclusion and beyond: A positional review.
Journal of Community Informatics, 11(1). http://ci-journal.org/index.php/ciej/article/
view/1030
Rhinesmith, C. (2016). Digital inclusion and meaningful broadband adoption initiatives.

Evanston, IL: Benton Foundation. https://www.benton.org/publications/digital-inclu
sion-and-meaningful-broadband-adoption-initiatives
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Secker, J. & Coonan, E. (2013). Rethinking information literacy: A practical framework for
supporting learning. London: Facet.
Page 20 of 28
ties
Secker, J. (2018). The revised CILIP definition of information literacy. Journal of Informa
tion Literacy, 12(1), 156–158.
Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Appendix: Publications Analyzed: Journal Articles (N = 66) and Grey

Literature (N = 16)
* Grey literature
** Journal articles not cited in the text
Adekannbi, J. O., & Adeniran, O. M. (2017). Information literacy of women on family plan
ning in rural communities of Oyo State Nigeria. Information Development, 33, 351–360.
doi:10.1177/0266666916661387
Adhikari, J., Mathrani, A., & Scogings, C. (2016). Bring your own devices classroom: Ex
ploring the issue of digital divide in the teaching and learning contexts. Interactive Tech
nology and Smart Education, 13(4), 323–343. doi:10.1108/ITSE-04-2016-0007
Aires, L. (2014). From dissemination to the domestication of digital technologies in rural

communities: Narratives of parents and teachers. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21(4), 337–
352. doi:10.1080/10749039.2014.947654
Armenta, A., Serrano, A., Cabrera, M., & Conte, R. (2012). The new digital divide: The
confluence of broadband penetration, sustainable development, technology adoption and
community participation. Information Technology for Development, 18, 345–353. doi:
10.1080/02681102.2011.625925
Berger, A., & Croll, J. (2012). Training in basic Internet skills for special target groups in
non-formal educational settings: Conclusions from three pilot projects. Research in Learn
ing Technology, 20(4).https://journal.alt.ac.uk/index.php/rlt/article/view/1330
Bingham, T. J., Wirjapranata, J., & Chinnery, S. (2016). Merging information literacy and
evidence-based practice for social work students. New Library World, 117(3/4), 201–213.
Blackstock, O. J., Cunningham, C. O., Haughton, L. J., Garner, R. Y., Norwood, C., & Hor
vath, K. J. (2016). Higher eHealth literacy is associated with HIV risk behaviors among
HIV-infected women who use the Internet. Journal of the Association of Nurses in Aids
Care, 27(1), 102–108. **
Boulos, K., Tsouros, A. D., & Holopainen, A. (2015). Social, innovative and smart cities are
happy and resilient: Insights from the WHO EURO 2014 International Healthy Cities Con
ference. International Journal of Health Geographics, 14(3).https://ij-
healthgeographics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-072X-14-3
Page 21 of 28
ties
Britz, J., Hoffmann, A., Ponelis, S., Zimmer, M., & Lor, P. (2012). On considering the appli
cation of Amartya Sen’s capability approach to an information-based rights framework.
Information Development, 29(2), 106–113. doi:10.1177/0266666912454025
Broadbent, R., & Papadopoulos, T. (2013). Impact and benefits of digital inclusion for so
cial housing residents. Community Development, 44(1), 55–67.
Carretero, S., Vuorikari, R., & Punie, Y. (2017). DigComp 2.1: The Digital Competence
Framework for Citizens with eight proficiency levels and examples of use. EUR 28558 EN,
doi:10.2760/38842 https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-tech
nical-research-reports/digcomp-21-digital-competence-framework-citizens-eight-
proficiency-levels-and-examples-use *
Chiu, C. J., & Liu, C. W. (2017). Understanding older adult’s technology adoption and
withdrawal for elderly care and education: Mixed method analysis from national survey.
Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(11), e374.
CILIP (2018). What is information literacy. Library and Information Professionals Associa
tion.http://www.cilip.org.uk/?page=informationliteracy *
Correa, T., & Pavez, I. (2016). Digital inclusion in rural areas: A qualitative explo
(p. 132)
ration of challenges faced by people from isolated communities. Journal of Computer-Me

diated Communication, 21, 247–263. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12154
Correa, T., Pavez, I., & Contreras, J. (2017). Beyond access: A relational and resource-
based model of household Internet adoption in isolated communities. Telecommunications
Policy, 41, 757–768.
Crawford, J., & Irving, C. (2007). Information literacy: The link between secondary and
tertiary education project and its wider implications. Journal of Librarianship and Infor
mation Science, 39(1), 17–26. doi:10.1177/0961000607074812 **
Deloitte (2014). Value of connectivity: Economic and social benefits of expanding internet
access. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ie/Documents/Technolo
gyMediaCommunications/2014_uk_tmt_value_of_connectivity_deloitte_ireland.pdf
*
Dorner, D. G., & Gorman, G. E. (2011). Contextual factors affecting learning in Laos and
the implications for information literacy education. Information Research, 16, 1–23.
Enwald, H., Hirvonen, N., Huotari, M. L., Korpelainen, R., Pyky, R., Savolainen, M., &
Niemelä, R. (2016). Everyday health information literacy among young men compared
with adults with high risk for metabolic syndrome: A cross-sectional population-based
study. Journal of Information Science, 42(3), 344–355. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0165551516628449
Page 22 of 28
ties
Eynon, R., & Helsper, E. (2015). Family dynamics and Internet use in Britain: What role
do children play in adults’ engagement with the Internet? Information, Communication &
Society, 18(2), 156–171. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2014.942344 **
Ferreira, S. M., Sayago, S., & Blat, J. (2016). Going beyond telecenters to foster the digi
tal inclusion of older people in Brazil: Lessons learned from a rapid ethnographical study.
Information Technology for Development, 22, sup 1, 26–46. doi:
10.1080/02681102.2015.1091974
Fotopoulou, A. (2016). Digital and networked by default? Women’s organisations and the
social imaginary of networked feminism. New Media & Society, 18(6), 989–1005. **
Fourie, I., and Meyer, A. (2016). Role of libraries in developing an informed and educated
nation. Library Hi Tech, 34, 422–432. doi:10.1108/LHT-01-2016-0009
Freeman, J., & Park, S. (2015). Rural realities: Digital communication challenges for rural
Australian local governments. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy,
9(4), 465–479.
Freeman, J., Park, S., Middleton, C., & Allen, M. (2016). The importance of broadband for
socio-economic development: A perspective from rural Australia. Australasian Journal of
Information Systems, 20, 1–18.
Gerli, P., Wainwright, D., & Whalley, J. (2017). Infrastructure investment on the margins of
the market: The role of niche infrastructure providers in the UK. Telecommunications Pol
icy, 41, 743–756. **
Good Things Foundation. (2016a). Health & digital: Reducing inequalities, improving soci
ety: An evaluation of the Widening Digital Participation programme.https://
www.goodthingsfoundation.org/sites/default/files/research-publications/
improving_digital_health_skills_report_2016_1.pdf *
Good Things Foundation. (2016b). English My Way Phase 2 Evaluation: Final evaluation
report.https://www.goodthingsfoundation.org/sites/default/files/research-publica
tions/emw-phase-2-evaluation-report_-_rev_a.pdf *
Good Things Foundation. (2016c). Library Digital Inclusion Fund Action Research Project
evaluation final report.https://www.goodthingsfoundation.org/sites/default/files/re
search-publications/
library_digital_inclusion_fund_action_research_project_final_report.pdf *
GSMA. (2015). Bridging the gender gap: Mobile access and usage in low-and mid
(p. 133)
dle-income countries.https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/up
loads/2016/02/GSM0001_03232015_GSMAReport_NEWGRAYS-Web.pdf *
Haenssgen, M. J. (2018). The struggle for digital inclusion: Phones, healthcare, and mar
ginalisation in rural India. World Development, 104, 358–374.
Page 23 of 28
ties
Hart, A., Henwood, F., & Wyatt, S. (2004). The role of the Internet in patient-practitioner
relationships: Findings from a qualitative research study. Journal of Medical Internet Re
search, 6(3), 1.
Hashim, R., Kartika, S. I., Ustadi, Y. A., Merican, F. M., & Fuzi, S. F. S. M. (2012). Digital
inclusion and lifestyle transformation among the Orang Asli: Sacrificing culture for
modernity? Asian Social Science, 8(12), 80–87.
Hatlevik, O. E., Ottestad, G., & Throndsen, I. (2015). Predictors of digital competence in
7th grade: A multilevel analysis paper. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31, 220–
231. doi:10.1111/jcal.12065
Hughes, H., Wolf, R., & Foth, M. (2017). Informed digital learning through social living
labs as participatory methodology: The case of Food Rescue Townsville. Information and
Learning Science, 118(9/10), 518–534.
IFLA & TASCHA. (2017). Development and access to information. International Federa
tion of Library Associations and Institutions, and Technology & Social Change Group. Uni
versity of Washington.https://da2i.ifla.org/sites/da2i.ifla.org/files/uploads/docs/
da2i-2017-full-report.pdf *
Intel. (2013). Women and the Web. https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/

us/en/documents/pdf/women-and-the-web.pdf *
ITU. (2017a). ICT facts and figures. International Telecommunication Union.http://

www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2017.pdf *
ITU. (2017b). Gender digital inclusion map. International Telecommunication

Union.https://www.itu.int/en/action/gender-equality/Pages/equalsGDImap.aspx *
Jacobs, H. L. M., & Berg, S. (2011). Reconnecting information literacy policy with the
core values of librarianship. Library Trends, 60(2), 383–394.
Jaeger, P. T., Bertot, J. C., Thompson, K. M., Katz, S. M., & DeCoster, E. J. (2012). The in
tersection of public policy and public access: Digital divides, digital literacy, digital inclu
sion, and public libraries. Public Library Quarterly, 31(1), 1–20. doi:
10.1080/01616846.2012.654728
Jiménez-Cortés, M., Rebollo-Catalán, M. A., García-Pérez, R., & Buzón-García, O. (2015).

Social network user motivation: An analysis of rural women’s profiles. RELIEVE, 21(1),
art. 2. doi:10.7203/relieve.21.1.5153
Jones, R. B., Ashurst, E. J., Atkey, J., & Duffy, B. (2015). Older people going online: Its val
ue and before-after evaluation of volunteer support. Journal of Medical Internet Research,
17(5), 1. doi:10.2196/jmir.3943
Julien, H., & Breu, R. D. (2005). Instructional practices in Canadian public libraries. Li
brary & Information Science Research, 27, 281–301. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2005.04.002 **
Page 24 of 28
ties
Kapondera, S. K., & Hart, G. (2016). The use of multipurpose community telecentres and
their services in Malawi: The case of Lupaso Community Telecentre. South African Jour
nal of Libraries and Information Science, 82(1), 13–25. doi:10.7553/82-1-1589
Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young peo
ple and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 9(4), 671–696.
Lloyds Bank (2017). Lloyds Bank consumer digital index.https://

www.thetechpartnership.com/globalassets/pdfs/research-2017/
consumerdigitalindex_mar17.pdf *
Madon, S., Reinhard, N., Roode, D., & Walsham, G. (2009). Digital inclusion
(p. 134)
projects in developing countries: Processes of institutionalization. Information Technology

for Development, 15, 95–107. doi:10.1002/itdj.20108
Martínez-Cantos, J. L. (2017). Digital skills gaps: A pending subject for gender digital in
clusion in the European Union. European Journal of Communication, 32(5), 419–438.
Martzoukou, K., & Abdi, E. S. (2017). Towards an everyday life information literacy mind-
set: A review of literature. Journal of Documentation, 73(4), 634–665.
Mehra, B. (2017). Mobilization of rural libraries toward political and economic change in
the aftermath of the 2016 Presidential election. Library Quarterly: Information, Communi
ty, Policy, 87(4), 369–390. **
Niemelä, R., Ek, S., Eriksson- Backa, K., & Huotari, M. L. (2012). A screening tool for as
sessing everyday health information literacy. Libri, 62, 125–134.
Ofcom (2016). “Smartphone by default” internet users.https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__da

ta/assets/pdf_file/0028/62929/smarphone_by_default_2016.pdf *
Papen, U. (2013). Conceptualising information literacy as social practice: A study of preg

nant women’s information practices. Information Research, 18(2), n2.
Park, S. (2017). Digital inequalities in rural Australia: A double jeopardy of remoteness

and social exclusion. Journal of Rural Studies, 54, 399–407.
Pavez, I., Correa, T., & Contreras, J. (2017). Meanings of (dis)connection: Exploring non-
users in isolated rural communities with internet access infrastructure. Poetics, 63, 11–
21.
Pischetola, M. (2011). Digital media and learning evolution: A research on sustainable lo
cal empowerment. Global Media Journal, 11(18), 1–14.
Potnis, D. D. (2015). Beyond access to information: Understanding the use of information

by poor female mobile users in rural India. Information Society, 31, 83–93. doi:
10.1080/01972243.2014.976687
Page 25 of 28
ties
Rashid, A. T. (2016). Digital inclusion and social inequality: Gender differences in ICT ac
cess and use in five developing countries. Gender, Technology and Development, 20(3),
306–332.
Real, B., Bertot, J. C., & Jaeger, P. T. (2014). Rural public libraries and digital inclusion: Is
sues and challenges. Information Technology and Libraries, 33(1), 6–24. doi:10.6017/
ital.v33i1.5141
Rebollo, A. M, &.Vico, A. (2014). Perceived social support as a factor of rural women’s

digital inclusion in online social networks. Comunicar, 22, 173–180. doi:10.3916/
C43-2014–17
Renteria, C. (2015). How transformational mobile banking optimizes household expendi

tures: A case study from rural communities in Mexico. Information Technologies & Inter
national Development, 11, 39–54.**
Rhinesmith, C. & Siefer, A. (2017). Digital inclusion: Outcomes-based evaluation.

Evanston, IL: Benton Foundation.https://www.benton.org/publications/digital-inclu
sion-outcomes-based-evaluation *
Roberts, E., Farrington, J., & Skerratt, S. (2015). Evaluating new digital technologies
through a framework of resilience. Scottish Geographical Journal, 131(3–4), 253–264.
Salinas, A., & Sánchez, J. (2009). Digital inclusion in Chile: Internet in rural schools. In
ternational Journal of Educational Development, 29, 573–582. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.
2009.04.003
Sanchez, M. S. O., & Sanchez, M. R. F. (2017). Digital technologies and rural women’s en
trepreneurship. Prisma Social, 18, 259–277. **
Shade, L. R. (2014). Missing in action: Gender in Canada’s digital economy agenda.

Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 39(4), 887–896.
Singh, S. (2017). Bridging the gender digital divide in developing countries. Jour
(p. 135)
nal of Children and Media, 11(2), 245–247. doi:10.1080/17482798.2017.1305604
Smith, C. (2015). An analysis of digital inclusion projects: Three crucial factors and four
key components. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 14(1), 179–188.
Stevenson, S. A., & Domsy, C. (2016). Redeploying public librarians to the front-lines: Pri
oritizing digital inclusion. Library Review, 65, 370–385. doi:10.1108/LR-02-2016-0015 **
Tech Partnership (2018). Basic digital skills framework consultation. https://

www.thetechpartnership.com/basic-digital-skills/basic-digital-skills-framework/ *
Thompson, K. M., & Paul, A. (2016). “I am not sure how much it will be helpful for me”:
Factors for digital inclusion among middle-class women in India. Library Quarterly: Infor
mation, Community, Policy, 86(1), 93–106.
Page 26 of 28
ties
Turkalj, D., Bilos, A., & Kelic, I. (2015). Integration of Croatian farmers in the EU informa
tion society—Issues and implications. Ekonomski Vjesnik, 28, 41–52. doi:http://
www.efos.unios.hr/ekonomski-vjesnik/en/table-of-contents-by-issue/
Van Deursen, A. J. A. M. (2012). Internet skill-related problems in accessing online health

information. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 81, 61–72.
Wei, Z., Jiang, G., Niu, T., Zou, T., & Dong, E. (2013). A tale of two counties: How two
school libraries in rural western China serve local needs. Library Trends, 62, 205–233.
doi:10.1353/lib.2013.0029
Whitney, G., Keith, S., Buhler, C., Hewer, S., Lhotska, L., Miesenberger, K., … Engelen, J.
(2011). Twenty five years of training and education in ICT design for all and assistive
technology. Technology and Disability, 23(3), 163–170.
Williamson, K., & Asla, T. (2009). Information behavior of people in the fourth age: Impli
cations for the conceptualization of information literacy. Library & Information Science
Research, 31, 76–83.
World Wide Web Foundation. (2015). Women’s Rights Online: Translating Access into Em
powerment—Global Report October 2015. http://webfoundation.org/docs/2015/10/
womens-rights-online21102015.pdf *
Wyatt, S., Henwood, F., Hart, A., & Smith, J. (2005). The digital divide, health information
and everyday life. New Media & Society, 7, 199–218. doi:10.1177/1461444805050747
Yu, T.-K., Lin, M.-L., & Liao, Y.-K. (2017). Understanding factors influencing information
communication technology adoption behavior: The moderators of information literacy and
digital skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 196–208. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.005
Yueh, H. P., Chen, T. L., Chiu, L. A., & Lin, W. C. (2013). Exploring factors affecting
learner’s perception of learning information and communication technology: A HLM
analysis of a national farmers’ training program in Taiwan. Educational Technology and
Society, 16, 231–242.
Zhou, C., & Purushothaman, A. (2015). The need to foster creativity and digital inclusion
among women users in developing context: Addressing second order digital divide in on
line skills. iJET (International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning), 10(3), 69–
74.
Sharon Wagg
Sharon Wagg is a doctoral researcher in the Centre of Information Management, part

of the School of Business and Economics at Loughborough University, United King
dom. She is the recipient of the Mark Hepworth PhD scholarship, and her research
interests include digital inclusion and social change, information literacy, and lifelong
learning. Sharon worked as part of the research team at the digital inclusion charity
Page 27 of 28
ties
Good Things Foundation, and has a master’s degree in Librarianship (Distinction)
from the University of Sheffield. Her PhD dissertation investigated digital inclusion
initiatives in the context of rural communities in the United Kingdom.
Louise Cooke
Louise Cooke is Professor of Information and Knowledge Management in the School

of Business and Economics at Loughborough University. Her main research interests
focus on the ethical aspects of information, data and knowledge use, and the societal
value of access to information. In particular, her work has focused on challenges to
freedom of expression in the online environment. She led the Arts and Humanities
Research Center–funded MAIPLE (Managing Access to the Internet in Public Li
braries) and JISC-funded staff access to Information and Communication Technology
in UK Further Education and Higher Education projects. Her PhD thesis investigated
the impact on freedom of expression of measures taken to regulate internet access
and content. She has published widely in the field of information science.
Boyka Simeonova
Boyka Simeonova is Lecturer in Information Management at Loughborough Universi

ty, United Kingdom. Boyka is Director of the Knowledge and the Digital Economy
Network and Deputy Director of the Centre for Information Management at Lough
borough University. Boyka is a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. Boyka is the
recipient of the Dean’s Early Career Researcher Award at Loughborough University
and has published in Information Systems and Management.
Page 28 of 28
Digital Technology for Older People: A Review of Recent Research
Digital Technology for Older People: A Review of Re

cent Research
Helen Petrie and Jenny S. Darzentas
This chapter reviews recent research on digital technology to support older people. The
review concentrates on research emphasizing the design and evaluation of technologies
used by older people, rather than the technical implementation of the technologies. Such
papers provided insight into the needs and interests for this group, how older people
were involved in the research, and what outcomes were achieved. 407 papers were iden
tified and grouped into 16 major topics of research. Four of these topics are discussed in
detail, as well as several of the general themes that emerged from the research.
Keywords: ageingaging population, being digital, digital technology, lived experience, mainstream digital tech
nologies, older people, older people’s welfare
Introduction
ONE of the great challenges facing the world today is the aging of the population. The
United Nations (2017) estimates that in 2017 there were 962 million people aged 60 or
over worldwide, but by 2050 there will be 2.1 billion people in that group, a rise from
12.7% to 21.5% of the population. Currently, Europe and Japan have the greatest percent
age of population aged 60 or over (over 25%), but by 2050 all regions of the world except
Africa will have nearly a quarter or more of their populations aged over 60. An important
consequence of the aging population is that the ratio of people of working age to older
people (the Potential Support Ratio, PSR) is declining. Thus, there will be fewer people of
working age to care and support the older population. Europe currently has a PSR of ap
proximately 4 younger people for each older one, although many European countries
have a PSR of less than 3 younger/older, and Japan’s is the lowest at 2.1 (United Nations,
2017).
Digital technologies are often presented as a major solution to this increasing problem of
providing care to older people. Increasingly, particularly in the wealthier countries, it is
expected that older people will be cared for and will care for themselves using digital
Page 1 of 64
technologies. However, the relationship between digital technologies and older people is
rather more complex than many commentators suggest. First, old age spans from people
in their 60s to people well over 100 years old. People currently in their 60s may have
been using digital technologies for many years, whereas those much older may have little
experience with these technologies. So the acceptance and familiarity of digital technolo
gies may be very different for different cohorts of older people.
Second, we can think of two different ways of “being digital” for older people. In the first
way of “being digital”, their use of mainstream technologies, older people both need
(p. 137) and want to be able to use the many mainstream digital technologies that have
emerged in recent years and that are continuing to emerge. For example, automated
teller machines (ATMs) are now the most common way of withdrawing cash from one’s
bank account. Twenty years ago, people over 60 rarely used ATMs (van Schaik, Petrie &
Kirby, 1995). But as these machines have become more and more common, and bank
branches less common, everyone, including older people, needs to use them, whether
they wish to or not. Consequently, banks and ATM manufacturers have had to consider
the needs of older users, for example that very short time-outs may not be appropriate,
and that text, button sizes and colors need to be suitable for older eyes and fingers. In ad
dition, older people want to use many mainstream digital technologies. For example, they
often realize that the best way to communicate with their children and grandchildren is
via email, Skype, or a social networking site (e.g., Sayago, Forbes & Blat, 2012).
In the second way of “being digital”, the use of technologies specially developed to assist
older people with problems they encounter in their daily lives, technologies have provid
ed many opportunities for assisting older people in overcoming such problems. This may
be as simple as an electronic pillbox that reminds older people to take their medicines, or
complex systems involving the use of the global positioning system of satellites (GPS) to
assist older people in navigating unfamiliar environments (Petrie, Johnson, & Strothotte,
1997) and to monitor and locate older people with dementia, who may wander and be
come confused (Jönsson & Svensk, 1995). So, these digital technologies must be accept
able and usable by older people.
This chapter presents a review of recent research on digital technologies for older peo
ple, highlighting research in both of these ways of “being digital”. First, we will present
the scope of our review and an overview of the 16 different research topics that emerged
from this review. Then we will consider in more depth four of the topics of research, three
related to the first way of “being digital”, that is older people’s use of mainstream digital
technologies. These three emerged most frequently in our review, namely: older people’s
1) interaction with digital technologies, 2) lived experience of digital technologies, and 3)
use of digital technologies for communication and social interaction. The fourth topic to
be considered in depth is related to the second way of “being digital”: i.e. digital tech
nologies that are specially developed to assist older people, with the specific topic being
4) that of monitoring their welfare. Finally, we reflect on some of the overarching themes
Page 2 of 64
that emerged from the research, some of the limitations of recent research, and further
areas of research that need to be undertaken.
Scope of the Review

As part of an ongoing review of research on technology for disabled and older people
(Petrie, Gallagher, & Darzentas, 2014), research about older people published in a selec
tion of peer-reviewed conferences and journals between 2005 and 2017 was identified for
this chapter. Conferences and journals were chosen that deal primarily with the design
(p. 138) and evaluation of technologies with the target users, rather than with the techni
cal implementation of the technologies. This means that papers should provide insight in
to what area of need or interest for older people is being addressed, how older people
were involved in the research, and what outcomes were achieved. A range of mainstream
outlets in human-computer interaction and human factors, as well as specialist outlets in
gerontology and rehabilitation technology, were selected (see Table 6.1). Outlets were se
lected for inclusion based on their Impact Factor (Thomson Reuters, 2013); journals with
the highest impact factors for their sector were chosen. The Australian Research
Council’s (2012) rankings of journals and conferences were also used in the decisions.
Page 3 of 64
Table 6.1 Mainstream and Specialist Outlets Included in the Review
Mainstream outlets
Journals
ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction (ToCHI)
Behaviour and Information Technology
Human Computer Interaction
Human Factors
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
Conferences
ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI)
British Computer Society Interaction Specialist Group Conference

(BCS HCI)
IFIP TC 13 Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT)
Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (NordiCHI)
Specialist outlets
Journals
ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (ToACCESS)
Educational Gerontology
Technology and Disability
Universal Access to the Information Society
Conferences
ACM Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS)
Page 4 of 64
International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special

Needs (ICCHP)
Papers were included if they used words relevant to older people and technology in the ti
tle, abstract, or keywords. Terms included “older people”, “older adults,” or “elders” in
mainstream papers (which were by definition about technology, although this was
checked) and in addition terms such as “computer/s” and “assistive technology” in the
specialist papers. Table 6.2 provides the search terms and how they were used. Only pa
pers published in English were included. There is not a well-established definition of
when old age begins and therefore at what age people become “older” or “elderly”. Typi
cally, 60 or 65 years of age are used to indicate the start point of old age in chronological
terms, although it is well accepted that there are wide individual differences in the aging
process. Therefore, we made no attempt to impose a definition of older people (p. 139) on
the selection of papers; if the paper stated it was about older people, it was included in
the review. This process identified 407 papers. See the appendix at the end of the chapter
for the full list of references analyzed.
Table 6.2 Terms Related to Older People Used to Select Papers for In
clusion in the Review
Category Term
Referring to older peo aging (ambiguous alone, only used in

ple in general conjunction with other terms)
aging population
elder/s
elderly (people)
geriatric/s
grandparents
older adult/s
senior adult/s
Specific conditions re Alzheimer’s dementia

lated to aging Parkinson’s disease (if the emphasis is on
the disabilities related to Parkinson’s)
Technology (if they later assistive technology/ies

included reference to cognitive prosthetic/s
older people) web accessibility
An initial analysis, based on the area of need or interest of older people, rather than on
the technology deployed, grouped the research conducted into 16 topics (see Table 6.3).
Page 5 of 64
Table 6.3 The 16 Topics of the Research in the Papers Reviewed
Topic Number
of pa
pers
*Interaction with digital technologies: physical use of 90

technologies, for example use of mouse, touchscreen,
voice input
*Older people’s lived experience of digital technologies: 58

adoption, attitudes, holistic experiences, abandonment
of digital technologies
*Communication and social interaction: using digital 52

technologies to communicate with others and for social
interaction, including use of email, social networking
sites, online communities
Methods for research with/about older people: including 39

problems of using existing methods and methodological
innovations
Access and use of information: including access to and 37

use of the Web, eBooks, eKiosks and other digital forms
of information
Education and training (of older people and other stake 28

holders): education and training of older people (e.g., in
computer skills), also education and training of others
(e.g., doctors, nurses, carers, engineers) in working
with older people
*Monitoring older people’s welfare: use of digital tech 28

nologies to monitor older people’s movements, vital
signs, home environments
Activities of everyday living: using digital technologies 22

to support all kinds of everyday living activities, from
writing a cheque to dispensing medicines
Mobility and wayfinding: indoor and outdoor mobility 20

and wayfinding, also older drivers and driving cessation
Page 6 of 64
Health and well being: use of digital technologies to 17

support all aspects of health and well-being
Support for carers/others: use of digital technologies to 14

support those who are supporting older people, includ
ing carers, family members, healthcare staff
Games and leisure: digital technologies for leisure, in 13

cluding video games for older people, digital versions of
traditional games
Memory: digital technologies to support memory prob 9

lems in older people, (e.g., medication reminders, calen
dars and appointment alert systems)
Exercise: digital technologies to support exercise in old 8

er people, for general fitness and rehabilitation exercise
Understanding general user requirements for using dig 7

ital technologies: studies investigate older people’s ac
ceptance, use across a range of digital technologies
Rehabilitation: digital technologies to support rehabili 6

tation programs for older people
Notes 1: * indicates topics discussed in detail in this chapter.
2: Papers often covered several topics, so the numbers are greater

than the total of 407 publications.
Uses of Mainstream Technologies by and for

Older People
Four of these 16 topics were chosen for more detailed exploration in the remainder of this
chapter.
Topic 1: Older People’s Interaction with Mainstream Digital Tech

nologies
This topic investigated how older people physically interact with mainstream digital tech
nologies, the problems they might encounter, and different solutions that have been de
veloped to overcome these problems. It was the most frequent in the research reviewed,
Page 7 of 64
(p. 140) with 90 papers addressing it. This topic included four subtopics: physical
(p. 141)
interaction, spoken dialogue interaction, multimodality, and security.
Physical interaction. Physical interaction might include pointing and clicking with a
mouse, or tapping on a touchscreen; research considered how these interaction styles
might be adapted for older users. Hwang and colleagues (Hwang, Hollinworth, &
Williams, 2013) proposed several ways in which items on a computer display, such as
icons, can be expanded to make them easier for older people to select. They found that
using such techniques substantially improved selection time and reduced error rates.
Sayago and Blat (2008) found that older people were not concerned about how fast they
could interact, but were very concerned about not making errors, so this second result is
particularly important. Jochems, Vetter, and Schlick (2013) compared younger and older
people in their use of mouse, touchscreen, and eye gaze control, and found that both
groups were fastest with a touchscreen, particularly the older group. They also investi
gated combining eye gaze with input from a keyboard, speech input, or a foot pedal, find
ing that the best combination was eye gaze with keyboard confirmation.
In research on touchscreen interaction specifically, Apted, Kay, and Quigley (2006) intro
duced older people to interaction with a tabletop computer using a digital photograph
sharing application. They found that older people coped well with tasks in this applica
tion, although they took longer to complete them than did younger people. They also un
derstood the new interface elements, although initially they had some difficulty with one
of the elements, a copy operation. This was overcome with further training. Lepicard and
Vigouroux took a more experimental approach to touchscreen interaction, investigating
one-hand versus two-hand interaction (Lepicard & Vigouroux, 2010), and single-touch
versus multi-touch interaction (Lepicard & Vigouroux, 2012). In relation to number of
hands, older people were faster and more accurate when using one hand than using two
hands. In relation to multi-touch, both younger and older people had more difficulty with
multi-touch interaction, but especially the older people. Nicolau and Jorge (2012) investi
gated text entry via a touchscreen, comparing mobile phone input with tablet computer
input. Older participants made more errors on a mobile than on a tablet; although input
speed, but not accuracy, correlated with experience with the QWERTY keyboard. On the
mobile in particular, the amount of hand tremor (a common problem for older people) cor
related strongly with less accuracy. Wulf, Garschall, Klein et al. (2014) investigated
younger and older people’s gesture performance on a tablet touchscreen, including drag
ging, pinching and rotating. Older people were slower than younger people, but both
groups were more accurate when the tablet was in portrait rather than landscape orien
tation. Finally, Muskens, van Lent, Vijfvinkel et al. (2014) designed touchscreen applica
tions to be particularly usable by older people. They successfully eliminated problems
with button size, navigation, readability of fonts, and gesture execution. They found that
older people had strong preferences for designs with low numbers of icons, direct input,
no deep hierarchies, large buttons with immediate feedback, clear notification that
screens have changed, and bright colors.
Page 8 of 64
Spoken dialogue interaction. In terms of more natural interaction paradigms, only two
papers reviewed investigated spoken dialogue interaction for older people. (p. 142)
Wolters, Kilgour, MacPherson et al. (2015) explored a bottom-up approach to adapting
spoken dialogue systems for older people. In an analysis of a corpus of spoken interac
tions between an intelligent computer agent and both younger and older people, they
found two main groups of people, a factual group and a social group. The factual users
adapted quickly to the dialogue system and interacted with it efficiently; the social users
treated the system more like a human being and did not change their interaction style
when it did not understand their requests. Almost all the social users were older, although
about a third of older users were factual in style. The authors concluded that spoken dia
logue systems need to adapt to users based on observed behavior of users, not age per
se. Vacher, Caffiau, Portet et al. (2015) also found that older users were more inclined to
treat a spoken dialogue system as a human being and were disturbed by the rigid gram
mars needed to use such systems.
Multimodality. Four papers explored multimodal aspects of interaction for older people.
Carrasco, Epelde, Moreno et al. (2008) and Diaz-Orueta, Etxaniz, Gonzalez et al. (2014)
studied the use of avatars for older people with Alzheimer’s disease, using a TV screen to
display the avatar and a TV remote control for input. Both studies found that older people
readily understood this interaction metaphor and were able to interact successfully in
simple dialogues. Nunes, Kerwin, and Silva (2012) also tested a TV platform for interac
tion but used text and icons rather than a visual avatar. Again, they found that older peo
ple could interact successfully with the system, although there were interesting usability
problems, for example around understanding standard icons for the video player. On the
basis of a number of evaluations, the authors produced a set of guidelines for TV-based
applications for older people. Finally, Warnock, McGee-Lennon, and Brewster (2013) in
vestigated using multimodal notifications for home care reminder systems for older peo
ple. There were no particular differences between younger and older people in their reac
tions to textual, pictographic, abstract visual, speech, sound, tactile, and olfactory notifi
cations in the context of playing a game in a laboratory setting.
Security. A number of papers investigated security issues in interacting with digital tech
nologies for older people. Renaud and Ramsay (2007) explored authentication mecha
nisms that would be easier for older users but equally secure, including recognition of
handwritten numerals and doodles. Nicholson, Coventry, and Briggs (2013a) compared
face-based and picture-based authentication systems, finding that older people performed
better with the face-based authentication while younger people performed better with the
picture-based authentication. However, in further work, Nicholson, Coventry, and Briggs
(2013b) reported that older people performed better with age-appropriate faces.
Topic 2: Older People’s Lived Experience of Digital Technologies
This topic addresses older people’s lived experience of digital technologies. It includes re
search into how older people understand meaningful practices with technology as (p. 143)
well as issues such as quality of life, well-being, and aging-in-place, and how these might
Page 9 of 64
impact existing and future technologies. It was the second most frequent topic in the re
search reviewed, with 58 papers addressing it. Research reviewed often addressed issues
of older people’s acceptance of, and motivation to use digital technologies, including re
search about understanding values (Briggs & Thomas, 2015); how older people account
for their difficulties in learning to use a computer (Turner, Turner, & van de Walle, 2007);
older people’s concerns about using mobile phones (Kurniawan, 2008); their emailing
practices and the barriers to using email (Sayago & Blat, 2010); their use and sharing of
YouTube videos (Sayago et al., 2012); their perceptions of telecare (Bentley, Powell, Orrell
et al., 2014); and their attitudes toward robots as supportive devices (Pigini, Facal, Blasi
et al., 2012; Scopelliti, Giuliani, & Fornara, 2005). These issues constituted four
subtopics: types of technology, acceptance of technology, value of technology, and the im
portance of stigma.
Types of technology. A number of papers discussed a wide variety of experiences with

different types of digital technology: the Internet (Briggs & Thomas, 2015; Larsson, Lars
son-Lund, & Nilsson, 2013); videos (Ferreira, Sayago, & Blat, 2014); email (Sayago &
Blat, 2010); telecare systems (Šimšík, Galajdová, Siman et al., 2012); a television-based
information system (Ferreira et al., 2014); various features of smart homes (Brajnik & Gi
achin, 2014; Leitner, Fercher, Felfernig et al., 2012); and domestic robots (Heerink, Kröse,
Wielinga et al., 2009; Pigini et al., 2012; Scopelliti et al., 2005). As one example, Sáenz-
de-Urturi, Zapirain, and Zorrilla (2015) investigated the suitability of a Kinect-based
game for rehabilitation exercises for older users. Since the participants in their study in
cluded wheelchair users, people with Parkinson’s, people with one hand, and people with
vision impairments, they needed to adapt the technology and make the games config
urable for people in different situations. After testing the prototype, they also made other
adjustments to the game presentation (e.g., animated instructions rather than text to
read, larger fonts for scores). The game required reaching out for objects, thus creating
exercises to use the arms, as well as activating cognitive processes, because players have
to recognize the objects to catch from amongst other objects. They found that partici
pants became absorbed in the game and engaged in the exercises as part of the game.
Acceptance of technologies. Much research has attempted to investigate acceptance of

digital technologies (Bentley et al., 2014; Heerink et al., 2009). Researchers have been
able to develop nuanced accounts of barriers to take-up. For example, Kurniawan’s (2008)
survey of older people revealed that the role of mobile phones was perceived to increase
their feelings of safety, particularly when they felt themselves in vulnerable, or potentially
vulnerable, situations such as being alone, going out, getting lost, or being in trouble.
Consequently, the phones were not used primarily in their communication or entertain
ment capacities. The study also reported various problems with learning to use the de
vices. Heerink et al. (2009) investigated whether social abilities of robots and screen
agents would influence their use by older people. In an experiment with two types of
agent, an onscreen avatar and a tabletop robot, implemented in a highly sociable and a
less sociable condition. They found that older people were more comfortable with the
more social agent, particularly with the robot. They concluded that social (p. 144) abilities
Page 10 of 64
are important to interaction and need to be implemented in intelligent support technolo

gies for use by older people.
Value of technology. Sayago and Blat (2008; also Sayago et al., 2012), studying older
people at a computer club, found they had great motivation to learn. They wanted to use
email and share videos to maintain social communication, especially with their families.
For this motivated group, the researchers concluded that reducing cognitive load was
more important in the design of systems for these older people than interface design
(e.g., screen size, button size). For example, to reduce cognitive load in their use of
YouTube each older people made use of familiar practices, such as copying and pasting
links from emails, rather than querying the search engine; if using the search function,
they typed complete sentences into the search box, rather than first using categories to
narrow down the search (Sayago et al., 2012). In another study with older people learn
ing to use computers, Turner et al. (2007) investigated the values older people placed on
this activity. In practice this meant understanding the ways older people viewed their ex
periences and accounted for their learning difficulties and those of their peer group.
Seven value-based explanations emerged: alienation (“not my world”); lack of fit with
one’s identity (“I worked with people not machines”); agency (the computer being in con
trol, rather than the person; in addition, the pressure to use technology); anxiety; belief in
being too old to learn; being too busy; and finally, questioning the purpose of learning to
use computers. The researchers concluded that it is important to seek out older people’s
values and understandings of themselves in relation to digital technologies and help them
to reframe these values in more optimistic and positive ways.
Larsson et al. (2013) investigated how older people’s perceptions and experiences of In
ternet activities reflected more generally on their being able to participate in society. Old
er people perceived that not undertaking Internet-based activities implied being moved to
the sidelines. For instance, one interviewee explained that in a group she participates in,
the group leader sent out information by email, forgetting that not all participants have
access to this technology. Participants also noted that services with traditional delivery,
such as health services, now take much longer compared to Internet-based delivery. This
study was conducted with older people who were open to technology, but who also cited
conditions that are required for them to engage in Internet activities, such as support and
continual use (so that they remember what they have learnt), as well as problems with
trust (e.g., buying online). A further issue was whether some Internet activities (e.g., so
cial networking sites) are useful for older people, since the most commonly cited need
was that of communication with family and friends, which they accomplished via email
and video links.
These findings were also echoed in other research with older people learning computer
skills. Wanting to see whether the commonly used measures of usability, such as time to
complete task, were relevant for older people, Sayago and Blat (2008) found slow task
completion was not an issue. The participants valued accuracy more than efficiency and
wanted to take their time. For them, it was important not to make mistakes, for they often
found they could not recover from mistakes without asking for help. The researchers not
Page 11 of 64
ed the importance of self-efficacy: they reported how one participant said that she
(p. 145) enjoyed feeling of being competent despite never using a computer before and
having a low level of education (Sayago et al., 2012).
The importance of stigma. Bentley et al. (2014) discovered that stigma was a strong
reason for non-acceptance of digital technologies by older people. They investigated
whether telecare products, such as pendants and panic button systems, were considered
acceptable by older people who were not current users of such products. They found re
sistance to these systems: older people saw them as symbols of old age and loss of auton
omy and claimed that their designs were stigmatizing as well as impractical. However,
the overall concept of being able to summon help was considered useful and important,
and participants acknowledged that they might use such systems in the future. Other
studies of home deployment of technologies also found that stigma was a concern. For in
stance, Doyle, Bailey, Scanaill et al. (2014) explained that an alertness awareness cushion
was specifically designed to fit in with the home environment, and not look like a piece of
assistive technology.
Topic 3: Older People’s Use of Digital Technology for Communication

and Social Interaction
Communication and social interaction are very important activities for health and well-be
ing in later life, and the lessening of these activities poses risks as serious as those for
cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, and obesity (Cohen, Underwood, & Gottlieb,
2000). Therefore, it is not surprising that there was a considerable amount of research on
this topic with 52 papers addressing this topic in the papers reviewed. Subtopics included
social networking, facilitating interaction, motivations for interaction, intergenerational
interaction, communication habits, obstacles to communication, reminiscing, and loneli
ness.
Social networking. Nine papers investigated the use of social networking sites (SNSs).
A network analytic approach comparing different age groups (Arjan, Pfeil, & Zaphiris,
2008) revealed a number of interesting differences, including that, compared to younger
people, older people had smaller networks of friends in SNSs and a greater variety in the
age of their friends, and represented themselves in more formal ways. A study of older
people in the UK and in Cyprus revealed the effect of different cultures in their attitudes
to and use of online social support communities (Michailidou, Parmaxi, & Zaphiris, 2015).
Older people in the UK who used such communities were happy to interact with people
outside their family, but were reluctant to reveal too much about themselves, due to their
fears about security in online situations. On the other hand, older people in Cyprus most
ly used such communities to interact with family members: they were generally aware of
and confident about online security issues, having discussed them with their families.
Other studies about SNSs (Gibson, Moncur, Forbes et al., 2010; Lehtinen, Näsänen, &
Sarvas, 2009) investigated older people’s attitudes to such sites after the researchers
demonstrated and helped them register on the network. In both these studies, the older
Page 12 of 64
users (located in Finland and Scotland) reported they did not feel they needed
(p. 146)
this channel of communication: they were happy communicating with people they knew
by email. Privacy was a problem for two reasons: older people were wary of giving infor
mation about themselves, and they worried about information accidentally becoming pub
lic. They also felt it was not socially acceptable to broadcast information about them
selves on SNSs. Results from an online questionnaire (Prieto & Leahy, 2012) supported
these findings, noting that the main reasons for not using SNSs were privacy issues, com
plexity of their use, and friends not using them. Also, most older people who were users
of SNSs had been using them for less than five years and got to know about them from
family more than from friends. However, the researchers suggest that SNSs might be a
more interesting way of introducing older people to computer usage than by browsing
websites.
Studying older users and their social interactions off and online, Harley, Howland, Harris
et al. (2014) noted that older people were often passive users on Facebook, logging in to
see what family members were doing, especially younger members who did not use email
to communicate with them, but did not themselves post on Facebook. Norval, Arnott, and
Hanson (2014) proposed recommendations for making SNSs more usable for older people
who had expressed interest in using such sites, but for whom the complexity of the appli
cations was a barrier. Finally, Coelho, Rito, Luz et al., (2015) investigated the problem of
easier interactions for older people on SNSs, using familiar technologies like television
and alternative interaction types such as speech and tapping on tablets. They also identi
fied the functions that older people most value: to share photos and television content
with family and close friends, and to be able to manage different groups of acquain
tances.
Facilitating interaction. On the theme of facilitating interaction with communication

and social interaction technologies, Spreicer, Ehrenstrasser, and Tellioğlu (2012) investi
gated tangible interfaces (interfaces that include physical objects, using tokens to repre
sent different functions, e.g., for calling or for sending photos), and explored the idea of
personalized tokens that could be placed on a surface to initiate actions. The result was a
playful interface design, using familiar objects. Older participants in workshops reacted
to this concept very positively. They supplied meaningful objects from their own collec
tions, the researchers enhanced these with RFID tags, and when placed on a special sur
face, these objects would, for example, start a Skype call, or send an email. One much ap
preciated aspect of the design was a reduced demand for space in the homes of older
people, a need supported by other studies (e.g., Doyle, Skrba, McDonnell et al., 2010).
Motivations for interaction. A number of papers investigated motivations for communi

cation and social interaction with digital technologies by investigating what older people
did with existing mainstream technologies. Conci, Pianesi, and Zancanaro (2009) showed
that older people perceived mobile phones to be primarily a utilitarian device for enhanc
ing safety, and that support with use was needed even with practice. Unlike younger
users, older users showed little enjoyment or fulfilment in using their phones. Trying to
understand the needs of people transitioning from working to retirement, Salovaara,
Page 13 of 64
Lehmuskallio, Hedman et al. (2010) showed that for many older people, the Internet, and
in particular, email and online calendars, had become important (p. 147) means of main
taining and even initiating new social contacts. The older people felt that these tools
helped them to cope with the stresses and conflicts of the transition from working to re
tirement which involved new activities and commitments, housing arrangements, etc.
Intergenerational interaction. A number of papers investigated the theme of intergen

erational interaction. Staying in contact with grandchildren is a major motivation for old
er people to engage with and learn to use digital technologies. Studies by Vutborg, Kjeld
skov, Vetere et al. (2010) and Fuchsberger, Sellner, Moser et al. (2012) described systems
to facilitate interactions between grandparents and grandchildren. Fuchsberger and col
leagues were able to show that the motivation to use a technology for this purpose was
very strong, even though users had low computer skills and found it difficult to use. Gam
liel and Gambay (2014) investigated intergenerational teaching programs in schools,
where children and older people taught one another, and found that older people showed
strong learning motivation and took the assignments set by the children about learning
how to use technology very seriously. Finally, in research about encouraging older
people’s social interaction amongst themselves at a community center by playing games,
Mubin, Shadid, and Mahmud (2008) reported that the participants were keen to include
their grandchildren in the activity.
Communication habits. Researchers have also examined the nature of older people’s
habits with their communication technologies. Many older people prefer to sustain close
relationships that are meaningful to them, rather than seek to make new acquaintances
(Lindley, Harper, & Sellen, 2008). Older people are prepared to spend time keeping in
touch with valued friends and maintaining family links (Lindley, Harper, & Sellen, 2009).
Sokoler and Svensson (2007) concentrated on ways to include technologies for enabling
social interaction that would not stigmatize older users as lonely people craving compan
ionship. Dowds and Masthoff (2015) described a system to provide live video feeds for
people who are unable to visit each other in person. The idea is that the “window on the
outside world” will be stimulating and may lead to a desire to participate online in other
activities. Doyle et al. (2010) reported on the deployment of a touchscreen device for
communication activities. The device was designed to broadcast some content, with
health suggested as being of particular interest to older people. The hypothesis was that
the broadcast content would act as the trigger to begin interactions, as older people
might send messages or call one another to comment on the broadcast program. In fact,
it was found that the broadcasts were not much attended to, partly due to the fixed
broadcast times. However, the long deployment period (7-9 weeks) yielded much informa
tion about how older people felt about such communication. While they agreed it would
be useful for people who are housebound, particularly for calling and messaging, they
were concerned about issues of disturbance and availability. Finally, Otjacques, Krier,
Feltz et al. (2009) conducted an exploratory study in a large residential care facility about
a social activities management system, allowing residents to book places on outings and
Page 14 of 64
events. The researchers noted a tendency for the physical spaces where the technologies
are installed to become face-to-face meeting places for residents.
Obstacles to communication. Several papers discussed specific health obstacles to

communication, such as aphasia and dementia, and how technology could be used to
(p. 148) help with these. Tixier and Lewkowicz (2015) aimed to increase communication
between family carers of people with Alzheimer’s disease, often spouses and hence older
people themselves. Their results showed that online support could help facilitate meeting
arrangements and help continue communication between carers of people with
Alzheimer’s. Such support would help reinforce the interaction between carers that was
already taking place, but only maintained via face-to face meetings. Kalman, Geraghty,
Thompson et al. (2012) attempted to indirectly diagnose aphasia, showing that it could be
reliably detected in online messages. Mahmud, Limpens, and Martens (2013) investigated
the design of a tool for manipulating digital photographs to be used to communicate
everyday happenings and stories. Both the researchers dealing with aphasia and those
dealing with dementia sought to stimulate social interactions, making use of technologies
to initiate reminiscence, which has been shown to be beneficial for older people.
Reminiscing. Supporting reminiscing in older people as a way of stimulating basic social

interactions was the goal of Nijhof, van Hoof, van Rijn et al. (2014) and Siriaraya and Ang
(2014). Nijhof and colleagues compared two games, one supported by technologically en
hanced objects, made to look like familiar objects such as a television or a telephone.
When these enhanced objects were switched on they played a fragment of music or a
movie clip, to trigger memories. The researchers studied older people’s responses to
these enhanced objects, such as smiling, laughing out loud, making gestures, singing, and
answering with a short answer or with a story. There were no significant differences be
tween responses to the technologically enhanced game and a traditional one. The facilita
tors of the activities, who were staff in institutions where the players lived, gave feedback
on the designs. For instance, they noted that the television, as a visual tool, was the most
successful of the triggers, whereas the telephone was confusing, because when it rang
and was answered, it started playing music instead of a voice being heard. The staff felt
that the enhanced objects could help trigger more responses with less prompting by the
facilitators if different types of content were used (more general subjects, like nature and
animals). They could be very useful in helping to bring more novel approaches into stimu
lating communication with the older people. Siriaraya and Ang (2014) created a virtual
world environment for people with dementia in a care home. They found that older peo
ple were attracted to the wonderland character of the virtual world, and that it triggered
reactions from some residents who began to talk and reminisce, and to tell stories, helped
and encouraged by the care staff.
Loneliness. Finally, although research on communication and social interaction often

mentioned social isolation, only one study specifically considered loneliness amongst old
er people. Van der Heide, Willems, Spreeuwenberg et al. (2012) investigated mitigating
loneliness with a television-based system allowing older people living independently to in
teract with carers, family and friends. A large number of older people (130) completed a
Page 15 of 64
questionnaire at the beginning of the study and again a year later. Their responses were
assessed in relation to both emotional loneliness (missing an intimate relationship) and
social loneliness (missing a wider social network). Analysis showed that use of the system
for social interaction was positive and that feelings of both emotional and (more so) social
loneliness were reduced.
Topic 4: Using Digital Technologies to Assist Older People:

(p. 149)
Monitoring Older People’s Welfare
Research on monitoring older people’s welfare has investigated various aspects of safety
and security. These included ways to monitor sleep, wandering, falls, and risky behaviors,
via recording vital signs or tracking people’s movements. Indications that people may
need help included irregular pulse or not moving. Since falls are a major source of acci
dents and anxiety about them is high, fall prevention is an active area of research (Kepski
& Kwolek, 2012; Oberzaucher, Jagos, Zödl et al., 2010; Schikhof, Mulder, & Choenni,
2010). Older people were also monitored for activity patterns, to determine behaviors
that might be unusual, for instance spending a long time in the corridor or opening the
front door. Other possibilities included monitoring activities of daily living by interpreting
data from sensors placed in various parts of the home (e.g., on the fridge, in the bath
room) (Lexis, Everink, van der Heide et al., 2013), or interpreting sleep behavior (Carey-
Smith, Evans, & Orpwood, 2013; Nijhof, van Gemert Pijnen, de Jong et al., 2012), as well
as locating people who may have wandered out of the house, or who may be exhibiting er
ratic behaviors, e.g., not completing normal routines. Technologies for monitoring, quality
of life, ethical concerns, and beneficiaries of monitoring systems were the subtopics.
Technologies for monitoring. The term monitoring conjures up visions of people being
under surveillance by closed circuit TV cameras, possibly without their knowledge, but in
fact a range of technologies has been developed that track older people’s movements and
vital functions in ways that are transparent to the users. Some are designed to enable old
er people to control their home environment with smart home technologies (Abascal, de
Castro, LaFuente & Cia, 2008). Such technologies can be configured to individuals’
needs: for example, where mobility is an issue, they can enable remote opening and clos
ing of windows, curtains and doors, or remote checking of who is at the front door. Simi
larly, environmental sensor-activated systems (Lexis et al., 2013) can be set up to switch
on lights as an older person comes into a room, to keep rooms at appropriate tempera
tures, to check on appliances to ensure they are not left on, etc. Other monitoring tech
nologies include a range of wearables such as watches, belts, or pendants (Ahanathapil
lai, Amor & James, 2015; Holliday, Ward, Fielden et al., 2015; Nijhof et al., 2012), and
even shoe insoles (Oberzaucher et al., 2010). The purpose of these is to monitor vital
signs (e.g., heart beat or pulse), to send alerts (e.g., time to take medication, call for help
in an emergency), or to monitor gait to prevent falls (as noted earlier, a common and seri
ous occurrence amongst older people). Recently robotic devices (e.g., Mehdi & Berns,
2014) have been developed to search autonomously for an older person, to check their
status, rather than have them under constant human supervision. Although most of the
technologies are for indoor use, in private homes (e.g., Abascal et al., 2008; Casas, Marin,
Page 16 of 64
Robinet et al., 2008; Lozano, Hernáez, Picón et al., 2010; Orpwood, Gibbs, Adlam et al.,
2005), or in assisted care settings (e.g., Lexis et al., 2013; Martin, Nugent, Wallace et al.,
2007; Schikhof et al., 2010), some have been (p. 150) developed for outdoor use, to allow
people to move outside but still be protected from getting lost when wandering (Boulos,
Anastasiou, Bekiaris et al., 2011; Wan, Müller, Wulf et al., 2014).
Quality of life. Beyond concerns with physical safety and security, research in the moni
toring topic investigated general quality of life. For instance, Schikhof et al. (2010) found
that care staff in an assisted living facility expressed a concern about their charges, who
were older people with dementia, having panic attacks while alone in their rooms. One of
the technological solutions proposed and tested as a result was a system to detect if older
people with dementia in the facility were having a panic attack: if an attack were detect
ed, the system would help the care staff to quickly intervene to comfort and reassure
them.
Ethical concerns. Ethics was an important recurring subtopic. Some papers addressed
this only in passing, as it was not the main thrust of the work being reported. Neverthe
less, it was an important dimension of the type of work being undertaken. For example,
there is a fine divide between tracking, monitoring, and surveillance (Holzinger, Searle,
Kleingerger et al., 2008). Other papers treated this theme more fully: for instance, inves
tigating the notion of trust (Ahanathapillai et al., 2015), and the ambivalence of feelings
regarding freedom versus monitoring (Boström, Kjellström, & Björklund, 2013), while
Casas, Marco, and Falcó et al. (2006) developed the basis for an ethics framework associ
ated with digital technologies for older people.
Beneficiaries of monitoring systems. In many cases the end-users of the monitoring

systems were not older people, but family members, informal and professional carers,
and nursing staff. Older people being monitored had a largely passive role, although in
some cases they were in control of the system (Boulos et al., 2011; Holliday et al., 2015;
Lexis et al., 2013). The primary beneficiaries of the monitoring system were, however,
considered to be the older people who were being monitored. Such systems aimed to give
them a sense of safety and well-being (Orpwood et al., 2005; Schikhof et al., 2010). How
ever, there was also benefit for caregivers, for example, to professional care staff for bet
ter management of their time that necessarily had to be divided between a number of old
er people (Schikhof et al., 2010) and to be better able to tailor care (Boström et al., 2013;
Carey-Smith et al., 2013; Lexis et al., 2013; Nijhof et al., 2012), and to give some peace of
mind to families and carers.
Page 17 of 64
Reflections on the Research on Uses of Digital

Technology for Older People
Particular Subtopics within Topics
Our review of recent research on the use of digital technologies for older people shows
that this is a vibrant area of research, with much activity on many different topics and
over 400 papers identified. The four topics chosen for detailed discussion in this chapter
demonstrate a range of themes and subtopics within them that together give a
(p. 151)
good representation of the questions investigated by researchers.
In the first topic, older people’s interaction with digital technologies, in addition to the
obvious subtopics corresponding to the interaction types based on current technologies
such as natural dialogue and touch, there are also intriguing insights, such as the lack of
concern for speed and greater ease with face-based than picture-based authentication
systems. The second topic, older people’s lived experience of digital technologies, illus
trated the wide range of technologies, both established and emergent, being investigated,
from technologies deployed in smart homes, to those employed in health and well-being.
In terms of particular subtopics of interest within this topic, researchers investigated
people’s acceptance of technologies, developing a deeper understanding their value sys
tems and beliefs. This included their dislike of technologies that declared too obviously
that they needed assistance.
The third topic, older people’s use of digital technology for communication and social in
teraction, moved to a specific application area, although involving many types of digital
technologies. Social networking sites (SNSs) featured prominently, and age differences in
their use were particularly interesting, showing that older people have smaller networks
of friends, and were mostly passive users of such systems, feeling that to broadcast infor
mation about oneself publicly is not socially acceptable. Often researchers investigated
ways to facilitate digital interaction for older people, for example in terms of interface de
sign. But researchers also investigated older people’s motivations for using these tech
nologies, for instance, for keeping in touch with their families, particularly grandchildren.
They sought to understand better what older people’s communication habits are, and also
obstacles to communication. They found that reminiscing, a well-known technique to en
courage social communication, could be encouraged with some technologies, and that
loneliness could be reduced. Finally, the fourth topic, monitoring older people’s welfare,
was chosen as an example of an area in which emerging technologies are being deployed
in the care of older people. Besides the range of ways to monitor, subtopics that emerged
from this topic were quality of life and ethical concerns, but also a call for clarity about
acknowledging who are the beneficiaries of such systems.
Page 18 of 64
Two Themes across the Four Topics
Although the papers discussed in detail in this chapter covered four different topics,
there were a number of themes that recurred across the topics. Here, we highlight two of
these themes, control and familiarity.
The issue of who is in control of digital technologies came up in many ways throughout
the review. For instance, in the longitudinal study by Leitner et al. (2012) in which older
people kept equipment for 36 months, they were able to pick and choose what they want
ed installed, gradually gaining confidence and knowing they could ask for components to
be removed. Also, Lexis et al. (2013) helped older people to understand the kind of data
that was being collected from sensors in their bathrooms. They had imagined it (p. 152)
might be photographs but were shown that it was just numbers. Orpwood et al. (2005)
found that a common problem for older people with dementia is flooding caused by bath
room or kitchen taps being left on. An engineering solution to this problem could use a
sensor so that the water supply turns off when the water reaches too high a level. Howev
er, this would take control away from the older person and could confuse them, as they
would find later that the taps no longer work. Instead, a system of reminder messages
triggered by the sensor was proposed. Scopelliti et al. (2005) found that older people
were more apprehensive than younger people at the prospect of a robot in the home, and
so would like to be in control of it. Accordingly, they expressed preferences for robots to
be small, slow moving, with limited autonomy, and with fixed well-defined tasks. The re
quirement that it is important that older people feel in control of their environment was
also highlighted in the research by Doyle et al. (2014) and Pigini et al. (2012). One of the
technologies deployed in people’s homes in the study by Doyle et al. (2014) for a balance
and exercise system was meant to use a chair, but this was cumbersome and took up too
much space. The kitchen sink was then proposed by the participants themselves as a sta
ble place to hold onto while doing exercises, even if this meant the camera and screen
had to be positioned in the kitchen. Thus, the older people reconfigured the positioning of
the new technology themselves. Pirgini et al. (2012) found that older people voiced fears
that a robot might be uncontrollable and clumsy, and damage or break things. The older
people voiced strong psychological attachments to their homes, furniture, and ornaments,
and said they would prefer no technology rather than technology they could not control
and thus that might harm those possessions.
The second theme, familiarity, in the context of this review refers to building upon older
people’s existing knowledge and learning strategies (Ballegaard, Pedersen, & Bardram,
2006; Lehtinen et al., 2009). There was much support for the idea that at different stages
in their lives people use different strategies when learning to use technology: trial and er
ror is favored by young people, the reading of instructions and manuals by older people;
and as well, older people often prefer to ask experts for help (Larsson et al., 2013; Leitner
et al., 2012). This was found in numerous settings and technologies, from older people’s
behavior in computer classes to their learning to use home monitoring systems. Following
the principle of familiarity also means that the cognitive load to learn new routines will
lessen the negative impact the perceived utility of the technology (Heerink et al., 2009;
Page 19 of 64
Sayago and Blat, 2010). Familiarity also referred to the technology fitting in with people’s
routines or their physical environments. For example, the importance of building on ob
jects and systems that people are already familiar with was discussed by Doyle et al.
(2014) and Holzinger, Schaupp, and Eder-Halbedl (2008). That of fitting new technologies
appropriately into older people’s lived routines was discussed by Dickinson and Gregor
(2006) and Orpwood et al. (2005).
Limitations and Future Research
It is important to note some of the limitations of the studies, as well as areas that could
benefit from further research. In all the disciplines with research on older people, typical
ly, (p. 153) chronological age is used as the measure of old age. But this is not a reliable
guide, since there is a great deal of heterogeneity between older people, and even if a
more specific set of groupings is sometimes used, for example “young-old”, “old-old”, and
“oldest-old” (Petrie, 2001), people vary in experience and abilities. Particularly at present,
in terms of digital literacy, someone aged 60 may have used computers in the workplace,
while someone aged 80 may not. The questionnaire developed by Arning and Ziefle
(2008) to assess computer experience and expertise was an interesting attempt to ad
dress this problem. Also, physical and mental health varies considerably across older peo
ple of different ages, and even with the same age.
A further aspect that could offer more nuanced understandings of older people’s use of
digital technologies is to address contextual and cultural differences in research. It was
clear that many of the studies investigated technological practices embedded in a particu
lar societal and organizational setting, such as residential assisted care homes in Holland
(Nijhof et al., 2014), occupational therapy in Sweden (Molin, Pettersson, & Jonsson et al.,
2007), and computer classes for older people in Spain (Sayago & Blat, 2008). There were
also instances in the research when it was clear that cultural practices had an important
effect on the outcomes of studies. The higher amount of religious content watched on
television in Brazil compared to Spain meant the proposed interactive television service
that was based around religious content was of more interest to older people in Brazil but
did not work so well in Spain (Ferreira et al., 2014). Older people in the UK and in Cyprus
revealed the effect of different cultures in their attitudes to and use of online social sup
port communities (Michailidou et al., 2015). The different levels of Internet penetration in
different countries was also important. Older people in Denmark mentioned that airline
tickets could only be booked online and many government services were online (Ferreira
et al., 2014), and Internet-based healthcare services were available for older people in
Sweden (Larsson et al., 2013), but such services are not yet available in other countries.
Other culture-based attitudes were noted by Pigini et al. (2012). Although older people in
Germany, Italy, and Spain attached a similar level of importance to food preparation, so
that the suggestion to have a robot help prepare meals by heating food in a microwave
was considered a useless function, participants from Germany and Italy objected more to
the proposed robot cooking functions than did their Spanish counterparts. Such results
Page 20 of 64
highlight the challenges of cultural influences on digital technology use and attitudes
amongst older people.
It is also important that researchers disseminate their results back to the appropriate di
verse disciplines. Awareness of issues and updates are important within disciplines, and
across disciplines, as seen by papers that dealt with lack of awareness about telecare and
fall alert systems (Bentley et al., 2014), or were about health and social care professionals
who need help to bridge gaps in organizational knowledge about what technology is avail
able and how to determine what is suitable for their older people (Molin et al., 2007).
We have attempted to illustrate the range of research on digital technologies for older
people. Research in this area is particularly challenging as it needs to draw on work from
many disciplines as different as gerontology and engineering. It is also vital to work very
closely with the relevant users, older people themselves but also other stakeholders such
(p. 154) as family members, carers, and professionals, to ensure that digital technologies
are useful to, and are acceptable, understandable, and usable by, older people and their
caregivers.
Conclusion
This review has shown that research on digital technologies for older people, both the use
of mainstream technologies and the use of specially developed technologies, is a very di
verse area of endeavor, with many lines of research on a wide range of themes. Research
ranges from studies that are developing new methods to help older people physically in
teract with digital technologies to those exploring the meanings of digital technologies for
older people. As with all research, the more we explore these topics, the more questions
we raise.
Acknowledgments
The research for this chapter has been partly funded by the European Union under the
Marie Skłodowska-Curie Action Experienced Researcher Fellowship Program, as part of
the Education and Engagement for inclusive Design and Development of Digital Systems
and Services Project (E2D3S2, Grant No. 706396). We would like to thank Bláithín Gal
lagher and Leonardo Sandoval for their help in gathering material for this chapter.
References
Abascal, J., de Castro, I. F., Lafuente, A., & Cia, J. M. (2008). Adaptive interfaces for sup
portive ambient intelligence environments. In Proceedings of 11th international confer
ence on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘08) (pp. 30–37).
Ahanathapillai, V., Amor, J. D., & James, C. J. (2015). Assistive technology to monitor activ
ity, health and wellbeing in old age: The wrist wearable unit in the USEFIL project. Tech
nology and Disability, 27(1–2), 17–29.
Page 21 of 64
Apted, T., Kay, J., & Quigley, A. (2006). Tabletop sharing of digital photographs for the el
derly. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems
(CHI 2006) (pp. 781–790).
Arjan, R., Pfeil, U., & Zaphiris, P. (2008). Age differences in online social networking. In
Extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (CHI EA ‘08) (pp. 2739–
2744).
Arning, K., & Ziefle, M. (2008). Development and validation of a computer expertise ques
tionnaire for older adults. Behaviour and Information Technology, 27(1), 89–93.
Australian Research Council. (2012). Excellence in research for Australia (ERA): ERA out
comes 2012. Available at: http://www.arc.gov.au/era-outcomes-2012
Ballegaard, S. A., Pedersen, J. B., & Bardram, J. E. (2006). Where to, Roberta? Reflecting
on the role of technology in assisted living. In Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference
on human-computer interaction (NordiCHI ‘06) (pp. 373–376).
Bentley, C. L., Powell, L. A, Orrell, A., & Mountain, G. A. (2014). Addressing design and
suitability barriers to telecare use: Has anything changed? Technology and Disability, 26,
221–235.
(p. 155) Boström, M., Kjellström, S., & Björklund, A. (2013). Older persons have ambiva
lent feelings about the use of monitoring technologies. Technology and Disability, 25(2),
117–125.
Boulos, M. N. K., Anastasiou, A., Bekiaris, E., & Panou, M. (2011). Geo-enabled technolo
gies for independent living: Examples from four European projects. Technology and Dis
ability, 23(1), 7–17.
Brajnik, G., & Giachin, C. (2014). Using sketches and storyboards to assess impact of age
difference in user experience. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 72, 552–
566.
Briggs, P., & Thomas, L. (2015). An inclusive, value sensitive design perspective on future
identity technologies. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 22(5), art 23.
Carey-Smith, B., Evans, N. M., & Orpwood, R. (2013). A user-centred design process to
develop technology to improve sleep quality in residential care homes. Technology and
Disability, 25(1), 49–58.
Carrasco, E., Epelde, G., Moreno, A., Ortiz, A., Garcia, I., Buiza, C. et al. (2008). Natural
interaction between avatars and persons with Alzheimer’s disease. In Proceedings of 11th
international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘08)
(pp. 38–45).
Page 22 of 64
Casas, R., Marco, Á., Falcó, J. L., Artigas, J. I., & Abascal, J. (2006). Ethically aware design
of a location system for people with dementia. In Proceedings of 10th computers helping
people with special needs (ICCHP ‘06) (pp. 777–784).
Casas, R., Marín, R. B., Robinet, A., Delgado, A. R., Yarza, A. R., McGinn, J. et al. (2008).
User modelling in ambient intelligence for elderly and disabled people. In Proceedings of
11th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP
‘08) (pp. 114–122).
Coelho, J., Rito, F., Luz, N., & Duarte, C. (2015). Prototyping TV and tablet Facebook inter
faces for older adults. In J. Abascal, S. Barbosa, M. Fetter, T. Gross, P. Palanque, & M.
Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings of human-computer interaction (INTERACT 2015). Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, 9296 (pp. 110–128).
Cohen, S., Underwood, L. G., & Gottlieb, B. H. (2000). Social support measurement and
intervention: A guide for health and social scientists. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Conci, M., Pianesi, F., & Zancanaro, M. (2009). Useful, social and enjoyable: Mobile
phone adoption by older people. In T. Gross et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of human-computer
interaction (INTERACT 2009). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5726, (pp. 63–76).
Diaz-Orueta, U., Etxaniz, A., Gonzalez, M. F., Buiza, C., Urdaneta, E., & Yanguas, J. (2014).
Role of cognitive and functional performance in the interactions between elderly people
with cognitive decline and an avatar on TV. Universal Access to the Information Society,
13, 89–97.
Dickinson, A., & Gregor, P. (2006). Computer use has no demonstrated impact on the well-
being of older adults. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(8), 744–753.
Dowds, G., & Masthoff, J. (2015). A virtual “window to the outside world”: Initial design
and plans for evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2015 British HCI conference (British HCI
‘15) (pp. 265–266).
Doyle, J., Bailey, C., Scanaill, C. Ni, & Berg, F. (2014). Lessons learned in deploying inde
pendent living technologies to older adults’ homes. Universal Access in the Information.
Society, 13(2), 191–204.
Doyle, J., Skrba, Z., McDonnell, R., & Arent, B. (2010). Designing a touch screen commu
nication device to support social interaction amongst older adults. In Proceedings of the
24th BCS interaction specialist group conference (BCS HCI ‘10) (pp. 177–185).
Ferreira, S. M., Sayago, S., & Blat, J. (2014). Towards iTV services for older people: Ex
ploring their interactions with online video portals in different cultural backgrounds.
Technology and Disability, 26(4), 199–209.
Page 23 of 64
Fuchsberger, V., Sellner, W., Moser, C., & Tscheligi, M. (2012). Benefits and hur
(p. 156)
dles for older adults in intergenerational online interactions. In: Proceedings of 13th in
ternational conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP 2012)
(pp. 697–704).
Gamliel, T., & Gabay, N. (2014). Knowledge exchange, social interactions, and empower
ment in an intergenerational technology program at school. Educational Gerontology,
40(8), 597–617.
Gibson, L., Moncur, W., Forbes, P., Arnott, J., Martin, C., & Bhachu, A. S. (2010). Design
ing social networking sites for older adults. In Proceedings of the 24th BCS interaction
specialist group conference (BCS HCI ‘10) (pp. 186–194).
Harley, D., Howland, K., Harris, E., & Redlich, C. (2014). Online communities for older
users: What can we learn from local community interactions to create social sites that
work for older people. In Proceedings of the 28th international BCS human computer in
teraction conference on HCI 2014 (BCS-HCI ‘14) (pp. 42–51).
Heerink, M., Kröse, B., Wielinga, B., & Evers, V. (2009). Measuring the influence of social
abilities on acceptance of an interface robot and a screen agent by elderly users. In Pro
ceedings of the 23rd British HCI group annual conference on people and computers: cele
brating people and technology (pp. 430–439).
Holliday, N., Ward, G., Fielden, S., & Williams, S. (2015). Exploration of information needs
and development of resources to inform and support those at risk of falling. Technology
and Disability, 27(1–2), 31–40.
Holzinger, A., Schaupp, K., & Eder-Halbedl, W. (2008). An investigation on acceptance of

ubiquitous devices for the elderly in a geriatric hospital environment: Using the example
of person tracking. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on computers
helping people with special needs (ICCHP 2008) (pp. 22–29).
Holzinger, A., Searle, G., Kleingerger, T., Seffah, A., & Javahery, H. (2008). Investigating
usability metrics for the design and development of applications for the elderly. In Pro
ceedings of 11th international conference on computers helping people with special
needs (ICCHP 2008) (pp. 98–105).
Hwang, F., Hollinworth, N., & Williams, N. (2013). Effects of target expansion on selec
tion performance in older computer users. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing,
5(1), 1.
Jochems, N., Vetter, S., & Schlick, C. (2013). A comparative study of information input de
vices for aging computer users. Behaviour and Information Technology, 32(9), 902–919.
Jönsson, B., & Svensk, A. (1995). Isaac—a personal digital assistant for the differently
abled. In I. Placencia-Porrero, & R. Puig de la Bellacasa (Eds.), The European context for
Page 24 of 64
assistive technology (Proceedings of the 2nd TIDE Congress) (pp. 356–361). Amsterdam:
IOS Press.
Kalman, Y. M., Geraghty, K., Thompson, C. K., & Gergle, D. (2012). Detecting linguistic
HCI markers in an online aphasia support group. In Proceedings of the 14th International
ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility (ASSETS ‘12) (pp. 65–70).
Kepski, M., & Kwolek, B. (2012). Fall detection on embedded platform using Kinect and
wireless accelerometer. In Proceedings of 13th international conference on computers
helping people with special Needs (ICCHP ‘12) (pp. 407–414).
Kurniawan, S. (2008). Older people and mobile phones: A multi-method investigation. In
ternational Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(12), 889–901.
Larsson, E., Larsson-Lund, M., & Nilsson, I. (2013). Internet Based Activities (IBAs): Se
niors’ experiences of the conditions required for the performance of and the influence of
these conditions on their own participation in society. Educational Gerontology, 93(3),
155–167.
Lehtinen, V., Näsänen, J., & Sarvas, R. (2009). “A little silly and empty-headed”: Older
adults’ understandings of social networking sites. In Proceedings of British HCI 2009 (pp.
45–54).
Leitner, G., Fercher, A. J., Felfernig, A., & Hitz, M. (2012). Reducing the entry
(p. 157)
threshold of AAL systems: Preliminary results from Casa Vecchia. In Proceedings of 13th
international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP 2012
(pp. 709–715).
Lepicard, G., & Vigouroux, N. (2010). Touch screen user interfaces for older subjects: Ef
fect of the targets number and the two hands use. In Proceedings of 12th international
conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘10) (pp. 592–599).
Lepicard, G., & Vigouroux, N. (2012). Comparison between single-touch and multi-touch
interaction for older people. In Proceedings of 13th international conference on comput
ers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘12) (pp. 658–665).
Lexis, M., Everink, I., van der Heide, L., Spreeuwenberg, M., Willems, C., & de Witte, L.
(2013). Activity monitoring technology to support homecare delivery to frail and psy
chogeriatric elderly persons living at home alone. Technology and Disability, 25(3), 189–
197.
Lindley, S. E., Harper, R., & Sellen, A. (2008). Designing for elders: Exploring the com
plexity of relationships in later life. In Proceedings of BCS HCI 2008 (pp. 77–86).
Lindley, S. E., Harper, R., & Sellen, A. (2009). Desiring to be in touch in a changing com
munications landscape: Attitudes of older adults. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI confer
ence on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘09) (pp. 1693–1702).
Page 25 of 64
Lozano, H. Hernáez, I., Picón, A., Camarena, J., & Navas, E. (2010). Audio classification
techniques in home environments for elderly/dependant people. In Proceedings of 12th
(pp. 320–323).
Mahmud, A. A., Limpens, Y., & Martens, J.-B. (2013). Expressing through digital pho
tographs: an assistive tool for persons with aphasia. Universal Access in the Information
Society, 12(3), 309–326.
Martin, S., Nugent, C., Wallace, J., Kernohan, G., McCreight, B., & Mulvenna, M. (2007).
Using context awareness within the “Smart home” environment to support social care for
adults with dementia. Technology and Disability, 19(2,3), 143–152.
Mehdi, S. A. & Berns, K. (2014). Behaviour-based search of human by an autonomous in

door mobile robot in simulation. Universal Access Information Society, 13, 45–58.
Michailidou, E., Parmaxi, A., & Zaphiris, P. (2015). Culture effects in online social support
for older people: perceptions and experience. Universal Access in the Information
Society, 14(2), 281–293.
Molin, G., Pettersson, C., Jonsson, O., & Keijer, U. (2007). Living at home with acquired
cognitive impairment—Can assistive technology help? Technology and Disability, 19(2, 3),
91–101.
Mubin, O., Shahid, S., & Mahmud, A. A. (2008). Walk 2 Win: Towards designing a mobile
game for elderly’s social engagement. In Proceedings of the 22nd British HCI conference
(BCS-HCI ‘08) (pp. 11–14).
Muskens, L., van Lent, R., Vijfvinkel, A., van Cann, P., & Shahid, S. (2014). Never too old
to use a tablet: Designing tablet applications for the cognitively and physically impaired
elderly. In Proceedings of 14th international conference on computers helping people
with special needs (ICCHP ‘14) (pp. 391–398).
Nicholson, J., Coventry, L., & Briggs, P. (2013a). Faces and pictures: Understanding age
differences in two types of graphical authentications. International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies, 71(10), 958–966.
Nicholson, J., Coventry, L., & Briggs, P. (2013b). Age-related performance issues for PIN
and face-based authentication systems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on hu
man factors in computing systems (CHI ‘13) (pp. 323–332).
Nicolau, H., & Jorge, J. (2012). Elderly text-entry performance on touchscreens. In

(p. 158)
Proceedings of the 14th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and ac
cessibility (ASSETS ‘12) (pp. 127–134).
Nijhof, N., van Gemert-Pijnen, J. E. W. C., de Jong, G. E. N., Ankoné, J. W., & Seydel, E. R.
(2012). How assistive technology can support dementia care: A study about the effects of
Page 26 of 64
the IST Vivago watch on patients’ sleeping behavior and the care delivery process in a
nursing home. Technology and Disability, 24(2), 103–115.
Nijhof, N., van Hoof, J., van Rijn, H., & van Gemert-Pijnen, J. E. W. C. (2014). The behav
ioral outcomes of a technology-supported leisure activity in people with dementia. Tech
nology and Disability, 25(4), 263–273.
Norval, C., Arnott, J. L., & Hanson, V. L. (2014). What’s on your mind? Investigating rec
ommendations for inclusive social networking and older adults. In Proceedings of the
SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘14) (pp. 3923–3932).
Nunes, F., Kerwin, M., & Silva, P. A. (2012). Design recommendations for TV user inter
faces for older adults: Findings from the eCAALYX project. In Proceedings of the 14th in
ternational ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility (ASSETS ‘12)
(pp. 41–48).
Oberzaucher, J., Jagos, H., Zödl, C., Hlauschek, W., & Zagler, W. (2010). Using a wearable
insole gait analyzing system for automated mobility assessment for older people. In Pro
ceedings of the 12th international conference on computers helping people with special
Needs (ICCHP’10) (pp. 600–603).
Orpwood, R., Gibbs, C., Adlam, T., Faulkner, R., & Meegahawatte, D. (2005). The design of
smart homes for people with dementia—user-interface aspects. Universal Access in the
Information Society, 4(2), 156–164.
Otjacques, B., Krier, M., Feltz, F., Ferring, D., & Hoffmann, M. (2009). Helping older peo
ple to manage their social activities at the retirement home. In Proceedings of the 23rd
British HCI group annual conference on people and computers (BCS-HCI ‘09) (pp. 375–
380).
Petrie, H. (2001). Accessibility and usability requirements for ICTs for disabled and elder
ly people: A functional classification approach. In J. G. Abascal & C. Nicolle (Eds.), Inclu
sive guidelines for human computer interaction (pp. 47–78). London: Taylor and Francis.
0-748,409-48-3.
Petrie, H., Gallagher, B., & Darzentas, J. (2014). A critical review of eight years of re
search on technologies for disabled and older people. In Proceedings of 14th internation
al conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘14) (pp. 260–266).
Petrie, H., Johnson, V., Strothotte, T., Michel, R., Raab, A., Reichert, L., & Schalt, A.
(1997). User-centred design in the development of a navigational aid for blind travellers.
In Proceedings of human-computer interaction: INTERACT ‘97 (IFP TC13 international
conference on human-computer interaction) (pp. 220–227). London: Chapman and Hall.
ISBN 0 412 80,950 8.
Page 27 of 64
Pigini, L., Facal, D., Blasi, L., & Andrich, R. (2012). Service robots in elderly care at home:
Users’ needs and perceptions as a basis for concept development. Technology and Dis
ability, 24(4), 303–312.
Prieto, G., & Leahy, D. (2012). Online social networks and older people. In Proceedings of
the 13th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (IC
CHP’12) (pp. 666–672).
Renaud, K., & Ramsay, J. (2007). Now what was that password again? A more flexible way
of identifying and authenticating our seniors. Behaviour and Information Technology,
26(4), 309–322.
Sáenz-de-Urturi, Z., Zapirain, B. G., & Zorrilla, A. M. (2015). Elderly user experi
(p. 159)
ence to improve a Kinect-based game playability. Behaviour and Information Technology,

34(11), 1040–1051.
Salovaara, A., Lehmuskallio, A., Hedman, L., Valkonen, P., & Näsänen, J. (2010). Informa
tion technologies and transitions in the lives of 55–65-year-olds: The case of colliding life
interests. International Journal of Human-Computing Studies, 68(11), 803–821.
Scopelliti, M., Giuliani, M. V., & Fornara, F. (2005). Robots in a domestic setting: A psy
chological approach. Universal Access to the Information Society, 4(2), 146–155.
Sayago, S., & Blat, J. (2008). Exploring the role of time and errors in real-life usability for
older people and ICT. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on computers
Sayago, S., & Blat, J. (2010). Telling the story of older people e-mailing: An ethnographi
cal study. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(1–2), 105–120.
Sayago, S., Forbes, P., & Blat, J. (2012). Older people’s social sharing practices in
YouTube through an ethnographical lens. In Proceedings of the 26th annual BCS interac
tion specialist group conference on people and computers (BCS-HCI ‘12) (pp. 185–194).
Schikhof, Y., Mulder, I., & Choenni, S. (2010). Who will watch (over) me? Humane moni
toring in dementia care. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(6), 410–
422.
Šimšík, D., Galajdová, A., Siman, D., Bujňák, J., Andrášová, M., & Novák, M. (2012). Mon
AMI platform in elderly household environment: Architecture, installation, implementa
tion, trials and results. In Proceedings of 13th international conference on computers
Siriaraya, P., & Ang, C. S. (2014). Recreating living experiences from past memories
through virtual worlds for people with dementia. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI confer
ence on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘14) (pp. 3977–3986).
Page 28 of 64
Sokoler, T., & Svensson, M. S. (2007). Embracing ambiguity in the design of non-stigma
tizing digital technology for social interaction among senior citizens. Behaviour and Infor
mation Technology, 26(4), 297–307.
Spreicer, W., Ehrenstrasser, L., & Tellioğlu, H. (2012). kommTUi: Designing communica
tion for elderly. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on computers helping
people with special needs (ICCHP’12) (pp. 705–708).
Thomson Reuters. (2013). The Thomson Reuters impact factor. Available at: http://ip
science-help.thomsonreuters.com/inCites2Live/indicatorsGroup/aboutHandbook/
usingCitationIndicatorsWisely/jif.html
Tixier, M., & Lewkowicz, M. (2015). Looking for respite and support: Technological oppor
tunities for spousal caregivers. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM conference on hu
man factors in computing systems (CHI ‘15) (pp. 1155–1158).
Turner, P., Turner, S., & Van De Walle, G. (2007). How older people account for their expe
riences with interactive technology. Behaviour and Information Technology, 26(4), 287–
296.
United Nations (2017). World population prospects: Key findings and advance tables
(2017 revision). New York: United Nations.
Vacher, M., Caffiau, S., Portet, F., Meillon, B., Roux, C., Elias, E., Lecouteux, B., &
Chahuara, P. (2015). Evaluation of a context-aware voice interface for ambient assisted
living: Qualitative user study vs quantitative system evaluation. ACM Transactions on Ac
cessible Computing, 7(2), art. 5.
van der Heide, L. A., Willems, C. G., Spreeuwenberg, M. D., De Witte, L. P., & Rietman, J.
(2012). Implementation of CareTV in care for the elderly: The effects on feelings of loneli
ness and safety and future challenges. Technology and Disability, 24(4), 283–291.
van Schaik, P., Petrie, H., & Kirby, V. (1995). Task performance and technology ac
(p. 160)
ceptance: The use of an automatic teller machine by elderly people. In Proceedings of

third European conference for the advancement of rehabilitation technology (ECART3)
(pp. 62–64).
Vutborg, R., Kjeldskov, J., Vetere, F., & Pedell, S. (2010). Family storytelling for grandpar
ents and grandchildren living apart. In Proceedings of NordiCHI 2010 (pp. 531–540).
Wan, L., Müller, C., Wulf, V., & Randall, D. W. (2014). Addressing the subtleties in demen
tia care: Pre-study and evaluation of a GPS monitoring system. In Proceedings of the
SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘14) (pp. 3987–3996).
Warnock, D., McGee-Lennon, M., & Brewster, S. (2013). Multiple notification modalities
and older users. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing
systems (CHI ‘13) (pp. 1091–1094).
Page 29 of 64
Wolters, M. K., Kilgour, J., MacPherson, S. E., Dzikovska, M., & Moore, J. D. (2015). The
CADENCE corpus: A new resource for inclusive voice interface design. In Proceedings of
the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI 2015) (pp. 3963–
3966).
Wulf, L., Garschall, M., Klein, M., & Tscheligi, M. (2014). The influence of age and device
orientation on the performance of touch gestures. In Proceedings of the 14th internation
al conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP’14) (pp. 583–590).
Appendix: Publications Analyzed
Abascal, J., de Castro, I. F., Lafuente, A., & Cia, J. M. (2008). Adaptive interfaces for sup
portive ambient intelligence environments. In Proceedings of 11th international confer
Adam, S., Mukasa, K. S., Breiner, K., & Trapp, M. (2008). An apartment-based metaphor
for intuitive interaction with ambient assisted living applications. In Proceedings of the
22nd British HCI group annual conference (BCS-HCI ‘08) (pp. 67–75).
Ahanathapillai, V., Amor, J. D., & James, C. J. (2015). Assistive technology to monitor activ
ity, health and well being in old age: The wrist wearable unit in the USEFIL project. Tech
nology and Disability, 27(1–2), 17–29.
Ahmad, D., Komninos, A., & Baillie, L. (2008). Future mobile health systems: Designing
personal mobile applications to assist self diagnosis. In Proceedings of the 22nd British
HCI group annual conference (BCS-HCI ‘08) (pp. 39–42).
Aksan, N., Dawson, J. D., Emerson, J. L., Yu, L., Uc, E. Y., Anderson, S. W., & Rizzo, M.
(2013). Naturalistic distraction and driving safety in older drivers. Human Factors, 55(4),
841–853.
Albinet, C., Tomporowski, P. D., & Beasman, K. (2006). Aging and concurrent task perfor
mance: Cognitive demand and motor control. Educational Gerontology, 32(9), 689–706.
Alelis, G., Bobrowicz, A., & Ang, C. S. (2015). Comparison of engagement and emotional
responses of older and younger adults interacting with 3D cultural heritage artefacts on
personal devices. Behaviour and Information Technology, 34(11), 1064–1078.
Al Mahmud, A., Limpens, Y., & Martens, J. B. (2013). Expressing through digital pho
tographs: An assistive tool for persons with aphasia. Universal Access in the Information
Society, 12(3), 309–326.
Al Mahmud, A., Mubin, O., Shahid, S., & Martens, J. B. (2008). Designing and evaluation
the tabletop game experience for senior citizens. In K. Tollmar, & B. Jönsson (Eds.), Pro
ceedings of the 5th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction (NordiCHI ‘08)
(pp. 403–406).
Page 30 of 64
Almer, S., Kolbitsch, J., Oberzaucher, J., & Ebner, M. (2012). Assessment test
(p. 161)
framework for collecting and evaluating fall-related data using mobile devices. In Pro
needs (ICCHP ‘12) (pp. 83–90).
Arning, K., & Ziefle, M. (2008). Development and validation of a computer expertise ques
tionnaire for older adults. Behaviour and Information Technology, 27(4), 325–329.
Arning, K., & Ziefle, M. (2009). Effects of age, cognitive and personal factors on PDA
menu navigation performance. Behaviour and Information Technology, 28(3), 251–268.
Astell, A., Alm, N., Dye, R., Gowans, G., Vaughan, P., & Ellis, M. (2014). Digital video
games for older adults with cognitive impairment. In Proceedings of 14th international
Augusto, J., Mulvenna, M., Zheng, H., Wang, H., Martin, S., McCullagh, P., & Wallace, J.
(2014). Night optimised care technology for users needing assisted lifestyles. Behaviour
and Information Technology, 33(12), 1261–1277.
Aula, A. (2005). User study on older adults’ use of the Web and search engines. Universal
Access in the Information Society, 4(1), 67–81.
Ayoade, M., Uzor, S., & Baillie, L. (2013). The development and evaluation of an interac
tive system for age related musculoskeletal rehabilitation in the home. In P. Kotzé, G.
Marsden, G. Lindgaard, J. Wesson, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer
interaction, Part IV (INTERACT 2013). Lecture Notes in Computer Science 8117 (pp. 1–
18).
Baecker, R., Sellen, K., Crosskey, S., Boscart, V., & Neves, B. (2014). Technology to reduce
social isolation and loneliness. In Proceedings of the 15th international ACM SIGACCESS
conference on computers and accessibility (ASSETS ‘14) (pp. 27–34).
Bagalkot, N., Nassi, E., & Sokoler, T. (2010). Facilitating continuity: Exploring the role of
digital technology in physical rehabilitation. In E. Hvannberg, M. K. Lárusdóttir, A. Bland
ford, & J. Gulliksen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Nordic conference on human-computer
interaction (NordiCHI ‘10) (pp. 42–51).
Baharin, H., Rintel, S., & Viller, S. (2013). Rhythms of the domestic soundscape: Eth
nomethodological soundwalks for phatic technology design. In P. Kotzé, G. Marsden, G.
Lindgaard, J. Wesson, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction
Part IV (INTERACT 2013). Lecture Notes in Computer Science 8117 (pp. 463–470).
Baharin, H., Viller, S., & Rintel, S. (2015). SonicAIR: Supporting independent living with
reciprocal ambient audio awareness. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction,
22(4), Art. 18.
Page 31 of 64
Ballegaard, S. A., Bunde-Pedersen, J., & Bardram, J. E. (2006). Where to, Roberta? Re
flecting on the role of technology in assisted living. In A. Mørch, K. Morgan, T. Bratteteig,
G. Ghosh, & D. Svanaes (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on human-com
puter interaction (NordiCHI ‘06) (pp. 373–376).
Bauer, S. M., & Lane, J. P. (2006). Convergence of assistive devices and mainstream prod
ucts: Keys to university participation in research, development and commercialization.
Beach, S., Schulz, R., Downs, J., Matthews, J., Barron, B., & Seelman, K. (2009). Disability,
age, and informational privacy attitudes in quality of life technology applications: Results
from a national web survey. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 2(1), Art. 5.
Bechtold, U., & Sotoudeh, M. (2008). Participative approaches for “Technology and Au
tonomous Living”. In Proceedings of 11th international conference on computers helping
Beer, J. M., Smarr, C.-A., Fisk, A. D., & Rogers, W. A. (2015). Younger and older
(p. 162)
users’ recognition of virtual agent facial expressions. International Journal of Human-

Computer Studies, 75(March), 1–20.
Bentley, C. L. (2014). Addressing design and suitability barriers to telecare use: Has any
thing changed? Technology and Disability, 26(4), 221–235.
Berkowsky, R. W., Cotton, S. R., Yost, E. A., & Winstead, V. P. (2013). Attitudes towards
and limitations to ICT use in assisted and independent living communities: Findings from
a specially-designed technological intervention. Educational Gerontology, 39(11), 797–
811.
Bertera, E. M. (2014). Storytelling slide shows to improve diabetes and high blood pres
sure knowledge and self-efficacy: Three-year results among community dwelling older
African Americans. Educational Gerontology, 40(11), 785–800.
Bertera, E. M., Bertera, R. L., Morgan, R., Wuertz, E., & Attey, A. M. O. (2007). Training
older adults to access health information. Educational Gerontology, 33(6), 483–500.
Bidwell, N. J., & Jay Siya, M. J. (2013). Situating asynchronous voice in rural Africa. In P.
Kotzé, G. Marsden, G. Lindgaard, J. Wesson, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-
computer interaction, Part III (INTERACT 2013). Lecture Notes in Computer Science
8117 (pp. 36–53).
Blanco-Gonzalo, R., Sanchez-Reillo, R., Martinez-Normand, L., Fernandez-Saavedra, B., &

Liu-Jimenez, J. (2015). Accessible mobile biometrics for elderly. In Proceedings of the 17th
international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility (ASSETS ‘15)
(pp. 419–420).
Page 32 of 64
Bobillier Chaumon, M. E., Michel, C., Tarpin Bernard, F., & Croisile, B. (2014). Can ICT
improve the quality of life of elderly adults living in residential home care units? From ac
tual impacts to hidden artefacts. Behaviour and Information Technology, 33(6), 574–590.
Boechler, P. M., Foth, D., & Watchorn, R. (2007). Educational technology research with
older adults: Adjustments in protocol, materials, and procedures. Educational Gerontol
ogy, 33(3), 221–235.
Boström, M., Kjellström, S., & Björklund, A. (2013). Older persons have ambivalent feel
ings about the use of monitoring technologies. Technology and Disability, 25(2), 17–25.
Boulos, M. N. K., Anastasiou, A., Bekiaris, E., & Panou, M. (2011). Geo-enabled technolo
gies for independent living: Examples from four European projects. Technology and Dis
ability, 23(1), 7–17.
Boulton-Lewis, G. M., Buys, L., Lovie-Kitchin, J., Barnett, K., & David, N. L. (2007). Age
ing, learning, and computer technology in Australia. Educational Gerontology, 33(3), 253–
270.
Brajnik, G., & Giachin, C. (2014). Using sketches and storyboards to assess impact of age
difference in user experience. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 72(6),
552–566.
Brandtzaeg, P. B., Heim, J., & Karahasanović, A. (2011). Understanding the new digital di
vide: A typology of Internet users in Europe. International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies, 69(3), 123–138.
Briggs, P., & Thomas, L. (2015). An inclusive, value sensitive design perspective on future
identity technologies. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 22(5), Art. 23.
Brown, P. S., & Hanks, R. S. (2008). Implementing an online writing assessment strategy
for gerontology. Educational Gerontology, 34(5), 397–399.
Bruder, C., Blessing, L., & Wandke, H. (2014). Adaptive training interfaces for less-experi
enced, elderly users of electronic devices. Behaviour and Information Technology, 33(1),
4–15.
Cabreira, A. T., & Hwang, F. (2016). How do novice older users evaluate and perform mid-
air gesture interaction for the first time? In S. Björk, E. Eriksson, M. Fjeld, S. Bødker,
(p. 163) W. Barendregt, & M. Obaid (Eds.) Proceedings of the 9th Nordic conference on
human-computer interaction (NordiCHI ‘16) (Art. 122).
Cahill, S., Begley, E., Faulkner, J. P., & Hagen, I. (2007). “It gives me a sense of indepen
dence”— Findings from Ireland on the use and usefulness of assistive technology for peo
ple with dementia. Technology and Disability, 19(2–3), 133–142.
Cahill, S., Macijauskiene, J., Nygård, A.-M., Faulkner, J.-P., & Hagen, I. (2007). Technology
in dementia care. Technology and Disability, 19(2–3), 55–60.
Page 33 of 64
Caird, J. K., Chisholm, S. L., & Lockhart, J. (2007). Do in-vehicle advanced signs enhance
older and younger driver’s intersection performance? Driving simulation and eye move
ment results. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(3), 132–144.
Caird, J. K., Edwards, C. J., Creaser, J. I., & Horrey, W. J. (2005). Older driver failures of at
tention at intersections: Using change blindness methods to assess turn accuracy. Human
Factors, 47(2), 235–249.
Caprani, N., Doyle, J., Komaba, Y., & Inomata, A. (2015). Exploring healthcare profession
als’ preferences for visualising sensory data. In Proceedings of the 2015 British human
computer interaction conference (British HCI 2015) (pp. 26–34).
Carey-Smith, B. E., Evans, N. M., & Orpwood, R. D. (2013). A user-centred design process
to develop technology to improve sleep quality in residential care homes. Technology and
Disability, 25(1), 49–58.
Carmichael, A., Rice, M., MacMillan, F., & Kirk, A. (2010). Investigating a DTV-based
physical activity application to facilitate wellbeing in older adults. In Proceedings of the
Caroux, L., Consel, C., Dupuy, L., & Sauzeon, H. (2014). Verification of daily activities of
older adults: A simple, non-intrusive, low-cost approach. In Proceedings of the 16th inter
national ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility (ASSETS ‘14) (pp.
43–50).
Carrasco, E., Epelde, G., Moreno, A., Ortiz, A., Garcia, I., Buiza, C., … Arruti, A. (2008).
Natural interaction between avatars and persons with Alzheimer’s disease. In Proceed
ings of 11th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (IC
CHP ‘08) (pp. 38–45).
Carrington, P., Kuber, R., Anthony, L., Hurst, A., & Prasad, S. (2012). Developing an inter
face to support procedural memory training using a participatory-based approach. In Pro
ceedings of the 26th annual BCS interaction specialist group conference on people and
computers (BCS-HCI ‘12) (pp. 333–338).
Casas, R. (2008). User modelling in ambient intelligence for elderly and disabled people.
In Proceedings of 11th international conference on computers helping people with special
needs (ICCHP ‘08) (pp. 114–122).
Casas, R., Marco, A. Falco, J. Artigas, J., & Abascal, J. (2006). Ethically aware design of a
location system for people with dementia. In Proceedings of 10th international confer
Castilla, D., Garcia-Palacios, A., Breton-Lopez, J., Miralles, I., Banos, R. M., Etchemendy,
E.,… Botella, C. (2013). Process of design and usability evaluation of a telepsychology
web and virtual reality system for the elderly: Butler. International Journal of Human-
Page 34 of 64
Cesta, A., Cortellessa, G., Giuliani, V., Pecora, F., Rasconi, R., Scopellitti, M., & Tiberio, L.
(2007). Proactive assistive technology: An empirical study. In C. Baranauskas, P.
Palanque, J. Abascal, & S. D. J. Barbosa. (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction
(INTERACT 2007). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4662, (pp. 255–268).
Chaffin, A. J., & Harlow, S. D. (2005). Cognitive learning applied to older adult
(p. 164)
learners and technology. Educational Gerontology, 31(4), 301–329.
Chase, C. A. (2010). An intergenerational email pal project on attitudes of college stu

dents toward older adults. Educational Gerontology, 37(1), 27–37.
Chen, J.-M., Chen, Y.-C., & Chen, Y.-C. (2012). The K-shape learning project for senior citi
zens. Educational Gerontology, 38(12), 841–853.
Chen, S.-Y. (2008). Reading practices and profiles of older adults in Taiwan. Educational
Gerontology, 34(5), 427–441.
Chou, W. H., Lai, Y.-T., & Liu, K.-H. (2013). User requirements of social media for the el
derly: A case study in Taiwan. Behaviour and Information Technology, 32(9), 920–937.
Chu, C., Rebola, C. B., & Kao, J. (2015). BUMP: Bridging unmet modes of participation. In
Proceedings of the 2015 British human computer interaction conference (British HCI
2015) (pp. 261–262).
Chung, J., Chaudhuri, S., Le, T., Chi, N.-C., Thompson, H. J., & Demiris, G. (2015). The use
of think-aloud to evaluate a navigation structure for a multimedia health and wellness ap
plication for older adults and their caregivers. Educational Gerontology, 41(12), 916–929.
Coelho, J., & Duarte, C. (2015). Socially networked or isolated? Differentiating older
adults and the role of tablets and television. In J. Abascal, S. Barbosa, M. Fetter, T. Gross,
P. Palanque, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction, Part I (IN
TERACT 2015). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 9296, (pp. 129–146).
Coelho, J., Rito, F., Luz, N., & Duarte, C. (2015). Prototyping TV and tablet Facebook inter
faces for older adults. In J. Abascal, S. Barbosa, M. Fetter, T. Gross, P. Palanque, & M.
Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction, Part 1 (INTERACT 2015). Lec
ture Notes in Computer Science, 9296 (pp. 110–128).
Conci, M., Pianesi, F., & Zancanaro, M. (2009). Useful, social and enjoyable: Mobile
phone adoption by older people. In T. Gross, J. Gulliksen, P. Kotzé, L. Oestreicher, P.
Planaque, R. Oliveira Prates & M. Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interac
tion (INTERACT 2009). Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5726 (pp. 63–76).
Convertino, G., Farooq, U., Rosson, M. B., Carroll, J. M., & Meyer, B. J. F. (2007). Support
ing intergenerational groups in computer supported cooperative work (CSCW). Behaviour
Page 35 of 64
Cornejo, R., Tentori, M., & Favela, J. (2013). Enriching in-person encounters through so
cial media: A study on family connectedness for the elderly. International Journal of Hu
man-Computer Studies, 71(9), 889–899.
Cresci, M. K., Jarosz, P. A., & Templin, T. A. (2012). Are health answers online for older
adults? Educational Gerontology, 38(1), 10–19.
Cresci, M. K. & Novak, J. M. (2012). Information technologies as health management

tools: Urban elders’ interest and ability in using the Internet. Educational Gerontology,
38(7), 491–506.
Cresci, M. K., Yarandi, H. N., & Morell, R. W. (2010). Pro-nets versus no-nets: Differences
in urban older adults’ predilections for Internet use. Educational Gerontology, 36(6), 500–
520.
Crete-Nishihata, M., Baecker, R. M., Massimi, M., Ptak, D., Campigotto, R., Kaufman, L.
D., … Black, S. E. (2012). Reconstructing the past: Personal memory technologies are not
just personal and not just for memory. Human-Computer Interaction, 27(1–2), 92–123.
Czaja, S. J., Schulz, R., Perdomo, D., & Nair, S. N. (2014). The feasibility and efficacy of
technology-based support groups among family caregivers of persons with dementia. In
Proceedings of 14th international conference on computers helping people with special
needs (ICCHP ‘14) (pp. 455–458).
(p. 165) Dahn, I., Ferdinand, P., & Lachmann, P. (2014). Supporting senior citizen using
tablet computers. In Proceedings of 14th international conference on computers helping
Dale, O. (2010). Usability and usefulness of GPS based localization technology used in de
mentia care. In Proceedings of 12th international conference on computers helping peo
ple with special needs (ICCHP ‘10) (pp. 300–307).
Darroch, I., Goodman, J., Brewster, S., & Gray, P. (2005). The effect of age and font size on
reading text on handheld computers. In M. F. Costabile & F. Paternò (Eds.), Proceedings
Human-computer interaction (INTERACT 2005), Lecture Notes in Computer Science
(LNCS), 3585, (pp. 253–266).
Davidse, R. J., Hagenzieker, M. P., van Wolffelaar, P. C., & Brouwer, W. H. (2009). Effects of
in-car support on mental workload and driving performance of older drivers. Human Fac
tors, 51(4), 463–476.
de Beer, R., Keijers, R., Shahid, S., Al Mahmud, A., & Mubin, O. (2010). PMD: Designing a
portable medicine dispenser for persons suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease. In Proceed
CHP ‘10) (pp. 332–335).
Page 36 of 64
DeCoster, V. A., & George, L. (2005). An empowerment approach for elders living with di
abetes: A pilot study of a community-based self-help group—The Diabetes Club. Educa
tional Gerontology, 31(9), 699–733.
Diaz-Orueta, U., Etxaniz, A., Gonzalez, M. F. Buiza, C., Urdaneta, E., Yanguas, J., Carras
co, E., & Epelde, G. (2014). Role of cognitive and functional performance in the interac
tions between elderly people with cognitive decline and an avatar on TV. Universal Access
in the Information Society, 13(1), 89–97.
Dickinson, A., Arnott, J., & Prior, S. (2007). Methods for human–computer interaction re
search with older people. Behaviour and Information Technology, 26(4), 343–352.
Dickinson, A., Eisma, R., Gregor, P., Syme, A., & Mile, S. (2005). Strategies for teaching
older people to use the World Wide Web. Universal Access in the Information Society,
4(1), 3–15.
Dickinson, A., & Gregor, P. (2006). Computer use has no demonstrated impact on the well-
being of older adults. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(8), 744–753.
Dickinson, A., & Hill, R. L. (2007). Keeping in touch: Talking to older people about com
puters and communication. Educational Gerontology, 33(8), 613–630.
Dickinson, A., Smith, M., Arnott, J., Newell, A., & Hill, R. (2007). Approaches to web
search and navigation for older computer novices. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI confer
ence on human factors in computing systems (CHI 2006) (pp. 281–290).
Diño, M. J. S., & de Guzman, A. B. (2015). Using partial least squares (PLS) in predicting
behavioural intention for telehealth use among Filipino elderly. Educational Gerontology,
41(1), 53–68.
Dobosz, K., Dobosz, M., Fiolka, T., Wojaczek, M., & Depta, T. (2014). Tablets in the reha
bilitation of memory impairment. In Proceedings of 14th international conference on com
puters helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘14) (pp. 399–402).
Dogruel, L., Joeckel, S., & Bowman, N. D. (2015). The user and acceptance of new media
entertainment technology by elderly users: Development of an expanded technology ac
ceptance model. Behaviour and Information Technology, 34(11), 1052–1063.
Donorflo, L. K. M., & Healy, C. (2008). Teaching an interactive television course on adult
hood and aging: Making it happen. Educational Gerontology, 34(6), 531–549.
Dorin, M. (2007). Online education of older adults and its relation to life satisfac
(p. 166)
tion. Educational Gerontology, 33(2), 127–143.
Dowds, G., & Masthoff, J. (2015). A virtual “Window to the Outside World”: Initial design
and plans for evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2015 British human computer interaction
conference (British HCI 2015) (pp. 265–266).
Page 37 of 64
Doyle, J., Bailey, C., Ni Scanaill, C., & van den Berg, F. (2014). Lessons learned in deploy
ing independent living technologies to older adults’ homes. Universal Access in the Infor
mation Society, 13(2), 191–204.
Doyle, J., O’Mullane, B., McGee, S., & Knapp, R. B. (2012). YourWellness: Designing an
application to support positive emotional wellbeing in older adults. In Proceedings of the
26th annual BCS interaction specialist group conference on people and computers (BCS-
HCI ‘12) (pp. 221–226).
Doyle, J., Sassu, A., & McDonagh, T. (2013). “We were all the same age once”: Experi
ences of intergenerational app. design. In Proceedings of the 27th international BCS hu
man computer interaction conference (BCS-HCI ‘13) (Art. 24).
Doyle, J., Skrba, Z., McDonnell, R., & Arent, B. (2010). Designing a touch screen commu
nication device to support social interaction amongst older adults. In Proceedings of the
Duff, P. & Dolphin, C. (2007). Cost-benefit analysis of assistive technology to support inde
pendence for people with dementia–Part 1: Development of a methodological approach to
the ENABLE cost-benefit analysis. Technology and Disability, 19(2–3), 73–78.
Duff, P. & Dolphin, C. (2007). Cost-benefit analysis of assistive technology to support inde
pendence for people with dementia–Part 2: Results from employing the ENABLE cost-ben
efit model in practice. Technology and Disability, 19(2–3), 79–90.
Eaton, J., & Salari, S. (2005). Environments for lifelong learning in senior centers. Educa
Edlund, C., & Björklund, A. (2011). Family caregivers’ conceptions of usage of and infor
mation on products, technology and Web-based services. Technology and Disability, 23(4),
205–214.
Ejupi, A., Gschwind, Y. J., Valenzuela, T., Lord, S. R., & Delbaere, K. (2016). A Kinect and
inertial sensor-based system for the self-assessment of fall risk: A home-based study in
older people. Human-Computer Interaction, 31(3–4), 261–293.
Elias, S. M., Smith, W. L., & Barney, C. E. (2012). Age as a moderator of attitude towards
technology in the workplace: Work motivation and overall job satisfaction. Behaviour and
Information Technology, 31(5), 453–467.
Elton, E., & Nicolle, C. (2013). Designing inclusive products for everyday environments:
The effects of everyday cold temperatures on older adults’ dexterity. Universal Access in
the Information Society, 12(3), 247–261.
Ezer, N., Fisk, A. D., & Rogers, W. (2008). Age-related differences in reliance behaviour
attributable to costs within a human-decision aid system. Human Factors, 50(6), 853–863.
Page 38 of 64
Fan, C., Forlizzi, J., & Dey, A. (2012). Considerations for technology that support physical
activity by older adults. In Proceedings of the 14th international ACM SIGACCESS confer
ence on computers and accessibility (ASSETS ‘12) (pp. 33–40).
Fang, Y.-M. & Chang, C.-C. (2016). Users’ psychological perception and perceived read
ability of wearable devices for elderly people. Behaviour and Information Technology,
35(3), 225–232.
Farina, K., & Nitche, M. (2015). Outside the brick: Exploring prototyping for the elderly.
In Proceedings of the 2015 British Human Computer Interaction Conference (British HCI
2015) (pp. 11–17).
Fernandes, F., Rodrigues, A., Duarte, C., Jion-Neira, R., & Carrico, L. (2014). Web
(p. 167)
accessibility of mobile and desktop representations. In Proceedings of the 28th Interna

tional BCS human computer interaction conference on HCI (BCS-HCI ‘14) (pp. 195–200).
Ferreira, S. M., Sayago, S., & Blat, J. (2014). Towards iTV services for older people: Ex
ploring their interactions with online video portals in different cultural backgrounds.
Ferreira, S. M., Sayago, S., & Blat, J. (2017). Older people’s production and appropriation
of digital videos: An ethnographic study. Behaviour and Information Technology, 36(6),
557–574.
Ferreira, S., Torres, A., Mealha, O., & Veloso, A. (2015). Effects on older adults in informa
tion and communication technologies considering psychosocial variables. Educational
Gerontology, 41(7), 482–493.
Fezzani, K., Albinet, C., Thon, B., & Marquie, J. C. (2010). The effect of motor difficulty on
the acquisition of a computer task: A comparison between young and older adults. Behav
iour and Information Technology, 29(2), 115–124.
Fried-Oken, M., Rowland, C., Baker, G., Dixon, M., Mills, C., Schultz, D., & Oken, B.
(2009). The effect of voice output on AAC-supported conversations of persons with
Alzheimer’s disease. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 1(3), Art. 15.
Fronemann, N., Weisener, A., Pollmann, K., & Peisnner, M. (2016). Happily ever after: Pos
itive aging through positive design. In S. Björk, E. Eriksson, M. Fjeld, S. Bødker, W. Baren
dregt, & M. Obaid, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Nordic conference on human-computer
interaction (NordiCHI ‘16) (Art. 105).
Fuchsberger, V., Sellner, W., Moser, C., & Tscheligi, M. (2012). Benefits and hurdles for
older adults in intergenerational online interactions. In Proceedings of 13th international
Gagliardi, C., Mazzarini, G., Papa, R., Giuli, C., & Marcellini, F. (2008). Designing a learn
ing program to link old and disabled people to computers. Educational Gerontology,
34(1), 15–29.
Page 39 of 64
Gamliel, T. & Gabay, N. (2014). Knowledge exchange, social interactions, and empower
ment in an intergenerational technology program at school. Educational Gerontology,
40(8), 597–617.
Gao, Q., & Sun, Q. (2015). Examining the usability of touch screen gestures for older and
younger adults. Human Factors, 57(5), 835–863.
Gappa, H., Nordbrock, G., Mohamad, Y., Pullmann, J., & Velasco, C. A. (2012). Controlled
natural language sentence building as a model for designing user interfaces for rule edit
ing in assisted living systems–A user study. In Proceedings of 13th international confer
Gappa, H., Nordbrock, G., Thelen, M., Pullmann, J., Mohamad, Y., & Velasco, C. A. (2014).
Extended scaffolding by remote collaborative interaction to support people with dementia
in independent living–A user study. In Proceedings of 14th international conference on
computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘14) (pp. 445–450).
Gatto, S. L., & Tak, S. H. (2008). Computer, internet, and e-mail use among older adults:
Benefits and barriers. Educational Gerontology, 34(9), 800–811.
Gibson, L., Moncur, W., Forbes, P., Arnott, J., Martin, C., & Bhachu, A. S. (2010). Design
ing social networking sites for older adults. In Proceedings of the 24th BCS interaction
Gil, S. R. & Sánchez Martín, V. (2014). ELDERS-UP! Adaptive system for enabling the el
derly collaborative knowledge transference to small companies. In Proceedings of 14th in
ternational conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘14) (pp.
148–151).
(p. 168) Giusti, L., Mencarini, E., & Zancanaro, M. (2010). “Luckily, I don’t need it”: Elder
ly and the use of artifacts for time management. In E. Hvannberg, M. K. Lárusdóttir, A.
Blandford & J. Gulliksen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Nordic conference on human-com
puter interaction (NordiCHI ‘10) (pp. 198–206).
González, A. M., Ramírez, P., & Viadel, V. (2012). Attitudes of the elderly toward informa
tion and communications technologies. Educational Gerontology, 38(9), 585–594.
Goodman, J., Brewster, S. A., & Gray, P. (2005). How can we best use landmarks to sup
port older people in navigation. Behaviour and Information Technology, 24(1), 3–20.
Grabowski, P. J., & Mason, A. H. (2014). Age differences in the control of a precision
reach to grasp task within a desktop virtual environment. International Journal of Human-
Gramss, D., & Struve, D. (2009). Instructional videos for supporting older adults who use
interactive systems. Educational Gerontology, 35(2), 164–176.
Page 40 of 64
Grill, T., Osswald, S., & Tscheligi, M. (2012). Task complexity and user model attributes:
An analysis of user model attributes for elderly drivers. In Proceedings of 13th interna
tional conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘12) (pp. 642–
649).
Grimes, G. A., Hough, M. G. Mazur, E., & Signorella, M. L. (2010). Older adults’ knowl
edge of internet hazards. Educational Gerontology, 36(3), 173–192.
Gudur, R. R., Blackler, A., Popovic, V., & Mahar, D. (2013). Ageing, technology anxiety and
intuitive use of complex interfaces. In P. Kotzé, G. Marsden, G. Lindgaard, J. Wesson, & M.
Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction, Part III (INTERACT 2013).
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8117, (pp. 564–581).
Gusi, N., Prieto, J., Forte, D., Gomez, I., & González-Guerreroc, J.-L. (2008). Needs, inter
ests, and limitations for the promotion of health and exercise by a web site for sighted
and blind elderly people: A qualitative exploratory study. Educational Gerontology, 34(6),
449–461.
Hakobyan, L., Lumsden, J., & O’Sullivan, D. (2014). Participatory research with older
adults with AMD: Co-designing a SMART diet diary app. In Proceedings of the 28th Inter
national BCS human computer interaction conference on HCI (BCS-HCI ‘14) (pp. 32–41).
Hakobyan, H., Lumsden, J., O’Sullivan, D., & Bartlett, H. (2012). Understanding the IT-re
lated attitudes and needs of persons with age-related macular degeneration: A case study.
In Proceedings of the 26th annual BCS interaction specialist group conference on people
and computers (BCS-HCI ‘12) (pp. 239–244).
Hakobyan, L., Lumsden, J., O’Sullivan, D., & Bartlett, H. (2013). Designing a mobile diet
diary application with and for older adults with AMD: A case study. In Proceedings of the
27th International BCS human computer interaction conference (BCS-HCI ‘13) (Art. 17).
Hallewell Haslwanter, J. D., & Fitzpatrick, G. (2013). The development of a sensor-based

system for older people: A case study. In Proceedings of the 27th International BCS hu
man computer interaction conference (BCS-HCI ‘13) (Art. 11).
Hancock, H. E., Fisk, A. D., & Rogers, W. A. (2005). Comprehending product warning in
formation: Age-related effects and the roles of memory, inferencing and knowledge. Hu
man Factors, 47(2), 219–234.
Hanson, V. L., & Crayne, S. (2005). Personalization of Web browsing: Adaptations to meet
the needs of older adults. Universal Access in the Information Society, 4(1), 46–58.
Harada, S., Sato, D., Takagi, H., & Asakawa, C. (2013). Characteristics of elderly user be
haviour on mobile multi-touch devices. In P. Kotzé, G. Marsden, G. Lindgaard, J. Wesson,
& M. Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction, Part IV (INTERACT
2013). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8117, (pp. 323–341).
Page 41 of 64
Hardt, J. H., & Hollis-Sawyer, L. (2007). Older adults seeking healthcare informa
(p. 169)
tion on the Internet. Educational Gerontology, 33(7), 561–572.
Harley, D., Howland, K., Harris, E., & Redlich, C. (2014). Online communities for older
users: What can we learn from local community interactions to create social sites that
work for older people. In Proceedings of the 28th International BCS human computer in
teraction conference on HCI (BCS-HCI ‘14) (pp. 32–41).
Hart, T. A., Chaparro, B. S., & Halcomb, C. G. (2008). Evaluating websites for older
adults: Adherence to “senior-friendly” guidelines and end-user performance. Behaviour
Hawthorn, D. (2007). Interface design and engagement with older people. Behaviour and
Heerink, M., Krose, B., Wielinga, B., & Evers, V. (2009). Measuring the influence of social
abilities on acceptance of an interface robot and a screen agent by elderly users. In Pro
ceedings of the 23rd British HCI group annual conference on people and computers
(BCS-HCI ‘09) (pp. 430–439).
Hendriks, N., Truyen, F., & Duval, E. (2013). Designing with dementia: Guidelines for par
ticipatory design together with persons with dementia. In P. Kotzé, G. Marsden, G.
Lindgaard, J. Wesson, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction,
Part I (INTERACT 2013). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8117, (pp. 649–666).
Hernández-Encuentra, E., Pousadaa, M., & Gómez-Zúñigaa, B. (2009). ICT and older peo
ple: Beyond usability. Educational Gerontology, 35(3), 225–245.
Hirotomi, T., Hosomi, Y., & Yano, H. (2008). Brake control assist on a four-castered walker
for old people. In Proceedings of 11th international conference on computers helping peo
ple with special needs (ICCHP ‘08) (pp. 1269–1276).
Hogeboom, D. L., McDermotta, R. J., Perrina, K. M., Osmana, H., & Bell-Ellison, B. A.
(2010). Internet use and social networking among middle aged and older adults. Educa
Holliday, N., Ward, G., Fielden, S., & Williams, S. (2015). Exploration of information needs
and development of resources to inform and support those at risk of falling. Technology
and Disability, 27(1–2), 31–40.
Hollinworth, N., & Hwang, F. (2009). Learning how older adults undertake computer
tasks. In Proceedings of the 11th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on comput
ers and accessibility (ASSETS ‘09) (pp. 245–246).
Holllinworth, N., & Hwang, F. (2011). Investigating familiar interactions to help older
adults learn computer applications more easily. In Proceedings of the 25th international
BCS human computer interaction conference (BCS HCI ‘11) (pp. 473–478).
Page 42 of 64
Holzinger, A., Sammer, P., & Hofmann-Wellenhof, R. (2006). Mobile computing in medi
cine: Designing mobile questionnaires for elderly and partially sighted people. In Pro
needs (ICCHP ‘06) (pp. 732–739).
Holzinger, A., Schaupp, K., & Eder-Halbedl, W. (2008). An investigation on acceptance of

ubiquitous devices for the elderly in a geriatric hospital environment: Using the example
of person tracking. In Proceedings of 11th international conference on computers helping
Holzinger, A., Searle, G., Kleinberger, T., Seffah, A., & Javahery, H. (2008). Investigating
usability metrics for the design and development of applications for the elderly. In Pro
needs (ICCHP ‘08) (pp. 98–105).
Hoshi, K., Ohberg, F., & Nyberg, A. (2011). Designing blended reality space: Con
(p. 170)
ceptual foundations and applications. In Proceedings of the 25th international BCS hu
man computer interaction conference (BCS HCI ‘11) (pp. 217–226).
Huber, L. & Watson, C. (2014). Technology: Education and training needs of older adults.
Educational Gerontology, 40(1), 16–25.
Huldtgren, A., Mertl, F., Vormann, A., & Geiger, C. (2015). Probing the potential of multi
media artefacts to support communication of people with dementia In J. Abascal, S. Bar
bosa, M. Fetter, T. Gross, P. Palanque, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-comput
er interaction, Part III (INTERACT 2015). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 9296, (pp.
71–79).
Hurtienne, J., Horn, A. M., Langdon, P. M., & Clarkson, P. J. (2013). Facets of prior experi
ence and the effectiveness of inclusive design. Universal Access in the Information Soci
ety, 12(3), 297–308.
Hwang, F., Hollingworth, N., & Williams, N. (2013). Effects of target expansion on section
performance in older computer users. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 5(1),
Art. 1.
Hwang, M.-Y., Hong, J.-C., Hao, Y.-W., & Jong, J. T. (2011). Elders’ usability, dependability,
and flow experiences on embodied interactive video games. Educational Gerontology,
37(8), 715–731.
Iacono, I., & Marti, P. (2014). Engaging older people with participatory design. In V. Roto,
J. Häkkilä, Lárusdóttir, K. Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, O. Juhlin, T. Olsson, & E. Hvannberg
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction
(NordiCHI ‘14) (pp. 859–864).
Infeld, D. L., & Adams, W. C. (2013). Using the Internet for gerontology education: Assess
ing and improving Wikipedia. Educational Gerontology, 39(10), 707–716.
Page 43 of 64
Inoue, K., Sakuma, N., Okada, M., Sasaki, C., Nakamura, M., & Wada, K. (2014). Effective
application of PALRO: A humanoid type robot for people with dementia. In Proceedings of
14th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP
‘14) (pp. 451–454).
Iwarsson, S., & Wilson, G. (2006). Environmental barriers, functional limitations, and
housing satisfaction among older people in Sweden: A longitudinal perspective on hous
ing accessibility. Technology and Disability, 18(2), 57–66.
Jang, Y., Yoon, H., Marti, C. N., & Kim, M. T. (2015). Aging IQ intervention with older Ko
rean Americans: A comparison of internet-based and in-class education. Educational
Gerontology, 41(9), 642–652.
Jastrzembski, T., Charness, N., Holley, P., & Feddon, J. (2005). Input devices for web
browsing: Age and hand effects. Universal Access in the Information Society, 4(1), 39–45.
Jochems, N., Vetter, S., & Schlick, C. (2013). A comparative study of information input de
vices for aging computer users. Behaviour and Information Technology, 32(9), 902–919.
Johansson, K., Lundberg, S., & Borell, L. (2011). “The Cognitive Kitchen”–Key principles
and suggestions for design that includes older adults with cognitive impairments as
kitchen users. Technology and Disability, 23(1), 29–40.
Jung, Y., Peng, W., Moran, M., Jin, S.-A., McLaughlin, M., Cody, M., Jordan-Marsh, M., Al
bright, J., & Silverstein, M. (2010). Low-income minority seniors’ enrollment in a cyber
café: Psychological barriers to crossing the digital divide. Educational Gerontology, 36(3),
193–212.
Kahana, B., Kahan, E., Lovegree, L., & Seckin, G. (2006). Compensatory use of computers
by disabled older adults. In Proceedings of 10th international conference on computers
helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘06) (pp. 766–769).
Kaklanis, N., Moschonas, P., Moustakas, K., & Tsovaras, D. (2013). Virtual user
(p. 171)
models for the elderly and disabled for automatic simulated accessibility and ergonomy
evaluation of designs. Universal Access in the Information Society, 12(4), 403–425.
Kaklanis, N., Moustakas, K., & Tzovaras, D. (2008). A methodology for generating virtual
user models of elderly and disabled for the accessibility assessment of new products. In
needs (ICCHP ‘08) (pp. 295–302).
Kalman, Y. M., Geraghty, K., Thompson, C. K., & Gergle, D. (2012). Detecting linguistic
HCI markers in an online aphasia support group. In Proceedings of the 14th international
Kamiliaris, A., Kondepudi, S., & Danial, N. (2015). Understanding the activities and areas
of concern of elderly population: The case of Singapore. Technology and Disability, 27(4),
141–153.
Page 44 of 64
Kamollimsakul, S., Petrie, H., & Power, C. (2014). Web accessibility for older readers: Ef
fects of font type and font size on skim reading webpages in Thai. In Proceedings of 14th
(pp. 332–339).
Kepski, M., & Kwolek, B. (2012). Fall detection on embedded platform using Kinect and
wireless accelerometer. In Proceedings of 13th international conference on computers
Kim, H. J., Jarochawski, B., & Ryu, D. H. (2006). A proposal for a home-based health moni
toring system for the elderly or disabled. In Proceedings of 10th international conference
on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘06) (pp. 473–479).
Kim, Y. B. (2006). A ubiquitous social community portal service for social networking with
convenient accessibility. In Proceedings of 10th international conference on computers
Kim, Y. S. (2008). Reviewing and critiquing computer learning and usage among older
adults. Educational Gerontology, 34(8) 709–735.
Kobayashi, M., Hiyam, A., Miura, T., Asakawa, C., Hirose, M., & Ifukube, T. (2011). Elderly
user evaluation of mobile touchscreen interactions. In P. Campos, N. Graham, J. Jorge, N.
Nunes, P. Palanque, and M. Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction
(INTERACT 2011). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6947, (pp. 83–99).
Kobayashi, M., Ishihara, T., Kosugi, A., Takagi, H., & Asakawa, A. (2013). Question-answer
cards for an inclusive micro-tasking framework for the elderly. In P. Kotzé, G. Marsden, G.
Lindgaard, J. Wesson, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction,
Part III (INTERACT 2013). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8117, (pp. 590–607).
Komori, T., Takagi, T., Kurozumi, K., Shoda, K., & Murakawa, K. (2010). A device to evalu
ate broadcast background sound balance using loudness for elderly listeners. In Proceed
CHP ‘10) (pp. 560–567).
Koopman-Boydena, P. G., & Reid, S. L. (2009). Internet/E-mail usage and well-being

among 65–84 year olds in New Zealand: Policy implications. Educational Gerontology,
35(11), 990–1007.
Kort, H. S. M., & van Hoof, J. (2014). Design of a website for home modifications for older
persons with dementia. Technology and Disability, 26(1), 1–10.
Kurniawan, S. (2008). Older people and mobile phones: A multi-method investigation. In
ternational Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(12), 889–901.
Laberge, J. C., & Scialfa, C. T. (2005). Predictors of web navigation performance in

(p. 172)
a life span sample of adults. Human Factors, 47(2), 289–302.
Page 45 of 64
Laganà, L. (2008). Enhancing the attitudes and self-efficacy of older adults toward com
puters and the internet: Results of a pilot study. Educational Gerontology, 34(9), 831–849.
Larsson, E., Larsson-Lund, M., & Nilsson, I. (2013). Internet based activities (IBAs): Se
niors’ experiences of the conditions required for the performance of and the influence of
these conditions on their own participation in society. Educational Gerontology, 39(3),
155–167.
Lee, B., Lee, M., Sook, M. S., You, H., Park, H., Jung, K., Lee, B. H., Na D. L., & Kim, G. H.
(2015). The effects of age, gender, and hand on force control capabilities of healthy
adults. Human Factors, 57(8), 1348–1358.
Lee, C. C., Czaja, S. J., & Sharit, J. (2008). Training older workers for technology-based
employment. Educational Gerontology, 35(1), 15–31.
Lehtinen, V., Nasanen, J., & Sarvas, R. (2009). “A little silly and empty-headed”: Older
adults’ understandings of social networking sites. In Proceedings of the 23rd British HCI
group annual conference on people and computers (BCS-HCI ‘09) (pp. 45–54).
Leinonen, E., Syrjanen, A.-L., & Isomursu, M. (2014). Designing assistive and cooperative
HCI for older adults’ movement. In V. Roto, J. Häkkilä, Lárusdóttir, K. Väänänen-Vainio-
Mattila, O. Juhlin, T. Olsson & E. Hvannberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Nordic confer
ence on human-computer interaction (NordiCHI ‘14) (pp. 877–882).
Leitner, G., Fercher, A. J., Felfernig, A., & Hitz, M. (2012). Reducing the entry threshold of
AAL Systems: Preliminary results from Casa Vecchia. In Proceedings of 13th international
Leonard, V. K., Jacko, J. A., & Pizzimenti, J. J. (2005). An exploratory investigation of hand
held computer interaction for older adults with visual impairments. In Proceedings of the
7th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility (ASSETS
‘05) (pp. 12–19).
Leonard, V. K., Jacko, J. A., & Pizzimenti, J. J. (2006). An investigation of handheld device
use by older adults with age-related macular degeneration. Behaviour and Information
Technology, 25(4), 313–332.
Lepicard, G., & Vigouroux, N. (2010). Touch screen user interfaces for older subjects: Ef
fect of the targets number and the two hands use. In Proceedings of 12th international
Lepicard, G., & Vigouroux, N. (2012). Comparison between single-touch and multi-touch
interaction for older people. In Proceedings of 13th international conference on comput
Leung, R., Findlater, L., McGrenere, J., Graf, P., & Yang, J. (2010). Multi-layered interfaces
to improve older adults’ initial learnability of mobile applications. ACM Transactions on
Accessible Computing, 3(1), Art. 1.
Page 46 of 64
Leung, R., McGrenere, J., & Graf, P. (2011). Age-related differences in the initial usability
of mobile device icons. Behaviour and Information Technology, 30(5), 629–642.
Leung, R., Tang, C., Haddad, S., McGrenere, J., Graf, P., & Ingriany, V. (2012). How older
adults learn to use mobile devices: Survey and field investigations, ACM Transactions on
Accessible Computing, 4(3), Art. 11.
Lexis, M., Everink, I., van der Heide, L., Spreeuwenber, M., Willems, C., & de Witte, L.
(2013). Activity monitoring technology to support homecare delivery to frail and psy
chogeriatric elderly persons living at home alone. Technology and Disability, 25(3), 189–
197.
Li, H., Rau, P.-L. P., Fujimura, K., Gao, Q., & Wang, L. (2012). Designing effective
(p. 173)
web forms for older web users. Educational Gerontology, 38(4), 271–281.
Liao, M.-J., Wu, Y., & Sheu, C.-F. (2014). Effects of perceptual complexity on older and
younger adults’ target acquisition performance. Behaviour and Information Technology,
33(6), 591–605.
Liao, Q. V. & Fu, W.-T. (2014). Age differences in credibility judgements of online health
information. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 21(1), Art. 2.
Lindley, S. E. (2012). Before I forget: From personal memory to family history Human-
Computer Interaction, 27(1–2), 13–36.
Lindley, S. E., Harper, R., & Sellen, A. (2008). Designing for elders: Exploring the com
plexity of relationships in later life. In Proceedings of the 22nd British HCI group annual
conference (BCS-HCI ‘08) (pp. 77–86).
Lindley, S. & Wallace, J. (2015). Placing in age: Transitioning to a new home in later life.
ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 22(4), Art. 20.
Little, L., Briggs, P., & Coventry, L. (2011). Who knows about me? An analysis of age-relat
ed disclosure preferences. In Proceedings of the 25th international BCS human computer
interaction conference (BCS HCI ‘11) (pp. 84–87).
Liu, C.-L. (2014). A study of detecting and combating cybersickness with fuzzy control for
the elderly within 3D virtual stores. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,
72(12), 796–804.
Lockhart, T. E., Smith, J. L., & Woldstad, J. C. (2005). Effects of aging on the biomechanics
of slips and falls. Human Factors, 47(4), 708–729.
Lozano, H., Hernáez, I., Picón, A., Camarena, J., & Navas, E. (2010). Audio classification
techniques in home environments for elderly/dependent people. In Proceedings of 12th
(pp. 320–323).
Page 47 of 64
McBride, S. E., Rogers, W. A., & Fisk, A. D. (2011). Understanding the effect of workload
on automation use for younger and older adults. Human Factors, 53(6), 672–686.
McCann, R. M., & Keaton, S. A. (2013). A cross cultural investigation of age stereotypes
and communication perceptions of older and younger workers in the USA and Thailand.
McCarthy, S., Sayers, H., & McKevitt, P. (2007). Investigating the usability of PDAs with
ageing users. In Proceedings of the 21st British HCI group annual conference (BCS-HCI
‘07) (pp. 67–70).
McLaughlin, A. C., Rogers, W. A., & Fisk, A. D. (2009). Using direct and indirect input de
vices: Attention demands and age-related differences. ACM Transactions on Computer-
Human Interaction, 16(1), Art. 2.
Macek, J., & Kleindienst, J. (2011). Exercise support system for elderly: Multi-sensor phys
iological state detection and usability testing. In P. Campos, N. Graham, J. Jorge, N.
Nunes, P. Palanque, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction (IN
TERACT 2011). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6947, (pp. 81–88).
Maciuszek, D., Aberg, J., & Shahmehri, N. (2005). What help do older people need?: Con
structing a functional design space of electronic assistive technology applications. In Pro
ceedings of the 7th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessi
bility (ASSETS ‘05) (pp. 4–11).
Magnusson, L. & Hanson, E. (2012). Partnership working: The key to the AT-technology
transfer process of the ACTION service (Assisting Carers using Telematics Interventions
to meet Older people’s Needs) in Sweden. Technology and Disability, 24(3), 219–232.
(p. 174) Malinowsky, C., Kottorp, A., & Nygård, L. (2013). Everyday technologies’ levels of
difficulty when used by older adults with and without cognitive impairment–Comparison
of self-perceived versus observed difficulty estimates. Technology and Disability, 25(3),
167–176.
Malinowsky, C., Kottorp, A., Patomella, A.-H., Rosenberg, L., & Nygård, L. (2015).
Changes in the technological landscape over time: Relevance and difficulty levels of
everyday technologies as perceived by older adults with and without cognitive impair
ment. Technology and Disability, 27(3), 91–101.
Mann, W. C., Belchior, P., Tomita, M. R., & Kemp, B. J. (2005). Computer use by middle-
aged and older adults with disabilities. Technology and Disability, 17(1), 1–9.
Mann, W. C., Locher, S., Justiss, M. D., Wu, S., & Tomita, M. (2005). A comparison of fall
ers and non-fallers in the frail elderly. Technology and Disability, 17(1), 25–32.
Marquis-Faulkes, F., McKenna, S. J., Newell, A. F., & Gregor, P. (2005). Gathering the re
quirements for a fall monitor using drama and video with older people. Technology and
Disability, 17(4), 227–236.
Page 48 of 64
Marston, H. R. (2013). Design recommendations for digital game design within an ageing
society. Educational Gerontology, 39(2), 103–118.
Marston, H. R. (2013). Digital gaming perspectives of older adults: Content vs interac

tion. Educational Gerontology, 39(3), 194–208.
Marston, H. R., Greenlay, S., & van Hoof, J. (2013). Understanding the Nintendo Wii and
Microsoft Kinect consoles in long-term care facilities. Technology and Disability, 27(2),
77–85.
Martin, S., Nugent, C., Wallace, J., Kernohan, G., McCreight, B., & Mulvenna, M. (2007).
Using context awareness within the “Smart home” environment to support social care for
adults with dementia. Technology and Disability, 19(2–3), 143–152.
Matthews, J. T., Beach, S. R., Downs, J., de Bruin, W. B., Mecca, L. P., & Schulz, S. (2010).
Preferences and concerns for quality of life technology among older adults and persons
with disabilities: National survey results. Technology and Disability, 22(1–2), 5–15.
Mayer, C., Morandell, M., Gira, M., Hackbarth, K., Petzold, M., & Fagel, S. (2012). AALuis,
a user interface layer that brings device independence to users of AAL systems. In Pro
needs (ICCHP ‘12) (pp. 650–657).
Mehdi, S. A., & Berns, K. (2014). Behavior-based search of human by an autonomous in
door mobile robot in simulation. Universal Access in the Information Society, 13(1), 45–
58.
Meza-Kubo, V., Morán, A. L., & Rodríguez, M. D. (2014). Bridging the gap between illiter
ate older adults and cognitive stimulation technologies through pervasive computing. Uni
versal Access in the Information Society, 13(1), 33–44.
Michailidou, E., Parmaxi, A., & Zaphiris, P. (2015). Culture effects in online social support
for older people: Perceptions and experience. Universal Access in the Information
Society, 14(2), 281–293.
Miotto, A., Lessiter, J., Freeman, J., Carmichael, R., & Ferrrari, E. (2013). Cognitive train
ing via interactive television: Drivers, barriers and potential users. Universal Access in
the Information Society, 12(1), 37–54.
Miura, T., Yabu, K.-I., Hiyama, A., Inamura, N., Hirose, M., & Ifukube, T. (2015). Smart
phone-based gait measurement application for exercise and its effects on the lifestyle of
senior citizens. In J. Abascal, S. Barbosa, M. Fetter, T. Gross, P. Palanque, & M. Winckler
(Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction, Part III (INTERACT 2015). Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, 9296, (pp. 80–98).
Moffatt, K., & McGrenere, J. (2007). Slipping and drifting: Using older users to
(p. 175)
uncover pen-based target acquisition difficulties. In Proceedings of the 9th international

Page 49 of 64
Moffatt, K., & McGrenere, J. (2009). Exploring methods to improve pen-based menu selec
tion for younger and older adults. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 2(1), Art.
3.
Moffatt, K., Yuen, S., & McGrenere, J. (2008). Hover or tap?: Supporting pen-based menu
navigation for older adults. In Proceedings of the 10th international ACM SIGACCESS
conference on computers and accessibility (ASSETS ‘08) (pp. 51–58).
Mohadis, H. M., Ali, N. M., & Smeaton, A. F. (2016). Designing a persuasive physical ac
tivity application for older workers: Understanding end-user perceptions. Behaviour and
Molin, G., Pettersson, C., Jonsson, O., & Keijer, U. (2007). Living at home with acquired
cognitive impairment: Can assistive technology help? Technology and Disability, 19(2–3),
91–101.
Moloney, K. P., Jacko, J. A., Vidakovic, B., Sainfort, F., Leonard, V. K., & Shi, B. (2006).
Leveraging data complexity: Pupillary behaviour of older adults with visual impairment
during HCI. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 13(3), 376–402.
Morrell, R. W. (2005). http://www.nihseniorhealth. gov: The process of construction and

revision in the development of a model web site for use by older adults, Universal Access
in the Information Society, 4(1), 24–38.
Morrow, D. G., & Rogers, W. A. (2008). Environmental support: An integrative framework.

Human Factors, 50(4), 589–613.
Mubin, O., Shahid, S., & Al Mahmud, A. (2008). Walk 2 Win: Towards designing a mobile
game for elderly’s social engagement. In Proceedings of the 22nd British HCI group an
nual conference (BCS-HCI ‘08) (pp. 11–14).
Murata, A., and Iwase, H. (2005). Usability of touch-panel interfaces for older adults. Hu
man Factors, 47(4), 767–776.
Muskens, L., van Lent, R., Vijfvinkel, A., van Cann, P., & Shahid, S. (2014). Never too old
to use a tablet: Designing tablet applications for the cognitive and physically impaired el
derly. In Proceedings of 14th international conference on computers helping people with
special needs (ICCHP ‘14) (pp. 391–398).
Nansen, B., Vetere, F., Robertson, T., Downs, J., Brereton, M., & Durick, J. (2014). Recipro
cal habituation: A study of older people and the Kinect. ACM Transactions on Computer-
Human Interaction, 21(3), Art. 18.
Nawaz, A., Skjaeret, N., Ystmark, K., Helbostad, J. L., Vereijken, B., & Svanaes, D. (2014).
Assessing seniors’ user experience (UX) of exergames for balance training. In V. Roto, J.
Häkkilä, Lárusdóttir, K. Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, O. Juhlin, T. Olsson & E. Hvannberg
Page 50 of 64

(NordiCHI ‘14) (pp. 578–587).
Németh, G., Olaszy, G., Bartalis, M., Kiss, G., Zainkó, C., Mihajlik, P., & Haraszti, C.
(2008). Automated drug information system for aged and visually impaired persons. In
needs (ICCHP ‘12) (pp. 238–241).
Newell, A. F., Dickinson, A., Smith, M. J., & Gregor, P. (2006). Designing a portal for older
users: A case study of an industrial/academic collaboration. ACM Transactions on Com
puter-Human Interaction, 13(3), 347–375.
Ng, C.-H. (2007). Motivation among older adults in learning computing technolo
(p. 176)
gies: A grounded model. Educational Gerontology, 34(1), 1–14.
Nicholson, J., Coventry, L., & Briggs, P. (2013). Faces and pictures: Understanding age dif
ferences in two types of graphical authentications. International Journal of Human-Com
puter Studies, 71(10), 958–966.
Nicolau, H., & Jorge, J. (2012). Elderly text-entry performance on touchscreens. In Pro
ceedings of the 14th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and acces
sibility (ASSETS ‘12) (pp. 127–134).
Nijhof, N., van Gemert-Pijnen, J. E. W. C., de Jong, G. E. N., Ankoné, J. W., & Seydel, E. R.
(2012). How assistive technology can support dementia care: A study about the effects of
the IST Vivago watch on patients’ sleeping behavior and the care delivery process in a
nursing home. Technology and Disability, 24(2), 103–115.
Nijhof, N., van Hoof, J., van Rijn, H., & van Gemert-Pijnen, J. E. W. C. (2013). The behav
ioural outcomes of a technology-supported leisure activity in people with dementia. Tech
nology and Disability, 25(4), 263–273.
Nunes, F., Kerwin, M., & Silva, P. A. (2012). Design recommendations for TV user inter
faces for older adults: Findings from the eCAALYX Project. In Proceedings of the 14th in
ternational ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility (ASSETS ‘12)
(pp. 41–48).
Nygård, L. (2009). The stove timer as a device for older adults with cognitive impairment
or dementia: Different professionals’ reasoning and actions. Technology and Disability,
21(3), 53–66.
Oberzaucher, J., Jagos, H., Zodl, C., Hlauschek, W., & Zagler, W. (2010). Using a wearable
insole gait analyzing system for automated mobility assessment for older people. In Pro
needs (ICCHP ‘10) (pp. 600–603).
Page 51 of 64
O’Brien, M., Rogers, W. A., & Fisk, A. D. (2012). Understanding age and technology expe
rience differences in use of prior knowledge for everyday technology interactions. ACM
Transactions on Accessible Computing, 4(2), Art. 9.
Ofei-Dodoo, S., Medvene, L. J., Nilsen, K. M., Smith, R. A., & DiLollo, A. (2015). Exploring
the potential of computers to enrich home and community-based services clients’ social
networks. Educational Gerontology, 41(3), 216–225.
Ogawa, M., Inagaki, H., & Gondo, Y. (2006). Usage of IT and electronic devices, and its
structure, for community-dwelling elderly. In Proceedings of 10th international confer
Omori, M., Miyao, M., Kanamoriand, H., & Atsumi, B. (2008). Visual cognitive perfor
mance of elderly people: Effects on reading time of age, character size and visual dis
tance. Behaviour and Information Technology, 27(4), 313–318.
Orpwood, R., Gibbs, C., Adlam, T., Faulkner, R., & Meegahawatte, D. (2005). The design of
smart homes for people with dementia–user-interface aspects. Universal Access in the In
formation Society, 4(2), 156–164.
Osman, Z., Poulson, D., & Nicolle, C. (2005). Introducing computers and the Internet to
older users: Findings from the Care OnLine project. Universal Access in the Information
Society, 4(1), 16–23.
Östlund, B. (2008). The revival of research circles: Meeting the needs of modern aging
and the third age. Educational Gerontology, 34(4), 255–266.
Otjacques, B., Krier, M., Feltz, F., Ferring, D., & Martin Hoffman, M. (2009). Helping old
er people to manage their social activities at the retirement home. In Proceedings of the
(p. 177) 23rd British HCI group annual conference on people and computers (BCS-HCI
‘09) (pp. 375–380).
Panek, P., & Zagler, W. L. (2008). A living lab for ambient assisted living in the Municipali
ty of Schwechat. In Proceedings of 11th international conference on computers helping
Panitsides, E. A. (2013). Interview with Ariadne. Educational Gerontology, 39(12), 944–

945.
Paredes, H., Cassola, F., Morgado, L., de Carvalho, F., Ala, S., Cardoso, F., Benjamim, B.,
& Martins, P. (2014). Exploring the usage of 3D virtual worlds and Kinect interaction in
exergames with elderly. In Proceedings of 14th international conference on computers
Parekh, M., & Baber, C. (2010). Tool use as gesture: New challenges for maintenance and
rehabilitation. In Proceedings of the 24th BCS interaction specialist group conference
(BCS HCI ‘10) (pp. 241–249).
Page 52 of 64
Pasoule, E., & Koutsabasis, P. (2014). Redesigning web sites for older adults: A case study.
Behaviour and Information Technology, 33(6), 561–573.
Patomella, A.-H., Kottorp, A., Malinowsky, C., & Nygård, L. (2011). Factors that impact
the level of difficulty of everyday technology in a sample of older adults with and without
cognitive impairment. Technology and Disability, 23(4), 243–250.
Pedlow, R., Kasnitz, D., Shuttleworth, R. (2010). Barriers to the adoption of cell phones
for older people with impairments in the USA: Results from an expert review and field
study. Technology and Disability, 22(3), 147–158.
Petrie, H., Darzentas, J. S., & Power, C. (2014). Self-service terminals for older and dis
abled users: Attitudes of key stakeholders. In Proceedings of 14th international confer
Pigini, L., Facal, D., Blasi, L., & Andrich, R. (2012). Service robots in elderly care at home:
Users’ needs and perceptions as a basis for concept development. Technology & Disabili
ty, 24(4), 303–311.
Pigini, L., Facal, D., Garcia, A., Burmester, M., & Andrich, R. (2012). The proof of concept
of a shadow robotic system for independent living at home. In Proceedings of 13th inter
national conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘12) (pp.
634–641).
Piper, A.-M., Weibel, N., & D. Hollan, H. D. (2014). Designing audio-enhanced paper pho
tos for older adult emotional wellbeing in communication therapy. International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, 72 (8–9), 629–639.
Pitts, K., Pudney, K., Zachos, K., Maiden, N., Krogstie, B., Jones, S., … Turner, A. (2015).
Using mobile devices and apps to support reflective learning about older people with de
mentia. Behaviour and Information Technology, 34(6), 613–631.
Plaisant, C., Clamage, A., Hutchinson, H. B., Bederson, B. B., & Druin, A. (2006). Shared
family calendars: Promoting symmetry and accessibility. ACM Transactions on Computer-
Human Interaction, 13(3), 313–346.
Pradhan, A. K., Hammel, K. R., DeRamus, R., Pollatsek, A., Noyce, D. A., & Fisher, D. L.
(2005). Using eye movements to evaluate effects of driver age on risk perception in a dri
ving simulator. Human Factors, 47(4), 840–852.
Price, M. M., Pak, R., Muller, H., & Stronge, A. (2013). Older adults’ perceptions of useful
ness of personal health records. Universal Access in the Information Society, 12(2), 191–
204.
Priest, L., Nayak, L., & Stuart-Hamilton, I. (2007). Website task performance by older
adults. Behaviour and Information Technology, 26(3), 189–195.
Page 53 of 64
Prieto, G., & Leahy, D. (2012). Online social networks and older people. In Pro
(p. 178)

needs (ICCHP ‘12) (pp. 666–672).
Proctor, R. W., Vu, K.-P. L., & Pick, D. F. (2005). Aging and response selection in spatial
choice tasks. Human Factors, 47(2), 250–269.
Qadri, S. S., Wang, J., Ruiz J. G., & Roos, B. A. (2009). Personal digital assistant as point-
of-care tools in long-term care facilities: A pilot study. Educational Gerontology, 35(4),
296–307.
Rasquin, S. M. C., Willems, C., de Vlieger, S., Geers, R. P. J., & Soede, M. (2007). The use
of technical devices to support outdoor mobility of dementia patients. Technology and Dis
ability, 19(2–3), 113–120.
Rassmus-Gröhn, K., & Magnusson, C. (2014). Finding the way home-supporting wayfind
ing for older users with memory problems. In V. Roto, J. Häkkilä, Lárusdóttir, K. Väänä
nen-Vainio-Mattila, O. Juhlin, T. Olsson & E. Hvannberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th
Nordic conference on human-computer interaction (NordiCHI ‘14) (pp. 247–255).
Rau, P.-L. P., & Hsu, J.-W. (2005). Interaction devices and web design for novice older
users. Educational Gerontology, 31(1), 19–40.
Ren, X., & Zhou, X. (2011). An investigation of the usability of the stylus pen for various
age groups on personal digital assistants. Behaviour and Information Technology, 30(6),
709–726.
Renaud, K. (2005). A visuo-biometric authentication mechanism for older users. In Pro

ceedings of the 19th British HCI group annual conference on people and computers
(BCS-HCI ‘05) (pp. 167–182).
Renaud, K., Blignaut, R., & Venter, I. (2013). Designing mobile phone interfaces for age
diversity in South Africa: “One world” versus diverse “islands.” In P. Kotzé, G. Marsden,
G. Lindgaard, J. Wesson, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction,
Part III (INTERACT 2013). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8117, (pp. 1–17).
Renaud, K., & Ramsay, J. (2007). Now what was that password again? A more flexible way
of identifying and authenticating our seniors. Behaviour and Information Technology,
26(4), 309–322.
Renold, C., Meronk, C., & Kelly, C. (2005). Technology in community-based organizations
that serve older People: High tech meets high touch. Educational Gerontology, 31(3),
235–245.
Rice, M., & Carmichael, A. (2013). Factors facilitating or impeding older adults’ creative
contributions in the collaborative design of a novel DTV-based application. Universal Ac
cess in the Information Society, 12(1), 5–19.
Page 54 of 64
Rice, M., Newell, A., & Morgan, N. (2007). Forum theatre as a requirements gathering
methodology in the design of a home telecommunication system for older adults. Behav
Riikonen, M., Paavilainen, E., & Salo, H. (2013). Factors supporting the use of technology
in daily life of home-living people with dementia. Technology and Disability, 25(4), 233–
243.
Robertson, T., Durick, J., Brereton, M., Vaisutis, K. Vetere, F., Nanse, B., & Howard, H.
(2013). Emerging technologies and the contextual and contingent experiences of ageing
well. In P. Kotzé, G. Marsden, G. Lindgaard, J. Wesson, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings
Human-computer interaction, Part III (INTERACT 2013). Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, 8117, (pp. 582–589).
Rogers, W. A., Fisk, A. D., McLauglin, A. C., & Pak, R. (2005). Touch a screen or turn a
knob: Choosing the best device for the job. Human Factors, 47(2), 271–288.
Romoser, M. R. E. (2013). The long-term effects of active training strategies on

(p. 179)
improving older drivers’ scanning in intersections: A two-year follow-up to Romoser and

Fisher (2009). Human Factors, 55(2), 278–284.
Roring, R. W., Hines, F. G., & Charness, N. (2006). Age-related identification of emotions
at different image sizes. Human Factors, 48(4), 675–681.
Roring, R. W., Hines, F. G., & Charness, N. (2007). Age differences in identifying words in
synthetic speech. Human Factors, 49(1), 25–31.
Rosenthal, R. L. (2008). Older computer-literate women: Their motivations, obstacles, and

paths to success. Educational Gerontology, 34(7), 610–626.
Rudzicz, F., Wang, R., Begum, M., & Mihailidis, A. (2015). Speech interaction with person
al assistive robots supporting aging at home for individuals with Alzheimer’s disease.
ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 7(2), Art. 6.
Russell, H. (2008). Later life: A time to learn. Educational Gerontology, 34(3), 206–244.
Saenz-de-Urturi, Z., Garcia Zapirain, B., & Mendez Zorrilla, A. (2015). Elderly user expe
rience to improve a Kinect-based game playability. Behaviour and Information Technolo
gy, 34(11), 1040–1051.
Salovaara, A., Lehmuskallio, A., Hedman, L., Valkonen, P., & Näsänen, J. (2010). Informa
tion technologies and transitions in the lives of 55–65-year-olds: The case of colliding life
interests. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 68(11), 803–821.
Sanders, M. J., O’Sullivan, B., DeBurra, K., & Fedner, A. (2013). Computer training for se
niors: An academic-community partnership. Educational Gerontology, 39(3), 179–193.
Page 55 of 64
Savitch, N., & Zaphiris, P. (2006). Accessible websites for people with dementia-a prelimi
nary investigation into information architecture. In Proceedings of 10th international con
ference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘06) (pp. 144–151).
Sayago, S., & Blat, J. (2008). Exploring the role of time and errors in real-life for older
people and ICT. In Proceedings of 11th international conference on computers helping
Sayago, S., & Blat, J. (2010). Telling the story of older people e-mailing: An ethnographi
cal study. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(1–2), 105–120.
Sayago, S., Forbes, P., & Blat, J. (2012). Older people’s social sharing practices in
YouTube through an ethnographical lens. In Proceedings of the 26th annual BCS interac
tion specialist group conference on people and computers (BCS-HCI ‘12) (pp. 185–194).
Sayago, S., Forbes, P., & Blat, J. (2013). Older people becoming successful ICT learners
over time: Challenges and strategies through an ethnographical lens. Educational Geron
tology, 39(7), 527–544.
Sayago, S., Guijarro, J.-M., & Blat, J. (2012). Selective attention in web forms: An ex
ploratory case study with older people. Behaviour and Information Technology, 31(2),
171–184.
Schall, M. C. Jr., Rusch, M. L., Lee, J. D., Aksan, N., & Rizzo, M. (2013). Augmented reality
cues and elderly driver hazard perception. Human Factors, 55(3), 643–658.
Schikhof, Y., Mulder, I., & Choenni, S. (2010). Who will watch (over) me? Humane moni
toring in dementia care International. Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(5), 410–
422.
Schmettow, M., & Havinga, J. (2013). Are users more diverse than designs? Testing and
extending a 25 years old claim. In Proceedings of the 27th international BCS human com
puter interaction conference (BCS-HCI ‘13) (Art. 40).
Schneider, N., Schreiber, J., Wilkes, J., Grandt, M., & Schlick, C. M. (2008). Foundations of
an age-differentiated adaptation of the human-computer interface. Behaviour and Infor
Schröder, S., & Ziefle, M. (2008). Effects of icon concreteness and complexity on
(p. 180)
semantic transparency: Younger vs. older users. In Proceedings of 11th international con
ference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘08) (pp. 90–97).
Sciegaj, M. & Behr, R. A. (2010). Lessons for the United States from countries adapting to
the consequences of aging populations. Technology and Disability, 22(1–2), 83–88.
Scopelliti, M., Giuliani, M. V., & Fornara, F. (2005). Robots in a domestic setting: A psy
chological approach. Universal Access in the Information Society, 4(2), 146–155.
Page 56 of 64
Seals, C. D., Clanton, K., Agarwal, R., Doswell, F., & Thomas, C. M. (2008). Lifelong learn
ing: Becoming computer savvy at a later age. Educational Gerontology, 34(12), 1055–
1069.
Sharit, J., Hernandez, M. A., Czaja, S. J., & Pirolli, P. (2008). Investigating the roles of
knowledge and cognitive abilities in older adult information seeking on the web. ACM
Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 15(1), Art. 3.
Sharit, J., Hernandez, M. A., Nair, S. N., Kuhn, T., & Czaja, S. J. (2011). Health problem
solving by older persons using a complex government web site: Analysis and implications
for web design. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 3(3), Art. 11.
Shaw, S., & Roberson, L. (2013). Social connectedness of deaf retirees. Educational
Gerontology, 39(10), 750–760.
Shepherd, C. E., & Aagard, S. (2011). Journal writing with Web 2. 0 tools: A vision for old
er adults. Educational Gerontology, 37(7), 606–620.
Siek, K. A., Rogers, Y., & Connelly, K. H. (2005). Fat finger worries: How older and
younger users physically interact with PDAs. In M. F. Costabile and F. Paternò (Eds.), Pro
ceedings Human-computer interaction (INTERACT 2005), Lecture Notes in Computer
Science (LNCS), 3585, (pp. 267–280).
Simpson, T., Camfield, D., Pipingas, A., Macpherson, H., & Stough, C. (2012). Improved
processing speed: Online computer-based cognitive training in older adults. Educational
Gerontology, 38(7), 445–458.
Simsik, D., Galajdova, A., Siman, D., Bujnak, J., Andrasova, M., & Novak, M. (2012). Mon
AMI Platform in elderly household environment: Architecture, installation, implementa
tion, trials and results. In Proceedings of 13th international conference on computers
Siriaraya, P., Ang, C. S., & Bobrowicz, A. (2014). Exploring the potential of virtual worlds
in engaging older people and support healthy aging. Behaviour and Information Technolo
gy, 33(4), 283–294.
Sjölinder, M., Höök, K., Nilsson, L.-G., & Andersson, G. (2005). Age differences and the
acquisition of spatial knowledge in a three-dimensional environment: Evaluating the use
of an overview map as a navigation aid. International Journal of Human-Computer Stud
ies, 63(6), 537–564.
Slegers, K., van Boxtel, M. P. J., & Jolles, J. (2007). The effects of computer training and
internet usage on the use of everyday technology by older adults: A randomized con
trolled study. Educational Gerontology, 33(2), 91–110.
Smith, A. L., & Chaparro, B. S. (2015). Smartphone text input method performance, us
ability, and preference with younger and older adults. Human Factors, 57(6), 1015–1028.
Page 57 of 64
Smith, D. J. (2005). Senior users of the internet: Lessons from the cybernun study. Univer
sal Access in the Information Society, 4(1), 59–66.
Sokoler, T., & Svensson, M. S. (2007). Embracing ambiguity in the design of non-stigma
tizing digital technology for social interaction among senior citizens. Behaviour and Infor
Soubelet, A. (2012). Computer use and the relation between age and cognitive
(p. 181)
functioning. Educational Gerontology, 38(9), 644–649.
Spreicer, W., Ehrenstrasser, L., & Tellioglu, H. (2012). kommTUi: Designing communica
tion for elderly. In Proceedings of 13th international conference on computers helping
Stark-Wroblewski, K., Edelbaum, J. K., & Ryan, J. J. (2007). Senior citizens who use e-mail.
Stenitzer, M., Putzhuber, M., Nemecek, S., & Büchler, F. (2008). Accessible online shops
for the older generation and people with disabilities. In Proceedings of 11th international
Stephens, E. C., Carswell, C. M., & Schumacher, M. M. (2006). Evidence for an elders’ ad
vantage in the naïve product usability judgments of older and younger adults. Human
Factors, 48(3), 422–433.
Stoltz-Loike, M., Morrell, R. W., & Loike, J. D. (2005). Usability testing of BusinessThink
ing™ e-Learning CD-ROMs with older adults. Educational Gerontology, 31(10), 765–786.
Stössel, C., & Blessing, L. (2010). Mobile device interaction gestures for older users. In E.
Hvannberg, M. K. Lárusdóttir, A. Blandford, & J. Gulliksen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th
Nordic conference on human-computer interaction (NordiCHI ‘10) (pp. 793–796).
Stronge, A. J., Rogers, W. A., & Fisk, A. D. (2006). Web-based information search and re
trieval: Effects of strategy use and age on search success. Human Factors, 48(3), 434–
446.
Struve, D., & Wandke, H. (2009). Video modeling for training older adults to use new
technologies. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 2(1), Art. 4.
Such, M. J., Barberà, R., Poveda, R., Belda-Lois, J.-M., Gómez, A., López, A., Cort, J. M., &
Sánchez, M. (2006). The use of emotional design techniques in user oriented design of in
terfaces within a smart house environment: Case study. Technology and Disability, 18(4),
201–206.
Sveistrup, H., Lockett, D., Edwards, N., & Aminzadeh, F. (2006). Evaluation of bath grab
bar placement for older adults. Technology and Disability, 18(2), 45–55.
Page 58 of 64
Swallow, D., Petrie, H., Power, C. and D. N. Edwards, A. D. N. (2015). Using photo diaries
to elicit user requirements from older adults: A case study on mobility barriers. In J. Abas
cal, S. Barbosa, M. Fetter, T. Gross, P. Palanque, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Hu
man-computer interaction, Part I (INTERACT 2015). Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
9296, (pp. 147–164).
Szymkowiak, A., Morrison, K,., Gregor, P., Inglis, E. A., Shah, P., Evans, J. J., & Wilson, B.
A. (2006). A memory aid with remote communication: Preliminary findings. Technology
and Disability, 17(4), 217–225.
Tee, K., Bernheim Brush, A. J., & Inkpen, K. M. (2009). Exploring communication and
sharing between extended families. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,
67(2), 128–138.
The, P.-L., Lim, W. M., Ahmed, P. K., Chan, A. H. S., Loo, J. M. Y., Cheong, S.-N., & Yap, W.-
J. (2017). Does power posing affect gerontechnology adoption among older adults? Behav
Thomas, K. E. (2013). Investigation of age-differentiated spatial semantic elaboration

strategies for communicating route instructions. Universal Access in the Information So
ciety, 12(2), 175–190.
Thomas, L., & Briggs, P. (2014). An older adult perspective on digital legacy. In V. Roto, J.
Häkkilä, Lárusdóttir, K. Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, O. Juhlin, T. Olsson & E. Hvannberg
(p. 182)
(NordiCHI ‘14) (pp. 237–246).
Torun, M., van Kasteren, T., Incel, O. D., & Ersoy, C. (2012). Complexity versus page hier
archy of a GUI for elderly homecare applications. In Proceedings of 13th international
Trewin, S., Richards, J. T., Hanson, V. L., Sloan, D., John, B. E., Swart, C., & Thomas, J. C.
(2012). Understanding the role of age and fluid intelligence in information search. In Pro
ceedings of the 14th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and acces
sibility (ASSETS ‘12) (pp. 119–126).
Tsai, H.-Y. S., Shillair, R. Cotten, S. R., Winstead, V., & Yost, E. (2015). Getting grandma
online: Are tablets the answer for increasing digital inclusion for older adults in the U.S.?
Tsuji, A., Yabuno, N., Kuwahara, N., & Morimoto, K. (2014). The design and evaluation of
the body water management system to support the independent living of the older adult.
In Proceedings of 14th international conference on computers helping people with special
needs (ICCHP ‘14) (pp. 433–436).
Page 59 of 64
Turner, P., Turner, S., & van de Walle, G. (2007). How older people account for their expe
riences with interactive technology. Behaviour and Information Technology, 26(4), 287–
296.
Uzor, S., Baillie, L., Skelton, D., & Fairlie, F. (2011). Identifying barriers to effective user
interaction with rehabilitation tools in the home. In P. Campos, N. Graham, J. Jorge, N.
Nunes, P. Palanque, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction (IN
TERACT 2011). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6947 (pp. 36–43).
Vacher, M., Caffiau, S., Portet, F., Meillon, B., Roux, C., Elias, E., … Chahuara, P. (2015).
Evaluation of a context-aware voice interface for ambient assisted living: Qualitative user
study vs. quantitative system evaluation. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing,
7(2), Art. 5.
van den Heuvel, E., Jowitt, F., & McIntyre, A. (2012). Awareness, requirements and barri
ers to use of assistive technology designed to enable independence of people suffering
from Dementia (ATD). Technology and Disability, 24(2), 139–148.
van der Geest, T., van der Meij, H., & van Puffelen, C. (2014). Self-assessed and actual In
ternet skills of people with visual impairments. Universal Access in the Information Soci
ety, 13(2), 161–174.
van der Heide, L. A., Willems, C. G., Spreeuwenberg, M. D., Rietman, J., & de Witte, L. P.
(2012). Implementation of CareTV in care for the elderly: The effects on feelings of loneli
ness and safety and future challenges. Technology and Disability, 24(4), 283–291.
van Volkom, M., Stapley, J. C., & Malter, J. (2013). Use and perception of technology: Sex
and generational differences in a community sample. Educational Gerontology, 39(10),
729–740.
Vetere, F., Davis, H., Gibbs, M., & Howard, S. (2009). The Magic Box and Collage: Re
sponding to the challenge of distributed intergenerational play. International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, 67(2), 165–178.
Vines, J., Blythe, M., Dunphy, P., & Monk, A. (2011). Eighty something: Banking for the
older old. In Proceedings of the 25th international BCS human computer interaction con
ference (BCS HCI ‘11) (pp. 64–73).
Viswanathan, P., Little, J. L., Mackworth, A. K., & Mihailidis, A. (2011). Navigation and ob
stacle avoidance help (NOAH) for older adults with cognitive impairment: A pilot study. In
Proceedings of the 13th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and ac
cessibility (ASSETS ‘11) (pp. 43–50).
Volkmann, T., Sengpiel, M., & Jochems, N. (2016). Historytelling: A website for the
(p. 183)
elderly a human-centred design approach. In S. Björk, E. Eriksson, M. Fjeld, S. Bødker, W.

Barendregt, & M. Obaid, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Nordic conference on human-com
puter interaction (NordiCHI ‘16) (Art. 100).
Page 60 of 64
Vrkljan, B. H. (2011). Collaborative learning among older married couples: An explorato

ry study. Educational Gerontology, 37(2), 117–137.
Vutborg, R., Kjeldskov, J., Pedell, S., & Vetere, F. (2010). Family storytelling for grandpar
ents and grandchildren living apart. In E. Hvannberg, M. K. Lárusdóttir, A. Blandford & J.
Gulliksen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Nordic conference on human-computer interac
tion (NordiCHI ‘10) (pp. 531–540).
Waara, N., & Risser, R. (2013). Exploring the influence of online traveller information ser
vices on the use of public transport by older people and people with functional limita
tions: A mixed methods approach. Technology and Disability, 25(1), 15–25.
Walker, B. L., & Harrington, S. S. (2008). Computer-based instruction and the Web for de
livering injury prevention training. Educational Gerontology, 34(8), 691–708.
Wang, L., Rau, P.-L. P., & Salvendy, G. (2011). Older adults’ acceptance of information
technology. Educational Gerontology, 37(12), 1089–1099.
Wang, L., Sato, H., Rau, P.-L. P., Fujimura, K., Gao, Q., & Asano, Y. (2008). Chinese text
spacing on mobile phones for senior citizens. Educational Gerontology, 35(1), 77–90.
Webster, G., Fels, D. I., Gowans, G., & Hanson, V. L. (2011). Portraits of individuals with
dementia: Views of care managers. In Proceedings of the 25th international BCS human
computer interaction conference (BCS HCI ‘11) (pp. 331–340).
Webster, G., & Hanson, V. L. (2014). Technology for supporting care staff in residential
homes. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 5(3), Art. 8.
Werner, J. M., Carlson, M., Jordan-Marsh, M., & Clark, F. (2011). Predictors of computer
use in community dwelling, ethnically diverse older adults. Human Factors, 53(5), 431–
447.
Wherton, J. P., & Monk, A. F. (2008). Technological opportunities for supporting people
with dementia who are living at home. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,
66(8), 571–586.
Wilkinson, C., Langdon, P., & Clarkson, J. (2010). Observing learning and conceptual de
velopment through novel product interaction. In Proceedings of the 24th BCS interaction
Wilson, J., Curzon, P., & Duncker, E. (2015). Exploring older women’s confidence during
route planning. Behaviour and Information Technology, 34(7), 725–740.
Wilson, M., Doyle, J., & McTaggart, G. (2015). Designing stress management interven
tions to older adults to improve wellbeing. In Proceedings of the 2015 British Human
Computer Interaction Conference (British HCI 2015) (pp. 307–308).
Page 61 of 64
Wittenberg-Lyles, E., Parker Oliver, D. P., Demiris, G., & Shaunfield, S. (2012). Benefits
and challenges of the passport broadcast intervention in long-term care. Educational
Gerontology, 38(10), 691–698.
Wittland, J., Brauner, P., & Ziefle, M. (2015). Serious games for cognitive training in ambi
ent assisted living environments-a technology acceptance perspective. In J. Abascal, S.
Barbosa, M. Fetter, T. Gross, P. Palanque, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-com
puter interaction, Part I (INTERACT 2015). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 9296,
(pp. 453–471).
Wockl, B., Wimmer, B., Yildizoglu, U., Leitner, M., & Tscheligi, M. (2011). “Accept” or “De
cline”: Alternative options for video telephony tools for inter-generational family commu
nication. In Proceedings of the 25th international BCS human computer interaction con
ference (BCS HCI ‘11) (pp. 253–258).
Wockl, B., Yildizoglu, U., Buber, I., Diaz, B. A., Kruijff, E., & Tscheligi, M. (2012).
(p. 184)
Basic senior personas: A representation design tool covering the spectrum of European
older adults. In Proceedings of the 14th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on
computers and accessibility (ASSETS ‘12) (pp. 25–32).
Wolters, M., Georgila, K., Moore, J. D., & MacPherson, S. E. (2009). Being old doesn’t
mean acting old: How older users interact with spoken dialog systems. ACM Transactions
on Accessible Computing, 2(1), Art. 2.
Wood, E., Lanuza, C., Baciu, I., MacKenzie, M., & Nosko, A. (2010). Instructional styles,
attitudes and experiences of seniors in computer workshops. Educational Gerontology,
36(10–11), 834–857.
Wood, J. M., Tyrrell, R. A., & Carberry, T. P. (2005). Limitations in drivers’ ability to recog
nize pedestrians at night. Human Factors, 47, 644–653.
Wulf, L., Garschall, N., Himmersbach, H., & Tscheligi, M. (2014). Hands free-care free: El
derly people taking advantage of speech-only interaction. In V. Roto, J. Häkkilä, Lárusdót
tir, K. Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, O. Juhlin, T. Olsson & E. Hvannberg (Eds.), Proceedings of
the 8th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction (NordiCHI ‘14) (pp. 203–206).
Wulf, L., Garschall, M., Klein, M., & Tscheligi, M. (2014). The influence of age and device
orientation on the performance of touch gestures. In Proceedings of 14th international
Xie, B. (2007). Information technology education for older adults as a continuing peer-
learning process: A Chinese case study. Educational Gerontology, 33(5), 429–450.
Xie, B., Druin, A., Fails, J., Massey, S., Golub, E., Franckel, S., & Schneider, K. (2012).
Connecting generations: Developing co-design methods for older adults and children. Be
haviour and Information Technology, 31(4), 413–423.
Page 62 of 64
Xie, B., Watkins, I., Golbecka, J., & Huanga, M. (2012). Understanding and changing older
adults’ perceptions and learning of social media. Educational Gerontology, 38(4), 282–
296.
Xu, Q., Ng, J. S. L., Tan, O. Y., & Huang, Z. (2015). Needs and attitudes of Singaporeans
towards home service robots: A multi-generational perspective. Universal Access in the
Information Society, 14(4), 477–486.
Yancura, L. A. (2013). How to make reminiscence movies: A project-based gerontology

course. Educational Gerontology, 39(11), 828–839.
Yanguas, J. J., Buiza, C., Etxeberria, I., Galdona, N., Gonzalez, M. F., & Urdaneta, E.
(2006). A randomized, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy of cognitive intervention
on elderly people and on patients with Alzheimer’s disease. In Proceedings of 10th inter
national conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘06) (pp.
759–765).
Zakraoui, J., & Zagler, W. (2012). A method for generating CSS to improve web accessibil
ity for old users. In Proceedings of 13th international conference on computers helping
Zaphiris, P., & Sarwar, R. (2006). Trends, similarities, and differences in the usage of teen
and senior public online newsgroups. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interac
tion, 13(3), 403–422.
Zhang, B., Lau, P.-L. P., & Salvendy, G. (2009). Design and evaluation of smart home user
interface: Effects of age, tasks and intelligence level. Behaviour and Information Technol
ogy, 28(3), 239–249.
Zhang, C., Tian, Y., & Capezuti, E. (2012). Privacy preserving automatic fall detection for
elderly using RGBD Cameras. In Proceedings of 13th international conference on comput
Zheng, R., Spears, J., Luptak, M., & Wilby, F. (2015). Understanding older adults’
(p. 185)
perceptions of Internet use: An exploratory factor analysis. Educational Gerontology,

41(7), 504–518.
Zhou, J., Rau, P.-L. P., & Salvendy, G. (2014). Age-related difference in the use of mobile
phones. Universal Access in the Information Society, 13(4), 401–413.
Zhou, J., Rau, P.-L. P., & Salvendy, G. (2014). Older adults’ use of smart phones: An investi
gation of the factors influencing the acceptance of new functions. Behaviour and Informa
tion Technology, 33(6), 552–560.
Ziefle, M., & Bay, S. (2005). How older adults meet complexity: Aging effects on the us
ability of different mobile phones. Behaviour and Information Technology, 24(5), 375–389.
Page 63 of 64
Ziefle, M., & Bay, S. (2006). How to overcome disorientation in mobile phone menus: A
comparison of two different types of navigation aids. Human-Computer Interaction, 21,
393–433.
Ziefle, M., Pappachan, P., Jakobs, E. M., & Wallentowitz, H. (2008). Visual and auditory in
terfaces of advanced driver assistant systems for older drivers. In Proceedings of 11th in
ternational conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘08) (pp.
62–69).
Ziefle, M., Schroeder, U., Strenk, J., & Michel, T. (2007). How younger and older adults
master the usage of hyperlinks in small screen devices. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI
conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI 2006) (pp. 307–316).
Helen Petrie
Helen Petrie is Professor of Human Computer Interaction in the Department of Com

puter Science at the University of York in the UK. Her research centers on the use of
new technologies for people with disabilities and older people, particularly the web.
She has been involved in many British and international projects and has published
extensively. She has advised numerous private and public sector organizations on
web accessibility and accessibility issues of other new technologies. She directed the
largest study in the world on web accessibility for the Disability Rights Commission
of Great Britain and a similar study for the UK Museums, Libraries, and Archive
Council, and she has conducted many smaller studies of web accessibility. In 2009
she was awarded an Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Award for the so
cial impact of her research, and in 2017 she was honored with a Lifetime Achieve
ment Award from the Royal National Institute for Blind People.
Jenny S. Darzentas
Jenny S. Darzentas was the Marie Curie Advanced Researcher Fellow in the Depart
ment of Computer Science at the University of York 2016–2018 during the writing of
the chapter. She is currently Assistant Professor at the Department of Product and
Systems Design Engineering, University of the Aegean, Greece. Her research inter
ests are in accessibility, service design and systems thinking, and information design.
She has worked on collaborative research projects funded by the European Union on
HCI, intelligent tutoring, decision support, library and information systems, and uni
versal design. She also has an interest in accessibility issues in international (ISO)
and European (CEN/CENELEC) standardization efforts through her voluntary work
with ANEC (www.anec.gr). She has published widely on all these subjects.
Page 64 of 64
A Digital Nexus: Sustainable HCI and Domestic Resource Consumption
A Digital Nexus: Sustainable HCI and Domestic Re

source Consumption
Nicola Green, Rob Comber, and Sharron Kuznesof
Humans beings in the 21st century face significant social and global change. Ever-evolv
ing digital technologies are increasingly embedded in the material, economic, and socio-
cultural milieu; while global crises in climate change present challenges to human and
global security and resilience. Social science and human-computer interaction research
has investigated how digital systems might help to understand current environmental
changes and intervene in the problematic human relationships to scarce resources of the
natural world. This chapter reviews research contributions of sustainable human-comput
er interaction (HCI) and the social sciences on human consumption of resources most
crucial to human life: water, energy, and food (WEF). Briefly outlining the current and on
going evolution of digital technologies particularly concerned with embedded urban digi
tal infrastructures in “smart” and automated technologies and the Internet of Things, it
then touches on the scope and scale of the simultaneous environmental challenges posed
by population growth and urbanization. It introduces sustainable HCI as one approach
that directly addresses both trends. The chapter then outlines the most significant ap
proaches that have informed the development of “sustainable HCI,” and reviews impor
tant empirical contributions underpinning the developing interdisciplinary research in the
field. It outlines the current understanding of household resource use and considers how
developing digital technologies might support domestic resource conservation and miti
gate intensive domestically based resource consumption. The chapter closes with obser
vations on the shifting relationships (and sustainable HCI research into them) that might
constitute future ways of being in a sustainable digital age.
Keywords: domestic resource conservation, domestic resource consumption, domestically based resource con
sumption, environmental challenges, household resource use, social science, sustainable HCI, sustainable human-
computer interaction
Page 1 of 40
Introduction: Digital Systems and Natural Re

sources
AT the beginning of the twenty-first century, human beings are facing a range of global
and globalizing shifts in social organization that bring technologies, societies, and cul
tures into complex tension with each other. Nowhere is this more so than in the shifts
wrought by the development of digital technologies towards extensive social change. In
the second decade of the 21st century, we have also seen the emergence of what is now
commonly referred to as “ubiquitous computing,” or the “Internet of Things,” where
alongside various forms of automation, “smart” technologies have emerged to be de
ployed at different scales, whether that is at the level of the urban land/city-scape, the
workplace, or the dwelling (as several chapters in this Handbook emphasize). While the
technological imaginaries of the late 1990s had already identified the possibilities associ
ated with, for example, “smart homes” (Harper, 2003), developments since have seen ur
ban environments becoming ever more deeply imbricated with the material infrastruc
tures of the digital, and the data-mediated social and cultural relations those infrastruc
tures support. Here then, urban domestic dwelling spaces and places have received in
creasing attention as crucial units of analysis for the understanding of potential techno
logically mediated futures and the ways they might shape our ways of being in a digital
age.
At the same time, we have simultaneously seen challenges that pose fundamental ques
tions about the continued prosperity (or security, or in some cases even survival) of hu
mankind and our technological, economic, political, social, and cultural futures. Not least
of these challenges are those posed by both climate change, and a related and (p. 187) on
going large-scale depletion or waste of increasingly scarce natural resources. These chal
lenges are global (indeed also planetary) in nature, and are expressed over multiple
scales of human social life—from the practices and relations of the everyday, to the orga
nization of communities, cities and regions, to large-scale technical, economic, and politi
cal systems at national and international levels. It would be something of an understate
ment to remark that these are not inconsiderable environmental challenges for global hu
manity to be facing.
Where Digital Development Meets Environmental Crisis
Given these two widespread and significant sets of rapid social change, this chapter con
siders the ways that humanity’s digital and environmental futures are becoming inter
twined, and how each domain is implicated in shaping the economic, cultural, and politi
cally mediated futures of the other: that is, a complex digital nexus.
Whilst the natural resources that human beings exploit are innumerable, the most funda
mental of these are those that are crucial for the sustenance of human life itself: The
availability of, and access to, Water, Energy, and Food (WEF). The ways that human be
ings exploit (or use, or consume, or transform) these crucial WEF resources are, of
Page 2 of 40
course, variable, and are considerably differentiated across globally interconnected soci
eties, depending on a range of variables such as: Historical systems of economic develop
ment, the deployment of technical systems at different scales, the politics of colonization
and globalization, and the social and cultural values and norms that define the relation
ships between “natures” and “cultures.”
At the beginning of the twenty-first century, however, further factors are increasingly
coming into play. Two of the most important of these are population growth and urbaniza
tion. On the one hand, pressures are increasing on the planetary WEF resource base at
tributable to the simple calculation of global population growth (Maheshwari et.al., 2014).
The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) currently esti
mates the global population at around 7.6 billion, with a projection to 2030 of 8.6 billion,
including “roughly 83 million being added to the world’s population every
year” (UNDESA, 2017a). Of those 7.6 billion around the world, 665 million have no access
to clean drinking water, 795 million are undernourished or malnourished, 1.4 billion have
no access to electricity, and 2.4 billion have no access to basic sanitation services (UN
DESA, 2017b). While the implications of such growth for the environment have been ap
parent for quite some time, studies in recent years have highlighted population growth as
an increasingly pressing challenge in relation to current global economic and political or
ganizations of resource capture, distribution and use.
On the other hand, populations are not only growing, they are also simultaneously and
progressively urbanizing. The United Nations (2018) estimates that 55% of the world’s
population currently live in urban areas, and project that this figure will reach 68% by
2050. This means that cities, and the organization of them, are becoming an ever-more
critical locus of resource deployment and consumption—and are therefore vital sites of
(p. 188) evaluation for those processes (Colucci et al., 2017). The dwelling places of con
temporary cities—and their progressive digitization—have therefore simultaneously be

come an important focus for the investigation of contemporary resource consumption,
and have become crucial spaces to explore in-depth in any consideration of the digitally
supported sustainability of resource use. The focus on dwelling places therefore simulta
neously draws attention to the role households play in processes of consumption more
broadly (Burgess et al., 2003).
A Nexus of Relationships
Alongside the critical role of the expansion of growing urban concentrations in relation to
population growth, attention has at the same time further been drawn to the relationships
between the core WEF resources themselves in a nexus of interdependencies (Abdul
Salam et al., 2017; Bhaduri et al., 2015). This nexus thinking has been largely framed by
the notion of a WEF nexus (or multiple nexii) of resources—the ways in which any shifts
or perturbations in the availability, process, distribution or consumption of one WEF re
source system will have a “tipping point” into “ripple effects” on the socio-technical sys
tems organizing the exploitation, deployment and consumption of the other resources
Page 3 of 40
(Beddington, 2009; McGrane et al., 2018; Smajgl et al., 2016), with widespread social im
plications.
The focus of this chapter is therefore to review environmental social science and human-
computer interaction (HCI) research on the ways in which digital systems can potentially
intervene in urban domestic spaces to investigate, analyses and understand household
WEF resource consumption, and design digital infrastructures to mitigate against unsus
tainable consumption.
Chapter Overview
Towards this more general goal, the chapter outlines social research-based responses to
the environmental challenges presented by population growth, urbanization and climate
change, and their effects on the consumption of related WEF resources.
We begin our review of research in The Development of Sustainable HCI by introducing

the concept and (inter)disciplines of “Sustainable HCI” (Human-Computer Interaction).
Here we highlight the interplay of social research and digital design disciplines, and the
goals articulated by strands of Sustainable HCI research towards resource minimization
in sustainable digital design, and persuasion towards sustainability in consumption via
digital systems.
The chapter then goes on to consider the various strands of theory that have informed the
conceptual development of Sustainable HCI over time, how those various theoretical
frameworks have been employed in empirical investigations of WEF resource use, and
their implications for digital systems in general and sustainable HCI in particular. (p. 189)
Accordingly, the section Investigating Physical Resource Use addresses those studies that
have attempted to represent the human activities that consume WEF resources across
different social domains, and the systems, organizations, and interactions involved—from
large-scale systems of resource distribution and consumption, to a range of micro-land
scapes of resource use (including studies employing digital technologies to such ends). In
the following section, Investigating Rational Choice and Behaviour Change, we then re
view those studies that have used theories of behaviour and cognition to analyses what
people do with physical resources in the process of consumption, and under what condi
tions. A particular concern here is to examine those research designs that are concerned
with the possibilities for behavioral influence and social change towards more sustainable
resource relationships.
We then turn to a review of those projects that have attempted to operationalize concepts
such as Attitudes, Values and Lifestyles in the pursuit of understanding the social aspects
of resource consumption that can then be used to guide the design, development and im
plementation of digital systems towards various dimensions of sustainability. In the final
section, Investigating Practices and Networks, we go on to consider how theories of prac
tices and networks have been deployed at different scales to both understand the dynam
ics of resource use, and to identify potential levers for “doing things differently” with and
Page 4 of 40
through digital systems. Table 7.1 summarizes the approaches, key concepts, methodolo
gies, and emphases in studies associated with each section.
Page 5 of 40
Table 7.1 Summary of Approaches, Key Concepts, Methodologies, and Studies in Each Section
Chapter sections Approaches Key concepts Methodologies Studies
Introduction Climate change Defining a resource Household-focussed

Population growth nexus
Urbanization Tipping points and
ripple effects
Sustainable HCI Human–computer Sustainability in and Measurement Digital feedback

interaction through design Intervention systems
Pervasiveness and Displays
persuasion Applications
Sustainable interac Interventions
tion design
Revisioning con
sumption
Citizen sensing
Physical resource Infrastructure mea Empirical studies of Provider-supplied Digital measure

use surement physical resources aggregate system ment systems
statistics Interventions
Scaled real-time
and phase-time
measurement of
WEF infrastruc
tures and appli
ances
Page 6 of 40
Surveys
Interviews
Rational choice and Behavioral psychol Individual action (including online) (including online)
behaviour change ogy Cognition Surveys Individually fo
Cognitive and social Agency Structured and se cussed
psychology mi-structured inter Single-resource fo
views cussed
Observation Aggregate digital
measurement of re
source use
Aggregate survey
responses
Individual qualita
tive responses
Attitudes, values, Cognitive and social Norms Surveys Individual and

and lifestyles psychology Values Structured and se group-focussed
Environmental soci Attitudes mi-structured inter Aggregate survey
ology Knowledge views measurement of
Cultural sociology Structure-agency Focus groups norms, values, atti
Phenomenology Observation tudes
Visual methods Individually narrat
ed lifestyles and
consumption pat
terns
Page 7 of 40
Practices and net Environmental, po Habits and routines (including online) Practice focussed
works litical, and cultural Material infrastruc Observation (doing) across so
sociology tures Ethnography cial scales
Socio-technical net Knowledge-mean Semi-structured in Nexus of systems,
works ing-action compe terviews things, thinking, do
Actor-network theo tencies Visual, virtual, and ing, and meaning
ry Human and non-hu sensory methods Negotiation of so
man (digital) agen Participatory meth cial complexity
cies ods
Revisiting sustain Extensively interdis Digital information (including online) (including online)
able HCI ciplinary approach transformation Participatory meth Digital feedback
es Influence ods systems
Computing-based Design-based meth Displays
Design-based ods Applications
Social science- Interventions Social media
based Ethnography Interventions
Semi-structured in Workshops
terviews Games
Visual, virtual, and Negotiation of digi
sensory methods tal-environmental-
social complexity
across scales
Page 8 of 40
The Development of Sustainable HCI

One of the main contemporary developments in the investigation of the intersections of
digital systems and resource use is the development of approaches in “Sustainable HCI.”
Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) is itself a broadly interdisciplinary field, focusing as it
does on the interaction of humans with computing objects and environments, and encom
passing (inter)disciplinary perspectives from computer sciences and engineering, along
side interdisciplinary social sciences, and design disciplines. In “Sustainable
HCI” (sometimes “Environmental HCI”) (Hee-Jeong Choi & Blevis, 2010; DiSalvo et al.,
2010), understanding humans’ interaction with digital technologies—their objects and in
frastructures—and the development of novel digital technologies, has been brought to
gether with a concern to address current and future environmental challenges.
HCI approaches to human-digital relations are focussed at the “interface” between com
puting systems and their human “users,” and involve both understanding the relationship
between them (given the contexts of their interactions), and planning design interven
tions for the development of alternative or improved digital systems. Based on critical de
sign studies, Blevis (2007, p. 503) argues that an important dimension of Sustainable HCI
is the efforts by technology designers to build sustainability into both material and data-
based computing products—including in their “invention, disposal, renewal and reuse.”
Mankoff et al. (2007) characterize this position as advocating (p. 190) (p. 191) (p. 192) “sus
tainability in design” (reducing the resource intensity of computing systems), to which
they add an orientation towards interaction in “sustainability through design”—designing
digital media technologies to influence broad socio-cultural trends towards sustainability.
According to DiSalvo et al., these two broad-based characterizations of the field of Sus
tainable HCI have since produced a proliferation of HCI sub-specialties in both pervasive
(in design) and persuasive (through design) computing systems oriented towards sustain
ability. Woodruff and Mankoff (2009) summarizes the combination of these approaches as
the “core challenges” of Sustainable HCI, “including monitoring the state of the physical
world; managing the direct and indirect impacts of large-scale human enterprises such as
agriculture, transport, and manufacturing; and informing individuals’ personal choices in
consumption and behavior” (DiSalvo et al., 2010, p. 1976). Drawing on Goodman’s (2009)
characterization of Sustainable HCI into three broad discursive and empirical clusters of
environment-digital understandings—including “sustainable interaction design,” “revi
sioning consumption,” and “citizen sensing”—DiSalvo et al. (2010) further extend an eval
uation of the relevant research literature to identify multiple sub-specialties in Sustain
able HCI that both relate to, and challenge, each other—and in doing so they provide an
excellent critical map of this extensive field.
In the following sections then, the chapter reviews the empirical research in HCI and en
vironmental social sciences that has variously addressed questions relating to human in
teraction with both digital technologies and resources in the consumption spaces of ur
ban domestic dwellings. From mapping physical systems and infrastructures via digital
Page 9 of 40
means, to considering the factors that affect human interaction with and transformation
or consumption of both natural resources and digital systems in the home, the chapter
aims to summarize the contemporary state of play in relevant research, and to indicate di
rections for development in sustainable digital design.
Investigating Physical Resource Use

There is no doubt that environmental systems are broadly grounded in long-term process
es of industrialization (now extended to digitization), and systems of market capitalism.
These technical developments and economic shifts inevitably altered human relationships
with their environments—in the case of resources, the technically and economically medi
ated means through which people access, use, exploit or consume the resources of the
natural world. On the one hand this promotes a logic of technocratic rationality, placing
faith in technology to guarantee the wide-ranging and efficient exploitation of resources.
At the same time, emerging digital technologies offer the potential to “map,” to a fine-
grained level, the systems through which resources are distributed, circulated, and con
sumed, and therefore contribute to understandings of (and potential interventions in) un/
sustainable socio-cultural practices.
(p. 193) In the investigation of WEF relationships, natural science and engineering disci
plines tend to focus on the quantitative measurement of extant and available physical re
sources (and the modelling and visualization of available macro-scale national and inter
national data pertaining to such via digital systems). Such data may then be used by so
cial research that focuses on the human exploitation, organization, distribution and gov
ernance of such resources via economic and technical (especially urban) infrastructures
that make the harvest, supply, delivery and circulation of resources possible (Kalbar et
al., 2016, 2018; McGrane et al., 2018).
Relevant empirical examples may be derived from a number of sources,1 such as utility
companies’ annual supply and distribution reporting, analyzed with respect to official
population demographics (such as those from the Office for National Statistics) derived
via digitally generated data. In the case of water, for example, Ofwat (the independent UK
Water Services Regulation Authority) requires water utility companies to measure (via ag
gregate—both analogue and digital—water flow distribution meters) and report the cubic
metric distribution of water to households and non-households (business and industry), as
well as accounting for waste (leakages) and operational usage (Ofwat, 2018). Similar na
tional-level statistics, often generated via the deployment of digital metering systems, are
available via various government departments and agencies, such as (in the UK) the De
partment for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (DBEIS; for example, see their En
ergy Use in the UK, 2018a; Digest of UK Energy Statistics, 2018b) reporting on energy
use—households comprise 28% of total UK energy consumption (DBEIS, 2018a)—or vari
ous aggregate-level food statistics from the Department of Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (DEFRA), the Environment Agency, and the Food Standards Agency (FSA).
Page 10 of 40
Digital systems, of course, support the collection, processing, and analysis of such data.
But whereas the foregoing research attempts to map physical resource consumption at
the level of entire populations, digital developments situated in HCI often instead turn to
the innovation of digital systems to map such relationships at a more fine-grained scale.
Drawing on approaches where the focus is “sustainability in design,” a prominent ap
proach is the design of urban household sensor-based information systems that are capa
ble of collecting and managing data on local natural resource use. In the domestic
sphere, the ecosystems comprise the spaces of the built environments that are inhabited,
and the distribution and circulation of natural resources within (and beyond) them. The
intent in such digital systems, then, is the quantitative measurement of resource use or
consumption within dwellings in order to be able to understand how, where, and when re
source consumption is taking place. Such measurements can be both aggregated (for ex
ample, measuring total energy use within the dwelling via “smart” [digitally based] me
tering), and/or disaggregated (such as sensor systems to measure energy or water use
down to the appliance level, or for different daily or seasonal periods, or even in compari
son to comparable neighborhoods or areas).
The measurement of domestic energy consumption (typically including domestic electrici

ty and gas use) has been one of the most extensively researched areas of digital technolo
gy design, deployment, and evaluation within the domestic sphere. (p. 194) Examples in
product and critical design could include advances in the design of sensor-based mea
surement systems to accurately measure consumption, such as Wood and Newborough’s
(2003) development of indicators for (disaggregated) appliance consumption of energy.
They could also include the development of interactive visualizations to represent such
consumption (Costanza et al.,2012). Other salient examples might include designs for wa
ter measurement, such as Srinivasan et al.’s (2011) motion-sensor-based disaggregated
water flow measurement system, or Arroyo et al.’s (2005) development of the “Waterbot,”
measuring water flow, use, and waste at the interface of the sink. Waterbot not only mea
sured water flow, but also developed visualization and display technologies (located at the
sink) intended to feedback information on resource consumption to its human inter-actors
(see also Kuznetsov & Paulos, 2010). Pierce, Odom and Blevis (2008) provide a useful crit
ical overview of interaction design for eco-visualization in general, and Casado-Mansilla
et al. (2016, p. 1695) extend such a discussion into “eco-aware systems within everyday
things” to provide user feedback toward awareness and understanding.
Such feedback systems are largely informational, and as such they assume a rational and
decision-making human subject for their interpretation, and the ability to act on that in
formation and the interpretation of it. However, such digital systems (and the design of
them) are also sometimes significantly oriented towards persuasion and “behaviour
change”: As such, the design, deployment and use of persuasive digital systems is much-
debated in the Sustainable HCI literatures. In the following section we therefore consider
those studies that have deployed theories of cognition and behaviour to not only analyze
what people do with the physical WEF resources available to them in their domestic envi
ronments (and beyond), but also whether innovative digital systems might be designed
and developed to persuade consumers of the need for (or desirability of) change, or influ
Page 11 of 40
ence behaviour towards more sustainable practices of resource use within the domestic
sphere.
Investigating Rational Choice and Behavior

Change
The physical resources and distribution systems outlined earlier that are “mapped” at the
macro-scale tend to be grounded in a technocratic rationality derived from the process of
industrialization. Simultaneously, however, environmental relations are also embedded in
global systems of market capitalism, and the assumptions that underpin them—such as
the ever-expanding growth of markets (for thorough analysis and critique, see Callon,
1998; Granovetter, 1985; Polanyi, 1944/1957). Such macro-level economic analyses have,
however, received extensive criticism for their generally reductionist (and sometimes de
terminist) tendencies. Given the limitations of such approaches for understanding, for ex
ample, everyday lived experiences and interactions, or collective (p. 195) or organizational
processes, others have turned their focus to other scales of human life—such as individ
ual human beings and their behaviours in social context.2
There are a number of accounts of nature-people relationships that have derived their ap
proaches from the discipline of social psychology in general, and environmental social
psychology more specifically. The focus of these approaches is to understand and explain
the ways that individuals encounter and experience WEF resources in their everyday
lives, and, most importantly, what they do with them. Here the focus shifts to the position
of the individuals as sovereign agents within such structures as economic decision mak
ers, exercising rational choice and acting in self-interest with respect to both the produc
tion and consumption of goods and services within markets (Barr et al., 2011b). With re
spect to the uses of WEF resources then, individuals are positioned predominantly as con
sumers, and the aggregate outcomes of individuals’ rational judgements in consumption
are assumed to maximize the efficiencies of resource supply and demand, and guarantee
rational resource distribution.
Alongside the more micro-scale investigations of digital systems mapping resource use in
domestic spaces then, there are a range of projects that attempt to simultaneously out
line individual (or household) environmentally focussed behaviour, especially where con
sumption is a matter of the intersections between economic decision making or behav
iour, and those activities concerned with resource use (Advani et al., 2013; Chitnis et al.,
2013, 2014; Druckman et al., 2011; Ofwat, 2011; Oikonomou et al., 2009).
If the concept of rational action positions the individual as a pre-eminent economic social
actor, further approaches in environmental psychology extend the conceptualization of
human action from the exclusively economic, to other social realms. The focus here is
again on what individuals do, rather than who they are or what they experience. Other
projects therefore focus towards more extensive behavioral dimensions of resource use it
self. In these types of quantitative studies, digital and online research tools become par
Page 12 of 40
ticularly important, demonstrating the increasing importance of Internet-based digital

systems for the investigation of household water-energy consumption. For example, the
studies by the Energy Saving Trust (2013) characterizing the self-reported water (and en
ergy) behaviours of 86 thousand households across the UK, are based on their online wa
ter-energy calculator (see also Energy Saving Trust 2014; Kenway et al., 2011). Similar
larger-scale surveys in water analyze self-reported behaviours amongst smaller and re
gional population samples—for example, see Pullinger et al. (2013), for an analysis of be
havioral water data derived from 997 questionnaire respondents using computer-assisted
personal interviews.
In energy, Palmer and Terry’s (2014) Powering the nation is based on the Household Elec
tricity Survey, consisting of self-reported and retrospective behaviours of a sample of 250
UK households (another example of methodology using computer-assisted personal inter
views), alongside extensive digital energy consumption monitoring down to appliance lev
el. There are now also a significant number of larger-scale surveys of food behaviour. The
UK Food and You survey, for example, provides a broad-based snapshot of the United
Kingdom’s food provisioning, preserving, cooking, eating, and waste behaviors in a self-
reported representative questionnaire survey of 3,453 respondents (p. 196) (Food Stan
dards Agency, 2014a, 2014b). Similarly, the Waste and Resources Action Program (WRAP)
provides aggregate statistics on food waste, including that at the household level (WRAP,
2017).
It is within this broadly environmental social science research milieu that Sustainable
HCI is located, and where the broad question of potential digital interventions towards
sustainable behaviour might take place. According to the APA (2018) “behaviours” are de
fined as “an organism’s activities in response to external or internal stimuli, including ob
jectively observable activities, introspectively observable activities, … and non-conscious
processes.” In the case of WEF resource use, attention is therefore paid to those behav
iours directly related to environmental (causes and) effects. According to Stern (2000, p.
408), this “environmentally significant behaviour” is that which can
… reasonably be defined by its impact: the extent to which it changes the avail
ability of materials or energy from the environment or alters the structure and dy
namics of ecosystems or the biosphere itself … Some behavior, such as clearing
forest or disposing of household waste, directly or proximally causes environmen
tal change … Other behavior is environmentally significant indirectly, by shaping
the context in which choices are made that directly cause environmental change
… For example, behaviors that affect international development policies, commod
ity prices on world markets, and national environmental and tax policies can have
greater environmental impact indirectly than behaviors that directly change the
environment.
Stern goes on to note that the environmental impacts listed have historically been by-
products of activities aimed at the fulfilment of “human desires” (and the creation of tech
nologies and organizations to achieve them) rather than the straightforward sustenance
Page 13 of 40
of human life itself (Stern, 2000, p. 408: emphasis added). By conceptualizing environ
mentally significant behaviours as the product of human “desires” rather than of “needs,”
the approach therefore opens discursive space to invoke the possibility for change in hu
man behaviour with respect to the environment via social interventions, including via dig
ital interventions. The interventions proposed therefore tend towards persuasion of one
kind or another. If rational individuals can be convinced that maximizing their self-inter
ests can be aligned with a collective interest in maximizing resource use without damag
ing the sources of those resources (which will also therefore maximize future self-inter
ests), then changes to individual behaviour will “naturally” result as a consequence of ra
tional cognitive processes.3
Indeed, it is the design, development and evaluation of digital feedback systems toward
persuasion—whether aggregated or disaggregated—that are most extensively found in
the Sustainable HCI literature. That is, they include not only the measurement of re
source use to understand its dynamics, but also to represent that use and convey that in
formation to users in order to persuade them towards resource conservation—“sustain
ability through design” in “eco-feedback” systems (Froehlich et al., 2010). Studies explic
itly focussed on the creation of interventions for behaviour change tend to be directed to
wards the interactional design of their feedback components in terms of (p. 197) communi
cation, clarity, and goals, and the evaluation of the effectivity of such systems with re
spect to both human interactions with digital technologies, and/or concomitant impacts in
the form of observable changes in users’ behaviours towards sustainability (Fischer,
2008; Vassileva et al., 2013).
As is the case with studies of resource consumption in the social sciences more generally,
however, examples of intervention and persuasion here are often focussed on a single re
source—most commonly with respect to either energy (Bang et al., 2007; Bonino et al.,
2012; Froehlich, 2009; Gamberini et al., 2012; Oliveira et al., 2016; Riche et al., 2010; see
Hazas et al., 2011 for a useful review), or water (Erikson et al., 2012; Froehlich et al.,
2012; Kappel & Grechenig, 2009; Liu et al., 2015). Novel approaches to domestic prac
tices concerned with digital interaction design in food provisioning, preservation, prepa
ration and food waste have only more recently emerged in the Sustainable HCI research
base. Notable examples include understanding food consumption lifecycles using wear
able cameras (Ng et al., 2015), or “the pervasive fridge,” a fridge-based digital system
mitigating against food waste (Rouillard, 2012) (see also Farr-Wharton et al., 2014a,
2014b on the use of “fridge-cams” for similar purposes).
Murtagh et al. (2014) remark that a range of studies have tended to confirm the view that
resource usage feedback technologies—for example, In-Home Displays (IHDs)—can make
some (at least marginal) difference in resource demand reduction. They point out, howev
er, that there is considerable heterogeneity amongst individuals and households, and
their own project on energy use indicated that whilst located feedback appears to be of
immediate utility in persuasion towards changes in behaviour, its effectiveness diminishes
Page 14 of 40
over time and is largely secondary to attempts at conservation or persuasion “situated in

wider social and physical contexts” (Murtagh et al., 2014, p. 1).
Others tend to concur (Burchell et al, 2016; Boucher et al., 2012; Foster et al., 2010; Tira
do Herrero et al., 2018), with some claiming that intentional HCI interventions towards
persuading individuals are at least relatively limited in their effectiveness, and at most
such interventions themselves “narrow our visions of sustainability” (Brynjarsdottir et al.,
2012, p. 947). DiSalvo et al. (2010a), in their critical review of sustainable HCI, acknowl
edge that while there is diversity in design among the digital systems developed to per
suade—from ambient awareness systems that seek to provide information for knowledge
and understanding, to systems that seek to change both thinking and action—their
premises are often problematic. On the one hand, they can render aspects of environ
ments and the consumption of resources visible. On the other hand, they might attempt,
with various degrees of intent, to influence users to behave in ways deemed “more sus
tainable.” As DiSalvo et al. (2010a, p. 22) point out, this involves specific value judge
ments about what constitutes “sustainable behaviour,” and as such are also politically in
flected (even ideologically aligned) positions:
Most persuasive technologies imply that users engage in problematic behaviors

and should be directed toward more desirable ones. In many scenarios, persua
sion begins to border on coercion, sometimes even evoking Skinnerian behaviour
modification … Questions of “the user” quickly become issues of expertise and
(p. 198) hegemony. If we agree that fundamental change is needed and it might be
change that users don’t want, who gets to decide what change should happen and
how? Whose needs are met, and whose values matter?
(DiSalvo et al., 2010a, p. 23).
Such approaches have therefore attracted critique on the basis that they are both reduc
tionist (to the level of the individual and their actions), and deterministic (to largely iso
lated causes and effects; (Barr et al., 2011a). In response, other psychologically oriented
approaches have therefore added some level of nuance, acknowledging that more than a
single factor might be involved in any behaviour change: Various and multiple individual
motivations, as well as collective altruistic motivations, might simultaneously qualify as
“self-interest.” Moreover, seemingly contradictory choices between competing individual
and collective motivations might also qualify as “rational”—as some have argued, “choice
matters” (Murtagh et al., 2015; Uzzell et al., 2006).
The focus on behaviour change is certainly not limited to the HCI exploration of resource-
conservation behaviours, and there is a wide range of social science studies more broadly
that also take individuals and/or their behaviours as the starting point for investigating
resource consumption. These include studies, both within HCI and beyond, that have at
tempted to capture wider aspects of environmental practice such as attitudes, values, and
lifestyles.
Page 15 of 40
Investigating Attitudes, Values, and Lifestyles

By way of contrast to approaches that focus largely on “behaviour” and its change, more
sociologically oriented approaches focus on units of analysis between the social-psycho
logical and sociological via concepts such as attitudes with respect to norms, and further
acknowledge the additional intervening roles of values or situation with respect to the in
tention-behaviour relationship (Barr, 2003; Barr, 2006). Further research has also invoked
more extensive categories that could act as intervening factors in the formation of values
as they relate to environmental behaviours: including, for example, (both individual and
collective) identities (Evans, 2011b; Gatersleben et al., 2014), and cross-cultural politics
(Katz-Gerro et al., 2017).
One important and extensively debated concept in recent years has related to the formu
lation and deployment of a meta-category labelled lifestyles in an attempt to link the psy
chologically and individualistically oriented concerns described by behavioral and cogni
tive processes with wider socio-cultural concerns that account for values, but which also
recognize the interplay between individuals and the extensive and diverse social and cul
tural collectivities (at various scales) of which they are a part. Some researchers have, for
example, advocated attempts to formulate a broadly conceived typology of “lifestyle
groups” based on, for example, “environmental values and concern,” (p. 199) “socio-demo
graphic variables,” and “psychological factors” (Barr & Gilg, 2006; Gilg et al., 2005).
Many of these have also been explicitly oriented towards describing a home or household
as engaged in lifestyles, rather than focusing at the level of the individual or behaviour
per se (Barr & Gilg, 2006; for reviews across frameworks see Barr, 2016; Evans & Abra
hamse, 2009).
As Evans and Abrahamse (2009) point out however, the historic influence of policy shifts
and their orientation towards persuasion has also meant that the discourse of “sustain
able lifestyles” has become ever-more ubiquitous, but also therefore ever-more politically
inflected. Instead, in nearly every case where “sustainable lifestyles” are invoked, the
analysis reverts almost immediately to a consideration of “sustainable consumption” as
definitive of lifestyles (Barr et al., 2011a; Connolly & Prothero, 2008: Evans, 2011a; Hob
son, 2002; Shove & Warde, 2002; Spaargaren, 2003; Spaargaren & Oosterveer, 2010;
Spaargaren & Van Vliet, 2000). Hobson (2002), for example, explores the relationship be
tween the pro-environmental meanings of consumption and values relating to social jus
tice, arguing that rationalized formulations of “sustainable consumption” carry little cul
tural meaning, and are therefore unable to address collective social concerns. Seyfang
(2006) addresses similar themes with respect to the intersection of “sustainable con
sumption” and the concept of “ecological citizenship.”4
One response to some of this complexity has been the more extensive development of
mixed methods approaches to understand resource consumption in the domestic sphere.
Pullinger et al. (2013), for example, extend behavioral questionnaires to a sub-sample of
qualitative interviews to further explore the combination of factors that might contribute
to environmentally aware action and interaction concerning water use. Still others have
Page 16 of 40
turned entirely to a range of qualitative methods (such as interviews, focus groups, or di
aries, amongst other methods) to explore dimensions of behaviour that concern knowl
edge, attitudes, beliefs, values and lifestyles (including aspirations and assumptions).
Some explore these issues with respect to a range of environmental issues of concern to
individuals and households (e.g., Barr, 2006; Barr & Gilg, 2006), whereas others turn
their attention to resource consumption—and specific resources—in particular (Owen et
al., 2009; Wutich, 2009).
In this broad context, the responses of research in Sustainable HCI have also included the
methodological as well as the analytic, with the development of mixed methods projects
that attempt to capture some of these multiple dimensions of human actions and interac
tions with computing and the digital, as they pertain to domestic resource consumption.
Given that the focus of HCI has historically been concerned with the interaction between
digital systems and their users, the challenges for Sustainable HCI here include ways to
capture the multidimensionality of material action and interaction alongside dimensions
of practice that remain “unobservable.” Some HCI studies have therefore turned to alter
native frameworks to explore the relationship between home inhabitants and embedded
resources via digital technologies more extensively. Schwartz et al. (2013), for example,
extend behavioral or cognitive approaches to consider explicitly phenomenological and
ethnomethodological aspects of interaction with energy—rendering it visible, perceptible,
and therefore (p. 200) “accountable” via “ordering structures”—thereby capturing both
the observable, and the implicit. This shift in focus allows them to examine observable sit
uated practices at the microcosmic scale—the connections between thinking, being, and
doing. This widening of topics within the sustainabilities literature has allowed both so
cial science practitioners, and HCI designers, to focus their research approaches on com
binations of methods that are specifically based on theories of those practices.
Furthermore, in all of these debates, the concept of agency becomes particularly impor
tant—and agency of different types, from humans to (digital) non-humans, and from the
individual to collectivities such as digital systems. Some, for example, have evolved “ide
al-typical” typologies to characterize “environmental agency” (Spaargaren & Oostvesteer,
2010). According to this argument, even at the everyday level of the household, forms of
environmental agency are at the same time also necessarily mediated by the technolo
gies, objects, and infrastructures of consumption practices (organized by “distant oth
ers”), in different modes of appropriation and provision—including digital systems (see al
so van Vliet et al., 2005). They argue that attention to both (distributed) human practices
and non-human (especially digital) interventions are crucial. To these ends, a substantial
body of environmental social sciences literatures has turned to theories of human prac
tices in order to fully explore how human-environment relations are embedded in multiple
networks of action, interaction, knowledge, meaning, organization, and power at different
scales of social life.
Page 17 of 40
Investigating Practices and Networks

Theories of practices have therefore become ever-more-extensively substantial and influ
ential in Sustainable HCI over the past two decades. Adopted from approaches in envi
ronmental social sciences more broadly, these frameworks have been largely developed
from Bourdieu’s theories of “habitus,” “capital,” and “field” and Giddens’ theories of
“agency,” “system,” and “structure.”5 Practice theories take earlier notions of “behav
iour” as central—in the sense that it is doing that is a key unit of analysis—but conceptu
alize those “doings” in more complex ways than cause-effect models would have us be
lieve. As Spaargaren (2011, p. 815) argues with respect to Bourdieu and Giddens,
[w]hat is recognized as being of lasting value in their work is the understanding of

social life as a series of recursive practices reproduced by knowledgeable and ca
pable agents who are drawing upon sets of virtual rules and resources which are
connected to situated social practices. Agents are involved in the reproduction of
series of practices within designated fields of social life by drawing upon the spe
cific sets of rules and resources constitutive for those practices. Because of the
emphasis on practices as “shared behavioural routines,” the individual is no
longer in the center of the analysis. Practices, instead of individuals, become the
units of analysis that matter most. Practices “produce” and co-constitute individu
als and their values, knowledge and capabilities, and not the other way around.
Crucially, practice theories attempt to bridge the structure-agency dualism, con

(p. 201)
necting the micro- and macro-sociological contexts—agency as performed, powers as en

acted, and interests as actively pursued (Spaargaren, 2011). One of the important points
here is therefore that “practices” can be conceived at different scales of production and
reproduction—everyday habits are reproduced through practices (the “social organiza
tion of normality”; Shove, 2003), but so are markets—consumption routines are repro
duced through practices, but so are structures of governance. It is not far from this ob
servation to extend to a focus on context—to observe that practices are always “situated”
in networks of relationship between people and their material and socio-cultural contexts
(Hui & Walker, 2018). In the domain of resource-human relations then, “the most vigor
ous application of practice theoretical repertoires … may be found in the interstices be
tween technologies, utilities, resource consumption and the problematic of
sustainability” (Halkier, Katz-Gerro, & Martens, 2011, p. 5).
A number of contemporary researchers have incorporated such positions and integrated

them into practice research on contemporary environmental politics: From engaging in
practice-theoretical development more generally (Shove, 2003; Shove, Pantzar, & Watson,
2012), to elaborating the congruence of practices and “sustainable consumption” in
everyday life and the domestic sphere (Shove & Spurling, 2013; Southerton, 2013), and
with particular regard to “ecological citizenship” (such as research on the role of practice
theory in understanding shared ecological governance; Spaargaren, 2011).
Page 18 of 40
It is worth noting that contemporary formulations of practice theories in relation to con

sumption and sustainability have progressively incorporated and emphasized materiality
as a key dimension of practices, whether that be the materiality of the embodied human
(en)acting, or the contextual materialities of human-built objects, environments, struc
tures and technologies (Appadurai, 1988; Dant, 1999; Miller, 1998). In these frameworks,
material relations are always co-constructed, so the focus is on the materials necessary to
reproduce ways of doing over time, the knowledge and competencies to deploy those ma
terials, and the (shared) meanings associated with particular “ways of doing” in relation
to norms, values, and identities. The result is a complex framework that opens up digital
and HCI design spaces to explore the intricacies of agentic-yet-institutionally embedded
socio-cultural knowledge-meaning-action assemblages.
In the context of empirical social science research on domestic resource consumption,

both experience and interaction are captured in the notions of “situated knowledge” and
“situated action.” That is, any practices are a combination of contextually dependent and
mutually informing organization of human activities, material infrastructures, and knowl
edges of them, the relations between which are played out in the routines, habits, and
rhythms of everyday life. These approaches have become well-represented in empirical
environmental social science literature on resource consumption. Of particular interest to
research on practices has been a shift of the units of analysis in the design of empirical
research. Whereas behavioral or attitudinal studies tend to focus on the individual, in
creasingly the environmental social science literature has focussed on (p. 202) alternative
units of consumption such as the urban-based household, where activities, routines, and
practices are both shared and negotiated amongst spatially and temporally extended net
works of actors, infrastructures, organizations and agencies. Thus the home is both a mi
cro-topography, and a simultaneously multiply layered and connected spaces (Barac &
McFadyen, 2007; Hitchings, 2004; Horta et al., 2014).
Some projects are concerned with attempting to empirically map household consumption
as a set of practices in-depth, rather than attempting to outline the breadth of common
practices across more general populations. Early research here focussed on the (particu
larly routinized and habitual) activities, knowledges, and materialities framing consump
tion, using observational, interview, and ethnographic methods of various sorts (Shove,
2003; Shove & Warde, 2002; Shove et al., 2012; Southerton 2013; Spaargaren & Van Vli
et, 2000). Research has extended more general household studies to include a particular
focus on specific single resources, such as those oriented towards energy (Butler et al.,
2016; Genus & Jensen, 2019; Moroşanu, 2016; Shove & Walker, 2014; Strengers, 2012),
water (Vannini & Taggert, 2016), or food (Crivits & Paredis, 2013; Paddock, 2017; Sa
hakian & Wilhite, 2014; Warde, 2013, 2014).
Increasingly, practice research is also turning to the “nexus of practices” (Hui et al.,
2017) that form consumption in relation to a nexus of resources—such as that between
water and energy (Strengers, 2011; Strengers & Maller 2017; Strengers et al., 2014). At
times these studies drill down their analytic focus to particular nexus points such as a
cluster of related practices—for example, showering (Shove 2003) or washing (Kuijer,
Page 19 of 40
2017), doing laundry (Jack, 2013), or eating practices (Devaney & Davies, 2016)—and al
so often entail the innovative use of novel participatory, design-based, or interventionist
methodological strategies. At other times, the analytic focus is on those nexus points that
are materialized in the infrastructures of everyday life—such as the nexus of food and en
ergy in the case of the domestic freezer (Hand & Shove, 2007; Southerton & Shove, 2000),
or energy and water in the (potentially digital) washing machine (Bourgeois et al., 2014).
This latter focus on everyday materialities is where the relationship between the focus on
practices and the focus on (digital) technological networks is most significant—whether
that is cast in terms of the “infrastructures of consumption” (van Vliet et al., 2005), or the
“socio-technical networks” of humans and non-humans in Actor-Network Theory (ANT)
research, for example in water (Sofoulis, 2005; Sofoulis & Williams, 2008) or energy
(Strengers, 2012).
In this regard then, practice theories are particularly well-situated to explore multi-di
mensional phenomena such as a WEF nexus (Hui, Shove, & Schatzki, 2017) across over
lapping social contexts and multiple scales. Therefore, while not without its critics
(Cairns & Krzywoszynska, 2016), and despite its potential limitations and partialities
(Taherzadeh, Bithell, & Richards, 2018), the notion of a WEF nexus of resource interde
pendencies could potentially provide a recursive lens alongside practice theories to un
derstand domestic resource use. The focus on materiality—associated significant tech
nologies and infrastructures—simultaneously provides a lens through which to view po
tential emerging interdependencies between digital systems, local practices, and (p. 203)
resource infrastructures. Such arguments are particularly congruent with a consideration
of socio-technical systems and “actor-networks.”
Actor-network approaches share practice theory’s concern with paying attention to the
materialities within which embodied human beings are embedded—the things/objects and
technologies through which humans act and interact in the world. In HCI most broadly,
this therefore involves understanding human-social relationships as co-constitutive of hu
man-computer/object relationships in the context of digitally mediated social processes.
In the case of Sustainable HCI, where the focus is simultaneously environmental, the con
sideration of digital networks-and/as-things is coupled with a consideration of physical-re
sources-as-things, and humans interact with both.
In ANT, identifying the actors in any relation is a primary endeavor—importantly, as al

ready noted, actors can be both human and non-human. Humans are only one set of enti
ties (alongside objects and technologies) that act and interact in relation to humans and
to each other, meaning that in ANT, “things” such as digital technology systems, and
physical resource distribution and consumption systems, have equivalent agency as the
humans they shape and are shaped by. Such agentic actors are thereafter themselves em
bedded in networks—the normative organizational systems (or assemblages) that asso
ciate actor-entities with each other across relational domains (Akrich, 1992; Latour, 2000;
Suchman, 2006; Taylor, 2015). The socio-technical systems described by ANT are in many
ways recursive with theories of practice, with the additional emphasis on the agencies of
Page 20 of 40
non-humans as well as humans—and both are currently widely employed in both the envi
ronmental social sciences and HCI literatures.
Revisiting Sustainable HCI in a WEF Context

It is within the assemblages of human practices and non-human agencies described by
practice and actor-network theories that the relationship between empirical research in
environmental social science and HCI is at its strongest. This is not least because digital
technologies increasingly comprise one of the most important infrastructures that under
pin our everyday material and social lives in the context of both the household and the ur
ban landscape. On the one hand, there are those environmental social science studies of
household resource consumption that have been embedded in innovative methods and in
terdisciplinary collaborations with engineering and computer science colleagues—such as
Pink’s (and collaborators’) studies of household energy use combining ethnographic ex
ploration of practices with the use of digital sensors to quantitatively measure consump
tion (Pink, 2011; Pink & Leder Makley, 2012; Pink et al., 2013; see also Coughlan et al.,
2013). On the other hand, practitioners and designers situated firmly in HCI as an inter-
discipline have increasingly used an extremely broad mixture (p. 204) of (often digitally
based) methods to understand practice-based consumption within the home (and at times
intervene in it – see Mitchell et al., 2015).
Smart meters, and digital technologies such as (still and video) cameras and/or sensor ar
rays, have all been variously deployed to both measure and understand resource-related
domestic practices. Larrabee Sønderlund et al. (2014), for example, explore and review
the different types of smart metering of water and their associated user feedback sys
tems, whilst with respect to food, Ganglbauer (2013) introduced—in addition to inter
views and home tours—a “FridgeCam” within households to record the situated practices
of food waste (see also Ganglbauer et al., 2013). The FridgeCam consisted of a mobile
phone camera attached to the refrigerator door capturing images automatically when ac
tivated by refrigerator door-opening. The captured images were then further uploaded to
a Facebook site to be shared amongst interested parties, which encouraged the social me
dia discussion of “appropriate” or “inappropriate” practices leading to food waste and/or
its mitigation (to supplement the narrative data from participants in interviews and
tours). Through these (digitally based) “technology probe” methods, Ganglbauer et al.’s
study therefore sought to utilize practice theory to “design strategies to support dis
persed as well as integrated food practices” (2013, p. 1)—that is, to explore how digital
technologies might be deployed to understand, intervene in, and feed back to users on
the assemblages of practices associated with their preservation, preparation, consump
tion and disposal of food to mitigate against waste. Ganglbauer et al.’s research therefore
echoed Comber and Thieme’s (2012) earlier study that developed a similar technology in
tervention in the form of a “BinCam” (a mobile phone capturing images when triggered
by the bin [garbage] lid, capturing still images), while additionally also instituting an on
Page 21 of 40
line community amongst their study participants to discuss the practices concerned
(Thieme et al., 2012).
It is only more recently that Sustainable HCI research has come to focus explicitly on
WEF relationships—the ways that resources and their associated practices and networks
of actors in the domestic sphere are interrelated and mutually dependent—rather than fo
cusing simply or intensively on single resources. For example, with respect to food and
energy research in HCI, Clear et al. (2013) introduced a “cooker cam” to explore prac
tices of cooking within shared student accommodation—focusing on both energy and
food. The aim of this study was to uncover the observable mundane, ubiquitous, and ha
bitual practices of food preparation at the site of the cooker (stove/range) within student-
shared households, amongst a demographic where design interventions might have a sig
nificant impact in transitional life stages. The “cooker cam” consisted of a motion-trig
gered wildlife trail camera mounted above the cooker (dubbed the “hobcam”), capturing
still images every 30 seconds when motion-activated. This was supplemented with data
from real-time energy smart meter readings for each cooking session recorded, and fur
ther supplemented with interview narratives on the experiential process and meaning of
cooking. Such multiple methods uncovered several potential directions for innovative de
sign interventions, including various smart/digital modifications to cooking appliances,
the possibilities of encouraging communal organization of food responsibility and sociali
ty via the design of mobile and social media applications or (p. 205) add-ons, or developing
digital tools to render the carbon intensity of particular foods and their preparation more
accessible and transparent to users, encouraging less energy-intensive diets (see also
Clear et al., 2016; Hupfeld & Rodden, 2012).
In the case of water and energy, Chetty et al. (2008) focused on “in the moment” house
hold resource consumption to map the relative “visibility” of resources and their infra
structures to participants in the course of their consumption practices. The aim of the
study was to develop digital display and control system tools, both for reflection and en
gagement, and to support and underpin the management of domestic resource consump
tion based on current management practices, technology use, and interaction with out
side stakeholders. Using home tours, semi-structured interviews and (digital image-
based) visual methods, the findings of the study underlined the importance of household
ers’ understandings of domestic utility systems, or more likely, their invisibility in the
practice of everyday life. The design interventions considered on the basis of the research
findings therefore focussed towards ways of making the production of water and energy
more visible and available to consumers via domestic digital toolkits (at the same time as
providing comparative and “benchmarking” consumption information at different urban,
regional and national scales). The intervention thus accounted for both diversity and in
equality in the design of those digital systems, and supported more collective as well as
individual agency in “green” behaviour change via those same tools.
In a similar vein to Chetty et al., Strengers (2011) draws explicitly on both practice theo
ries and concepts in socio-technical networks to explore the potential role of digital feed
back systems in encouraging sustainable water and energy consumption. Her review of
Page 22 of 40
different approaches and empirical strategies draw on research derived via methodolo
gies variously including ethnographic interviews and home tours as well as the deploy
ment of digital technologies. The digital systems explored include In-Home Displays
(IHDs) and smart meters of a range of different types, from visualization tools to render
real-time consumption visible, to the intersection of digital information systems with what
are considered “negotiable” or “non-negotiable” domestic practices. Strengers (2011, p.
319) concludes from her comparative review of different digital systems that digital feed
back mechanisms
have the potential to legitimize particular practices and to overlook those consid
ered non-negotiable … IHDs [In-Home Displays] can play a role in making socio-
technical systems of energy and water provision more relevant to householders’
everyday lives, and in questioning and debating non-negotiable practices. This will
necessitate repositioning and blurring the roles and responsibilities of resource
providers and consumers.
As Strengers’ study indicates, both HCI and social science studies focussed on practices
through the deployment and use of digital technologies remain commonly oriented to
wards the development of (digital) tools for persuasion towards “behaviour change”—the
Sustainable HCI position of “sustainability through design” (Butler et al., 2016; Paddock,
2017; Thieme et al., 2012). It is this model of “persuasion” or “behaviour (p. 206)
change”—alongside debates over the conceptualization of “agency,” the material organi
zation of “consumption” processes or “sustainability” itself—that remain at the heart of
contemporary theory and empirical research design in Sustainable HCI. As such, Sustain
able HCI is playing a crucial and expanding role in the politics of ways of being digital.
Conclusion: Resource Sustainability, Re

silience, and Security
There is no doubt that living in a digital age is transforming the ways that human beings
relate to their environments, particularly with respect to the exploitation, use, transfor
mation, and consumption of natural resources. This is especially the case if we are to un
derstand the centrally important role of the household in resource consumption. The key
to the evolution of empirical practice in contemporary Sustainable HCI research is the
recognition of complexity across multiple social scales, whether that is in the complexity
of resource interdependencies (found in WEF Nexus thinking), or in the complexity of the
human consumption of them via digitally based resource measurement, feedback, and
management systems at the household level (in Practice and Network thinking).
Throughout the chapter, we have sought to review the approaches relevant to the devel
opment of Sustainable HCI, and evaluate the ways that they inform current empirical
studies in the field focussed towards domestic resource consumption. The preceding sec
tions reviewed the frameworks that have underpinned contemporary social science re
search on the relationships between humans and their digital and natural environments.
Page 23 of 40
Such frameworks have variously focussed on: structural-level variables such as political
economy and facets of globalization; social psychological approaches encompassing indi
vidual behaviours, attitudes, values, norms and lifestyles; and mid-level theories focussed
on practices that attempt to connect relational processes across different scales of social
organization. As part of this latter discussion, we have also reviewed the focus on digital
materiality that is common to both theories of practices and to frameworks derived from
STS such as Actor-Network Theory.
Throughout this discussion, several further salient conceptualizations of social processes

have come into play—including those relating to “consumption” and “sustainability,” as
well as those concerning “structure,” “agency.” and “social change.” These latter concep
tualizations have become particularly important as environmental crises intensify, and po
tential digital solutions to expansive resource consumption are sought via Sustainable
HCI. It becomes apparent throughout recent Sustainable HCI theory and research that in
order to understand the complexity involved in these landscapes of embedded digital net
works—multiple and overlapping configurations of humans and non-humans, of struc
tures and systems, within assembled networks of actions and (p. 207) interactions—we
need to pay attention simultaneously to the material as well as the discursive forms of
knowledge and power that situate practices in socio-technical systems, and which enable
some digital ways of being to the exclusion of others. Such understandings underpin any
attempts within Sustainable HCI to inform, transform, and influence human-resource rela
tionships.
Certainly digital technologies as they are empirically deployed in HCI studies might help
us to further understand the digital-physical-social webs of relationship within house
holds. How the results of that research are communicated in the public sphere is also of
import, given the scale of current environmental challenges. An overly emphatic focus on
“behaviour change” via digital systems might, however, also have unintended conse
quences, running the risk of unequally marginalising some already vulnerable popula
tions:
In contrast to aspirational claims for a “smart utopia” of greener, less energy in
tensive, and more comfortable homes currently present in market and policy dis
courses, we argue that SHTs [Smart Home Technologies] may reinforce unsustain
able energy consumption patterns in the residential sector, are not easily accessi
ble by vulnerable consumers, and do little to help the “energy poor” secure ade
quate and affordable access to energy at home.
(Tirado Herrero et al., 2018, p. 65)
While Sustainable HCI is therefore able—to some extent—to intervene positively toward
behaviour change, some argue that any influence derived from such interventions is not
straightforward, nor is it unproblematic (Burchell, Rettie, & Roberts, 2016). Demograph
ic, socio-economic, and life-cycle factors all have an impact on values, lifestyles, and con
sumption. Similarly, routine, habit, affect, and the meaning of home can also vary signifi
cantly amongst and between populations. Therefore any potential interventions are there
Page 24 of 40
fore likely to have extensively variable and uneven effects (Watson, 2017). There is there
fore also the question as to whether Sustainable HCI research currently only reaches
populations already positively oriented towards the environmental issues under scrutiny
(Vassileva et al., 2013).
If HCI recognizes that digital technologies are imbricated in “the domestic”—and domes
tic resource practices—in the complex assemblages outlined earlier, it is unsurprising
that the question of digital persuasion towards sustainabilities remains contested in the
HCI literature and beyond. Innovative approaches drawing on practice theory and ANT
have expanded the units and scales of analysis in Sustainable HCI to encompass a variety
of different forms of possible influence, such as the recognition of mutual or collective re
sponsibilities for sustainable consumption across different organization and civic scales.
For example, supermarkets/food providers and households could each be digitally linked
in local communities to hold collective responsibility for sustainable food provision.
It is for such reasons that there has been a movement within Sustainable HCI debates to
explicitly focus on digital “politics” (broadly defined) towards sustainability. In a timely
contribution, Dourish (2010, p. 8) adds a final and crucial consideration to any (p. 208)
characterization of environmentally oriented HCI as a broad field of endeavor—“the poli
tics of design and the design of politics.” According to Dourish (2010, p. 8), Sustainable
HCI must become more explicitly and self-consciously “political”; that is, he is making
an attempt to dismantle design as an anti-politics machine. Political, social, cultur

al, economic, and historical contexts have critical roles to play, not only because
they shape our experience with information technologies, but also, and even more,
because information technologies in contemporary life are sites at which these
contexts are themselves developing.
Such approaches hold the potential to help us further understand how digital technolo
gies and the projects of Sustainable HCI might mediate the relationships between physi
cal resources, things, systems, people, their knowledge, skills, and activities. This under
standing might move us closer to resource security and resilience, and sustainable ways
of being in a digital age.
References
Abdul Salam, P., Shrestha, S., Prasad Pandey, P., & Kumar Anal, A. (2017). Water-energy-
food nexus: Principles and practices. Hoboken, NJ: American Geophysical Union, Wiley.
doi:10.1002/9781119243175.
Advani, A., Johnson, P., Leicester, A., & Stoye, G. (2013). Household energy use in the UK:
A distributional analysis. IFS Report R85, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
Akrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In W. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.),
Shaping technology, building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 205–224).
Page 25 of 40
American Psychological Association (APA). (2018). APA Dictionary of Psychology. Ameri

can Psychological Association, https://dictionary.apa.org/behavior.
Appadurai, A. (Ed.) (1988). The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arroyo, E., Bonanni, L., & Selker, T. (2005). Waterbot: Exploring feedback and persuasive
techniques at the sink. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in
computing systems (pp. 631–639). Portland, OR: ACM. doi:10.1145/1054972.1055059.
Bang, M., Gustafsson, A., & Katzeff, C. (2007). Promoting new patterns in household en
ergy consumption with pervasive learning games. In Proceedings of the international con
ference on persuasive technology, Persuasive 2007, LNCS 4744 (pp. 55–63).
Barac, M., & McFadyen, L. (2007). Connected space. Home Cultures, 4(2), 109–115.
Barr, S. (2003). Are we all environmentalists now? Rhetoric and reality in environmental
action. Geoforum, 35, 231–249. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2003.08.009.
Barr, S. (2006). Environmental action in the home: Investigating the “value-action” gap.
Geography, 91(1), 43–54.
Barr, S. (2016). Environment and society: Sustainability, policy and the citizen. London:
Routledge.
Barr, S., & Gilg, A. (2006). Sustainable lifestyles: Framing environmental action in and
around the home. Geoforum, 37, 906–920. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2006.05.002.
Barr, S., Gilg, A., & Shaw, G. (2011a). “Helping People Make Better Choices”: Exploring
the behaviour change agenda. Applied Geography, 31, 712–720. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.
2010.12.003.
Barr, S., Gilg, A., & Shaw, G. (2011b). Citizens, consumers and sustainability: (Re) Fram
ing environmental practice in an age of climate change. Global Environment Change, 21,
1224–1233. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.07.009
Beddington, J. (2009). Food, energy, water and the climate: A perfect storm of global
events. In Lecture to Sustainable development UK conference. https://
assets.letemps.ch/sites/default/files/media/2014/03/19/2.1.3041002903.pdf
Bhaduri, A., Ringler, C., Dombrowski, I., Mohtar, R., & Scheumann, W. (2015). Sustainabil
ity in the water-energy-food nexus. Water International, 40(5–6), 723–732.
Blevis, E. (2007). Sustainable interaction design: Invention, disposal, renewal & reuse. In
Proceedings of SIGGCHI 2007 ACM annual conference on human factors in computing
Systems (pp. 503–512). ACM.
Page 26 of 40
Bonino, D., Corno, F., & De Russis, L. (2012). Home Energy Consumption Feed
(p. 210)
back: A User Survey. Energy and Buildings, 47, 383–393. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.
2011.12.017.
Boucher, A., Cameron, D., & Jarvis, N. (2012). Power to the people: Dynamic energy mea
surement through communal cooperation. In Proceedings of the designing interactive sys
tems conference (pp. 612–620). June 11–15, Newcastle, UK.
Bourgeois, J., van der Linden, J., Kourtuem, G., Price, B. A., & Rimmer, C. (2014). Conver
sations with my washing machine: An in-the-wild study of demand shifting with self-gen
erated energy. Proceeding of ubiquitous computing conference, UBICOMP. September
11–13, Seattle, Washington. doi:10.1145/2632048.2632106.
Burchell, K., Rettie, R., & Roberts, T. (2016). Householder engagement with energy con
sumption feedback: The role of community action and communications. Energy Policy, 88,
178–186. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2015.10.019.
Burgess, J., Bedford, T., Hobson, K., Davies, G., & Harrison, C. M. (2003). (Un)sustainable
consumption. In F. Berkhout, M. Leach, & I. Scoones (Eds.), Negotiating environmental
change: New perspectives from social science (chapter 10). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Butler, C., Parkhill, K., & Pidgeon, N. (2016). Energy consumption and everyday life:
Choice, values and agency through a practice theoretical lens. Journal of Consumer Cul
ture, 16(3), 887–907. doi:10.1177/1469540514553691.
Brynjarsdottir, H., Håkansson, M., Pierce, J., Baumer, E., DiSalvo, C., & Sengers, P.
(2012). Sustainably unpersuaded: How persuasion narrows our vision of sustainability. In
Proceedings of the SIGGCHI 2012 ACM annual conference on human factors in comput
ing systems (pp. 947–956). ACM.
Cairns, R., & Krzywoszynska, A. (2016). Anatomy of a buzzword: The emergence of “the
water-energy-food nexus” in UK natural resource debates. Environmental Science and
Policy, 64, 164–170. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2016.07.007.
Callon, M. (Ed.) (1998). The laws of the markets. Oxford: Blackwell.
Casado-Mansilla, D., López-de-Armentia, J., Ventura, D., Garaizar, P., & López-de-Ipiña, D.
(2016). Embedding intelligent eco-aware systems within everyday things to increase
people’s energy awareness. In Soft Computing, 20(5), 1695–1711.
Chetty, M., Tran, D., & Grinter, R. (2008). Getting to green: Understanding resource con
sumption in the home. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on ubiquitous
computing, UbiComp (pp. 242–251). September 21–24. doi:10.1145/1409635.1409668.
Chitnis, M., Sorrell, S., Druckman, A., Firth, S. K., & Jackson, T. (2013). Turning lights in
to flights: Estimating direct and indirect rebound effects for UK households. Energy Poli
cy, 55, 234–250. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.12.008.
Page 27 of 40
Chitnis, M., Sorrell, S., Druckman, A., Firth, S. K., & Jackson, T. (2014). Who rebounds
most? Estimating direct and indirect rebound effects for different UK socioeconomic
groups. Ecological Economics, 106, 12–32. doi:10.1016/j.ecoecon.2014.07.003.
Clear, A., Hazas, M., Morley, J., Friday, A., & Bates, O. (2013). Domestic food and sustain
able design: A study of university student cooking and its impacts. Proceedings of the
SIGCHI Conference on human factors in computing systems. Paris, France, April 27-May
2, 2013. doi: 10.1145/2470654.2481339.
Clear, A. K., O’Neill, K., Friday, A. & Hazas, M. (2016). Bearing an open “Pandora’s box”:
HCI for reconciling everyday food and sustainability. ACM Transactions on Computer-Hu
man Interaction, 23(5), Article 28, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2970817.
Connolly, J., & Prothero, A. (2008). Green consumption: Life politics, risk and contradic
tions. Journal of Consumer Culture, 8(1), 117–146. doi: 10.1177/1469540507086422.
Crivits, M., & Paredis, E. (2013). Designing an explanatory practice framework:

(p. 211)
Local Food systems as a case. Journal of Consumer Culture, 13(3), 306–336. doi:
10.1177/1469540513484321.
Colucci, A., Magoni, M., & Menoni, S. (Eds.) (2017). Peri-urban areas and food-energy-wa
ter nexus: Sustainability and resilience strategies in the age of climate change. Switzer
land: Springer.
Comber, R., & Thieme, A. (2012). Designing beyond habit: Opening space for improved
recycling and food waste behaviours through processes of persuasion, social influence
and aversive affect. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 17(6), 1197–1210. doi:10.1007/
s00779-012-0587-1.
Constanza, E., Ramchurn, S. D., & Jennings, N. (2012). Understanding domestic energy
consumption through interactive visualization: A field study. Proceedings of ubiquitous
computing conference, UbiComp (pp. 216–225). September 5–8, Pittsburgh, PA.
Coughlan, T., Leder Mackley, K., Brown, M., Martindale, S., Schlögl, S., Mallaband, B., …
Hine, N. (2013). Current issues and future directions in methods for studying technology
in the home. PsychNology Journal, 11(2), 159–184. Retrieved 15/02/2019, from
www.psychnology.org.
Dant, T. (1999). Material culture in the social world. Buckingham, UK: Open University
Press.
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [DBEIS]. (2018a). Energy con
sumption in the UK. July 2018. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/
uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/729317/
Energy_Consumption_in_the_UK__ECUK__2018.pdf.
Page 28 of 40
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [DBEIS]. (2018b). Digest of
United Kingdom energy statistics [DUKES]: 2018 Main Report. July 2018. https://
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/729425/DUKES_2018.pdf.
Devaney, L., & Davies, A. (2016). Disrupting household food consumption through experi
mental HomeLabs: Outcomes, connections, contexts. Journal of Consumer Culture, 17(3),
823–844. doi:10.1177/1469540516631153.
DiSalvo, C., Sengers, P., & Brynjarsdóttir, H. (2010). Mapping the landscape of sustain
able HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing sys
tems (pp. 1975–1984). ACM.
DiSalvo, C., Sengers, P., & Brynjarsdóttir, H. (2010a). Navigating the terrain of sustain
able HCI. interactions, July-August 2010, 22–25. doi: 10.1145/1806491.1806497.
Dourish, P. (2010). HCI and environmental sustainability: the politics of design and the
design of politics. In DIS 10: Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Inter
active Systems (pp. 1–10). doi: 10/1145/1858171.1858173.
Druckman, A., Chitnis, C., Sorrell, S., & Jackson, T. (2011). Missing carbon reductions?
Exploring rebound and backfire effects in UK households. Energy Policy, 39, 3572–3581.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.058.
Energy Saving Trust. (2013). At home with water. Energy Saving Trust, Department for
Energy and Climate Change, Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs. http://
www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/reports/
AtHomewithWater%287%29.pdf.
Energy Saving Trust. (2014). At home with water 2. Technical Report. Energy Saving
Trust. http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/reports/
AHHW2%20final.pdf.
Erickson, T., Podlaseck, M., Sahu, S., Dai, J. D., Chao, T., & Naphade, M. (2012). The
Dubuque water portal: Evaluation of the uptake, use and impact of residential water con
sumption feedback. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in com
puting systems (pp. 675–684). ACM.
Evans, D. (2011a). Consuming conventions: Sustainable consumption, ecological citizen

ship and the worlds of worth. Journal of Rural Studies, 27, 109–115. doi:10.1016/
j.rurstud.2011.02.002.
Evans, D. (2011b). Thrifty, green or frugal: Reflections on sustainable consump

(p. 212)
tion in a changing economic climate. Geoforum, 42, 550–557. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.

2011.03.008.
Evans, D., & Abrahamse, W. (2009). Beyond rhetoric: The possibilities of and for “sustain
able lifestyles.” Environmental Politics, 18(4), 486–502. doi:10.1080/09644010903007369.
Page 29 of 40
Farr-Wharton, G., Hee-Jeong Choi, J., & Foth, M. (2014a). Food talks back: Exploring the
role of mobile applications in reducing domestic food wastage. In Proceedings of the 26th
Australian computer-human interaction conference on designing futures: The future of
design (pp. 352–361). ACM. doi:10.1145/2686612.2686665.
Farr-Wharton, G., Hee-Jeong Choi, J., & Foth, M. (2014b). Technicolouring the fridge: Re
ducing food waste through uses of colour-coding and cameras. In Proceedings of the 13th
international conference on mobile and ubiquitous multimedia (pp. 48–57). ACM. doi:
10.1145/2677972.2677990.
Fischer, C. (2008). Feedback on household electricity consumption: A tool for saving ener
gy? Energy Efficiency, 1(1), 79–104. doi:10.1007/s12053-008-9009-7.
Foster, D., Lawson, S., Blythe, M., & Cairns, P. (2010). Wattsup? Motivating reductions in
domestic energy consumption using social networks. In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic
conference on human-computer interaction: Extending boundaries (pp. 178–187). ACM.
doi:10.1145/1868914.1868938.
Froehlich, J. (2009). Promoting energy efficient behaviors in the home through feedback:
The role of human computer interaction. In Proceedings of HCIC workshop (pp. 1–11).
http://www.cs.umd.edu/~jonf/publications/
Froehlich_PromotingEnergyEfficientBehavirosInTheHomeThroughFeedback-
TheRoleOfHumanComputerInteraction_HCIC2009.pdf.
Froehlich, J., Findlater, L., & Landay, J. (2010). The design of eco-feedback technology. In
Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1999–
2008). ACM. http://www.cs.umd.edu/~jonf/publications/
Froehlich_TheDesignOfEcoFeedbackTechnology_CHI2010.pdf.
Froehlich, J., Findlater, L., Ostergren, M., Ramanathan, S., Peterson, J., Wragg, I., Larson,
E., Fu, F., Bai, M., & Patel, S. (2012). The design and evaluation of prototype ecofeedback
displays for fixture-level water usage data. In Proceedings of SIGCHI 2010 conference on
human factors in computing systems (pp. 2367–2376). April 10–15, Atlanta, GA. ACM.
Gabrielson, T., Hall, C., Meyer, J. M., & Schlosberg, D. (Eds.) (2016). The Oxford handbook
of environmental political theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gamberini, L., Spagnolli, A., Corradi, N., Jacucci, G., Tusa, G., Mikkola, T., Zamboni, L., &
Hoggan, E. (2012). Tailoring feedback to users’ actions in a persuasive game for house
hold electricity conservation. In Proceedings of the international conference on persua
sive technology (pp. 100–111). Centre for eHealth & Wellbeing Research, Department of
Psychology, Health and Technology, University of Twente, The Netherlands.
Ganglbauer, E. (2013). Towards food waste interventions: An exploratory approach. In

Proceedings of the 2013 ACM conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing. Ad
junct publication (pp. 337–342). ACM.
Page 30 of 40
Ganglbauer, E., Fitzpatrick, G., & Comber, R. (2013). Negotiating food waste: Using a
practice lens to inform design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 20(2),
Art. 11. doi:10.1145/2463579.2463582.
Gatersleben, B., Murtagh, N., & Abrahamse, W. (2014). Values, identity and pro-environ
mental behaviour. Contemporary Social Science, 9(4), 374–392. doi:
10.1080/21582041.2012.682086.
Genus, A., & Jensen, C. (2019). Beyond “behaviour”: The institutionalisation of practice
and the case of energy-efficient lighting in Denmark. Journal of Consumer Culture, 19(3),
1–19. doi:10.1177/1469540517717781.
Gilg, A., Barr, S., & Ford, N. (2005). Green consumption or sustainable lifestyles?
(p. 213)
Identifying the sustainable consumer. Futures, 37(6), 481–504. doi:10.1016/j.futures.

2004.10.016.
Goodman, E. (2009). Three environmental discourses in human-computer interaction. In

CHI 2009 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2535–2544).
Boston, MA: ACM. doi:10.1145/1520340.1520358.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embedded
ness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.
Halkier, B., Katz-Gerro, T., & Martens, L. (2011). Applying practice theory to the study of
consumption: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Journal of Consumer Cul
ture, 11(1), 3–13. doi:10.1177/1469540510391765.
Hand, M., & Shove, E. (2007). Condensing practices: Ways of living with a freezer. Journal
of Consumer Culture, 7(1), 79–104. doi:10.1177/1469540507073509.
Harper, R. (ed.) (2003). Inside the smart home. London: Springer.
Hazas, M., Friday, A., & Scott, J. (2011). Look back before leaping forward: of domestic
energy inquiry. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 10, 13–19.
Hee-Jeong Choi, J., & Blevis, E. (2010). HCI & sustainable food culture: A design frame
work for engagement. In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic conference on human-computer
interaction: Extending boundaries (pp. 112–117). ACM.
Hitchings, R. (2004). At home with someone nonhuman. Home Cultures, 1(2), 169–186.
Hobson, K. (2002). Competing discourses of sustainable consumption: Does the rationali

sation of lifestyles make sense? Environmental Politics, 11(2), 95–119. doi:
10.1080/714000601.
Horta, A., Wilhite, H., Schmidt, L., & Bartiaux, F. (2014). Socio-technical and cultural ap
proaches to energy consumption. Nature and Culture, 9(2), 115–121. doi: 10.3167/nc.
2014.090201.
Page 31 of 40
Hui, A., Shove, E., & Schatzki, T. (2017). The nexus of practices: Connections, constella
tions, practitioners. London: Routledge.
Hui, A., & Walker, G. (2018). Concepts and methodologies for a new relational geography
of energy demand: Social practices, doing-places and setting. Energy Research and Social
Science, 36, 21–29. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.032.
Hupfeld, A., & Rodden, T. (2012). Laying the table for HCI: Uncovering ecologies of do
mestic food consumption. In Proceedings of the SIG conference on human factors in com
puting systems (pp. 119–128). May 05–10, 2012, Austin, Texas: ACM. doi:
10.1145/2207676.2207694.
Jack, T. (2013). Nobody was dirty: Intervening in inconspicuous consumption of laundry

routines. Journal of Consumer Culture, 13(3), 406–421. doi:10.1177/1469540513485272.
Jackson, T. (2008). Challenges for sustainable consumption policy. In T. Jackson. (Ed.), The
Earthscan reader in sustainable consumption (pp. 109–129). London: Earthscan. doi:
10.1111/j.1530–9290.2008.00023.x.
Kalbar, P. P., Birkved, M., Hauschile, M., Kabin, S., & Elsborg Nygaard, S. (2018). Environ
mental impact of urban consumption patterns: Drivers and focus points. Resources, Con
servation and Recycling, 137, 260–269. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.06.019.
Kalbar, P. P., Birkved, M., Kabins, S., Nygaard, S. E. (2016). Personal-metabolism (PM)
coupled with life cycle assessment (LCA) model: Danish case study. Environment Interna
tional, 91, 168–179. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2016.02.032.
Kappel, K., & Grechenig, T. (2009). Show-me: Water consumption at a glance to promote
water conservation in the shower. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on
persuasive technology (Art. 26). April 26–29, Claremont, California. ACM. doi:
10.1145/1541948.1541984.
Katz-Gerro, T., Greenspan, I., Handy, F., & Hoon-Young, L. (2017). The relationship be
tween value types and environmental behaviour in four countries: Universalism, benevo
lence, (p. 214) conformity and biospheric values revisited. Environmental Values, 26(2),
223–249. doi:10.3197/096327117X14847335385599.
Kenway, S. J., Lant, P. A., Priestley, A., & Daniels, P. (2011). The connection between water
and energy in cities: A review. Water Science and Technology. 63, 1983–1990. doi:
10.2166/wst.2011.070.
Kuijer, L. (2017). Splashing: The iterative development of a novel type of personal wash
ing. In D. Keyson., O. Guerra-Santin, & D. Lockton (Eds.), Living labs: Design and assess
ment of sustainable living (pp. 63–74). Switzerland: Springer. doi:
10.1007/978-3-319-33,527-8.
Page 32 of 40
Kuznetsov, S., & Paulos, E. (2010). UpStream: Motivating water conservation with low-
cost water flow sensing and persuasive displays. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI confer
ence on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1851–1860). April 10–15, 2010, Atlanta,
Georgia. ACM. doi:10.1145/1753326.1753604.
Larrabee Sønderlund, A., Smith, J. R., Hutton, C., & Kapelan, Z. (2014). Using smart me
ters for household water consumption feedback: Knowns and unknowns. Procedia Engi
neering. 89, 990–997. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2014.11.216.
Latour, B. (2000). When things strike back: A possible contribution of “science studies” to
the social sciences. British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 107–123.
Liu, A., Giurco, D., & Mukheibir, P. (2015). Motivating metrics for household water-use
feedback. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 103, 29–46. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.
2015.05.008.
Maheshwari, B., Purohit, R., Malano, H., Singh, V. P., & Amerasinghe, P. (Eds.) (2014). The
security of water, food, energy and liveability of cities: Challenges and opportunities for
peri-urban futures. Dordrecht: Springer.
Mankoff, J. C., Blevis, E., Borning, A., Friedman, B., Fussell, S. R., Hasbrouck, J.,
Woodruff, A., & Sengers, P. (2007). Environmental sustainability and interaction. In Pro
ceedings of the SIGGCHI EA (pp. 2121–2124). April 28-May 03 2007, San Jose, CA. ACM.
doi:10.1145/1240866.1240963.
McGrane, S. J., Acuto, M., Artioli, F., Chen, P., Comber, R., Cottee, J., Farr-Wharton, G.,
Green, N., Helfgott, A., Larcom, S., McCann, J., O’Reilly, P., Salmoral, G., Scott, M., Tod
man, L. C., van Gevelt, T., & Yan, X. (2018). Scaling the nexus: Towards integrated frame
works for analysing water, energy and food. The Geographical Journal, 185(4) 1–13. doi:
10.1111.geoj.12256.
Miller, D. (1998). Why some things matter. In D. Miller (Ed.), Material cultures: Why some
things matter (pp. 3–21). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mitchell, V., Leder Mackley, K., Pink, S., Escobar-Tello, C., Wilson, G. T., & Bhamra, T.
(2015). Situating digital interventions: Mixed methods for HCI research in the home. In
teracting with Computers, 27(1), 3–12. doi:10.1093/iwc/iwu034
Moroşanu, R. (2016). An ethnography of household energy demand: Everyday temporali

ties of digital media usage. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, Springer Nature. doi:
10.1057/978-1-137-59,341-2.
Murtagh, N., Gatersleben, B., & Uzzell, D. (2014). Difference in energy behaviour and
conservation between and within households with electricity monitors. PLoS ONE, 9(3),
e92019, 1–12. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0092019.
Page 33 of 40
Murtagh, N., Gatersleben, B., Cowen, L., & Uzzell, D. (2015). Does perception of automa
tion undermine pro-environmental behaviour? Findings from three everyday settings.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 139–148.
Ng, K. H., Shipp, V., Mortier, R., Benford, S., Flintham, M., & Rodden, T. (2015). Under
standing food consumption lifecycles using wearable cameras. Personal and Ubiquitous
Computing, 19(7), 1183–1195. doi:10.1007/s00779-015-0871-y.
Ofwat. (2011). The use of revealed customer behaviour in future price limits: Fi
(p. 215)
nal report. Cascade Consultancy, Economics for the Environment Consultancy Ltd.
https://www.ofwat.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/rpt_com:
201105eftec_casc_reveal.pdf.
Ofwat. (2018). The long term potential for deep reduction in household water demand.
Artesia Consulting. https://www.ofwat.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/The-
long-term-potential-for-deep-reductions-in-household-water-demand-report-by-
Artesia-Consulting.pdf.
Oikonomou, V., Becchis, F., Steg, L., & Russolillo, D. (2009). Energy saving and energy ef
ficiency: Concepts for policy making. Energy Policy, 37, 4787–4796.
Oliveira, L., Mitchell, V., & May, A. (2016). Reducing temporal tensions as a strategy to
promote sustainable behaviours. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 303–315. doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.004.
Owen, L., Bramley, H., & Tocock, J. (2009). Public understanding of sustainable water use
in the home. Final Report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Synovate, DEFRA: London.
Paddock, J. (2017). Household consumption and environmental change: Rethinking the

policy problem through narratives of food practice. Journal of Consumer Culture, 17(1),
122–139. doi:10.1177/1469540515586869.
Palmer, J., & Terry, N. (2014). Powering the nation 2: Electricity use in homes and how to
reduce it. Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), Department for Environ
ment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/gov
ernment/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/325741/
Powering_the_Nation_2_260614.pdf.
Pierce, J., Odom, W., & Blevis, E. (2008). Energy aware dwelling: A critical survey of inter
action design for eco-visualizations. In Proceedings of the 20th Australasian conference
on computer-human interaction: Designing for habitus and habitat (pp. 1–8). December
08–12, Cairns, Australia. ACM. doi:10.1145/1517744.1517746.
Pink, S. (2011). Ethnography of the invisible: Energy in the multi-sensory home. Enthnolo
gia Europeae: Journal of European Ethnology, 41(1), 117–128.
Page 34 of 40
Pink, S., & Leder Mackley, K. (2012). Video and a sense of the invisible: Approaching do
mestic energy consumption through the sensory home. Sociological Research Online, 17(1,
3). http://www.socresonline.org.uk/17/1/3.html. doi: 10.5153/sro.2583.
Pink, S., Mackley, K., Mitchell, V., Hanratty, M., Escobar-Tello, C., Bhamra, T., & Mo
roşanu, R. (2013). Applying the lens of sensory ethnography to sustainable HCI. ACM
Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 20(4), 1–18.
Polanyi, K. (1944/1957). The great transformation. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Pullinger, M., Browne, A., Anderson, B., & Medd, W. (2013). Patterns of water: The water
related practices of households in southern England, and their influence on water con
sumption and demand management. Final report of the ARCC-Water/SPRG Patterns of
Water projects March 2013. http://www.sprg.ac.uk/uploads/patterns-of-water-final-
report.pdf.
Riche, Y., Dodge, J., & Metoyer, R. A. (2010). Studying always-on electricity feedback in
the home. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing sys
tems: Home eco behavior (pp. 1995–1998). April 10–15, 2010, Atlanta, GA. ACM.
Rouillard, J. (2012). The pervasive fridge. A smart computer system against uneaten food
loss. In ICONS 2012, The seventh international conference on systems (pp. 135–140).
Saint-Gilles–Reunion.
Sahakian, M., & Wilhite, H. (2014). Making practice theory practicable: Towards more
sustainable forms of consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 14(1), 25–44. doi:
10.1177/1469540513505607.
Schwartz, T., Stevens, G., Ramirez, L., & Wulf, V. (2013). Uncovering practices of
(p. 216)
marking energy consumption accountable: A phenomenological inquiry. ACM Transac

tions in Computer-Human Interaction, 20(2), Art. 12, 1–12. doi:
10.1145/2463579.2463583.
Seyfang, G. (2006). Ecological citizenship and sustainable consumption: Examining local

organic food networks. Journal of Rural Studies, 22(4), 383–395. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.
2006.01.003.
Shove, E. (2003). Comfort, cleanliness and convenience: The social organization of nor
mality. Oxford: Berg.
Shove, E., Patzner, M. & Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life
and how it changes. London: Sage.
Shove, E., & Spurling, N. (Eds.). (2013). Sustainable practices: Social theory and climate
change. London: Routledge.
Shove, E., & Walker, G. (2014). What is energy for?: social practice and energy demand.
Theory, Culture and Society, 31(5), 41-58. doi:10.1177/0263276414536746.
Page 35 of 40
Shove, E., & Warde, A. (2002). Inconspicuous consumption: The sociology of consump
tion, lifestyles and the environment. In R. Dunlap, F. Buttel, P. Dickens, & A. Gijswijt
(Eds.), Sociological theory and the environment: Classical foundations, contemporary in
sights (pp. 230–241). Lanham, MA: Rowman and Littlefield.
Smajgl, A., Ward, J., & Pluschke, L. (2016). The water-food-energy Nexus—Realising a
new paradigm. Journal of Hydrology, 533, 533–540. doi:10.1016/j.hydrol.2015.12.033.
Sofoulis, Z. (2005). Big water, everyday water: A socio-technical perspective. Continuum:

Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 19(4), 445–463. doi:
10.1080/10304310500322685.
Sofoulis, Z., & Williams, C. (2008). From pushing atoms to growing networks: Cultural in
novation and co-evolution in urban water conservation. Social Alternatives, 27(3), 50–57.
Southerton, D. (2013). Habits, routines and temporalities of consumption: From individ

ual behaviours to the reproduction of everyday practices. Time and Society, 22(3), 335–
355. doi: 10.1177/0961463X12464228.
Southerton, D., & Shove, E. (2000). Defrosting the freezer: From novelty to convenience:
A narrative of normalization. Journal of Material Culture, 5(3), 301–319. doi:
10.1177/135918350000500303.
Spaargaren, G. (2003). Sustainable consumption: A theoretical and environmental policy

perspective. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 687–701. doi:10.1080/08941920309192.
Spaargaren, G. (2011). Theories of practices: Agency, technology and culture. Exploring

the relevance of practice theories for the governance of sustainable consumption in the
new world-order. Global Environmental Change, 21, 813–822.
Spaargaren, G., & Oosterveer, P. (2010). Citizen-consumers as agents of change in global

izing modernity: The case of sustainable consumption. Sustainability, 2(7), 1887–1908.
doi:10.3390/su2071887.
Spaargaren, G., & Van Vliet, B. (2000). Lifestyles, consumption and the environment: The
ecological modernization of domestic consumption. Environmental Politics, 9(1), 50–76.
doi:10.1080/09644010008414512
Srinivasan, V., Stankovic, J., & Whitehouse, K. (2011). Watersense: Water flow disaggrega
tion using motion sensors. In Proceedings of the third ACM workshop on embedded sens
ing systems for energy-efficiency in buildings (pp. 19–24). ACM.
Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environ

mentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424. doi:10.1111/0022–
4537.00175.
Page 36 of 40
Strengers, Y. (2011). Negotiating everyday life: The role of energy and water consump
tion feedback. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(3), 319–338. doi:
10.1177/1469540511417994.
Strengers, Y. (2012). Peak electricity demand and social practice theories: Re
(p. 217)
framing the role of change agents in the energy sector. Energy Policy, 44, 226–234. doi:
10.1016/j.enpol.2012.01.046.
Strengers, Y., & Maller, C. (2017). Adapting to “extreme” weather: Mobile practice memo
ries of keeping warm and cool as a climate change adaptation strategy. Environment and
Planning A, 49(6), 1432–1450. doi:10.1177/0308518X17694029.
Strengers, Y., Nicholls, L., & Maller, C. (2014). Curious energy consumers: Humans and
non-humans in assemblages of household practice. Journal of Consumer Culture, 16(3),
761–780. doi:10.1177/1469540514536194.
Suchman, L. (2006). Human–machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions (2nd

ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taherzadeh, O., Bithell, M., & Richards, K. (2018). When defining boundaries for nexus
analysis, let the data speak. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 137, 314–315. doi:
10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.06.012.
Taylor, A. (2015). After interaction. interactions (pp. 49–53). September-October. ACM.
Thieme, A., Comber, R., Miebach, J., Weeden, J., Kraemer, N., Lawson, S., & Olivier, P.
(2012). We’ve bin watching you: Designing for reflection and social persuasion to pro
mote sustainable lifestyles. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in
computing systems (pp. 2337–2346). May 05–10, 2012, Austin, Texas. ACM. doi:
10.1145/2207676.2208394.
Tirado Herrero, S., Nicholls, L., & Strengers, Y. (2018). Smart home technologies in
everyday life: Do they address key energy challenges in households? Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 31, 65–70. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2017.12.001.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2017a). World Population
Prospects: The 2017 Revision. Population Division, United Nations. https://www.un.org/
development/desa/publications/world-population-prospects-the-2017-
revision.html.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2017b). Sustainable Develop
ment Goals. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. https://
sustainabledevelopment.un.org/.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2018). 2018 Revision of
World Urbanization Prospects. https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/popu
lation/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html.
Page 37 of 40
Uzzell, D., Muckle, R., Jackson, T., Ogden, J., Barnett, J., Gatersleben, B., Hegarty, P., Pap
athanasopoulou, E. (2006). Choice matters: Alternative approaches to encourage sustain
able consumption and production. Project Report. Report to the Department of the Envi
ronment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Environmental Psychology Research Group,
University of Surrey, London: UK. http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/729053/.
Van Vliet, B., Chappells, H., & Shove, E. (2005). Infrastructures of consumption: Environ
mental innovation in the utility industries. Oxford: Earthscan.
Vannini, P., & Taggart, J. (2016). Onerous consumption: The alternative hedonism of off-
grid domestic water use. Journal of Consumer Culture, 16(1), 80–100. doi:
10.1177/1469540513509642.
Vassileva, I., Dahlquist, E., Wallin, F., & Campillo, J. (2013). Energy consumption feedback
devices’ impact evaluation on domestic energy use. Applied Energy, 106, 314–320. doi:
10.1016/j.apevergy.2013.01.059.
Warde, A. (2013). Sustainable practices: Social theory and climate change. London: Rout
ledge.
Warde, A. (2014). After taste: Culture, consumption and theories of practice. Journal of
Consumer Culture, 14(3), 279–303. doi: 10.1177/1469540514547828.
Watson, S. (2017). Consuming water smartly: The significance of socio-cultural

(p. 218)
differences to water-saving initiatives. Local Environment, 22(10), 1237–1251. doi:

10.1080/13549839.2017.1334143.
Wood, G., & Newborough, M. (2003). Dynamic energy-consumption indicators for domes
tic appliances: Environment, behaviour and design. Energy and Buildings, 35(8), 821–
841.
Woodruff, A. & Mankoff, J. (2009). Environmental Sustainability. IEEE Pervasive Comput

ing, 8(1), 18-21.
WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme). (2017). Household food waste in the UK,
2015. http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/
Household_food_waste_in_the_UK_2015_Report.pdf.
Wutich, A. (2009). Estimating household water use: A comparison of diary, prompted re
call and free recall methods. Field Methods, 21(1), 49–68. doi:
10.1177/1525822X08325673.
Notes:
(1.) The exemplar empirical research presented throughout the chapter citing national
statistics are derived from UK sources. Corresponding international statistics, especially
those produced by governmental bodies (or e.g., private utilities companies), can be rela
Page 38 of 40
tively easily located via the relevant corresponding national or international bodies, or via
straightforward Internet searches.
(2.) Environmental social sciences and philosophy addressing the macro-level have fo
cussed on both human-nature social relationships, as well as the salient cultural cate
gories through which those relationships are made meaningful and are understood. The
foundational theoretical literatures in environmental social sciences are extremely exten
sive, and have undergone considerable revision over the course of at least fifty years—not
least in light of feminist and post-colonial theories, and theories of globalisation. As such,
only an extremely brief indication of broad conceptual areas can be offered here, al
though those interested in reading towards further contemporary theoretical develop
ments might consult compendia readers such as Gabrielson et al. (2016).
(3.) A number of different models of persuasion towards “behaviour change” have been
proposed over time—and have also been deconstructed. For a critical review of AIDA
(Awareness-Information-Decision-Action) models, for example, see Barr (2006). For a cri
tique of 4E (Enable-Engage-Encourage-Exemplify) models, see Jackson (2006) and Spaar
garen (2011). Such models have also been adopted in different contexts—for example, in
public (often policy-generated) awareness campaigns towards “ecological citizenship,”
through to technology-driven techniques of persuasion (see chapter sections on Sustain
able HCI design and development). A key endeavor in these approaches is also identifying
“barriers to change.”
(4.) Over the past decade, the literature on “sustainable consumption” has grown rapidly,
and has entailed extensive debates not only on the conceptualization of sustainable con
sumption itself, but also the relation it bears to “consumerism” (Evans & Jackson, 2008)
and “citizenship” (Seyfang, 2016). For a review of these literatures see Jackson (2008).
(5.) Halkier, Katz-Gerro, and Martens (2011) provide a comprehensive review of the prac
tice theory literature via Bourdieu and Giddens, tracing their philosophical antecedents to
(amongst others) Durkheim, Heidegger, Husserl, Levi-Strauss, Marx, Mauss, Merleau-
Ponty, Weber, and Wittgenstein.
Nicola Green
Nicola Green is a Research Associate with the OpenLab, Newcastle University. She is
a sociologist by trade and a qualitative interdisciplinary researcher by inclination.
Her background has run the gamut of social sciences, HCI, science and technology
studies, media and cultural studies, and surveillance studies; all intersecting via
projects on digital media technologies and/or sustainabilities of various sorts. Her
projects have included work on virtual reality technologies; mobile devices and
everyday mobilities; the rise and spread of mobile data and “big data”; digital trust,
risk, and privacy; and lifestyles, consumption, and environment. Issues explored
across these projects have included embodiment and identity, organization and dis
course, popular media and culture, as well as the development of qualitative re
search methodologies and their use in both HCI research and within social sciences
Page 39 of 40
more generally—particularly in respect of ethnographic, mixed, feminist, and partici

patory methodologies.
Rob Comber
Rob Comber is a human-computer interaction researcher working at the Swedish In

stitute for Computing Science at RI.SE, where he is an ERCIM Fellow. His research
explores the ethics, methods, and tools to promote citizen participation in social and
civic issues. His current research examines topics such as activism, citizen science,
community education, and food and technology, all through a lens of designing for
community.
Sharron Kuznesof
Sharron Kuznesof is a Senior Lecturer and applied qualitative social scientist work
ing in an interdisciplinary environment in the School of Natural and Environmental
Sciences, Newcastle University. Her research focuses on conceptual exploration of
the behaviors and practices of food consumers and innovative research methods to
support that endeavor. Related research includes Food Standards Agency–funded re
search with HCI staff at Newcastle University’s OpenLab to examine domestically sit
uated food safety practices.
Page 40 of 40
ESRC Review: Communication and Relationships

Simeon J. Yates, Rich Ling, Laura Robinson, Catherine Brooks, Adam Joinson,
Monica Whitty, and Elinor Carmi
This chapter explores the outcomes of the literature review and expert Delphi review
process for the communication and relationships domain. The initial scoping question—
How are our relationships being shaped and sustained in and between various domains,
including family and work?—was considered too broad. So we instead focus on five cate
gories and associated questions articulated by the Delphi process, concerning digital lit
eracies, norms and values, platform affordances, quality of relationships and communica
tion, and relationship management. The most frequent topics emerging from the litera
ture analysis included friends, media, pair, group, adolescent, phone, communication, re
lationship, time, and medium. Over time the most frequent topic pairs shifted from focus
ing on relationships, pair/tie/link, communication, medium, and work, to more specific
media such as Facebook and related terms such as user, network, and friend. Three main
themes emerged from the literature analysis: social media platforms, young people and
adolescents, and social network analysis; each is illustrated through brief examples from
the literature. This literature emphasized inductive approaches, with two-thirds being dis
cursive reviews, largely from psychology, sociology, and communication and media disci
plines, with research methods spread across these reviews, surveys, and interviews. Of
the five Delphi categories, digital literacies, and quality of relationships and communica
tion, were rated as the most important.
Keywords: Delphi reviews, ESRC Review, Facebook, friendships, relationship formation, relationship management,
social media, social network
Introduction
THIS chapter explores the outcomes of the literature review and expert Delphi review
process for the Communication and Relationships domain. As with the other review chap
ters, the goal is not to work through a large number of examples from the literature. In
stead, building on the methods described in chapter 2, we will first set out the results of
the digital humanities-based analyses of the literature, highlighting the major topics,
Page 1 of 50
themes, and concepts within the literature, providing a few general examples. These are
not intended to be the “most important” examples from the literature but rather simply
indicative of the types of work. This is then followed by the presentation of the content
analysis that sought to identify the key theories and methods in use within the literature.
Next, we outline the results from the Delphi review of experts. This concludes with the
key questions, topics, and challenges we identified, comparing these to the results from
the literature work. The last section presents the recommendations for areas of future
study. As a reminder, the initial scoping question for this area of work was: “How are our
relationships being shaped and sustained in and between various domains, including fam
ily and work?”
Initial Comments
The original ESRC Domain question was criticized in the Delphi process for being too
broad and ambiguous. Importantly, it was asked whether it constitutes a viable stand-
alone question, since communicating and building relationships necessarily forms a piv
otal (p. 222) strand of nearly all activity in relation to “ways of being” in a digital society.
Therefore, looking for one very specific starting point was not seen as straightforward,
especially given the multiple ways in which relationships are expressed. Consequently,
both social behavior and results from research can vary as the context of interests, condi
tions, and constraints ebb and flow with changing digital technology. As a result, the
analysis put the initial ESRC scoping question to one side and utilized those derived from
the Delphi first round, shown in Table 8.1.
Page 2 of 50
Table 8.1 Scoping Questions
Question Example questions

category
Digital litera What literacies are required for effective communi

cies cation using digital technologies? Should these lit
eracies be taught, or can we assume that they de
velop organically?
To what extent does an individual’s digital legacy
and digital capability affect their interactions with
others in work and leisure?
Norms and What normative pressures do people experience re

values lated to relationships shaped and sustained by digi
tal technologies?
What is the new normal for relationships now they
are shaped and sustained by digital technologies
across multiple domains?
Platform af What are the Platform affordances of digital tech

fordances nology that construct or constrain relationships?
How do particular platforms affect various kinds of
relationships: social, sexual, familial, collegial, ac
tivism, fandom, etc.?
Quality of re How does communication via digital technologies

lationships facilitate the quantity and quality of our relation
and commu ships?
nication How are our relationships being shaped, sustained,
and diminished by digital technologies, in and be
tween the domains of work and family?
Relationship How are family, friend, and work relationships

management shaped by, and reshaping, the trajectories that new
digital technologies are taking.
How are our friendships being shaped, sustained,
and diminished by digital technologies?
Of all the domains examined, the question of how media and technologies have affected
relationships and communication is one of the oldest, going back to Classical Greek de
bates over the value of orality and literacy. In the context of digital media, much early re
search in the 1980s and 1990s sought to understand how interaction without face-to-face
presence would function. This work has its roots in prior research comparing social pres
Page 3 of 50
ence in various pre-digital media (e.g., Short et al., 1976; Rutter 1987). These ideas were
taken up in relation to digital media in the 1980s around ideas of “cuelessness” and
formed the foundation of works such as Kiesler, Siegel and McGuire’s (1984) examination
of the effects of “reduced social cues.” Much of this work had a strongly social-psycholog
ical focus around group behavior. The cumulation and to (p. 223) a large extent rejection
of this line of work can be found in the SIDE model of online group behavior (see:
Postmes et al., 1998; Spears et al., 2002) that is also discussed in chapter 14. This is also
the basis of more recent work on deception and “anonymity” in online interaction. Some
clear parallels can be drawn between the “flaming” behavior identified by Kiesler, Siegel,
and McGuire and more recent work on contemporary anti-social behavior online (e.g.,
trolling). Other work examined the content of interaction such as the examination of so
cio-emotional content in computer conferencing by Rice and Love (1987), and how com
puter-mediated communication could foster organizational innovation (Rice, 1987, ex
tending the Short et al., 1976 work on social presence) which early on contributed to the
rejection that computer-mediated communication necessarily is cueless and therefore
generates de-regulated mediated content, such as flaming and depersonalization.
Separately, socio-linguistic work examined the textual and linguistic differences between
speech, writing, and online interaction (e.g., Herring, 1996; Yates, 1996).
Literature Analysis
The literature analysis was designed to create two analytic outcomes. First, the goal was
to identify key topics within the existing literature. This would allow for a comparison
with areas of future importance identified by the Delphi review. Second, we applied con
tent analysis of the literature to explore the predominance of specific theories, methods,
and approaches within the domain.1
Topics
As noted in chapter 2, the literature data were subjected to two analyses. The first round
of collected literature was analyzed to create concept pairs and trios, while the combined
first and second rounds of literature were analyzed to identify key topic clusters. The re
sults of these two approaches were then compared. The 10 most common concept pairs
identified by the Round 1 literature analysis are listed in Table 8.2. These represent the
concepts covering 2% or more of the identified cases. Table 8.3 lists concept pairings.
Page 4 of 50
Concepts Percent
Friend 9.9
Media 8.2
Pair 8.0
Group 4.3
Adolescent 4.3
Phone 4.0
Communication 3.9
Relationship 2.5
Time 2.5
Medium 2.3
Level 2.1
Teen 2.1
Life 2.0
Parent 1.9
Page 5 of 50
Adolescent 4.3 Friend 9.9 pair 8.0
Adult 2.0 Friendship 2.4 Percentage 0.9
Life 1.5 Instant 0.3 Rate 1.3
Realism 0.3 Judgment 0.5 Relation 1.3
Uncertainty 0.5 Newcomer 0.7 Sociability 1.1
social-media 8.2 Pair 1.3 Status 1.1
Communication 0.9 Photo 1.4 Total 0.6
Group 0.4 Post 1.3 Week 0.4
Information 0.8 Tie 2.1 Whole 0.4
Interaction 0.4 Group 4.3 Writing 0.9
Medium 0.9 Identification 1.2 Parent 1.9
Member 0.6 In-Group 0.8 Phone 1.9
Page 6 of 50
Pair 0.9 Out-Group 0.7 Phone 4.0
Relationship 0.9 Poster 0.4 Plan 1.1
Student 0.5 Sip 0.5 Punishment 0.4
Tie 0.8 Socialization 0.7 Someone 0.9
Work 1.0 Level 2.1 Subgroup 0.5
Communica 3.9 Move 0.7 Teens 1.0

tion
Controllability 0.7 Pair 0.9 Relationship 2.5
Correspondent 1.0 Var 0.6 Root 0.6
Monograph 0.9 Life 2.0 Work 1.9
Propinquity 0.9 Pew 1.4 Teen 2.1
Sip 0.4 Writing 0.6 Twitter 1.2
Medium 2.3 Voice 1.0
Multitasking 0.3
Page 7 of 50
Richness 1.5
Storytelling 0.5
Page 8 of 50
Page 9 of 50
Topics Keywords Eigen-value Freq Cases % Cases
Social network SOCIAL; COM 1.61 108,173 569 97.1

platforms MUN; THI; AR;
INTERACT;
PEOPL; SPACE;
INFORM; NET
WORK; THEI;
SYSTEM
Facebook FACEBOOK; 1.91 44,414 559 95.9

ELLISON; SITE;
NETWORK;
FRIEND; SN;
SNSS; BOYD;
CAPIT; SOCIAL
Measurement MEASUR; 1.64 28,226 552 94.7

VARIABL; WA;
SAMPL; ITEM;
SURVEI; DATA
Page 10 of 50
Twitter TWEET; TWIT 11.88 28,460 537 92.1

TER; HASH
TAG;
RETWEET;
USER; REPLI;
API; PLAT
FORM; AC
COUNT; CHAP
TER
Higher educa STUDENT; 1.73 13,949 521 89.4

tion COLLEG;
TEACHER;
EDUC;
SCHOOL;
LEARN
CMC vs. FTF CMC; FTF; 2.26 13,697 511 87.7

CUE;
WALTHER;
PARTNER; IN
TERACT
Page 11 of 50
Storytelling CCM; STORY 2.39 14,149 507 87.0

TEL; CREATIV;
AUSTRALIAN;
AUSTRALIA;
ART; DIGIT;
PROJECT
Nations and NATION; EU 1.70 13,864 506 86.8

countries ROPEAN;
COUNTRI; EU
ROP; POLIT;
GLOBAL
Gender and lan WOMEN; MEN; 2.69 16,931 503 86.3

guage MALE; FEMAL;
GENDER; LIN
GUIST;
FEMINIST;
LANGUAG;
SEX; SPEECH
Page 12 of 50
SNA PAIR; CERIS; 2.96 9430 498 85.4

TIE; MULTI
PLEX; FRE
QUENC; FAC
ULTI; TI;
FRIENDSHIP;
EXCHANG; EM
PLOYE
Corporations COMPANI; 2.01 11,752 490 84.1

MARKET; BUSI;
CORPOR;
CONSUM;
SERVIC; AD
VERTIS
Critical theory MARX; 3.37 11,067 464 79.6

LABOUR;
FUCH;
DIALECT;
LUK¡C; IDE
OLOGI;
ECONOMI;
CAPIT; CRITIC;
CLASS
Page 13 of 50
Privacy ION; PRIVACI; 1.49 7717 452 77.5

ER; AL; PRO
TECT
Health care CARE; 1.57 5937 421 72.2

PATIENT; TELE
CONSULT;
HEALTH;
HOME
Blogging BLOG; BLOG 1.81 5106 403 69.1

GER; READER;
COMMENT
Media con FILM; CINEMA; 1.46 5557 340 58.3

sumption NARR; IMAG
GAME; PLAY
ER; VIDEO;
AVATAR
Adolescents and ADOLESC; SEX 3.71 8015 326 55.9

sexuality UAL; EX
POSUR; SEIM;
SEX
Social club CLUB; FAN; 1.45 1305 194 33.3

SPORT; TEAM
Page 14 of 50
Children and BOI; GIRL 1.40 2285 167 28.6

families
Old media TELEVIS; AU 1.94 22,518 523 89.7

DIENC;
WATCH; TV;
BROADCAST;
VIEWER;
MEDIA
Mobile phone PHONE; CELL; 1.88 8567 421 72.2

TEEN; MOBIL
Page 15 of 50
All the literature collected from both rounds was then analyzed using Wordstat. Wordstat
identified 21 concepts, which are presented in Table 8.4. These map closely to the con
cept pairings identified in the above analysis.
As with the other domains, we can see a shift in focus within the literature between 2000
and 2016 (shown in Figures 8.1 and 8.2). The broad comparison of change over time in
the frequency of concept pairs associated with the subject “communication” based on the
smaller curated literature shows considerable differences between the periods 2000–
2004 and 2012–2016. Early on, the most frequent pairs involve relationships, (p. 224)
(p. 225) (p. 226) pair/tie/link, communication, medium, and work. Less frequently included
were terms such as information, use, Internet, and exchange. Thus the focus was on rela
tionships or network ties involving the process of communication, the medium of commu
nication, and the context of the relationship (work and information). By 2012–2016, there
was much less emphasis on general relationships and specific links, and more on the spe
cific medium of Facebook and related terms such as user, network, and friend. This obvi
ously reflects, in terms of more recent research, the commercial and social dominance of
the new platforms (especially Facebook) in western societies. It may also point to the fact
that data from these platforms is easily harvested along with the fact that many studies
appear to be of adolescents and colleague students—the concepts of “teen” and “college
student” are also notable in the analysis. Within this there is a distinct shift to social net
work analysis informed approaches, and this domain is one where this approach is high
lighted in the analysis. Contexts shifted from work to college, the family, students,
teens, and patient care. The mediated social network became central. Overall
(p. 227)
there appears to be a shift from studies that may have sought to generalize about digital
media—computer-mediated communication—to ones with a strong “platform focus.” The
challenges of a “platform” focus are discussed in chapter 25.
Page 16 of 50
Figure 8.1 Communication 2000–2004: Most fre

quent concept pairs.
Note: Bubble chart showing frequency of the top 50

concept pairs, based on concept modeling (described
in Chapter 2) within the Domain for 2000–2004. The
diameter of each circle reflects the frequency of the
concept pair.
Figure 8.2 Communication 2012–2016: Most fre


concept pair, with the most frequent pair beginning
in the center.
Page 17 of 50
In examining the papers and publications collected for this domain we found that the
identified themes and topics consistently cross cut and overlap. A paper on Facebook
would also likely raise issues about young adults, or a social network analysis would ad
dress issues of community. Underlying much of the literature are comparisons with face-
to-face, and occasionally other media (writing, TV, mass media). Such comparative goes
back to very early studies of digital media (computer-mediated communication) use dis
cussed above. We do not intend to review this work here though we would note that such
analyses are important in comparatively grounding studies in relation to existing (p. 228)
media practices. We would also note that many recent studies, and the examples exam
ined below, are more likely to explore the use of a specific digital media as part of a
citizen’s or user’s “suite” of communicative and media practices. We have therefore
pulled out three themes as starting points for the presentation of example literature in
this domain where the cross-cutting overlaps can be seen:
• Social media platforms

• Young people and adolescents
• Social network analysis
Social media “platform” studies. Taking Twitter and Facebook as examples of new plat
forms that have become the context of study, we find a range of different foci in the re
search literature. Many of these cross-cut the other themes identified in this domain but
also reflect broader social and media discussion. Much of the media coverage of Twitter,
Facebook, and other social media platforms has raised concerns about the level and ex
tent of data and information sharing by young people. Such concerns are also reflected in
research.
For example, Madden et. al (2013) examined the way teens share information on social
media. In fact, according to Madden et al.’s findings, few teens embrace a fully public ap
proach to social media. Instead, they take an array of steps to restrict and prune their
profiles, and their patterns of reputation management on social media vary greatly ac
cording to their gender and network size. As with many studies of new platforms, there is
a need to understand the basic features and demographics of their use. At the time of
writing Madden et al. noted an increase in the use of Twitter by teens from 16% in 2011
to 24% in 2013. They also noted that the median number of friends in Facebook was 300
and the number of Twitter followers was 79.
Their research found that teenagers were sharing more information about themselves on
such sites than they had in the past on other platforms and media. The research looked at
five different types of personal information sharing (examples of personal photos, or de
tails of school, city, email, and phone information) comparing 2006 and 2012. All five
types significantly increased. Nonetheless, many (60%) teenage Facebook users keep
their profiles private and a majority expressed high levels of confidence in managing set
tings. At the same time the research found that they have limited concerns about the use
of their data by third parties. Overall the respondents were found to utilize a range of
methods to manage their presentation of self and sharing of data online—including the
Page 18 of 50
deletion of other people from their networks. The focus group discussions undertaken by
the researchers found that respondents had a waning enthusiasm for Facebook for a
range of reasons. These included a dislike for the increased presence of adults on the
platform, pressures to be present, and issues around excessive and demanding levels of
posting. Yet they kept using the platform because participation was an important part of
overall teenage socializing (Madden et al., 2013). This trend has been seen to continue in
more recent studies (e.g., Anderson & Jiang, 2018). This change (p. 229) points out three
key topics researchers should emphasize when exploring the impact of specific platforms:
• Document the social contexts, demographics, interactional behaviors, and general

uses over time.
• Understand their use in the context of other digital and non-digital interactions and
contexts.
• Explore the broader underlying issues, in this case sharing of personal information
and presentation of self (c.f. Goffman, 2002, 1959), that have broader social science
importance but which may be articulated in specific ways in specific platforms.
Similarly, Marwick and boyd (2014) examine how teenagers negotiate content in social
media. They argue that the dynamics of sites such as Facebook have forced teens to alter
their conceptions of privacy to account for the networked nature of social media. The re
searchers draw on examples from a large-scale ethnographic study consisting of 166 se
mi-structured interviews with teenagers and participant observation conducted across 17
US States to explore what they refer to as “networked privacy.” They argue that teens
conceive of privacy as the ability to control a particular situation that happens in a partic
ular place, stating that,
To manage an environment where information is easily reproduced and broadcast,

we find that many teenagers conceptualize privacy as an ability to control their
situation, including their environment, how they are perceived, and the informa
tion that they share.
(p. 1056)
To achieve privacy, teens therefore use various strategies to gain control over the way
their information is distributed. Online privacy therefore becomes context-specific and
changes over time. Marwick and boyd note that,
How people achieve privacy depends not solely on their ability to navigate tech
nology, but requires them to fully understand the context in which they are operat
ing, influence others’ behaviors, shape who can interpret what information, and
possess the knowledge and skills necessary to directly affect how information
flows and is interpreted within that context.
(pp. 1062–1063)
Page 19 of 50
In addition, they argue that teens developed tactics to regulate who can access the infor
mation they share online, for example, encoding the content itself in order to limit the au
dience (rather than using the social media affordances of privacy settings). Thus,
… achieving privacy requires that people have an understanding of and influence

in shaping the context in which information is being interpreted. This can be done
by co-constructing the architecture of the systems, or it can be done by embed
ding meaning and context into the content itself.
(p. 1063)
Overlapping with the social network analysis theme, literature exploring specific
(p. 230)
social media often focuses on the nature of relationships in these networks (what it
means to link as a contact, friend or follower, etc.) For example, Mesch et al. (2012) ex
amine the effect of individual, relational (e.g., tie homophily, relationship type, tie dura
tion, and tie closeness), and cultural variables on communication via instant messaging
(IM). The study focuses on the frequency of interaction among users from Israel and
Canada. The researchers collected data from 785 participants between 2005 until 2006.
Participants in Israel completed a paper-and-pencil questionnaire in Hebrew, and partici
pants in Canada completed an online survey in English. Their findings show that in both
countries, IM was used primarily to keep in touch with close friends. Hours of daily IM
use was positively associated with frequency of communication via IM in both countries.
Relationship type predicted the frequency of communication via IM; for example, people
were messaging their romantic partner more frequently than with a close friend. Mesch
et al. argued that relationship variables are key to understanding IM behavior (rather
than ones relating to technology features). As they note,
The most salient result of this study is the explanatory power of relational vari
ables in the understanding of the use and content of IM. The current study pro
vides strong support for the argument that online communication is used primari
ly, but not exclusively, to maintain existing ties rather than to develop new ties.
(p. 750)
They also identified potential social and cultural variations, finding that,
Gender similarity was not associated with IM topic multiplexity in Canada, but had
a negative association in Israel. This finding suggests that in Canada same-sex and
opposite-sex pairs discuss diverse topics to the same extent, whereas in Israel
same-sex pairs are less likely than opposite-sex pairs to discuss a diverse set of
topics.
(p. 750)
They also found that IM had a specific role—mainly coordinating social activity—in rela
tionships and interactions, irrespective of the length or that relationship:
Page 20 of 50
… it seems that regardless of relationship duration, IM is used more for instru

mental purposes (i.e., coordinating activities and scheduling meetings) than pre
dictive purposes (i.e., companionship and social support). This distinction in use
may explain the non-significant effect of relationship duration on frequency of
communication.
(p. 751)
Overall, though, Mesch et al. found considerable similarities between the two groups of
users in Israel and Canada, stating that,
The results show that young people in both countries have strikingly similar pat
terns of usage. Participants in both countries indicated that their primary commu
nication partners to be close friends, and family members. Contacts who met on
line were rare (p. 231) in both countries, suggesting that IM is used to maintain ex
isting relationships rather than to generate new online ties.
(p. 753)
This result reminds us that much digital media use is embedded in the everyday lived
lives of people and not in some separate “cyberspace” world. This does not mean that
there are not online contexts that function primarily or solely online, but rather to point
out that digital media are now well embedded into the management of everyday social in
teraction.
Work on relationships in digital media and digital platforms also often cuts into issues of
community (see chapter 14). For example, Gruzd et al. (2011) examine the concept of
community on Twitter using Benedict Anderson’s idea of “imagined communities” (1983).
In addition to relying on Anderson’s work, they also apply two other notions of online
communities: Jones’s (1997) notion of “virtual settlement” and McMillan and Chavis’s
(1986) compilation of what constitutes a “sense of community.” In order to examine this,
the study used one of the researcher’s own Twitter accounts and examined his network
by using Twitter’s API to automatically retrieve a list of his followers and sources and to
also determine who follows whom. So as to trace changes in the Twitter network of mutu
al followers, the researchers collected these data twice: in August 2009 and February
2010. The researchers utilized a mix of social network analysis and content analysis of
the messages. They argued that,
An ‘imagined’ community on Twitter is dual-faceted. It is at once both collective

and personal. It is collective in the sense that all [users] belong to the worldwide
set of [users] who understand Twitter’s norms, language, techniques, and govern
ing structure.
(Gruzd et al., 2011, p. 1312)
Page 21 of 50
They noted that Twitter communities formed around “high centers” that include “… popu
lar individuals, celebrities, or organizations such as media companies. Yet even less popu
lar individuals on Twitter can play the role of local high centers of predominantly mutual
networks” (p. 1313).
Taking a sociological view of the results, Gruzd et al. argued that,
Twitter turns out to be an implementation of the cross-cutting connectivity be

tween social circles that 19th-century sociologist Émile Durkheim (1893/1993) ar
gued was the key to modern solidarity.
(Gruzd et al., 2011, p. 1314)
In a similar approach, McEwen and Wellman (2013) examine how communities operate in
different contexts in light of social media such at Twitter. They argue that groups in such
media as Twitter are alternative places for people to connect with each other and that
such online interactions are just as real and authentic offline contact:
For the networked individual, ‘community’ is not geospecific but is defined as net
works of personal communities that provide sociability, support, information, a
sense of belonging, and social identity, managed on and offline using ICTs.
(p. 170)
As with many other studies, they find that Twitter groups are extensions of other
(p. 232)
social groups or communities—and that only a small proportion of Internet users met
someone new online. Thus:
These places are just alternate spaces for people of all ages to connect with their
friends and peers; technology-enabled interaction fits seamlessly into their every
day lives and complements other practices.
(p. 170)
As a result, social media platforms are not the sole focus of specific relationships; rather,
they mark one of many locations where relationship and community building work is
done:
When the networked individual manages relationships through a wide variety of

media, such as email, landline telephone, instant messaging, Facebook, Twitter,
mobile phone, and so on, we describe both the relationship and the media as be
ing multiplexed.
(p. 173)
It is clear just from these example studies that social media platforms are key to under
standing communication patterns and relationships in a digital age and this behavior and
individual platforms are not separate from broader social interaction. The papers have al
Page 22 of 50
so cross-cut other domains, especially Community and Identity (chapter 14). We also find
that long-standing themes in social science—from presentation of self to community for
mation—form the underlying basis of the analysis.
Young people and adolescents. The use of digital media and its impacts on young peo
ple is prevalent in the literature for this domain. The review did not specifically seek to
explore the use of digital media by children—this is an area that has been extensively ex
plored in recent years from research and policy perspectives (see Livingstone, 2002;
Drotner & Livingstone, 2008; Livingstone & Sefton-Green, 2016). The literature discussed
here therefore focuses on adolescents and young adults and much of this work explores
how digital media are utilized in social interaction, relationships and socialization. For a
comprehensive review of how college students manage multiple media for purposes such
as relationships, see chapter 9.
Such research questions and concerns have a long history in the study of media—
digital or traditional, focusing on the use by and often the potential hazards that
media may hold for young people. These issues have also often been the focus of
media debates about adolescent behaviors—including many cases of media “moral
panics” (Critcher, 2003). Such debates have also influenced the direction and fo
cus of research questions. For example, prior work has explored the role of media
in the socialization of adolescents, with Arnett (1995) noting that: … media are
part of the process by which adolescents acquire—or resist acquiring—the behav
iors and beliefs of the social world, the culture, in which they live.
(Arnett, 1995, p. 525)
Arnett (1995) provides a typology of adolescent media uses, including: entertainment,

identity formation, high sensation, coping, and youth culture identification. Exploring
(p. 233) these five uses in relation to adolescent socialization, Arnett notes that media use
and consumption differs from other socializing agents such as family, school, community,
and the legal system. The key difference is that adolescents have greater control over
their media choices than they do over their socialization from these other sources:
The independence granted to adolescents in making media choices may contribute

to their alienation, as they attempt to sort out the dissonance between the social
ization messages in the media they use and the socialization messages promoted
by adults in their families, schools, and communities.
(Arnett, 1995, p. 530)
Issues of socialization, media use, and family and community relationships are also all
bound up in issues of identity and its expression. Within the context of digital media use
this is often explored through the presentation of self online, or through form and content
of interactions via digital platforms. Here again concerns over potential harms as well as
benefits of digital media use can be found in both academic research and media cover
age. As an example, Valkenburg and Peter (2008) investigate the effects of adolescents’
Page 23 of 50
online identity on their offline social competence and self-conception, with an underlying
concern that digital media use might increase social anxiety. They conducted an online
survey in 2006 among 1,158 Dutch teens between 10 and 17 years old. They developed a
set of measurement scales of off-line social competence that included four subscales: ini
tiation, supportiveness, self-disclosure, and assertiveness. Their findings that even though
adolescents experimented with their online identity more have more often communicated
with people from different ages and backgrounds online, and “… although adolescents’
self-concept showed considerable variance, there was no evidence that their level of self-
concept unity is affected by engaging in online identity experiments” (Valkenburg & Pe
ter, 2008, pp. 225–226).
For some of these adolescents, this experience had positively contributed to their social
competence:
Although we did not find a positive relationship between social anxiety and online
identity experiments, our result did reveal that lonely adolescents significantly
more often used the Internet to experiment with their identity than nonlonely ado
lescents. Lonely adolescents apparently benefit from the relative anonymity of the
Internet to learn how to relate to people and to practice their social skills.
(p. 226)
There is an element of “technological determinism” in some of this work, as many studies

are formulated around the assumption or hypothesis that the use of digital media will
have a direct influence on behaviors, experiences, and outcomes. Very often, though, the
picture is quite complex and non-digital factors (in other words social and demographic
factors) are found to be either necessary, and often sufficient, for all explanations.
Subrahmanyam and Lin (2007) examined the relationship between adolescents’ online ac
tivity and their well-being, conducting a survey of 192 adolescents ranging from the age
of 15 to 18. The survey explored their access to and use of the Internet, focusing on lone
liness and social support. Overall they found that,
(p. 234)
Contrary to our expectations, loneliness was not related to whether participants

knew and were familiar with their online partners but was related to participants’
gender and their perceived relationship with their online partners.
(Subrahmanyam & Lin, 2007, p. 672)
Such results remind us that many key explanatory variables underpinning interaction and
relationships via digital media are not “new”; they are based on a whole range of well-
known social, psychological, and cultural behaviors and factors. What may be new is the
specific manner and form in which digital media are used to support interaction and rela
tionships. For example, for a review of how computer-mediated communication are relat
ed to social support, especially during times of transition, see Mikal et al. (2013).
Page 24 of 50
Similarly, research has focused on how teenagers and adolescents have appropriated
technologies and developed new forms of interaction in digital media. As an example,
Greenfield and Subrahmanyam (2003) examined the way participants in an adolescents’
online chatroom adapt to the features of chat to create coherence and distinct registers.
Once again, as noted above, the focus is on how digital interaction differs (or not) from
face-to-face interaction. In order to examine the strategies that adolescents use to
achieve coherence in online chats, Greenfield and Subrahmanyam conducted participant
observation in teen chatrooms, and analyzed the transcripts of the interactions. The re
searchers find two main strategies:
The strategies for achieving coherence in this environment address two important
functions—identifying a conversational partner and determining a relevant re
sponse. We suggest that adapting to the demands of online chatrooms uses re
sources from both oral and written discourse to produce a new register for online
chat.
(Greenfield & Subrahmanyam, 2003, p. 714)
Many of the strategies used to achieve coherence were found to be similar to those in
face-to-face conversation. These include such things as repetition and directly addressing
intended conversational partners. There are also media- and channel-specific strategies
tied to the technology or the specific norms of the group. There are also coherence be
haviors similar to those in face-to-face interaction that are articulated via the constraints
of the medium:
In addition to specific cues, there are also general judgments of topical relevance,
semantic relationship to a prior turn, and knowledge of who is participating in a
particular thread at a particular time that must come into play, both for us and for
the participants.
(p. 735)
The participants also used a range of textual and use visual cues and conventional codes,
constructing a distinct register. Use of this register marked them out as “native speakers”
of online chatrooms.
The visual nature of the online computer medium helps participants to overcome
the confusion of multiple overlapping conversations, changing participants, and
(p. 235) spatially and temporally separated conversation threads. Key strategies—
such as nickname format, use of numerals, distinctive script, standard graphic for
mat, and slot-filler framework—capitalize on the visual nature of the medium.
(p. 736)
Social network analysis. Throughout the history of the study of interactions via digital
media the “networked” nature of the interaction—especially in the context of group inter
action—has been a prominent feature. Many early studies of digital interaction focused
Page 25 of 50
on aspects of network structure, including power and influence, as well as the manage
ment of coherence in networked interaction (e.g., Paolillo, 2001), and how online network
links were related to emotional content and reciprocity (Rice, 1982; Rice & Love, 1987).
With the rise of “social networking sites” such as Facebook and Twitter (or their various
precursors such as MySpace or even Usenet) the nature of social-networks has become a
key topic for analysis. This has introduced the confusion of a “social network” as type of
digital media with the longstanding idea of a “social network” as an object of analysis in
social research. While also exploring their history and how academia had explored them
to date, boyd and Ellison (2007) looked to define the key characteristics of social network
sites (SNS). In this work boyd and Ellison argue that social “network sites” rather than
“networking” is a more accurate term, as it describes people communicating within their
networks rather than trying to be in these spaces solely for the sake of “networking.”
They define SNS as “services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-pub
lic profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they
share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by
others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary
from site to site” (boyd & Ellison, 2007, p. 211).
As with other digital media, boyd and Ellison note how users appropriate the technology
to their needs, sometimes subverting the intentions or expectations of the technologies
designers. In particular they note the development of groups within SNS—networks with
in the network—defined by social, demographic, political, or cultural factors:
While SNSs are often designed to be widely accessible, many attract homoge
neous populations initially, so it is not uncommon to find groups using sites to seg
regate themselves by nationality, age, educational level, or other factors that typi
cally segment society …, even if that was not the intention of the designers.
(p. 214)
Importantly, boyd and Ellison point out something that has now become a core feature of
many studies of digital media—the use of SNS as a source of potentially
“naturalistic” (that is non-experimental) data for social and digital research (such as pro
file and linkage data); though more recent work has pointed out the potential biases of
such data sets (Blank, 2017; Blank & Lutz, 2017), and harmful implications for citizenship
and governance (chapters 16 and 18).
This question of methods is also present in much of the literature, as researchers look to
explore and examine new digital tools used to analyses SNS or new digital data sources
derived from SNS. Bruns and Stieglitz (2013) address aspects of this by (p. 236) consider
ing the use of standardized metrics to comparatively and systematically analyses Twitter
interaction. They are looking to
outline metrics which examine the total activity and visibility of individual partici
pants; metrics which establish the temporal flow of conversation, and of specific
forms of conversation; and metrics which combine these aspects to examine the
Page 26 of 50
relative contributions of specific, more or less active, user groups during each unit
of time.
(Bruns & Stieglitz, 2013, p. 92)
They describe a catalogue of widely applicable, standardized metrics for analyzing Twit
ter-based communication, with particular focus on hashtagged exchanges in data “at
large scale.” They note the value of user-focused metrics but also look to address the
analysis of Twitter data over time, arguing,
While user-based metrics are valuable for analyzing the overall shape of the user
base of a specific hashtag, for highlighting especially active or visible contribu
tors, and for examining whether hashtags are used mainly for posting original
thoughts, for engagement within the community, or for sharing information, a sec
ond major group of metrics emerges from a breakdown of the total data-set not by
user, but by time.
(p. 99)
Bruns and Stieglitz suggest three areas for metrics: metrics which describe the contribu
tions made by specific users and groups of users; metrics which describe overall patterns
of activity over time; and metrics that combine these aspects to examine the contribu
tions by specific users and groups over time.
Such metrics and analyses also draw upon well-established methods for social network
analysis developed within sociology and information studies for the analysis of links be
tween individuals, groups, organizations or artefacts (e.g., Wasserman & Faust, 1994).
The application of such methods to explore the digital interactions or SNS interactions of
users and citizens often focus on specific communities (e.g., Rice, 1982’s over-time study
of computer conferencing groups), and therefore overlapping with the Community and
Identity (chapter 14) and Citizenship and Politics (chapter 16) domains.
For example, Vromen et al. (2015) examined how politically engaged young people inte
grate social media use into their organizations, political communication, and civic en
gagement. They conducted in-person focus groups with 12 civic groups of students from
the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. All the groups reported that they use
social media to maintain the group, distribute related information, and organize different
kinds of events. As with many other similar studies, they found an integration between
digital media use, traditional media use, and physical and digital social networks:
While Facebook discussion does not replace meetings and events for the group
members at large, it has become essential for organizing any kind of offline group
(p. 237) meeting and ensuring event attendance. This is consolidated through so
cial media functionality, such as the public display of members saying they are at
tending an event, and especially the diary functions Facebook events add to.
(Vromen et al., 2015, p. 89)
Page 27 of 50
The analysis found four main ways that social media created or shaped the respondents’
political communication: “broadcast, new information, everyday political talk and new po
litical action” (Vromen et al., 2015, p. 90). Importantly, the researchers compared these
behaviors across three countries to explore the impact of cultural context, finding that,
the three dutiful-oriented party groups had more in common with one another in
terms of their citizenship norms and practices than they did with the identity and
issue-based groups within their own country.
(p. 95)
In the context of social network analysis, a key measure or research focus is that of social
capital—however measured. Ellison et al. (2007) examined the relationship between use
of Facebook and the formation and maintenance of social capital. They also explored the
dimension of social capital that assesses one’s ability to stay connected with members of
a previously inhabited community, which they called “maintained social capital.” The re
searchers conducted a survey with 800 undergraduate students from Michigan State Uni
versity. The students reported spending between 10 and 30 minutes on average using
Facebook each day and report having between 150 and 200 friends listed on their profile.
Ellison et al. noted that Facebook had a role in the processes by which their student re
spondents formed and maintained various aspects of social capital social capital. They al
so examined their well-being (self-esteem and satisfaction from life). Students who report
ed low satisfaction and low self-esteem seemed to gain social capital if they used Face
book more intensely. As a result they concluded that Facebook use is important for devel
oping bridging social capital:
This form of social capital—which is closely linked to the notion of ‘weak ties’—
seems well-suited to social software applications, as suggested by Donath and
boyd (2004), because it enables users to maintain such ties cheaply and easily.
(Ellison et al. 2007, p. 1162)
As has been noted above and in many places throughout this volume, the study also found
that SNS use was integrated into everyday life. As a result, this digital media use formed
part of, rather than was a separate activity from, ongoing relationships:
Online interactions do not necessarily remove people from their offline world but
may indeed be used to support relationships and keep people in contact, even
when life changes move them away from each other.
(p. 1164)
Page 28 of 50
(p. 238) Theory, Method, and Approach

As with the other ESRC review chapters, the following analysis builds on Borah (2017).
Most of the analyzed papers (64%) were inductive, either describing findings or building
theory (Table 8.5), while only 14% undertook theory testing. Reflecting this, 64% of the
papers undertook primary data collection with 23% being discursive reviews of or reflec
tive on existing research (Table 8.6). The main disciplines from which theory was used or
for which theory was developed were: psychology (39%), sociology (32%), and communi
cation and media (16%). Only actual use for the purposes of deign or analysis (p. 239)
were coded. General reference to prior work and theory were not coded. There was con
siderable variety in the specific theories applied from these disciplines and no clear pref
erence. No one theory appeared more than three times.
The main research methods (Table 8.7) were surveys (36%), interviews (24%), and litera
ture reviews (20%). Though many studies undertook to analyses respondents’ social net
works (often via surveys), only a small number of papers (4%) conducted formal statisti
cal social network analysis from scraped or surveyed SNS use. The majority of the empiri
cal work focused on specific groups (e.g., Facebook users) with a limited number of gen
eral population studies (Table 8.8). Less than 2% of studies overtly stated that they were
using a “big data” approach.
Table 8.5 Epistemological Approach
Percent
No clear epistemology 22.1
Percent
Theoretical (synthesis of current or prior work) 7.7
Page 29 of 50
Percent
Ethnography 6.9
Experiment 9.5
Focus groups 5.4
Interview(s) 23.7
Literature review (general or narrative) 20.3
Meta-analysis or systematic review 0.5
Other 18.0
Survey 36.0
Textual (linguistic-discourse analysis) 4.1
Theory building 6.2
Percent
Case study(ies) 1.5
Specific group 34.8
No study group 56.0
Grand Total 44.3
Page 30 of 50
Delphi Review
The following sections detail the results of the Delphi process for the Communication and
Relationship domain, covering three main areas: suggested scoping or research ques
tions, key topics to address within these questions, and key challenges to researching
these questions (see the initial comments section at the start of the chapter). The Delphi
review identified a set of scoping questions for the domain and these were coded into the
five categories detailed in Table 8.9: digital literacies, norms and values, platform affor
dances, quality of relationships and communication, and relationship management.
The ranking of these categories by the number of questions allocated to the category is
provided in Table 8.10, and by their ranked importance from the confirmatory survey is
given in Table 8.11. The two categories of scoping questions rated as the most important
were digital literacies, and quality of relationships and communication. It is important to
note that ranked importance is almost the inverse of the number of questions allocated to
the category. As has been noted already in regard to the literature, many of areas identi
fied in the scoping questions and challenges are cross-cutting of this and the other do
mains (see chapter 25), a key one of these being digital literacy.
Page 31 of 50
Question cat Example questions

egory
Digital litera What literacies are required for effective commu

cies nication using digital technologies?
Should these literacies be taught, or can we as
sume that they develop organically?
To what extent do individuals’ digital legacy and
digital capability affect their interactions with oth
ers in work and leisure?
Norms and val What normative pressures do people experience

ues related to relationships shaped and sustained by
digital technologies?
What is the new normal for relationships now that
they are shaped and sustained by digital technolo
gies across multiple domains?
Platform affor What are the platform affordances of digital tech

dances nology that construct or constrain relationships?
How do particular platforms affect various kinds
of relationships: social, sexual, familial, collegial,
activism, fandom, etc.?
Quality of rela How does communication via digital technologies

tionships and facilitate the quantity and quality of our relation
communication ships?
How are our relationships being shaped, sus
tained, and diminished by digital technologies, in
and between the domains of work and family?
Relationship How are family, friend, and work relationships

management shaped by, and reshaping, the trajectories that
new digital technologies are taking?
How are our friendships being shaped, sustained,
and diminished by digital technologies?
Page 32 of 50
Table 8.10 Scoping Questions Ranked by Number of Cases
Relationship management
Platform affordances
Quality of relationships and communication
Digital literacies
Norms and values
Table 8.11 Scoping Questions Ranked by Importance
Percent
Digital literacies 85.7
Quality of relationships and communication 71.4
Norms and values 64.3
Relationship management 50.0
Platform affordances 28.6
(p. 240) (p. 241) Scoping Questions
The consultation workshop identified a set of issues or additional scoping questions for
each of the five categories, shown in Table 8.12. The workshop also noted that the follow
ing topics appeared to be missing from the results of the Delphi work:
• Issues of cultural specificities

• Cultural analysis
• Mixed modal interaction
Page 33 of 50
Table 8.12 Consultation Workshop Scoping Categories and Example

Questions
Scoping question cat Example questions

egory
Digital literacies Who needs help with digital literacies?

Are these taught or learned?
Understanding our “digital communica
tion assets”
Norms and values What are the origins of normative pres

sures?
How are communicative norms formed
and transmitted?
Which behaviors and activities are “nor
mal”?
Platform affordances What types of relationship are supported?

What types are “new”?
Changes to proximities/propinquity?
Managing privacy?
Platform is the message—or platform fo
cus may be to technological determinist?
Quality of relationships Interaction versus functioning online?

and communication Why focus on old categories of work,
home, family?
Overlaps to well-being?
Overlaps to relationship management?
Relationship manage Interaction versus functioning online?

ment Why focus on old categories of work,
home, family?
Overlaps to well-being?
Overlaps to quality of relationships?
Page 34 of 50
Table 8.13 Key Topics Ranked by Percent of Cases
Topics Per Topics Per

cent cent
Friendships and relationship 12 Identity 2

formation
Age 10 Integration 2
Privacy and ethics 10 Interperson 2

al
Work and organizations 8 Methods 2
Education 6 Other 2
Social and community support 6 Place 2
(Social) Media “bubbles” 4 Platforms 2
Data and representation 4 Psychology 2
Exclusion 4 Quality and 2

variety
Politics 4 Sexuality 2
Social change 4 Textuality 2
Dependency 2 Theory 2
Family 2
Page 35 of 50
Topics Very impor Important Neutral Unimportant Very unimpor

tant tant
Privacy and 57.1% 35.7% 7.1% 0.0% 0.0%

ethics
Friendship and 57.1 35.7 0.0 7.1 0.0

relationship for
mation
Social change 42.9 42.9 14.3 0.0 0.0
Social and com 35.7 57.1 7.1 0.0 0.0

munity support
Education 35.7 28.6 35.7 0.0 0.0
Exclusion 28.6 57.1 14.3 0.0 0.0
Age factors—co 28.6 50.0 14.3 7.1 0.0

hort and age
(Social) Media 21.4 42.9 21.4 7.1 7.1

“bubbles”
Page 36 of 50
Work and orga 14.3 57.1 28.6 0.0 0.0

nizations
Political com 14.3 50.0 35.7 0.0 0.0

munication
Data and repre 14.3 50.0 28.6 7.1 0.0

sentation
Page 37 of 50
Topics
The topics identified in the Delphi review were coded into 25 categories as detailed in Ta
ble 8.13. The categories occurring the most frequently include friendships and relation
ship formation, age, privacy and ethics, work and organizations, education, and social and
community support. The consultation workshop also highlighted the following issues:
• Age (user age versus user experience)

• Social media “bubbles”
• Cross over to the Data and Representation Domain
• Research methods
The ranked importance of these from the confirmatory survey are presented in Ta
(p. 242)
ble 8.14. As with the scoping questions, there is also divergence between those topics
that were most commonly cited in the Delphi workshop and those deemed most important
in the final workshop. However, two of the three top topics were the same: friendships
and relationship formation, and privacy and ethics, indicating these are central and im
portant topics for consideration.
The workshop participants also identified the following potential gaps in the Delphi topics
list:
• Culture
• Misinformation and miscommunication
• Teaching of digital literacies
• Exclusion/inclusion/participation
• Friendship formation (especially regarding young people)
Challenges
placed into 16 categories. These categories are detailed in Table 8.15 and ranked by the
number of coded items, with four of those deemed to be domain specific by the consulta
tion workshop marked shown in in bold:
• Multi-platform studies
• Co-design
• Ethics and privacy
• Multi-disciplinary working
The first category—multi-platform studies—raises the issue of multimodal rela

(p. 243)
tionships. It questions how we should explore and how we assess the influence of any one
particular technological platform, when many important relationships involve so many
Page 38 of 50
platforms (as well as face-to-face, and “legacy media” such as phone, texting, or mass me
dia, etc.)? The question becomes how do we assess these complex combinations? (p. 244)
As a result, how do we research or follow people’s digital communication in their every
day lives—especially as looking at only one medium will likely only give us part of the
communications or relationships (social network) picture? Research on this domain
should therefore not make conclusions about relationships from single-media studies but
aim to understand communications platforms as multi-media and hybrid media, address
ing dynamic network analytics. Within this is the need to understand the physical and em
bodied use of the digital in communication activities and processes.
The second category—co-designing technologies—was proposed as it was argued that

many SNS systems have been implemented without such a focus. The challenge here is
how to work with and alongside communities that are often ignored (especially marginal
ized communities) so as to co-design technologies that are of use to them and of value in
their lives. Such work should focus on improving relationships rather than distancing our
selves from others. It was argued that technologies are often designed for communities
with some “user testing” but little engagement with people and their lives. Thus, social
scientists, working alongside designers and engineers, can use methodologies and ap
proaches central to social science to work alongside communities to understand and com
municate their needs and broker relationships.
The third category—ethics and privacy—should look at the question of how using SNS da
ta, especially to effectively mine data about relationships (as SNS platforms themselves
do) affect our use, trust, or selection of digital technologies, whether for research, busi
ness or service provision?
Finally, multidisciplinary working is relevant to all the domains. Here it points to the need
for the research to integrate ideas from a range of disciplines to best examine and ex
plore the technical, performative, and dynamic nature of digital communication. Such col
laborations should include critical approaches (e.g., Marx, Gramsci, Hall, critical theory,
Bourdieu, Foucault) so as to question and reflect on the impacts of digital media use. In
conclusion, as with the other domains we believe that the complexity and variety of po
tential work warrants consideration to be taken of all the questions topics and challenges
identified.
Table 8.16 shows the eight most frequent challenges ranked by importance, with three of
the domain-specific in the top four listed as “very important”: ethics and privacy, multidis
ciplinary working, and multi-platform studies.
Page 39 of 50
Table 8.15 Challenges Ranked by Percentage of Cases
Challenge Per Challenge Per

cent cent
Multi-platform stud 17 Community 2

ies
Theory 17 Data access 2
Co-design 13 Exclusion 2
Big data 10 Longitudinal stud 2

ies
Ethics and privacy 8 New forms of pub 2

lication
Surveys 6 Old media 2
Methods 4 Other 2
Multidisciplinary 4 Uses and gratifi 2

working cations
Note: Domain-specific challenges in bold.
Page 40 of 50

tant tant
Ethics and pri 64.3% 14.3% 21.4% 0.0% 0.0%

vacy
Theory 53.8 30.8 7.7 7.7 0.0
Multidiscipli 46.2 38.5 7.7 7.7 0.0

nary working
Multi-platform 42.9 35.7 21.4 0.0 0.0

studies
Big data 35.7 28.6 35.7 0.0 0.0
Methods 28.6 42.9 28.6 0.0 0.0
Surveys 14.3 21.4 50.0 7.1 7.1
Co-design 0.0 38.5 38.5 15.4 7.7
Page 41 of 50
Noting this, we would argue that the analysis of the Delphi data suggests the following
key areas for future research (see Tables 8.10, 8.13, and 8.15):
• The norms and values of digital communication and relationships

• The “affordances” that different platforms provide for digital communication and re
lationships
• The quality of relationships and communication supported by digital media and tech
nologies
• The management of relationships via digital media and technologies
Within these areas, future projects need to consider some key cross-cutting topics:
(p. 245)
• Social and community aspects

• Privacy and ethics
• Exclusion
• Social change
• Work and organizations
Furthermore, key domain-specific challenges include
• Multi-platform studies
• Ethics and privacy
Conclusion
Communication behaviors and relationships are fundamental to almost all online activi
ties, folded into and overlapping the other Domains. Digital media use on current scales
and developments likely to be undertaken (e.g., with the rise of the Internet of Things;
see chapter 23) make such engagements ubiquitous and almost invisible for many citi
zens. The overall impact of this expansion remains potentially unknown territory. Re
searching such change requires inter- and multi-disciplinary research methods and
groups. It was widely recognized in the literature, workshops, and by the team that a
whole new axis in communication has been brought about by the development and use of
social media. Already, scholarly research is abundant; however, many commentators felt
there were still under-researched areas, especially in terms of theory. Foremost was how
people are able integrate digital media so easily into their everyday lives. Experts ac
knowledge that there will be benefits and further potential in social media but also that
the well-documented concerns are still not well understood. These include a range of be
haviors that could normatively be described as negative, for example, hyper sociability,
Page 42 of 50
sexting, cyberbullying, online grooming, trolling, and more generally, the broad areas of
Internet safety and problematic use (see chapters 3 and 4).
There is an enduring concern with the virtual versus the physical aspects of com
(p. 246)
munication, with questions raised around costs and benefits of functioning effectively in a
digital world and particularly if individuals were “being shaped and diminished” by digital
technologies as opposed to proactively assessing and shaping future technologies. Under
standing what a digital person or a digital citizen becomes problematic as digital forms of
communication are folded seamlessly into lives.
A general observation was raised, that communication and relationships are impacted dif
ferently depending on the particular stages in the life course, e.g., children, adolescents,
students, adults and seniors (see chapters 5, 6, and 9) and also by the type of social rela
tions. The team noted that the literature in its breadth highlights how communication
density is intensified by digital technologies, so attention must be given to formulating re
search questions that take this into account. This is likely reflected in the topics and chal
lenges identified in the Delphi work around “multi-platform studies” within which there
needs to be focus on communication and relationships as they intersect with
• Other people
• Things and artefacts
• Our personal “curation” of self on platforms
• “Nodes” (people/artefacts/bots etc.) and networks themselves
Overall, reflecting on the literature and the data, the team noted the following general is
sues that appeared to cross-cut both the Delphi data and the literature analyses, and
which stand out as potential new questions:
• What normative pressures do people experience related to relationships shaped and

sustained by digital technologies?
• What literacies are required for effective communication using digital technologies?
• Should these literacies be taught, or do they develop organically?
• How do digital media facilitate the quality and quantity of our relations (e.g., “to
what extent does an individual’s digital literacy and digital capability affect interac
tions with others in work and leisure?”)
The literature also indicates that Twitter and Facebook are well represented in contempo
rary literature, but research studies need to include investigations and comparisons of
other social media platforms. Moreover, the team had concerns about the attractiveness
of big data analytics, reflected in the Delphi results, as this might undermine more holis
tic multi-method approaches required to get at the dynamics of offline and online aspects
of communication and relationships.
Page 43 of 50
Overall, contemporary research in the Communication and Relationships domain studied

here appears to have focused on: comparisons of computer-mediated communication to
other media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter; digital media use by (p. 247)
younger people and adolescents; and understanding social networks. Existing work has
employed fairly traditional methods such as surveys and interviews. It is orientated to
wards psychological and sociological approaches, with some linguistic and information
studies aspects. The work does not appear to have extensively employed digital tools and
big data methods, though those approaches are increasing rapidly. Most notably the work
appears to have been “platform driven” and “platform specific” with a bias towards
younger people.
The future research identified in the Delphi process is different, though there are some
overlapping areas. The focus has shifted towards more general studies of communication
and relationship in everyday life and the need to understand the integration of multiple
media into communication and relationship behavior. The key questions, topics, and chal
lenges include: norms and values; the “affordances” that different platforms provide; the
quality of relationships and communication supported by digital media and technologies;
and the management of relationships via digital media and technologies. Within these ar
eas key issues to consider are: social and community aspects, privacy and ethics, exclu
sion, social change, and work and organizations.
References
Anderson, M. & Jiang, J. (2018). Teens, social media & technology 2018. Pew Research
Center, 31 (http://publicservicesalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Teens-
Social-Media-Technology-2018-PEW.pdf)
Arnett, J. J. (1995). Adolescents’ uses of media for self-socialization. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 24(5), 519–533.
Blank, G. (2017). The digital divide among Twitter users and its implications for
(p. 248)
social research. Social Science Computer Review, 35(6), 679–697.
Blank, G., & Lutz, C. (2017). Representativeness of social media in Great Britain: Investi
gating Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter, Pinterest, Google+, and Instagram. American Behav
ioral Scientist, 61(7), 741–756.

616–636.
boyd, d. n., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholar
ship. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.
Bruns, A. & Stieglitz, S. (2013). Towards more systematic Twitter analysis: Metrics for
tweeting activities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16(2), 91–108.
Page 44 of 50
Critcher, C. (2003). Moral panics and the media. London, UK: McGraw-Hill Education.
Donath, J. & Boyd, D. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 22(4),
71–82.
Drotner, K., & Livingstone, S. (Eds.). (2008). International handbook of children, media
and culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Durkheim, E. (1993). The division of labor in society. (transl. by G. Simpson), New York:
The MacMillan Company (originally published 1893).
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook friends: Social
capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Medi
ated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168.
Greenfield, P. M., & Subrahmanyam, K. (2003). Online discourse in a teen chatroom: New
codes and new modes of coherence in a visual medium. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 24(6), 713–738.
Goffman, E. (2002, 1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Anchor
Books.
Gruzd, A., Wellman, B., & Takhteyev, Y. (2011). Imagining Twitter as an imagined commu
nity. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(10), 1294–1318.
Herring, S. C. (Ed.). (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and

cross-cultural perspectives (vol. 39). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Jones, Q. (1997). Virtual-communities, virtual settlements & cyber-archaeology: A theoret

ical outline. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(3).
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-
mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123–1134.
Livingstone, S. (2002). Young people and new media: Childhood and the changing media
environment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Livingstone, S., & Sefton-Green, J. (2016). The class: Living and learning in the digital
age. New York: NYU Press.
Madden, M., Lenhart, M., Cortesi, S., Gasser, U., Duggan, M., Smith, A., & Beaton, M.
(2013, May 21). Teens, social media, and privacy. Pew Research Center. http://
assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2013/05/
PIP_TeensSocialMediaandPrivacy_PDF.pdf
Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2014). Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context
in social media. New Media & Society, 16(7), 1051–1067.
Page 45 of 50
McEwen, R., & Wellman, B. (2013). Relationships, community, and networked individuals.
In R. Teigland & D. Power. (Eds.), The immersive internet (pp. 168–179). London: Pal
grave Macmillan.
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and

(p. 249)
theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6–23.
Mesch, G. S., Talmud, I. & Quan-Haase, A. (2012). Instant messaging social networks: In
dividual, relational, and cultural characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relation
ships, 29(6), 736–759.
Mikal, J. P., Rice, R. E., Abeyta, A., & DeVilbiss, J. (2013). Transition, stress and computer-
mediated social support. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), A40–A53.
Paolillo, J. C. (2001). Language variation on Internet Relay Chat: A social network ap
proach. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5(2), 180–213.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-
effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25(6), 689–715.
Rice, R. E. (1982). Communication networking in computer-conferencing systems: A lon

gitudinal study of group roles and system structure. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication
yearbook, 6 (pp. 925–944). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Rice, R. E. (1987). Computer-mediated communication and organizational innovation.

Journal of Communication, 37(4), 65–94.
Rice, R. E., & Love, G. (1987). Electronic emotion: Socioemotional content in a computer-
mediated communication network. Communication Research, 14(1), 85–108.
Rutter, D. R. (1987). Communicating by telephone. International Series in Experimental

Social Psychology. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications.
London: Wiley.
Spears, R., Lea, M., Corneliussen, R. A., Postmes, T., & Haar, W. T. (2002). Computer-me
diated communication as a channel for social resistance: The strategic side of SIDE. Small
Group Research, 33(5), 555–574.
Subrahmanyam, K., & Lin, G. (2007). Adolescents on the net: Internet use and well-being.
Adolescence, 42(168), 659–678.
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2008). Adolescents’ identity experiments on the Internet:
Consequences for social competence and self-concept unity. Communication Research
35(2), 208–231.
Page 46 of 50
Vromen, A., Xenos, M. A., & Loader, B. (2015). Young people, social media and connective
action: From organisational maintenance to everyday political talk. Journal of Youth Stud
ies,18(1), 80–100.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications
(Vol. 8). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Yates, S. J. (1996). Oral and literate linguistic aspects of CMC discourse: A corpus based
study in S. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and
cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 29–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins (International Prag
matics Series).
Notes:
within each Domain, and the relative frequency of concepts associated with each cluster.
Simeon J. Yates
Page 47 of 50
Rich Ling
Rich Ling (PhD, University of Colorado) has focused his work on the social conse
quences of mobile communication. He was a professor at the IT University of Copen
hagen, where he has served in department management, and he works at Telenor
near Oslo, Norway. Ling has been the Pohs visiting professor of communication stud
ies (2005) at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, where he has an adjunct posi
tion. He is the author of the book Taken for grantedness (2012 MIT Press), which was
recently the subject of a complementary review in the journal Science. He has also
written New tech, new ties (2008, MIT), The mobile connection (Morgan Kaufmann)
and, along with Jonathan Donner, he has written the book Mobile phones and mobile
communication (2009, Polity). Ling is a founding co-editor of the Sage journal Mobile
Media and Communication. He is the co-editor of the Oxford University Press series
Studies in Mobile Communication with Gerard Goggin and Leopoldina Fortunati.
Along with Scott Campbell he is the founding editor of The Mobile Communication
Research Series and he is an associate editor for The Information Society, The Jour
nal of Computer Mediated Communication, and Information Technology and Interna
tional Development.
Laura Robinson
Laura Robinson is Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology at Santa Clara

University. She earned her PhD from UCLA, where she held a Mellon Fellowship in
Latin American Studies and received a Bourse d’Accueil at the École Normale
Supérieure. In addition to holding a postdoctoral fellowship on a John D. and Cather
ine T. MacArthur Foundation–funded project at the USC Annenberg Center, Robinson
has served as Visiting Assistant Professor at Cornell University and Affiliated Faculty
at the UC Berkeley Institute for the Study of Societal Issues. She is a series co-editor
for Emerald Studies in Media and Communications and previously served as the
Chair of CITAMS (formerly CITASA). Her research has earned awards from CITASA,
AOIR, and NCA IICD. Robinson’s current multi-year study examines digital and infor
Page 48 of 50
mational inequalities. Her other publications explore interaction and identity work,
as well as new media in Brazil, France, and the United States.
Catherine Brooks
Catherine Brooks (PhD, University of California) is the Founder and Director of the
Center for Digital Society and Data Studies (CDSDS), Director of Arizona’s iSchool,
and an Associate Professor in the School of Information. Catherine’s primary re
search interests focus on issues of language and culture, with particular concern
about data privacy and digital exclusion. She established the CDSDS as an interdisci
plinary research center meant to explore today’s grand challenges related to a digital
society and data-driven culture. Catherine has spent more than 20 years in higher
education, she developed the new Information Science and eSociety degree program
for the School of Information at UA, and has published work on a variety of topics to
include supporting faculty online and training students for life and work in a digital
society.
Adam Joinson
Adam Joinson is Professor of Information Systems at the University of Bath. He con

ducts inter-disciplinary research on the interaction between human behavior and
technology, with specific foci on issues of how the design of systems influences be
havior ranging from privacy and self-disclosure, cyber-security, social relations, and
patterns of influence. He is a program lead for the national Centre for Research and
Evidence on Security Threats, as well as currently running funded projects on indi
vidual susceptibility to malevolent influence techniques (e.g., scams, phishing), com
munication accommodation, and behavioral change and technology. Adam’s work has
been funded by the ESRC, EPSRC, EU, British Academy, DSTL, and UK Government.
He also has an interest in “big data” generally and the use of computational social
science to gain insights into social and workplace behaviors.
Monica Whitty
Monica Whitty is Professor of Human Factors in Cyber Security at the University of

Melbourne, Australia and the University of Warwick, WMG, United Kingdom. She is
also on the Global Futures committee for cybersecurity for the World Economic Fo
rum. Her research over the last 20 years has focused on the ways individuals behave
in cyberspace. Her work, in particular, examines identities created in cyberspace, cy
berscams, online security risks, behavior in cyberspace, insider threat, as well as de
tecting and preventing cybercrimes. Monica is the author of over 100 articles, and
five books, the latest being Cyberpsychology: The study of individuals, society and
digital technologies (Wiley, 2017, with Garry Young). She is currently leading an in
terdisciplinary project funded by TIPS (ESPRC) titled, Detecting and Preventing
Mass-Marketing Fraud.
Elinor Carmi
Page 49 of 50

Culture & Society.
Page 50 of 50
Media Mastery by College Students: A Typology and Review
Media Mastery by College Students: A Typology and Re

view
Ronald E. Rice, Nicole Zamanzadeh, and Ingunn Hagen
The continuing evolution and use of a wide array of digital media represents challenges
to understand and learn new features and applications, as well as manage the contradic
tions and paradoxes of both positive and negative implications, often simultaneously. This
chapter explicates the concept of media mastery, the more or less conscious and more or
less successful ongoing process of how people master (understand, manage, make sense
of, cope with, and use) one or more new media in their everyday lives, as well as how me
dia in turn master (manage, control, or affect) individuals and their social relations.
Based on extensive and iterative analyses of transcripts of focus groups with college stu
dents in Norway and the United States and several rounds of reviewing research litera
ture about college students’ use of new media, we develop a typology of three sets of con
textual factors or occasions for media mastery (Technology, Social Aspects, and Individual
Aspects), and a set of Media Mastery factors (access, boundaries, constraints, managing
content, obstacles, and use awareness). We use this typology to produce a focused litera
ture review of 218 articles from 2010 to 2018. One implication is that the concept of me
dia mastery appears to underlie a variety of theoretical approaches to understanding uses
and effects of new media.
Keywords: college students, digital media, effects of new media, focus groups, media mastery, new media, uses of
new media
Introduction
DIGITAL media, from the early Arpanet and email through to current developments such
as social media and the Internet of Things, have changed our everyday lives and social re
lationships.1 But every aspect of society has also become more and more dependent on
that technology. We use digital media for information, education, entertainment, interac
tion, and consumption, and for managing countless aspects of our lives. Yet digital media
also compete for people’s attention, energy, time, identity, and relationships in a way that
can be challenging, risky, and harmful for individuals, groups, and society (Xu, Wang, &
Page 1 of 70
David, 2016). Our concern, then, is the tension between the process of trying to master
digital media, and the process of being mastered by them (Rice, Hagen, & Zamanzadeh,
2018). The purpose of this chapter is to synthesize and understand the uses and effects of
digital media among college students through the framework of media mastery, pervasive
but latent in the current literature. We do so by reviewing examples of media mastery fac
tors associated with social and individual contexts.
Different age cohorts and life span periods are associated with different exposure to and
use of information and communication technologies (ICTs), experiences of positive and
negative aspects of ICTs, and cognitive and emotional abilities used to manage ICTs (Rei
necke et al., 2017). We focus on college students, because they: have grown up with an in
creasingly diverse array of new media, are usually experiencing significant transitions
from their family and high school friends, are engaging in a wide variety of new social in
teractions and contexts, and are required to take personal control over (p. 251) their
tasks, schedules, and relationships (DeAndrea, Ellison, LaRose, Steinfield, & Fiore, 2012;
Manago, Taylor, & Greenfield, 2012; Turkle, 2011). They are also prodigious users of digi
tal media and experience a wide array of positive and negative uses and outcomes. We
note just a few examples.
Amount of use is considerable. In a 24-hour tracking study of the mobile phone use of 793
university students in four countries, Mihailidis (2014, p. 58) found that 31% of the par
ticipants logged into social networking apps more than 13 times in a 24-hour period,
clearly demonstrating the centrality of mobile Internet use for the “tethered generation.”
In Moreno et al.’s (2012) experience sampling study with 189 undergraduate students,
participants multitasked 56.5% of the time they were online.
Types of use are diverse. Analysis of a week’s worth of social media usage by college stu
dents documented content-sharing, text-based entertainment/discussion, relationships,
and video consumption as the main clusters of activity (Wang, Niiya, Mark, Reich, &
Warschauer, 2015).
Negative implications are extensive. A panel study among 484 undergraduate students
from the United States found negative effects of perceived “cyber-based overload” (e.g.,
e-mail volume, pressure to respond, perceived pressure to post content on social media
etc.) on perceived stress and overall health status (Misra & Stokols, 2012, p. 740). In a
survey study with 600 student participants, LaRose, Connolly, Lee, Li, and Hales (2014)
explored the effects of “connection overload” (p. 59) arising from the communication de
mands resulting from social media and e-mail use.
Page 2 of 70
The Concept of Media Mastery

Definition
Media mastery is the more or less conscious and more or less successful ongoing process
of how people understand, manage, make sense of, cope with, and use one or more new
media in their everyday lives, as well as how media in turn come to manage, control, or
affect individuals and their social relations. Media mastery includes the choices, engage
ment, habits, and patterns people engage in and develop in their lives regarding the use
of media, its content, and its social connections (see also Picone, 2017). Our concept of
media mastery entails four main arguments.
1. Media mastery invokes the reciprocality among structure, actors, and technology
of structurational theory (Jones & Karsten, 2008) and adaptive structuration
(DeSanctis & Poole, 1994), in the context of individuals, groups, social contexts, and
new media. Thus, we apply the concept of media mastery in two ways. The first is
how we master the balance and use of one or more media in different (p. 252) con
texts. The second is the more subtle issue of the ways in and extent to which these
media master us—as our activities, concerns, and relationships are being shaped
through, facilitated and constrained by, and dependent upon, the use of these media.
For example, users may learn about themselves, and benefit from, online identities,
but managing and repairing those requires constant connectedness, awareness, re
vising, and tending (boyd, 2015). This awareness of the dual nature of media (or for
that matter, any technology) is not new: Postman (1996), in the context of television
and computers, claimed that more important than learning how to use media is
learning how they use us.
2. Crucial to the media mastery concept is the awareness, interpretation, and man
agement of both (often simultaneously) positive and negative aspects and implica
tions of media use. Katz and Rice (2002) applied a syntopian approach to the study of
Internet use specifically to reject either a utopian or dystopian perspective. Smith
(2015), summarizing a U.S. Pew survey, noted that while from 70% to over 90% re
ported positive benefits relative to disadvantages of their smartphone use, younger
users were more likely to report both positive as well as negative emotions about
their use. Best, Manktelow, and Taylor’s (2014) review of a decade’s worth of studies
on online communication, social media, and adolescent wellbeing, found both posi
tive implications (self-esteem, perceived social support, increased social capital, safe
identity experimentation and increased opportunity for self-disclosure) and negative
effects (exposure to harm, social isolation, depression and cyber-bullying). Much re
search and popular literature underscores the potential for various media dependen
cies, problematic use, and addiction (David, Kim, Brickman, Ran, & Curtis, 2015).
3. Tensions, contradictions, and paradoxes arise in and from media experiences. Re
search on new media in general and the Internet and mobile phones in particular has
identified tensions, contradictions and paradoxes in their use, social construction,
and implications, though with varying definitions and foci. For example, Rice, Hagen,
Page 3 of 70
and Zamanzadeh (2018) identified a variety of paradoxes associated with college stu
dents’ use of new media, such as being both stimulating and exhausting, and both
flexible and uncontrollable. Jarvenpaa and Lang’s (2005) analysis of urban mobile de
vice users in Helsinki, Tokyo, Hong Kong, and Austin grouped an initial set of 23
paradoxes into eight: empowerment/enslavement, independence/dependence, fulfills
needs/creates needs, competence/incompetence, planning/improvisation, engaging/
disengaging, public/private, and illusion/disillusion.
4. Media mastery is highly contextual, shaped by the user’s own and their social
groups’ values and attitudes towards media, their motivations for using media, and
the characteristics, capabilities, convergence, affordances, mobility, and personaliza
tion of media. Thus the balance between mastery of media by users, or of users by
media, shifts across media, contexts, and time. Using media for some goals in some
contexts may have different and even opposed interpretations or outcomes, or acti
vate or even preclude other goals, in other contexts.
(p. 253) Related Concepts
We distinguish the concept of media mastery from a range of established as well as re
cent terms, ranging from the more individual to the more societal. Some approaches fo
cus on individuals’ self-regulation and attention, emphasizing both psychological and cog
nitive aspects. For example, Wu (2015) identified four dimensions of an online learning
motivated attention and regulatory strategies scale, comprising perceived attention dis
continuity, and social media notifications (constituting knowledge of attention), and be
havioral strategies, and mental strategies (constituting regulation of attention). Thus Wu
highlights the important role of meta-attention or motivated attention. Integrating those
with a variety of other measures, Wu clustered users into five categories: (1) motivated
strategic, (2) the unaware, (3) the hanging on, (4) the non-responsive, and (5) the self-dis
ciplined. Media mastery involves self-regulation but that is only one component of an
individual’s experience of mastery or of being mastered. A related approach is the con
cept and practice of mindfulness (Schonert-Reichl & Roeser, 2016)—which highlights the
importance of paying attention (in a non-judgmental way) to what you are paying atten
tion to, and to avoid being distracted—to the use of media (Hadar & Ergas, 2018; John
son, 2015; Levy, 2017). Levy’s exercises help students become more mindful and reflec
tive about their technology use, to reshape use and social interactions. Johnson suggests
thinking about media use as an information diet, leading to “conscious consumption.”
Media literacy is more general and more cognitively oriented, emphasizing the awareness
of media practices and the development of media-related skills (O’Neill & Hagen, 2009).
Rheingold (2012) integrates mindfulness with media literacy, also underscoring the im
portance of being aware of how we think about our media use. He proposes five central
digital literacies: conscious attention and intention, critical evaluation of content, partici
pation and managing your presentation, collaboration and sharing, and developing net
works and social capital. Literacy bolsters users’ awareness of various aspects of media,
Page 4 of 70
but via media mastery requires individuals to personalize this information to their capaci
ties, desires, and social surroundings.
James (2014) identifies three value-oriented ways of thinking about media use in relation
to others, manifesting different levels of conscientious connectivity, “the use of ethical
thinking skills, a sensitivity to the moral and ethical dimensions of online situation, and a
motivation to reflect on and wrestle with the associated dilemmas” (James, 2014, p. 109).
This varies both individually and across online communities. Thus, she asks, what are
young people thinking when they use new media? The vastly increased ability to interact
with (knowingly or not) diverse others across time and space deepens the gaps between
(1) consequence thinking (concerned with implications of a specific action for oneself), (2)
moral thinking (an application of principles with known individuals or a group) and (3)
ethical thinking (an other-focused consideration of the implications for a broader commu
nity or public, concerned with roles and responsibilities thinking, complex perspective
taking, and community thinking; James, 2014, pp. 5–7). A 2008–2012 study by James and
colleagues identified five ethically related themes related to the use of social network
sites, blogs, content-sharing sites, and gaming communities by youth and young (p. 254)
adults: “online identity, credibility, privacy, property, and participation” (p. 18). The con
cept of conscientious connectivity is about when and where youth thinking is sensitive to
moral or ethical issues, and where there are blind spots (favoring self-interest over oth
ers’ interests, and where other concerns diminish ethical concerns, but also including
blind spots about technical aspects of new media, such as the extent to which postings
can be viewed by the general public) and disconnects (more conscious and intentional
dismissal of or indifference to others’ interests in favor of self-interests).
Domestication theory explains how new media, through adoption, integration, and con
version, become embedded into daily practices (initially in the home, but then applied in
wider contexts), and blur traditional home/work/life boundaries (Haddon, 2003; Silver
stone & Hirsch, 1992). What is new eventually becomes an artifact (Rice, 1999). Taken-
for-grantedness is the social condition whereby a medium has become fully integrated in
to society, embedding expectations, interdependencies, and social practices (Ling, 2012),
or, in diffusion of innovations terms, structured and routinized (Rogers, 2003). This con
cept overlaps with the more individual behavior of media use habit, or habitual media
use, which itself overlaps with dependency, addiction, and general problematic use
(Wilmer & Chein, 2016). Domestication and routines play a role at individual and social
levels of media mastery. Over time, as individuals and societies adapt to, and adopt, the
tools they’ve created, used, learned, applied, and become familiar with or dependent on,
the skills for managing media and their positive or negative outcomes will change and
may improve.
Given the expanding realm of media choices, the concept of polymedia emphasizes that
understanding, choice, and use of a medium is relative to comparisons with other avail
able media (Madianou & Miller, 2013). Rainie and Wellman (2012) and others have dis
cussed the growth of this multiple media environment. Experiences, from small to large,
now involve multiple, multitasking, interdependent, layered, and blended media (Hilbert,
Page 5 of 70
Vásquez, Halpern, Valenzuela, & Arriagada, 2017). Helles (2013) characterizes this new
environment with the term intermediality, especially as, with the widespread adoption
and constant evolution of the mobile phone, “the user becomes a mobile terminus for me
diated communicative interaction across the various contexts of daily life” (p. 14). For
merly distinct, independent, or location-specific features, and content are now available
through smartphones, laptops, and tablet computers. Thus digitization, mobility, and net
working create convergence across content and media, and allow or require comparisons
across media choices (Jensen, 2010). Burchell (2017, p. 409) highlights that “the
individual’s perception of [the] environment of increasingly differentiated communication
possibilities becomes a site for managing and partially negotiating the limits, form and or
ganization of one’s social world.” A related concept is Couldry’s (2012) media manifold,
where activities are embedded in a pervasive environment of networked media. Other
conceptualizations such as mediapolis (Silverstone, 2007) and medialife (Deuze, 2012) re
fer to the increasing embeddedness, interrelatedness and invisibility of media, creating a
pervasive social, sensory, and cognitive experience (Miller, 2014). Gershon (2010) dis
cussed media ideologies, which shape perceptions of media practice norms. Mediatization
focuses more on how media are at the center of (p. 255) significant cultural, political and
social developments, and become embedded and hidden (Deacon & Stanyer, 2014; Hjar
vard, 2009; Miller, 2014; Livingstone, 2009).
Media mastery takes a more micro focus (individuals and their social relations) than do
social construction of technology or social shaping of technology approaches. The social
construction of technology (Klein & Kleinman, 2002; Pinch & Bijker, 1987) centers around
five major components: Interpretive flexibility (social circumstances and intergroup nego
tiations affect interpretation and meaning of a technology, and thus varying final de
signs); multiple relevant social groups (shared and competing interpretations and mean
ings within and across groups affect technology development and outcome); closure and
stabilization (moving through and negotiating conflicting interpretations to resolution,
closure, and a stable artifact); the wider context (society, culture, politics, power); and the
technological frame (cognitive frame of a relevant group, with shared goals, problems,
theories, procedures, and exemplars). The social shaping of technology approach(es)
places more emphasis on the social, economic, and policy, in addition to the technical, as
pects of innovation processes and technology form. Social, cultural, economic and institu
tional forces affect each (conscious and unconscious) choice among technical options, of
ten exhibiting path dependence and varying levels of lock-in or closure, with subsequent
ly different innovation trajectories and social implications (MacKenzie & Wajcman, 1985;
Williams & Edge, 1996). Thus media mastery does not explicitly consider the origin, de
velopment, and design of technological innovations; rather, it is about the construction
and shaping by (mastering), and of (being mastered), individuals in their social settings of
the meanings, choices, uses, and consequences of, and by, new media already available to
them.
Page 6 of 70
Development of the Concept
Our initial interest in college students’ use of digital media arose from our observations of
the way computers and mobile phones seemingly were already central technologies in
their daily lives in the early 2000s. Thus, we initiated the Media Mastery Project, where
the focus is on exploring the way college students attempt to use and master digital (es
pecially multiple) media. We first conducted a literature review and analyzed focus group
interviews with students at two universities in the U.S. and Norway in 2005/2006 (Rice &
Hagen, 2010). Based on those results and an updated literature review, we iteratively de
veloped and refined a detailed Media Mastery typology. We used that to code another
round of similar focus groups in 2016 (Rice, Hagen, & Zamanzadeh, 2018). For example,
we discovered that students experienced attempts (conscious or not) to master media
through their experiencing of paradoxes, contradictions, and tensions, while also being
themselves somewhat mastered (conscious or not) by these media. Based on those re
sults, we extended and further refined the typology to use in coding the current set of ar
ticles. Essentially, we followed Chaffee’s (1991) claim that “In practice the scholar begins
reading prior studies, moves to various steps in the explication process, refines the pre
liminary definition, and then returns to the literature search with a sharpened
definition” (p. 22). Our approach expands beyond an emergent-only or solely grounded-
theory approach, which would ignore a vast existing (p. 256) set of concepts and litera
ture, as well as a solely a priori approach, which would exclude insights beyond the initial
framework. Rather, it takes what Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic (2014) call a hermeneutic
approach, by engaging in iterations between (cycles of) search and acquisition, and (cy
cles of) analysis and interpretation. But it takes that approach even further, by including
content and thematic analyses from a set of focus groups a decade apart. Both sources
provided some concepts not found in the other, and revealed some different insights in
different time periods. Thus the current review synthesizes how the concept of media
mastery illuminates the research literature about college students’ experiencing of digital
media, within social and individual contexts.
Materials and Coding

Scope of the Literature
The initial literature review was based on Proquest Social Sciences databases, Google
Scholar, and other publications we were aware of, as well as foundational publications
from the 2010 literature review. New concepts or issues arising from the focus groups
lead us to seek additional relevant publications. Once the typology was fully developed,
we then conducted two literature searches. Both were for the period Jan 1 2010 – Jan 1
2018, full text articles in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, or book chapters. Search
terms were (student* AND (college OR university)) AND (digital OR social media OR lap
top OR mobile phone OR smartphone OR personal computer OR tablet computer OR IPad
OR Internet OR World Wide Web). We first searched in abstracts in Proquest (ERIC, Psy
chArticles, PsychInfo, Sociological Abstracts), retrieving 65, of which 7 were relevant.
Page 7 of 70
Then we searched in the title or abstract in the Social Sciences Citation Index, which re
turned 3896 publications, which were sorted by relevance (using the SSCI feature); the
top 10% of the title and abstracts were read for relevance. Publications about “young
adults” were included if they specifically indicated college ages. Publications were not in
cluded about: use of media for campus campaigns, interventions, or activism; studies of
technology for pedagogy or educational policy, or evaluation of digital media use in class
room on performance, unless from the students’ perspective; and samples of college stu
dents without explicit focus on media use. Finally several recent highly relevant books
and book chapters were added. From all these sources, we identified 218 publications.
Thus our review is extensive and well-grounded and -developed, but is neither compre
hensive nor statistically representative.
Where possible, we obtained the full publication (.pdf, .html, .docx); 26 were not avail
able, so we used the title and abstract. These were imported into NVIVO 11, along with
the full coding typology (component code, subcodes, and subsubcodes, each of which can
be aggregated to its higher level analysis). We prepared a spreadsheet with the reference
and abstract for each publication. The articles and spreadsheet were separated into three
sets, grouped alphabetically, one for each author.
(p. 257) The Media Mastery Typology
The media mastery typology includes three sets of contextual factors or occasions for me
dia mastery (Technology, Social Aspects, and Individual Aspects), and a set of Media Mas
tery factors. These media mastery factors are ways in which media can more or less “mas
ter” the user, and ways in which users can attempt to more or less “master” media. Table
9.1 summarizes and briefly defines these factors (codes) and their levels of subcodes. The
NVIVO project also included a Context category (location of media use by the respon
dents, the type of respondents, and country of the study), and a new emergent category
of Theory and Frameworks (includes explicit naming of a theory or a model, as well as of
primary concepts, used to frame or motivate the study), and a working category for emer
gent New Codes for later discussion, relabeling, and integration into the appropriate sub
codes.
Page 8 of 70
(p. 258) Table 9.1 Media Mastery Typology Codes and Sublevels
Typology Codes Subcode and (Subsub Range of sub

codes) subcodes
Technology Devices, services, sites alarm clock to

(refers to the technol (explicit mention of de YouTube
ogy—devices & sites, vices, services, sites) accessories to
features, and uses) Features (mention of at technical as
tributes, affordances, pects
features, abilities of the achievement/
technology (device, ser productivity/
vice, etc.)) completion to
Uses (ways, purposes, or writing
activities for which re
spondents use the tech
nology; also extent or
type of use)
Social Aspects Social relations (bonds, affection to so

(emphasizing the so relationships, interac cial ties-net
cial and relational as tions, social use con work
pects and contexts— texts) co-dependence
relations, influence, Social influence to traditional
and self-presentation) (process, concern, be social values
havior related to influ authenticity to
ence of one’s social con superficial
text)
Self-presentation (issues
of and representation of
self in social contexts)
Individual Aspects Problematic use addiction-

(individual aspects in (questionable or harm hooked to
volved in or arising ful use, whether to self withdrawal
from or associated or others) adjustment to
with use—problematic Health (individual psy symptoms
use, health, individual chological, physical, disinhibition to
traits, individual cog spiritual health issues, self-esteem/
nition) needs, concerns) self-worth
Traits (individual per academic per
sonality or psychological formance to
traits) recall
Page 9 of 70
Cognition (rational,
mental information pro
cessing and outcomes
(attention, learning, re
call, etc.))
Media Mastery Access (access to or ac access to so

(aspects related to cessing, the device, in cial coordina
use, management, and formation, self and oth tion ability
implications of the ers) accountability-
technology, including Boundaries (when or responsibility
contradictions, obsta where tech use cross to work-non
cles, using the con boundaries; where user work
tent, access, bound becomes involved across ambivalence to
aries, and awareness system or social bound unintended
of that use) aries; the interface be consequences
tween tech and social) ambiguity-un
Constraints certainty to
(contradictory, paradoxi temporary or
cal, unintended, positive ephemeral
and negative uses or access (techni
consequences) cal difficulties)
Managing content to viruses-mal
(using the tech to cre ware
ate, process, use, obtain attitudes about
content, including about one’s use to
self) use of multiple
Obstacles (difficulties in media
using technology)
Use awareness (level
and type of user aware
ness, intention, con
sciousness, self-reflexivi
ty, decision making
about their use)
Note: Only the first and last subsubsubcodes for each subcode are
listed here. See Table 9.2 for a list of each subsubcode for the Media
Mastery subcodes. The full list of codes, subcodes, subsubcodes, and
subsubsubcodes, with short operational definition, is available in the
supplemental codebook.
Page 10 of 70
The Coding Process
Before coding, the three authors carefully reviewed and discussed every code on the ty
pology. We next read our spreadsheet’s set of titles and abstracts to get an overview of
the range of topics and terms. For coding, we first read each of our publications (exclud
ing abstract and references) to determine and code for (1) the motivating theory, model
or concept, and (2) for the population and country context. For each publication, we then
checked each paragraph (excluding abstract and references) for (3) any indicators of me
dia mastery codes. If so, we coded that paragraph for (4) any and all specific subsubcodes
of the media mastery component, (5) any instance of a specific technology/device/site
subsubcode, (6) any instance of a subcode in the other two Technology subcodes, or of a
Social or Individual subcode, and (7) any emergent codes into Theories and Frameworks,
or into New Codes, for later discussion, grouping, and inclusion. Finally, we each also
maintained and later discussed a journal within NVIVO to document any questions or sug
gestions.
We first each coded several of the same articles, and met to discuss ambiguities or addi
tions. From then on, each author worked on their set of one-third articles, grouped alpha
betically. In the next week we separately coded 10 articles each, met to discuss the
(p. 259) codings and clarifications, and documented any changes or additional codes. The
following week we repeated the coding and discussion process with the next 10 articles
each. Finding few additional codes by that time, we then proceeded to code and then dis
cuss the next 20 articles each from our separate sets, and repeated that process until all
articles were coded. At each meeting we discussed any new Theories or Frameworks
codes or any New Codes, and then each updated our coding file with those so all coders
had access to any new codes. As both the list of codes, and the coding process, evolved
most during the early stages, when all articles were coded, we removed the codes from
each of our first 10 articles, and recoded them using the full coding set and coding proce
dures.
When all articles were coded, we then met to discuss all the new Theories and Frame
works, and the New Codes, and grouped similar ones, especially those with few in
stances. For example, under Theories and Frameworks, bridging and bonding compo
nents were grouped with the general theory of social capital; or under New Codes, man
aging and expressing emotions were grouped under emotions. Finally, we decided where
to move each of the New Codes into the prior codes. The final typology reflects this exten
sive, iterative, multi-year, multi-study, and multi-data process. The typology and coding
operationalizations, as well as the full list of analyzed references, are available from the
first author.
Description of the Sample
Technologies, Context, and Theories were not the focus of the study, were coded for oc
currence anywhere in the article, and thus were not specifically related to text indicating
the media mastery components. Therefore, they are not included in the co-occurrence re
Page 11 of 70
view later in the chapter. A wide range of technologies appeared throughout the retrieved
literature. These include 58 devices (from alarm apps to YouTube), representing 182 arti
cles and 380 codings; 9 features (from accessories to personalizing settings), represent
ing 12 articles and 20 codings; and 51 uses (from achievement to writing), involving 30
articles and 60 codings. Nearly all (202) of the 242 population subsubcodes were of col
lege students, with a few samples consisting of adolescent or young adults that included
college students. There were 209 country subsubcodes, with the most to the United
States (88) and China (32), Turkey (14), and Taiwan (11), with at least one coding to an
other 36 countries (from Argentina to the United Kingdom). 133 out of the 218 articles
mentioned a total of 131 theories, models, frameworks, or primary concepts, with 239
coding instances, ranging from the accessibility hypothesis (Yang et al., 2017) to vertical
discourse (Bennett & Maton, 2010). The theories and frameworks mentioned in the most
articles included social capital (14 articles), uses-and-gratifications perspective (12), ad
diction (10), internet addiction (9), digital natives, social cognitive theory (6 each), attach
ment theory, problem behavior theory (4), and cognitive-behavioral theory, cyberbullying,
diffusion of innovations, life satisfaction, personality, smart phone addiction, and subjec
tive well-being (3).
Table 9.2 lists each of the Social, Individual, and Media Mastery codes and subcodes, and
in the case of Media Mastery the subsubcodes, along with the number of subsubcodes,
(p. 260) (p. 261) (p. 262) (p. 263) the number of articles jointly coded
(p. 264) (p. 265) (p. 266)
for a specific Media Mastery subsubcode and either a Social or an Individual subcode,
and the number of times each code was used, all provided by NVIVO.
For the following review, we then retrieved co-occurrences in NVIVO of media mastery
subsubcodes with each of the social aspects and individual aspects subcodes. Here, each
of the authors coded two different sets of the subsubcodes, so that coders and materials
were crossed between coding and reviewing. Only a few examples from the most frequent
and/or most interesting or unique co-occurrences are used. (All citations with three or
more authors are referred to as “et al.”)
Page 12 of 70
Table 9.2 Co-occurrences of Media Mastery Subcodes with Social and Individual Aspects Subcodes
Page 13 of 70
Media Social Aspects Subcodes Individual Aspects Subcodes

Mastery
Compo
nents and
Subsub
codes
Access Social re Social in Self-pre Problem Health Traits Cognition
(A:158, R: lations fluence sentation atic use (SC:25, A: (SC:9, A: (SC:6, A:
750) (SC:24, A: (SC:21, A: (SC:17, A: (SC:22, A: 117, R: 58, R: 69, R:
105, R: 36, R:82) 49, 86, 309) 109) 217)
307) R:114) R:265)
1. access 6 0 0 9 17 1 6
2. access 0 0 0 0 2 1 3
(to a medi
um)
3. access 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
to others
4. accessi 105 28 26 74 64 29 38
bility—con
tent & peo
ple
Page 14 of 70
5. avail 75 8 10 20 25 20 13
ability of
self and
others
through
media
6. collabo 13 6 0 4 4 2 11
ration
through
media
7. conve 17 2 4 17 16 4 9
nience—
ease
8. notifica 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
tions
9. passive 4 2 0 6 3 2 3
—low ef
fort
10. social 8 1 1 0 6 1 3
coordina
tion ability
Page 15 of 70
Bound Social re Social in Self-pre Problem Health Traits Cognition
aries lations fluence sentation atic use
(A:161, R:
894)
1. account 11 5 5 9 3 6 0
ability—re
sponsibility
2. 7 1 3 9 4 7 0
anonymity
3. audi 8 5 12 5 3 3 2
ence
4. balanc 1 0 2 2 1 1 0
ing online
and offline
self
5. balanc 2 1 1 0 1 0 0
ing online
and offline
social net
works
Page 16 of 70
6. barriers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
to or facili
tators of
integration
across
boundaries
7. blending 12 5 4 4 5 3 17
—blurring
8. constant 35 9 8 28 31 9 14
connection
9. context 1 0 5 1 2 0 0
collapse
10. contin 3 2 0 0 1 0 3
uous co-
presence
11. divides 12 0 4 7 8 4 13
12. identi 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
ty disjunc
ture
Page 17 of 70
13. 1 1 0 1 1 0 0
parental
access
14. perma 3 3 4 3 1 0 1
nence
15. perpet 9 1 2 4 3 0 3
ual—per
sistent—
contact
(subset)
16. person 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
al space
17. perva 4 2 0 2 3 2 0
sive aware
ness
18. privacy 9 4 12 17 6 2 4
19. public 5 4 5 3 2 0 2
20. safety 8 2 6 6 8 1 0
Page 18 of 70
21. self- 22 10 41 5 6 9 2
broadcast
ing
22. self- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
editing or
self-cen
sorship
23. surveil 5 3 1 4 3 3 1
lance
24. transi 25 2 4 3 18 3 7
tions
25. trust 5 1 3 0 2 1 0
26. ubiqui 3 1 2 4 2 1 5
ty
27. visibili 13 5 10 8 8 5 3
ty—trans
parency
28. vulner 14 3 4 27 36 14 3
ability
Page 19 of 70
29. watch 5 4 0 4 2 2 5
fulness
30. work— 0 0 0 1 0 0 4
nonwork
Con Social re Social in Self-pre Problem Health Traits Cognition
straints lations fluence sentation atic use
(A:101, R:
291)
1. ambiva 2 2 1 4 2 1 1
lence
2. contra 30 12 9 35 30 8 26
diction—
paradox—
tension
3. double- 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
standards
4. interpre 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
tive flexi
bility (con
trasts)
Page 20 of 70
5. irony 1 3 0 1 2 1 1
6. loss or 17 2 3 9 7 5 7
change of
some tradi
tional skills
or activi
ties or re
lations
7. negotiat 2 0 0 0 0 0 1
ing
8. unin 7 4 1 14 14 3 6
tended
conse
quence
Managing Social re Social in Self-pre Problem Health Traits Cognition
Content lations fluence sentation atic use
(A:129, R:
551)
1. ambigui 1 0 1 1 0 0 1
ty—uncer
tainty
Page 21 of 70
2. aware 3 2 3 7 2 1 2
ness
3. com 5 0 3 2 0 0 0
modifica
tion
4. con 7 4 3 7 6 0 1
sumption
5. control 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
over own
content
(5.4 man
aging con
tent)
6. gratify 26 8 12 16 13 10 14
ing—satis
fying
7. media 4 0 1 5 5 1 5
literacy
(learning
how to use
media)
Page 22 of 70
8. media 19 10 4 16 24 7 82
multitask
ing
9. personal 23 7 22 17 7 4 1
info
10. pro 10 7 10 6 2 4 4
dusers—to
share or
post
11. tempo 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
rary or
ephemeral
Obstacles Social re Social in Self-pre Problem Health Traits Cognition
(A:49, R: lations fluence sentation atic use
213)
1. access 4 0 1 4 3 1 6
2. battery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
—no elec
outlet
Page 23 of 70
3. break 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
drop lose
phone or
computer
4. change 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
in technol
ogy; updat
ing or up
grading
5. compati 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
bility
6. com 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
plexity
7. connec 3 1 0 0 1 0 5
tions
8. costs (fi 4 0 2 6 5 0 11
nancial,
time,
psych)
9. distract 6 2 0 16 8 1 32
ing
Page 24 of 70
10. frustra 1 2 0 1 2 0 0
tion
11. info 1 0 0 1 5 1 5
overload
12. inter 4 0 0 3 4 1 7
ference
13. inter 2 3 0 2 2 1 5
ruptions
14. pass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
words
15. spam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16. tech 1 0 0 1 1 0 1
problems
17. techno- 1 2 0 2 2 0 0
stress
18. time 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
zones
Page 25 of 70
19. viruses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
—malware
Use Social re Social in Self-pre Problem Health Traits Cognition
Aware lations fluence sentation atic use
ness
(A:139, R:
630)
1. atti 16 6 4 16 12 11 10
tudes
about
one’s use
2. balance 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
of active
sharing or
just view
ing
3. balanc 8 5 3 1 2 1 2
ing self
and group
needs
Page 26 of 70
4. choices 24 9 14 16 17 8 9
—how
when use
5. exper 7 2 3 6 4 8 21
tise
6. filtering 3 1 1 2 1 0 0
7. media 9 8 3 2 0 1 2
compar
isons
8. media 1 0 0 0 0 2 0
conver
gence
9. media 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
habit
10. meta- 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
attention
11. moni 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
toring or
checking
frequently
Page 27 of 70
12. multi 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
ple conver
sations
13. prepar 5 0 4 1 3 2 0
ing re
sponses
14. self- 4 0 0 19 9 3 7
regulation
15. strate 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
gizing me
dia use for
coordina
tion
16. taken- 0 0 0 7 3 0 6
for-grant
edness
17. techno- 1 1 2 0 0 0 1
resistance
18. tool 4 2 2 9 1 1 5
awareness
Page 28 of 70
19. use of 1 1 1 4 3 4 2
multiple
media
Note: SC: Number of subsubcodes
A: Number of unique articles coded
C: Number of times the subcode was used
As explained in the text, three components are not analyzed here: Technology: devices, services, sites (SC:58, A:182;
C:380), features (SC:9, A:12, R:20), and uses (SC:51, A:30, R:60); Context: location (of the respondents) (SC:8, A:8,
R:10), population (respondent type) SC:12, A:202, R:242), and country of the sample (SC:37, A:195, R:209); and The
ories and Frameworks (SC:131, A:133; C:239).
Page 29 of 70
Review: Co-occurrences of Media Mastery Com

ponents with Social and Individual Aspects
Access
The most frequent association of the subsubcodes for media access is accessibility of con
tent and people, with social relations. The second most frequent subsubcode is availabili
ty of self and others through media, also as it relates to social relations. The third most
frequent subsubcode is accessibility of content and media, in relation to problematic use
for individuals. Accessibility of content and people in association with the health of indi
viduals is also frequent.
Accessibility of content and people, and social relations. Research on college stu
dents’ use of communication technologies such as cell phones and internet platforms sug
gests that the students are “power users” of such communication technologies (Abeele &
Roe, 2011). These communication tools are significant because they enable students to
stay in touch with family and friends at home, and also with new college friends, as well
as search for information and enjoy online leisure activities. Aharony (2017) focused on
the functions provided by mobile phones, and how these relate to students’ personality
characteristics and motivation. Openness to experience and self-disclosure were impor
tant personality characteristics associated with mobile phone use.
College students are particularly engaged in use of social networking sites (SNSs), which
provide them with access to more information and more experiences than they would in a
more closed university environment (Chen & Marcus, 2012). If properly framed, these ex
panded exposures through SNSs can facilitate learning for university students, by use of
new social connections to share ideas, build their new student identities, and develop
their own learning paths. Thus, SNSs seem to facilitate the transition for students to their
new environment, both in terms of socialization and a sense of connection to their institu
tion (DeAndrea et al., 2012; Gray et al., 2013).
In their recent book Technology and engagement Rowan-Kenyon and Alemán

(p. 267)
(2018) use the term “ecology of transition” to describe how social media were important
in making it meaningful for new students to be in college, as well in assisting their inte
gration into the university setting. However, the use of social media and being online can
also be a double-edged sword for students:
“Well, I think that it’s really bad if I’m not on top of my e-mail, and it’s really bad if
I’m not up to date on the class stuff that I have to do on the Internet. I also defi
nitely value keeping in touch with friends. So all those are things that I really like
to be able to do. But it’s tough, because it becomes a real time tradeoff. Often
when I do those things, I end up going to other places on the Internet that aren’t
so valuable to me.”
Page 30 of 70
(Davis, 2011, p. 1972)
Accessibility of content and people, and problematic use. In addition to being com
munication tools, mobile phones provide access to the Internet and are digital environ
ments where students can seek entertainment, shop, and manage finances (Gökçearslan
et al., 2016). However, overuse creates new social problems (Bian & Leung, 2015). The
dramatic increase in use of smartphones worldwide has resulted in problematic use relat
ed to accessibility of content and people. Smartphone addiction is a concern in many
countries (Hong et al., 2012). According to Demirci et al. (2015), smartphone addiction
can be defined as the overuse of smartphones to the extent that it disturbs users’ daily
lives. These authors, like Aker et al. (2017), find that psychological problems such as de
pression and anxiety, and challenges such as insomnia and lack of family social support,
can predict smartphone addiction. Chen et al. (2016) find that both internet and mobile
phone addiction are closely related to interpersonal problems. According to Aladwani and
Almarzoug (2016), low self-esteem also correlates with compulsive use of social media.
More generally, social media and easy access to the internet seem to make students more
vulnerable to compulsive media use. However, for people with inter-personal problems
like social anxiety, face-to-face interaction can be challenging, so having contact with peo
ple on Facebook and via their smartphone could be easier (Clayton et al., 2013).
Several researchers are also concerned with how overuse of smartphones can have dam
aging effects on students’ academic performance (Aljomaa et al., 2016). Students may use
the phone and be inattentive during lectures, or they disturb others by sharing content
like new tones, songs, and YouTube videos with classmates and fellow students. However,
as the authors mentioned emphasize, one should not forget the potential positive effects
of smartphones in facilitating communication and in sharing information among teachers
and students. Also, many students develop various strategies to manage the distractions
of smartphones and laptops (Ames, 2013). Still, controlling intrusions can be challenging
because both work and distractions are present on the same devices. Thus, multi-tasking
is a constant temptation for a number of students (Flanagin & Babchuk, 2015). This is the
reason why Chen et al. (2016) characterize mobile phones as a “double-edged sword” for
young adults. Thus, Flanagin and Babchuk (2015) characterize (p. 268) social media as
“academic quicksand”; when you get in, it is hard to escape, even though students de
scribe how they try hard to manage social media.
A problematic aspect of the increased accessibility from the viewpoint of the film and mu
sic industry is the increasing digital piracy (Duarte et al., 2016). Even though the internet
has increased possibilities for distribution of their products, digital piracy is a daily worry
for these companies. Another problematic aspect of increasing accessibility of people via
new technologies is the growing phenomenon of cyberbullying (Crosslin & Golman,
2014). Experiencing cyberbullying can be so detrimental to the victims that some of them
—like the media-exposed cases of Tyler Clementi and Jessica Logan—have committed sui
cide.
Page 31 of 70
Availability of self and others through media, and social relations. Smartphones
and social media are central in making self and others available, and thus impacting
people’s lives and especially their social relations (Amankwah & Ha, 2015). These authors
discuss smartphones as providing great self-broadcasting power, often through the use of
SNSs. However, while smartphones are demanding attention from users, many students
would emphasize that they would not interrupt a F2F interaction with a phone call (Ames,
2013). A number of students explained that they avoided checking messages or even hav
ing their phone out when with other people or in special social situations (like a date or a
dinner party). Others went out of their way not to be too accessible by phone.
Students, like other young people, are increasingly dependent on social networking sights
for their socialization, information-seeking, and self-broadcasting. Fang and Ha (2015)
claim that students’ SNS consumption is positively associated with social capital and so
cial support, especially for individuals with low psychological resources. However, Mana
go et al. (2012) ask whether there is a trade-off between having a large network on SNSs
like Facebook and being able to develop intimacy and social support among fellow emerg
ing adults. Their results confirm that Facebook mainly facilitates more distant kinds of re
lationships, like acquaintances and activity-based connections, while also reinforcing and
expanding the number of close relationships. According to Manogo and co-authors, the
major function of people’s status updates was emotional disclosure, which plays an im
portant role in developing intimacy. These results indicate that the nature of intimacy is
being transformed, and that large networks were related to higher levels of life satisfac
tion, and also of perceived social support.
Boundaries
The most frequent media boundaries subsubcode co-occurrences are self-broadcasting as

it relates to self-presentation; vulnerability with both health and problematic use; con
stant connection in association with social relations, health and problematic use; and
transitions with social relations.
Constant connection, with social relations. Constant connection easily creates ten
sion, due to the social effect of mediated communication, multi-tasking, and having con
stant (p. 269) technology access, especially facilitated through smartphones. Ames (2013)
notes that so-called digital natives negotiate with (both embracing and rejecting) the so
cial expectations enabled by new technologies. Marlowe et al.’s (2017) study interviewed
students in Auckland from five ethnic minority groups to examine the role of social media
in their social interactions. New media are especially impactful influences on their daily
lives, affecting friendship and family networks, providing access to community engage
ment, and helping a sense of belonging in their diverse society. In recent decades, new
web-based technologies and social media sites are also increasingly being integrated into
learning contexts as well as daily life, becoming “inevitable” (Pilli, 2015, p. 345).
Constant connection, with health. Internet addiction is increasingly a risk area among
college students, which, along with drug use, has been identified as risk factors for youth
Page 32 of 70
suicide (Aricak et al., 2015). Generally, it seems that smartphone addiction co-occurs with
other social, domestic, and academic problems among students. Hassell and Sukalich
(2016) note studies finding that higher levels of internet or social media use are negative
ly associated with life satisfaction. Turkle (2011, p. 276) underscores that “The time-con
suming constant demands for attention and performance becomes stressful and distract
ing, limiting creativity and reflection.” Hong et al. (2012) write about how mobile phone
addiction relates to anxiety and self-esteem, claiming that mobile phone addiction “has an
indirect effect upon the relationship between anxiety and mobile phone usage behavior
and between self-esteem and mobile phone usage behavior” (p. 2158). Similarly, Hussain
et al. (2017) report that smartphone dependency, mediated by constant use, can lead to
anxiety when the phone is not available.
Constant connection, with problematic use. A number of students report how the
smartphone allows for constant connection, being in contact with friends, wasting time,
and playing games. Ames (2013), for example, reports how some students felt that they
have lost their independence by being constantly connected and needing to check on and
with people. They also expressed that being constantly connected, they were hardly fully
present anywhere. A number of students also expressed resistance towards these con
stant connection norms and habits, and that multi-tasking was a constant temptation or
threat. Students depend on their technological devices to the extent that they feel anx
ious and tense when the technology is not readily available or when their attention is
drawn towards what the technology has to offer (Bicen & Arnavut, 2015).
Self-broadcasting, with self-presentation. According to Aricak et al. (2015), social net

working sites increasingly serve as mandatory experiences for young people’s identity
construction. Self-presentation could be a central part of this process. Chen and Marcus
(2012) notice how SNSs provide new arenas for individuals to present themselves, access
and broadcast information, nurture their social networks, and establish and maintain con
nections with others. Amankwah and Ha (2015) conducted a study of smartphones and
self-broadcasting among college students via social media. As much as 85.2% of college
students self-broadcast at least once a month by updating their status on SNS. Network
size, years of experience using social media, and the time spent on social media predicted
frequency of self-broadcasting (which occurs mainly within one’s network). (p. 270) While
most students set their profile as private or semi-private, that did not affect self-broad
cast frequency.
Students spend much of their lives in an electronic world, which continuously demands
their attention. According to Dalton and Crosby (2013), social media have the most seduc
tive influence on college students’ attention. Since social media have become so engaging
for young students, they develop a digital identity, which is “the composite of images that
individuals present, share, and promote for themselves in the digital domain” (p. 1). Kim
and Lee (2011) distinguish between positive and more honest self-presentation on Face
book. With honest self-disclosure one is more likely to receive support from Facebook
friends, which can be beneficial to students’ social wellbeing and happiness. Sponcil and
Gitimu (2013) similarly suggest that intimate self-disclosures help produce greater inti
Page 33 of 70
macy in computer-mediated communication. Punyanunt-Carter and her colleagues (2017)

discuss self-presentation on SnapChat, which is geared towards already solidified inter
personal relationships, like close friends and family. The information disclosed is high in
intimacy, and often mundane. Thus they report that on SnapChat “the ‘true’ self can be
represented rather than the ‘best’ self as is the norm with other social media sites” (p.
891).
Transitions, with social relations. The transition between high school and college is a
major one, where students often move to a new location and have to establish new social
and academic networks, while trying to maintain old networks with family and friends.
Abeele and Roe (2011, p. 237) find that for American new students, “the transition to col
lege involves the task of building up a new social network, and communication technolo
gies play an important role in supporting this process.” Many students need support to
cope with problems they might face in order to adjust to transitions (Fang & Ha, 2015).
These authors argue for using the concept of self-efficacy to understand how young peo
ple continuously use information from both offline and online environments to reevaluate
themselves. DeAndrea et al. (2012) discuss a social media intervention intended to in
crease incoming students’ feelings of connectedness to the university, reduce uncertainty
about college, and influence positive expectancies, as understood within a social capital
framework, to foster a healthy college transition.
Vulnerability, with health and problematic use. Internet addiction disorder has be
come a clinical concept during the last two decades. Numerous studies find that smart
phone addiction is related to a number of psychological and behavioral problems. Kuang-
Tsan and Fu-Yuan (2017) argue that smartphone addiction may also be related to life-
stress for university students. Floros et al. (2014) suggest that college students are par
ticularly vulnerable to internet addiction disorder “due to the particular psychological
and developmental characteristics of late adolescence/young adulthood, ready access to
the Internet, and an expectation of computer/Internet use during studies” (p. 672). Stu
dents who scored high on internet addiction disorder were higher on psychopathology
and distress; they were more lonely, had lower self-esteem, and reported more anxiety
and depression than others. Moreno et al. (2015) found increased risk for problematic in
ternet use and addiction among those with most severe depression.
According to Polo et al. (2017), the mobile phone has caused traditional socializa
(p. 271)
tion spaces to be replaced by virtual ones. Mobile phone use can be risky for young peo
ple, especially because they use mobile phones almost constantly. This could be detrimen
tal to young people’s psychological and social functioning. Heavy users are also more
likely to become problematic or addicted users. Polo et al.’s results indicate that “age,
field of knowledge, victim/aggressor profile, and hours of mobile phone use are crucial
variables in the communication and emotional conflicts arising from the misuse of
mobile” (p. 245).
The large presence of self-injury sites on social media and YouTube24 is seen as alarming,
as self-injury exposure is feared to be socially contagious, inspiring vulnerable individuals
Page 34 of 70
to experiment with self-harm (Jarvi et al., 2017). Some vulnerable individuals such as
those with a tendency to seek novel and intense sensations and experiences may use dat
ing apps to look for drugs or sexual intercourse (Choi et al., 2017). Cyberbullying is a
very serious outcome of inappropriate use of technology, which has resulted in mental
health problems among victims and even suicide (Crosslin & Golman, 2014). Moreover,
cyberbullies themselves are impacted negatively by their bullying behaviors.
Constraints
The four most frequent occurrences involved contradiction/paradox/tensions (at the heart
of media mastery), with social relations, problematic use, health, and cognition. These
were followed by a loss or change of some traditional skills or activities or social rela
tions, and unintended consequences related to both problematic use, and to health. Here,
we focus on four of these few topics that are not much already covered in other sections.
Contradictions, and social influence. Social media help users keep in touch with peers
and groups, a source of social influence, and enable access to social support. But social
media can also create pervasive anxiety from a “fear of missing out” (FOMO) from salient
activities and discussions experienced by those others (Alt, 2015). Indeed, a central con
tradiction of these new media is that while connectivity is generally positive, the need to
constantly monitor others’ communication, and expectations from others for constant
connectivity, creates stress and excessive use. Many students are aware of, and con
cerned about, this contradiction (Ames, 2013). Also, in attempts to strengthen one’s
group identity and gain status, users may post messages and photos of activities that are
quite harmful (self-injury, for example; Jarvi et al., 2017).
Contradictions, and cognition. While thoughtful social media use can improve learning
experiences (Castillo-Manzano et al., 2017), compulsive use can degrade academic per
formance (Aladwani & Almarzouq, 2016), due to factors such as studying for shorter peri
ods and even being more susceptible to being victims of crime (Aljomaa et al., 2016).
Some students do attempt to engage in what Ames (2013) calls “techno-resistance” to ex
pectations for constant connectivity, by establishing boundaries or even disconnecting
(p. 272) from their devices, aiming to lower negative cognitive implications of multitask
ing. Some studies help explain some contradictions in results by showing that use and
knowledge of different Facebook features or activities differentially affect academic out
comes (Wohn & LaRose, 2014).
Loss or change, with social relations. Many authors have argued that new media, as
with prior communication technologies when they were new (Jensen, 1990; Marvin,
1990), are profoundly affecting individual and social relationships and norms (boyd, 2015;
Turkle. 2011). For example, social networks may develop and endure based on members’
using similar technology and apps, in order to avoid inconveniences in communicating
with everyone (Bicen & Arnavut, 2015). Or, because online social interactions are so com
mon and normative, factors such as introversion and extraversion may be far less influen
tial on people’s experienced lives (Yao et al., 2014), and users may be more aware of, and
Page 35 of 70
able to participate in, a more diverse array of identities and types of relationships (Yang,
2014). More subtly, people are more likely to communicate with multiple others online
while with others offline, and even just stay “connected” while not actually exchanging
messages (Vorderer et al., 2016).
Unintended consequences, with health. The very utility and attractiveness of smart
phones, social media, and other digital devices lead to a variety of unintended conse
quences. Primary among these is internet/smartphone addiction or problematic internet
use, associated with a wide variety of health dysfunctions, from depression to obesity (Li
et al., 2015). Sleep deprivation may be a consequence of excessive device use (Demirci et
al., 2015), with attendant schoolwork procrastination, and then students staying up late
to (ineffectively) rush through their work (Li et al., 2015). As college Facebook posts and
profiles present more images of alcohol use and drinking parties, from a peer norms theo
retical perspective, viewers (incorrectly) perceive higher alcohol use as descriptively nor
mative (Clayton et al., 2013), leading to more positive attitudes toward, and behaviors of,
excessive drinking. The pervasiveness of and dependence on digital devices for school
work as well as social relations and entertainment may also be associated with muscu
loskeletal symptoms (Dockrell, Bennett, & Culleton-Quinn, 2015).
Managing Content
The most frequent co-occurrences with managing content (including people) involved
having a gratifying-satisfying experience in relation to social relations as well as problem
atic use; media multitasking in association with social relations, health, and cognitions,
and personal information in the context of self-presentation and problematic use.
Gratifying and satisfying, and social relations. While using media for gratification
can become problematic, the social component of media mastery provides an explanation
for why media are gratifying. Social connection and social information are inherently em
bedded in media, especially social media, which has increased the availability (p. 273) and
diversity in connections and information available. Particularly, the need for social sup
port and connection motivate a great deal of media use. For example, New Zealand col
lege students with ethnic minority or migrant identities used social media not only to es
tablish and maintain intimacies, but also to exchange information about oneself, and oth
ers, to determine who will be admitted into existing friendship networks (Marlowe, Bart
ley, & Collins, 2017). Though the social support received through media use can improve
well-being, the need for social interaction and new social information often becomes ha
bitual (Meier et al., 2016). This suggests that media’s role in sharing social information
can become a source of tension as it both contributes to well-being and potentially de
tracts from it. For example, Meier et al. (2016) find the constant checking that becomes
habitual leads to usage conflicts which can ultimately reduce well-being and task perfor
mance.
Gratifying and satisfying, and problematic media use. Mastering media includes us
ing media for one’s own needs. People must manage content in ways in that fulfill their
Page 36 of 70
own desires. However, in the literature there is evidence that even when one can use me
dia to gratify their needs, that use can become problematic. Research on the addiction to
mobile devices and Internet finds that the reward experienced from media use can be
come dysfunctional and excessive. Meier et al. (2016), for instance, showed that students
use media to provide relief, reward and relaxation from work and from negative experi
ences. However, in pursuit of reward students express that they begin to procrastinate.
This procrastination on academic work can become detrimental. Likewise, Chiu (2014)
found that when experiencing life stressors, young adults use mobile phones to alleviate
their negative emotions. The gratification and stimulation experienced from using media,
however, had led to addiction for those who were not capable of self-regulation. While all
college students may experience the gratifications of using media, the motivation for, me
dia choices and outcomes of that use may reflect individual differences.
Media multitasking, and cognition. Within the media mastery framework, media mul
titasking or the splitting of attention between media and other tasks, is a method of man
aging the various content available. Thus far, cognition or the ability to focus and learn is
the commonly studied aspect of individual differences in the media multitasking litera
ture. Media multitasking appears not only a method for managing content but also for
managing focus and learning. Some master this management, others do not. Ames (2013)
reported that while some students report frequently media multitasking, the majority of
students expressed that they have set rules in order to reduce the negative cognitive ef
fects of media multitasking. This implicates that young adults are sensitive and strategic
in managing their media and media multitasking habits to avoid cognitive harm. In addi
tion to frequency, college students differ in the types of tasks with which they media mul
titask. Fan et al. (2017) noted that those that display higher metacognition engaged in
less irrelevant media multitasking during difficult learning tasks. This suggests that man
aging content via media multitasking involves managing the cognitive load and effects of
the media used.
Media multitasking, and social influence. However, managing media via me
(p. 274)
dia multitasking behaviors is not only driven by cognitive preferences and capacities.
Rather, Ames (2013) concluded that the social pressure to be available both to immediate
surroundings and extended networks formed a double-standard that created pressure to
media multitask. Students reported that media multitasking is coupled with constant guilt
both for not being fully present to their offline reality and for not being fully present to
their online reality.
Personal information, and self-presentation. Within the construct of managing con

tent, people’s desire to connect with others via the Internet requires them to manage and
interpret the information they share with and receive from their social network. In our
coding we referred to this subcomponent as personal information, and defined it as in
volving personal self-disclosure and information available about others. Personal informa
tion was commonly cross-coded with the individual component of self-presentation. The
findings demonstrate the tension in mastering sharing personal information through me
dia. Moreno et al. (2011) showed that young adults frequently expressed that they knew
Page 37 of 70
that people exaggerate and even misrepresent themselves on social networking sites.
However, the students still found this information valuable and used it to form first im
pressions of others. They shared that sometimes the personal information they found
about others was even accurate. They had friends whose SNS reflects them well. The
credibility of information online even on social networks was understood as flawed yet
useful. However, loss of control or management over one’s personal information and im
ages can severely affect one’s self-presentation, leading to cyberbullying, “revenge porn,”
and even suicide (Virden, Trujilo, & Predeger, 2014).
Personal information, and health. Though the personal information shared online has
social value, it can cause harm to young adult’s well-being. For instance, Tandoc et al.
(2015) explain how the information about others found online is also used to inform the
user about what’s attractive, and how people’s feedback can be used to identify how at
tractive one is to his/her social network, leading to social comparison. Tandoc et al.
(2015) provide an example of how young adults use this information to identify their so
cial rank. They contend that if students find themselves unattractive, they often feel envi
ous and depressed. Thus, though the information may be useful for navigating one’s so
cial network, this also fuels comparison which can be detrimental.
Obstacles
Physical and technical obstacles to college students’ use of media do not much appear in
research publications, though they were mentioned in the focus groups. The most fre
quently co-occurring were distracting, with problematic use, health, and cognition; costs
with problematic use, and cognition; interference, with cognition; and access, with cogni
tion.
Access, with cognition. It is obvious that not having access to relevant new media con
stitutes a grave challenge to students (Goode, 2010). While many students use mobile
(p. 275) devices for academic practices, Fasae and Adegbilero-Iwari (2015) reported that
many students are challenged by obstacles of low quality Internet connections and high
data subscription costs. Ironically, some students are concerned that pervasive access to
social media (diverting attention, energy, and time from academic work) may lead to ob
stacles to success later on (Flanagin & Babchuk, 2015). Further, relationships between
use of social media for online content creation are affected by more than just traditional
digital literacy—they include the kinds of peer support, practices, and technologies that
university students have access to, and bring with them, in the first place (Brown et al.,
2016), which also extends the concept of the digital divide. In turn, experience in digital
creation can provide advantage in the global society, possibly widening certain kinds of
disparities in access and use.
Costs, with problematic use. Intriguingly, smartphone costs are not only a form of ob
stacle to access, but also an aspect of problematic use, as over-dependence on smart
phones can foster excessive overspending on accessories, upgrades, apps, and data (Aljo
Page 38 of 70
maa et al., 2016). Indeed, some studies note that students want to have the most recent
device or product regardless of price (Bicen & Arnavut, 2015).
Distracting, with health. Many studies refer to the “double-edge” sword nature of the
mobile phone, which can provide personal, social, and business benefits as well as disad
vantages and harm. For example, many refer to the distractions from one’s own use and
the use by others, reducing focus and attention on activities and social relationships, and
creating physical and mental health problems (Chen et al., 2016). People may turn to
smartphone or internet over-dependence as a distraction from other health or life stress
issues (Chiu, 2014; Kuang-Tsan, & Fu-Yuan, 2017). Impaired inhibition and attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are associated with increased risk of Internet addic
tion (Dalbudak et al., 2015). The increased need to maintain constant connectivity, and
engage in multitasking, can harm mental and emotional development and create ongoing
distractions from relationships and self-reflection (Davis, 2011).
Distracting, with cognition. Digital device use during class creates distractions for the
user, surrounding students, and even the instructor (Aljomaa et al., 2016; Jacobsen &
Forste, 2011), negatively affecting user academic performance (related to issues such as
reduced details in class note-taking, less cognitive processing of the content, and poorer
recall; Kuznekoff & Titsworth, 2013). Multitasking in general is frequent in class, and typ
ically negatively affects students’ ability to learn content (Judd, 2014; Junco, 2012). Simi
lar issues arise, but with much graver potential consequences, for students who are dis
tracted by their devices while walking or driving (Kim & Kim, 2017).
Use Awareness
Here, the most frequent co-occurrences involved attitudes about one’s use, with social re
lations and problematic use; choices as to how and when to use a medium, with social
(p. 276) relations, self-presentation, problematic use, and health; digital expertise, with
cognitions; and self-regulation, in association with problematic use.
Attitudes about one’s use, and social relations. One aspect of media mastery becom
ing increasingly important with the ever-growing popular social media is people’s (espe
cially young adults’) perceptions of media as means and context for social connection. Pil
li (2015) found that students’ perceptions that Facebook was useful for their social adjust
ment and relationship maintenance explained why socially competent Facebook users ex
hibited better psychosocial well-being. This result highlights that individual dispositions
play a role in students’ likelihood to have positive attitudes towards their media use.
Attitudes about use, and problematic media use. While problematic use includes ad
diction and dependency, it also includes other dangers such as cyberbullying and revenge
porn. We found frequent co-occurrences between problematic use and the attitudes peo
ple have about their use of media. Virden et al. (2014) highlight how, especially among
young adults, perceptions of the use of media (for instance to explore their sexuality via
sexting) affects their likelihood to use media in ways that put them at risk. They found
that few young adults recognize the risk of engaging in these online sexual behaviors.
Page 39 of 70
The interpretation of their risk in using media affects their vulnerability to that risk.
Some studies (and our focus groups) find that students have generally positive attitudes
about their digital media, but are aware of wasting time, fear of missing out, being over-
dependent, and other problematic uses and effects, but feel they must continue to use
their media, and are even resigned to doing so, both on psychological and pragmatic
grounds (Turkle, 2011).
Choices, and self-presentation. Choices about how to use media are both individually
and socially motivated as people manage their online identities in the face of potential
context collapse; Thomas et al., 2017) and privacy issues. Hoy and Milne (2010) detailed,
for instance, how privacy protection practices varied from lying to post-hoc changes and
image management. These practices also varied by gender: men and women differed in
their concerns about self-presentation as a privacy issue and their strategies to cope with
potential problems, and those choices in turn were related to various media effects. With
the understanding of which practices are least to most successful, understanding the
choices users make in self-presentation could lead to more targeted and effective inter
ventions.
Choices, and health. Scholars are discovering ways to identify the profiles of usage that
are more likely related to diminished well-being. For example, Park et al. (2013) found a
relationship between depressive symptoms and uses of Facebook such that a user’s ac
tiveness and uses of features could be associated with specific symptoms, highlighting
that the ways people use media can reveal and reflect the state of their mental and emo
tional health. The researchers explore the possibility of using these profiles of how and
when people use media to improve or increase diagnostic capacity for depression.
Expertise, and self-presentation. In the articles discussing these two concepts, an im
portant and interesting set of tensions arises. Axelsson (2010) discusses that young adult
hood is a special developmental period in which the need to express oneself (p. 277) be
comes increasingly important. However, the ability to do so competently can rely on tech
nological skills, including one’s ability and understanding of Internet uses. He contends
that a lack of understanding and competence about the internet can translate into a lack
of competence in developmental integral capacities, including self-expression. Ishii et al.
(2017) argue that young adults with greater communication competence prefer face-to-
face communication for self-disclosure in order to most benefit from the increased cues.
Their perspective implies that while all young adults need self-expression, their choice to
not express online might not be due to a lack of Internet skills but rather better tradition
al communication skills.
Expertise, and traits. Expertise or the ability to use media with skill is perhaps one of
the most seemingly obvious forms of media mastery within use awareness. Chang et al.
(2014) documented that traits such as internet self-efficacy not only increased confidence
in an online course but affected perceptions of the online course as relevant and was as
sociated with better course performance. There were many similar findings across the lit
erature.
Page 40 of 70
Media comparison, and social influence. Group level differences such as shared
norms also contribute to one’s preferences, comparisons, interpretations and uses of me
dia. Cultural differences provide one example of such social influence. Ishii et al. (2017)
concluded that US and Japan college students differentially perceived text-messaging as a
form of communication. The US students perceived text messaging as having more media
richness, reduced cues, quickness, ubiquity of the sender and the receiver, satisfaction,
effectiveness, and level of comfort than did the Japanese students. The authors proposed
that these perceptions follow cultural norms of communication; for example, that Ameri
cans prefer direct communication. Students interviewed by Ames (2013) said that pres
sures such to be constantly available did lead them to alter the particular medium they
used in order to meet both their own contexts and the expected contexts of their commu
nication partners.
Self-regulation, and problematic media use. Self-regulation represents the capacity

to control and manage one’s behaviors. It occurs frequently in the literature, and is an es
sential aspect of use awareness within the media mastery typology. Wu (2015) validated
four dimensions of motivated attention and regulatory strategies by students using social
media: perceived attention discontinuity, behavioral strategies, mental strategies, and so
cial media notifications. Integrating those with a variety of related measures (from Inter
net self-efficacy to academic achievement), Wu identified five categories of students with
respect to attention and regulation: motivated strategic, the unaware, the hanging on, the
non-responsive, and the self-disciplined. Self-regulation and problematic media use (cy
berbullying, to cyberstalking, to dependency and addiction) are frequently co-occurring
concepts in the literature. For instance, Gökçearslan et al. (2016) explain that those who
are low on self-regulation tend to experience more ego depletion and less focus, and
therefore are more likely to engage in cyberloafing where they do not contribute to or
benefit from the group. Similarly, Jiang and Shi (2016) (p. 278) indicated that people with
diminished self-control or trait-like self-regulation engage in problematic media use to al
leviate negative emotions. Their engagement in problematic media use can also be dimin
ished through interventions targeting self-control, which is the stable trait form of self-
regulation. Thus self-regulation is one way through which the potentially mastered try to
develop media mastery.
Conclusion
In general, this review shows how the concept, and very detailed typology, of media mas
tery pervades the more familiar contexts, analyses, and results of research on college stu
dents’ use of new media. Each subsection of the review can generate one or more impli
cations of the media mastery framework. For example, mastery of media is a subjective
experience that involves believing in one’s expertise and capacity to use media. Masters
of media can engage in beneficial media multitasking, while those mastered by media
might engage in harmful media multitasking. Media mastery may occur through individ
ual interpretation but can be heavily influenced by the practices and expectations of one’s
social network. The masters and mastered potentially seek and react to the potential
Page 41 of 70
gratifications from media differently. The tensions in media mastery demonstrate how
young adults attempt, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, to navigate the complexi
ties of media use.
The media mastery framework allows a more analytical approach, by integrating a variety
of prior and new perspectives, highlighting the relevance of many diverse concepts, and
revealing associations among many otherwise disjointed or typically unlinked concepts.
As a complement to the theoretical perspectives appearing in most of the articles, media
mastery would have provided an especially relevant framework for some of the studies.
Media mastery could identify and describe a phenomenon heretofore with no name or
with a variety of unintegrated names (as summarized in the Related Concepts section),
especially the simultaneous two-way mastery of and by media. So the media mastery per
spective provides a lens, and allows for nuances, into how users (here, college students)
are potentially mastered by new media, but also attempt to potentially master those me
dia. As just one example, this perspective on the diverse research of college students’ dig
ital media use highlights the pervasive paradoxes and contradictions as manifestations of
the tensions between attempts to master media and the ways in which media master us.
The media mastery framework illuminates the double-edged nature of media technology
and especially social media in the lives of students as well as other young people. More
over, the notion of media mastery may also capture the contradictory and mixed feelings
(ranging from pleasure to guilt) that young students and others experience in their daily
use of contemporary media technologies. The vast range of ways mastery or being mas
tered occurs—in association with social and individual aspects, among others—may also
be a reflection of the complex, interdependent, and contextual nature of digital media.
The detailed and extensively developed media mastery framework may (p. 279) help re
searchers think in new ways about what questions their work attempts to answer—i.e.,
what aspects of media mastery does their work highlight or extend?
References from Introductory Material

Best, P., Manktelow, R., & Taylor, B. (2014). Online communication, social media and ado
lescent wellbeing: A systematic narrative review. Children and Youth Services Review,
41(June), 27–36.
Boell, S. K. & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2014). A hermeneutic approach for conducting liter

ature reviews and literature searches. Communications of the Association for Information
Systems, 34(1), 257–286.
boyd, d. (2015). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven, CT:
Burchell, K. (2017). Everyday communication management and perceptions of use: How

media users limit and shape their social world. Convergence, 23(4), 409–424.
Chaffee, S. H. (1991). Explication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Page 42 of 70
Couldry, N. (2012). Media society world. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
David, P., Kim, J.-H., Brickman, J. S., Ran, W., & Curtis, C. M. (2015). Mobile phone dis
traction while studying. New Media & Society, 17(10), 661–679.
Deacon, D., & Stanyer, J. (2014). Mediatization: Key concept or conceptual bandwagon?
Media, Culture & Society, 36(7), 1032–1044.
DeAndrea, D. C., Ellison, N. B., LaRose, R., Steinfield, C., & Fiore, A. (2012). Serious so
cial media: On the use of social media for improving students’ adjustment to college. The
Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 15–23.
DeSanctis, G. & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology

use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121–147.
Deuze, M. (2012). MediaLife. Malden, MA: Polity.
Gershon, I. (2010). Media ideologies: An introduction. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology,

20(2), 283–293.
Hadar, L. L. & Ergas, O. (2018). Cultivating mindfulness through technology in higher ed
ucation: A Buberian perspective. AI and Society, 1–9. https://link.springer.com/article/
10.1007/s00146-018-0794-z
Haddon, L. (2003). Domestication and mobile telephony. In J. E. Katz (Ed.), Machines that
become us (pp. 43–56). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.
Helles, R. (2013). Mobile communication and intermediality. Mobile Media & Communica
tion, 1(1), 14–19.
Hilbert, M., Vásquez, J., Halpern, D., Valenzuela, S., & Arriagada, E. (2017). One step, two
step, network step? Complementary perspectives on communication flows in twittered
citizen protests. Social Science Computer Review, 35(4), 444–461.
Hjarvard, S. (2009). Soft individualism: Media and the changing social character.
(p. 280)
In K. Lundby (Ed.), Mediatization: Concept, challenges, consequences (pp. 159–177). New

York, NY: Peter Lang.
James, C. (2014). Disconnected: Youth, new media, and the ethics gap. (The John D. and
Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning). Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.
Jarvenpaa, S. L. & Lang, K. R. (2005). Managing the paradoxes of mobile technology. In
formation Systems Management, 22(4), 7–23.
Jensen, J. (1990). Redeeming modernity: Contradictions in media criticism. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.
Page 43 of 70
Jensen, K. B. (2010). Media convergence: The three degrees of network, mass, and inter
personal communication. London, UK & New York, NY: Routledge.
Jones, M. R. & Karsten, H. (2008). Giddens’s structuration theory and information sys
tems research. MIS Quarterly, 32(1), 127–157.
Katz, J. E. & Rice, R. E. (2002). Social consequences of Internet use: Access, involvement
and interaction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Klein, H. K. & Kleinman, D. L. (2002). The social construction of technology: Structural

considerations. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 27(1), 28–52.
LaRose, R., Connolly, R., Lee, H., Li, K., & Hales, K. D. (2014). Connection overload? A
cross cultural study of the consequences of social media connection. Information Systems
Management, 31, 59–73. doi:10.1080/10580530.2014.854097
Levy, D. M. (2017). Mindful tech: How to bring balance to our digital lives. New Haven,
CN: Yale University Press.
Ling, R. (2012). Taken for grantedness: The embedding of mobile communication into so
ciety. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Livingstone, S. (2009). On the mediation of everything: ICA presidential address 2008.

Journal of Communication, 59(1), 1–18.
MacKenzie, D. & Wajcman, J. (Eds.) (1985). The social shaping of technology: How the re
frigerator got its hum. London, UK: Open University Press.
Madianou, M. & Miller, D. (2013). Polymedia: Towards a new theory of digital media in in
terpersonal communication. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 16(2), 169–187.
Manago, A. M., Taylor, T., & Greenfield, P. M. (2012). Me and my 400 friends: The anato
my of college students’ Facebook networks, their communication patterns, and well-be
ing. Developmental Psychology, 48, 369–380. doi:10.1037/a0026338
Marvin, C. (1990). When old technologies were new: Thinking about electric communica
tion in the late nineteenth century. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mihailidis, P. (2014). A tethered generation: Exploring the role of mobile phones in the
daily life of young people. Mobile Media & Communication, 2, 58–72. doi:
10.1177/2050157913505558
Miller, J. (2014). Intensifying mediatization: Everyware media. In A. Hepp & F. Krotz

(Eds.), Mediatized worlds: Culture and society in a media age (pp. 107–122). London, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Misra, S. & Stokols, D. (2012). Psychological and health outcomes of perceived informa
tion overload. Environment and Behavior, 44, 737–759. doi:10.1177/0013916511404408
Page 44 of 70
Moreno, M. A., Jelenchick, L., Koff, R., Eikoff, J., Diermyer, C., & Christakis, D. A. (2012).
Internet use and multitasking among older adolescents: An experience sampling ap
proach. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1097–1102. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.01.016
O’Neill, B. & Hagen, I. (2009). Media literacy. Chapter 18. In S. Livingstone & L. Hadden
(Eds.), Kids online: Opportunities and risks for children. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
Pinch, T. & Bijker, W. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how
(p. 281)
the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In W.
Bijker, T. Hughes, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New
directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 17–50). Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Postman, N. (1996). The end of education: Redefining the value of school. New York, NY:
Vintage.
Rainie, L., & Wellman, B. (2012). Networked. The new social operating system.
Cambridge, MA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Reinecke, L., Aufenanger, S., Beutel, M. E., Dreier, M., Quiring, O., Stark, B., Wölfling, K.
& Müller, K. W. (2017). Digital stress over the life span: The effects of communication
load and Internet multitasking on perceived stress and psychological health impairments
in a German probability sample. Media Psychology, 20(1), 90–115. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15213269.2015.1121832
Rheingold, H. (2012). Net smart: How to thrive online. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Rice, R. E. (1999). Artifacts and paradoxes in new media. New Media and Society, 1(1),
24–32.
Rice, R. E. & Hagen, I. (2010). Young adults’ perpetual contact, social connectivity, and
social control through the Internet and mobile phones. In C. Salmon (Ed.), Communica
tion yearbook, 34 (pp. 2–39). London: Routledge.
Rice, R. E., Hagen, I., & Zamanzadeh, N. (2018). College students’ media mastery: Para
doxes in using computers and mobile phones. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(9), 1229–
1250.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Schonert-Reichl, K. A. & Roeser, R. W. (Eds.) (2016). Handbook of mindfulness in educa

tion: Integrating theory and research into practice. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Silverstone, R. & Hirsch, E. (1992). Consuming technologies: Media and information in

domestic spaces. London: Routledge.
Silverstone, R. (2007). Media and morality: On the rise of the mediapolis. Cambridge, UK:
Polity Press.
Page 45 of 70
Smith, A. (April 1, 2015). U.S. smartphone use in 2015. Pew Research Center. http://
www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015/
each other. New York: Basic Books.
Wang, Y., Niiya, M., Mark, G., Reich, S., & Warschauer, M. (2015). Coming of age (digital
ly): An ecological view of social media use among college students. Proceedings of the
18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing (pp.
571–582). New York: ACM. doi:10.1145/2675133.2675271
Williams, R. & Edge, D. (1996). The social shaping of technology. Research Policy, 25(6),
865–899.
Wilmer, H. H. & Chein, J. M. (2016). Mobile technology habits: Patterns of association

among device usage, intertemporal preference, impulse control, and reward sensitivity.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(5), 1607–1614.
Wu, J. Y. (2015). University students’ motivated attention and use of regulation strategies
on social media. Computers & Education, 89, 75–90.
Xu, S., Wang, Z. J., & David, P. (2016). Media multitasking and well-being of university
students. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 242–250.
Cited Analyzed References
Abeele, M. V. & Roe, K. (2011). New life, old friends: A cross-cultural comparison of the
use of communication technologies in the social life of college freshmen. Young, 19(2),
219–240.
Aharony, N. (2017). Factors affecting LIS Israeli students’ mobile phone use: An
(p. 282)
exploratory study. The Electronic Library, 35(6), 1098–1121.
Aker, S., Sahin, M. K., Sezgin, S., & Oguz, G. (2017). Psychosocial factors affecting smart
phone addiction in university students. Journal of Addictions Nursing, 28(4), 215–219.
Aladwani, A. M. & Almarzouq, M. (2016). Understanding compulsive social media use:

The premise of complementing self-conceptions mismatch with technology. Computers in
Human Behavior, 60, 575–581.
Aljomaa, S. S., Al Qudah, M. F., Albursan, I. S., Bakhiet, S. F., & Abduljabbar, A. S. (2016).
Smartphone addiction among university students in the light of some variables. Comput
ers in Human Behavior, 61, 155–164. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.041
Alt, D. (2015). College students’ academic motivation, media engagement and fear of
missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 111–119.
Page 46 of 70
Ames, M. G. (2013). Managing mobile multitasking: The culture of iPhones on Stanford

campus. Proceedings of the 2013 conference on computer supported cooperative work
(pp. 1487–1498). doi:10.1145/2441776.2441945
Arıcak, O. T., Dündar, Ş., & Saldaña, M. (2015). Mediating effect of self-acceptance be
tween values and offline/online identity expressions among college students. Computers
in Human Behavior, 49, 362–374.
Axelsson, A. S. (2010). Perpetual and personal: Swedish young adults and their use of mo
bile phones. New Media & Society, 12(1), 35–54.
Bian, M. & Leung, L. (2015). Linking loneliness, shyness, smartphone addiction symp
toms, and patterns of smartphone use to social capital. Social Science Computer Review,
33(1), 61–79.
Bicen, H. & Arnavut, A. (2015). Determining the effects of technological tool use habits
on social lives. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 457–462. doi:http://doi.org/10.1016/
j.chb.2015.02.012
boyd, d. (2015). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven, CT:
Brown, C., Czerniewicz, L., & Noakes, T. (2016). Online content creation: Looking at stu
dents’ social media practices through a Connected Learning lens. Learning, Media and
Technology, 41(1), 140–159.
Castillo-Manzano, J. I., Castro-Nuño, M., L¢pez-Valpuesta, L., Sanz-D¡az, M. T., & Yñiguez,
R. (2017). To take or not to take the laptop or tablet to classes, that is the question. Com
puters in Human Behavior, 68, 326–333.
Chen, B. & Marcus, J. (2012). Students’ self-presentation on Facebook: An examination of

personality and self-construal factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2091–2099.
Chen, L., Yan, Z., Tang, W., Yang, F., Xie, X., & He, J. (2016). Mobile phone addiction levels
and negative emotions among Chinese young adults: The mediating role of interpersonal
problems. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 856–866.
Chiu, S. I. (2014). The relationship between life stress and smartphone addiction on Tai
wanese university student: A mediation model of learning self-efficacy and social self-effi
cacy. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 49–57.
Choi, E. P., Wong, J. Y., Lo, H. H., Wong, W., Chio, J. H., & Fong, D. Y. (2017). Association
between using smartphone dating applications and alcohol and recreational drug use in
conjunction with sexual activities in college students. Substance Use & Misuse, 52(4),
422–428.
Crosslin, K. & Golman, M. (2014). “Maybe you don’t want to face it”: College students’
perspectives on cyberbullying. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 14–20.
Page 47 of 70
Dalbudak, E., Evren, C., Aldemir, S., Taymur, I., Evren, B., & Topcu, M. (2015).
(p. 283)
The impact of sensation seeking on the relationship between attention deficit/hyperactivi

ty symptoms and severity of Internet addiction risk. Psychiatry Research, 228(1), 156–
161.
Dalton, J. C. & Crosby, P. C. (2013). Digital identity: How social media are influencing stu
dent learning and development in college. Journal of College and Character, 14(1), 1–4.
doi:10.1515/jcc-2013–0001
Davis, K. (2011). A life in bits and bytes: A portrait of a college student and her life with
digital media. Teachers College Record, 113(9), 1960–1982.
DeAndrea, D. C., Ellison, N. B., LaRose, R., Steinfield, C. & Fiore, A. (2012). Serious social
media: On the use of social media for improving students’ adjustment to college. The In
ternet and Higher Education, 15(1), 15–23.
Demirci, K., Akgönül, M., & Akpinar, A. (2015). Relationship of smartphone use severity
with sleep quality, depression, and anxiety in university students. Journal of Behavioral
Addictions, 4(2), 85–92.
Dockrell, S., Bennett, K., & Culleton-Quinn, E. (2015). Computer use and musculoskeletal
symptoms among undergraduate university students. Computers & Education, 85, 102–
109.
Duarte-Hueros, J., Duarte-Hueros, A., & Ruano-Lopez, S. (2016). The audiovisual content
downloads among university students. Comunicar, 48.
Fan, Y., Gong, S., Wang, Y., & Wang, Z. (2017). The effects of learning task and learners’
metacognition on college students’ media multitasking behaviors. Advances in Psycholo
gy, 7(7), 895–902.
Fasae, J. K. & Adegbilero-Iwari, I. (2015). Mobile devices for academic practices by stu
dents of college of sciences in selected Nigerian private universities. The Electronic Li
brary, 33(4), 749–759.
Flanagin, A. E. & Babchuk, W. A. (2015). Social media as academic quicksand: A phenom

enological study of student experiences in and out of the classroom. Learning and Individ
ual Differences, 44, 40–45. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.003
tionship between personality, defense styles, internet addiction disorder, and psy
chopathology in college students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,
17(10), 672–676.
Gökçearslan, Ş., Mumcu, F. K., Haşlaman, T., & Çevik, Y. D. (2016). Modelling smartphone
addiction: The role of smartphone usage, self-regulation, general self-efficacy and cyber
Page 48 of 70
loafing in university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 639–649. doi:http://

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.091
Goode, J. (2010). The digital identity divide: How technology knowledge impacts college
students. New Media & Society, 12(3), 497–513.
Gray, R., Vitak, J., Easton, E. W., & Ellison, N. B. (2013). Examining social adjustment to
college in the age of social media: Factors influencing successful transitions and persis
tence. Computers & Education, 67, 193–207.
Hassell, M. D. & Sukalich, M. F. (2016). A deeper look into the complex relationship be
tween social media use and academic outcomes and attitudes. Information Research: An
International Electronic Journal, 21(4), n4.
Hong, F. Y., Chiu, S. I., & Huang, D. H. (2012). A model of the relationship between psy
chological characteristics, mobile phone addiction and use of mobile phones by Tai
wanese university female students. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2152–2159.
Hoy, M. G. & Milne, G. (2010). Gender differences in privacy-related measures for

(p. 284)
young adult Facebook users. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 10(2), 28–45. doi:
10.1080/15252019.2010.10722168
Hussain, Z., Griffiths, M. D., & Sheffield, D. (2017). An investigation into problematic
smartphone use: The role of narcissism, anxiety, and personality factors. Journal of Behav
ioral Addictions, 6(3), 378–386.
Ishii, K., Rife, T. S., & Kagawa, N. (2017). Technology-driven gratifications sought through
text-messaging among college students in the US and Japan. Computers in Human Behav
ior, 69, 396–404.
Jacobsen, W. C. & Forste, R. (2011). The wired generation: Academic and social outcomes
of electronic media use among university students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 14(5), 275–280.
Jarvi, S. M., Swenson, L. P., & Batejan, K. L. (2017). Motivation for and use of social net
working sites: Comparisons among college students with and without histories of non-sui
cidal self-injury. Journal of American College Health, 65(5), 306–312.
Jiang, Z., & Shi, M. (2016). Prevalence and co-occurrence of compulsive buying, problem
atic Internet and mobile phone use in college students in Yantai, China: Relevance of self-
traits. BMC Public Health, 16(1), 1211.
Johnson, C. A. (2015). The information diet: A case for conscious consumption. Se
bastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.
Judd, T. (2014). Making sense of multitasking: The role of Facebook. Computers & Educa
tion, 70, 194–202.
Page 49 of 70
Junco, R. (2012). In-class multitasking and academic performance. Computers in Human

Behavior, 28(6), 2236–2243. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.031
Kim, B. & Kim, Y. (2017). College students’ social media use and communication network
heterogeneity: Implications for social capital and subjective well-being. Computers in Hu
man Behavior, 73, 620–628.
Kim, J. & Lee, J.-E. R. (2011). The Facebook paths to happiness: Effects of the number of
Facebook friends and self-presentation on subjective well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behav
ior, and Social Networking, 14(6), 359–364. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2010.0374
Kuang-Tsan, C. & Fu-Yuan, H. (2017). Study on relationship among university students’

life stress, smart mobile phone addiction, and life satisfaction. Journal of Adult Develop
ment, 24(2), 109–118.
Kuznekoff, J. & Titsworth, S. (2013). The impact of mobile phone usage on student learn
ing. Communication Education, 62(3), 233–252.
Li, W., O’Brien, J. E., Snyder, S. M., & Howard, M. O. (2015). Characteristics of internet
addiction/pathological internet use in US university students: A qualitative-method inves
tigation. PloS One, 10(2), e0117372.
Manago, A. M., Taylor, T., & Greenfield, P. M. (2012). Me and my 400 friends: The anato
my of college students’ Facebook networks, their communication patterns, and well-be
ing. Developmental Psychology, 48, 369–380. doi: 10.1037/a0026338
Marlowe, J. M., Bartley, A., & Collins, F. (2017). Digital belongings: The intersections of
social cohesion, connectivity and digital media. Ethnicities, 17(1), 85–102.
Behavior, 64, 65–76. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.011
Moreno, M. A., Swanson, M. J., Royer, H., & Roberts, L. J. (2011). Sexpectations:
(p. 285)
Male college students’ views about displayed sexual references on females’ social net
working web sites. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 24(2), 85–89.
Park, S., Lee, S. W., Kwak, J., Cha, M., & Jeong, B. (2013). Activities on Facebook reveal
the depressive state of users. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(10).
Picone, I. (2017). Conceptualizing media users across media: The case for ‘media user/
use’ as analytical concepts. Convergence, 23(4), 378–390.
Pilli, O. (2015). The changes in social media usage: Students’ perspective. The Anthropol
ogist, 22(2), 345–354.
Page 50 of 70
Polo, M. I., Lázaro, S. M., del Barco, B. L., & Castaño, E. F. (2017). Mobile abuse in uni
versity students and profiles of victimization and aggression. Adicciones, 29(4), 245–255.
[Full article in Spanish]
Punyanunt-Carter, N. M., De La Cruz, J. J., & Wrench, J. S. (2017). Investigating the rela
tionships among college students’ satisfaction, addiction, needs, communication appre
hension, motives, and uses & gratifications with Snapchat. Computers in Human Behav
ior, 75, 870–875.
Rowan-Kenyon, H. T, & Alemán, A. M. M. (2018). Technology and engagement: Making

technology work for first generation college students. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Uni
versity Press.
Sponcil, M. & Gitimu, P. (2013). Use of social media by college students: Relationship to
communication and self-concept. Journal of Technology Research, 4, 1–13.
Tandoc, E. C., Ferrucci, P. & Duffy, M. (2015). Facebook use, envy, and depression among
college students: Is facebooking depressing? Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 139–146.
Thomas, L., Briggs, P., Hart, A., & Kerrigan, F. (2017). Understanding social media and
identity work in young people transitioning to university. Computers in Human Behavior,
76, 541–553.
Virden, A. L., Trujillo, A., & Predeger, E. (2014). Young adult females’ perceptions of high-
risk social media behaviors: A focus-group approach. Journal of Community Health Nurs
ing, 31(3), 133–144.
Vorderer, P., Krömer, N., & Schneider, F. M. (2016). Permanently online—Permanently

connected: Explorations into university students’ use of social media and mobile smart
devices. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 694–703.
Wohn, D. Y. & LaRose, R. (2014). Effects of loneliness and differential usage of Facebook
on college adjustment of first-year students. Computers & Education, 76, 158–167.
Yang, H. C. (2014). Young people’s friendship and love relationships and technology: New
practices of intimacy and rethinking feminism. Asian Journal of Women’s Studies, 20(1),
93–124.
Yang, T., Yu, L., Oliffe, J. L., Jiang, S., & Si, Q. (2017). Regional contextual determinants of
internet addiction among college students: A representative nationwide study of China.
The European Journal of Public Health, 27(6), 1032–1037.
Page 51 of 70
Yao, M. Z., He, J., Ko, D. M., & Pang, K. (2014). The influence of personality, parental be
haviors, and self-esteem on Internet addiction: A study of Chinese college students. Cy
berpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(2), 104–110.
Abeele, M. V., & Roe, K. (2011). New life, old friends: A cross-cultural comparison of the
use of communication technologies in the social life of college freshmen. Young, 19(2),
219–240.
Aharony, N. (2015). What’s App: A social capital perspective. Online Information Review,
39(1), 26–42.
Aharony, N. (2017). Factors affecting LIS Israeli students’ mobile phone use: an explorato
ry study. The Electronic Library, 35(6), 1098–1121.
Akçayır, M., Dündar, H., & Akçayır, G. (2016). What makes you a digital native? Is it
enough to be born after 1980? Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 435–440.
Aker, S., Sahin, M. K., Sezgin, S., & Oguz, G. (2017). Psychosocial factors affecting smart
phone addiction in university students. Journal of Addictions Nursing, 28(4), 215–219.
Aladwani, A. M., & Almarzouq, M. (2016). Understanding compulsive social media use:
The premise of complementing self-conceptions mismatch with technology. Computers in
Human Behavior, 60, 575–581.
Al-Gamal, E., Alzayyat, A., & Ahmad, M. M. (2016). Prevalence of internet addiction and
its association with psychological distress and coping strategies among university stu
dents in Jordan. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 52(1), 49–61.
Aljomaa, S. S., Al.Qudah, M. F., Albursan, I. S., Bakhiet, S. F., & Abduljabbar, A. S. (2016).
Smartphone addiction among university students in the light of some variables. Comput
ers in Human Behavior, 61, 155–164. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.041
Alt, D. (2015). College students’ academic motivation, media engagement and fear of
missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 111–119.
Alwagait, E., Shahzad, B., & Alim, S. (2015). Impact of social media usage on students’
academic performance in Saudi Arabia. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 1092–1097.
Alzayyat, A., Al-Gamal, E., & Ahmad, M. M. (2015). Psychosocial correlates of Internet ad
diction among Jordanian university students. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental
Health Services, 53(4), 43–51.
Amankwah, F. N., & Ha, L. (2015). Smartphones and self-broadcasting among college stu
dents in an age of social media. In A. Mesquita & C-W Tsai (Eds.), Human behavior, psy
Page 52 of 70
chology, and social interaction in the digital era (pp. 95–128). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:
10.4018/978-1-4666-8450-8.
Ames, M. G. (2013). Managing mobile multitasking: The culture of iPhones on Stanford

campus. Proceedings of the 2013 conference on computer supported cooperative work,
1487–1498. doi:10.1145/2441776.2441945
Annisette, L. E. & Lafreniere, K. D. (2017). Social media, texting, and personality: A test
of the shallowing hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 115, 154–158.
Arıcak, O. T., Dündar, Ş., & Saldaña, M. (2015). Mediating effect of self-acceptance be
tween values and offline/online identity expressions among college students. Computers
Armstrong, A., Thomas, J., & Smith, M. (2017). College students’ experiences with anony
mous social media: Implications for campus racial climate. Journal of College Student De
velopment, 58(7), 1101–1107.
Axelsson, A. S. (2010). Perpetual and personal: Swedish young adults and their use of mo
bile phones. New Media & Society, 12(1), 35–54.
Barkley, J. E., & Lepp, A. (2016). Mobile phone use among college students is a sedentary
leisure behavior which may interfere with exercise. Computers in Human Behavior, 56,
29–33.
(p. 287) Bauman, S., & Baldasare, A. (2015). Cyber aggression among college students:
Demographic differences, predictors of distress, and the role of the university. Journal of
College Student Development, 56(4), 317–330.
Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the “digital natives” debate: Towards a more nu
anced understanding of students’ technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 26(5), 321–331. doi:10.1111/j.1365–2729.2010.00360.x
Benson, V., Saridakis, G., & Tennakoon, H. (2015). Purpose of social networking use and
victimisation: Are there any differences between university students and those not in HE?
Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 867–872.
Bian, M., & Leung, L. (2015). Linking loneliness, shyness, smartphone addiction symp
toms, and patterns of smartphone use to social capital. Social Science Computer Review,
33(1), 61–79.
Bicen, H., & Arnavut, A. (2015). Determining the effects of technological tool use habits
on social lives. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 457–462. doi:http://doi.org/10.1016/
j.chb.2015.02.012
Bjornsen, C. A., & Archer, K. J. (2015). Relations between college students’ cell phone use
during class and grades. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(4), 326–
336.
Page 53 of 70
Bobkowski, P., & Smith, J. (2013). Social media divide: characteristics of emerging adults
who do not use social network websites. Media, Culture & Society, 35(6), 771–781.
Boswell, S. S. (2012). “I deserve success”: Academic entitlement attitudes and their rela
tionships with course self-efficacy, social networking, and demographic variables. Social
Psychology of Education, 15(3), 353–365.
Brown, C., Czerniewicz, L., & Noakes, T. (2016). Online content creation: Looking at stu
dents’ social media practices through a Connected Learning lens. Learning, Media and
Technology, 41(1), 140–159.
Castillo-Manzano, J. I., Castro-Nuño, M., López-Valpuesta, L., Sanz-Díaz, M. T., & Yñiguez,
R. (2017). To take or not to take the laptop or tablet to classes, that is the question. Com
puters in Human Behavior, 68, 326–333.
Chang, C. S., Liu, E. Z. F., Sung, H. Y., Lin, C. H., Chen, N. S., & Cheng, S. S. (2014). Ef
fects of online college student’s Internet self-efficacy on learning motivation and perfor
mance. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51(4), 366–377.
Chan-Olmsted, S., & Shay, R. (2016). Understanding tablet consumers: Exploring the fac
tors that affect tablet and dual mobile device ownership. Journalism & Mass Communica
tion Quarterly, 93(4), 857–883.
Chen, B., & Marcus, J. (2012). Students’ self-presentation on Facebook: An examination of

personality and self-construal factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2091–2099.
Chen, L., Yan, Z., Tang, W., Yang, F., Xie, X., & He, J. (2016). Mobile phone addiction levels
and negative emotions among Chinese young adults: the mediating role of interpersonal
problems. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 856–866.
Chi, X., Lin, L., & Zhang, P. (2016). Internet addiction among college students in china:
Prevalence and psychosocial correlates. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Network
ing, 19(9), 567–573.
Chiu, S. I. (2014). The relationship between life stress and smartphone addiction on Tai
wanese university student: A mediation model of learning self-efficacy and social self-effi
cacy. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 49–57.
Choi, E. P., Wong, J. Y., Lo, H. H., Wong, W., Chio, J. H., & Fong, D. Y. (2017). Association
between using smartphone dating applications and alcohol and recreational drug use in
(p. 288) conjunction with sexual activities in college students. Substance Use & Misuse,
52(4), 422–428.
Choi, E. P., Wong, J. Y., Lo, H. H., Wong, W., Chio, J. H., & Fong, D. Y. (2016). The associa
tion between smartphone dating applications and college students’ casual sex encounters
and condom use. Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare, 9, 38–41.
Page 54 of 70
Choi, M., & Toma, C. L. (2017). Social sharing with friends and family after romantic
breakups: Patterns of media use and effects on psychological well-being. Journal of Media
Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 29(3), 166–172.
Chou, C., Wu, H. C., & Chen, C. H. (2011). Re-visiting college students’ attitudes toward
the Internet-based on a 6-T model: Gender and grade level difference. Computers & Edu
cation, 56(4), 939–947.
Christakis, D. A., Moreno, M. M., Jelenchick, L., Myaing, M. T., & Zhou, C. (2011). Prob
lematic internet usage in US college students: A pilot study BMC Medicine, 9, 77. doi:
10.1186/1741-7015-9-77
Clavio, G., & Walsh, P. (2014). Dimensions of social media utilization among college sport
fans. Communication & Sport, 2(3), 261–281.
Clayton, R. B., Osborne, R. E., Miller, B. K., & Oberle, C. D. (2013). Loneliness, anxious
ness, and substance use as predictors of Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior,
29(3), 687–693.
Crosslin, K., & Golman, M. (2014). “Maybe you don’t want to face it”–College students’
perspectives on cyberbullying. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 14–20.
Dalbudak, E., Evren, C., Topcu, M., Aldemir, S., Coskun, K. S., Bozkurt, M., … & Canbal,
M. (2013). Relationship of Internet addiction with impulsivity and severity of psy
chopathology among Turkish university students. Psychiatry Research, 210(3), 1086–
1091.
Dalbudak, E., Evren, C., Aldemir, S., Taymur, I., Evren, B., & Topcu, M. (2015). The impact
of sensation seeking on the relationship between attention deficit/hyperactivity symptoms
and severity of Internet addiction risk. Psychiatry Research, 228(1), 156–161.
Dalton, J. C., & Crosby, P. C. (2013). Digital identity: How social media are influencing stu
dent learning and development in college. Journal of College and Character, 14(1), 1–4.
doi:10.1515/jcc-2013–0001
David, P., Kim, J.-H., Brickman, J. S., Ran, W. & Curtis, C. M. (2015). Mobile phone distrac
tion while studying. New Media & Society, 17(10), 661–1679.
Davila, J., Hershenberg, R., Feinstein, B. A., Gorman, K., Bhatia, V., & Starr, L. R. (2012).
Frequency and quality of social networking among young adults: Associations with de
pressive symptoms, rumination, and corumination. Psychology of Popular Media Culture,
1(2), 72–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027512
Davis, K. (2011). A life in bits and bytes: A portrait of a college student and her life with
digital media. Teachers College Record, 113(9), 1960–1982.
Page 55 of 70
De Leo, J. A., & Wulfert, E. (2013). Problematic Internet use and other risky behaviors in
college students: An application of problem-behavior theory. Psychology of Addictive Be
haviors, 27(1), 133–141.
DeAndrea, D. C., Ellison, N. B., LaRose, R., Steinfield, C. & Fiore, A. (2012). Serious social
media: On the use of social media for improving students’ adjustment to college. The In
ternet and Higher Education, 15(1), 15–23.
Demirbilek, M. (2014). The “digital natives” debate: An investigation of the digital

propensities of university students. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technolo
gy Education, 10(2), 115–123.
Demirci, K., Akgönül, M., & Akpinar, A. (2015). Relationship of smartphone use
(p. 289)
severity with sleep quality, depression, and anxiety in university students. Journal of Be
havioral Addictions, 4(2), 85–92.
Demirhan, E., Randler, C., & Horzum, M. B. (2016). Is problematic mobile phone use ex
plained by chronotype and personality? Chronobiology International, 33(7), 821–831.
Dockrell, S., Bennett, K., & Culleton-Quinn, E. (2015). Computer use and musculoskeletal
symptoms among undergraduate university students. Computers & Education, 85, 102–
109.
Dong, G., Wang, J., Yang, X., & Zhou, H. (2013). Risk personality traits of Internet addic
tion: a longitudinal study of Internet-addicted Chinese university students. Asia-Pacific
Psychiatry, 5(4), 316–321.
Duarte-Hueros, J., Duarte-Hueros, A., & Ruano-Lopez, S. (2016). The audiovisual content
downloads among university students. Comunicar, 48.
Egan, K. G., & Moreno, M. A. (2011). Prevalence of stress references on college freshmen
Facebook profiles. Computers, Informatics, Nursing: CIN, 29(10), 586–592.
Ekinci, B. (2014). The relationship between problematic internet entertainment use and
problem solving skills among university students. International Journal of Mental Health
and Addiction, 12(5), 607–617.
Fan, Y., Gong, S., Wang, Y., & Wang, Z. (2017). The effects of learning task and learners’
metacognition on college students’ media multitasking behaviors. Advances in Psycholo
gy, 7(7), 895–902.
Fang, L. & Ha, L. (2015). Do college students benefit from their social media experience?
Social media involvement and its impact on college students’ self-efficacy perception. In
A. Mesquita & C-W Tsai (Eds.), Human behavior, psychology, and social interaction in the
digital era (pp. 259–278). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8450-8.
Page 56 of 70
Fasae, J. K., & Adegbilero-Iwari, I. (2015). Mobile devices for academic practices by stu
dents of college of sciences in selected Nigerian private universities. The Electronic Li
brary, 33(4), 749–759.
Flanagin, A. E. & Babchuk, W. A. (2015). Social media as academic quicksand: A phenom

enological study of student experiences in and out of the classroom. Learning and Individ
ual Differences, 44, 40–45. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.003
tionship between personality, defense styles, internet addiction disorder, and psy
chopathology in college students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,
17(10), 672–676.
Forbush, E., & Foucault-Welles, B. (2016). Social media use and adaptation among Chi
nese students beginning to study in the United States. International Journal of Intercul
tural Relations, 50, 1–12.
Garett, R., Liu, S., & Young, S. D. (2018). The relationship between social media use and
sleep quality among undergraduate students. Information, Communication & Society,
21(2), 163–173.
Genctanirim Kurt, D. (2015). Suicide risk in college students: The effects of Internet ad
diction and drug use. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 15(4), 841–848.
Gökçearslan, Ş., Mumcu, F. K., Haşlaman, T., & Çevik, Y. D. (2016). Modelling smartphone
addiction: The role of smartphone usage, self-regulation, general self-efficacy and cyber
loafing in university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 639–649. doi:http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.091
(p. 290) Goode, J. (2010a). Mind the gap: The digital dimension of college access. The Jour
nal of Higher Education, 81(5), 583–618.
Goode, J. (2010b). The digital identity divide: How technology knowledge impacts college
students. New Media & Society, 12(3), 497–513.
Gray, R., Vitak, J., Easton, E. W., & Ellison, N. B. (2013). Examining social adjustment to
college in the age of social media: Factors influencing successful transitions and persis
tence. Computers & Education, 67, 193–207.
Han, L., Geng, J., Jou, M., Gao, F., & Yang, H. (2017). Relationship between shyness and
mobile phone addiction in Chinese young adults: Mediating roles of self-control and at
tachment anxiety. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 363–371.
Han, P., Wang, P., Lin, Q., Tian, Y., Gao, F., & Chen, Y. (2017). Reciprocal relationship be
tween internet addiction and network-related maladaptive cognition among Chinese col
lege freshmen: A longitudinal cross-lagged analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1047.
Page 57 of 70
Hassell, M. D., & Sukalich, M. F. (2016). A deeper look into the complex relationship be
tween social media use and academic outcomes and attitudes. Information Research: An
International Electronic Journal, 21(4), n4.
Haug, S., Castro, R. P., Kwon, M., Filler, A., Kowatsch, T., & Schaub, M. P. (2015). Smart
phone use and smartphone addiction among young people in Switzerland. Journal of Be
Haverila, M. J. (2011). Cell phone feature preferences and gender differences among col
lege students. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 9(4), 401–419.
Hawi, N. S., & Samaha, M. (2016). To excel or not to excel: Strong evidence on the ad
verse effect of smartphone addiction on academic performance. Computers & Education,
98, 81–89.
Hawi, N. S., & Samaha, M. (2017). The relations among social media addiction, self-es
teem, and life satisfaction in university students. Social Science Computer Review, 35(5),
576–586.
Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., Finger, G., & Aston, R. (2015). Students’ everyday engage
ment with digital technology in university: Exploring patterns of use and “usefulness”.
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37(3), 308–319. doi:
10.1080/1360080X.2015.1034424
Hendrickson, B., & Rosen, D. (2017). Insights into new media use by international stu
dents: Implications for cross-cultural adaptation theory. Social Networking, 6, 81–106.
Hong, F. Y., Chiu, S. I., & Huang, D. H. (2012). A model of the relationship between psy
chological characteristics, mobile phone addiction and use of mobile phones by Tai
wanese university female students. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2152–2159.
Hou, J., Ndasauka, Y., Jiang, Y., Ye, Z., Wang, Y., Yang, L., … & Xu, F. (2017). Excessive use
of WeChat, social interaction and locus of control among college students in China. PloS
One, 12(8), e0183633.
Hoy, M. G., & Milne, G. (2010). Gender differences in privacy-related measures for young
adult Facebook users. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 10(2), 28–45. doi:
10.1080/15252019.2010.10722168
Hussain, Z., Griffiths, M. D., & Sheffield, D. (2017). An investigation into problematic
smartphone use: The role of narcissism, anxiety, and personality factors. Journal of Behav
ioral Addictions, 6(3), 378–386.
Ishii, K., Rife, T. S., & Kagawa, N. (2017). Technology-driven gratifications sought through
text-messaging among college students in the US and Japan. Computers in Human Behav
ior, 69, 396–404.
Page 58 of 70
Jacobsen, W. C., & Forste, R. (2011). The wired generation: Academic and social
(p. 291)
outcomes of electronic media use among university students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior,

and Social Networking, 14(5), 275–280.
Jarvi, S. M., Swenson, L. P., & Batejan, K. L. (2017). Motivation for and use of social net
working sites: comparisons among college students with and without histories of non-sui
cidal self-injury. Journal of American College Health, 65(5), 306–312.
Jenkins-Guarnieri, M. A., Wright, S. L., & Johnson, B. (2013). Development and validation
of a social media use integration scale. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2(1), 38–50.
Jiang, Z., & Shi, M. (2016). Prevalence and co-occurrence of compulsive buying, problem
atic Internet and mobile phone use in college students in Yantai, China: Relevance of self-
traits. BMC public health, 16(1), 1211.
Jiang, Z., & Zhao, X. (2016). Self-control and problematic mobile phone use in Chinese
college students: The mediating role of mobile phone use patterns. BMC psychiatry, 16(1),
416.
Jiang, Z., & Zhao, X. (2017). Brain behavioral systems, self-control and problematic mo
bile phone use: The moderating role of gender and history of use. Personality and Individ
ual Differences, 106, 111–116.
Johnston, K., Tanner, M., Lalla, N., & Kawalski, D. (2013). Social capital: the benefit of
Facebook “friends”. Behaviour & Information Technology, 32(1), 24–36.
Judd, T. (2014). Making sense of multitasking: The role of Facebook. Computers & Educa
tion, 70, 194–202.
Junco, R. (2012a). In-class multitasking and academic performance. Computers in Human

Behavior, 28(6), 2236–2243. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.031
Junco, R. (2012b). The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in

Facebook activities, and student engagement. Computers & Education, 58(1), 162–171.
Kabasakal, Z. (2015). Life satisfaction and family functions as-predictors of problematic

Internet use in university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 294–304.
Karadağ, E., Tosuntaş, Ş. B., Erzen, E., Duru, P., Bostan, N., Şahin, B. M., … & Babadağ,
B. (2015). Determinants of phubbing, which is the sum of many virtual addictions: A
structural equation model. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 4(2), 60–74.
Katikalapudi, R., Chellappan, S., Montgomery, F., Wunsch, D., & Lutzen, K. (2012). Associ
ating internet usage with depressive behavior among college students. IEEE Technology
and Society Magazine, 31(4), 73–80.
Page 59 of 70
Kim, B., & Kim, Y. (2017). College students’ social media use and communication network
heterogeneity: Implications for social capital and subjective well-being. Computers in Hu
Kim, H. J., Min, J. Y., Kim, H. J., & Min, K. B. (2017). Accident risk associated with smart
phone addiction: A study on university students in Korea. Journal of Behavioral Addic
tions, 6(4), 699–707.
Kim, J, & Lee, J.-E. R. (2011). The Facebook paths to happiness: Effects of the number of
Facebook friends and self-presentation on subjective well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behav
ior, and Social Networking, 14(6), 359–364. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2010.0374
Kim, J. H., Kim, M. S., & Nam, Y. (2010). An analysis of self-construals, motivations, Face
book use, and user satisfaction. International. Journal of Human–Computer Interaction,
26(11–12), 1077–1099.
Kim, Y., Liu, Y., & Shan, Z. (2017). Beyond touchdown: College students’ sports participa
tion, social media use, college attachment, and psychological well-being. Telematics and
Informatics, 34(7), 895–903.
Kim, Y., Sohn, D., & Choi, S. M. (2011). Cultural difference in motivations for us
(p. 292)
ing social network sites: A comparative study of American and Korean college students.
Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 365–372.
Kim, Y., Wang, Y., & Oh, J. (2016). Digital media use and social engagement: How social
media and smartphone use influence social activities of college students. Cyberpsycholo
gy, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19(4), 264–269.
Kobus, M. B., Rietveld, P., & Van Ommeren, J. N. (2013). Ownership versus on-campus use
of mobile IT devices by university students. Computers & Education, 68, 29–41.
Koc, M., & Gulyagci, S. (2013). Facebook addiction among Turkish college students: The
role of psychological health, demographic, and usage characteristics. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(4), 279–284.
Koh, H., & Mackert, M. (2016). A study exploring factors of decision to text while walking
among college students based on Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Journal of American
College Health, 64(8), 619–627.
Kokkinos, C. M., Baltzidis, E., & Xynogala, D. (2016). Prevalence and personality corre
lates of Facebook bullying among university undergraduates. Computers in Human Be
havior, 55, 840–850.
Krasnova, H., Widjaja, T., Buxmann, P, Wenninger, H., & Benbasat, I. (2015). Why follow
ing friends can hurt you: An exploratory investigation of the effects of envy on social net
working sites among college-age users. Information Systems Research, 26(3), 585–605.
Page 60 of 70
Kuang-Tsan, C., & Fu-Yuan, H. (2017). Study on relationship among university students’
life stress, smart mobile phone addiction, and life satisfaction. Journal of Adult Develop
ment, 24(2), 109–118.
Kuznekoff, J. & Titsworth, S. (2013). The impact of mobile phone usage on student learn
ing. Communication Education, 62(3), 233–252.
Lachmann, B., Duke, É., Sariyska, R., & Montag, C. (2017). Who’s addicted to the Smart
phone and/or the Internet? Psychology of Popular Media Culture, (Nov 20).
Lau, W. W. (2017). Effects of social media usage and social media multitasking on the aca
demic performance of university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 286–291.
Lee, E. B. (2015). Too much information: Heavy smartphone and Facebook utilization by
African American young adults. Journal of Black Studies, 46(1), 44–61.
Lee, K. S., & Chen, W. (2017). A long shadow: Cultural capital, techno-capital and net
working skills of college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 67–73.
Lee-Johnson, Y. L., Jiang, Y., & Li, Y. (2016). Comparing the digital literacy repertoire
among college students in China and the USA. Quarterly Journal of Chinese Studies, 4(4),
64–80.
Lepp, A., Li, J., Barkley, J. E., & Salehi-Esfahani, S. (2015). Exploring the relationships be
tween college students’ cell phone use, personality and leisure. Computers in Human Be
havior, 43, 210–219.
Li, W., O’Brien, J. E., Snyder, S. M., & Howard, M. O. (2015). Characteristics of internet
addiction/pathological internet use in US university students: A qualitative-method inves
tigation. PloS one, 10(2), e0117372.
Li, X., & Chen, W. (2014). Facebook or Renren? A comparative study of social networking
site use and social capital among Chinese international students in the United States.
Lian, L., & You, X. (2017). Specific virtues as predictors of smartphone addiction among
Chinese undergraduates. Current Psychology, 36(2), 376–384.
Lian, L., You, X., Huang, J., & Yang, R. (2016). Who overuses Smartphones? Roles
(p. 293)
of virtues and parenting style in Smartphone addiction among Chinese college students.
Lin, J. H. (2015). The role of attachment style in Facebook use and social capital: Evi
dence from university students and a national sample. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and So
cial Networking, 18(3), 173–180.
Lin, J. H., Peng, W., Kim, M., Kim, S. Y., & LaRose, R. (2012). Social networking and ad
justments among international students. New Media & Society, 14(3), 421–440.
Page 61 of 70
Lin, T. T., & Chiang, Y. H. (2017). Investigating predictors of smartphone dependency

symptoms and effects on academic performance, improper phone use and perceived so
ciability. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 15(6), 655–676.
Lin, Y., & Sackey, E. (2015). Use of Facebook: A Comparative Study of US American and
Ghanaian College Students. Communication Research Reports, 32(3), 281–286.
Liu, D., & Brown, B. B. (2014). Self-disclosure on social networking sites, positive feed
back, and social capital among Chinese college students. Computers in Human Behavior,
38, 213–219.
Liu, D., Kirschner, P. A., & Karpinski, A. C. (2017). A meta-analysis of the relationship of
academic performance and Social Network Site use among adolescents and young adults.
Long, J., Liu, T. Q., Liao, Y. H., Qi, C., He, H. Y., Chen, S. B., & Billieux, J. (2016). Preva
lence and correlates of problematic smartphone use in a large random sample of Chinese
undergraduates. BMC psychiatry, 16(1), 408.
Madu, S. N., Otuka, C. C., & Adebayo, I. A. (2011). Attitude of male and female students
towards the use of internet. Gender and Behaviour, 9(1), 3817–3826.
Manago, A.M., Taylor, T., & Greenfield, P. M. (2012). Me and my 400 friends: The anatomy
of college students’ Facebook networks, their communication patterns, and well-being.
Developmental Psychology, 48, 369–380. doi: 10.1037/a0026338
Marlowe, J. M., Bartley, A., & Collins, F. (2017). Digital belongings: The intersections of
social cohesion, connectivity and digital media. Ethnicities, 17(1), 85–102.
Behavior, 64, 65–76. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.011
Michikyan, M., Subrahmanyam, K., & Dennis, J. (2015). Facebook use and academic per
formance among college students: A mixed-methods study with a multi-ethnic sample.
Mihailidis, P. (2014a). A tethered generation: Exploring the role of mobile phones in the
daily life of young people. Mobile Media & Communication, 2(1), 58–72.
Mihailidis, P. (2014b). The civic-social media disconnect: Exploring perceptions of social

media for engagement in the daily life of college students. Information, Communication &
Society, 17(9), 1059–1071.
Miller, R. A. (2017). “My voice is definitely strongest in online communities”: Students us
ing social media for queer and disability identity-making. Journal of College Student De
velopment, 58(4), 509–525.
Page 62 of 70
Miller, R., & Melton, J. (2015). College students and risk-taking behaviour on Twitter ver
sus Facebook. Behaviour & Information Technology, 34(7), 678–684.
Misra, S., & Stokols, D. (2012). Psychological and health outcomes of perceived informa
tion overload. Environment and Behavior, 44(6), 737–759.
Mitchell, M. E., Lebow, J. R., Uribe, R., Grathouse, H., & Shoger, W. (2011). Inter
(p. 294)
net use, happiness, social support and introversion: A more fine grained analysis of per
son variables and internet activity. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1857–1861.
Mok, J. Y., Choi, S. W., Kim, D. J., Choi, J. S., Lee, J., Ahn, H., … & Song, W. Y. (2014). La
tent class analysis on internet and smartphone addiction in college students. Neuropsy
chiatric Disease and Treatment, 10, 817–827.
Monacis, L., de Palo, V., Griffiths, M. D., & Sinatra, M. (2017). Exploring individual differ
ences in online addictions: The role of identity and attachment. International Journal of
Mental Health And Addiction, 15(4), 853–868.
Montagni, I., Guichard, E., & Kurth, T. (2016). Association of screen time with self-per
ceived attention problems and hyperactivity levels in French students: A cross-sectional
study. BMJ open, 6(2), e009089.
Moreno, M. A., Jelenchick, L. A., & Breland, D. J. (2015). Exploring depression and prob
lematic internet use among college females: A multisite study. Computers in Human Be
havior, 49, 601–607.
Moreno, M. A., Jelenchick, L. A., & Christakis, D. A. (2013). Problematic internet use
among older adolescents: A conceptual framework. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4),
1879–1887.
Moreno, M. A., Jelenchick, L., Koff, R., Eikoff, J., Diermyer, C., & Christakis, D. A. (2012).
Internet use and multitasking among older adolescents: An experience sampling ap
proach. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1097–1102.
Moreno, M. A., Swanson, M. J., Royer, H., & Roberts, L. J. (2011). Sexpectations: Male col
lege students’ views about displayed sexual references on females’ social networking web
sites. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 24(2), 85–89.
Morreale, S., Staley, C., Stavrositu, C., & Krakowiak, M. (2015). First-year college stu
dents’ attitudes toward communication technologies and their perceptions of communica
tion competence in the 21st Century. Communication Education, 64(1), 107–131.
Noh, D., & Kim, S. (2016). Dysfunctional attitude mediates the relationship between psy
chopathology and Internet addiction among Korean college students: A cross-sectional
observational study. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 25(6), 588–597.
Odacı, H., & Kalkan, M. (2010). Problematic Internet use, loneliness and dating anxiety
among young adult university students. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1091–1097.
Page 63 of 70
Oh, S., & Kim, S. (2014). College students’ use of social media for health in the USA and
Korea. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, 19(4), n4, article 643.
Orzech, K. M., Grandner, M. A., Roane, B. M., & Carskadon, M. A. (2016). Digital media
use in the 2 h before bedtime is associated with sleep variables in university students.
Ouyang, Z., Wang, Y., & Yu, H. (2017). Internet use in young adult males: From the per
spective of pursuing well-being. Current Psychology, 36(4), 840–848.
Pak, R., Rovira, E., McLaughlin, A. C., & Leidheiser, W. (2017). Evaluating attitudes and
experience with emerging technology in cadets and civilian undergraduates. Military Psy
chology, 29(5), 448–455.
Panek, E. T., Nardis, Y., & Konrath, S. (2013). Mirror or Megaphone?: How relationships
between narcissism and social networking site use differ on Facebook and Twitter. Com
puters in Human Behavior, 29(5), 2004–2012.
Park, N., Song, H., & Lee, K. M. (2014). Social networking sites and other media use, ac
culturation stress, and psychological well-being among East Asian college students in the
United States. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 138–146.
(p. 295) Park, S., Lee, S. W., Kwak, J., Cha, M., & Jeong, B. (2013). Activities on Facebook
reveal the depressive state of users. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(10).
Percheski, C., & Hargittai, E. (2011). Health information-seeking in the digital age. Jour
nal of American College Health, 59(5), 379–386.
Pilli, O. (2015). The changes in social media usage: students’ perspective. The Anthropolo
gist, 22(2), 345–354.
Polo, M. I., Lázaro, S. M., del Barco, B. L., & Castaño, E. F. (2017). Mobile abuse in uni
versity students and profiles of victimization and aggression. Adicciones, 29(4), 245–255.
Primack, B. A., Shensa, A., Escobar-Viera, C. G., Barrett, E. L., Sidani, J. E., Colditz, J. B.,
& James, A. E. (2017). Use of multiple social media platforms and symptoms of depres
sion and anxiety: A nationally-representative study among U.S. young adults. Computers
Punyanunt-Carter, N. M., De La Cruz, J. J., & Wrench, J. S. (2017). Investigating the rela
tionships among college students’ satisfaction, addiction, needs, communication appre
hension, motives, and uses & gratifications with Snapchat. Computers in Human
Behavior, 75, 870–875.
Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2015). Are students really connected? Predicting college
adjustment from social network usage. Educational Psychology, 35(7), 819–834.
Page 64 of 70
Ragan, E. D., Jennings, S. R., Massey, J. D., & Doolittle, P. E. (2014). Unregulated use of
laptops over time in large lecture classes. Computers & Education, 78, 78–86.
Rashid, T., & Asghar, H. M. (2016). Technology use, self-directed learning, student en
gagement and academic performance: Examining the interrelations. Computers in Hu
Rayan, A., Dadoul, A. M., Jabareen, H., Sulieman, Z., Alzayyat, A., & Baker, O. (2017). In
ternet use among university students in South West Bank: Prevalence, advantages and
disadvantages, and association with psychological health. International Journal of Mental
Health and Addiction, 15(1), 118–129.
Reed, L. A., Tolman, R. M., & Safyer, P. (2015). Too close for comfort: Attachment insecu
rity and electronic intrusion in college students’ dating relationships. Computers in Hu
Roberts, J. A., & Pirog III, S. F. (2012). A preliminary investigation of materialism and im
pulsiveness as predictors of technological addictions among young adults. Journal of Be
Roberts, J. A., Petnji Yaya, L. H., & Manolis, C. (2014). The invisible addiction: Cell-phone
activities and addiction among male and female college students. Journal of Behavioral
Addictions, 3(4), 254–265. doi:10.1556/JBA.3.2014.015
Roberts, N., & Rees, M. (2014). Student use of mobile devices in university lectures. Aus
tralasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4), 415–426.
Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., & Alemán, A. M. M. (2018). Technology and engagement: Making

technology work for first generation college students. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Uni
versity Press.
Rutledge, C. M., Gillmor, K. L., & Gillen, M. M. (2013). Does this profile picture make me
look fat? Facebook and body image in college students. Psychology of Popular Media Cul
ture, 2(4), 251–258.
Samaha, M., & Hawi, N. S. (2016). Relationships among smartphone addiction, stress,
academic performance, and satisfaction with life. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 321–
325.
Sánchez, R. A., Cortijo, V., & Javed, U. (2014). Students’ perceptions of Facebook for aca
demic purposes. Computers & Education, 70, 138–149.
Selkie, E. M., Kota, R., Chan, Y. F., & Moreno, M. (2015). Cyberbullying, depres
(p. 296)
sion, and problem alcohol use in female college students: A multisite study. Cyberpsychol
ogy, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(2), 79–86.
Selwyn, N. (2016). Digital downsides: exploring university students’ negative engage

ments with digital technology. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(8), 1006–1021.
Page 65 of 70
Servidio, R. (2014). Exploring the effects of demographic factors, Internet usage and per
sonality traits on Internet addiction in a sample of Italian university students. Computers
Sevillano-García, M. L., Quicios-García, M. P., & González-García, J. L. (2016). The ubiqui

tous possibilities of the laptop: Spanish university students’ perceptions/Posibilidades
ubicuas del ordenador portátil: percepción de estudiantes universitarios españoles. Co
municar, 24(46), 87–94.
Sheldon, P. (2013). Voices that cannot be heard: Can shyness explain how we communi
cate on Facebook versus face-to-face? Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1402–1407.
Smith, E. E. (2016). “A real double-edged sword:” Undergraduate perceptions of social

media in their learning. Computers & Education, 103, 44–58.
Smith, R., Morgan, J., & Monks, C. (2017). Students’ perceptions of the effect of social
media ostracism on wellbeing. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 276–285.
Sponcil, M. & Gitimu, P. (2013). Use of social media by college students: Relationship to
communication and self-concept. Journal of Technology Research, 4, 1–13.
Tandoc, E. C., Ferrucci, P. & Duffy, M. (2015). Facebook use, envy, and depression among
college students: Is facebooking depressing? Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 139–146.
Taylor, D. G., Voelker, T. A. & Pentina, I. (2011). Mobile application adoption by young
adults: A social network perspective. International Journal of Mobile Marketing, 6(2), 60–
70.
Teoh, A. N., Chong, L. X., Yip, C. C. E., Lee, P. S. H., & Wong, J. W. K. (2015). Gender as
moderator of the effects of online social support from friends and strangers: A study of
Singaporean college students. International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Prac
tice, Consultation, 4(4), 254–266.
Thinyane, H. (2010). Are digital natives a world-wide phenomenon? An investigation into

South African first year students’ use and experience with technology. Computers & Edu
cation, 55(1), 406–414.
Thomas, L., Briggs, P., Hart, A., & Kerrigan, F. (2017). Understanding social media and
identity work in young people transitioning to university. Computers in Human Behavior,
76, 541–553.
Tu, B. M., Wu, H. C., Hsieh, C., & Chen, P. H. (2011). Establishing new friendships- from
face-to-face to facebook: A case study of college students. Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, Kauai, 4–7 January 2011, 1–10.
Turan, Z. (2013). The reasons for non-use of social networking websites by university stu
dents. Comunicar, 21(41), 137–145.
Page 66 of 70
Tynes, B. M., Rose, C. A., & Markoe, S. L. (2013). Extending campus life to the Internet:
Social media, discrimination, and perceptions of racial climate. Journal of Diversity in
Higher Education, 6(2), 102–114.
Villanti, A. C., Johnson, A. L., Ilakkuvan, V., Jacobs, M. A., Graham, A. L., & Rath, J. M.
(2017). Social media use and access to digital technology in US young adults in 2016.
Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(6). e196
Virden, A. L., Trujillo, A., & Predeger, E. (2014). Young adult females’ perceptions
(p. 297)
of high-risk social media behaviors: A focus-group approach. Journal of Community

Health Nursing, 31(3), 133–144.
Vorderer, P., Krömer, N., & Schneider, F. M. (2016). Permanently online–Permanently con
nected: Explorations into university students’ use of social media and mobile smart de
vices. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 694–703.
Wang, H., Chua, V., & Stefanone, M. A. (2015). Social ties, communication channels, and
personal well-being: A study of the networked lives of college students in Singapore.
American Behavioral Scientist, 59, 1189–1202. doi: 10.1177/0002764215580590
Wang, J. L., Wang, H. Z., Gaskin, J., & Wang, L. H. (2015). The role of stress and motiva
tion in problematic smartphone use among college students. Computers in Human Behav
ior, 53, 181–188.
Wang, J.-L., Jackson, L. A., Gaskin, J., & Wang, H.-Z. (2014). The effects of Social Network
ing Site (SNS) use on college students’ friendship and wellbeing. Computers in Human
Behavior, 37(August), 229–236.
Wang, Y., Niiya, M., Mark, G., Reich, S., & Warschauer, M. (2015). Coming of age (digital
ly): An ecological view of social media use among college students. Proceedings of CSCW,
571–582. doi:10.1145/2675133.2675271
Wang, Z., Tchernev, J. M., & Solloway, T. (2012). A dynamic longitudinal examination of so
cial media use, needs, and gratifications among college students. Computers in Human
Behavior, 28(5), 1829–1839.
Wei, R., Lo, V. H., Xu, X., Chen, Y. N. K., & Zhang, G. (2014). Predicting mobile news use
among college students: The role of press freedom in four Asian cities. New Media & So
ciety, 16(4), 637–654.
Wendorf, J. E., & Yang, F. (2015). Benefits of a negative post: Effects of computer-mediat
ed venting on relationship maintenance. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 271–277.
Page 67 of 70
Whitehill, J. M., Brockman, L. N., & Moreno, M. A. (2013). “Just talk to me”: Communicat
ing with college students about depression disclosures on Facebook. Journal of Adoles
cent Health, 52(1), 122–127.
Wilmer, H. H., & Chein, J. M. (2016). Mobile technology habits: patterns of association
among device usage, intertemporal preference, impulse control, and reward sensitivity.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(5), 1607–1614. doi:10.3758/s13423-016-1011-z
Wohn, D. Y., & LaRose, R. (2014). Effects of loneliness and differential usage of Facebook
on college adjustment of first-year students. Computers & Education, 76, 158–167.
Wu, J. Y. (2017). The indirect relationship of media multitasking self-efficacy on learning

performance within the personal learning environment: Implications from the mechanism
of perceived attention problems and self-regulation strategies. Computers & Education,
106, 56–72.
Xu, S., Wang, Z. J., & David, P. (2016). Media multitasking and well-being of university
students. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 242–250.
Xu, X., Lin, Q., Zhang, Y., Zhu, R., Sharma, M., & Zhao, Y. (2016). Influence of WeChat on
sleep quality among undergraduates in Chongqing, China: A cross-sectional study.
SpringerPlus, 5(1), 2066.
Yang, C. C., & Brown, B. B. (2013). Motives for using Facebook, patterns of Facebook ac
tivities, and late adolescents’ social adjustment to college. Journal of Youth and Adoles
cence, 42(3), 403–416.
Yang, C. C., & Brown, B. B. (2015). Factors involved in associations between Face
(p. 298)
book use and college adjustment: Social competence, perceived usefulness, and use pat
terns. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 245–253.
Yang, H. C. (2014). Young people’s friendship and love relationships and technology: New
practices of intimacy and rethinking feminism. Asian Journal of Women’s Studies, 20(1),
93–124.
Yang, T., Yu, L., Oliffe, J. L., Jiang, S., & Si, Q. (2017). Regional contextual determinants of
internet addiction among college students: A representative nationwide study of China.
The European Journal of Public Health, 27(6), 1032–1037.
Yao, B., Han, W., Zeng, L., & Guo, X. (2013). Freshman year mental health symptoms and
level of adaptation as predictors of Internet addiction: A retrospective nested case-control
study of male Chinese college students. Psychiatry Research, 210(2), 541–547.
Page 68 of 70
Yao, M. Z., He, J., Ko, D. M., & Pang, K. (2014). The influence of personality, parental be
haviors, and self-esteem on Internet addiction: A study of Chinese college students. Cy
berpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(2), 104–110.
Yubero, S., Navarro, R., Elche, M., Larrañaga, E., & Ovejero, A. (2017). Cyberbullying vic
timization in higher education: An exploratory analysis of its association with social and
emotional factors among Spanish students. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 439–449.
Yuchang, J., Cuicui, S., Junxiu, A., & Junyi, L. (2017). Attachment styles and smartphone
addiction in chinese college students: The mediating roles of dysfunctional attitudes and
self-esteem. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 15(5), 1122–1134.
Yuen, E. K., Koterba, E. A., Stasio, M. J. (2018). The effects of Facebook on mood in
emerging adults. Psychology of Popular Media Culture.
Zhang, Y., Mei, S., Li, L., Chai, J., Li, J., & Du, H. (2015). The relationship between impul
sivity and internet addiction in Chinese college students: A moderated mediation analysis
of meaning in life and self-esteem. PloS one, 10(7), e0131597.
Zhu, R., & Krever, R. (2017). Media use and cultural adaptation by foreign students in
Chinese universities. Continuum, 31(2), 307–324.
Notes:
(1.) We acknowledge support for data collection and software through Dr. Ronald E. Rice’s
endowed Arthur N. Rupe Professorship in the Social Effects of Mass Communication in
the Department of Communication, UC Santa Barbara.
Ronald E. Rice
Page 69 of 70
Nicole Zamanzadeh
Nicole Zamanzadeh received her PhD from the University of California, Santa Bar
bara. Her research interests include new media, stress, and family resilience. Her
current work investigates questions about media use habits such as media multitask
ing as a potential source of stress or resilience for individuals and the family system.
Ingunn Hagen
Ingunn Hagen (PhD) is a Professor in Psychology at the Department of Psychology,

Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway. Her
main research interests include topics related to media and communication psycholo
gy, such the role of media and ICT in children and young people’s lives. She has been
involved in research projects on Internet-related risks (EU Kids Online). Her re
search also includes such fields as audience reception studies, political communica
tion, consumption of popular culture, children and consumption, and yoga and well-
being. See https://www.ntnui.edu/employees/ingunn.hagen
Page 70 of 70
Boundary Management and Communication Technologies
Boundary Management and Communication Technolo

gies
Marta E. Cecchinato and Anna L. Cox
We live in a world of communication overload, where there is a wide range of platforms

and devices to choose from, each providing massive content, offering different affor
dances, and fighting for our attention. Mobile technologies have contributed to expecta
tions of anywhere anytime connectedness, making it hard for individuals to switch off. As
a result, it can be hard to feel truly disconnected from work. A lack of control over work-
home boundary cross-overs and interruptions can reduce post-work recovery, reducing
productivity and increasing stress. Technology is not inherently good or bad, but rather,
the way it is adopted and used can positively or negatively color one’s experience. As
such, in this critical review we take a social constructionist approach to emphasize how
communication technologies are challenging, as well as supporting, work-home boundary
management. In doing so, we bring together work from occupational psychology (bound
ary theory) and human-computer interaction (computer-mediated communication and
cross-device interaction). Understanding how these aspects interact and influence each
other is important in order to support individuals appropriately, inform policies and
guidelines, and ensure both social and digital interactions are designed carefully.
Keywords: boundary management, boundary theory, communication technologies, human-computer interaction,

mobile technologies, social and digital interactions, social constructionist approach, work-home boundary man
agement
Introduction
THE growing number of mobile communication technologies and computer-mediated
communication (CMC) platforms has brought numerous benefits to and enrichments of
the way we work and socialize. However, they also lead to the challenge of being always
connected, which can be a source of stress (Barley, Meyerson, & Grodal, 2011). The ex
tent to, and the ways in, which digital technologies foster stress, especially in relation to
work-home boundary management, has been of particular interest in occupational psy
chology and to a lesser extent in human-computer interaction. Understanding this rela
Page 1 of 25
tionship has important implications for improving workplace well-being. In fact, work-re
lated stress is a major health problem in the work environment, costing over £5 billion a
year just in the United Kingdom (HSE, 2017).
Most work looking at how workers are affected by this constant connection to platforms
and devices belongs to the field of occupational psychology, where efforts have been di
rected towards understanding work-home boundary management practices and develop
ing boundary theory (e.g., Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000; Kossek, Ruderman, Braddy,
& Hannum, 2012; Rice, 2017). In contrast, work investigating the ways in which ubiqui
tous technology is changing our way of working comes primarily from the field of human-
computer interaction (HCI), where there is a large body of work looking at computer sup
ported mediated work and availability management (Cecchinato, Cox, & Bird, 2017; Maz
manian & Erickson, 2014). While the two fields complement each other nicely, there is
still little research that focuses on how the two (p. 300) overlap. In this chapter, we
present a critical review (Grant & Booth, 2009) of the literature from occupational psy
chology and HCI to create an up-to-date understanding of how communication technolo
gies are affecting work-home boundary management.
The social construction of technology (SCOT) approach guides our review to explain how
users experience work-home boundaries and their use of technology, as a result of inter
actions that define the experiences. This means, rather than relying on a false dichotomy
that technology can be good or bad, SCOT researchers have shown how there is a two-
way relationship in how technology is influencing society and vice-versa, otherwise
known as “interpretive flexibility” (Klein & Kleinman, 2002). Kalman (2016, p. 9) explains
that, “[i]t is not the use of ICTs that blurs the boundaries between work and home, but
rather the managers, colleagues or clients who expect work to be carried out at home (or
family and friends who expect employees to divert attention to them during the work
day).” Similarly, individuals co-construct, manage and negotiate boundaries around their
roles through social interactions. As Kreiner, Hollensbe and Sheep (2009) point out,
boundary theory offers an ideal lens to study work-home boundaries within the social-con
structionist approach. Our review focuses on the role that communication technologies
play in shaping boundary management. As such, we emphasize how the relationship be
tween individuals and technology can bring both enrichment and challenges, and by do
ing so, we are able to unearth strategies that can help individuals and organizations
around boundary management.
We start by covering how boundary research has evolved over time and in response to
changes in technology, and then explain how mobile devices have shifted work outside
the office (and family issues inside the office) through a proliferation of devices and CMC
platforms that can support and challenge boundary management, negotiation, and avail
ability. With particular focus on how this impacts knowledge workers (Pyöriä, 2005) who
have flexible working practices, we start by reviewing boundary theory to explain work-
home conflicts and enrichment. We then reflect on how these have changed as new com
munication technologies have been introduced. Finally, we conclude with an assessment
of boundary management strategies that can be applied top-down and bottom-up to show
Page 2 of 25
how policy makers, practitioners and individuals can support better boundary manage
ment. Understanding these aspects can help researchers guide future work on boundary
management in the digital age, and practitioners know where to focus efforts when de
signing interactions with communication technologies.
Terminology
As this chapter brings together research from different fields, we clarify key terms in our
review, namely what we mean by “boundary management” and “communication technolo
gies.”% We refer to boundary management as any practice that an individual puts in place
when creating, negotiating, and maintaining boundaries around work and home. (p. 301)
Boundary theory literature does not agree on the terms used to describe the domains
around the boundaries: as Allen (2013) points out, the terms work vs. home, work vs.
family, and work vs. life are often used interchangeably to cover the variety of life roles.
Here, we choose to use the umbrella expression work-home boundaries and to juxtapose
work vs. personal to broadly differentiate between life roles and domains that are not
necessarily confined to a specific time or space. For a deeper discussion around this ter
minology, see Moen (2011).
From an HCI perspective, we use communication technologies as an umbrella term that

encompasses both communication platforms (e.g., email, WhatsApp) and communication
devices (e.g., smartphones, laptops). To simplify, while the former refers to the software
or applications, the latter represents the hardware through which we can communicate.
In particular, rather than “channel,” which can refer to the device or medium in commu
nication research, we use the term “platform” to refer to the means by which one access
es content or communication.
Work-Home Boundaries
Over the past 20 years, popular media have reported the growing interest in “work-life
balance,” or the ideal equilibrium of well-being in all aspects of one’s life (Kreiner et al.,
2009), as the outcome of a more complex process of work-home boundary management.
The idea of balance is rooted in balance theory, as first described by Fritz Heider (1946).
When people perceive important aspects of their life as being part of a system, they are
inclined to maintain a state of balance among these elements, often through a “a juggling
act,” where “some balls (roles) are larger (more demanding), some weigh more than
others” (Roche, 2015, p. 18). How we juggle all these roles depends on many factors,
some of which can have a positive impact on work-life balance (e.g., job satisfaction, tele
work), while others can impact it negatively (e.g., work overload and job demands).
Page 3 of 25
Boundary Theory
In general, boundaries are delimitations of an area, which can refer to a physical space
(e.g., a country, a home), or a more abstract domain (e.g., a role). When referred to work
and personal domains, boundaries have been classified as physical, temporal, or psycho
logical (Clark, 2000). Physical boundaries for example can be the walls of an office, or a
dedicated desk in the home of a telecommuter. Temporal boundaries refer to strict sched
ules, like a nine to five job, and/or explicit transitions between working time and family
time, such as using the commute to shift and detach from one role to another. Finally, psy
chological boundaries are the series of rules self-created to establish which behaviors and
attitudes belong to which domain and preferences for the balance among the domains.
Boundaries can be conceptualized along an integration-segmentation continuum

(p. 302)
(Ashforth et al., 2000). At one end of the continuum are individuals who tend to have
work and home domains fully integrated, where “home” and “work” are “one giant cate
gory of social existence, for no conceptual boundary separates its contents or
meaning” (Nippert-Eng, 1996, p. 567). At the other end are those for whom work and
home are perceived as two completely separated worlds. Kossek, Ruderman, Braddy, and
Hannum (2012) describe three main boundary styles that extend the integration-segmen
tation continuum paradigm, and include: separators, volleyers, and integrators. While in
tegrators and separators reflect behaviors of those at the two extremes of Ashforth’s con
tinuum, volleyers are people who rely on both strategies and switch between them de
pending on job structure and family situation (Kossek, Baltes, & Matthews, 2011).
On a daily basis, individuals can experience repeated shifts between the different roles in
different domains, each having different responsibilities and resources (e.g., employee
and parent). These shifts are known as a “micro-role transitions” (Ashforth et al., 2000)
and happen, for example, when a parent receives a phone call or email from their child’s
school while at work. Ashforth, Kreiner and Fugate (2000) distinguish them from “macro-
role transitions,” where these shifts are less frequent and occur more generally within the
same domain from an old role to a new role, which comes with new responsibilities and
resources (e.g., moving from being a PhD student to becoming a faculty member).
The nature of the boundaries (physical, temporal, or psychological) and the degree of per
meability to which they allow cross-overs (or micro-role transitions) has been attributed
as the result of three factors: (1) identity centrality, (2) perceived sense of control (Kossek
et al., 2012), and (3) the importance of work norms (Park, Fritz, & Jex, 2011). These,
along with boundary strategies (which will be discussed at the end of the chapter), make
up one’s boundary management style (Kossek et al., 2012).
Identity centrality. Grounded in identity theory, identity or role centrality is an indication

of the value that an individual puts on each of his or her roles and reflects the time and
energy invested in a role. Identity centrality can be of four types: work, family, dual, or
other (e.g., where priority is given to hobbies).
Page 4 of 25
Perceived boundary control. This refers to a sense of control over how permeable bound
aries are and it is a psychological interpretation rather than a personal trait. Perceived
boundary control can be high or low. People with high boundary control feel they are in
control of when, how often, and in which direction boundary crossings occur, based on
their role demands and centrality. Contrarily, people with lower boundary control per
ceive lower agency around boundary spill-overs and are more likely to experience work-
family conflict. Kossek et al. (2012) found that boundary control is negatively correlated
with role conflict and stress and suggested that regardless of one’s preference for inte
gration or segmentation, what makes the difference in boundary management satisfac
tion is a sense of boundary control.
Work norms. Because of its basis in social-constructionism (i.e., the idea that boundaries
are constructed in relation to others), an individual’s integration-segmentation behavior
has been found to be consistent with segmenting norms in their workplace (p. 303) (Park
et al., 2011). That is to say, if a person experiences high segmentation in their organiza
tion, he or she will be more likely to adopt a more segmented boundary style, for example
by not check work emails outside of working hours. Similarly, there may be a certain ex
pectation of how one might integrate or segment, sometimes accompanied by company
policies or guidelines.
Work-Home Conflict
Each role of an individual comes with its own expectations of time, attention, and re
sources. However, these many roles may often conflict with each other. “Work-life conflict
occurs when the role demands in one domain interfere with meeting the demands of a
role in another domain” (Olson-Buchanan & Boswell, 2006, p. 436). Such conflict has
been linked to several undesirable outcomes, such as burnout, absenteeism, and stress
(Amstad, Meier, Fasel, Elfering, & Semmer, 2011; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Kreiner et
al., 2009). Just like different roles have different expectations, also different environ
ments like work and home have strong (but often contrasting) expectations around rules,
behaviors, and attitudes (Clark, 2000). The tensions, the interactions, and the manage
ment strategies thus created around the role/environment border are an interesting area
of investigation still underexplored.
Researchers (Ashforth et al., 2000; Hall & Richter, 1988) have suggested that more inte
gration of work and home can lead to negative consequences. For example, the perme
ability of an integrated role allows interruptions, which in turn leads to increased confu
sion as to what role to adopt at that moment. This implies that individuals with higher in
tegration have more difficulty disengaging from different roles when in a specific domain,
causing negative affect and less task enjoyment (Williams, Suls, Alliger, Learner, & Wan,
1991). This is especially true if we think about ubiquitous technology that, for example,
allows work communication to interrupt family time on a Sunday evening, or vice-versa,
personal emails to be sent to a work account while in the office. Those who sit on the inte
gration end of the continuum might be more likely to respond to a work email received
Page 5 of 25
out of office hours, interrupting their personal life; and the opposite scenario is just as
likely (Ashforth et al., 2000).
Interruptions can also challenge those who have more segmented boundaries and roles.
As Olson-Buchanan and Boswell (2006) point out, those with segmented roles have a
more negative reaction, feel more strained, and experience more inter-role conflict when
an interruption occurs, compared to individuals with more integrated roles. Let’s take the
example of receiving a work email outside of working hours: while for those who prefer to
integrate it can help them keep on top of work, for those who prefer to segment work-
home boundaries it can be a source of stress because they find it harder to ignore the
work message during non-work time (Cecchinato, Cox, & Bird, 2015b; Pielot, Church, &
de Oliveira, 2014). This role-referencing can result in mental preoccupation with another
role, leading to strain-based work-home conflict (Olson-Buchanan & Boswell, 2006).
While it is important to understand that cross-role interruptions and spill-overs can occur
for both integrators and separators, it is even more important to remember that (p. 304)
these conflicts have a bi-directional nature, meaning work can interrupt non-work and
non-work can equally disrupt work, depending on which role one choses to engage in
(Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Kossek et al., 2012; Kreiner et al., 2009).
Work-Home Enrichment
Not all role-referencing and spill-overs have negative effects. Greenhaus and Powell
(2006) propose a model of Work-Family Enrichment in which work and family are allies,
and the enrichment comes from “the extent to which experiences in one role improve the
quality of life in the other role” (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006, p. 73). The authors offer an
extensive review on prior work measuring work-home enrichment and identify: (1) five re
sources that can promote work-family enrichment (skills and perspectives, psychological
and physical resources, social-capital resources, flexibility, and material resources); (2)
two mechanisms through which resources promote enrichment (performance, and affect);
and (3) several moderators that determine conditions for resources in one role to enrich
another role (salience of role, perceived relevance of resources, and consistency of re
sources with norms and requirements).
As with work-home conflict, work-home enrichment also has a bi-directional nature. One
of the five resources, flexibility, is of particular relevance. Flexibility is the ability to deter
mine location, timing, and pace with which role requirements are met; communication
technology enables us to achieve such flexibility, but also may impose too much flexibility
and obligations. In the next section we will analyze how affordances and features of com
munication technologies are affecting work-home boundaries.
Page 6 of 25
How Aspects of Communication Technologies

Affect Work-Home Boundaries
Digital technologies increase flexibility by enabling employees to access their work and of
their personal life anytime and in any place (Allen, 2013; Boswell & Olson-Buchanan,
2007). They do so by shifting where we can work, which in turn defines how multi-device
ecologies are used, by shaping what work or personal role we convey through ecologies
of communication platforms, and finally by challenging the expectations and awareness of
one’s availability around work or personal domains.
Work Place and Space Shift
Mobility as an affordance of communication technology (Axtell, Hislop, & Whittaker,

2008; Rice et al., 2017) can shape and determine how, for example, teleworkers do their
(p. 305) job (Brown & O’Hara, 2003). There are several interpretations around what con
stitutes mobility, ranging from contrasting the static or mobile location of where a com
puter can be situated in the physical space (e.g., a desktop PC can only be on a table,
whereas a mobile phone can be carried in a pocket everywhere; Oulasvirta, Petit, Raento,
& Sauli, 2007), to more abstract interpretations that refer to mobility as the ability to
move across space and time through a mobile device for work or personal reasons
(Cousins & Robey, 2015).
Today’s workspace is distributed across multiple artefacts and locations, which yield to
trends in device specialization, parallelism, and fragmentation (Santosa & Wigdor, 2013).
This device specialization is not just limited to work spaces but also involves the home.
Devices are used differently depending on where they are used and for what reason.
Kawsar and Brush (2013), looking at how multiple devices were used in the home, identi
fied spatial and temporal habits of common Internet activities. In terms of location, more
personal activities (e.g., social networking) took place in private spaces (e.g., the bath
room) where interruptions are less acceptable and less likely to happen. More public and
shared spaces (e.g., kitchen) instead were used for work purposes, as well as personal
reasons.
To make sense of mobility and what it means for work-home boundaries, it is useful to re
ly on Harrison and Dourish’s (1996) distinction between space and place, where the for
mer is defined as a physical location and the latter prescribes behaviors for a specific
space. More simply, spaces become places through the social interactions that happen in
them. For workers with flexible working patterns, communication technology has made it
more complicated to distinguish between different places. Thinking about Kawsar and
Brush’s (2013) findings, the same space or locale (e.g., a kitchen) becomes populated
with different places (e.g., an office space to work, but also an eating area for the family).
Such places have temporal properties: “the same space can be different places at differ
ent times” (Harrison & Dourish, 1996, p. 7). What happens when those different times
overlap or are not clearly defined?
Page 7 of 25
More than twenty years later, we question what happens when digital spaces and physi
cal spaces are collocated, and particularly when they define incongruent work and per
sonal places with overlapping temporal properties. Multi-device interaction has in fact
created distributed workspaces, defined as “virtual areas spanning multiple devices
across all physical working locations” (Santosa & Wigdor, 2013, p. 63). Kawsar and
Brush’s insights are interesting and novel but not as discerning as they could have been,
for example taking Dourish’s (2006) distinction between space and place. For example,
what happens when digital and physical places overlap and create work-home conflict?
How can interactions with technology, especially for distributed workspaces, be better de
signed to avoid such conflicts?
Using Multi-device Ecologies around Work-Home Spaces
Before mobile technologies were introduced in our everyday lives, boundaries between
work and home were more defined. Today, 77% of Americans own a smartphone, 51 per
cent (p. 306) own a tablet (Pew Research, 2018), 5% own a smartwatch (The NPD Group,
2017), and these numbers are growing. Thus, understanding user interactions across
multiple devices has become an active area of research, especially in more recent years.
Bødker and Klokmose talk about all the devices “that a person owns, has access to, and
uses” as “device ecologies” (Bødker & Klokmose, 2012, p. 448), and argue how these are
constantly changing and adapting to the environment and the user. How combinations of
devices are chosen and used for specific purposes needs to be understood, especially if
this is different for work and for personal reasons, thus affecting boundary management.
When Blackberries became widespread, work-related emails got pushed to recipients’

pockets, rather than being stored for later retrieval, providing an always-online experi
ence and contributing to the addictive effect email can have on mobile devices (Mazman
ian, Yates, & Orlikowski, 2006; Turel & Serenko, 2010). Once smartphones, like the
iPhone, became popular, Dery, Kolb and MacCormick (2014) noticed that people used mo
bile phones mostly for personal use and associated BlackBerrys instead only with work.
This meant that many users relied on two devices to keep boundaries separate between
home and work, as Cousins and Robey also identified (2015). This is one strategy that
people may adopt to disconnect from work outside the office.
However, mobile devices (laptops, smartphones, and tablets) also constitute a bridge
across work and personal boundaries, as Dearman and Pierce (2008) and Fleck, Cox and
Robison (2015) found. Karlson, Meyers, Jacobs, Johns and Kane (2009) looked specifically
at multi-device use and the impact on boundaries and working time. Their data logs and
follow-up interviews showed that participants accessed work email outside working hours
and relied on their phone whenever they did not have access to a PC. They found that
people in their sample preferred to be constantly connected with work and life domains
through their mobile phones and emails, as this connectedness gave participants a
stronger sense of perceived control. These findings support Greenhaus and Powell’s
Page 8 of 25
(2006) idea of work-family enrichment, and the importance of perceived boundary control
supported by Kossek et al. (2012).
More recently, device ecologies have started to include also wearable technology, such as
smartwatches. In contrast to mobile devices that can be placed in pockets and bags,
wrist-worn devices are always in contact with its user and as such can be more discreet,
allowing minimal interference between the user and the task, but at the same time they
can also be more disruptive, as they are both “always on” in function as well as “always
on the user.” Therefore, smart wrist-worn devices introduce the opportunity to explore
new research areas of mobile user experience in relation to boundary management. So
far, very little work has looked at this, with one exception. Cecchinato and colleagues
(Cecchinato & Cox, 2017; Cecchinato, Cox, & Bird, 2015a; Cecchinato et al., 2017) ana
lyzed how smartwatches are used within device ecologies and how they impact boundary
management. We found that smartwatches are used strategically to better manage notifi
cations and filter important messages to the wrist, as well as to help individuals manage
their availability to others, by leveraging the limited functionalities and the (p. 307) mater
ial properties of the watch. For example, users would rely on the act of taking off the
watch at home or at the end of the day as a ritual to help them disconnect from their
work day.
The next section moves from devices to platforms to analyze how they impact work-home
boundaries, particularly when it comes to portraying ourselves and our availability
through CMC.
Using Multi-platform Ecologies for Work and Personal Roles
The typical individual enacts several roles throughout the day, such as parent, colleague,
friend, employee, etc., none of which exists in a vacuum. How we choose to use CMC plat
forms tells something about how we decide to portray ourselves to others and could help
inform how technology helps co-construct and negotiate work-home boundaries (Diaz,
Chiaburu, Zimmerman, & Boswell, 2012).
Goffman’s (1959) dramaturgical approach offers a lens to understand how users might
decide to portray themselves. Goffman builds on the idea that most behaviors are bound
ed in space and time, and guided by specific norms belonging to the context. Farnham
and Churchill apply this to the digital and physical self and call this “faceted identity,”
where “different aspects of identity are performed depending on context, and expect that
identity faceting will vary depending on the individual” (2011, p. 2). Similarly, Nippert-
Eng discussed how self and identity are negotiated around time and space, when dis
cussing what constitutes “work” and “home”: We each make “some sort of distinction be
tween who we are when we are ‘at work’ and ‘at home’. This distinction may be quite re
markable for some (currently segmenting) people, hardly noticeable for other (extremely
integrating) ones. However different our home and work selves are, though, boundary
work supports these variations in who we are” (Nippert-Eng, 1996, p. 569).
Page 9 of 25
Market predictors have seen, and expect, a strong growth in the use of mobile devices for
any form of communication. Use of email on phones used to be an exception, done pri
marily when fully-featured computers were not available, but as work becomes more flex
ible, its use “on-the-go” is more popular and accepted: approximately 50% of email users
access it on their mobile devices (Radicati Group, 2015b; Specht, 2018). Instant messag
ing accounts, which today are over 3.2 billion, are expected to grow at a 4% rate until
2019, particularly for business use compared to personal use (Radicati Group, 2015a).
CMC platforms can be used for work purposes, personal reasons, or both, and the reason
may be influenced by the device they are accessed on. The ways in which people use com
munication technologies is rapidly evolving (Dery et al., 2014) and communication in the
workplace has become particularly challenging compared to personal communication be
cause it is becoming “more acceptable to have informal, non-informative, and non-work
related (e.g., personal) conversations via an instant message service or with mobile de
vices in the workplace” (Cho, Ramgolam, Schaefer, & Sandlin, 2011, p. 40; (p. 308) Fortu
nati, 2002). In fact, while work communication is fragmented across different devices, it
is now also distributed across a growing number of platforms, which go beyond just email
and include for example instant messaging (e.g., Skype, Slack, WhatsApp) and social me
dia (e.g., Facebook and Workplace by Facebook). As a result, some argue that we live in a
world of communication overload (Cho et al., 2011), where the rate and quantity of mes
sages sent and received over a growing number of devices and platform can make it hard
er for individuals to process them.
Despite the fragmentation of platforms, previous work has identified a trend for strong
curation of communication around different platforms, in order to keep work and person
al exchanges separate. This behavior can be associated with a desire to better manage
work and personal boundaries, as well as to improve retrieval of information (Cecchinato,
Sellen, Shokouhi, & Smyth, 2016). Recently, Nouwens, Griggio, and Mackay (2017) sug
gested that users may create idiosyncratic communication “places” within the “space” of
the same app (using Harrison and Dourish’s (1996) definitions), adjusting rules based on
the person they are communicating with. In other words, each platform (i.e., space) is as
sociated with different rules (i.e., making it a particular place) and these rules are per
sonal to the users, rather than inherent in the communication app. For example, the au
thors report the case of a participant who is friends with a colleague, so whenever he
wants to contact the colleague for non-work purposes he will use Facebook Messenger,
but he would not use WhatsApp because he sees it as a too personal platform. Other re
searchers have specifically compared different communication platform such as Facebook
vs. Gmail (Shen, Brdiczka, & Ruan, 2013) or WhatsApp vs SMS (Church & de Oliveira,
2013) and found similar results. When the rules for a particular platform are not respect
ed by others, work-home boundary conflict can occur. Cecchinato, Cox and Bird (2015b)
report the case of a participant whose friends and family would email her on her work ac
count when she is in the office instead of using what she would consider a personal plat
form (e.g., her personal account) because they know she is more likely to see the mes
sage in a timely manner. These examples emphasise how the context of a communication
Page 10 of 25
platform, the personal preference for use, as well as how it used in relation to others, can
affect work-home boundary management.
Given this fragmentation of platforms used for work and personal communications and
the risks that might arise for work-home boundary management, users have developed or
socially constructed new habits across devices and channels, and it is through these new
habits that work-home boundary management can be further challenged or enriched. For
example, Matthews, Pierce, and Tang (2009) found that users preferred their phone to
triage messages in the inbox because they could easily swipe to delete or archive emails,
while fully featured computers were used for reading and replying to emails, especially
work ones. They also observed that smartphones were used to maintain awareness of in
formation while away from a computer, e.g., by checking emails from remote collabora
tors. Other researchers have found that these checking or monitoring activities happen
primarily outside of working hours, such as early morning or evening, or at weekends
(Kawsar & Brush, 2013), reinforcing the notion that smartphones (p. 309) have the ability
to blur work-home boundaries, depending on how available one decides to be.
Expectations of Work and Personal Availability
The use of communication technologies can have a positive effect, increasing work satis
faction (Diaz et al., 2012) and empowering users to work where and when they feel is
best, for example shifting an activity to a “dead time” to relieve pressure of availability
(Bittman, Brown, & Wajcman, 2009). However, it also facilitates the blurring of bound
aries (Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007), increasing vulnerability to work-home conflict.
As a result, it is more difficult for employees to distance themselves from work during
non-working time (Park et al., 2011); that is, work-family boundary management tends to
be asymmetric (Rice, 2017). It is worth noting that unlike personal life, which is not nec
essarily bound in time, work life is generally confined within certain hours, even if these
are flexible and fragmented throughout the day. As a result, the challenges of constant
availability for work can have worse implications compared to personal and indeed have
been associated with stress and burnout (e.g., Amstad et al., 2011; Kossek et al., 2012).
However, while this phenomenon is more salient in the work context, it also applies to
personal life, whereby friends and family still expect timely responses (O’Hara, Massimi,
Harper, Rubens, & Morris, 2014) causing role conflict in the individual, who has to more
frequently complete micro-role transitions. In this section we will first analyse the chal
lenges of expecting availability, before we move on to how curating others’ awareness of
one’s availability and unavailability can help regain control over work-home boundary
cross-overs.
Managing availability after working hours can be so challenging, some refer to it as “the
new night shift,” where employees log back into work platforms (or never log out) to re
spond to messages (Boswell, Olson-Buchanan, Butts, & Becker, 2016). When this constant
connectivity is not motivated by the individual’s gains, it is generally the result of social
expectations and work pressures (Barley et al., 2011). As a result, an individual may feel
expected to be more attentive and responsive to incoming messages. Motivated by the de
Page 11 of 25
sire to understand temporal patterns of responses in asynchronous CMC, Kalman and

Rafaeli (2005) analysed chronemics (i.e., the role of time in communication) in three ex
isting datasets of communication exchanges and found that people either reply relatively
quickly or they do not reply at all. Despite digital communication having the benefit of be
ing able to be asynchronous, people feel the need to reply quickly or be apologetic if their
answer is delayed (Mazmanian, Orlikowski, & Yates, 2005; Mazmanian et al., 2006). That
is because quick responses give non-verbal cues of immediacy and presence, i.e., being
constantly available (Kalman, Ravid, Raban, & Rafaeli, 2006). If we are not constantly
available, we feel we need to justify ourselves. In addition, aggravating this problem,
some companies are even selling their employees’ rapid and sometimes constant (“24/7”)
availability as part of the company’s services (Mazmanian & Erickson, 2014). Given the
more or less perceived expectations of a need (p. 310) for quick replies at any time, users
are often expected to pay attention to their devices and any incoming notifications. Din
gler and Pielot (2015) quantified attentiveness towards mobile messaging, analysing logs
of mobile messaging notifications and user attentiveness for 42 participants over the
course of two weeks. They found that people are attentive to messages for approximately
12.1 hours of the day, with higher peaks during weekdays and evenings. Taking this back
to work-home boundary management, the pressures of having to constantly pay attention
to work and/or personal communication, even when not currently embodying that role,
can become overwhelming (Barley et al., 2011; Kossek et al., 2012; Mazmanian et al.,
2006).
Awareness of Work and Personal Availability
If availability is something that belongs to oneself, the awareness of that availability is in
stead obtained by those we interact with. Understanding how to manage the two sides of
this coin is crucial when taking a social-constructionist approach of boundary manage
ment. Awareness of one’s availability can be gained in a number of ways: by explicitly
asking/being told, by assumption, or by taking notice of the other person’s habits. Of rele
vance, there are specific features in communication platforms that are used to infer one’s
availability and attentiveness to messages: these are referred to as awareness cues
(Oulasvirta et al., 2007; Rice et al., 2017) and can be for example, read receipts, notifica
tions, or online statuses to infer other people’s activity (O’Hara et al., 2014). Understand
ing how people make use of awareness cues is important for work-home boundary man
agement, because it can help identify where conflicts might arise and how to reduce
them. Knowing when and how to communicate availability or unavailability can be a use
ful strategy to help shift between work and personal roles.
The first research to provide an in-depth analysis of the issues around awareness cues in
mobile devices was conducted by Oulavirta et al. (2007), who found that participants
were able to infer someone’s activity (e.g., sleeping), someone’s potential availability to
engage in some sort of communication (e.g., based on when they were last online), or
even social situation (e.g., if two people were in the same location). A substantial body of
work has looked at how these cues are used particularly in the work context to infer re
sponse times and one’s availability (e.g., Avrahami, Fussell, & Hudson, 2008; Birnholtz,
Page 12 of 25
Bi, & Fussell, 2012; Dourish & Bellotti, 1992). Since the initial work was published in
2007, the inclusion of awareness cues in instant messaging tools has become widespread.
WhatsApp in particular allows users to be notified when a message is sent and delivered,
with the use of two separate ticks next to each message. In addition, it displays the last
time a user was online, a feature that can be disabled. Since that study was published,
WhatsApp has added an additional feature: a change in color (from grey to blue) in the
two ticks to notify when a message has been read. In their study of 20 WhatsApp users,
O’Hara et al. (2014) uncovered “doings,” i.e., ways of engaging with relationships
through IM-like applications. For example, the authors talk about “plausible deniability”
and “plausible accounting” when discussing awareness features (p. 311) (i.e., “last seen
online” and receipt ticks). They claim that these awareness features are not necessarily
perceived as a precursor of interaction and communication—as Nardi, Whittaker and
Bradner (2000) argue when discussing the use of IM in the office—but are instead mes
sages per se, which they define as an “encounter of knowing” (i.e., the user gains insight
about the interlocutor without having to communicate with him or her) as opposed to an
“encounter of communication.” These awareness features add temporal properties to a
communication, which need to be interpreted based on the interlocutor’s habits (e.g.,
how quickly are they likely to reply). O’Hara and colleagues (2014) explain how, when the
communication happens between friends or family, these temporal patterns can be easily
explained, but issues of social pressure to respond rise with particular, less intimate, rela
tionships, such as with acquaintances or work colleagues. In these circumstances, know
ing that someone has received and read a message can lead to an expectation that a reply
will be sent immediately.
As a consequence, user behavior has evolved as people have become more aware of how
their behavior can trigger these cues to be sent to others. Users therefore adopt strate
gies to avoid triggering such cues. For example, we found that one of the ways in which
smartwatches help people to manage their availability, and therefore their work-home
boundaries, is that they enable users to read the text of any incoming message without
any awareness cues being sent (Cecchinato & Cox, 2017; Cecchinato et al., 2017). Thus,
curating others’ awareness of one’s availability can help regain control over boundary
cross-overs.
Awareness cues are also used by receivers of a message as a way of communicating un
availability, and therefore protecting their personal (or work) time. For example, Birn
holtz and colleagues (Birnholtz, Guillory, Hancock, & Bazarova, 2010; Birnholtz, Hancock,
Smith, & Reynolds, 2012), and Patterson et al. (2008) report strategies to avoid being
constantly connected and create boundaries between devices and work and personal
roles, for example by marking oneself as “away” or “invisible” on messaging platforms,
despite being at their computer. Birnholtz et al. (2010) call these “butler lies,” but fo
cused in particular on explicitly verbalized lies or linguistic solutions to overcome the
technology design limitations in teenagers (e.g., saying “sorry I just saw you text” when
actually it was seen straight away). The authors highlight the importance of being able to
manage and coordinate one’s unavailability, especially in our always-connected society.
These “lies provide a useful window into the broader sociotechnical problem of unavail
Page 13 of 25
ability and inattention management” (Birnholtz, Hancock et al., 2012, p. 35). Unfortunate
ly, technology can give away the truth without the user necessarily realizing it. For exam
ple, automatic read receipts can uncover whether someone has really just read a message
or indeed had delayed a reply and verbally lied about it. Ultimately, this emphasizes how
managing work-home boundaries through communication technologies requires a multi-
pronged effort from individuals and those they interact with (based on what strategies
they use and how these are interpreted), organizations (what guidelines and training to
they put in place) and interaction designers (how they design technology to support
users’ boundary preferences). We discuss these aspects in the following final section.
(p. 312) Managing Boundaries in the Digital Age

We started this chapter by looking at how work-home boundaries can be challenged or
crossed in either direction and how this can result in either conflicts or enrichment. We
then moved on to explore how mobile technology, especially when used within multi-de
vice ecologies, can challenge boundary management, before discussing how communica
tion technologies are used and adopted to manage one’s availability and work-home
boundaries. Together, this paints a picture of all the complex work required to create,
maintain and manage these boundaries, for which support and guidance are often lack
ing.
Communication and mobile technologies have made it easier to stay connected and thus
facilitate an integration between work and personal life. However, Kossek, Lautsch and
Eaton (2006) found that segmentation is a strong predictor of well-being, consistent with
Ashforth et al. (2000), and Hall and Richter (1988), who point out that integration can
lead to negative consequences. While creating a sense of detachment from work can help
recovery from work stress (Park et al., 2011), segmenting can also be more demanding
from a psychological point of view (Ashforth et al., 2000): it is not always as easy to stop
thinking or worrying about a personal matter or a work related issue, as it is to disable
notifications. Building on initial work looking at physical boundary artefacts (Nippert-
Eng, 1996), more attention is being given to the role technology plays in boundary man
agement. Most of these efforts fall under top-down policies and guidelines (e.g., Kossek et
al., 2011), but more recently researchers have started to uncover bottom-up strategies
that individuals can adopt (e.g., Cousins & Robey, 2015).
Top-down Boundary Strategies
One of the ways companies can influence people’s boundary strategies is through their
own policies. In the past few years, several policies and government precautions have
been put in place to in an attempt to help workers better manage work-home boundaries
(Cecchinato, Fleck, Brid, & Cox, 2015). These build upon family-friendly programs (e.g.,
shared parental leave) and manifest an acknowledgement on the institutions’ side of per
sonal life values, to help lessen the effects of role conflict. Additionally, companies that
pay for employees’ devices or have Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policies are implicitly
Page 14 of 25
(or even explicitly in some cases) suggesting who is in control of boundary permeation
(Grevet, 2014). In the first case (buying devices for employees), an employee may feel he
or she is expected to be available around the clock; in the second case (adopting BYOD
policies) workers might feel legitimized to take personal communications while at work
(Fleck et al., 2015; Grevet, 2014). More recently, Boswell and collaborators have pro
posed a series of recommendations for organizations who want to help their employees
manage after hour-work communications (Boswell et al., 2016).
A variety of organizations have adopted policies with the aim of supporting work-
(p. 313)
home boundary segmentation. For example, in April 2014 officials from the Swedish city
Gothenburg launched a trial policy by adopting six-hour working days, expecting the men
tal and physical state of their employees to improve and their productivity to increase
(Crew, 2015; Gee, 2014). The experiment lasted two years and ended in early 2017: the
positive results of employees feeling healthier and more productive, however, were met
with some scalability concerns by the government (Alderman, 2017). Other European
countries have considered similar measures. For example, Germany’s labor minister has
been considering an “anti-stress” law as a measure to reduce mental health issues con
nected to the constantly available paradigm (i.e., checking emails after working hours)
and commissioned an investigation to determine binding thresholds (Stuart, 2014). More
recently, the French government introduced a law on the “right to disconnect” at the be
ginning of 2017, whereby employers should negotiate with employees how to reduce
work intruding in their personal life, sanctioning companies who fail to clearly state what
is expected of employees out of hours (Agence France—Presse, 2016).
All these examples assume a one-size fits all solution. However, how one manages work-
home boundaries depends on several factors. To this end, we compared different profes
sional groups within the same university and found that how email is managed across ac
counts and devices varies greatly based on personal preference, but also professional dif
ferences between staff in different roles (Cecchinato, Cox, et al., 2015b). As mentioned
previously, each role comes with certain expectations and resources and rather than sug
gesting that all employees should stop checking emails after a certain hour, researchers
have suggested offering training for employees to manage resources and expectations
more consciously and effectively (Jahn, Klesel, Lemmer, & Weigel, 2016).
Bottom-up Boundary Strategies
Depending on one’s boundary preference for integration or segmentation, different

boundary strategies may be adopted. However, individualized strategies are crafted in a
dynamic and flexible way (Sturges, 2012), making it hard to know which ones to adopt. As
emphasized by Chen and Karahanna (2014, p. 31), “given that cross-domain technology-
mediated interruptions are unavoidable for today’s knowledge workers, a concerted ef
fort is needed by technology designers, organizations, and knowledge workers to provide
tools and techniques to alleviate negative effects.” Some researchers have started to at
Page 15 of 25
least identify types of boundary strategies and provide some actionable knowledge for in
dividuals.
Christena Nippert-Eng (1996) identified interesting behaviors and artefacts used for man
aging boundaries, like having separate calendars or key chains for work and personal
reasons. Kreiner et al. (2009) identified boundary work tactics pertinent to behavioral,
temporal, physical, and communicative aspects. Of particular interest are the (p. 314)
communicative tactics, identified as “setting expectations” and “confronting violations.”
Despite this work being published in 2009 when mobile technology was already main
stream, there is very little mention about the role technology plays in creating and using
these boundary tactics. The authors labelled a type of behavioral tactic as “leveraging on
technology” but did not provide detailed examples of how their participants actually
leveraged technology, other than relying on caller ID and voicemail. Olson-Buchanan and
Boswell (2006) discuss how technology can be used to set appropriate boundaries. They
found that when fewer boundaries around the use of communication technology during
non-work time are set, more work interference on non-work occurs compared to when
boundaries are put in place. Golden and Geisler (2007) were among the first to study the
use of a device as a boundary management strategy. They interviewed 42 users about
their use of a PDA (Personal Digital Assistant) and found that participants used their de
vices to support their boundary style preference—whether integrating, segregating, or
transcending boundaries between work and home. More recently, Cousins and Robey
(2015) identified a series of tactics that can be put in place to manage psychological
boundaries, including (1) designating certain rules for technology (e.g., having one phone
for personal use and one for work use), (2) setting permeating rules (e.g., logging out of
IM platforms when switching domain), or (3) creating connection/disconnection rules
(e.g., turning off devices after a certain hour).
While the strategies presented in the previous paragraph offer a classification of bound
ary management behaviors, they do not provide actionable strategies that other users can
pick up and use. To this end, Köffer, Anlauf, Ortbach and Niehaves (2015, p. 1) identified
three strategies for boundary integration, and three for segmentation. These primarily re
fer to the use of company devices for only work or both work and personal reasons, and
similarly the use of personal devices just for personal use or also for work purposes. The
authors emphasized the number of issues that users still encountered in fulfilling their
boundary preferences, and in particular how those who tended to integrate work and per
sonal life included also users who would prefer to segment the two domains but were not
successful because they were unable to manage their technology. Other actionable strate
gies come from Jahn et al. (2016), who classified IT-related tactics based on how these
tactics are put in place using technology: they can be automated (e.g., allowing automatic
push notifications) or implemented manually (e.g., pulling information as a result of dis
abled notifications). Finally, Cecchinato and colleagues found that communication tech
nology can be used to create microboundaries, i.e. strategies “to limit the impact of mi
cro-role transitions caused by cross-domain technology mediated
interruptions” (Cecchinato, Cox et al., 2015b, p. 3997). These strategies can be used to
set social microboundaries, (e.g., disabling notifications when out for dinner); temporal
Page 16 of 25
microboundaries (e.g., setting restrictions on when certain apps or websites can be ac
cessed); digital microboundaries (e.g., using separate applications to check work and per
sonal emails); and physical microboundaries (e.g., taking off a smartwatch as a symbol of
disconnecting from work; Cecchinato et al., 2017).
Ultimately, microboundaries can be used by interaction designers and individuals as a

way to introduce a designed friction when interacting with technology. These frictions
(p. 315) could be as simple as a pop-up notification reminding a user of their intentions
not to check work emails at certain times or in certain locations. Rather than encourag
ing seamless interactions, we have proposed the idea that for interactions to introduce
small hurdles (or designed frictions), that can help users stop and reflect about what they
are doing. In turn, this can help foster more mindful interactions with technology (Cox,
Gould, Cecchinato, Iacovides, & Renfree, 2016). As technologies become more ubiqui
tous, we call for more work to explore how technology should be designed to support indi
viduals’ boundary management practices.
Conclusion
Communication technologies have increased how easily, how frequently, and how many
boundary transitions can occur on a daily basis between one’s several life roles. This can
be problematic because disconnection from work is important for recovery from work-re
lated stress. Similarly, to ensure focus and productivity, it is important to ensure some
separation from personal matters while at work. Given the large number of people suffer
ing from work-related stress, it is crucial to understand how individuals, policy-makers,
and practitioners can help support better boundary management practices and thus bet
ter recovery. In this chapter, we have reviewed a large body of research, pointing out new
trends that bring together two fields—occupational psychology and HCI—by combining
literature on boundary theory, multi-device implications, and computer-mediated commu
nication use. The two fields offer complementary views on the use of technology and its
impact on our daily lives. By taking a social-constructionist view of technology, and partic
ularly relying on one of the four concepts of SCOT—interpretive flexibility—we have em
phasized how communication technologies can both support as well as challenge home-
work boundary management. This approach has allowed us to identify strategies that in
dividuals and organizations can rely on when socially constructing the boundaries be
tween work and home domains.
References
Agence France—Presse. (2016). French workers win legal right to avoid checking work
email out-of-hours. The Guardian. Retrieved February 18, 2018 from https://
www.theguardian.com/money/2016/dec/31/french-workers-win-legal-right-to-
avoid-checking-work-email-out-of-hours
Page 17 of 25
Alderman, L. (2017). In Sweden, happiness in a shorter workday can’t overcome the cost.
The New York Times. Retrieved February 18, 2018 from https://www.nytimes.com/
2017/01/06/business/sweden-work-employment-productivity-happiness.html?
mtrref=query.nytimes.com
Allen, T. D. (2013). The work–family role interface: A synthesis of the research from indus
trial and organizational psychology. In I. B. Weiner (Ed.), Handbook of psychology (2nd
ed.) (pp. 698–718). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Amstad, F. T., Meier, L. L., Fasel, U., Elfering, A., & Semmer, N. K. (2011). A meta-
(p. 316)
analysis of work–family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-
domain versus matching-domain relations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
16(2), 151–169.
Ashforth, B., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day’s work: boundaries and mi
cro-role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 472–491.
Avrahami, D., Fussell, S. R., & Hudson, S. E. (2008). IM waiting: Timing and responsive
ness in semi-synchronous communication. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on
computer supported cooperative work (pp. 285–294). Florence: ACM.
Axtell, C., Hislop, D., & Whittaker, S. (2008). Mobile technologies in mobile spaces: Find
ings from the context of train travel. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,
66(12), 902–915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.07.001
Barley, S. R., Meyerson, D. E., & Grodal, S. (2011). E-mail as a source and symbol of
stress. Organization Science, 22(4), 887–906. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0573
Birnholtz, J., Bi, N., & Fussell, S. (2012). Do you see that I see? Effects of perceived visi
bility on awareness checking behavior. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on hu
man factors in computing systems (pp. 1765–1774). Austin, TX: ACM.
Birnholtz, J., Guillory, J., Hancock, J., & Bazarova, N. (2010). “On my way”: Deceptive tex
ting and interpersonal awareness narratives. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference
on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 1–4). Savannah, GA: ACM.
Birnholtz, J., Hancock, J., Smith, M., & Reynolds, L. (2012). Understanding unavailability
in a world of constant connection. Interactions, 19(5), 32.
Bittman, M., Brown, J. E., & Wajcman, J. (2009). The mobile phone, perpetual contact and
time pressure. Work, Employment and Society, 23(4), 673–691.
Bødker, S. & Klokmose, C. N. (2012). Dynamics in artifact ecologies. In Proceedings of the

7th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction: Making sense through design (pp.
448–457). Copenhagen: ACM.
Page 18 of 25
Boswell, W. R. & Olson-Buchanan, J. B. (2007). The use of communication technologies af

ter hours: The role of work attitudes and work-life conflict. Journal of Management, 33(4),
592–610.
Boswell, W. R., Olson-Buchanan, J. B., Butts, M. M., & Becker, W. J. (2016). Managing “af
ter hours” electronic work communication. Organizational Dynamics, 45(4), 291–297.
Brown, B. & O’Hara, K. (2003). Place as a practical concern of mobile workers. Environ
ment and Planning A, 35(9), 1565–1587.
Cecchinato, M. E. & Cox, A. L. (2017). Smartwatches: Digital handcuffs or magic

bracelets? Computer, 50(4), 106–109.
Cecchinato, M. E., Cox, A. L., & Bird, J. (2015a). Smartwatches: The good, the bad and
the ugly? In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference extended abstracts on hu
man factors in computing systems (pp. 2133–2138). Seoul: ACM.
Cecchinato, M. E., Cox, A. L., & Bird, J. (2015b). Working 9–5? Professional differences in
email and boundary management practices. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on
human factors in computing system (pp. 3989–3998). Seoul: ACM.
Cecchinato, M. E., Cox, A. L., & Bird, J. (2017). Always on(line)? User experience of
smartwatches and their role within multi-device ecologies. In Proceedings of the 2017
CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 3557–3568). Denver, CO:
ACM.
Cecchinato, M. E., Fleck, R., Brid, J., & Cox, A. L. (2015). Online vs. Offline: Implications
for Work Identity. In CHI 2015 workshop: Between the lines: Reevaluating the online/of
fline binary (pp. 1–6). Seoul: ACM.
Cecchinato, M. E., Sellen, A., Shokouhi, M., & Smyth, G. (2016). Finding email in
(p. 317)
a multi-account, multi-device world. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on human fac

tors in computing systems (pp. 1200–1210). San Jose, CA: ACM.
Chen, A. & Karahanna, E. (2014). Boundaryless technology: Understanding the effects of

technology-mediated interruptions across the boundaries between work and personal life.
AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(2), 16–36.
Cho, J., Ramgolam, D. I., Schaefer, K. M., & Sandlin, A. N. (2011). The rate and delay in
overload: An investigation of communication overload and channel synchronicity on iden
tification and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 39(1), 38–54.
Church, K. & de Oliveira, R. (2013). What’s up with WhatsApp? Comparing mobile instant
messaging behaviors with traditional SMS. 15th international conference on human-com
puter interaction with mobile devices and services (pp. 352–361). Munich: ACM.
Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Hu
man Relations, 53(6), 747–770.
Page 19 of 25
Cousins, K. C. & Robey, D. (2015). Managing work-life boundaries with mobile technolo
gies. Information Technology & People, 28(1), 34–71.
Cox, A. L., Gould, S., Cecchinato, M. E., Iacovides, I., & Renfree, I. (2016). Design fric
tions for mindful interactions: The case for microboundaries. In CHI extended abstracts
on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1389–1397). San Jose, CA: ACM.
Crew, B. (2015). Sweden is shifting to a 6-hour work day. Retrieved February 18, 2018
from https://www.sciencealert.com/sweden-is-shifting-to-a-6-hour-workday
Dearman, D. & Pierce, J. S. (2008). It’s on my other Computer! Computing with multiple
devices. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing sys
tems (pp. 767–776). Florence: ACM.
Dery, K., Kolb, D., & MacCormick, J. (2014). Working with connective flow: How smart
phone use is evolving in practice. European Journal of Information Systems, 23(5), 558–
570.
Diaz, I., Chiaburu, D. S., Zimmerman, R. D., & Boswell, W. R. (2012). Communication
technology: Pros and cons of constant connection to work. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
80(2), 500–508.
Dingler, T. & Pielot, M. (2015). I’ll be there for you: Quantifying attentiveness towards
mobile messaging. In Proceedings of the international conference on human-computer in
teraction with mobile devices and services (pp. 1–5). Copenhagen: ACM.
Dourish, P. (2006). Re-Space-ing place: “Place” and “Space” ten years on. In Proceedings
of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp.
299–308). Banff, AB: ACM.
Dourish, P. & Bellotti, V. (1992). Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces. In

Proceedings of the ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work (pp. 107–
114). Toronto: ACM.
Farnham, S. D. & Churchill, E. F. (2011). Faceted identity, faceted lives: Social and techni
cal issues with being yourself online. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on computer-
supported cooperative work (pp. 359–368). Hangzhou, China: ACM.
Fleck, R., Cox, A. L., & Robison, R. A. V. (2015). Balancing boundaries: Using multiple de
vices to manage work-life balance. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on human fac
tors in computing systems (pp. 3985–3988). Seoul: ACM.
Fortunati, L. (2002). The mobile phone: Towards new categories and social relations. In
formation, Communication & Society, 5(4), 513–528.
Gee, O. (2014). Swedes to give six-hour workday a go. The Local. Retrieved Febru
(p. 318)
ary 18, 2018 from https://www.thelocal.se/20140408/swedish-workers-to-test-six-

hour-work-days
Page 20 of 25
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Penguin.
Golden, A. G. & Geisler, C. (2007). Work-life boundary management and the personal digi
tal assistant. Human Relations, 60(3), 519–551.
Grant, M. J. & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and
associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108.
Greenhaus, J. & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-
family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 77–92.
Grevet, C. (2014). Managing the work-home boundary in a BYOD (Bring Your Own De
vice) culture. In MobileHCI’14 workshop on socio-technical systems and work-home
boundaries (pp. 1–4). Toronto: ACM.
Hall, D. T. & Richter, J. (1988). Balancing work life and home life: What can organizations
do to help? Academy of Management Executive, 2(3), 213–223.
Harrison, S. & Dourish, P. (1996). Re-place-ing space. In Proceedings of the ACM confer
ence on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 67–76). Boston: ACM.
Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. The Journal of Psychology, 21(1),
107–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1946.9917275
HSE (2017). Tackling work-related stress using the Management Standards approach
(Workbook). Health and Safety Executive. Retrieved February 18, 2018 from http://
www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/wbk01.htm
Jahn, K., Klesel, M., Lemmer, K., & Weigel, A. (2016). Individual boundary management:
An empirical investigation on technology-related tactics. In PACIS Proceedings (pp. 268–
280). Taiwan: AIS.
Kalman, Y. M. (2016). Why do we blame information for our overload? In D. I. Ballard &
M. S. McGlone (Eds.), Work pressures: New agendas in communication (pp. 45–62). New
York: Routledge.
Kalman, Y. M. & Rafaeli, S. (2005). Email chronemics : Unobtrusive profiling of response

times. In Proceedings of the 38th annual Hawaii international conference on system sci
ences (pp. 1–10). Big Island, HI: IEEE.
Kalman, Y. M., Ravid, G., Raban, D. R., & Rafaeli, S. (2006). Pauses and response laten
cies: A chronemic analysis of asynchronous CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Commu
nication, 12(1), 1–23.
Karlson, A. K., Meyers, B. R., Jacobs, A., Johns, P., & Kane, S. (2009). Working overtime:
Patterns of smartphone and PC usage in the day of an information worker. In Internation
al conference on pervasive computing (pp. 398–405). Orlando, FL: ACM.
Page 21 of 25
Kawsar, F. & Brush, A. (2013). Home computing unplugged: Why, where and when people
use different connected devices at home. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM international
joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing (pp. 627–636). Zurich: ACM.
Klein, H. K. & Kleinman, D. L. (2002). The social construction of technology: Structural

considerations. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 27(1), 28–52.
Köffer, S., Anlauf, L., Ortbach, K., & Niehaves, B. (2015). The intensified blurring of
boundaries between work and private life through IT consumerization. In Proceedings of
the 23rd European conference on information systems (ECIS 2015) (pp. 1–17). Münster:
AIS.
Kossek, E. E., Baltes, B. B., & Matthews, R. A. (2011). How work-family research can fi
nally have an impact in organizations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4(03),
352–369.
Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2006). Telecommuting, control, and bound
ary management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work–family ef
fectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(2), 347–367.
Kossek, E. E., Ruderman, M. N., Braddy, P. W., & Hannum, K. M. (2012). Work-
(p. 319)
nonwork boundary management profiles: A person-centered approach. Journal of Voca

tional Behavior, 81(1), 112–128.
Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. (2009). Balancing borders and bridges:
Negotiating the work-home interface via boundary work tactics. Academy of Management
Journal, 52(4), 704–730.
Matthews, T., Pierce, J., Road, H., Jose, S., & Tang, J. (2009). No smartphone is an island:
The impact of places, situation and other device on smart phone use. IBM RJ10452.,
10,452, 1–10.
Mazmanian, M. & Erickson, I. (2014). The product of availability: Understanding the eco
nomic underpinnings of constant connectivity. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference
on human factors in computing systems (pp. 763–772). Toronto: ACM.
Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2005). CrackBerrys: Exploring the social im
plications of ubiquitous wireless email devices. In Designing ubiquitous information envi
ronments: Socio-technical issues and challenges (pp. 337–343). Boston, MA: Springer.
Mazmanian, M., Yates, J., & Orlikowski, W. (2006). Ubiquitous email: Individual experi
ences and organizational consequences of Blackberry use. In Academy of Management
proceedings, Meeting abstract supplement, 1, D1–D6. Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Acade
my of Management.
Moen, P. (2011). From “work-family” to the “gendered life course” and “fit”: Five chal
lenges to the field. Community, Work, & Family, 14(1), 81–96.
Page 22 of 25
Nardi, B. A., Whittaker, S., & Bradner, E. (2000). Interaction and outeraction: Instant
messaging in action. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on computer supported
cooperative work (pp. 79–88). Philadelphia, PA: ACM.
Nippert-Eng, C. (1996). Calendars and keys: The classification of “home” and “work.” So
ciological Forum, 11(3), 563–582.
Nouwens, M., Griggio, C. F., & Mackay, W. E. (2017). WhatsApp is for family, Messenger is
for friends: Communication places in app ecosystems. In Proceedings of the CHI confer
ence on human factors in computing systems (pp. 727–735). Denver, CO: ACM.
The NPD Group. (2017). Smartwatch ownership expected to increase nearly 60 percent
into 2019. Retrieved February 18, 2018 from https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/
news/press-releases/2017/us-smartwatch-ownership-expected-to-increase-near
ly-60-percent-into-2019/
O’Hara, K. P., Massimi, M., Harper, R., Rubens, S., & Morris, J. (2014). Everyday dwelling
with WhatsApp. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on computer supported coop
erative work & social computing (pp. 1131–1143). Baltimore, MA: ACM.
Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Boswell, W. R. (2006). Blurring boundaries: Correlates of inte

gration and segmentation between work and nonwork. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
68(3), 432–445.
Oulasvirta, A., Petit, R., Raento, M., & Sauli, T. (2007). Interpreting and acting on mobile
awareness cues. Human-Computer Interaction, 22(October), 97–135.
Park, Y., Fritz, C., & Jex, S. M. (2011). Relationships between work-home segmentation
and psychological detachment from work: The role of communication technology use at
home. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 16(4), 457–467.
Patterson, D. J., Baker, C., Ding, X., Kaufman, S. J., Liu, K., & Zaldivar, A. (2008). Online
everywhere: Evolving mobile instant messaging practices. In Proceedings of the 10th in
ternational conference on ubiquitous computing (pp. 64–73). Seoul: ACM.
Pew Research. (2018). Demographics of mobile device ownership and adoption in the
United States. Pew Research Center. Retrieved February 18, 2018 from http://
www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/
Pielot, M., Church, K., & de Oliveira, R. (2014). An in-situ study of mobile phone
(p. 320)
notifications. In Proceedings of the international conference on human-computer interac

tion with mobile devices & services (pp. 233–242). Toronto: ACM.
Pyöriä, P. (2005). The concept of knowledge work revisited. Journal of Knowledge Man
agement, 9(3), 116–127.
Page 23 of 25
Radicati Group. (2015a). Instant messaging statistics report, 2015–2019. Retrieved Feb
ruary 18, 2018 from https://www.radicati.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/In
stant-Messaging-Statistics-Report-2015-2019-Executive-Summary.pdf
Radicati Group. (2015b). Mobile Statistics Report, 2015–2019. Retrieved February 18,
2018 from https://www.radicati.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Mobile-Statis
tics-Report-2015-2019-Executive-Summary.pdf
Rice, R. E. (2017). Flexwork, boundaries, and work-family conflicts: How ICTs and work
engagement influence their relationship. In G. Hertel, D. Stone, R. D. Johnson, & J. Pass
more (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of the internet at work (pp. 175–193). London,
UK: Wiley Blackwell Industrial & Organizational Psychology Series.
Rice, R. E., Evans, S. K., Pearce, K. E., Sivunen, A., Vitak, J., & Treem, J. W. (2017). Orga
nizational media affordances: Operationalization and associations with media use. Journal
of Communication, 67(1), 106–130.
Roche, H. G. (2015). Managing work and life: The impact of framing. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation. Seattle Pacific University. http://digitalcommons.spu.edu/iop_etd/4/
Santosa, S. & Wigdor, D. (2013). A field study of multi-device workflows in distributed

workspaces. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM international joint conference on pervasive
and ubiquitous computing (pp. 63–72). Zurich: ACM.
Shen, J., Brdiczka, O., & Ruan, Y. (2013). A comparison study of user behavior on Face
book and Gmail. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2650–2655.
Specht, B. (2018). The 2017 email client market share [Infographic]. Litmus Software,
Inc. Retrieved February 19, 2018 from https://litmus.com/blog/the-2017-email-client-
market-share-infographic
Stuart, K. (2014). German minister calls for anti-stress law ban on emails out of office
hours|Technology. The Guardian. Retrieved February 18, 2018 from https://
www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/29/germany-anti-stress-law-ban-on-
emails-out-of-office-hours
Sturges, J. (2012). Crafting a balance between work and home. Human Relations, 65(12),
1539–1559. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712457435
Turel, O. & Serenko, A. (2010). Is mobile email addiction overlooked? Communications of

the ACM, 53(5), 41.
Williams, K. J., Suls, J., Alliger, G. M., Learner, S. M., & Wan, C. K. (1991). Multiple role
juggling and daily mood states in working mothers: An experience sampling study. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 664–674.
Marta E. Cecchinato
Page 24 of 25
Marta E. Cecchinato is an Senior Lecturer at Northumbria University, working in hu

man-computer interaction (HCI). Prior to this, she has worked at the UCL Interaction
Centre and at Microsoft Research in Cambridge (UK). She has a BS and MS in Psy
chology from University of Padua (Italy) and has a PhD in HCI from the UCL Interac
tion Centre. Her current research focuses on understanding complexities of dealing
with digital technologies in everyday life especially for work-life balance, and has
been investigating strategies that support people in feeling in control of their digital
lives. Her work has been consistently published in top tier HCI conferences and has
been featured in the New Scientist, The Conversation, and The Psychologist.
Anna L. Cox
Anna L. Cox is Professor of Human-Computer Interaction at the University College

London Interaction Centre. Her research focuses on productivity at work, work-life
balance, and well-being. She has published nearly 200 papers, many of which in top-
tier HCI conferences and journals. She co-edited the first textbook on Research
methods for human-computer interaction. Her work has been featured, among oth
ers, in The Conversation, The Psychologist, Men’s Health, BPS Occupation Digest,
and most recently in the Guardian.
Page 25 of 25
The Changing Nature of Knowledge and Service Work in the Age of Intelli
gent Machines
The Changing Nature of Knowledge and Service Work

in the Age of Intelligent Machines
Crispin Coombs, Donald Hislop, Stanimira Taneva, and Sarah Barnard
One of the most significant recent technological developments concerns the application of
intelligent machines to jobs that up to now have been considered safe from automation.
These changes have generated considerable debate regarding the impacts that the wide
spread adoption of intelligent machines could have on the nature of work. This chapter
provides a thematic review, across multiple academic disciplines, of the current state of
academic knowledge regarding the impact of intelligent machines on knowledge and ser
vice work. Adopting a work-practice perspective, the chapter reviews the extant litera
ture concerning changing relations between workers and intelligent machines, the adop
tion and acceptance of intelligent machines, and ethical issues associated with greater
machine human collaboration. A key finding is that much of the research discusses intelli
gent machines complementing and extending human capabilities rather than removing
humans from work processes. The concept of augmentation of humans and human work,
rather than wholesale replacement from automation, flows through the literature across a
range of domains. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the main gaps in existing
knowledge and ways in which future research may provide a deeper understanding of
how people (currently and in the near future) experience intelligent machines in their
day-to-day work practice. These include the need for multi-disciplinary research, the role
of contexts, the need for more and better empirical research, the changing relationships
between humans and intelligent machines, the adoption and acceptance of the technolo
gy, and ethical issues.
Keywords: augmentation, automation, ethical issues, human work, intelligent machines, machine human collabo
ration, work-practice perspective
Introduction
ONE of the most significant recent technological developments concerns the application
of intelligent, interactive, and highly networked machines to jobs that up to now have
been considered safe from automation. These “intelligent machines” are characterized by
Page 1 of 29
gent Machines
autonomy, the ability to learn, and the ability to interact with other systems and with hu
mans. They draw on new advances in technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and
robotics, enabling them to undertake tasks that could previously only be completed by hu
man workers. We define and describe intelligent machines in detail in the following sec
tion. Referring to what some have called the second machine age, analysts and commen
tators have forecast mass unemployment from the automation of a wide range of pre
dictable, repetitive job roles (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2016). What sets this change apart
from previous technological revolutions, such as the automation of factory work in the
19th century, is the potential of intelligent machines to affect dramatic changes to the de
mand for skill-intensive, knowledge-based workers (Loebbecke & Picot, 2015). However,
there is considerable debate regarding the likely impacts of intelligent machines on work.
For example, Frey and Osborne (2017) suggest that as much as 47% of jobs in the United
States economy could be eliminated from widespread (p. 345) implementation of machine
learning and mobile robotics over the next one to two decades. The Bank of England pub
lished a report in 2015 suggesting that almost half of United Kingdom jobs (about 15 mil
lion) could be lost to automation and AI technologies. By contrast, Arntz et al. (2016)
found that only 9% of jobs were potentially automatable in Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) economies.
A valuable source of guidance for understanding these developments is current academic

knowledge. Indeed, there are a considerable number of AI and robotics related research
contributions that consider the potential impacts of these new technologies. However,
these contributions lie in a wide range of scholarly disciplines that draw on contrasting
research paradigms, theories, methods, and perspectives. This presents business leaders,
policymakers, and researchers with a messy environment that lacks a coherent overview
of the current state of knowledge, key research gaps, and how researchers may proceed
to fill these gaps. Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to report the findings from a
systematic review of the currently published academic literature around the key impacts
of intelligent machines on work.
In order to explore the transformational effects of intelligent machines (such as AI and ro
botics), rather than capturing technological applications that are relatively mature (such
as those of robots in manufacturing contexts (Dorf & Kusiak, 1994; Khouja & Offodile,
1994), the review is focused upon service and knowledge work. Several authors have not
ed that service and knowledge work has traditionally been safe from automation (for ex
ample, compared to manufacturing) but have identified that recent intelligent machine
developments now threaten to erode many of these jobs (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2016;
Davenport & Kirby, 2016). Unlike the manufacturing sector, the service sector produces
intangible goods that may refer to a wide range of services in a variety of areas, including
finance and commerce, government, transportation, health care and social assistance,
tourism, arts, entertainment, and science. The growing size and importance of the service
(and knowledge) sector, in comparison to agriculture and manufacturing, is a trend that
has been occurring since the late 1970s in most developed economies. This idea links to
and builds from Daniel Bell’s vision of an information/knowledge society that was initially
articulated in the early 1970s (Bell, 1973). Knowledge work is formally defined as work
Page 2 of 29
gent Machines
that is intellectual, creative, and non-routine and that involves the use and creation of
knowledge (Hislop, Bosua, & Helms, 2018) and workers labelled as “symbolic
analysts” (Reich, 1991). The knowledge sector (that partially overlaps with the service
sector) is generally associated with work involving a great deal of research and develop
ment activities and the creation of innovative products. In a broader sense, the knowl
edge sector may refer to professional areas such as information and communication, con
sulting, pharmacology, and education (Kuusisto & Meyer, 2003). Thus, from an occupa
tional perspective, this chapter considers all forms of non-manual work, including white-
collar office and administrative work, service work and what can be labelled knowledge
work.
The chapter is organized as follows. First the notion of intelligent machines and the dif
ferent types of technologies that may be considered under this term are discussed. The
approach and procedures adopted to undertake the literature review are then (p. 346) ex
plained. The subsequent section presents the findings of the review. An overview of the
nature of the literature sample is provided, followed by a discussion of the three main
themes that emerged: human relations with intelligent machines; adoption and accep
tance of intelligent machines; and ethical issues associated with machine-human collabo
ration. The chapter concludes with a review of the key gaps in the existing literature and
suggestions for future research directions.
What Are Intelligent Machines (Artificial Intel

ligence and Robotics)?
Burkhard (2013) observed that it is difficult to define intelligent machines because there
are no universal definitions of natural (animal, especially human) intelligence. Machines
may be better at tasks that can be described as intelligent behavior, such as being able to
apply a wide range of languages for translating text, but the quality of the translations is
lower than that of human translations (so far). Further, machines do not understand the
meaning of the words they translate; they use statistical calculations to determine the
most likely suitable alternative word (Friend, 2018). However, recent advances in tech
nologies have meant that these machines are more likely to be undertaking tasks that
were previously performed by humans. Advances in two main types of technology have
largely driven these developments: artificial intelligence (including machine learning and
cognitive computing) and robotics (including service robots, robot assisted procedures,
and robotic process automation). Thus, our review focuses on these two technologies.
Artificial Intelligence
Several authors have acknowledged that it is difficult to define AI (DeCanio, 2016). For
example, it is possible to make a distinction between strong AI (or Artificial General Intel
ligence) and weak AI (or Artificial Narrow Intelligence; Bostrom & Yudkowsky, 2011).
Strong AI implies a system that has superhuman intelligence and at present remains a fic
tional aspiration. Weak AI describes AI in terms of being able to complete specific tasks
Page 3 of 29
gent Machines
that require single human capabilities such as visual perception or probabilistic reason
ing. In these tasks, AI can considerably outperform human capabilities. However, AI re
mains unable to make ethical decisions or manage social situations. In other words, weak
AI refers to the ability to complete the specific tasks that humans do rather than replicat
ing the way humans actually think (Hengstler, Enkel, & Duelli, 2016).
Despite these complexities, several authors have proposed definitions of AI. AI has been
defined as the development of computers to engage in human-like thought processes such
as learning, reasoning, and self-correction (Dilsizian & Siegel, 2014). (p. 347) Building on
the cognitive aspect, DeCanio (2016, p. 280) describes AI as a “broad suite of technolo
gies that can match or surpass human capabilities, particularly those involving cogni
tion.” Niu et al. (2016, p. 2) add that AI “aims to understand the essence of intelligence
and design intelligent machines that can act as human behavior.” Others have empha
sized the superiority of human intelligence over AI. For example, the computer scientist
Larry Tesler described human intelligence as “whatever machines haven’t done
yet” (Friend, 2018). All these definitions highlight the role of AI in modelling human be
havior and thought, but do not go as far as to talk about using AI technologies to build
other smart technologies.
AI may be presented in various forms such as natural language processing, affective com
puting systems, virtual reality (avatars), or humanoid and non-humanoid robots (e.g., Lux
ton, 2014). Johnson (2014) introduces the term “artificial agent” (AA) that refers general
ly to computational devices performing tasks on behalf of humans autonomously (i.e.,
without immediate, direct human control or intervention from humans). Some AAs are
software programs (e.g., bots undertaking Internet searches). A more advanced example
of such a system is Robotic Process Automation (RPA), a software solution (essentially a
software license) configured to do administrative work previously undertaken by humans.
RPA is suited to automating a process in which a human takes in many electronic data in
puts, processes these data using rules, adds data, and then enters this new information
into another system, such as an enterprise or customer relationship management system
(Willcocks, Lacity, & Craig, 2015).
Robots
A traditional view of robots that would be familiar to popular culture concerns service ro
bots. Those are robots that provide assistance to a human to complete a physical task,
such as scrubbing, cleaning, sorting, packaging instruments, and sending them for steril
ization for dentists (Chen, 2013); helping an elderly person pour a liquid (Xu, Tu, He, Tan,
& Fang, 2013); providing an intelligent interactive assistant for an office environment
(Wang et al., 2013), or serving meals in a restaurant (Yu et al., 2012). The goal of these ro
bots is to provide autonomous assistance to humans in undertaking these tasks but with
out the need for specific human guidance. By contrast, robot-assisted surgery concerns
the use of a human controlled robot to perform surgical procedures that result in less in
vasive procedures than those undertaken by human surgeons alone. The robotic system
(for example the Da Vinci robotic system) provides a three-dimensional view, hand-tremor
Page 4 of 29
gent Machines
filtering, fine dexterity, and motion scaling and are suitable for narrow, inaccessible oper
ative areas (Zaghloul & Mahmoud, 2016).
Moreover, some robots involve a human-machine interaction that resembles the interac
tion between humans. These are robots that are no longer confined to factories but are
specifically designed to interact with people in urban contexts. They are referred to as
“social robots” (Torras, 2015). Social robots may replace receptionists or shop assistants
in shopping malls, interact with elderly people or clinical patients, and even act as
(p. 348) support teachers and nannies (e.g., Calo et al., 2011; Torras, 2015). Most recent
developments in robotics are demonstrated by the appearance of humanoid robots. Thus,

the notion of a “robot” is complex and heterogeneous, physical robots autonomously per
forming single or multiple tasks such as a robot waiter, physical robotics being used to ex
tend human capabilities in terms of precision and micro-control (but not acting au
tonomously, such as robot assisted surgery), or social robots providing social, emotional,
and informational support.
Literature Review Methods

We followed a rapid review approach outlined by Khangura et al. (2012), comprising a
systematic literature search, screening and selection of studies, thematic synthesis of in
cluded studies, and production of a report. The four databases used to identify relevant
academic studies included: Scopus, Business Source Complete, Psychinfo, and Web of
Science. Two types of search terms were used in combination: those related to the types
of technology/change we were interested in examining, and those related to the effects/
impacts of these technologies/changes. The initial technology/change terms that were
used included: artificial intelligence, smart machines, cognitive computing, automation of
knowledge work, and automation of service work. The search was focused on these terms
due to the focus of the review on the use of advance/contemporary developments in IT
and computing in relation to the computerization and automation of knowledge and ser
vice work. These search terms were used in combination with other search terms related
to the type of impact/effect that we were interested in examining. These impacts were in
four broad areas: impacts on organizations, impacts on workers, impacts on society, and
ethical implications. The search terms included innovation, business value, quality of
working life, productivity, employment, social impact, autonomy, collaboration, human
computer interaction, service work, knowledge work, adoption, and implementation. After
exploratory searches and research, the search terms were extended to include robotic
process automation, robot*/knowledge work, and robot*/service work. In all four databas
es all technology terms were combined individually with each impact term. The results
from these searches were filtered to extract only peer reviewed articles or conference pa
pers, published from January 2011 onwards, in English with full text available. These
searches identified 1581 possible items for inclusion.
The titles and abstracts from all 1581 items were reviewed. Items were excluded if they
were purely technical papers concerned with engineering and design issues related to the
Page 5 of 29
gent Machines
technologies examined, or they were not focused on the application of the selected tech
nologies in the context of service and knowledge work (i.e., studies focused purely on
manufacturing were excluded). While undertaking this reviewing of items identified via
the primary searches, a number of secondary items were identified for inclusion in the
study population. These were identified primarily via the abstracts and reference lists of
the primary search items, where additional, widely cited sources were identified. (p. 349)
After these additional steps were completed, the total number of sources identified for re
view and in-depth coding was 219.
The thematic synthesis was undertaken by all of the project team, with each team mem
ber being allocated a roughly equal proportion of papers to read. The thematic synthesis
of our review involved the creation of standardized summaries for each source that iden
tified the year of publication, whether it was a journal article or conference paper, the
context of the research, technology type, level of analysis (work practice, organizational
or societal), research method, topic areas, and key findings. For the purposes of this
chapter, we used the level of analysis categorization to extract items that focused on in
telligent machines at the work practice level, resulting in a subsample of 84 publications.
(Only those cited in this chapter are included in the References section; the Appendix
lists all 84 references). During the in-depth coding, we identified several topic areas relat
ed to the impacts of intelligent machines on (service or knowledge) work. We discussed
each of these topic areas and classified them into three broad categories: human rela
tions with intelligent machines, adoption and acceptance of intelligent machines, and eth
ical issues associated with machine-human collaboration.
Before presenting the findings, it is useful to give an overview of the analyzed sample.
Peer reviewed papers made up 79% of the sample, conference papers constituted 19%,
and the remaining 2% of sources were working papers. Just over half (54%) of the
sources were based on empirical studies, with the remainder either narrative discussions
of selected literature and conceptual papers (31%) or thought-leading articles (13%). The
embryonic nature of knowledge on the issues examined here is further reinforced by the
method of data used in the empirical studies: the most common empirical methods (35%)
were a “proof of concept” experiment, with case studies and survey research accounting
for 25% and 23%, respectively. Much of the reviewed research was undertaken in the
Sciences with Engineering and Technology (18%), Medicine, Dentistry, and Allied Health
(15%), Computer Science (14%), and Behavioral Sciences (13%), contributing 60% of the
sources. Social Sciences contributed a more modest 32% of the research literature, sug
gesting that current studies have been techno-centric in their focus and that a wider so
cial-centric view is presently lacking. The following sections discuss the three main
themes that emerged.
Page 6 of 29
gent Machines
Changing Human Relations with Intelligent

Machines
Human-Robot Interaction
Several studies have documented examples of humans using robots to complement and,
in some cases, extend their abilities to complete specific social interaction tasks. The ma
jority of these studies have been undertaken in health or social care settings.
For example, Huijnen, Lexis, Jansens, and de Witte (2016) discuss the use of hu
(p. 350)
manoid robots to interact with children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Following
a systematic review of the literature and focus groups with 53 ASD professionals, they re
port that a range of different humanoid robots had been found to be an effective aid for
supporting health care professionals interviews with children with ASD, because the ro
bot provides more predictable and clearly defined cues compared to human-to-human in
teraction. Huijnen et al. (2016) observe that the most common use of the robot was
through remote-control in which an ASD professional operates the behavior of the robot,
rather than a fully autonomous robot. Therefore, the ASD professional is needed to read
the social situation with the child and control the robot accordingly. Interestingly, Huijnen
et al. (2016) add that this approach also creates an additional increase in workload on the
professional, and that often additional technical personnel are required to operate the ro
bot.
Khosla et al. (2013) reported on three field trials of Matilda, a human-like affective com
munication (service and companion) robot in care homes for the elderly in Australia. The
robot combines human communication tools (e.g., speech recognition) with artificial intel
ligence programs (e.g., emotionally intelligent, persuasive, diet suggestion dialog sys
tem). They found that the robot had the potential to increase the capacity of care homes
to provide care and also improve the well-being of the elderly. For example, the elderly
residents were keen for Matilda to participate in group activities and play games like Bin
go and Hoy with them. Normally, a care worker would be required to be involved with
calling the numbers for these games. However, Khosla et al. (2013) report that the resi
dents did not miss the care giver that would normally have led the game. The researchers
also refer to one of the residents performing a spontaneous clap and dance after winning
the game, as evidence of improved well-being. However, although a care worker is no
longer needed to perform the bingo calling task, the caregivers are free to complete addi
tional care tasks, as well as deciding when to introduce and remove Matilda from the care
environment and also monitoring the interaction between elderly residents and the robot.
A further example concerns the application of robotics to undertake particular surgical

procedures. In this case, the robot assists the surgeon to complete manipulation and mo
bility tasks in a remote physical environment in correspondence to continuous control
movements by the remote human (Sheridan, 2016). In a five year study of 116 children
De Benedictis et al. (2017) found that robotic surgery (the application of the ROSA de
Page 7 of 29
gent Machines
vice, or Robotized Stereotactic Assistant) in pediatric neurosurgery improves safety and
reduces intrusiveness of procedures. The ROSA system is composed of a compact robotic
arm and a touch screen, mounted on a mobile trolley for surgical procedures involving
the head of the patient. The surgeon can either supervise as the robot performs au
tonomously or directly control the surgical instrument during the procedure. The ROSA
system combined human decision making with the accuracy of machine technology by im
proving ergonomics, visualization, and the haptic ability of the surgeon. However, again,
the example illustrates that the surgeon works alongside the robot, either supervising or
controlling the robot, rather than being replaced by the machine.
(p. 351) Human-Robot Hybrid Teams
An interesting vein of research is focusing on how workers collaborate with advanced ro
bots in hybrid robot/worker teams. Schwartz, Krieger, and Zinnikus (2016) describe the
conceptual organization of a hybrid team consisting of humans, robots, virtual charac
ters, and softbots that combine artificial intelligence and robotics. They believe that a key
challenge in establishing such hybrid teams is establishing intuitive interfaces between
humans that typically usually use speech, gestures and facial expressions to transfer in
formation, and intelligent machines that can use data streams to communicate with the
system and other artificial team members. They add that the development of (robotic)
team-competencies is also necessary to determine a suitable balance between au
tonomous behaviors of individual machines and coordinated teamwork. In experiments,
Gombolay et al. (2015) found that when people work with robots they may actually allo
cate more work to themselves than to their robot co-worker because of their preferences
for completing particular tasks, such as assembling compared to fetching. It was also
found that people attribute greater value to human team members in comparison to robot
team members. However, greater robot-autonomy positively affected the participants’ de
sire to work with the robot again.
In an experimental study, Mubin et al. (2014) investigated the role of a robot assistant in
office meetings. They constructed a hypothetical scenario of selecting a suitable job can
didate with human subjects acting as members of a selection panel tasked with achieving
agreement consensus regarding the most suitable candidate. The robot assistant was re
motely controlled and was either dynamic and interactive (e.g., reminding the subjects
that success would lie in sharing information), or passive (e.g., the robot would only inter
act when requested by the human subjects). Mubin et al. (2014) found that the human
subjects preferred the more interactive robot as a partner in meetings compared to the
passive robot, but also that the human subjects interacted with each other more than
they did with the robot. They concluded that humans might be willing to engage and in
teract with, and even receive guidance from, a robot in the form of an active assistant,
but not as a replacement for the human partner.
In sum, these studies provide several examples of AI and robots working in collaboration
to enhance the working practices of knowledge and service workers. These intelligent
machines appear to be assisting and augmenting existing work practices, in some cases
Page 8 of 29
gent Machines
replacing a small routine and repetitive task: for example, the ASD professional using a
robot as an advanced form of ventriloquist dummy to interview child patients, the care
worker no longer acting as bingo caller, and the surgeon being able to perform more pre
cise surgical procedures. In these situations, the intelligent machine appears to be seen
as a helpful additional aid to complete tasks in knowledge and service work. The intelli
gent machine is welcome in teams when the working circumstances allow people to take
on a proportionate amount of work in line with their task preferences (Gombolay et al.,
2015; Schwartz et al., 2016), and it does not add extra responsibility, such as monitoring
the robot’s work, to the human team members.
Adoption and Acceptance of Intelligent

(p. 352)
Machines
Following on from the exploration of human relations with robots, the adoption and ac
ceptance of intelligent machines in practice has been researched most extensively in the
health care and transport sectors. It has been suggested that the logistics of using robot
ic surgery, investment of time, and storage of bulky equipment may influence the adop
tion of the technologies, especially as it is deemed more expensive to run (Sananès et al.,
2011). Sananes et al. (2011) argue that when there are operating theatres dedicated to
robotic surgery, some of these logistical problems will no longer be an issue. In other cas
es, the technology requires less physical management. For example, Robotic Process Au
tomation (RPA) is a software solution (essentially a software license) configured to do the
work previously undertaken by humans, for example, structured tasks associated with
validating the sale of insurance premiums, generating utility bills, creating news stories,
paying health care insurance claims, and keeping employee records up to date (Willcocks
et al., 2015). Other robots have rather more modest aspirations: Nielsen et al. (2016)
found that robots being used to perform mundane tasks such as vacuuming were well re
ceived by managers in care home settings, mainly within the context of trying to modern
ize care of the elderly. The vacuum cleaners were viewed by managers as affordable and
effective. However, clients held mixed views towards robot vacuum cleaning—some not
happy with quality of cleaning or the reduction of contact with staff, whilst others enjoyed
the “on-demand” nature of vacuuming.
Trust in AI and Robots
Over and above the practical issues of adoption, a clear factor for acceptance of AI and
robots is trust. Trust in the technology was reported as important for air traffic con
trollers’ willingness to accept increased levels of automation in two hypothetical scenar
ios (Bekier, Molesworth, & Williamson, 2011) and trust was also identified as important
for the human acceptance of AI enabled autonomous cars (Hengstler et al., 2016). Find
ings of a study by Kolbjørnsrud et al. (2017) show that managers have mixed feelings
about AI, and that top managers are more enthusiastic than mid/front-line managers.
When asked if they are comfortable with AI monitoring and evaluating their work, partici
Page 9 of 29
gent Machines
pants’ responses again became more negative lower in the management hierarchy. Kolb
jørnsrud et al. (2017) hint that this may be due to apprehension about the threat of job
losses as a result of AI implementation, although the study does not explicitly explore
what underpins these differences. It is possible to make distinctions between fostering
trust and enhancing confidence, as suggested by Pieters’ (2011) study on cyber security
and AI. There, system users’ trust was fostered through explanations about the security
and processes of the system (thus requiring an opening of the “black box”), and (p. 353)
confidence was enhanced through explanations about the validity of the decisions them
selves (here the “black box” can remain closed).
Cultural differences to AI were also noted, with managers in emerging economies (e.g. In
dia, China and Brazil) more open to the technology (Kolbjørnsrud et al., 2017). Some sug
gest that, where appropriate, unions should be involved in consultations regarding the
implementation of AI and robots. Further, the variability of the manual system and work
practices should be fully understood by the integrator before the automated system is im
plemented (Charalambous, Fletcher, & Webb, 2015). It is also advised that in order to en
hance trust in these new technologies, more support should be given to employees as
their roles change from being workers to becoming supervisors of automated processes
(Charalambous et al., 2015).
In sum, the findings of the literature in this area suggests that to facilitate the adoption
and acceptance of intelligent machines it is necessary to create a suitable workplace envi
ronment, in terms of physical configuration and design. Top managers wishing to adopt
intelligent machines may need to convince less senior managers that the implementation
of AI or robotics will lead to positive change. In particular, less senior managers are likely
to be concerned about worker fears regarding the loss of tasks and ultimately jobs, or
about role changes. For example, service workers such as cleaners may see the introduc
tion of robot vacuum cleaners as a threat to their long-term job security or may be appre
hensive regarding new role expectations of having responsibility for checking and moni
toring robot vacuum cleaner performance. There may also be a need for managers to pro
vide support to knowledge workers to adjust to working with and following decision sup
port provided by intelligent machines, such as supporting air traffic controllers’ develop
ment of trust in AI decision making for choosing aircraft flight patterns. Again, changes in
work roles and responsibilities may be a crucial area to be agreed regarding critical task
outcomes. If the new AI system for aircraft flight control recommends an incorrect deci
sion that the air traffic controller implements, where does the responsibility for this deci
sion reside? These types of ethical issues are considered in the followings section.
Ethical Issues Associated with Machine-Human

Collaboration
Intelligent machines are already present in many areas of our society (Friend, 2018) and
will play an increasing role in our work and overall lives in the future. The more advanced
intelligent machines become (e.g., more human-like androids), the more blurred the phys
Page 10 of 29
gent Machines
ical, psychological, and social boundaries between machines and humans will be. For ex
ample, robots will be “looking” after clinical patients, educating students, and making
complex financial or security decisions (e.g., Luxton, 2014; Torras, 2015). While the expe
rienced and anticipated benefits of these technologies for (p. 354) individuals, organiza
tions and societies are apparent (e.g., Calo et al., 2011; Luxton, 2014), rapid technologi
cal developments in this area may also posit some serious risks. For example, using simu
lations for patients with delusional or psychotic psychopathologies in the absence of care
ful monitoring may put the health of these patients at a great risk (Luxton, 2014). Torras
(2015) warns about potential negative impacts of robot nannies on children’s psychologi
cal development. For instance, how could a robot achieve a balance between protecting a
child from danger and restricting his/her freedom (hence, affecting the child’s develop
ment to become mature and autonomous)? Such progressing interactions between ma
chines and humans are psychologically complex and evoke some important ethical ques
tions. Thus, a robust ethical strategy that will ensure the safe use of advanced technolo
gies becomes an imperative (e.g., Luxton, 2014; Torras, 2015). The following paragraphs
present two key emerging themes associated with intelligent machine-related ethical is
sues in a work context; safety and risks during human-machine relations, and responsibil
ity and accountability for intelligent machines.
Safety and Risks during Human-Machine Relations
Luxton (2014) hypothesizes a number of ethical issues related to artificial intelligence

care providers (AICPs) in mental health and in care professions (e.g., medicine, nursing,
social work, education, and ministry) in general. Most of these refer to safety of a human-
machine interaction. AICPs may exist in various forms and interact with users (e.g., pa
tients) in different ways. For instance, AICPs may be avatars (virtual simulations), social
robots (either humanoid or non-humanoid), as well as non-embodied systems (e.g., audio
simulations). Many current “caring” machines are designed to “read” emotions and be
havioral signals, and even simulate emotions and empathetic understanding. Thus,
boundaries between humans and machines may become less obvious and in some ex
treme cases lead to “Turing Deceptions” (i.e., the inability of a human to determine if
s(he) is interacting with a machine or not). This could be a significant ethical issue, espe
cially in situations involving vulnerable people (such as children or clinical patients;
Bryson, 2016). For example, Weizenbaum (Luxton, 2014) found that even when patients
who interacted with an AI-simulated psychotherapist knew that it was just software, they
still considered it a real therapist. A further illustration of such a situation is the case of
Paro, a robotic baby seal used for therapeutic purposes with patients with mid- and ad
vanced dementia (Calo et al., 2011). Paro is intended to be a replacement of social inter
action with people or animals and is labelled as a Class 2 medical device by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration. Practically, Paro is considered a type of non-medication anti-de
pressant. Calo et al. (2011) argue that despite some hypothesized risks (e.g., of evoking
empathetic response in patients, who are deceived by the robot’s appearance), Paro can
be highly beneficial for the patients’ health, if used appropriately and competently.
Page 11 of 29
gent Machines
Hence, the related ethical issue here is not so much about whether, but how, to use intelli
gent machines.
“Healthy” machine-user interactions can also be secured through transparent in

(p. 355)
formation about a robot’s characteristics, as well through limiting an intelligent

machine’s capabilities to a specific context (Bostrom & Yudkowsky, 2011; Bryson, 2016;
Kinne & Stojanov, 2014). With regard to transparency of information, Bostrom and Yud
kowsky (2011) suggest that “it will become increasingly important to develop AI algo
rithms that are not just powerful and scalable, but also transparent to inspection” (p. 1).
More recent publications (e.g., Bryson, 2016) report the development of sets of guidelines
for designers and users of intelligent machines. These guidelines (also known as “Princi
ples of Robotics”) emphasize the need of transparency, which Bryson explains as “…clear,
generally comprehensible descriptions of their [robots] goals should be available to any
owner, operator, or other concerned party” (Bryson, 2016, p. 205). Moreover, Kinne and
Stojanov (2014) discuss the ethical issues associated with using Lethal Autonomous
Weapon System (LAWS) and emphasize the importance of the specific context. For exam
ple, there might be situations in which an intelligent machine is superior in its ethical be
havior to a human ethical judgement. Unlike humans, machines in a given context would
not be susceptible to emotions, which can present a risk compromising ethical decisions.
Notably, in order to be able to socially accept and properly utilize a human-machine inter
action, humans should be aware of how (and within what boundaries) to interact/collabo
rate with intelligent systems.
Responsibility and Accountability for Intelligent Machines
Luxton (2014) emphasizes the importance of competency levels of the AICPs users for
avoiding putting patients at risk. Competency refers to both the design and ethical use of
intelligent machines. Increased complexity of AI systems causes greater difficulty in the
prediction and interpretation of machine behaviors and, therefore, presents higher risks
for the humans’ safety (e.g., Friend, 2018). Also, with the evolution of intelligent ma
chines the boundaries between the role of humans and machines may become less clear
and, therefore, more difficult to manage (Bostrom & Yudkowsky, 2011; Johnson, 2014). In
addition, when large numbers of people have been involved in the design and use of intel
ligent machines, it is not always obvious who the responsible individuals are. Examples in
this area refer to a variety of sectors including scenarios about the use of robotic health
care assistants, autonomous vehicles, AI in banking and commerce, etc. (e.g., Luxton,
2014; Torras, 2015). Both scientists and practitioners have vigorously argued about who
should take responsibility, and at what point, for the (potential) negative consequences of
the applications of intelligent machines (e.g., Johnson, 2014). One point upon which most
authors agree is that the ultimate responsibility should lie with the human stakeholders
(i.e., machine designers, manufacturers, implementers, and users (e.g., Luxton, 2014).
In sum, literature suggests that the transition of intelligent machines into the domain of
knowledge and service work, a domain that had been solely the purview of humans, may
present a number of ethical challenges, such as avoiding the creation of Turing (p. 356)
Page 12 of 29
gent Machines
Deceptions at the work practice level. The studies provide examples of situations where
such problems arise with human patients anthropomorphizing AI simulated psychothera
pists or therapy robots such as Paro. Researchers argue that it will be important to focus
on the transparency of information in intelligent machines and whether a human or ma
chine is making the decisions. This transparency also has important implications for re
sponsibility and accountability debates regarding knowledge and service work. As knowl
edge and service work becomes more augmented by intelligent machines and the bound
aries of tasks and roles blur, decisions about responsibility and accountability will become
even more complex.
The previous sections have described three key themes that emerged from the literature
review regarding how intelligent machines may change knowledge and service work. In
the following section we present an agenda for research in these areas.
Agenda for Future Research

The broad review of the literature related to recent developments in intelligent machines
and their potential impact on service and knowledge work practices grounds the follow
ing agenda for future research. First, we discuss cross-cutting requirements for future
multi-disciplinary, context-sensitive empirical research related to intelligent machines’
impacts on knowledge and service work. Second, we consider the research priorities for
each of the three themes that emerged from the literature review.
Cross-cutting Requirements
Multi-disciplinary research. First, the emerging notion of intelligent machines is multi

faceted. It is associated with a variety of academic subjects and complex sociotechnical
systems. For example, our review reveals that researchers have investigated the ethical
issues associated with AI and robots from Computer Science (Bryson, 2016), Engineering
(Johnson, 2014), Robotics and Industrial Informatics (Torras, 2015) and Philosophy per
spectives (Michelfelder, 2011). Hence, it can be best studied through the adoption of a
multi-disciplinary approach that is focused upon multiple stakeholders (e.g., the human
designers, manufacturers, and users of machines, policymakers, regulators, and the intel
ligent machines themselves) and accounts for a wide range of person, social, technical,
legal, and environmental factors.
Contextual focus. Although the importance of studying intelligent machines in specific

contexts has been acknowledged, only a small number of recent studies have attempted
to address organizational or work-specific topics (e.g., Dogan et al., 2016; Kinne & Sto
janov, 2014; Luxton, 2014). Most of the published literature refers to general issues asso
ciated with intelligent machines and future-oriented scenarios. Future research should
aim to capture work-specific themes along with key general issues and, (p. 357) thus, en
sure a more in-depth knowledge of both the concept and the practical manifestations of
intelligent machines. For example, linking back to the theme of changing human relations
with intelligent machines, the speculative and experimental literature on human-robot dy
Page 13 of 29
gent Machines
namics in hybrid teams (e.g., Schwartz et al., 2016; Gombolay et al., 2015) raises ques
tions about how humans team/co-work with intelligent machines, in relation to decision-
making authority over scheduling decisions. While there is an extensive body of literature
of human-computer interaction, future research needs to examine in rich detail the na
ture of this dynamic, in ways which take account of ongoing technological developments
in AI systems to communicate via increasingly human-like speech etc. The more human-
like these systems become, the greater the implications for human-technology dynamics
and interactions.
Empirical research. While this review has focused on empirically grounded analysis, the
majority of the current academic literature on these issues proposes theoretical models
or laboratory proof of concept experiments of intelligent machines rather than offering
empirical evidence. In the future, research should move on to more empirical exploration
of the context-specific issues. Given the complex nature of the topic, we recommend a
mixed-method approach involving the use of both qualitative and quantitative research
designs (e.g., experiments, real-time measurements, stakeholder surveys, focus groups,
case studies, system-collected usage data). For example, the theme on the adoption and
acceptance of these technologies highlighted the importance of human/user trust in tech
nology for its implementation and use to be effective. Arguably, something like a longitu
dinal, mixed-methods, case study-based approach has the ability to capture data on how
the attitudes and trust levels of different stakeholders (managers, IT staff, users etc.), dy
namically evolve during the implementation and use of AI systems.
Research Priorities for the Three Themes
Investigating changing human relations with intelligent machines. It is clear from

the literature that the nature of the relationship between humans and intelligent ma
chines is changing. Studies suggest that the social aspect of human-machine interaction
is an important mediating (and moderating) factor for the successful realization of the
benefits from automation. For example, the literature on the use of robots in the provision
of care for the elderly and those in care homes (e.g., Metzler, Lewis, & Pope, 2016;
Nielsen et al., 2016) raises questions about how the success of such technologies will be
shaped by factors such as user attitudes, and the extent to which it is perceived that ro
bots and AI are able to provide the type of emotional support and care currently provided
by human nurses and care staff. Thus, further research that examines mediating factors
of human-machine relations, such as user perceptions of AI to provide emotional care and
support, would provide a useful context to interpret how quickly we are likely to embrace
these new technologies, how to foster more positive outcomes, and how to prevent or mit
igate more negative ones.
We suggest that in-depth empirical studies drawing on ethnographic methods on

(p. 358)
real-life case studies (rather than in experimental settings) would offer crucial insights in
to the relationships between robots and humans in the workplace, which may discover in
teresting examples of how intelligent machines are assimilated and/or subverted in prac
tice. Being sensitive to the idea of “subversion via practice” is important, as the way any
Page 14 of 29
gent Machines
technology is used and appropriated is often different from how it is designed, with user
adaptation having significant implications for technology use (Beaudry & Pinsonneault,
2005). Thus, with the implementation and use of any form of AI, or advanced robotics, ac
count needs to be taken of this, which can only be done via in-depth qualitative studies,
which are sensitive to the micro-level subtleties of user behavior and intention. Aiming to
include a range of case studies from different countries, sectors, and organization sizes
would also enable research to begin unpacking some of the contextual factors that have
only been hinted at so far.
Investigating the adoption and acceptance of intelligent machines. Much of the re
search in this review discusses intelligent machines in terms of complementing and ex
tending human capabilities rather than removing humans from work processes. The con
cept of augmentation of humans and human work in a range of ways, rather than whole
sale replacement from robotized job automation, flows through the literature across a
range of domains (Davenport & Kirby, 2016). However, future research needs to better
account for the “multi-layered” nature of the work that humans carry out and where au
tomation fits. For example, the case of robot assisted surgery (e.g., De Benedictis et al.,
2017; Sananès et al., 2011) represents an important and interesting context where AI and
to robotics are augmenting the work of surgeons. Future research needs to examine, in a
fine-grained way, the diverse ways in which surgical work is changed, where some as
pects/roles/tasks may remain unchanged, and while others are radically transformed. To
gain a more accurate understanding of these issues a large-scale cross-country survey
study on experiences with implementation, trust issues, and feelings of confidence might
be a suitable research strategy. The inclusion of participant employment information with
regard to contract types, level, and job role would also help to find out more about how
users’ position in organizational hierarchies shapes their experiences with innovative
technologies in the workplace.
Investigating intelligent machine-related ethical issues. The review highlights that

some key ethical issues such as safety, accountability, and liability related to intelligent
machines need further attention (e.g., Bryson, 2016; Johnson, 2014; Luxton, 2014; Yam
polskiy & Fox, 2013). For instance, further research is needed on whether AI can or
should be afforded moral agency or patience (Bryson, 2016); how the responsibility
arrangements for intelligent machines will be negotiated and worded as the technology is
being developed, tested, put into operation, and used (Johnson, 2014); who should be held
responsible in a complex sociotechnical system with multiple human stakeholders (Lux
ton, 2014); and how, for the sake of humans’ safety, the development and testing of ad
vanced AI can be confined to a highly controlled environment (e.g. via a formalized con
finement protocol) and thus directed by the human machine designers in accordance
(p. 359) to the latest developments of machine ethics (Yampolskiy & Fox, 2013). Further,
the current literature presents only a few examples of early attempts to create AI-related
legal and policymaking frameworks (Bryson, 2016). Zeng (2015) highlights that current
legislation refers mostly to low-tech technologies, leaving advanced AI systems unregulat
ed. Consequently, the legal and policymaking approaches to AI ethics are reactionary
(i.e., triggered sporadically by accidents that occur) rather than holistic (i.e., generally
Page 15 of 29
gent Machines
preventative; Ambrose, 2014). Further research that examines how legal and policy deci
sions are debated, agreed and implemented is needed to understand how different soci
eties are responding to the challenges and opportunities intelligent machines present for
knowledge and service work. Research that compares the emerging policy responses and
regulatory systems proposed by different national governments may provide valuable in
sights regarding ethical concerns related to the adoption of intelligent machines.
Conclusion
The evidence so far, such as it is, suggests that intelligent machines (here, AI and robots)
are augmenting what people are doing and enabling some degree of role expansion for
employees. Key questions are still open and require further analysis based on evidence of
how intelligent machines are being developed and implemented in practice, and how
workers and humans interacting with these machines experience these changes. Howev
er, it is important to keep in mind that workers, organizations, governments, and society
have the power to shape the future use of these new technologies. The future is mal
leable, but it is up to us to be pro-active in shaping it.
Acknowledgments
Funding Acknowledgement and Disclaimer: The Chartered Institute of Personnel and De
velopment (CIPD) funded the initial data collection for this study. The views expressed are
those of the authors and not necessarily those of the CIPD.
References
Ambrose, M. L. (2014). The law and the loop. In IEEE international symposium on ethics
in science, technology and engineering, ETHICS 2014. Chicago. http://doi.org/10.1109/
ETHICS.2014.6893374
Arntz, M., Gregory, T., & Zierahn, U. (2016). The risk of automation for jobs in OECD
countries: A comparative analysis (No. 189). Retrieved from www.oecd.org/els/working
papers
Beaudry, A., & Pinsonneault, A. (2005). Understanding user responses to information

technology: A coping model of user adaptation. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 493–524.
Bekier, M., Molesworth, B. R., & Williamson, A. (2011). Defining the drivers for accepting
decision making automation in air traffic management. Ergonomics, 54(4), 347–356.
http://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2011.558635
(p. 360) Bell, D. (1973). The coming of post-industrial society. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Page 16 of 29
gent Machines
Bostrom, N., & Yudkowsky, E. (2011). The ethics of artificial intelligence. In K. Frankish &
W. Ramsey (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of artificial intelligence (pp. 1–20). New York:
Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.mpmed.2010.10.008
Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2016). The second machine age—work, progress, and
prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. New York and London: WW Norton & Co.
Bryson, J. J. (2016). Patiency is not a virtue : Intelligent artefacts and the design of ethical
systems. In Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1–18). Phoenix.
Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary? doi=10.1.1.299.5725
Burkhard, H.-D. (2013). Let the machines do. How intelligent is artificial intelligence? In
36th international convention on information and communication technology, electronics
and microelectronics (MIPRO) (pp. 947–952). Opatija.
Calo, C. J., Hunt-Bull, N., Lewis, L., & Metzler, T. (2011). Ethical implications of using the
Paro robot with a focus on dementia patient care. In Association for the Advancement of
Artificial Intelligence workshop (Vol. WS-11–12, pp. 20–24). San Francisco, CA. Retrieved
from http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-
s2.0-80,054,913,481&partnerID=40&md5=cf9ad1b74f81299aa3f48be4f8e9700f
Charalambous, G., Fletcher, S., & Webb, P. (2015). Identifying the key organisational hu
man factors for introducing human-robot collaboration in industry: An exploratory study.
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 81(9–12), 2143–2155.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7335-4
Chen, L. (2013). The application of robots and eye tracking devices in a general dentist’s
clinic. In IEEE third international conference on consumer electronics (pp. 5–7). Berlin.
Davenport, T. H., & Kirby, J. (2016). Only humans need apply: Winners and losers in the
age of smart machines. New York: Harper Business.
De Benedictis, A., Trezza, A., Carai, A., Genovese, E., Procaccini, E., Messina, R., … Mar
ras, C. E. (2017). Robot-assisted procedures in pediatric neurosurgery. Neurosurgical Fo
cus, 42(5), 1–12. http://doi.org/10.3171/2017.2.FOCUS16579
DeCanio, S. J. (2016). Robots and humans—complements or substitutes? Journal of

Macroeconomics, 49, 280–291. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmacro.2016.08.003
Dilsizian, S. E., & Siegel, E. L. (2014). Artificial intelligence in medicine and cardiac imag
ing: Harnessing big data and advanced computing to provide personalized medical diag
nosis and treatment. Current Cardiology Reports, 16(441), 1–8. http://doi.org/10.1007/
s11886-013-0441-8
Dogan, E., Chatila, R., Chauvier, S., & Evans, K. (2016). Ethics in the design of automated
vehicles: The AVEthics project. In 1st workshop on ethics in the design of intelligent
agents (pp. 1–6). The Hague.
Page 17 of 29
gent Machines
Dorf, R. C., & Kusiak, A. (1994). Handbook of design, manufacturing, and automation.
London and New York: Wiley.
Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs
to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254–280. http://
doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2016.08.019
Friend, T. (2018, May). How frightened should we be of A.I.? The New Yorker, 1–19. Re
trieved from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/05/14/how-frightened-
should-we-be-of-ai
Gombolay, M. C., Huang, C., & Shah, J. A. (2015). Coordination of human-robot teaming
with human task preferences. In AAAI Fall symposium series on AI-HRI. Arlington.
Hengstler, M., Enkel, E., & Duelli, S. (2016). Applied artificial intelligence and
(p. 361)
trust: The case of autonomous vehicles and medical assistance devices. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 105, 105–120. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.
2015.12.014
Hislop, D., Bosua, R., & Helms, R. (2018). Knowledge management in organisations: A
critical introduction (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huijnen, C. A. G. J., Lexis, M. A. S., Jansens, R., & de Witte, L. P. (2016). Mapping robots
to therapy and educational objectives for children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal
of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(6), 2100–2114. http://doi.org/10.1007/
s10803-016-2740-6
Johnson, D. G. (2014). Technology with no human responsibility? Journal of Business

Ethics, 127, 707–715. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2180-1
Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., Cushman, R., Grimshaw, J., & Moher, D. (2012). Evidence sum
maries: The evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic Reviews, 1(1), 10. http://
doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-10
Khosla, R., Chu, M. T., & Nguyen, K. (2013). Affective robot enabled capacity and quality
improvement of nursing home aged care services in Australia. In IEEE 37th annual com
puter software and applications conference workshops (pp. 409–414). Kyoto. http://
doi.org/10.1109/COMPSACW.2013.89
Khouja, M., & Offodile, 0 Felix. (1994). The industrial robots selection problem: Litera
ture review and directions for future research. IIE Transactions, 26(4), 50–61. http://
doi.org/10.1080/07408179408966618
Kinne, E., & Stojanov, G. (2014). Grounding drones’ ethical use reasoning. In Association
for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (pp. 231–235). Québec City.
Page 18 of 29
gent Machines
Kolbjørnsrud, V., Amico, R., & Thomas, R. J. (2017). Partnering with AI: How organiza
tions can win over skeptical managers. Strategy & Leadership, 45(1), 37–43. http://
doi.org/10.1108/SL-12-2016-0085
Kuusisto, J., & Meyer, M. (2003). Insights into services and innovation in the knowledge
intensive economy. Technology Review, 134. Helsinki: Tekes. Retrieved from https://
www.tekes.fi/globalassets/julkaisut/insights.pdf
Loebbecke, C., & Picot, A. (2015). Reflections on societal and business model transforma
tion arising from digitization and big data analytics: A research agenda. Journal of Strate
gic Information Systems, 24, 149–157. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2015.08.002
Luxton, D. D. (2014). Recommendations for the ethical use and design of artificial intelli
gent care providers. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 62(1), 1–10. http://doi.org/
10.1016/j.artmed.2014.06.004
Metzler, T. A., Lewis, L. M., & Pope, L. C. (2016). Could robots become authentic compan
ions in nursing care? Nursing Philosophy, 17(1), 36–48. http://doi.org/10.1111/nup.
12101
Michelfelder, D. P. (2011). Dirty hands, speculative minds, and smart machines. Philoso
phy and Technology, 24(1), 55–68. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-010-0009-0
Mubin, O., D’Arcy, T., Murtaza, G., Simoff, S., Stanton, C., & Stevens, C. (2014). Active or
passive? Investigating the impact of robot role in meetings. In IEEE international work
shop on robot and human interactive communication (pp. 580–585). Edinburgh. http://
doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2014.6926315
Nielsen, J. A., Andersen, K. N., & Sigh, A. (2016). Robots conquering local government
services: A case study of eldercare in Denmark. Information Polity, 21(2), 139–151. http://
doi.org/10.3233/IP-160381
Niu, J., Tang, W., Xu, F., Zhou, X., & Song, Y. (2016). Global research on artificial intelli
gence from 1990–2014: Spatially-explicit bibliometric analysis. International Journal of
Geo-Information, 5(66), 1–19. http://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi5050066
Pieters, W. (2011). Explanation and trust: What to tell the user in security and AI?
(p. 362)
Ethics and Information Technology, 13(1), 53–64. http://doi.org/10.1007/

s10676-010-9253-3
Reich, R. (1991). The work of nations: Preparing ourselves for 21st-century capitalism.
London: Simon & Schuster.
Sananès, N., Garbin, O., Hummel, M., Youssef, C., Vizitiu, R., Lemaho, D., … Wattiez, A.
(2011). Setting up robotic surgery in gynaecology: The experience of the Strasbourg
teaching hospital. Journal of Robotic Surgery, 5(2), 133–136. http://doi.org/10.1007/
s11701-010-0231-x
Page 19 of 29
gent Machines
Schwartz, T., Krieger, H., & Zinnikus, I. (2016). Hybrid teams : Flexible collaboration be
tween humans, robots and virtual agents. In Proceedings of the 14th German conference
on multiagent system technologies (pp. 131–146). Klagenfurt.
Sheridan, T. B. (2016). Human-robot interaction: Status and challenges. Human Factors,

58(4), 525–532. http://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816644364
Torras, C. (2015). Social robots: A meeting point between science and fiction. MÈTODE
Science Studies Journal, 5, 111–115. http://doi.org/10.7203/metode.82.3546
Wang, C.-M., Tseng, S.-H., Wul, P.-W., Xu, Y.-H., Liao, C.-K., Lin, Y.-C., … Fu, L.-C. (2013).
Human-oriented recognition for intelligent interactive office robot. In 13th International
conference on control, automation and systems (pp. 960–965). Gwangju. http://doi.org/
10.1093/gbe/evv015
Willcocks, L., Lacity, M. C., & Craig, A. (2015). The IT function and robotic process au
tomation. The Outsourcing Unit Working Research Paper Series. London. http://
eprints.lse.ac.uk/64519/1/OUWRPS_15_05_published.pdf
Xu, S., Tu, D., He, Y., Tan, S., & Fang, M. (2013). ACT-R-typed human–robot collaboration
mechanism for elderly and disabled assistance. Robotica, 32(November 2013), 1–11.
http://doi.org/10.1017/S0263574713001094
Yampolskiy, R., & Fox, J. (2013). Safety engineering for artificial general intelligence.
Topoi, 32(2), 217–226. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-012-9128-9
Yu, Q., Yuan, C., Fu, Z., & Zhao, Y. (2012). An autonomous restaurant service robot with
high positioning accuracy. The Industrial Robot, 39(3), 271–281. http://doi.org/
10.1108/01439911211217107
Zaghloul, A. S., & Mahmoud, A. M. (2016). Preliminary results of robotic colorectal

surgery at the National Cancer Institute, Cairo University. Journal of the Egyptian Nation
al Cancer Institute, 28(3), 169–174. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnci.2016.05.003
Zeng, D. (2015). AI Ethics: Science fiction meets technological reality. IEEE Intelligent
Systems, 3, 2–5.
Abdel Raheem, A., Song, H. J., Chang, K. D., Choi, Y. D., & Rha, K. H. (2017). Robotic
nurse duties in the urology operative room: 11 years of experience. Asian Journal of Urol
ogy, 4(2), 116–123. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2016.09.012
Albu, A., & Stanciu, L. (2015). Benefits of using artificial intelligence in medical predic
tions. In 2015 e-health and bioengineering conference (EHB) (pp. 1–4). Iasi. http://
doi.org/10.1109/EHB.2015.7391610
Page 20 of 29
gent Machines
Alizadehsani, R., Zangooei, M. H., Hosseini, M. J., Habibi, J., Khosravi, A., Roshanzamir,
M., … Nahavandi, S. (2016). Coronary artery disease detection using computational intel
ligence methods. Knowledge-Based Systems, 109, 187–197. http://doi.org/10.1016/
j.knosys.2016.07.004
Amershi, S., Fogarty, J., Kapoor, A., & Tan, D. (2011). Effective end-user interac
(p. 363)
tion with machine learning. In Proceedings of the twenty-fifth AAAI conference on artifi
cial intelligence (pp. 1529–1532). San Francisco. http://doi.org/
10.1145/2046396.2046416
Amrit, C., Paauw, T., Aly, R., & Lavric, M. (2017). Identifying child abuse through text min
ing and machine learning. Expert Systems with Applications, 88, 402–418. http://doi.org/
10.1016/j.eswa.2017.06.035
Aron, R., Dutta, S., Janakiraman, R., & Pathak, P. A. (2011). The impact of automation of
systems on medical errors : Evidence from field research. Information Systems Research,
22(3), 429–446.
Autor, D. H. (2015). Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplace
automation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3), 3–30. http://doi.org/10.1257/jep.
29.3.3
Balfe, N., Sharples, S., & Wilson, J. R. (2015). Impact of automation: Measurement of per
formance, workload and behaviour in a complex control environment. Applied Ergonom
ics, 47, 52–64. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2014.08.002
Balkin, T. J., Horrey, W. J., Graeber, R. C., Czeisler, C. a., & Dinges, D. F. (2011). The chal
lenges and opportunities of technological approaches to fatigue management. Accident
Analysis and Prevention, 43(2), 565–572. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.12.006
Balram, N., Tošić, I., & Binnamangalam, H. (2016). Digital health in the age of the infinite
network. In APSIPA Transactions on Signal and Information Processing (Vol. 5, pp. 1–13).
Cambridge. http://doi.org/10.1017/ATSIP.2016.6
Baril, C., Gascon, V., & Brouillette, C. (2014). Impact of technological innovation on a
nursing home performance and on the medication-use process safety. Journal of Medical
Systems, 38(3), 1–12. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-014-0022-4
Bekier, M., Molesworth, B. R., & Williamson, A. (2011). Defining the drivers for accepting
decision making automation in air traffic management. Ergonomics, 54(4), 347–356.
http://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2011.558635
Bennett, C. C., & Hauser, K. (2013). Artificial intelligence framework for simulating clini
cal decision-making: A Markov decision process approach. Artificial Intelligence in Medi
cine, 57(1), 9–19. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.artmed.2012.12.003
Page 21 of 29
gent Machines
Bocci, T., Moretto, C., Tognazzi, S., Briscese, L., Naraci, M., Leocani, L., … Sartucci, F.
(2013). How does a surgeon’s brain buzz? An EEG coherence study on the interaction be
tween humans and robot. Behavioral and Brain Functions : BBF, 9(1), 1–12. http://
doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-9-14
Bogue, R. (2011). Robots in the nuclear industry: A review of technologies and applica
tions. Industrial Robot: An International Journal, 38(2), 113–118. http://doi.org/
10.1108/01439911111106327
Broussard, M. (2015). Artificial intelligence for investigative reporting. Digital Journalism,

3(6), 814–831. http://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2014.985497
Byun, S., & Buyn, S.-E. (2011). Exploring perceptions toward biometric technology in ser
vice encounters: a comparison of current users and potential adopters. Behaviour & Infor
mation Technology, 32(3), 217–230. http://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2011.553741
Calo, C. J., Hunt-Bull, N., Lewis, L., & Metzler, T. (2011). Ethical implications of using the
Paro robot with a focus on dementia patient care. In Association for the Advancement of
Artificial Intelligence workshop (Vol. WS-11-12, pp. 20–24). San Francisco. Retrieved from
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0–
80,054,913,481&partnerID=40&md5=cf9ad1b74f81299aa3f48be4f8e9700f
Chang, A. C. (2012). Primary prevention of sudden cardiac death of the young ath
(p. 364)
lete: The controversy about the screening electrocardiogram and its innovative artificial
intelligence solution. Pediatric Cardiology, 33(3), 428–433. http://doi.org/10.1007/
s00246-012-0244-5
Charalambous, G., Fletcher, S., & Webb, P. (2015). Identifying the key organisational hu
man factors for introducing human-robot collaboration in industry: an exploratory study.
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 81(9–12), 2143–2155.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7335-4
Charchat-Fichman, H., Uehara, E., & Santos, C. F. (2014). New technologies in assess
ment and neuropsychological rehabilitation. Trends in Psychology, 22(3), 539–553. http://
doi.org/10.9788/TP2014.3-01
Collins, J. W., Patel, H., Adding, C., Annerstedt, M., Dasgupta, P., Khan, S. M., … Wiklund,
P. N. (2016). Enhanced recovery after robot-assisted radical cystectomy: EAU robotic
urology section scientific working group consensus view. European Urology, 70, 649–660.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.05.020
Danilchenko, A., Balachandran, R., Toennies, J. L., Baron, S., Munske, B., Fitzpatrick, J.
M., … Labadie, R. F. (2011). Robotic mastoidectomy. Otology and Neurotology, 32(1), 11–
16. http://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181fcee9e.Robotic
Page 22 of 29
gent Machines
De Benedictis, A., Trezza, A., Carai, A., Genovese, E., Procaccini, E., Messina, R., … Mar
ras, C. E. (2017). Robot-assisted procedures in pediatric neurosurgery. Neurosurgical Fo
cus, 42(5), E7. http://doi.org/10.3171/2017.2.FOCUS16579
Decker, M., Fischer, M., & Ott, I. (2017). Service robotics and human labor: A first tech
nology assessment of substitution and cooperation. Robotics and Autonomous Systems,
87, 348–354. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2016.09.017
Dilsizian, S. E., & Siegel, E. L. (2014). Artificial intelligence in medicine and cardiac imag
ing: Harnessing big data and advanced computing to provide personalized medical diag
nosis and treatment. Current Cardiology Reports, 16(441), 1–8. http://doi.org/10.1007/
s11886-013-0441-8
Doryab, A., Min, J. K., Wiese, J., Zimmerman, J., & Hong, J. I. (2014). Detection of behavior
change in people with depression. In Twenty-eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelli
gence workshop (pp. 12–16). Québec.
Drew, J. (2017). Real talk about artificial intelligence and blockchain. Journal of Accoun
tancy, 224(1), 22–26,28. Retrieved from https://ucd.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://
search.proquest.com/docview/1917636631?accountid=14,507 %0Ahttp://
jq6am9xs3s.search.serialssolution.com?ctx_ver=Z39.88–2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/
enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabiglobal&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:m
Drigas, A. S., & Ioannidou, R.-E. (2012). Artificial intelligence in special education: A
decade review. International Journal of Engineering Education, 28(6), 1366–1372.
Edwards, P., & Ramirez, P. (2016). When should workers embrace or resist new technolo
gy? New Technology, Work and Employment, 31(2), 99–113. http://doi.org/10.1111/
ntwe.12067
Fischer, M. (2012). Interdisciplinary technology assessment of service robots: the psycho

logical/work science perspective. Poiesis & Praxis: International Journal of Ethics of
Science and Technology Assessment, 9(3–4), 231–248. http://doi.org/10.1007/
s10202-012-0113-6
Gilbert, B. J., Goodman, E., Chadda, A., Hatfield, D., Forman, D. E., & Panch, T. (2015).
The Role of Mobile Health in Elderly Populations. Current Geriatrics Reports, 4(4), 347–
352. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13670-015-0145-6
Gombolay, M. C., Huang, C., & Shah, J. A. (2015). Coordination of human-robot teaming
with human task preferences. In AAAI Fall symposium series on AI-HRI. Arlington.
Hengstler, M., Enkel, E., & Duelli, S. (2016). Applied artificial intelligence and
(p. 365)
trust: The case of autonomous vehicles and medical assistance devices. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 105, 105–120. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.
2015.12.014
Page 23 of 29
gent Machines
Hirsch, P. B. (2017). The robot in the window seat. Journal of Business Strategy, 38(4),
47–51. http://doi.org/10.1108/JBS-04-2017-0050
Holloway, B. B., Deitz, G. D., & Hansen, J. D. (2013). The benefits of sales force automa
tion (SFA): An empirical examination of SFA usage on relationship quality and perfor
mance. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 12(4), 223–242. http://doi.org/
10.1080/15332667.2013.846735
Huijnen, C. a G. J., Lexis, M. a S., Jansens, R., & de Witte, L. P. (2016). Mapping robots to
therapy and educational objectives for children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(6), 2100–2114. http://doi.org/10.1007/
s10803-016-2740-6
James, K. L., Barlow, D., Bithell, A., Hiom, S., Lord, S., Oakley, P., … Whittlesea, C. (2013).
The impact of automation on pharmacy staff experience of workplace stressors. Interna
tional Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 21(2), 105–116. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.
2042-7174.2012.00231.x
Jeong, G. M., Park, C. W., You, S., & Ji, S. H. (2014). A study on the education assistant
system using smartphones and service robots for children regular paper. International
Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 11(1), 1–9. http://doi.org/10.5772/58389
Jeske, D., & Santuzzi, A. M. (2015). Monitoring what and how: Psychological implications
of electronic performance monitoring. New Technology, Work and Employment, 30(1), 62–
78. http://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12039
Junejo, F., Amin, I., Hassan, M., Ahmed, A., Hameed, S., & Author, C. (2017). The applica
tion of artificial intelligence in grinding operation using sensor fusion. International Jour
nal of GEOMATE, 12(30), 11–18.
Jung, J., Song, H., Kim, Y., Im, H., & Oh, S. (2017). Intrusion of software robots into jour
nalism: The public’s and journalists’ perceptions of news written by algorithms and hu
man journalists. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 291–298. http://doi.org/10.1016/
j.chb.2017.02.022
Kaivo-Oja, J., Roth, S., & Westerlund, L. (2017). Futures of robotics. Human work in digi
tal transformation. International Journal of Technology Management, 73(4), 176–205.
http://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2017.083074
Khosla, R., Chu, M. T., & Nguyen, K. (2013). Affective robot enabled capacity and quality
improvement of nursing home aged care services in Australia. In IEEE 37th annual com
puter software and applications conference workshops (pp. 409–414). Kyoto. http://
doi.org/10.1109/COMPSACW.2013.89
Kim, C., Kim, D., Yuan, J., Hill, R. B., Doshi, P., & Thai, C. N. (2015). Robotics to promote
elementary education pre-service teachers’ STEM engagement, learning, and teaching.
Computers and Education, 91, 14–31. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.08.005
Page 24 of 29
gent Machines
Klintong, N., Vadhanasindhu, P., & Thawesaengskulthai, N. (2012). Artificial intelligence
and successful factors for selecting product innovation development. In 3rd International
Conference on Intelligent Systems Modelling and Simulation (pp. 397–402). Kota Kina
balu. http://doi.org/10.1109/ISMS.2012.86
Kokina, J., & Davenport, T. H. (2017). The emergence of artificial intelligence: How au
tomation is changing auditing. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 14(1),
115–122. http://doi.org/10.2308/jeta-51,730
Kolbjørnsrud, V., Amico, R., & Thomas, R. J. (2017). Partnering with AI: how organizations
can win over skeptical managers. Strategy & Leadership, 45(1), 37–43. http://doi.org/
10.1108/SL-12-2016-0085
Kraan, K. O., Dhondt, S., Houtman, I. L. D., Batenburg, R. S., Kompier, M. A. J., &
(p. 366)
Taris, T. W. (2014). Computers and types of control in relation to work stress and learn
ing. Behaviour & Information Technology, 33(10), 1013–1026. http://doi.org/
10.1080/0144929X.2014.916351
Kumar, S., Pragatheeswarane, M., Sharma, A. P., Bishnoi, K., Sharma, M. K., Panwar, V. K.,
& Sethi, S. (2017). Expanding the horizon of robotic surgery to large pelvic paragan
glioma. Journal of Robotic Surgery, 11(2), 247–250. http://doi.org/10.1007/
s11701-016-0648-y
Lacity, M. C., & Willcocks, L. P. (2016). Robotic process automation at telefónica O2. MIS
Quarterly Executive, 15(1), 21–35.
Lee, H., Troschel, F. M., Tajmir, S., Fuchs, G., Mario, J., Fintelmann, F. J., & Do, S. (2017).
Pixel-level deep segmentation: Artificial intelligence quantifies muscle on computed to
mography for body morphometric analysis. Journal of Digital Imaging, 30(4), 487–498.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-017-9988-z
Lund, H. H. (2011). Anybody, anywhere, anytime—Robotics with a social impact through a

building block approach. In Proceedings of IEEE workshop on advanced robotics and its
social impacts (pp. 2–7). Menlo Park. http://doi.org/10.1109/ARSO.2011.6301970
Luxton, D. D. (2014). Artificial intelligence in psychological practice: Current and future

applications and implications. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45(5), 332.
http://doi.org/10.1037/a0034559
Mathers, N., Goktogen, A., Rankin, J., & Anderson, M. (2012). Robotic mission to Mars:
Hands-on, minds-on, web-based learning. Acta Astronautica, 80, 124–131. http://doi.org/
10.1016/j.actaastro.2012.06.003
Mubin, O., D’Arcy, T., Murtaza, G., Simoff, S., Stanton, C., & Stevens, C. (2014). Active or
passive? Investigating the impact of robot role in meetings. In IEEE International Work
shop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 580–585). Edinburgh. http://
doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2014.6926315
Page 25 of 29
gent Machines
Naik, G., & Bhide, S. S. (2014). Will the future of knowledge work automation transform
personalized medicine? Applied and Translational Genomics, 3(3), 50–53. http://doi.org/
10.1016/j.atg.2014.05.003
Nezhad, H. R. M. (2015). Cognitive assistance at work. In AAAI 2015 Fall symposium (pp.
37–40). Arlington.
Nielsen, J. A., Andersen, K. N., & Sigh, A. (2016). Robots conquering local government
services: A case study of eldercare in Denmark. Information Polity, 21(2), 139–151. http://
doi.org/10.3233/IP-160381
Noor, A. (2011). Intelligent adaptive cyber-physical ecosystem for aerospace engineering

education, training, and accelerated workforce development. Journal of Aerospace Engi
neering, 24(October), 403–408. http://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AS.
1943-5525.0000128.
Ohlsson, S. (2016). Constraint-based modeling: From cognitive theory to computer tutor

ing—and back again. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1),
457–473. http://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0075-7
Peña, P., Del Hoyo, R., Vea-murguía, J., Rodrigálvarez, V., Calvo, J. I., & Martín, J. M.
(2016). Moriarty: Improving “time to market” in big data and artificial intelligence appli
cations. International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, 11(3), 230–238.
http://doi.org/10.2495/DNE-V11-N3-230-238
Piccoli, M., Mullineris, B., Santi, D., & Gozzo, D. (2017). Advances in robotic transaxillary
thyroidectomy in Europe. Current Surgery Reports, 5(8), 1–7. http://doi.org/10.1007/
s40137-017-0180-7
Pieters, W. (2011). Explanation and trust: What to tell the user in security and AI? Ethics
and Information Technology, 13(1), 53–64. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9253-3
Samani, H. (2016). The evaluation of affection in human-robot interaction. Kyber

(p. 367)
netes, 45(8), 1257–1272. http://doi.org/10.1108/K-09-2015-0232
Samarakou, M., Fylladitakis, E. D., Prentakis, P., & Athineos, S. (2014). Implementation of
artificial intelligence assessment in engineering laboratory education. In International
conference e-learning (pp. 299–303). Lisbon: International Association for Development of
the Information Society.
Sananès, N., Garbin, O., Hummel, M., Youssef, C., Vizitiu, R., Lemaho, D., … Wattiez, A.
(2011). Setting up robotic surgery in gynaecology: The experience of the Strasbourg
teaching hospital. Journal of Robotic Surgery, 5(2), 133–136. http://doi.org/10.1007/
s11701-010-0231-x
Schwartz, T., Krieger, H., & Zinnikus, I. (2016). Hybrid teams : Flexible collaboration be
tween humans, robots and virtual agents. In Proceedings of the 14th German conference
on multiagent system technologies (pp. 131–146). Klagenfurt.
Page 26 of 29
gent Machines
Semerjian, A., & Pavlovich, C. P. (2017). Extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatec
tomy: Indications, technique and outcomes. Current Urology Reports, 18(42), 1–7. http://
doi.org/10.1007/s11934-017-0689-4
Sheridan, T. B. (2016). Human-robot interaction: Status and challenges. Human Factors,

58(4), 525–532. http://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816644364
Skulimowski, A. M. J. (2014). Future prospects of human interaction. In International con

ference on adaptive and intelligent systems (pp. 131–141). Bournemouth.
Stalidis, G., Karapistolis, D., & Vafeiadis, A. (2015). Marketing decision support using arti
ficial intelligence and knowledge modeling: Application to tourist destination manage
ment. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 175, 106–113. http://doi.org/10.1016/
j.sbspro.2015.01.1180
Sundararajan, S. C., & Nitta, S. V. (2015). Designing engaging intelligent tutoring systems
in an age of cognitive computing. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 59(6), 10:1–
10:9. http://doi.org/10.1147/JRD.2015.2464085
Sutton, S. G., Holt, M., & Arnold, V. (2016). “The reports of my death are greatly exagger
ated”—Artificial intelligence research in accounting. International Journal of Accounting
Information Systems, 22, 60–73. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2016.07.005
Szalma, J. L., & Taylor, G. S. (2011). Individual differences in response to automation: the
five factor model of personality. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 17(2), 71–
96. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0024170
Taylor, A. K., & Cotter, T. S. (2014). Human-machine intelligence interaction in aviation. In

Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Management (pp. 210–217). Vir
ginia Beach.
van de Merwe, K., Oprins, E., Eriksson, F., & van der Plaat, A. (2012). The influence of au
tomation support on performance, workload, and situation awareness of air traffic con
trollers. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 22(2), 120–143. http://doi.org/
10.1080/10508414.2012.663241
van Doorn, J., Mende, M., Noble, S. M., Hulland, J., Ostrom, A. L., Grewal, D., & Petersen,
J. A. (2017). Domo arigato Mr. Roboto: Emergence of automated social presence in orga
nizational frontlines and customers’ service experiences. Journal of Service Research,
20(1), 43–58. http://doi.org/10.1177/1094670516679272
Willcocks, L., Lacity, M. C., & Craig, A. (2015a). Robotic process automation at Xchanging
(The Outsourcing Unit Working Research Paper Series). London.
Willcocks, L., Lacity, M. C., & Craig, A. (2015b). The IT function and robotic process au
tomation. (The Outsourcing Unit Working Research Paper Series). London.
Page 27 of 29
gent Machines
Xu, J., Le, K., Deitermann, A., & Montague, E. (2014). How different types of users
(p. 368)
develop trust in technology: A qualitative analysis of the antecedents of active and pas
sive user trust in a shared technology. Applied Ergonomics, 45(6), 1495–1503. http://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2014.04.012
Yang, S., Wei, R., Guo, J., & Xu, L. (2017). Semantic inference on clinical documents: Com
bining machine learning algorithms with an inference engine for effective clinical diagno
sis and treatment. IEEE Access, 5, 3529–3546. http://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.
2017.2672975
Ye, J. J. (2015). Artificial intelligence for pathologists is not near-it is here: Description of a
prototype that can transform how we practice pathology tomorrow. Archives of Pathology
and Laboratory Medicine, 139(7), 929–935. http://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2014-0478-OA
Zaghloul, A. S., & Mahmoud, A. M. (2016). Preliminary results of robotic colorectal

surgery at the National Cancer Institute, Cairo University. Journal of the Egyptian Nation
al Cancer Institute, 28(3), 169–174. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnci.2016.05.003
Crispin Coombs
Crispin Coombs is a Reader in Information Systems (Associate Professor) and Head

of the Information Management group in the School of Business and Economics at
Loughborough University, UK. He is an expert in the organizational impacts of new
technologies, their successful implementation, and people’s attitudes and behaviors
towards IT. Particular interests include the robotization of knowledge and service
work, the behavioral impacts of new technologies, and benefits realization manage
ment from information systems. He has led several externally funded research
projects from Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Char
tered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), British Academy, National In
stitute for Health Research (NIHR), Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC),
and Department of Health. He has published over 80 outputs and is a senior editor
for Information Technology and People and associate editor for the European Journal
of Information Systems. He was appointed to the Board of the UK Academy of Infor
mation Systems in 2015 and is a Visiting Professor at the University of Sao Paulo,
Brazil.
Donald Hislop
Donald Hislop is Professor in the Business School at the University of Aberdeen. Pri
or to this he worked at Loughborough University and Sheffield University. His re
search interests are in two main areas: knowledge management and mobile working.
He has published on knowledge management in a range of journals, including Man
agement Learning, Journal of Information Technology, Technology Analysis & Strate
gic Management, and the Journal of Knowledge Management. He is also the author
of a popular and well-regarded textbook called Knowledge management in organiza
Page 28 of 29
gent Machines
tions: A critical introduction (now in its fourth edition, published in 2018). He is on
the editorial board of the journal New Technology, Work and Employment.
Stanimira Taneva
Stanimira Taneva is currently Senior Researcher and REF Impact Officer, School of
Sociology and Social Policy, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom. During the
work on her chapter, she was a Senior Research and Enterprise Associate and a
member of the Centre for Professional Work and Society at the School of Business
and Economics at Loughborough University. Her background is in developmental and
work/organizational psychologies, as well as psychometrics. Stanimira’s work experi
ence is a combination of academia and practice—she has been in academic, re
search, management, and expert roles in the public, private, and third-sector. Stan
imira has conducted a variety of academic and applied research programs in areas
such as developing and managing careers, (age-) diversity, well-being, and perfor
mance in organizations. In 2013 she was awarded a Marie Curie Fellowship from the
European Commission for her cross-cultural research on successful aging at work.
Stanimira’s most recent research interests include cross-disciplinary research impact
and the exploration of the impacts of new technology (e.g., AI) on work. She is a fel
low at the UK Research and Innovation Future Leaders Fellowships program Peer
Review College.
Sarah Barnard
Sarah Barnard is an Assistant Professor in Sociology of Contemporary Work and a

member of the Centre for Professional Work in Society in the School of Business and
Economics at Loughborough University, United Kingdom. Her research focuses
largely on gender, organizations, sociology of higher education, and sociological re
search in Science, Engineering, and Technology (SET). Her research investigates in
equalities in society; explores the social impact of construction and engineering; how
digital technology can inform and influence professional working practices; and gen
der and higher education. She has extensive experience applying quantitative and
qualitative social research methods over a range of research and consultancy
projects. She has written and published 20 conference papers, 7 journal articles and
11 reports on these subjects. She is a member of the British Sociological Association
and the Women in Higher Education Management (WHEM) network.
Page 29 of 29
ESRC Review: Communities and Identities

Simeon J. Yates, Jordana Blejmar, Bridgette Wessels, and Claire Taylor
This chapter describes the analyses and results for the ESRC Domain of Communities and
Identities, guided by two main questions: How do we define and authenticate ourselves in
a digital age? What new forms of communities and work emerge as a result of digital
technologies? The chapter first provides an initial overview of the major insights from the
literature review and analysis, the Delphi surveys, and workshop discussions about the
relevant range of the concepts of community and identity in a digital age. The resulting
focus is primarily on more civic or political aspects of online communities and identities.
Eight main topics emerged, including online community (including group), mobile phone,
children, migration and diaspora, identity (psychology/social), gender, education, and
friendship network. The analyses also highlighted theory, methods, and approaches in the
literature. The review provides examples of literature in the project’s time period that il
lustrate these topics. The chapter ends with a discussion of future research directions
(e.g., digital community exclusion and inclusion) and research challenges (e.g., the need
to include history and culture in studies of online communities).
Keywords: ESRC Review, migration and diaspora, mobile phone, online communities and identities, social net
works
Introduction
THE initial scoping questions for this domain were: “How do we define and authenticate
ourselves in a digital age?” and “What new forms of communities and work emerge as a
result of digital technologies—for example, new forms of coordination including large-
scale and remote collaboration?” This chapter briefly explores the outcomes of the litera
ture review and expert Delphi review process for the communities and identities domain.
As with the other review chapters, the goal is not to work through a large number of ex
amples from the literature. Instead, building on the methods described in chapter 2, we
first set out the results of the digital humanities-based analyses of the literature and the
content analysis of methods and theory. We highlight the major themes and topics within
the literature—providing a few general examples. These are not intended to be the “most
Page 1 of 42
important” examples from the literature but, rather, simply indicative of the types of
work. This is then followed by the presentation of the content analysis that sought to
identify the key theories and methods in use within the literature. Next, we outline the re
sults from the Delphi review of experts. This concludes with the key questions, topics, and
challenges we identified, and we compare these to the results from the literature work. In
the last section, we present the recommendations for areas of future study.
(p. 406) Initial Comments

The literature, Delphi, and workshop data all raise questions about how senses of commu
nity are perceived and experienced in a digital age. The initial ESRC scoping questions
were thought to be appropriate, although it was argued that inclusion of the word “work”
was too specific. A focus on work was deemed to draw attention to one narrow character
istic or context in which digital communities are found. Therefore, experts sought to
broaden the view, depending on context and institutional landscape, as online communi
ties tend to be structured and shaped by offline institutions as well as political, social, and
geographic contexts. At the same time, research has often emphasized more autonomous,
less institutionally bounded online communities or associations (see Katz et al., 2004, for
a review).
In terms of the idea of identity, many of the responses to the Delphi questions demon
strated a notable uncertainty about the idea of “authentication” in the ESRC scoping
questions. Many of the responses interpreted authentication in terms of having an “au
thentic” sense of identity, rather than the technical process of individuals authenticating
themselves so as to use or access digital media, services, systems, or institutions. Obvi
ously, these issues overlap to some extent, but the majority of the responses and the sur
veyed literature pointed to wider questions of identity, self, and the links to community
membership and community identity. We should also note that issues of identity and com
munity appeared throughout all seven of the domains studied, with a considerable
amount of overlap in the area of citizenship and politics. Here the focus was on political
identity and political community or group membership. Such issues of community and
identity have a long history in digital media research, going back to the 1980s and 1990s,
evidenced by the Rheingold’s (1993) examination of the “Whole Earth ’Lectronic
Link” (WELL), or Turkle’s early work on technology and the self (1984), life online (1995)
and identity (1999). Much of the detailed analysis of group and community dynamics can
be found in the initial work during the 1980s and 1990s on both workplace and educa
tional collaboration (e.g., Mason & Kaye, 1989). Further, concerns about how best to de
sign and manage systems to support digital communities also appeared in the 1970s (e.g.,
Hiltz & Turoff, 1978), 1980s (e.g., Zuboff, 1988), and 1990s (e.g., Mynatt et al., 1997), and
continue (see Kraut & Resnick, 2011).
In general terms, our analysis of the literature focused on the period that Wellman and
Haythornthwaite (2002) called the “second age of the internet,” and considered changing
senses of community and identity in regards to networks and networked individualism. In
Page 2 of 42
overall terms, the main argument in the late 1990s and early 2000s was that community
is increasingly being developed on the basis of communication rather than inhabitancy or
physical proximity. Instead of communities arising from a shared location—from people
inhabiting the same physical location—instead, a networked sense of community devel
oped. These new types of communities form around shared values and social organiza
tion, and are built on choices and strategies of social actors, family, individuals, or social
groups. Wellman and Haythornthwaite (2002) argued that networks of interpersonal ties
provide sociability, support, information, and a sense of belonging and social identity. One
key transformation that arises in comparison to (p. 407) earlier, place-based communities
is the development of weak and strong networks in which users adapt digital resources to
meet the needs of network sociability.
More recently, Wellman with Rainie (2014) have deepened and extended this earlier argu
ment in line with the diffusion of digital services into social life. Currently, digitally sup
ported social networks are the “new social operating system.” The authors argue that
large, loosely knit social circles of networked individuals expand opportunities for learn
ing, problem solving, decision making, working, and personal interaction.
Literature Analysis
to identify key topics within the existing literature. This would allow the comparison with
areas of future importance identified by the Delphi review. The first round of collected lit
erature was analyzed to create concept pairs and trios; the combined first and second
rounds of literature were then analyzed to identify key topic clusters. The results of these
two approaches were then compared. The second goal was to explore the predominance
of specific, theories, methods, and approaches within the data. As noted in chapter 2, the
literature data were subjected to two analyses.
Topics
Table 14.1 shows the 13 most common concepts (covering 2% or more of the identified
cases) identified from the first round of literature. Table 14.2 lists their subtopics. In Ta
ble 14.2 the main concept is marked in bold, and various concepts follow. Not surprising
ly, the two main concepts are “group” and “community,” followed by “identity” and “gen
der.” It is interesting to note that the analysis here pulled out more general aspects of
computer use rather than a specific social media or digital platform, as can also be seen
in the Citizenship and Politics domain (chapter 16).
Page 3 of 42
Concepts Percent
Group 13.7
Computer 13.6
Community 10.8
Gender 6.8
Identity 6.5
Child 4.0
Knowledge 3.9
Network 3.8
Machine 3.4
Communication 3.2
Leadership 2.8
College 2.5
Game 2.1
Note: Concepts occurring in at least 2% of the cases.
Page 4 of 42
Page 5 of 42
child 4.0 Computer 13.6 group 13.7
game .7 fear .2 identification 1.3
laptop .4 hacker 1.0 identity 3.3
object 1.6 language 1.1 individuality .8
programming .6 mastery .6 in-group .5
robot .4 mind 1.6 lea .6
stage .4 object 1.3 manipulation 1.5
college 2.5 owner .6 membership .7
friend .7 presence .5 negotiation .4
medium .7 programming 1.7 prediction 1.1
student 1.1 psychology .7 prentice .3
communica 3.2 self 1.0 psychology 1.4

tion
Page 6 of 42
cue .4 toy 1.0 side .8
dynamics .4 transparency .3 spear 1.0
leadership .5 world 1.9 identity 6.5
park .4 game 2.1 in-group .4
personality .4 mind .2 influence .7
psychology .8 object .2 member 1.8
uncertainty .4 play .6 norm 1.0
community 10.8 screen .2 path .8
designer 1.1 simulation .2 pilot .3
educator .3 something .3 prediction .7
empathy .6 space .5 psychology .7
leadership 1.7 spear 1.0 knowledge 3.9
Lurker .8 gender 6.8 organization 2.3
membership .8 genre .9 platform .3
Page 7 of 42
moderator .8 helper .6 source 1.3
Poster .5 herring .5 leadership 2.8
sociability 1.6 identity 1.4 network .9
Student 1.1 judge .5 participant .9
usability 1.4 man .6 role 1.1
message 1.2 machine 3.4
performance .5 object .4
word .5 program .5
programming .3
system .3
thing .5
way .8
world .5
network 3.8
Page 8 of 42
proportion .7
single .4
size .7
tie 2.0
Note: The bolded term is the main concept; the unbolded terms below that and above the line are the related sub
concepts.
Page 9 of 42
As with the other domains, we can see a shift in focus within the literature between 2000
and 2016 (see Figures 14.1 and 14.2).1 If we explore the visualizations of the data, we find
that in the 2000–2004 literature concept pairs such as group membership, group identity,
and group norms are some of the most common. This contrasts with the 2012–2016
where concept pairs such as community participation, community leadership, community
knowledge and community network are more common. Based on exploring the papers be
hind these results, there appears to have been a shift from more social-psychological
work on group membership and identity to more sociological work on community dynam
ics. We would argue that the long history of work in these areas, and their persistence as
research topics, though with clear changes in focus, indicate that (p. 408) (p. 409) (p. 410)
research into communities and identities remains fundamental to understanding how we
live in the digital age.
Figure 14.1 Communities and Identities 2000–2004:

Most frequent concept pairs.
Page 10 of 42
Figure 14.2 Communities and Identities 2012–2016:

As noted in chapter 2, the second approach to the analysis of the literature explored the
extraction of topics using a different methodology, based on a factor analysis of salience
and relevance measures. As noted in chapter 2, we utilized both bespoke tools and the
Wordstat software. Unlike the concept mapping, which pulled out some of the underlying
ontological links, the identification of topics produced groups that more overtly fitted the
ory and methods in the literature. This was the case for all of the literature analyses. The
12 topics identified (using Wordstat) are presented in Table 14.3. Table 14.4 presents an
analysis of the overlap between the topics and concepts analyses.
Page 11 of 42
Online com ONLIN; DATE; 11.92 12,789 153 96.8

munity WALTHER; IN
TERPERSON;
COMMUN; IN
TERACT; BE
HAVIOR; CMC
Page 12 of 42
Mobile phone PHONE; 3.44 1859 124 78.5

MOBIL;
SERVIC;
HANDSET;
MARKET; PER
CENT AAKHU;
KATZ; EDIT; AP
PARATGEIST;
MOBIL; PER
FORM TEXT;
PHONE;
MESSAG;
CELL; SM;
MOBIL; SEND;
PHILIPPIN
RINGTON;
RING; MUSIC
PICTUR; PHO
TOGRAPH;
PHOTO; CAM
ERA; IMAG
Page 13 of 42
Children ALIV; TOI; 3.25 3889 130 82.38

CHILDREN;
CHILD; OB
JECT; ROBOT;
MACHIN;
PHYSIC; PSY
CHOLOG
Migration and TRANSNAT; MI 2.92 2114 105 66.5

diaspora GRAT; DIASPO
RA; MIGRANT;
GLOBAL; ETH
NIC; COS
MOPOLITAN;
ICT; CULTUR;
DIGIT RELIGI;
RELIGION; SU
PERNATUR;
TEEN; ISLAM;
MUSLIM GI
TAL; PASSAG;
MIGRANT;
YOUTH
Page 14 of 42
Identity (psy POSTM; 2.57 6241 149 94.3

chology/ so SPEAR; TURN
cial) ER; HASLAM;
GROUP; IDENT;
PSYCHOLOGI;
INTERGROUP
Gender MEN; WOMEN; 2.49 3597 118 74.7

MALE; FEMAL;
GENDER
Education EDUC; 2.17 6520 144 91.1

SCHOOL;
TEACHER;
STUDENT;
LEARN;
RESOURC; FU
TUR; PARENT;
CHILDREN;
COLLEG
Friendship TI; NETWORK; 2.04 5683 145 91.8

network WELLMAN;
KIN; LOCAL;
FRIEND
Page 15 of 42
Facebook FACEBOOK; 1.82 2665 128 81.0

ESTEEM;
CAPIT; COL
LEG; MEASUR;
VARIABL
Computing MACHIN; PRO 1.58 5511 143 90.5

GRAM; COM
PUT; INTEL
LIG; AI;
SOMETH;
HACKER;
SYSTEM
Governance EUROPEAN; 1.57 5127 139 88.0

POLIT; EU;
POLICI; EU
ROP; GOVERN;
DEMOCRAT;
CITIZEN;
NATION;
SPHERE
Identity (as IDENTI; 1.55 1534 96 60.8

sessment) CATION;
DEDUCT;
MANIPUL
Page 16 of 42
Page 17 of 42
Page 18 of 42
Con On Mo Chil Mi Iden Gen Edu Frie Face Com Gov Iden
cept/ line bile dren gra tity der catio nd book put er tity
Top com phon tion (Psy n ship ing nanc (As
ic mu e and chol net e sess
nity dias ogy/ work ment
pora So )
cial)
Chil X
d
Col
lege
Com X
mu
nica
tion
Com X X X X
mu
nity
Com X
put
er
Page 19 of 42
Gam X
e
Gen X X
der
Grou X X
p
Iden
tity
Kno
wled
ge
Lead
er
ship
Ma X
chin
e
Net X X
work
Page 20 of 42
Seven key topics stand out from the analysis (see Table 14.3): Online community, Identity,
Friendship network, Mobile phone, Children, Gender, and Education
Online community. The first thing to note is that the topic analysis has not brought out
the distinction between research focused on topics clustered around group as opposed to
community—with both featuring under the same topic. This points out the benefits of
(p. 411) using different approaches to the automatic evaluation of literature and the ex
traction of key terms. Differences in method and measures are likely to provide different
views on the same materials. For example, some approaches based on an ontology (model
of relations between concepts) drawn from theory or inductive coding may highlight cer
tain (p. 412) (p. 413) aspects of the data—such as the idea of “group membership,” where
as an inductive but statistical analysis of word frequency might highlight the use of a vari
ety of terms that form around elements of the idea of community.
As noted earlier, the study of online community has a long history going back to the early
1980s. It is important to remember that the literature examined here represents that
which was specifically identified as being about community or identity. Looking at all the
data we find that community or group membership forms a core part of the theoretical
backdrop to other domains, especially citizenship and politics, health and well-being, and
communication and relationships. While we cannot hope to summarize this breadth of
work here, it is important to note how community or group membership is fundamental to
these other domains. It is of course the case that in the past two decades, for many peo
ple in socio-economically well-developed societies, digitally mediated membership of com
munities is a vital part of their contemporary sense of self, identity, and well-being.
We can also note what might be described as apprehensions and even some unease about
the nature of “digital identity” and “community” in the literature, the Delphi data, and
workshops. We would argue that there remains a thread of argument around the “virtu
al,” “disembodied” or purely mediated identity and community concerning their credibili
ty and authenticity as compared to face-to-face interactions and contexts. This touches on
the distinction in the literature between discussions of identity and self in terms of their
“performance” via digital media, and the search for and methods to digitally check the
“authenticity” of identity online. We would go so far as to argue some these issues and
questions may arise form disciplinary perspectives on questions of identity and communi
ty as much as they do from the analysis of data and cases. As we shall discuss, current
theories are mainly drawn from social and behavioral psychology, networked approaches
to sociology, and the mixed approaches found in computer-mediated communication stud
ies.
As already noted, the literature appears to have shifted from a more social-psychological
focus on group processes and membership to a more sociological one focused on commu
nity dynamics, although there is no distinct dividing line, with both approaches prevalent
across the period. Papers that address aspects of group or community behavior or struc
ture cut across all the other domains—for example, group dynamics in relation to political
action, or group support in relation to health conditions. Along with aspects of the com
Page 21 of 42
munication and relationships domain, this appears to be one of the underpinning issues
for the study of digital media.
Identity. The discussion of online or digital groups is often tied up with social-psychologi
cal theories of group membership and identity. We have named the topic here “identity
(psychology/social)” to distinguish it from work on identity verification via technologies. It
is worth noting that there is a far greater breadth of literature—especially in journal arti
cle form—that takes a psychological or more likely social-psychological perspective on is
sues of digital identity. A prominent feature of this work is the SIDE model of online
group behavior (see: Postmes et al., 1998; Spears et al., 2002). More recent papers open
ly acknowledge that approaches to community need to take on board a variety of discipli
nary insights.
Friendship network. A number of papers link both psychological and sociologi

(p. 414)
cal aspects of social networks via the idea of social capital (e.g., Steinfield et al., 2008). or
offer overall models to help understand online communities (e.g., de Souza & Preece,
2004). At the same time, more recent research concerns the linkage between “online”
community or interaction and other forms of community. In this context ideas of social
capital are understood in sociological terms, typically in line with the work of Putnam
(2000). In this characterization, social capital is understood as both a personal and com
munity commodity that is linked to civic and political engagement and the building of
community groups (e.g., Preece, 2002; Rainie & Wellman, 2012). These approaches are
now applied to very specific contexts such as political group membership or social and
psychological support within communities (digital and/or face-to-face; e.g., Wright et al.,
2013).
Mobile phone. The breadth of technologies covered by the literature includes MUDs
(multi-use dimensions) and MOOs (MUD, object-oriented;1990s) via social media (Twitter
and Facebook) through to current multiplayer online games. Notably, mobile phone use
appears prominently in this domain. The analysis picked out mobile phones and devices
as a key category. In looking at the literature we do not find a single focus for papers on
the mobile phone. There has been a broad literature on the use of the mobile phone for
quite some time (e.g., Katz & Aakhus, 2002; Ling, 2004), and research on mobile phone
use could be found in all domains. In the context of community, the examination of mo
biles often pointed to its use as part of existing communities or community maintenance,
from basic citizenship (e.g., Mossberger et al., 2012) through to friendship networks.
Children. Much of the work on mobile technologies and identity we identified focused on
children and adolescents, with debates around the level and extent of digital communica
tion in relation to personal development, friendship networks, and emotional well-being.
This touches on a body of literature that focuses on “fears” about the levels or any types
of use (e.g., whether high levels of use and highly immersive use might adversely affect
young peoples’ developmental processes) or the dangers of mobile use (such as cyber bul
lying). This work cuts across our domains—especially into the governance domain as it
touches on policy issues. Examples of such work include Livingstone (2003), Livingstone
Page 22 of 42
and Görzig (2014), and Subrahmanyam et al. (2001). Friendship networks form a consis
tent theme within the literature on young people, adolescent, and teen use of digital me
dia (e.g., Mesch & Talmud, 2006; Valkenburg & Peter, 2009). One area that clearly incor
porates both issues of identity and group membership is that of migrant and diasporic use
of communications media (e.g., Panagakos & Horst, 2006).
Gender. As well as age-related issues, another constant touchstone for the study of is
sues of identity in digital media has been the examination of gender variation in the uses
of the medium and the content generated. This work goes back to very early studies in
the 1980s of access to ICT to work in the 1990s on gender in relation to online interaction
(Herring, 1996). Exploring this literature makes clear the transition in the examination of
identity in digital media from assumptions of “anonymity” and lack of identity markers
(social cues) through to very detailed analyses of the performance of or function of social
and cultural categories in digital interaction. Current work where issues of gender
(p. 415) performance or variation are address cover topics as varied as: interpersonal sup
port (e.g., Spottswood et al., 2013), experimenting with identity in various media (e.g.,
Valkenburg & Peter, 2008), variations over time in gender behaviors online (e.g., Kapidzic
& Herring, 2011), gender and politics online (e.g., Vochocová et al., 2016), exposure to
risks online (e.g., Sasson & Mesch, 2016), the feminist examination of mobile and spatial
technologies (e.g., Leszczynski & Elwood, 2015), and many more. The methods and ap
proaches used in this work vary from controlled experiments, statistical models, and so
cio-linguistic analysis through to ethnographic observation, with theoretical approaches
varying from feminist linguistics to cognitive psychology. This all points to the fact that
questions of gender variations, gender inequalities, and the gendered performance of
identity in digital media remain key topics.
Education. As noted earlier, much of the work prior to 2000 on online community fo
cused on workplace and educational settings. This focus remains in the literature studied
here but with a growing focus on the use of social media platforms rather than bespoke
educational systems (e.g., Lampe et al., 2011). That said, a further analysis points to a
methodological reason for the prominence of an educational topics and concepts in the
literature. A very large proportion of the studies undertaken involve university students,
adolescents, and young people. There are a variety of reasons for this, one of the key ones
being that they are usually the early adopters of new digital media.
The focus on young people is extended into studies about the role and use of social media
in protests, social movements, and other types of civic mobilization. Boulianne’s (2015)
meta-analysis of 36 studies of social media and citizen engagement shows that the
strongest relationship between the use of social media and involvement civic or political
activities is by 18- and 24-year-olds. However, given the development media-hybridity
(Chadwick & Dennis, 2017) in political communication, attention is beginning to be fo
cused more on other age groups especially in areas of community, civic and political en
gagement (Wessels, 2018). Very often the focus is not directly on the age groups of those
using social media but rather on the contexts and purposes of use. These include, for ex
Page 23 of 42
ample, the way social media was used to organize clear-up activities in the 2014 floods in
England (Miller, 2015) and for mapping local social activities.
Summary. Our review therefore suggests that this domain is a relatively well-researched
area yielding reliable findings from a range of disciplines, wide scale surveys, and experi
ments.
As we described in chapter 2, the content analysis builds on Borah’s (2017) approach to

analyzing a set of communications and media literature in regard to digital media use. Ta
ble 14.5 details the results with regard to the empirical approach taken in the literature.
Most of the analyzed papers (62%) were mainly “inductive,” either describing findings or
building theory and 38% were deductive and undertook theory testing. (p. 416) The pa
pers were split between 57% of papers that undertook primary or secondary data work
with against 43% that undertook discursive reviews of, or were reflective on, existing re
search (Table 14.6). The main disciplines from which theory was used or for which theory
was developed were: Sociology (38.1%), Psychology (30.9%), and Communication and me
dia (19.6%).
It is important to note that only actual use of theory for the purposes of design, synthesis
or analysis were coded. General references to prior work and theory, such as broad refer
ence to “network society” (e.g., Castells) or the general discussion of ideas of “communi
ty” were not coded. This distinction is important as it highlights the use of theory to de
sign and analyze data or synthesize materials, as distinct from more general discussion.
There was considerable variety in the specific theories applied from three main disci
plines. Though there was no substantive clear preference, the most common theories
were:
• Sociological theories (38.1%), including Social network analysis (4%) and Technology
acceptance models (3%)
• Psychological theories (30.9%), including Social identity theory (7%) and Self-catego
rization theory (3%)
• Communications and media theories (19.6%), all identified as “Computer-mediated
communication” approaches
The main research methods were relatively evenly split across surveys (14%), interviews
(14%), literature reviews (14%) and experiments (12%; Table 14.7). The majority of the
empirical work focused on specific groups (e.g., Students or Twitter users) with a limited
number (14.3%) of general population studies (Table 14.8). Less than 3% of studies overt
ly stated that they were using a “big data” approach.
Page 24 of 42
(p. 417) Table 14.5 Epistemological Approach
Percent
Percent
Page 25 of 42
Percent
No clear methods 14.8
Survey 14.2
Interview(s) 13.5
Experiment 11.5
Ethnography 6.1
Theory building 5.4
Other 2.7
Focus groups 2.0
Percent
Case study(ies) 14.4
Specific group 71.4
Delphi Review
The literature review analysis explored the themes to be found within recent research
publications. The following section details the results of the Delphi process for the citi
zenship and politics domain. There were three parts to the Delphi review: an initial sur
Page 26 of 42
vey, a confirmatory questionnaire to address the findings from the survey, and a confirma
tory workshop. The goal of the Delphi process was to identify and prioritize areas for fu
ture research. These might include areas already covered by literature, but also new con
cerns, or the needs for a tighter focus on a specific issue. The process sought to identify
suggested future scoping or research questions, key topics to address within these ques
tions, and key challenges that might be encountered when researching these questions.
The Delphi review identified a set of scoping questions for the domain. These were coded
into the three categories detailed in Table 14.9. These are listed in order of their initial
and confirmatory survey ranked importance which matched, unlike some other.
Page 27 of 42
(p. 420) Table 14.9 Delphi Review Scoping Questions
Question cat Example questions

egory
Community What is the glue that binds members to these

membership communities?
and processes What different effects do digital technologies
have on communities?
Do digital technologies enhance or limit people’s
sense of belonging in local, national and transna
tional communities?
What are the net benefits of participation in on
line communities, considering both the positives
(e.g., social support, information exchange) and
the negatives (e.g., trolling, astroturfing) associ
ated with online groups?
What questions do we need to ask in relation to
the reconfiguration of communities in a digital
age that enable us to understand the politics and
socio-technical dimensions at play?
How has the definition of ‘community’ evolved
since the inception of the digital age? (Relatedly:
How do “digital natives”—people born since the
mid-1980s who have never known a world with
out the Internet—define ‘community’)
Defining iden What are the differences in how we define our

tity online selves in a digital age by gender, class, age, etc.?
What does “identity” refer to in an online context
and must it always be assumed there is a connec
tion between identity and authenticity?
What is an authentic identity these days anyway?
What are the implications of the digital on ques
tions of identity?
How does the digital enable or disenable us to
ask better questions of identity?
How does personal identity evolve (or not) in the
context of these communities?
Understand How are digital technologies being used to sup

ing remote re port interaction over distance?
lationships
Page 28 of 42
The consultation workshop noted that online vs offline is too much of a duality, as
(p. 418)
many communities have blended media use, which extensive research also shows. The
workshop also pointed out that the proposed questions from the Delphi survey focused
more on community than identity, and that understanding the relationship between iden
tity and community online is a key current and future research issue. They added that a
more contemporary question might be that of understanding the specifics or different
digital communities, building on the more general work already done. The workshop also
highlighted the challenge of managing identity—pseudo-anonymity, authenticity, actual
anonymity, and genuineness—and has argued that much of the existing research and the
Delphi materials appears to have an overly positive take on digital participation—there is
a need for work on negative aspects and the impacts of forced digital community partici
pation.
The topics within these areas identified in the Delphi review were coded into seven cate
gories. Table 14.10 lists the percentage of responses in each category. Table 14.11 (p. 419)
provides the ranked importance that respondents gave to categories, derived from the
confirmatory survey. There is clearly a strong overlap between both lists in this case, indi
cating that the categories repeatedly identified by respondents were also those they con
sidered most important.
Table 14.10 Key Topics Ranked by Percent of Delphi Survey Respons

es
Topic Per Topic Per

cent cent
Exclusion/Inclusion 17 Ethics 4
Participation, action and so 17 Legal 4

cial change
Diaspora 13 Meth 4
ods
Gender/race/ethnicity 13 Norms 4
Power 8 Toler 4
ance
Citizenship 4 Urban 4
Digital labor 4
Page 29 of 42

tant tant
Digital Com 87.5% 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

munity Exclu
sion/Inclusion
Digital com 87.5 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

munity partic
ipation, action
and social
change
Power in on 75.0 12.5 12.5 0.0 0.0

line communi
ties
Understand 37.5 50.0 12.5 0.0 0.0

ing global di
aspora as digi
tal communi
ties
Page 30 of 42
Understand 37.5 37.5 25.0 0.0 0.0

ing function of
aspects of
identity online
(Gender/Race/
Ethnicity/Sex
uality)
Page 31 of 42
The consultation workshop noted that these topics were important but already well stud
ied for the majority of digital media. However, they also noted that new digital platforms
lead to new challenges. The workshop also considered the considerable crossover to the
Communication and Relationship domain. Workshop participants also identified potential
gaps in the Delphi topics list, namely: the need to include “social class” as an element of
digital identity, the need for a greater focus on identity rather than demographics, and
that for work with diaspora there is the need to avoid assuming the goal is simply about
national or community integration.
Research Challenges
In regard to the challenges of undertaking research in this area, six categories were iden
tified in the data from the Delphi survey. Table 14.12 lists these categories and their rank
based on the number of coded items, while Table 14.13 shows their ranking based on the
confirmation survey. There is some divergence in the rankings, with methods coming at
the top of the confirmation survey results, but a holistic understanding of online and of
fline behavior as the most frequently mentioned research challenge. In this case, all of
the challenges are also shared with other domains.
Challenge Percent
Holistic understanding of online and offline behav 33

ior
Ethics of dealing with digital data 24
Methods to address complexity of digital media use 24
Big data—developing and utilizing large databases 10

and corpora
Comparative historical (diachronic) analysis of digi 5

tal media use
Representation of outputs 5
Page 32 of 42

tant tant
Methods to 75.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

address com
plexity of digi
tal media use
Ethics of deal 62.5 37.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

ing with digi
tal data
Holistic un 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

derstanding of
online and of
fline behavior
Big data—de 12.5 75.0 12.5 0.0 0.0

veloping and
utilizing large
databases and
corpora
Page 33 of 42
Comparative 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

historical (di
achronic)
analysis of
digital media
use
Page 34 of 42
The consultation workshop dug a little deeper into these lists and identified specific fur
ther challenges for research in this domain, namely:
(p. 421)
• history and culture are important to the development of online community

• how identity gets lost outside citizens control when it becomes part of big data
• ethics of platforms use of big data, and
• understanding privacy in online communities
In conclusion, as with the other domains, we believe that the complexity and variety of
potential work warrants consideration to be taken of all the question, topics, and chal
lenges identified. While noting this, we would argue that the analysis here has identified
the following key areas for future research:
• Community membership and processes

• Defining identity online
• Understanding remote relationships
Within these areas the top five topics to consider are

• Digital community participation
• Action and social change
• Power in online communities
• Understanding global diaspora as digital communities
• Understanding function of aspects of identity online (gender, race, ethnicity, sexuali
ty)
In sum, key domain-specific challenges are around the holistic understanding of online
and offline behavior within citizens’ lifeworlds.
Conclusion
What appears as a new concern in the Delphi materials that is not as present in the litera
ture is a range of concerns associated with issues of inequality in both access to and par
ticipation in online communities. The proposed research areas may typically probe
whether digital processes can include or exclude certain individuals/groups/communities
and if differences within and amongst these, whether physical, social, political or cultural,
have a negative bearing on the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion. The review high
lights that questions about identification, intersectionality, and tackling of systems of dis
crimination or disadvantage are of primary importance in understanding contemporary
processes of “digital opt out” and “digital opt in.” This contrasts with much early work
Page 35 of 42
(1985–2000) on computer-mediated communication that emphasized the potential of a

progressively developed digital age, and was, in some of its early manifestations at least,
overly optimistic or utopian about the democratizing potentials of digital (p. 422) technolo
gies. There therefore remains a question about what current platforms might offer in
terms of addressing, or reinforcing, persistent inequality.
Overall we argue that the following issues need to be addressed. First, there should be
more comprehensive research into identity and community to generate a deeper under
standing of computer mediated communication (CMC) in terms of how, why, and where
individual identities are formed. Second, what is important to communities (digital, face-
to-face, or more likely blended) is the way digital services feature in community life.
Third, we need to improve our understanding of how online systems can be better de
signed to support communities. Fourth, research on understanding and analyses of the
dynamics of various types of online communities should beyond the knowledge gained in
the late 1990s and early 2000s. Fifth, research is needed in issues around digital skills
and how different communities or groups are impacted by linguistic and cultural specifici
ties, and the ways in which they engage with and utilize digital technologies. Sixth, an in
vestigation of digital diasporas, including their cultural, social, and political configura
tions and transformations of and through digital connectivity, is required. For example,
more research is needed about connected migrants—how migrants and refugees are us
ing digital technologies to connect with others, to find their place in the world, and to de
velop skills for employment and integration. Seventh, we need to understand how partici
pation in digital communities influences collective action, either from among members of
that community, or by members engaging collectively beyond those communities. Finally,
we need more critical analysis of online participation, i.e., what it means for individuals,
social groups, and society and is it empowering, exploitive, or both?
Existing research has employed fairly traditional methods such as surveys and interviews.
It is orientated towards psychological and sociological approaches, with some Informa
tion studies research. The work does not appear to have extensively employed digital
tools and big data methods, though those approaches are becoming more prominent.
Most notably the work appears to have been less “platform driven” or “platform specific,”
but does tend to emphasize children and younger people.
Moreover, the future research scopes identified in the Delphi process are substantially
similar: Community membership and processes, defining identity online, and understand
ing remote relationships. While this has remained relatively constant, the notable shift is
in the topics and challenges identified. As with other domains, there is a shift away from
technology and platform foci to broader social science questions, though there remain
some overlapping areas. As noted in the confirmatory workshop discussion, there is a
greater concern with the negative aspects of online identity and community. As with the
Communication and Relationships domain, there is a concern to look at multi-platform or
“holistic” aspects of digital media use. Suggested future topic areas include: digital com
munity exclusion/inclusion, digital community participation, action and social change,
power in online communities, understanding global diaspora as digital communities, and
Page 36 of 42
understanding function of aspects of identity online (gender/race/ethnicity/sexuality). The

key domain-specific challenge is an holistic understanding of combined online and offline
behavior.
References
616–636.
Boulianne, S. (2015). Social media use and participation: A meta-analysis of current re
search. Information, Communication and Society, 18(5), 524–538.
Chadwick, A. & Dennis, J. (2017). Social media, professional media and mobilization in
contemporary Britain: Explaining the strengths and weaknesses of the citizen’s move
ment 38 Degrees. Political Studies, 65(1), 931–950.
De Souza, C. S. & Preece, J. (2004). A framework for analyzing and understanding online
communities. Interacting with Computers, 16(3), 579–610.
Herring, S. (1996). Gender and democracy in computer-mediated communication. In R.

Kling (Ed.), Computerisation and controversy: Value conflicts and social choices (pp. 476–
489). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hiltz, S. R. & Turoff, M. (1978). Network nation: Human communication via computer.
Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Kapidzic, S. & Herring, S. C. (2011). Gender, communication, and self-presentation in

teen chatrooms revisited: Have patterns changed? Journal of Computer-Mediated Com
munication, 17(1), 39–59.
Katz, J. E. & Aakhus, M. (Eds.). (2002). Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private
talk, public performance. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., & David, K. (2004). Personal mediated
communication and the concept of community in theory and practice. In P. Kalbfleisch
(Ed.), Communication and community, communication yearbook 28 (pp. 315–370). Mah
wah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kraut, R. E. & Resnick, P. (Eds.) (2011). Building successful online communities: Evi
dence-based social design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lampe, C., Wohn, D. Y., Vitak, J., Ellison, N. B., & Wash, R. (2011). Student use of
(p. 424)
Facebook for organizing collaborative classroom activities. International Journal of Com

puter-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(3), 329–347.
Leszczynski, A. & Elwood, S. (2015). Feminist geographies of new spatial media. The
Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien, 59(1), 12–28.
Page 37 of 42
Ling, R. (2004). Just connect The social world of the mobile phone. Psychology Review,
11, 10–13.
Livingstone, S. (2003). Children’s use of the Internet: Reflections on the emerging re
search agenda. New Media & Society, 5(2), 147–166.
Livingstone, S. & Görzig, A. (2014). When adolescents receive sexual messages on the in
ternet: Explaining experiences of risk and harm. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 8–15.
Mason, R. & Kaye, A. (Eds.). (1989). Mindweave: Communication, computers, and dis
tance education. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Mesch, G. S. & Talmud, I. (2006). Online friendship formation, communication channels,

and social closeness. International Journal of Internet Science, 1(1), 29–44.
Miller, C. (2015). Social action on social media. London: Nesta.
Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & Hamilton, A. (2012). Measuring digital citizenship: Mo
bile access and broadband. International Journal of Communication, 6(37), 2492–2528.
Mynatt, E. D., Adler, A., Ito, M., & O’Day, V. L. (1997, March). Design for network commu
nities. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing sys
tems (pp. 210–217). ACM.
Panagakos, A. N. & Horst, H. A. (2006). Return to Cyberia: Technology and the social
worlds of transnational migrants. Global Networks, 6(2), 109–124.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? Side-
effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25(6), 689–715.
Preece, J. (2002). Supporting community and building social capital. Communications of

the ACM, 45(4), 37–39.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community.
New York: Simon and Schuster.
Rainie, L., & Wellman, B. (2012). Networked. The new social operating system. Massa
chussets: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Finding connection in a computerized

world. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.
Sasson, H. & Mesch, G. (2016). Gender differences in the factors explaining risky behav
iour online. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(5), 973–985.
Spears, R., Lea, M., Corneliussen, R. A., Postmes, T., & Haar, W. T. (2002). Computer-me
diated communication as a channel for social resistance: The strategic side of SIDE. Small
Group Research, 33(5), 555–574.
Page 38 of 42
Spottswood, E. L., Walther, J. B., Holmstrom, A. J., & Ellison, N. B. (2013). Person-cen
tered emotional support and gender attributions in computer-mediated communication.
Human Communication Research, 39(3), 295–316.
Steinfield, C., Ellison, N. B., & Lampe, C. (2008). Social capital, self-esteem, and use of
online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psy
chology, 29(6), 434–445.
Subrahmanyam, K., Greenfield, P., Kraut, R., & Gross, E. (2001). The impact of computer
use on children’s and adolescents’ development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psy
chology, 22(1), 7–30.
Turkle, S. (1984). The second self: Computers and the human spirit. New York,
(p. 425)
NY: Harper-Collins.
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York, NY: Si
mon & Schuster.
Turkle, S. (1999). Cyberspace and identity. Contemporary Sociology, 28(6), 643–648.
Valkenburg, P. M. & Peter, J. (2008). Adolescents’ identity experiments on the Internet:

Consequences for social competence and self-concept unity. Communication Research,
35(2), 208–231.
Valkenburg, P. M. & Peter, J. (2009). The effects of instant messaging on the quality of
adolescents’ existing friendships: A longitudinal study. Journal of Communication, 59(1),
79–97.
Wellman, B. & Haythornthwaite, C. (Eds.) (2002). The Internet in everyday life. Hoboken,
NJ: Blackwell Publishing.
Wellman, B. & Rainie, L. (2014). Networked: The new social operating system.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Wessels, B. (2018). Communicative-civicness: Social media and political culture. London:

Routledge.
Wright, K. B., Rosenberg, J., Egbert, N., Ploeger, N. A., Bernard, D. R., & King, S. (2013).
Communication competence, social support, and depression among college students: A
model of Facebook and face-to-face support network influence. Journal of Health Commu
nication, 18(1), 41–57.
Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Page 39 of 42
Notes:
(1.) As part of the review, the Digital Humanities Institute at the University of Sheffield
the purposes of the review, lexical relationships were limited to high-frequency co-occur
alizations. Click on View Data Visualisations at the top. Then check/submit which of the
Simeon J. Yates
Page 40 of 42

Jordana Blejmar

Bridgette Wessels
Bridgette Wessels is Professor of Social Inequality, Department of Sociology, at the

School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow. Her research focuses
on the innovation, development, and use of digital technology and services in social
and cultural life. Recent books include Open data and knowledge society (2017, Ams
terdam University Press) and Communicative civic-ness: Social media and political
culture (2018, Routledge). She is a co-investigator on the ESRC project Ways of Be
ing in the Digital Age, and she is Principal Investigator on the AHRC funded project
“Beyond the Multiplex: Audiences for Specialized Film in English Regions,” which is
using digital humanities methods. Other examples of funded work include research
on telehealth, social media, digital social research methodologies, women, work and
technology (NordWit project), journalism in the digital age (REGPRESS project), and
mobile networks (COST network: Social Networks and Travel Behaviour).
Claire Taylor
Claire Taylor is Gilmour Chair of Spanish and Professor of Hispanic Studies at the
University of Liverpool. She is a specialist in Latin American literature and culture
and has published widely on a range of writers, artists, and genres from across the
region. Her particular geographical areas of interest are Colombia, Argentina, and
Chile, although she also worked on literature, art, and culture from other regions.
Within Latin American Cultural Studies, she takes a particular interest in the varied
literary and cultural genres being developed online by Latin(o) Americans, especially
hypertext novels, e-poetry, and net art. She has published numerous articles and
book chapters on these topics, and she is the co-author of the recent volume Latin
American identity in online cultural production (New York: Routledge, 2012) and au
thor of the recent monograph Place and politics in Latin America digital culture: Lo
cation and Latin American net art (New York: Routledge, 2014). She is currently
Page 41 of 42
working on an AHRC-funded project focusing on memory, victims, and representation

of the Colombian conflict.
Page 42 of 42
Workplace “Digital Culture” and the Uptake of Digital Solutions: Personal
and Organizational Factors
Workplace “Digital Culture” and the Uptake of Digital

Solutions: Personal and Organizational Factors
Simeon J. Yates and Eleanor Lockley
This chapter reviews prior work on technology acceptance and then reports on a national
ly representative survey of UK employees exploring both employee’s personal experi
ences of digital technologies at home and work and their evaluations of the effectiveness
of the technologies and the “digital culture” in their organization. Presenting the results
of 3040 UK workers, it seeks to explore the factors that influence digital roll-outs by fo
cusing on the experiences and perceptions of the UK workforce as a whole, with the ex
pectation that introducing new technology alone isn’t enough. This research explores how
“digitally ready” organizations are in the UK in terms of people, processes, and company
culture. It concludes that a large proportion of the UK workforce are not seeing the bene
fits of digital technologies. Importantly, there is a need for organizations to understand
that making digital solutions a success is a process of cultural change in their organiza
tion.
Keywords: cultural change, digital culture, digital roll-outs, digital solutions, digital technologies, UK employees,
UK workforce
Introduction
THE study of technology acceptance has generally focused on single technologies in spe
cific contexts, be that home, work, or a business sector. This chapter addresses the broad
er question of technology acceptance across the UK workforce as a whole. In doing so the
chapter tries to understand the non-technical barriers to UK industry taking up digital so
lutions. Over the last 60 years there have been repeated cases of digital technologies
causing substantive disruption to business practices and markets, often with both nega
tive and transformative impacts on those businesses and markets (e.g., email, Internet, or
office software, and more recently, iTunes and Uber). Predicting such disruptions is com
plex, and at times impossible. However, the digital sector itself argues that 25% of com
panies are likely to have their business, organizational structures, or work practices dis
rupted by digital solutions over the coming three years (Bradley et al., 2015; Brecher et
Page 1 of 46
al., 2016). This chapter is not focused on predicting such transformations, but rather
seeks to understand the broad organizational factors that might impact the ability of busi
nesses and institutions to respond to digital change. Tied to this is the fact that digital
technologies pervade the home as much as work. In everyday life, the ease of use of such
things as smart phones and apps gives the impression that the public, that is the work
force, can easily take on new technologies. Ensuring the engagement of the workforce is
essential when organizations are actively trying to prepare for digital (p. 370) disruption,
or to implement new digital solutions (Edwards & Ramirez, 2016; Reynolds, 2015). This
leads to questioning the extent to which organizations can rely upon digital skills trans
ferring from domestic or non-work settings to the workplace.
The public and media perception of the UK as a technologically and digitally engaged so
ciety masks a far more complex and less optimistic reality. This is very much the case for
personal digital media use, with considerable class and age differences in access and use
(see Yates et al., 2015; Yates & Lockley, 2018; and Chapter 15 in this volume). As prior re
search on commercial organizations has found, a large proportion (43%) of businesses
have yet to respond at a leadership or board level to the disruption that digital technolo
gies may bring to their sectors (Loucks et al., 2016). Others have found that around 30%
of UK SMEs are not online or using the Internet in very limited ways (Lloyds Bank, 2017).
One link between these home and work issues has been the focus of much government
policy on closing the digital divide by ensuring digital access at home (see GOV.UK, 2014:
Digital Inclusion Strategy). This is in part because it is assumed that digital skills at home
will transfer to other aspects of citizens’ lives. The digital divide at work, both between
organizations and their workers, has not been a major concern until recently—for exam
ple, moves to bring coding to the curriculum and the identification of substantive IT skills
gaps in the workforce. A future research and policy challenge is to understand access to
and use of digital in UK small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs).
As an initial step in understanding these issues, this chapter reports on a national survey
of UK employees of all grades and sectors. This survey explores employees’ personal ex
periences of digital technologies at home and work, their evaluations of the effectiveness
of the technologies, and the digital culture in their organization. In some research (Robey
& Azevedo, 1994), much digital industry marketing, and more general media coverage,
digital technologies are claimed to be quick and efficient fixes to complex organizational
issues (Lloyds Bank, 2017). This, along with potential digital transformations and issues
of access, use, and skills creates considerable challenges around ensuring the success of
digital technologies in the workplace. Such challenges raise questions about which orga
nizations are best able to manage such change, as well as the types of organizations and
the economic sectors that are engaging with new digital solutions. Questions considering
the major barriers to uptake are also important—especially practical challenges such as
finances and legacy systems, or issues of leadership, vision, and organizational culture.
By taking a national workers’ perspective, this chapter fills a gap identified in research
that looks into attitudes to digital technology acceptance. It explores the factors that in
fluence digital roll-outs by focusing on the experiences and perceptions of the UK work
Page 2 of 46
force as a whole with the expectation that introducing new technology alone is not
enough.
This chapter presents a review of approaches to technology uptake and applies the ideas
to the survey of 3040 UK workers, and is divided into eight sections. The background to
the report, including prior academic work concerning technology acceptance and the
framing of the research questions, is presented in section two. Section three examines
which organizations are rolling out new digital solutions, analyzed by sector and by orga
nization size. Section four examines the UK workforce’s experience with and use of digi
tal technologies at home. The experience of digital technologies and their implementation
at work by (p. 371) organization sector and size follows in section five. Section six further
explores the communication channels used by organizations when rolling out new digital
solutions. Section seven examines the UK workforce’s experience of organizational barri
ers to the implementation of digital solutions. Section eight develops a statistical model of
the most important factors that influence perceptions of the success (or not) of new digi
tal solutions, based upon the results from the previous sections. The chapter ends with an
overall summary, the importance of culture and strategy, and final conclusions including
the role of leadership.
Understanding and Measuring Technology Ac

ceptance Factors
Technologies don’t just drop into place or spontaneously emerge; at both home and work
they have to become accepted. Technology acceptance models (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh,
2000; Venkatesh et al., 2003) have tended to focus on two areas:
• Perceived usefulness—the extent to which a worker or home user believes that using
a technology would enhance the task they are engaged in
• Perceived ease-of-use—the extent to which a worker or home user believes that using
a technology would be free from substantive effort
These two issues have been measured in a variety of ways in a range of studies (Adams,
et al., 1992; Segers & Grover, 1993; Szajna, 1994). Many of these studies have a very indi
vidualistic focus—they look at the motivations and rational behaviors of individual users.
The organizational or personal situation of users is a context in which they engage with
the technology. More recent research by Venkatesh and Davis (2000) has identified four
factors to explore:
• Performance expectancy, parallel to perceived usefulness, is the degree to which an

individual believes that using the system will help him or her to attain gains in job per
formance.
• Effort expectancy, parallel to perceived ease-of-use, is the degree of ease associated
with the use of the system.
Page 3 of 46
• Social influence is the degree to which an individual perceives that important others
believe he or she should use the new system.
• Facilitating conditions are the degree to which an individual believes that an organi
zational and technical infrastructure exists to support use of the system (Venkatesh &
Davis, 2000).
This chapter considers the role of context as well as personal factors implicit in these four
factors. It therefore explores how personal attitudes, use, and confidence mix with orga
nizational culture to influence attitudes to digital technologies at work.
This research has looked at the issue across a national sample of the UK work
(p. 372)
force, whereas technology acceptance models have tended to be applied to specific case
studies. These are mainly studies of the uptake of technologies by specific organizations,
from SME’s to large corporate organizations (Bruque & Moyano, 2007; Fitzgerald et al.,
2013). The majority of case studies are also focused on one single technology (e.g., social
media; Abduwaila & Ali 2013; Rauniar et al., 2014), or sector (e.g., healthcare; Cresswell
& Sheikh, 2013; Xie et al., 2013, or ICT and telecommunications; Barnes, 2012). This
chapter therefore presents a unique national picture of the issues, challenges, and best
practice around digital technology uptake and acceptance by the UK workforce.
Making use of the technology acceptance approach described above, a set of personal
and work factors that could be assessed were identified. Often ease of use, expected ease
of use; performance, and effort are measured in relation to specific technologies. The UK
workforce is today exposed to as many if not more technologies at home as they are at
work. It was therefore important to assess different aspects of home and work use: from
confidence, to the types and range of digital technology use. The survey questions about
the UK workforce’s personal use across home and work included
• Personal experience and confidence at home: confidence, acceptance of new technol

ogy in the home, and range of home use (using measures taken from the Ofcom, 2016
media literacy survey)
• Personal experience and confidence at work: confidence, and being a knowledge
worker
To understand the social and facilitating issues highlighted by technology acceptance

models the questions were split across
• Organizational challenges (predominantly facilitating issues): company/organization

al sector, company/organization size, and Internal organizational issues (e.g., finances
and legacy systems)
• Organizational culture (predominantly social issues): attitudes to digital in the orga
nization, and digital leadership in the organization
Page 4 of 46
Survey and Analysis Methods

Defining Digital Solutions
What is meant by “the roll-out of digital solutions”? Often the focus is on high end, big
ticket, or disruptive digital technologies such as cloud solutions, social media, and mobile
applications. The UK workforce is more likely to encounter a wider range of business-crit
ical systems such as clocking on tools, or regulatory compliance tools. Considering this,
the following was articulated to all of the respondents at the start of the survey:
(p. 373)
In this survey we are interested in understanding your use of digital technologies

at work and in your home. When we talk about digital technologies we specifically
mean software, apps, devices, and any equipment that uses the internet to play a
role in digitizing documents, processes or tasks.
The survey included Table 13.1 to provide examples and a reference point for respon
dents.
Page 5 of 46
Table 13.1 Defining Digital Solutions
Work activity Examples
Systems to manage people Online timesheet or expenses sys

in your workplace tems/Social recruitment tools
Systems to manage the fi eInvoicing tools/Digital document

nances and official docu archiving/Online billing and pay
ments in your workplace ment solutions
Sales and customer service Online customer journey mapping/

systems relationship management/commu
nications tools
Marketing systems Web/email/social media marketing

tools/Digital customer data or in
telligence tools
Management systems Digital business intelligence tools/

Online business process manage
ment systems
Information systems for Remote diagnostics/maintenance

work place, shop floor or tools/design tools/Systems to con
remote working trol or manage manufacturing
processes
Communications tools Mobile devices/Workplace commu

nications/social media
Sample and Analyses
The survey comprised 3040 online interviews with UK employees aged 16 and over. Data
was gathered between April 12 and 16, 2016. The survey was a nationally representative
structured sample of UK employees based on an existing panel managed by Censuswide
(www.censuswide.com). The survey was designed by the authors and administered by
Censuswide.
The data were subjected to a range of statistical analyses:
• Categorical data were subjected to χ2 analyses, and statistically significant variations

between cells were identified by column proportion z-tests.
Page 6 of 46
• Ordinal and ratio data relations were subjected to bivariate correlation analyses, us
ing both Pearson and Spearman methods as appropriate.
• Comparison of ordinal and ratio data by category was undertaken using General Lin
ear Modelling (ANOVA, MANOVA).
(p. 374) • Home use data was grouped using the K-means Cluster method.
• The overall regression model was developed using SPSS Automatic Linear Modelling.
• Significance levels were set at p < .05, and for multiple tests significance levels were
set using the Bonferroni method
The Extent to which UK Organizations and Sec

tors Are Digitizing
The survey sought to understand the overall national position in terms of who, how many,
and why digital technologies are being rolled out. The UK workforce responses about the
existent roll-outs are compared by organizational size and sector variations to answer
three questions:
• Whether there have been roll-outs

• How many roll-outs
• If UK workers have perceived an increase in the rate of roll-outs
Presence and Number of Digital Roll-Outs, by Organizational Size

and Sector
As the survey covered a representative sample of the UK workforce, this includes people
who do not use digital technologies at work, and those who have not seen any new digital
tools at work for quite some time. Indeed, overall 29% of the surveyed workers were not
aware of digital solutions being rolled out in their organizations. This number is in line
with prior research that found over 30% of SMEs were not online and not using many, if
any, digital tools (Lloyds Bank, 2017). Taking a binary measure of workers’ experiencing
digital rollouts (or not), employees of smaller organizations were statistically significantly
more likely to indicate that they had not experienced digital rollouts (see Figure 13.1;
one-way ANOVA, Welch (1, 3039) = 1384.6, p < .001, with a medium effect size (η2 [eta
squared] = .54)).
Page 7 of 46
Figure 13.1 Digital roll-outs (or not) by company

size.
The size of an organization might influence the number of digital solutions that the UK
workforce encounters. Looking at the number of new digital solutions the UK workforce
has reported, there is a statistically significant difference in relation to the size of organi
zations (one-way ANOVA, Welch (6, 2369) = 800.6, p < .001, medium to large effect size
(η2 = .11), with the average company size for no roll-outs being 50–99 employees. Those
working in organizations of 100 or more people are more likely to have encountered three
or more new digital technologies over the last two years than those in smaller organiza
tions (see Figure 13.2 and Table 13.2).
Figure 13.2 Number of digital roll-outs by organiza

tion size (area represents proportion of cases).
Page 8 of 46
Table 13.2 Organization Size and Number of Digital Roll-Outs
Number of new digital solutions Average company size
None 50–99
One 100–249
Many 250–500
(p. 375) While more than 60% of the UK workforce in all sectors had knowledge of
(p. 376)
a digital solution roll-out in their organization, there are statistically significant differ
ences between the most active and least active sectors in terms of undertaking any digi
tal roll-outs (chi-square test, χ2 (13, 3039) = 93.75, p < .001, small to medium Cramer’s V
= .18). Comparing proportions (z-tests at p < .05 with Bonferroni adjustment), the work
force in the Other, Retail, and Catering & Leisure sectors were the least likely to see new
digital solutions. Not surprisingly, IT and telecoms, followed by Finance and by Profes
sional services, were statistically the most likely (see Figure 13.3).
Figure 13.3 Roll-outs or not by sector.
The number of roll-outs the UK workforce has experienced at work in the last two
(p. 377)
years also significantly varies across sectors. The same sectors as above are statistically
more likely to have new digital solutions than the other sectors (see Figure 13.4; one-way
ANOVA, Welch (13, 2369) = 8.85, p < .001, small effect size (η2 = .05)).
Page 9 of 46
Figure 13.4 Digital solution roll-outs by sector (area

represents proportion of cases).
Increase in Digital Solutions Being Used, by Organizational Size and

Sector
The survey also asked if the UK workforce had seen an increase in the number of digital
solutions deployed in their industry in the last two years. Employees of smaller organiza
tions were statistically less likely to report this (one-way ANOVA, Welch (2, 3040) = 16.5,
p < .001), but the effect size was very small (η2 = .01). There are some statistical differ
ences by sector (χ2 (13, 2616) = 37.53, p < .001, small to medium Cramer’s V = .12).
Based on comparing proportions (z-tests at p < .05 with Bonferroni adjustment), workers
in the IT & Telecoms sector were statistically most likely to indicate they had seen an in
crease in new solutions, while workers in the Other and in the Travel and transport sec
tors were the least likely (see Figure 13.5).
Page 10 of 46
Figure 13.5 Increase in roll-outs over the last two

years by sector.
(p. 378) Reasons for Digital Roll-outs, by Organizational Size and Sec
tor
Respondents who had experienced digital roll-outs were asked what they thought the
organization’s goals or reasoning had been for the implementation. The three main rea
sons given by the UK workforce were to cut costs, automate processes, and improve pro
ductivity (see Figure 13.6).
Figure 13.6 Reasons for digital roll-outs.
Page 11 of 46
There were some statistical differences by company size (χ2 (54, 9296) = 190.50, p < .
001, small to medium Cramer’s V = .12). Comparing proportions (z-tests at p < .05 with
Bonferroni adjustment), we find that workers in organizations with more than 500 em
ployees were statistically most likely to point to automation of processes. Those in organi
zations with 50 to 249 employees were more likely than those in larger organizations
(p. 379) to point to meeting regulatory requirements as a key reason, while those in orga
nizations with under 50 employees were less likely to point to regulatory requirements.
Similarly, there were differences between sectors that indicate workers in these areas un
derstood the different business contexts for digital solutions (χ2 (117, 15,063) = 288.62, p
< .001, small to medium Cramer’s V = .14). Comparing proportions (z-tests at p < .05
with Bonferroni adjustment):
• The HR, Manufacturing & Utilities, and Professional sectors were slightly more likely
to think the goal is to make the business more competitive
• The Health Care sector was slightly more likely to see the goal as being to meet reg
ulatory requirements
• The Other sector was more likely to be unsure of the reason for rollouts.
(p. 380) Summary
Both organizational size and sector are statistically linked with the UK workforce’s expe
rience of new digital solutions in their organizations. Workers in smaller SMEs were less
likely to encounter new digital solutions whereas workers in organizations with more
than 100 employees are more likely to encounter digital solutions being implemented.
Workers in the Professional and Technology sectors were more likely to have seen digital
solutions implemented in their organization. The rate of roll-outs was also influenced by
sector.
Digital Efficacy: Digital Skills at Home and in

the Workplace
This section provides an overview of the respondents’ uses of, and levels of confidence in,
digital technology use at home. Ofcom’s 2016 report found that 87% of the UK population
had been online in the previous year, a number that has been relatively consistent over
the last three years. What is changing is that the use of laptops and desktops to go online
is decreasing as the use of smart phones and tablets rises. This might mark a shift to us
ing mobile smart devices at home, while continuing to use laptops/desktops at work in the
medium term. Such a shift would make the personal and work experience of digital tech
nologies quite different.
Page 12 of 46
Confidence and Use at Home and at Work
UK workers generally felt confident in technology use at home (Table 13.3), and the ma
jority liked to have new technology at home (Table 13.4).
Table 13.3 Confidence at Home
I feel confident using digital technologies at N %

home
Totally disagree 19 1.0
Somewhat disagree 55 2.0
Neither agree or disagree 424 14.0
Somewhat agree 1168 38.0
Totally agree 1374 45.0
Total 3040 100.0
Table 13.4 Access to Technology at Home
I like to have access to the latest technology N %
Totally disagree 47 1.5
Somewhat disagree 170 5.6
Neither agree or disagree 793 26.1
Somewhat agree 1208 39.7
Totally agree 822 27.0
Total 3040 100.0
Using similar questions to Ofcom’s Media Literacy Survey (2016), Yates et al.
(p. 381)
(2015) identified five factors underlying the Ofcom Internet use questions. The current
survey deployed the five questions most strongly associated with the factors found by
Yates et al. Reponses to these were then subjected to a cluster analysis. Clustering Ofcom
respondents by their factor scores, Yates et al. identified seven categories of users. How
Page 13 of 46
ever, due to the lack of unemployed and retired respondents in our sample, it was not
likely we would find the same number of clusters.
The analysis undertook a two-stage approach to clustering the data. The first step used a
standard hierarchical cluster analysis under SPSS. As the factors were z-scores, a
squared Euclidean distance measure of cluster separation under Wards clustering
method was used. The final 10 steps of the analysis showed clear breaks in the rate of
change of the cluster coefficient scores at two, three and six clusters. Descriptive analysis
of the means for a two-cluster solution indicated that the clusters separated limited users
from the rest of the sample. Six clusters provided a more informative set of user types
than three and is therefore used here. The cluster analysis was therefore re-run with the
k-means cluster technique applied to the data with a target of six clusters and iterations
repeated until results converged. Table 13.5 presents the mean z-scores for our five fac
tor associated measures at the centroids of the clusters, and potential descriptors for
these groups.
Page 14 of 46
Workplace “Digital Culture” and the Uptake of Digital Solutions: Personal and Organizational Factors
Table 13.5 K-Means Clustering with a Target of Six Clusters
Use Only social Social me General me Politically Very limited Non-politi
media users dia and dia only active ex users cal exten
general me users tensive sive users
dia users users
Media use –1.53 .48 .38 .59 –1.59 .48

proxy
(watch TV
or films on
line)
Information –.52 –.70 –.27 1.19 –.63 .76

use proxy
(access
public ser
vices)
Political –.40 –.41 –.30 2.35 –.34 –.24

use proxy
(contact a
politician)
Formal use –.37 –.46 –.37 1.31 –.47 .34

proxy (pay
bills online)
Page 15 of 46
Social use .32 .38 –2.29 .17 –2.32 .43

proxy (use
social me
dia)
Page 16 of 46
As with the Ofcom analysis, older people were statistically more likely to use the internet
less at home and be Very limited users, General media users, or Only social media users
(one-way ANOVA, Welch (5, 2982) = 97.89, p < .001, large effect size (η2 = .13)). Also,
those in Senior manager/Professional roles were statistically more likely to be Politically
active extensive users or Non-political extensive users (χ2 (40, 2982) = 222.35, p < .001,
small to medium effect size, Cramer’s V = .12, comparing proportions (z-tests at p < .05
with Bonferroni adjustment)). The sample matches closely the national picture with re
gard to access, use, and confidence at home.
We next examine how home use and confidence is associated with attitudes and confi
dence at work. The survey directly asked about confidence in ICT use at work. Overall,
the (p. 382) UK workforce felt fairly effective in their use of digital tools at work. There
are no major statistical variations by sector or size of organization. As noted above, feel
ing effective in your use of technology is one of the key elements of technology accep
tance. These are of course responses from those workers who have experienced digital
technologies at work.
A key research question considered if home and work confidence were related. The claim
is that there is transference of digital efficacy from home to work and vice versa. In fact,
it was found that work and home confidence are only weakly statistically correlated. Giv
en that it is often claimed that younger people have greater digital skills, it was possible
that age might be a complicating factor, with young people being confident at work and
home, and older people less so. Again, though younger people are slightly more likely to
be confident with digital at home, this is a very weak statistical difference. The link is
even weaker for workplace confidence. Overall less than 1% (age) and 6.5% (home confi
dence) of the variance is explained in these correlations with respondents’ confidence
scores at work (see Table 13.6). In fact, type of work is a better predictor of (p. 383) confi
dence with digital than is age. Self-identifying knowledge workers in the survey had a sta
tistically much higher workplace confidence with digital technologies than did non-knowl
edge workers (one-way ANOVA, Welch (1, 2825) = 355.80, p < .001, very large effect size
(η2 = .83)). In contrast, level of employment was no better a predictor of workplace confi
dence than were age or home (weak correlation, r = .18, p < .01, two-tailed).
Page 17 of 46
Table 13.6 Correlations of Age, Personal Confidence, and Work Confi

dence
Age Personal confidence
Age — —
Personal confidence –.18** —
Workplace confidence –.10* .26*
(**) p < .001, Pearson correlation, two-tailed test
Summary
The sample in this survey appears to contain similar user types to that of the annual UK
national Ofcom survey of Internet use. As with the Ofcom data, age and level of employ
ment were statistically linked to user types. Within the data, workplace confidence and
home confidence were not strongly linked: organizations cannot assume that their work
force will gain the digital skills they need from home use. Additionally, although younger
people are slightly more confident than older people in their use of digital at home and
work, this is not a substantial difference. The type of work (being a knowledge worker) is
more important in relation to workplace confidence than the level of employment.
Experiences of Digital Technology Roll-Outs

This section explores the UK workforce’s experience of digital tools at work. First we ex
amine which workers are experiencing new digital tools at work, followed by workers’ at
titudes to the number of roll-outs, including their perceived success; these are compared
across sectors and work status. Lastly, the attitudes of information workers when new
tools are rolled out are explored.
Knowledge Workers and Digital Roll-Outs
Those workers who indicated that they handle knowledge and information in their work
had seen statistically significantly more roll-outs in their organization than other workers
(see Figure 13.7; one-way ANOVA, F (1, 2369) = 112.50, p < .001, medium effect size (η2
= .06)).
Page 18 of 46
Figure 13.7 Knowledge worker and number of roll-

outs.
Attitudes toward Number and Success of New Digital Solutions

Rolled Out
In terms of attitudes to the number of roll-outs, there was no statistical variation by sec
tor. Overall 65% of the UK workforce who had experienced roll-outs thought the number
of roll-outs “were about enough.” Though there are no major statistical differences
between sectors in UK the workforce’s perceptions of successful roll-outs (see
(p. 384)
Figure 13.8), a third of workers who experienced roll-outs think that only some, few, or
none of these were successful. Importantly, as argued in regard to technology accep
tance, perceptions of the success of digital roll-outs are essential to their uptake and ac
ceptance and vice versa. The analyses in earlier sections indicate that 29% of UK workers
believe they have not seen new digital solutions at work. A third of the UK workforce be
lieving that the majority of digital roll-outs they experienced were not successful presents
a significant challenge to both UK business organizations but also to the suppliers and de
velopers of solutions. Predicting this measure of perceived success from aspects of orga
nizational culture, constraints, and communication methods will be discussed below.
Figure 13.8 Proportion of digital roll-outs UK work

force thought successful.
Page 19 of 46
(p. 385) Experiences and Opinion of Roll-Outs by Job Position
Looking at the job position (level of employment) of the UK workforce, those in most pro
fessional management roles, and directors, are more likely to have experienced digital
roll-outs than other workers (see Figure 13.9, χ2 (8, 2982) = 213.94, p < .001, small to
medium effect size, Cramer’s V = .27, comparing proportions (z-tests at p < .05 with Bon
ferroni adjustment)).
Figure 13.9 Level of employment and number of roll-

outs experienced.
The survey asked workers if the new digital technologies that had been brought to their
company had made a positive or negative impact on their job role. Figure 13.10 shows the
percentage of the respondents noting each statement.
Page 20 of 46
Figure 13.10 Positive impacts of new digital tools.
Of the set of 10 possible positive impacts only three were statistically significantly associ
ated with the belief that roll-outs had been successful (univariate GLM, overall F(10,
1975) = 17.05, p < .001):
• It made it easier to do my job: (F(1, 1975) = 51.92, p < .001, small effect (ηp2 =.03))
• It made it quicker to do my job: (F(1, 1975) = 10.73, p < .001, small effect (ηp2 =.01))
• It streamlined internal processes: (F(1, 1975) = 11.98, p < .001, small effect (ηp2 = .
01))
(p. 386) This would imply that technologies that ensure these three impacts on workers’
job experience are more likely to be perceived as successful by the workforce. This fits
with the technology acceptance model described above, as perceived usefulness was a
key factor in acceptance.
Page 21 of 46
Figure 13.11 Reasons for a negative attitude.
In the case of the eight possible negative impacts (Figure 13.11), two issues were statisti
cally significantly associated with a more negative attitude to digital rollout success (uni
variate GLM, overall F(8, 1975) = 14.43, p < .001):
• It made it harder to do my job (F(1, 1975) = 4.96, p < .023, very small effect (ηp2 = .
003))
• It disrupted internal processes already in place (F(1, 1975) = 13.38, p < .001, very
small effect (ηp2 = .007))
This implies that complex systems that disrupt existing process are less likely to
(p. 387)
be seen as successful by the UK workforce. This fits with the technology acceptance mod
el described above as perceived lack usefulness was a key factor in rejection of technolo
gies.
Other General Features of UK Workforce Attitudes to Digital Technol

ogy
Before looking at how all the personal and workplace factors contribute to influence the
attitudes of the UK workforce to digital technologies, some conclusions can be drawn.
The UK workforce was predominantly digitally engaged: 83.6% stated that they have
(p. 388) confidence in their home use of digital technologies. The UK workforce were also
inclined to accept digital technologies in the workplace, with 45% stating that at least
half of their working day is spent using digital technology of some kind. Two thirds (67%)
of the respondents stated that digital technology has had a positive impact on the way
they work, with 56% saying it had made their job quicker and 50% saying it had made
their job easier. People are also pragmatic about being digital in the workplace: most
(65%) thought that the number of new digital services that had been rolled out in the past
Page 22 of 46
two years was just about right. Respondents who had experienced between three and five
roll-outs were the most positive. Workers also understood why their employers were im
plementing these services, with 58% stating it was to make the organization more pro
ductive, 51% to cut costs, and 47% to automate tasks. However, workers want a dialogue
on digital technologies: 64% said they were not all consulted prior to the provision of new
digital technologies, and 57% said they would have liked more information on how to use
new digital technologies, while 40% stated that the digital technology was not explained
effectively to them.
Organizational Challenges and Communication

The survey explored the UK workforce’s opinion of organizational challenges that might
be a barrier to digital roll-outs. In the main, the results indicate that these are tied to the
size of the organization and less so the sector they are in. Organizational size and sectors
were compared and measured against organizational challenges such as
• Access to hardware
• Connectivity
• Legacy systems
• Financial pressures
• Leaders prioritizing digital
• Not seeing the significance of digital
• Resistance to digital within areas of the organization
• Need for training
Challenges, by Organization Size, Sector, and Successful Roll-Outs
Looking at the separate questions about organizational challenges, organization size is in

all cases statistically significantly associated with level of challenges being faced. Overall,
larger SMEs (50 to 500 employees) faced the greater number of organizational chal
lenges (see Figure 13.12).
Page 23 of 46
Figure 13.12 Organization size and challenges to im

plementation of digital solutions.
(p. 389) Sector is statistically associated only with organizational resistance, and
(p. 390)
need for training. In both cases this arises from small differences between the technology
intensive and organizational change sectors (IT, Architecture and HR) and the rest of the
UK workforce.
The levels of organizational challenges were compared to whether workers thought that
roll-outs were successful. Not surprisingly, workers who thought most or all solutions
were successful work in organizations with fewer challenges (see Figure 13.13).
Figure 13.13 Levels of organizational challenge and

successful digital roll-outs.
Page 24 of 46
Communication and Leadership
Communication channels. The survey also explored what methods organizations had
used to communicate with the workforce about the implementation of new digital tech
nologies. The four main methods were (see Figure 13.14).
• Email
• Face-to-face
• Dedicated training sessions
• Company intranets
The only statistically significant difference across the sectors was that the Profes
(p. 391)
sional services sector was more likely to use company intranets than were the other sec
tors.
Figure 13.14 Communication channels used.
Successful communication. The channels used significantly differed by whether work

ers felt that they had been provided adequate communication about the roll-out (one-way
ANOVA, Welch (13, 2369) = 8.85, p < .001, small effect size (η2 =.05)) (see Figure 13.15).
The strongest positive differences across perceptions of adequate communication were:
Face-to-face interaction (Welch (3,300) = 55.47, p < .001), and dedicated training (Welch
(3, 315) = 46.99, p < .001). Third party communication, and (obviously) a lack of commu
nication, were statistically associated with workers feeling that communication was inad
equate.
Page 25 of 46
Figure 13.15 Adequate communication and commu

nication channel.
Communication channel and perceptions of successful roll-outs. Perceptions of

successful roll-outs differed significantly by communication channel (see Figure 13.16),
with the strongest positive differences for Face-to-face interaction (Welch (5,233) =
15.64, p < .001), and dedicated training (Welch (5,233) = 9.41, p < .001).
Figure 13.16 Communications channels and success

ful roll-outs.
Leadership. Four questions related to leadership around digital technology uptake in the
organization. Two questions were about positive aspects of leadership such as vision and
consultation, and two were about the absence of leadership around digital uptake and
planning. Combining these into an overall leadership score, there is a strong statistical
Page 26 of 46
relationship between high leadership scores and workers seeing digital roll-outs as being
successful (ANOVA, Welch (5, 159) = 25.84, p < .001; see Figure 13.17).
Figure 13.17 Leadership and successful roll-outs.
(p. 392) Some sectors demonstrated significantly much higher levels of digital
(p. 393)
leadership as perceived by the workforce (ANOVA, Welch (13,447) = 4.03, p < .001; see
Figure 13.18).
Figure 13.18 Leadership by sector.
Summary
Three main conclusions can be drawn from the results presented in this section. First, the
UK workforce identifies several traditional practical barriers to digital solutions—from fi
nances to organizational structures. These challenges vary by organizational size and sec
Page 27 of 46
tor. Second, internal communication is key to employees’ perceptions of digital technolo
gies, both in terms of the specifics of a new digital solution and the overall approach and
vision of digital technologies for the organization. Third, leadership is key to ensuring
that the workforce perceives digital roll-outs as successful. These may seem somewhat
obvious and good practice, but it is important to remember that digital technologies are
often introduced to “solve” organizational challenges, perhaps being seen as the “magic
silver bullet,” when in fact successful digital roll-outs occur where these (p. 394) broader
organizational, leadership, and environment issues are already being addressed: in short,
where organizational culture supports implementation of digital technologies.
Building a Model of Workplace Digital Culture

This section develops a model that explains factors that are most important in predicting
perception of successful digital roll-outs by the UK workforce. To begin with, the complex
ity of the questionnaire responses is reduced by developing measures of organizational
culture and challenges.
Measures of Organizational Culture
In the survey, 27 questions addressed workplace culture, organizational issues, and per
sonal confidence and use at both home and work. In order to make better sense of this
data and to identify underlying issues, all the items were entered into an exploratory fac
tor analysis.
All items were suitable, having correlation coefficients above.3 and communalities above .
3. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value was .91, above the recommended value of.6 and
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant (χ2 (351) = 24519.03, p < .001). The PCA re
vealed the presence of four factors explaining 33.9%, 12.5%, 6.1%, and 5.5% of the vari
ance, respectively. The rotated solution indicated a relatively simple structure showing
strong loadings and all but one of the variables loading substantially on only one compo
nent (> 0.4). There was relatively weak correlation between factors (r < .30) except for
factors 1 and 4 (r = .59). These four factors were therefore retained and factor scores
were calculated using the Anderson-Rubin method. Table 13.7 provides the items, factors,
and loadings. The four factors appear to measure:
(p. 395) (p. 396) 1. Negative digital culture

2. Positive digital culture
3. Personal confidence at home
4. Organizational challenges
Page 28 of 46
Table 13.7 Factor Analysis
Page 29 of 46
Factors and Loadings
Item 1 2 3 4
New digital solu .71 .02 −.17 .02

tions rolled out in
my workplace do
not add value
My organization .70 −.26 .01 .09

does not provide
the right support
when solutions are
rolled out
I have tried to sug .69 .11 .07 .04

gest digital tech
nologies that would
benefit our organi
zation but nothing
has come of it
Culturally, my orga .66 −.07 −.02 .19

nization is not ready
to embrace digital
solutions
Page 30 of 46
A lack of digital .63 .06 .07 .13

technologies hin
ders my ability to
do my job effective
ly
Only some of my .58 –.09 .14 .04

employees use the
digital technologies
available to us in
the workplace
I wish my organiza .57 .15 .28 .05

tion would focus on
creating a digital
culture
We have digital .50 –-.17 –.04 .28

technologies in
place already but
haven’t had the
training to make
best use of them
Page 31 of 46
Our company lead .41 .06 –.18 .46

ers don’t see digital
technologies as a
priority
Our company lead .44 .06 –.17 .46

ers don’t see the
significance of
adopting a more
digital way of work
ing
Do you have confi -.12 .74 .00 –.01

dence in the leader
ship team at your
organization to nav
igate a more digital
world?
The organization I .10 .72 .08 -.13

work for has a clear
digital vision
Page 32 of 46
As an organization, .08 .65 .18 –.14

we take pride in the
way we have adopt
ed digital technolo
gy
The digital solu .04 .64 .18 –.06

tions rolled out by
my organization
met my expecta
tions
Did the leadership .05 .63 –.07 .06

team consult em
ployees prior to the
provision of new
digital technolo
gies?
Financial incentive .36 .54 –.11 .02
Page 33 of 46
Were the potential –.28 .39 –.01 .06

benefits of these
new digital tech
nologies clearly
communicated to
you by your organi
zation?
Tied to personal de –.09 .33 .02 .03

velopment goals
I feel confident us –.16 .03 .81 .06

ing digital technolo
gies at home
I like to have access .06 .16 .74 .00

to the latest tech
nology
When not everyone .23 –.04 .52 .07

adopts digital tech
nology in the same
way it makes it less
effective
Page 34 of 46
We don’t have the –.05 –.03 .01 .87

necessary hardware
to allow us to adopt
a more digital way
of working
We don’t have the .01 –.03 –.05 .82

necessary connec
tivity to support a
more digital way of
working
The new digital sys .00 –.17 .12 .73

tems don’t easily
connect with older
systems we have in
place
Financial pressures –.03 .12 .15 .71

are preventing in
vestment in digital
technologies
Page 35 of 46
We are tied to exist .13 –.01 –.03 .70

ing tech or systems
that mean we can’t
change to more dig
ital ways of working
Our leaders are try .38 .07 –.05 .39

ing to push through
new digital ways of
working, but the
wider business isn’t
interested in chang
ing the way things
are already done
Page 36 of 46
A Model of Factors Leading to Perceived Success in Digital Technolo
gy Implementation
It is now necessary to explore how all these issues work in combination. There are four
areas of the UK workforce’s experience and attitudes that might affect their perceptions
of digital roll-outs:
• Personal confidence at home (this is measured by the factor score; it is also useful to
include other personal aspects such as gender, age, job type, and level of home use)
• Personal confidence at work (this is measured with a survey question; it is also possi
ble to include other work aspects such as being a knowledge worker and level of em
ployment)
• Organizational factors (measured using the factor score; some other organizational
issues such as the size and sector of the organization can also be included)
• Organizational cultural factors (this can be measured using the positive and negative
culture factor scores)
It was also noted previously that there is a strong correlation between perceptions of use
fulness and the UK workforce’s belief that digital roll-outs were successful. Therefore,
this has been used as a measure of engagement with digital technologies.
As this was an exploratory analysis of the data, we undertook an All Possible Regressions
or Best Subsets Regression approach. Though there is debate over this approach, it has
been recommended by scholars in a number of recent statistical methodology texts (such
as Chatterjee & Hadi, 2015; Montgomery et al., 2012). All of the measures discussed in
the previous sections were therefore placed into an Automatic linear regression under
IBM SPSS. The analysis therefore develops a model providing the highest R2 solution.
This allows us to assess how much each factor affects the proportion of perceived roll-
outs seen as being successful.
The regression analysis produced a model that predicts 27% of attitudes to digital roll-
outs. This is a reasonably robust result in the context of social research—especially given
the complexity of the social and work context being studied. Within the model the follow
ing factors were most important: Confidence with ICT at work; Positive digital culture at
work; and Negative digital culture at work. Table 13.8 and Figure 13.19 present the key
features of the model.
Page 37 of 46
Table 13.8 Key Predictors of UK Workforce Perceptions of Successful Digital Roll-Outs
Type Positive factors Importance (%) Negative factors Importance (%)
Personal Personal confidence 40 Lack of workplace 40

with digital at work digital confidence
and efficacy
Workplace Positive digital cul 26 Negative digital cul 13

ture including clear ture, including lack
leadership of leadership
Workplace Being in the arts, 6 Being in the Health, 6

professional ser Legal, and Travel
vice, retail, and sectors
Catering/Leisure
sectors
Workplace Small to medium 6 Organizational is 3

company size (0– sues—finances,
500 employees) legacy systems
Personal Personal home ICT 1 Age (35–45) 3

confidence
Page 38 of 46
Figure 13.19 Regression model of perceptions of

successful digital roll-outs.
It is notable that confidence at work is the most important predictor here, and home con
fidence the least. Though statistically significant, home confidence explains barely 1% of
the variance, compared to 40% for work confidence. Positive cultural factors also out
weigh the (p. 397) (p. 398) impact of negative ones (26% to 13%). Issues such as organiza
tional sector, age, and company size are associated with the outcome but only by a small
amount (3% to 6%).
Conclusions for Organizations from the Model
Positive attitudes to digital in the workplace are driven mainly by issues that organiza
tions can address:
• Ensuring workers feel efficacious and confident in digital tool use

• Ensuring a positive organizational culture around the value of digital with manage
ment showing clear leadership and involving the work force
There are, of course, practical problems to overcome, but these are secondary to the
workplace culture issues, with some sectors having greater challenges than others. Key
challenges perceived by workers are finances, connectivity, and legacy systems. Personal
factors such as gender, level of employment, home use, and being a knowledge worker,
though they show a significant association with perceptions of roll-outs, are not, in this
model, the major factors in predicting attitudes to digital roll-outs. Importantly, home con
fidence with digital technologies does not seem to spill over to positive attitudes at work.
Page 39 of 46
The implication for organizations is that they can shape the success of their digital roll-
outs. Organizational cultural factors outdo many traditional practical constraints. As the
technology acceptance models argue, linking the personal to the wider organization con
text is key:
• Ensuring that workers feel confident in their use of technologies through good train
ing and confidence in the leadership team through good communication
• Providing the organization with a well communicated clear digital vision
• Taking organizational pride in the adoption of digital technology
• Taking time to match digital solutions to worker expectations
• Valuing the contributions of workers and consulting employees prior to the provision
of new digital technologies
• Ensuring that digital solution use is built into staff development and rewards systems
These recommendations may seem like good “common sense,” but to take this approach
to digital technology solutions is in fact to turn the telescope around and look at the prob
lem from the opposite angle. Very often digital solutions are brought into organizations to
solve challenges that the organization faces. They are implemented to make things better
in and of themselves. However, instead they need to be considered just one part of an
overall process of culture change to address the challenges being faced—the integration
of digital technologies is only part of the solution. If organizations fail to address the cul
tural context into which they are placing often expensive and strategic digital solutions,
they risk such interventions adding to the challenges they face, not relieving them.
(p. 399) Conclusion

Overall Summary
This research represents one of the few national surveys of attitudes to digital technolo
gy. It is also one of the few national studies of attitudes and opinions of the UK workforce,
unlike for instance the Ofcom (2016) research that focuses on personal and home use, or
other commercial research that focuses on business, such as the Lloyds Bank digital in
dex (2017). Academic studies have tended to focus on smaller case studies of businesses
and single technologies (Abduwaila & Ali, 2013; Barnes, 2012; Bruque & Moyano, 2007;
Cresswell & Sheikh, 2013; Fitzgerald et al., 2013; Rauniar, Rawski, Yang, & Johnson,
2014; Xie et al., 2013). Though the results presented are very much in line with prior
studies, the findings are scaled to a national context.
This study indicates that a large proportion of the UK workforce is not seeing the benefits
of digital solutions. In line with other research (Lloyds Bank, 2017), 29% of the UK work
force has not seen new digital tools at work. A further 33% of those experiencing new
digital tools did not think the tools have been very successful. A total of just over half of
the UK workforce (51%) say they do not have access to, or are holding negative views of,
Page 40 of 46
digital technologies. The findings also indicate that there may be a disconnect between
the use of technology at home and work. Individuals may feel they are digitally effica
cious at home, but this may not transfer to work. This is important for both organizations
and government, as it cannot be assumed that people are able to transfer skills from their
everyday social use of technology to the workplace. It also cannot be assumed that “digi
tal natives” and “millennials” entering the workforce represent a skills base or a resource
to further digitize organizations (GOV.UK, 2016).
Thus the challenges of making a digital UK cannot be solved simply by implementing the
latest new technology. Nor does it seem it will be solved by millennials taking a lead. But
this research does provide some clear guidance on a route forward that is in fact within
the ability of organizations to address.
Culture and Strategy
“Culture eats strategy for breakfast” is a quote apocryphally attributed to the business
commentator Peter Drucker, although the idea that culture is key to the success of orga
nizational strategy is fairly well established in the academic literature (for example Harp
er & Utley, 2001; Jackson, 2011; Leidner & Kayworth, 2006; O’Reilly et al., 1991). In these
arguments, culture determines and limits strategies (Schein, 2010). Much of this work
highlights ways in which organizations can work with their culture. Culture is, in this con
text, the everyday practices, beliefs, and attitudes of workers in an organization which is
built upon its history, workers’ experiences, and the sectors it works in, as well as those
bigger issues of the national and community cultures outside the organization. (p. 400)
Many of these things organizations cannot change by themselves. But this work has found
that some of the most important aspects of organizational culture that impact digital are
those that can be changed. The following factors appear to influence attitudes to digital
solutions (though with widely varying strength):
• Personal experience and confidence at home (knowledge of ICTs from home use)
• Personal experience and confidence in use of work-based ICTs
• Company organizational issues (practical issues)
• Company/organizational sector
• Company/organization size
• Internal organizational issues (e.g., finances and legacy systems)
• Company leadership and attitudes (company culture)
• Attitudes to digital in the organization
• Digital leadership in the organization
Page 41 of 46
The overall model implies that the most important issues are clearly under the control of
the organization:
• Personal experience and confidence in use of work based ICTs (some things that can
be addressed through training support and good communication, through both face-to-
face and some mediated channels)
• Company leadership and attitudes (taking a lead on digital, making clear the bene
fits, listening to ideas and developments from colleagues, making digital an organiza
tion wide priority, planning for digital disruption and having a clear digital vision that
has been effectively shared)
• Attitudes to digital in the organization (ensuing that the benefits of digital solutions
are understood across the organization, understanding the likely points of resistance)
• Company organizational issues (ensuring that practical and traditional barriers to
digital systems—from poor equipment and connections to legacy systems and financial
constraints—are understood and addressed)
At the heart of the findings is the need for organizations to understand that making digi
tal solutions a success is a process of cultural change in their organization. This change
will need to be supported and managed, and certainly should not be driven by simply in
troducing digital tools and hoping they will force the change.
Final Conclusion
This research indicates that the UK workforce sees organizational culture and leadership
as barriers to taking up digital solutions—and not traditional factors such as legacy sys
tems or costs. This study provides evidence to suggest that organizations cannot rely on
the workforce bringing their personal expertise to the workplace. Social media savvy mil
lennials may not be the solution to help organizations face (p. 401) digital disruption and
transformation. Importantly, UK workers are generally positive about taking on digital
tools—where they have had experience of it—but they are looking for support, leadership,
and engagement to make these changes successful. More broadly, if personal private ex
perience with technology does not guarantee confidence at work, then it may be neces
sary to ensure that the UK workforce has the skills needed in the digitally transformed
workplace. The results indicate that smaller workplaces are less likely to take on new dig
ital solutions, and that practical challenges vary across sectors. But importantly the key
issues are leadership, vision, and the transformation of organizational culture.
References
Abduwaila, F. & Ali, M. (2013). The effect of organizational culture on CRM success. Eu
ropean, Mediterranean and Middle Eastern conference on information systems 2013 (EM
CIS2013), October 17–18, Windsor, United Kingdom.
Adams, D. A., Nelson, R. R., & Todd, P. A. (1992). Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and
usage of information technology: A replication. MIS Quarterly, 16(2), 227–247.
Page 42 of 46
Barnes, S-A. (2012). The differential impact of ICT on employees: Narratives from a hi-
tech organization. New Technology, Work and Employment, 27(2), 120–132.
Bradley J., Loucks, J., Maccauley, J., Noronha, A., & Wade, M. (2015). Digital vortex: How
digital disruption is redefining industries. global centre for digital business transforma
tion. White Paper. Available at http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/solutions/collater
al/industry-solutions/digital-vortex-report.pdf Accessed 17 May 2017.
Brecher, D., Laurenceau, C., & Sloman, C. (2016). (2016) Digital disruption. Accenture
Strategy. White paper. Available at: https://www.accenture.com/
t00010101T000000__w__/gb-en/_acnmedia/PDF-4/Accenture-Strategy-Digital-
Workforce-Future-of-Work.pdf#zoom=50 Accessed 17 May 2017.
Bruque, S. & Moyano, J. (2007). Organizational determinants of information technology

adoption and implementation in SMEs: The case of family and cooperative firms. Techno
vation, 27(5), 241–253.
Chatterjee, S. & Hadi, A. S. (2015). Regression analysis by example, 5th ed. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons.
Cresswell, K. & Sheikh, A. (2013). Organizational issues in the implementation and adop
tion of health information technology innovations: An interpretative review. International
Journal of Medical Informatics, 82(5), e73–e86.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technol
ogy: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.
Edwards, P. & Ramirez, P. (2016). When should workers embrace or resist new technolo
gy?. New Technology, Work and Employment, 31(2), 99–113.
GOV.UK. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. (2016). Digital skills cri
sis. Government report https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmse
lect/cmsctech/270/270.pdf Accessed 17 May 2017.
GOV.UK. (2014). Government digital inclusion strategy. Government report. https://

www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-digital-inclusion-strategy/gov
ernment-digital-inclusion-strategy Accessed May 2017.
Harper, G. R. & Utley, D. R. (2001). Organizational culture and successful informa

(p. 402)
tion technology implementation. Engineering Management Journal, 13(2), 11–15.
Jackson, S. (2011). Organizational culture and information systems adoption: A three-per

spective approach. Information and Organization, 21(2), 57–83.
Page 43 of 46
Leidner, D. E. & Kayworth, T. (2006). A review of culture in information systems research:
Toward a theory of information technology culture conflict. MIS Quarterly, 30(2), 357–
399.
Lloyds Bank (2017). Consumer Digital Index. Report http://www.lloydsbank.com/bank

ing-with-us/whats-happening/consumer-digital-index.asp Accessed 15 November
2017
Loucks, J., Maccauley, J., Noronha, A., & Wade, M. (2016). Workforce transformation in
the digital vortex: Reimagining work for digital business agility. Available at https://
connectedfutures.cisco.com/report/workforce-transformation-in-the-digital-vor
tex/Accessed 17 May 2017.
Montgomery, D. C., Peck, E. A., & Vining, G, G. (2012). Introduction to linear regression
analysis (Vol. 821). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Ofcom. (2016). Media literacy. Market Research Report. http://

stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/media-literacy/ Accessed 17 May
2017.
O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A
profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Manage
ment Journal, 34(3), 487–516.
Reynolds, N-S. (2015). Making sense of new technology during organisational change.
New Technology, Work and Employment, 30(2), 145–157.
Robey, D. & Azevedo, A. (1994). Cultural analysis of the organizational consequences of

information technology. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 4(1), 23–
37.
Rauniar, R., Rawski, G., Yang, J., & Johnson, B. (2014). Technology acceptance model
(TAM) and social media usage: an empirical study on Facebook. Journal of Enterprise In
formation Management, 27(1), 6–30.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
Segars, A. H. & Grover, V. (1993). Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness: A
confirmatory factor analysis. MIS Quarterly, 17(4), 517–525.
Szajna, B. (1994). Software evaluation and choice: Predictive validation of the technology
acceptance instrument. MIS Quarterly, 18(3), 319–324.
Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic

motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Re
search, 11(4), 342–365.
Page 44 of 46
Venkatesh, V. & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of infor
mation technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Xie, S., Helfert, M., Lugmayr, A., Heimgärtner, R., & Holzinger, A. (2013, July). Influence
of organizational culture and communication on the successful implementation of infor
mation technology in hospitals. In International conference on cross-cultural design (pp.
165–174). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer,
Yates, S., Kirby, J., & Lockley E. (2015). Digital media use: Differences and inequalities in
relation to class and age. Sociological Research Online, 20(4), 1–21.
Yates, S., & Lockley, E. (2018). Social media and social class. American Behavioral Scien
tist, 62(9), 1291–1316.
Simeon J. Yates
Eleanor Lockley
Page 45 of 46
Eleanor Lockley is Research Fellow and Associate Lecturer at Sheffield Hallam Uni
versity. Her research falls broadly under communication studies and information
studies, and working in C3RI means that she has worked on a variety of different in
terdisciplinary projects since 2008. One day she can be a human-computer interac
tion researcher—the next she can be investigating issues associated with user cen
tered design! Her previous role in C3RI involved engaging with knowledge transfer
activity—meaning that she has worked on commercial consultancy, as well as on aca
demic projects. She has recently worked on several European-funded projects; two of
note are COURAGE (2014–2016) and ATHENA (2013–2016). The former involved de
veloping a research agenda for cybercrime and cyberterrorism based upon user-cen
tered research. Her role in the latter focused upon human factors and best practices
for crisis sense-making and communication and, in particular, how social media can
be best used for crisis and disaster management. ATHENA is creating a prototype to
enhance the ability of Local Education Agencies of police, first responders, and citi
zens in their use of mobile and smart devices in crisis situations.
Page 46 of 46
ESCR Review: Citizenship and Politics

Simeon J. Yates, Bridgette Wessels, Paul Hepburn, Alexander Frame, and Vis
hanth Weerakkody
This chapter describes the analyses and results for the ESRC Domain of Citizenship and
Politics, guided by two main questions: How digital technology impacts on our autonomy,
agency, and privacy; Whether and how our understanding of citizenship is evolving in the
digital age. It first provides an initial overview of the major insights from the literature re
view and analysis, the Delphi surveys, and workshop discussions about the relevant range
of the concepts of citizenship and politics in a digital age. Over time the literature shows
a shift from issues of public sphere and use of the Internet by government and candidates
to more focus on political participation and engagement, especially through online com
munities, social networks, and social media. Eight main topics emerged: public sphere,
measurement, social network analysis, protest and activism, governance, elections, cyber
hate crime, and partisan politics. The analyses also highlighted theory, methods, and ap
proaches in the literature. The review provides examples of literature in the project’s
time period that illustrate these topics. The chapter ends with a discussion of consider
able future research directions (e.g., mobilization and radicalization) and research chal
lenges (e.g., managing big data, and ethical issues).
Keywords: Citizenship, elections, ESCR Review, governance, Internet, politics, public sphere, social media, social
network
Introduction
THIS chapter briefly explores the outcomes of the literature review and expert Delphi re
view process for the citizenship and politics domain. As with the other review chapters
the goal is not to work through a large number of examples from the literature. Instead,
building on the methods described in chapter 2, we will first set out the results of the dig
ital humanities-based analyses of the literature and the content analysis of methods and
theory. We will highlight the major topics and concepts within the literature—providing a
few general examples. These are not intended to be the “most important” examples from
the literature but rather simply indicative of the types of work. This is then followed by
Page 1 of 40
the presentation of the content analysis that sought to identify the key theories and meth
ods in use within the literature. Next, we outline the results from the Delphi review of ex
perts. This concludes with the key questions, topics and challenges we identified, and we
compare these to the results from the literature work. In the last section, we will present
the recommendations for areas of future study. As a reminder, the initial scoping ques
tions for this area of work were:
• How digital technology impacts on our autonomy, agency and privacy—illustrated by

the paradox of emancipation and control; and
• Whether and how our understanding of citizenship is evolving in the digital age—for
example whether technology helps or hinders us in participating at individual and com
munity levels.
(p. 452) Initial Comments

On one level this part of the project could not have taken place at a more interesting and
challenging time, with both the Brexit referendum and the election of a social media ac
tive Donald Trump as US president. Behind both events are very complex issues of polar
ization in politics, and raise deep questions about the role of media, especially digital me
dia, in all levels of political activity. Unfortunately, this means that there has been a small
explosion of research on this topic since the current analysis was completed. As we will
discuss later, this issue and concern comes through in the Delphi work, and we reflect on
next steps in regard to polarized political communication and digital media in the conclu
sion. Possibly reflecting on this context, this domain had the greatest number of Delphi
returns and identified starting literature; in terms of both the number of responses and in
the extent and detail of the responses. As a result, a considerable amount of work was un
dertaken in the analysis and in the final consultation workshop focused on reducing the
breath of material gathered. This chapter therefore has a slightly different structure to
the other six ESRC review chapters, as the consultation workshop materials are integrat
ed rather than separately reported. The team reflected on the reasons for this much
stronger response. As we noted earlier, the Delphi process took place just after the Brexit
vote and during the US presidential election. It is possible that the issues around citizen
ship, politics, and digital media struck a chord with respondents at this time. We also not
ed that the project steering group had a number of members whose current or prior work
has touched on this area. Thus, though we tried to ensure as balanced a response as we
could, this may have biased the snowball sample or potentially motivated respondents in
this area. Of course, both factors could have played together.
Page 2 of 40
Figure 16.1 Citizenship 2000–2004: Most frequent

concept pairs.

concept pairs.
Figure 16.2 Citizenship 2012–2016: Most frequent

concept pairs.

concept pairs.
Page 3 of 40
We would also like to highlight something that comes through in the comparison of the
concept maps from the 2000–2004 period with that of the 2012–2016 period (see Figures
16.1 and 16.2).1 In examining the visualizations of the data from these two periods we
find that concept pairs such as public sphere and a focus on government and candidate
Internet use are apparent in the earlier literature. These are replaced with foci around
participation and engagement for the later literature. We feel this marks a transition from
an initial focus on the potential for the Internet and digital media to facilitate public de
bate and enhance the public sphere, to one focused on the role of networks (social media)
to support and enhance political engagement. As noted later, we may now be in a third
stage where the focus is on the role of networks in creating “echo chambers” or “filter
bubbles,” therefore negating the potentials to enhance the public sphere or disrupt politi
cal institutions.
Scholars, particularly in political studies and media studies, have noted the rise of the use
of social media in civic and political spheres. In broad terms, attention has focused on the
ways in which social media facilitates engagement in politics and participation in politics
(Dahlgren, 2013) and the characteristics of that communication and relationship between
citizens and politics (Papacharissi, 2015). There is a general consensus that a number of
factors need to be addressed to realize the potential of digital communication to enhance
(p. 453) participation. A continuing issue of inequality remains, with social and political in
equality adding to any existing digital divides. Further, questions of how to develop open
and deliberative participation using online communication remain difficult to address.
There is a better understanding about the threats that digital communication poses in
terms of filter bubbles (Sunstein, 2001) and the personalization of news and other infor
mation that might limit an open debate. However, this is an area that requires more re
search.
Literature Analysis
to identify key topics within the existing literature. This would allow the comparison
(p. 454) with areas of future importance identified by the Delphi review. Second, we con
ducted a content analysis of the literature to explore the predominance of specific, theo
ries, methods and approaches. As noted in the chapter 2, the literature data were subject
ed to two analyses. The first round of collected literature was analyzed to create concept
pairs and trios, and then the combined first and second rounds of literature were ana
lyzed to identify key topic clusters. The results of these two approaches were then com
pared.
Table 16.1 lists the 10 most common concepts identified from the first round of literature.
These represent the concepts covering 2% or more of the identified cases. Table 16.2 lists
the concept pairs within these groups. In Table 16.2 the first part of the concept pair is
marked in bold with various second elements presented in the list below this first part.
Unsurprisingly the concepts of citizenship, action and networks were ranked top. This re
Page 4 of 40
inforces the point that much of the underlying conceptual base of the literature on digital
media and politics is focused on the three-way interface between: citizens; political action
and engagement; and the role or impacts of networks (digital or otherwise).
Concept Percent
Citizen 7.56
Action 7.32
Network 6.21
Campaign 5.35
Citizenship 4.35
Channel 4.08
Access 3.46
Engagement 3.35
Government 2.92
Participation 2.81
Information 2.59
Link 2.43
Delivery 2.40
Page 5 of 40
citizen 13.79 campaign 9.75 engagement 6.11
democracy 2.96 candidate 2.02 norm 1.13
engagement 2.91 election 2.91 participation 2.46
government 4.43 movement 1.03 use 2.51
participatory 1.58 party 2.86 government 5.32
perception 1.92 practice .94 latino 1.13
action 13.35 citizenship 7.93 responsiveness 2.27
activism 1.87 engagement 2.02 stage 1.92
campaign 1.82 people 2.17 participation 5.12
frame 3.20 phenomenon .89 participatory 2.86
membership 1.18 study 1.43 protest 2.27
protest 4.29 youth 1.43 information 4.73
Page 6 of 40
talk .99 channel 7.44 literacy 1.43
network 11.33 citizen 2.17 overload .49
power 6.65 consumer .99 protest 2.81
recognition 2.36 phone 1.43 link 4.43
strength 1.18 service 2.86 pattern 1.13
transformation 1.13 access 6.31 site 2.41
citizenship .44 twitter .89
latino 1.67 delivery 4.38
percentage 1.33 perception 1.48
survey 1.77 phone 1.38
white 1.08 value 1.53
cepts.
Page 7 of 40
(p. 455) Our second approach to the analysis of the literature explored the extrac
(p. 456)
tion of topics using a different methodology, based on a factor analysis of salience and rel
evance measures. We utilized both custom-developed tools and the WordStat software.
Unlike the concept mapping which pulled out some of the underlying ontological links,
the identification of topics produced groups that more overtly fitted theory and methods
in the literature. (This was the case for all of the literature analyses.) Table 16.3 presents
the 15 topics identified by WordStat, and Table 16.4 maps these to the concepts analysis.
Page 8 of 40
Table 16.3 WordStat Analysis of Topics
Concept topics Keywords Eigen-value Freq Cases % Cases
Public sphere SPHERE; 10.5 29,329 486 98.0

DELIB; HABER
MA; DEMOC
RACI;
DELIBER; DE
MOCRAT; PUB
LIC; DEBAT;
DISCOURS; FO
RUM; POLIT
Measurement VARIABL; RE 3.19 18,205 474 95.6

GRESS;
STATIST; TEST;
TABL; MODEL;
MEASUR;
PREDICT;
ESTIM; SIGNI;
SAMPL; COR
REL
Page 9 of 40
Social network INFECT; NODE; 2.77 2144 313 63.1

analysis CONTAGION;
NEIGHBOR;
THRESHOLD;
TI
Protest and ac MOVEMENT; 2.69 12,940 473 95.4

tivism PROTEST; AC
TION; COL
LECT; ORGAN;
ACTIVIST; OC
CUPI
Governance GOVERN; 2.52 20,565 490 98.8

SERVIC;
POLICI; PUB
LIC; SECTOR;
ADMINISTR;
MANAG
Elections ELECT; PARTI; 2.37 11,159 407 82.1

VOTER; CAM
PAIGN; CAN
DID; ELECTOR;
VOTE
Page 10 of 40
Cyber hate CRIME; VIC 2.14 2632 317 63.9

crime TIM; HATE;
GUARDIANSHI
P; CYBER;
POLIC; SECUR
Partisan politics EXPOSUR; 2.01 5060 429 86.5

PARTISAN; PO
LAR; ATTITUD;
ATTITUDIN;
PERCEIV;
OPINION
Web and social SITE; WEB; 1.92 14,607 470 94.8

media PAGE; USER;
BLOG;
SEARCH; LINK;
GOOGL; FACE
BOOK
Gender and eth GENDER; 1.83 4741 400 80.7

nicity WOMEN;
EDUC; FEMAL;
ETHNIC
Page 11 of 40
Civic engage CIVIC; ENGAG; 1.81 8650 455 91.7

ment CITIZENSHIP;
YOUTH; LEARN
Mobile PHONE; 1.72 3746 395 79.6

MOBIL; SM;
CHANNEL
Political online FORUM; 1.65 2255 325 65.5

fora THREAD; TALK
Homophili HOMOPHILI; 1.63 2044 315 63.5

NOIS; AGENT;
NEIGHBOR; IN
FLUENC
Twitter TWITTER; 1.57 2267 181 36.5

TWEET; HASH
TAG
Page 12 of 40
Page 13 of 40
Con Citi Ac Net Cam Citi Cha Ac En Gov Par In Link De
cept zen tion wor paig zen nnel cess gag ern tici for liv
/ k n ship eme men pa ma ery
Top nt t tion tion
ic
Twit X
ter
So X X
cial
net
work
anal
ysis
Ho
mop
hily
Cy X
ber
hate
crim
e
Page 14 of 40
Po X
liti
cal
on
line
fora
Mo X X
bile
Gen X
der
and
eth
nici
ty
Elec X
tions
Par
tisan
poli
tics
Page 15 of 40
Civic X X
en
gage
men
t
Web X
and
so
cial
me
dia
Prot X X X
est
and
ac
tivis
m
Mea X
sure
men
t
Page 16 of 40
Pub
lic
sphe
re
Gov X
er
nanc
e
Page 17 of 40
(p. 457) (p. 458) Topics
The eight key areas emerging from the analysis (see Table 16.3) are Public sphere, Mea
surement, Social network analysis, Protest and activism, Governance, Elections, Cyber
hate crime, and Partisan politics.
The category of measurement reflects the greater proportion of work in this domain that
employs statistical analysis (see the following section on methods). Although the issue
and topic of governance is important in this domain, there is a separate full section of the
book (see Section 7) dedicated to this topic. In order of importance, the first topic reflects
the broader question of civil society and the public sphere whereas the others focus on
specific actions or contexts such as election campaigns—though of course ideally these is
sues should strongly intersect. From the analysis in Table 16.3 it is clear that the idea of
the public sphere is a key topic in the academic debate around the impact of digital me
dia on politics. This is clearly articulated in works by highly influential authors (e.g.,
Castells, 2008) but also in many individual studies. As we noted previously, one of the
general findings from the content analysis was the utilization of very wide-ranging ideas
or publications as “scene setters”—such as the idea from Castells (1996) of the “network
society”—but without the detail of this work being substantively engaged with. This ap
pears to be the case with the idea of the public sphere (Habermas, 1991), where the
Habermasian concept is repeatedly pointed to without the full theoretical model being
employed.
As we noted earlier, the longitudinal view over the last two decades points to a shift from
the focus on public sphere to one on more individualistic issues of participation and en
gagement. There also appears to be a shift away from the earlier literature that tended to
focus on the potentials for digital media to support the public sphere and deliberative
democracy. Papers exploring the idea of the public sphere were not uncritical but utilized
the concept to examine the potentials for deliberative democracy through digital media
either theoretically (e.g., Dahlberg, 2001, Dahlgren, 2005) or through the analysis of in
teractions (e.g., Papacharissi, 2004). The focus has since shifted towards the analysis of
actual network interactions (often via social media) and the extent to which political en
gagement, influence, and action are developed. In the time between the literature analy
sis undertaken by the ESRC project and the current publication the focus has shifted
somewhat to the failing of the public sphere and the rise of “echo chambers” and “mini
publics” (see Frame & Brachotte, 2015). This concern clearly comes through in the Del
phi analysis of experts reported later in the chapter.
As with several of the other domains, Twitter and social network analysis are two promi
nent and linked topics. The intersection of Twitter, politics, and citizenship is fraught with
challenges, especially as both the technology itself and its uses have continued to change
over the last decade (Bimber et al., 2015). As a result, it may not always be helpful to
draw comparisons with traditional political behavior. Within the actual study of the use of
Twitter in politics and political action there is a focus on collective action. For example,
Kende, van Zomeren, Ujhelyi, & Lantos et al. (2016) proposed and tested how the social
Page 18 of 40
affirmation use of social media motivates individuals for collective action to achieve social
change. In this frame of work, a good number of analyses are focused on the nature of
(p. 459) social capital, or psychological group membership measures, as routes to under
standing political social action undertaken through or supported by Twitter. Much of this
focuses on young citizens, but often has a strong element of networked individualism
(e.g., Rainie & Wellman, 2012) with the examination of the potential for platforms such as
Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to influence political stances and civic engagement (see
Loader et al., 2014). A reasonably comprehensive overview can be found in Weller et al.
(2014). There are many papers that take on board the theory or orientation of social net
work analysis (SNA) in their approach, such as the ideas of weak and strong ties or net
work power, or reference SNA-based studies, though they do not necessarily use specific
SNA methods. Examples include political participation (e.g., Bennett, 2012; Chan, 2016),
campaigning (Bruns & Highfield, 2013), and influence (e.g., Grudz et al., 2014). The spe
cific use of SNA methods was in fact very limited (see Table 16.6) and was to be found in
papers with a strong methodological focus. These may not take on politics and citizenship
directly but elucidate how influence may spread in both digital and non-digital communi
cations networks and how these interact (e.g., Haythorthwaite, 2002).
More pragmatically, the literature focuses on the actual practices and online behaviors.
Activism and protest appear in more recent literature, with authors focusing on the role
of social and networked media in engagement and organization of politics. For example,
Agarwal et al. (2014) compare the use of digital media by two very different political
groups: the Republican Tea Party movement and the Occupy Wall Street movement. Oth
er studies attempt to analyze the links between the types of social media used, contexts of
interaction with similar or other groups, and likely political participation (e.g., Kim &
Chen, 2016). Some studies try to assess the extent to which online activity leads to other
forms of political action (digital or not), from voting to collective action (e.g., Schumann
and Klein, 2015; Theocharis & Lowe, 2016).
In regard to elections this work goes back to the mid-1990s (e.g., Yates & Perrone, 1998)
and early 2000s (e.g., Coleman, 2001a, 2001b) with a strong focus on the United Kingdom
and the United States (e.g., Foot & Schneider, 2002). The breadth and variety of this work
has grown extensively over the past decade to include a wider variety of nations and
forms of electoral process (e.g., Gadekar et al., 2011; Vromen, 2015). The issue of “sec
ond screen” communication in the electoral context has also been receiving increasing at
tention, for example during important televised campaign debates in various countries.
Furthermore, questions of online hate or partisan interaction are at this time a key issue.
Studies range from analyses of homophily in political group membership (e.g., Colleoni,
et al., 2014) through arguments that social and digital media use have gone hand in hand
with more personalized politics (e.g., Bennett, 2012). This then bleeds over into issues of
digital governance and online crime, be it terrorism or hate crime. We would argue there
fore that there appears to be a general, though not universal, shift in the literature over
the last two decades, from ideas of the potential role of digital media in the broader pub
Page 19 of 40
lic sphere to much more specific and analytics-based assessments of the specifics of net
work dynamics in regard to political action, engagement, and participation.
This situation is seen in a range of areas, including political communication and news,
connective action, and the media hybridity. In the area of political communication,
(p. 460) research has identified that people access their news using both social media and
mainstream (whether public or commercial) media (Rainie et al., 2011; Oxford Reuters In
stitute for the Study of Journalism, 2016). The wider media environment for political com
munication has resulted in the development of media hybrid systems in political commu
nication (Chadwick & Dennis, 2017). What Chadwick and Dennis argue is that both tradi
tional media communication and social media communication are configured in different
ways to reach different social groups. There is an organizational dimension to this that
draws on the networked logic of social media; here, both connective action and collective
action is mobilized (Bennett & Segerberg, 2013).
As chapter 2 describes, the content analysis builds on Borah’s (2017) approach to analyz
ing a set of communications and media literature in regard to digital media use. Table
16.5 provides the results with regard to the empirical approach taken in the literature.
The majority of the papers (45%) undertook primary data collection, with 33% being theo
retical-synthesis of current or prior work. The main disciplines from which theory was
used or for which theory was developed were: politics and public administration (48.6%),
sociology (28.0%), and communication and media (14.3%). It is important to note that on
ly actual use of theory for the purposes of design, synthesis, or analysis were coded. Gen
eral references to prior work and theory, such as broad reference to “network
society” (Castells) or “public sphere” (Habermas), were not coded. This distinction is im
portant, as it highlights the use of theory to design and analyze data or synthesize materi
als, as distinct from more general discussion. There was considerable variety in the spe
cific theories applied from these disciplines, with no clear preference. Ideas of the public
sphere (6%) and political participation (5%) were the most common in the political sci
ence literature. The main research methods were literature reviews (33%), surveys
(29%), content analysis (8%), and interviews (7%; see Table 16.6). The majority of the em
pirical work focused on specific groups (e.g., Facebook users) with a limited number of
general population studies (see Table 16.7). Where new data was analyzed, the majority
(53%) of the analyses were qualitative, though the methods varied, the remainder being
statistical (see Table 16.8). Only one study overtly stated that they were using a “big da
ta” approach. Compared to the other domains, there is a stronger emphasis on both em
pirical data collection and quantitative analysis in the literature analyzed here. As with all
the domains, both big data and SNA are so far only used to a limited extent.
Page 20 of 40
Percent
Percent
Survey 28.6
Interview(s) 6.9
Theory building 6.9
Other 4.2
Experiment 3.2
Ethnography 3.2
Focus groups 2.8
Textual (linguistic-discourse analysis) .9
Meta-analysis or systematic review .9
Page 21 of 40
Percent
Specific group 48.8
Percent
Qualitative (textual-non-discourse) 53.5
None 8.3
Not applicable 5.2
Discourse (textual-linguistic-discourse) .9
Delphi Review
The literature review analysis explored the themes found within recent research publica
tions. The following sections detail the results of the Delphi process for the Citizenship
(p. 461) and Politics domain. There were three parts to the Delphi review: an ini
(p. 462)
tial survey, a confirmatory questionnaire to address the findings from the survey, and a
confirmatory workshop. The goal of the Delphi process was to identify and prioritize ar
eas for future research. These might include areas already covered by literature but also
new concerns, or the needs for a tighter focus on a specific issue. The process sought to
identify suggested future scoping or research questions, key topics to address within
these questions, and key challenges that might be encountered when researching these
questions.
Given the amount of input to the Delphi process for this domain, the suggestions for scop
ing and research questions were coded into the eight categories and 36 specific ques
tions, which were grouped into 21 questions, as detailed in Table 16.9. The process used
Page 22 of 40
two measures to assess the importance of these questions. The first was how (p. 463) fre
quently the suggestion came up in the Delphi survey, and the second was how important
these topics were ranked by the Delphi interviewees. Table 16.10 shows the ranking of
these categories by the number of questions allocated to the category and by their ranked
importance from the confirmatory survey. It is important to note that ranked importance
is almost same in both tables. As chapter 25 describes, there are a number of (p. 464) ar
eas identified in the scoping questions and challenges that are cross cutting, a key one of
these being governance. As a result, there are also some strong overlaps with the Gover
nance and Security domain (see chapters 22 and 23) that will be addressed there.
Page 23 of 40
Question category Questions
Digital technologies, In what ways do digital technologies impact

radicalization, mobi traditional forms of mobilization, collective
lization and political action, and/or political participation?
action How have “negative” online behaviors
(such as trolling and flaming) impacted on
civic and political activity?
Digital technologies, How and in what ways are digital technolo

emancipation, agency gies challenging or reinforcing existing
and control power relations?
What are the impacts on our autonomy,
agency, dignity and privacy?
Digital technologies How do new technologies disrupt and chal

and the disruption of lenge incumbent political institutions?
current political insti What are the opportunities and challenges
tutions facing democracy in an age of digital partic
ipation?
How do social media affect the quality of
democracy/citizenship?
And what about non-democratic states?
Digital technologies, Does access to digital technologies have a

political identity, positive emotional impact on citizens, mak
emotion and empow ing them feel empowered, with a voice and
erment potential influence?
Digital technologies How does technology enlarge or change our

and new forms of citi understanding of, and interaction with, citi
zenship zens outside of our own national borders?
What constitutes citizenship?
Is it meaningful to talk about digital citizen
ship?
Does digital expand the notion or simply
provide a new space for the exercising of
citizenship rights and duties?
How are youth engaging with digital tech
nologies and online politics?
Page 24 of 40
Digital technologies How does technology improve governance

and governance (i.e., government’s responsiveness to citi
zen concerns and ability to effectively man
age competing interests)?
Does electronic governance transform rela
tionships between states and citizens and
the nature of politics?
Digital technologies, How do political elites use digital media?

groups and elites How do old and new parties use new tech
nologies and with what consequences?
Does new media promote populism?
How do emerging media platforms impact
the ongoing digital divide?
Digital technologies, How do new ecosystems of information and

political communica delivery impact on political participation,
tion, debate and me opinion forming, and education?
dia How do people perceive “success” in online
political participation?
How does digital media interact with tradi
tional media in shaping public opinion?
Page 25 of 40
Table 16.10 Delphi Review Scoping Questions Ranked by Number of

Cases and by Importance
Question category Rank: Num Rank: Impor

ber of cases tance (Per
cent)
Digital technologies, radical 3 1 (21)

ization, mobilization, and polit
ical action
Digital technologies and the 1 2 (17)

disruption of current political
institutions
Digital technologies and new 6 3 (16)

forms of citizenship
Digital technologies, political 2 3 (16)

communication, debate, and
media
Digital technologies and gover 8 4 (12)

nance
Digital technologies, emanci 4 5 (10)

pation, agency, and control
Digital technologies, political 5 6 (6)

identity, emotion, and empow
erment
Digital technologies, groups 7 7 (1)

and elites
Key Topics
If we turn next to specific topics that might cross cut these questions, we find that topics
that were most commonly cited in the Delphi process were also those deemed most im
portant in the confirmatory survey (see Table 16.11 and Table 16.12). These topics also
closely match the proposed research and scoping questions. Given the number and detail
of the scoping questions provided in the initial rounds of the Delphi process, this overlap
was highly likely. One of the reasons for this was that as respondents interpreted differ
Page 26 of 40
ently the idea of there being two levels, one of overarching questions and then the topics
within them, questions for some respondents were topics for others. This distinction ap
peared to be clearer for other domains, where the volume of responses was lower. Over
all, though, this does provide reinforcing evidence, along with the broad support of the
consultation workshop, for the relevance of the questions and topics. We do note, howev
er, that a key comment made in the confirmatory workshop was that the literature and
Delphi work had not really addressed the issue of digital media use in the context of ma
jor state control and censorship. We agree that this is a topic that appears not to have
had as much attention in the literature we surveyed nor in the Delphi review.

es
Topic Percent Topic Percent
Divides 8 Technologies 3
Mobilization 8 Civic 2
Talk 7 Commercial 2
Control 6 Cultural 2
Data 6 Direct democracy 2
Media 6 Empowerment 2
Other 6 Geopolitics 2
Participation 6 Policy 2
Citizenship 5 Trust 2
Engagement 4 Young people 2
Governance 4 Contestation 1
Privacy 4 Parties 1
Identity 3 Populism 1
Methods 3 State 1
Page 27 of 40
Page 28 of 40

tant tant
Governance in a 51.9% 37.0% 11.1% 0.0% 0.0%

digital age
Political mobi 48.1 40.7 7.4 3.7 0.0

lization via digi
tal media
Digital and 48.1 37.0 11.1 3.7 0.0

state control
Citizenship in a 48.1 33.3 14.8 3.7 0.0

digital age
Data—big, 44.4 37.0 14.8 3.7 0.0

small, and citi
zen
Political partici 44.4 37.0 14.8 3.7 0.0

pation and en
gagement
Privacy in a dig 40.7 40.7 11.1 3.7 0.0

ital age
Page 29 of 40
Political media, 29.6 44.4 18.5 7.4 0.0

old and new
Digital divides 22.2 59.3 11.1 7.4 0.0
Political identity 22.2 48.1 29.6 0.0 0.0

in a digital age
Online debate 18.5 70.4 11.1 0.0 0.0

and interaction
Page 30 of 40
If we leave aside the governance issues for chapters 22 and 23, then it is clear that the
Delphi panel, confirmatory survey, and the workshop see the future focus for research
(p. 465) to be focused on citizenship, participation, and engagement, with specific con
cerns about mobilization and radicalization. The questions about empowerment, public
sphere, links to older media, and emancipation that are present in some of the earlier lit
erature in this domain has moved down the list of priorities. Importantly, there is a grow
ing concern for how digital technologies are disrupting politics and political institutions.
Research Challenges
Our final set of questions asked the Delphi panel about the challenges that may be faced
in undertaking research in these areas. These were placed into 14 categories and ranked
by the number of coded items (Table 16.13). None of the main challenges was deemed to
be specific to any of the seven domains by the consultation workshop. Table 16.14 shows
the ranking of these by the confirmation survey. Such cross-cutting topics and challenges
are discussed in the concluding chapter 25.
Page 31 of 40
Challenge Percent
Methods 42
Theory 14
Big data 12
Epistemology/ontology 7
Ethics 6
Psychology 5
Technology 4
Exclusion 2
Education 1
Funding 1
Impact 1
Individualism 1
Policy 1
Training 1
Page 32 of 40

tant tant
Developing new 55.6% 37.0% 7.4% 0.0% 0.0%

theory
Developing new 44.4 33.3 18.5 3.7 0.0

methods
Dealing with 44.4 33.3 18.5 3.7 0.0

“big data”
Ethics 37.0 51.9 7.4 0.0 3.7
Epistemological 37.0 25.9 25.9 7.4 3.7

and ontological
issues
Page 33 of 40
Conclusion
The concepts and topic mapping analyses generated very similar results, and these close
ly map onto the Delphi results. The close mapping of the Delphi and literature analyses
(p. 466) potentially indicates that this is a well-developed domain of research with clear fo
ci. The consensus around the consolidation of research questions in the consultation
workshop reinforces this. There may be a number of good clear reasons for this empha
sis. Political communication and behavior are substantive aspects of both communication
studies and political science. These are both areas that have been dramatically affected in
very public ways by digital media, in contrast to the very real but less visible impacts of
digital technologies on governance or public policy. There are also indications that the
visibility of digital media—from the web to social media—have made (at least some)
processes of political communication very visible and open to analysis.
Given that the literature and the Delphi recommendations strongly overlap, the research
has not identified any clear new topic gaps to highlight for future work. Rather, the Del
phi work appears to confirm the patterns found in the literature, with a move away from
the assessment of the potentials of digital media for deliberative politics, development of
the public sphere and broad civic engagement, to a clearer focus on the role of networks
in political mobilization, influence, partisan politics, and more (p. 467) individualistic mea
sures of engagement and political action. This may be a reaction to political changes ex
perienced over the last five years that have often been associated with the use of digital
media—such as the Arab Spring, Brexit, and the election of Donald Trump. It might also
reflect the nature of available data (e.g., Twitter and Facebook posts) or the nature of
these media which are more notably individualistic in form than either prior mass media
or even older forms of digital media (e.g., Rheingold, 1993). The disruption caused by so
cial media itself or its use and misuse in politics (cf. Cambridge Analytica scandal) are a
further clear set of contemporary questions. Yet underneath this is both an empirical and
theoretical need to fully understand what our current social media-based politics is telling
us about citizens’ behavior and political processes, and vice versa. We would argue that
for the health of democratic institutions, there is a need to empirically understand con
temporary political behavior and participation in the context of digital technology use.
As a word of caution, in the other domains we noticed a “platform focus” in many studies.
In the case of politics, an example might be a focus on political uses of Twitter, in contrast
to boarder studies of the full range of digital media that citizens may utilize for political
communication. Though there are examples of platform focus, it does not appear as pro
nounced in relation to political research as in other domains. As with the other domains,
we believe that the complexity and variety of potential work warrants consideration to be
taken of all the questions topics and challenges identified. Noting this, we would argue
that the analysis here has identified four key areas for future research:
1. “Digital technologies,” radicalization, mobilization, and political action

2. “Digital technologies” and the disruption of current political institutions
Page 34 of 40
3. “Digital technologies” and new forms of citizenship

4. “Digital technologies,” political communication, debate, and media
We note that the Governance and Security domain significantly addresses the issue of
“Digital technologies and governance,” which was the top ranked topic in the confirmato
ry survey. The other key topics identified fit within these four scoping areas, except for
Digital and state control. This topic, identified as well in comments at the consultation
workshop, reminds us that not all politics are democratic and there is no necessary causal
link between digital media use and open societies.
References
Agarwal, S. D., Barthel, M. L., Rost, C., Borning, A., Bennett, W. L., & Johnson, C. N.
(2014). Grassroots organizing in the digital age: Considering values and technology in
Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. Information, Communication & Society, 17(3), 326–
341.
Bennett, L. (2012). The personalization of politics: Political identity, social media, and
changing patterns of participation. Annals of the American Academy of Political and So
cial Science, 644(1), 20–39.
Bennett, W. L. & Segerberg, A. (2013). The logic of connective action: Digital media and
the personalization of contentious politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bimber, B., Cunill, M. C., Copeland, L., & Gibson, R. (2015). Digital media and political
participation: The moderating role of political interest across acts and over time. Social
Science Computer Review, 33(1), 21–42.

616–636.
Bruns, A. & Highfield, T. (2013). Political networks on Twitter. Information, Communica

tion & Society, 16(5), 667–669.
Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society: The information age: Economy, soci
ety, and culture (Vol. I) (Information Age Series). London: Blackwell.
Castells, M. (2008). The new public sphere: Global civil society, communication networks,
and global governance. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
616(1), 78–93.
Chadwick, A. & Dennis, J. (2017). Social media, professional media and mobilisation in
contemporary Britain: Explaining the strengths and weaknesses of the citizen’s move
ment 38 Degrees. Political Studies, 65(1), 931–950.
Page 35 of 40
Chan, M. (2016). Social networks sites and political engagement: Exploring the impact of
Facebook connections and uses on political protest and participation. Mass Communica
tion and Society, 19(4), 430–451.
Coleman, S. (2001a). Online campaigning. Parliamentary Affairs, 54, 679–688.
Coleman, S. (2001b). Click for democracy. The World Today, 57(5), 17–18.
Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., & Arvidsson, A. (2014). Echo public or public sphere? Pre
(p. 469)
dicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data.
Journal of Communication, 64, 317–332.
Dahlberg, L. (2001). The Habermasian public sphere encounters cyber-reality. The Public,
8(3), 83–96.
Dahlgren, P. (2005). The internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion
and deliberation. Political Communication, 22(2), 147–162.
Dahlgren, P. (2013). The political web: Media, participation and alternative democracy.
Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Foot, K. A. & Schneider, S. M. (2002). Online action in campaign 2000: An exploratory

analysis of the US political Web sphere. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,
46(2), 222–244.
Frame, A. & Brachotte, G. (Eds.). (2015). Citizen participation and political communica
tion in a digital world. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Gadekar, R. et al. (2011). Web Sites for E-electioneering in Maharashtra and Gujarat, In
dia. Internet Research, 21(4), 435–457.
Grudz, A. et al. (2014). Geography of Twitter networks. Social Networks, 34, 37–81.
Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a
category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press.
Haythorthwaite, C. (2002). Strong, weak, and latent ties and the impact of new media. In
formation Society, 18(5), 385–401.
Kende, A., van Zomeren, M., Ujhelyi, A., & Lantos, N. A. (2016). The social affirmation use
of social media as a motivator of collective action. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
46(8), 453–469.
Kim, Y. & Chen H-T. (2016). Social media and online political participation: The mediating
role of exposure to cross-cutting and like-minded perspectives. Telematics and Informat
ics, 33, 320–330.
Page 36 of 40
Loader, B. D., Vromen, A., & Xenos, M. A. (2014). The networked young citizen: Social
media, political participation and civic engagement. Information, Communication & Soci
ety, 17(2), 143–150.
Oxford Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. (2016). Reuters Institute Digital
News Report. http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/research/
files/Digital%2520News%2520Report%25202016.pdf Retrieved July 3, 2018.
Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic poten
tial of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6(2), 259–283.
Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics: sentiments, technology and politics. Oxford, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Rainie, L., Purcell, K. & Smith, A. (2011). The Social Side of the Internet. Pew Research
Centre. http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/01/18/the-social-side-of-the-internet/
Retrieved July 3, 2018.
Rainie, L. & Wellman, B. (2012). The Individual in a networked world: Two scenarios. The
Futurist, July-August, 24–28.
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Finding connection in a computerized

world. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.
Schumann, S. & Klein, O. (2015). Substitute or stepping stone? Assessing the impact of
low-threshold online collective actions on offline participation. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 45, 308–322.
(p. 470) Sunstein, C. (2001). Echo chambers: Bush v. Gore, impeachment and beyond.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Theocharis, Y. & Lowe, W. (2016). Does Facebook increase political participation? Evi
dence from a field experiment. Information, Communication & Society, 19(10), 1465–
1486.
Vromen, A. (2015). Campaign entrepreneurs in online collective action: GetUp! In Aus

tralia. Social Movement Studies, 14(2), 195–213.
Weller, K., Bruns, A., Burgess, J. E., Mahrt, M., & Puschmann, C. (2014). Twitter and soci
ety: An introduction. In K. Weller et al. (Eds.), Twitter and society (pp. xxix–xxxvii). New
York: Peter Lang.
Yates, S. J. & Perrone, J. L. (1998). Politics on the Web. Assignation, 15(4), 49–53.
Notes:
Page 37 of 40
within each domain and the relative frequency of concepts associated with each cluster.
Simeon J. Yates
Bridgette Wessels
Page 38 of 40

Paul Hepburn
Paul Hepburn is a Research Associate at Heseltine Institute for Public Policy and
Practice, University of Liverpool. His research interests lie in exploring the potential
of the new digital media to enhance local democracy and local governance. He is also
interested in methods and tools for analyzing and explaining the structure of online
networks. Prior to pursuing an academic career, Paul worked in local government
conducting research, developing policy, and, lately, implementing an e-government
program.
Alexander Frame
Alexander Frame is an Associate Professor in Communication Science at the Lan

guages and Communication Faculty of the University of Burgundy (Dijon, France),
where he runs the MA course in Intercultural Management. Born in Britain, he grad
uated from the University of Oxford in 1998, before settling in France and complet
ing his PhD in Communication Science at the University of Burgundy, in 2008. He is a
member of the TIL (“Text, Image, Language”) research group (EA 4182), where he
specializes in intercultural communication, political communication on Twitter, orga
nizational communication, and comparative cross-cultural communication studies.
Recent publications include Citizen participation and political communication in a
digital world (Routledge, 2015).
Vishanth Weerakkody
Vishanth Weerakkody joined the School of Management at University of Bradford in

March 2017 as Professor in Management Information Systems and Governance. He
was previously a Professor of Digital Governance at the Business School in Brunel
University, London, where he held several leadership roles. Prior to his academic ca
reer, Prof. Weerakkody worked in a number of multinational organizations, including
IBM UK. He has a successful track record of research and enterprise and has se
cured numerous research grants from funding bodies such as the European Commis
sion (FP7 & H2020), Economic and Social Research Council, Qatar Foundation, and
UK Local Government. His R&D expertise spans several disciplines, including man
Page 39 of 40
agement decision making, ICT evaluation, public administration, social innovation,

and process transformation. He is the editor-in-chief of the International Journal of
Electronic Government Research and a handling editor for Information Systems
Frontiers. He is a chartered IT professional and fellow of the UK Higher Education
Academy.
Page 40 of 40
Digital Ecology of Free Speech: Authenticity, Identity, and Self-Censorship
Digital Ecology of Free Speech: Authenticity, Identity,

and Self-Censorship
Yenn Lee and Alison Scott-Baumann
Through a thematic mapping of the current literature and a gap analysis of the field, the
chapter sheds light on the discrepancies between emerging digital practices and estab
lished theories of free speech. In the contemporary digital age, censorship and surveil
lance are exercised more and more by private actors such as social media platform opera
tors, while self-expression increasingly takes the form of content forwarding, coded lan
guage, and non-human identities. We observe that the current literature shares a “patho
logical” approach; that is, undesirable content ought to be removed, avoided, and institu
tionally intervened upon. This approach, however, poses a new set of difficult questions
such as who decides what is intolerably extreme and what is acceptably moderate; who
designs and implements the filtering of extreme content; and how can the public ensure
the accountability of the filtering mechanism.
Keywords: Censorship, extreme content, filtering mechanism, free speech, self-expression, social media, surveil
lance, undesirable content
Introduction
THE political climate around the world in recent years, especially with regard to national-
level elections and referenda across Europe and in the United States, has been volatile
and conflictual. Observers have expressed concerns about the rise of populism or even
fascism (Allen, 2018; Merelli, 2016; O’Brien, 2018), and have attributed much of the phe
nomenon to the propagation of problematic online content, including deliberate disinfor
mation (a.k.a., “fake news”), racist and misogynous remarks, and material designed to
lead to religious or political radicalization (Beckett & Burke, 2017; Marwick & Lewis,
2017).
Many have attempted to define “populism,” but as Canovan (1981) points out, the term
has been used to describe such a wide variety of phenomena, left and right and democra
cy and dictatorship alike, that it seemingly evades a universal definition. Nevertheless,
Page 1 of 34
Mudde and Kaltwasser (2017) have captured one of the most defining characteristics of
the term; that is, populism is a “thin” ideology, often “parasitic” on another ideology, and
it operates on the basis of dividing society into two antagonistic groups: the honest popu
lation and a corrupt elite. Albertazzi and McDonnell (2008) have added a third group,
“others,” stating that populism, as a political strategy, “pits a virtuous and homogeneous
people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who are together depicted as depriv
ing (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity,
identity and voice” (p. 3).
In this divisive process, one rhetorical tactic that all populist leaders commonly draw up
on is to assert that politics is easy but the elites and experts are lying that it is not.
Promising simple solutions to complex social issues is at the heart of the populist appeal,
(p. 472) which is why politicians “from India’s Narendra Modi to Turkey’s Recep Tayyip
Erdoğan, from Hungary’s Viktor Orbán to Poland’s Jaroslaw Kaczynski, and from France’s
Marine Le Pen to Italy’s Beppe Grillo sound surprisingly similar to each other despite
their considerable ideological differences,” according to Mounk (2018, p. 38). One of the
dangers with such populist rhetoric is that it further alienates people who are already at
the margins; that is, those who have typically been “othered” in a given society. On top of
that, researchers such as Brooker and Barnett (2016), Kaján (2017), and Jane (2018)
demonstrate the significant extent to which “othering” and hate speech have now gone
digital.
Recent discussions on problematic content tend to center on the young generation of

“millennials” (e.g., Fernández-Armesto, 2016; Hurst, 2017; Poushter, 2015). For instance,
it is argued that universities are experiencing a “free speech crisis” globally, despite
there being no consensus yet on who or what is causing the crisis if there indeed is one.
Various reasons have been speculated, including “no platforming” or “safe space” policies
adopted by more and more universities (although this speculation has been somewhat
countered by the UK’s Joint Committee on Human Rights, 2018), “political correctness
gone mad” (as proclaimed by, for example, the so-called “Intellectual Dark Web”; see
Weiss, 2018), the far-right’s cyber harassment against academics (Cuevas, 2018), and
donors’ influence (at least at American private universities; see Perry, 2018), to name a
few.
A key challenge in investigating this possible crisis is that in the digital age the bound
aries of a university campus are becoming more and more “porous.” In other words, while
being physically present on campus, students can also simultaneously interact with a
broader world through various digital means. In this context, millennials, who are also re
ferred to as “native” users of digital technology (Prensky, 2001), are often characterized
by their irreducible reliance upon major social media services to express themselves. In
creasingly marginalized in the traditional political arena (Sloam, 2014), young adults in
deed seem to be taking their politics to “online third spaces” nowadays and seeking new
ways to represent their interests and struggles (Graham, Jackson, & Wright, 2016;
Wright, 2012).
Page 2 of 34
One of the distinct features of the contemporary political landscape, particularly after the
2008 global financial crisis, is that the institutions of representative democracy are going
through a transformative shift worldwide. Europe, for example, has witnessed the mush
rooming of “non-traditional” political parties and their electoral successes, such as the
Five Star Movement in Italy (founded in 2009), the Pirate Party in Iceland (founded in
2012), and Podemos in Spain (founded in 2014). This shift to alternative forms of repre
sentation may not be an inherently positive or negative development. Regardless, the role
that social media have played is significant (Gerbaudo, 2018)—not in the sense of being a
replacement to traditional mass media, but of being an integral part of a wider informa
tion ecosystem where older and newer media interact, compete, collaborate, and learn
from each other (Chadwick, 2013).
What complicates matters is that in such a complex “hybrid” media environment there
have emerged technologically sophisticated attempts to hijack people’s attention (p. 473)
and manipulate public discourses. According to a 2017 report by international human
rights watchdog Freedom House (2017), bots and fake news outlets distorted elections in
at least 18 countries between 2016 and 2017. The Oxford Internet Institute in the United
Kingdom has also provided evidence of “cyber troops” and other formally organized so
cial media manipulation campaigns in operation in 48 countries as of 2018 (Bradshaw &
Howard, 2018).
In short, the propagation of problematic online content needs to be examined and under
stood against the backdrop of the hybridization of mass and social media, the emergence
of non-traditional forms of power and institutions, and the growing technological capacity
for manipulating information. All of these compel us to revisit and update the existing un
derstanding of speech acts, political participation, and public opinion formation. The
present chapter provides a thematic mapping of the current literature on free speech in
the digital age and points to where further research is needed. This review is concerned
in particular with how and to what extent the contours of free speech are contested and
redefined in today’s mesh of physical and digital worlds.
Methodology
In order to survey a field that is expanding and evolving rapidly, our methodology in
volves two key design decisions. First, for a more systematic and comprehensive monitor
ing of the latest developments, we have created and maintained a dynamic and hierarchi
cal list of “buzzwords” in media and public discourses, presented in Table 17.1. The list
has been developed with full awareness and caution that many of the words are contested
terms, such as “counter-terrorism” and “radicalization,” which makes them very difficult
to deal with online. Over 130 words or phrases have been added to the list between 2017
and 2018 (131 as of July 2018), including “algorithmic bias,” “alternative fact,” “attention
merchant” (Wu, 2016), “computational propaganda” (Howard & Kollanyi, 2016), “content
moderation,” “information disorder,” “micro-targeting,” and “meme.” These words and
phrases have then served as multiple entry points to the literature, and also as tools for
Page 3 of 34
thematically organizing the material collected. A computer-assisted qualitative data

analysis software package (NVivo 11 Pro for Windows) has been used for this process and
the overall project. The thematic categories in the left column of the table have been up
dated and revised as the review has progressed.
Page 4 of 34
Table 17.1 List of Keywords Used in the Process of Literature Review
(A posteriori) Keywords
themes
Content regulation moderation free speech

curation hate speech
filter extreme speech
censorship no-platforming
self-censorship safe space
algorithm Generation
algorithmic bias Snowflake
algorithmic trans quarantine
parency civility
platform
platform accountabil
ity
intermediary liability
Truth and authentic “fake news” information disor

ity “alternative fact” der
“post-truth” information pollu
“echo chamber” tion
“filter bubble” media literacy
disinformation information literacy
misinformation digital literacy
malinformation data literacy
rumour coding education
conspiracy theory digital forensics
anti-intellectualism
anti-rationalism
anti-establishment
Attention economy “attention merchant” meme

clickbait viral
SEO emoji
bot GIF
shillbot “digital native”
chatbot millennial
troll dual screening
troll farm “viewertariat”
Facebook “dark influencer
post”
Page 5 of 34
Cambridge Analytica
micro-targeting
psychographic profil
ing
Digital privacy and “networked privacy” men’s rights activist

harassment “context collapse” (MRA)
“contextual integri manosphere
ty” incel
anonymity Red Pill
doxxing Reddit
cyber bullying 4chan
digilantism “normie”
“online othering” Intellectual Dark
online misogyny Web
misogynoir cyber-Hindus
“e-bile”
revenge porn
National laws and “computational pro online radicalisation

politics paganda” counter-terrorism
“cyber troop” sedition
infowar net neutrality
Astroturfing right to be forgotten
“stealth campaign” right to explanation
data ethics mass surveillance
data justice peer surveillance
data ownership “sousveillance”
#BlackLivesMatter Prevent (UK)
#JeSuisCharlie GDPR (EU)
#MeToo Investigatory Pow
#MAGA ers (UK)
alt-right Social Credit Sys
gaslighting tem (China)
dog-whistle politics First Amendment
(US)
Section 230 of CDA
(US)
State of the art hybrid media darknet

virtual reality deep web
big data Tor
blockchain encryption
hacking
Page 6 of 34
Internet of Things DDoS

AI biometric data
machine learning GPS tracking
gamification
gig economy
digital nomad
digital exile
The other decision was to look beyond traditional research publications and pay equally
close attention to journalistic accounts and grey literature, with an aim to integrate schol
arly perspectives with media and public discourses. Many independent research insti
tutes, think tanks, and NGOs have been prolific contributors to moving the field forward.
These include Data & Society (a non-profit research institute, founded in New York in
2014, that explores the societal implications of data-driven technologies, https://
datasociety.net/), Demos (a UK think tank with a dedicated research branch for social me
dia analysis, https://www.demos.co.uk/), the Electronic (p. 474) (p. 475) Frontier Founda
tion (an international NGO committed to defending Internet civil liberties, https://
www.eff.org/), Freedom House (an international watchdog on human rights including dig
ital freedom of expression, https://freedomhouse.org/), and EU-funded research networks
such as VOX-Pol (focused on tackling violent online political extremism, https://
www.voxpol.eu/) and ONLINERPOL (focused on creating enabling online spaces of politi
cal expression, especially in the context of a multi-faith society such as India, http://
www.fordigitaldignity.com/). Meanwhile, an increasing number of higher education insti
tutions have established dedicated research centers, such as the University of Oxford’s
Oxford Internet Institute (https://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/), Harvard University’s Berkman Klein
Center (https://cyber.harvard.edu/) and First Draft (https://firstdraftnews.org/), New York
University’s AI Now Institute (https://ainowinstitute.org/), and Cardiff University’s Data
Justice Lab (https://datajusticelab.org/). Another noteworthy development is that Silicon
Valley’s tech giants are also expanding their research presence, examples of which in
clude Microsoft’s Social Media Collective (https://socialmediacollective.org/) and
Facebook’s own research department (https://research.fb.com/).
As the literature review phase commenced, two observations were immediately

(p. 476)
apparent. First, the existing literature treats free speech in a discrete and contrastive
fashion. Questions have been recurrently raised about whether one’s right to free speech
should ever be limited, especially in case the content is deemed harmful to others (free
speech versus hate speech); whether one truly has freedom of speech if there appears to
be a need to hold anything back (free speech versus political correctness and self-censor
ship); and whether individuals are now freer, or less free, to speak with the prevalence of
digital media (offline free speech versus online free speech). Second, the dominant dis
course is that undesirable content ought to be “pinpointed,” avoided, removed, and insti
tutionally intervened upon (Scrivens & Davies, 2018). Various government initiatives
across Europe for the “prevention of online radicalization” epitomize this “pathological”
approach (Conway et al., 2017; Home Affairs Committee, 2017). Van der Linden et al.
Page 7 of 34
(2017) extend the metaphor and suggest “inoculating the public against
misinformation” (see also Roozenbeek & van der Linden, 2018, for information on a game
rendition of this suggestion).
The approach that pathologizes certain ideas and practices, however, has so far thrown
up more questions than answers. Who decides what is intolerably extreme and what is ac
ceptably moderate? Who designs and implements a mechanism that filters out extreme
content? How can the public ensure the accountability of the filtering mechanism? These,
to name a few, are by no means new questions, but are now further complicated by dis
crepancies between emerging digital practices and established theories of freedom of ex
pression.
The remainder of this chapter exhibits those discrepancies—in four groupings—in order
to develop better understandings of the issues, and to invite further, empirically ground
ed research.
Findings
Beliefs, Opinions, and “Alternative Facts”
Freedom of speech traditionally refers to the right to express one’s ideas and opinions
without fear of government censorship or punishment. However, opinions are now in
creasingly taking the disguise of so-called “alternative facts.” Since first used by White
House aide Kellyanne Conway in January 2017 in an attempt to override the media’s de
piction of President Trump’s inauguration ceremony with a more flattering narrative of
the event, the phrase “alternative facts” has become a shorthand for factually incorrect
information that is nevertheless presented as if it were one of many equally valid options
(Associated Press, 2018).
This phenomenon is symptomatic of how anti-rationalism and anti-intellectualism have

now peaked, most notably in—but not limited to—the United States. As pointed (p. 477)
out by numerous writers, including Isaac Asimov (“A cult of ignorance,” 1980), Al Gore
(The assault on reason, 2007), Andrew Keen (The cult of the amateur, 2007), Susan Jaco
by (The age of American unreason, 2009), Shaheed Nick Mohammed (The
(dis)information age: The persistence of ignorance, 2012), and Tom Nichols (The death of
expertise, 2017), popular unreason can be argued to be a manifestation of “inverted snob
bery about educational privilege” (Townson, 2016), echoing the typical populist rhetoric
against the elites and experts (boyd, 2017a; Cuevas, 2018; Daniels, 2018).
Exemplified by “anti-vaxxers” (a group of campaigners against childhood vaccinations)

and climate change sceptics (those who claim that the science behind global warming is
nothing but a conspiracy), such anti-establishment views and attitudes are gaining
ground fast (Townson, 2016). This is largely attributable to online connections that enable
content to be distributed faster and wider than in pre-Internet times. However, another
crucial development in recent years is that people who propagate questionable content
Page 8 of 34
are increasingly pre-empting criticism by rebranding of falsehoods as “alternative facts”

and emotions/convictions-based politics as “post-truth politics” (Blackburn, 2017). To bor
row Garland’s paraphrase (2018) of Alexander Nix, co-founder and CEO of controversial
political consultancy Cambridge Analytica, information “needn’t be true as long as it’s be
lievable [ … ] in the era of ‘alternative facts.’ ”
Furthermore, based on a study of 126,000 news stories circulated on Twitter between

2006 and 2017, Vosoughi et al. (2018) demonstrate that rumors spread faster than fact-
checked stories on social media platforms. According to the researchers, rumors are
more likely to get shared because of their “novelty appeal” and, contrary to popular as
sumption, it is humans rather than bots that are mainly responsible for such sharing. A
multi-source study by Chadwick et al. (2018) adds that in the context of online debate in
dividual users may see “sharing problematic news as a cultural norm, a practice that is
simply part of ‘what it takes’ to engage politically on social media in order to attract at
tention and nudge others to take positions” (p. 15).
Another neologism, “fake news,” popularly referring to deliberate disinformation, marks

the other side of the coin of the heightened information disorder witnessed today. It has
become a convenient tool for politicians to use to dismiss any negative press and public
criticism against them. Many have pointed out that the term “fake news” discounts the
seriousness of the situation at hand and is therefore unhelpful in addressing the rise of
sophisticated operations to manipulate information flows and public opinion. Wardle and
Derakhshan (2017), for example, argue that the word “fake” does not fully capture the
complexity of the different types of misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation.
Today’s problem is, so their argument goes, about the entire information ecosystem and
its pollution with those various types of incorrect information (see also Jack, 2017; War
dle, 2017).
Motivations to pollute the information ecosystem and “hack our attention” vary, ranging
from financial to ideological, and in many cases such operations are also motivated by
ego and pleasure (boyd, 2017b; Wu, 2016). Regardless of the motivations, what “alterna
tive facts,” “fake news,” and giant Internet intermediaries such as Facebook and Google,
who profile their users and deliver targeted adverts accordingly, have together (p. 478)
created is a world where individual citizens no longer know if they are seeing the same
information that others are. Tufekci (2017) emphasizes that meaningful public debate and
deliberation are not possible “without a common basis of information,” and she goes fur
ther to call our time “the democracy-poisoning golden age of free speech” (Tufekci, 2018,
italics added).
In order to tackle this problem, earlier literature has placed the onus on individual users
to actively seek diverse and more “nutritious” sources of news and information, breaking
out of the so-called “filter bubbles” and “echo chambers,” or what Lim (2017) terms “al
gorithmic enclaves,” created by customized web experiences (Johnson, 2012; Miller,
2008; Newton, 2011). However, Freelon (2018a, 2018b) urges a more nuanced approach
to the issue, highlighting that there are “ideological asymmetries in the consumption, dis
Page 9 of 34
tribution, and acceptance of disinformation” (2018a, p. 40). To be more specific, conserv

atives engage with “opinion-reinforcing disinformation” online more substantially than
their liberal counterparts, and that is, according to him, due to the conservatives’ long-
held distrust in factual reporting by the mass media.
What is increasingly observed is the weaponization of conspiracy theories against politi

cal opponents. A case in point is that Parkland school shooting survivor David Hogg has
been faced with “the plethora of right-wing websites and social media accounts spreading
conspiracy theories about him,” including one that he is in fact a hired “crisis actor,” after
he emerged as one of the student leaders of the US gun control movement in 2018 (Wil
son, 2018).
Content Sharing as a Speech Act
Content travels faster and reaches farther than ever in the digital environment. To theo
rize that, much attention has been paid to the ubiquitous and interconnected nature of
online communication, but technological affordances do not fully explain the prevailing
online culture of relaying content created by someone else (e.g., “sharing,” “retweeting,”
“reblogging”).
In this context, a growing body of literature has looked at Internet memes and virals.
Shifman’s study (2012) of 30 prominent memetic videos on YouTube, for example, identi
fied six common features of such videos: focus on ordinary people, flawed masculinity, hu
mor, simplicity, repetitiveness, and whimsical content. Berger has written extensively on
the psychological dimensions of viral phenomena, and one of his core findings is that con
tent that produces greater emotional arousal—“making your heart race”—is more likely
to get shared (Rees-Jones et al., 2015; see also Berger, 2013; Berger & Milkman, 2012;
Milkman & Berger, 2014). Facebook’s in-house researcher Kramer and two co-authors at
the University of Cornell have claimed, on the basis of a massive real-life experiment on
the company’s platform, that “emotional contagion” occurs not only during in-person in
teraction, as previously assumed, but also on social media, even without direct exchanges
or the assistance of nonverbal cues (Kramer et al., 2014). Their paper is not (p. 479) about
viral content per se, but it is nevertheless noteworthy that it highlights the important role
that emotions play in digitally mediated interactions.
Here, digitally mediated interactions do not only refer to exchanging lengthy, articulate
messages. Frequently they involve nothing more than memes, hashtags, or even emojis,
and those seemingly frivolous devices offer more than meets the eye. Wiggins and Bow
ers (2015, p. 1886) define memes as “remixed, iterated messages which are rapidly
spread by members of participatory digital culture for the purpose of continuing a conver
sation.” At one level, by sharing relatable memes, one may feel “less alone” (Tait, 2017).
In many different cultures, memes are also often found to act as “a kind of moral police of
the internet,” enabling people to “express their values and disparage those of others in
less direct and more acceptable ways” (Miller et al., 2016, p. xvi).
Page 10 of 34
In consequence, memes can be a powerful tool for popular mobilization. The “grass-mud
horse” meme, which was born out of a subversive pun to mock online censors in China, is
an apt example (Wines, 2009). Considering memes in Chinese cyberspace as self-expres
sions in an authoritative climate, An (2013) calls them “the street art of the social web.”
However, while being remixed and passed on, memes and other viral content often take
on a life of their own, as seen in the case of online cartoon character Pepe the Frog. Its
creator, Matt Furie, ended up deciding to kill the character off after it was appropriated
as a symbol of white nationalism and the alt-right during the 2016 presidential election in
the United States (BBC, 2017). The artist’s efforts to reclaim the innocence of the charac
ter were to no avail. To put it another way, “a meme is never just a meme,” in the words of
Phillips and Milner (2017, italics added) with reference to Harvard’s decision to rescind
admission offers from ten prospective students for having posted rape-apologist, pe
dophilic, and violently racist memes on Facebook. A May 2018 court ruling in India, ob
serving that forwarding a social media post is equal to endorsing it, also echoes the point
that content sharing is a speech act in its own right (Ashok, 2018).
A similar evolution has been observed about hashtags. The initial function of hashtags on
Twitter was to facilitate the aggregation of related information within the confines of the
platform through a crowdsourced tagging system. However, a recently growing trend is
that users—especially when facing controversies, conflicts, and crises—choose a pithy
phrase, such as #BlackLivesMatter and #JeSuisCharlie [I am Charlie], that serves as a
“mini statement” in its own right (Giglietto & Lee, 2017). Papacharissi (2016) argues that
hashtags are signifiers that allow crowds to be rendered into “networked publics that
want to tell their story collaboratively and on their own terms” (p. 308), or as she also
calls them, “affective publics” (see also Anstead & O’Loughlin, 2011; Bruns & Burgess,
2015).
Although online users’ readiness to pass appealing—and appalling—content on to others

may be part of the human psyche, recent investigations into social media manipulation
have also revealed that content shares are much more “engineered” than platform opera
tors make them out to be. For example, it has been widely alleged in the media that Russ
ian agents injected divisive rhetoric into American voters’ news feeds through paid
(p. 480) adverts on Facebook to interfere with the 2016 US presidential campaign (Bran
dom, 2017). The field has seen an exponential growth of publications and commentary on
content manipulation in both academic and non-academic outlets since 2016. Some have
focused on who produces propagandist disinformation (e.g., Kirby, 2016; Upadhye, 2018),
while others have examined the curious operations of bots and troll farms (e.g.,
Abeshouse, 2018; Albright, 2018; Confessore et al., 2018; Digital Forensic Research Lab,
2017; Freedom House, 2017; King et al., 2017; Lotan, 2014; Phillips, 2015). Criticism has
also been levelled at platform operators, namely Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, for the
lack of algorithmic transparency and accountability (e.g., Ananny & Crawford, 2018; Bri
dle, 2017; Hill, 2017). Interesting to note is that much of the criticism has come from for
mer employees and other tech insiders (e.g., Cadwalladr, 2018; Lewis, 2017; Thompson &
Vogelstein, 2018).
Page 11 of 34
Privatization of Censorship
Censorship has been traditionally understood as something exercised by governmental

authorities in order for them to control information flows and to contain expressions of
public dissent. However, digital content is increasingly “curated” and “moderated” by a
multitude of private actors, including Facebook and other social media companies.
Various metaphors have been invoked to describe this process. First, social media compa
nies have carefully positioned themselves as “platforms,” on which their users express
themselves. Gillespie (2010, 2017, 2018) points out that this positioning has helped the
companies demonstrate their commitment to individual users’ freedom of expression, but
simultaneously it has also helped them seek limited liability for what those users say. At
least in the US legislative context, being categorized as a common carrier, rather than a
publisher, proves to be vitally important. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
(CDA) of 1996 protects online service providers from being held liable for content posted
by their users, paving the way for Silicon Valley’s social media giants today (Electronic
Frontier Foundation, n.d.). Napoli and Caplan (2017) challenge the “common carrier” sta
tus of social media platforms and online content aggregators, arguing that their business
es in fact fit well within the established parameters of media organizations. A similar se
mantic tension is observed in various sectors other than media. The two authors present
Uber as an encapsulating example, since the company insists that it be considered as a
digital service, not a transportation company. Europe’s highest court ruled otherwise in
December 2017 (Scott, 2017).
It is to be borne in mind that the question about who should regulate social media con
tent is one question that receives differing responses in different countries. Based on a
small number of elite interviews, Miridjanian (2018) states that France and Germany are
in favor of the platforms themselves doing the job, and Italy thinks it should be the police,
while the United States maintains its stance that it is a First Amendment issue. Silicon
Valley companies, who shape digital practices around the world, are indeed routinely as
sociated with libertarianism, although writers such as Morozov (interviewed (p. 481) by
Summers, 2015) and Broockman et al. (2017) clarify that their philosophies do vary but
one commonality among them is that they explicitly oppose regulation. This anti-regulato
ry stance keeps coming up in various discussions on social media content moderation and
freedom of expression, as illustrated in Murgia and Warrell (2017, regarding hate
speech), Schulson (2018, regarding pseudoscience), and Swisher (2018, interviewing
Facebook’s Zuckerberg on “Holocaust denialism”).
With or without legal liability, social media platforms are known to monitor and moderate
user-generated content as per their own policies. Suzor (2018) points out that there has
been very little information, if at all, available to the public on what proportion of social
media posts get moderated and why. This is where the metaphor of “community” is called
on, as in Facebook’s Community Standards. Given the sheer volume of the content being
generated every moment, moderation is largely done algorithmically, but also draws on
cheap labor forces in developing countries (Liptak, 2017; Roberts et al., 2017). The un
Page 12 of 34
pleasant and unappreciated work of removing inappropriate content—or what Roberts et

al. (2017) describe as “scrubbing the net”—is increasingly outsourced to content modera
tors located in India or the Philippines, for example, and those moderators are usually left
with no support for the mental toll that comes with the work. Additionally, Solon (2018)
draws attention to a broader phenomenon of low-paid workers recruited for tasks that
bots are supposed to perform; she calls the phenomenon “the rise of ‘pseudo-AI.’ ”
The opacity of the algorithms underlying how content is curated and regulated on search
engines and social media platforms has proved to pose a threat to democratic function
ing. As discussed earlier, individual citizens no longer have a common basis of informa
tion (Tufekci, 2017), and this problem cannot simply be resolved by opening up the black
box of algorithms. Ananny and Crawford (2018) point out that algorithmic transparency
does not automatically lead to fair and effective governance. They identify many limits of
the “transparency ideal,” the most notable of which is that it can “invoke neoliberal mod
els of agency,” shifting the burden onto ordinary users, while those users may not have
the expertise to scrutinize what they see nor the power to bring about changes where
necessary.
Another important point is raised by O’Neil (2017): despite the widely held belief that al
gorithms can make more objective and hence fairer decisions, they are in fact someone’s
“opinions embedded in code.” It is therefore unsurprising that Facebook has repeatedly
met with public outcries that the site bans posts it should allow (e.g., breastfeeding im
ages on the ground of its no-nudity policy), while allowing posts it should ban (e.g., those
glorifying violence against women on the ground of free speech; Hern, 2013; see also
Facebook’s first-ever Community Standards Enforcement Report, Facebook, 2018).
YouTube has also been subject to recurrent criticisms for its “algorithmic blind spot,”
which has in particular left children vulnerable to predatory content (Kobie, 2017). In this
context, the fundamental challenge is how to ensure checks and balances against the spe
cific visions and cultures of Silicon Valley companies shaping the rest of the world (Noble,
2018; Stark, 2018).
Platforms are not only becoming the arbiters of which content is worth seeing and shar
ing but also the facilitators of data-driven surveillance, often ending up benefiting (p. 482)
corporate and political power holders. Facebook, for example, has been implicated in a
series of privacy breach scandals over the past few years. The latest, and biggest to date,
is one that broke out in March 2018 revealing that a London-based political data analytics
firm called Cambridge Analytica had exploited a loophole in Facebook’s API and “harvest
ed” personal data from as many as 87 million users for “psychographic voter profiling” in
the run-up to the 2016 US presidential election, in order to aid, reportedly, then-candi
date Donald Trump. Kim et al. (2018) term this new, technologically enabled practice a
“stealth campaign,” warning that we are likely to observe more and more of it. The plat
form was also believed to have played a “determining role” in inciting violence and ha
tred against the Muslim Rohingya minority during a 2017 military crackdown in Myan
mar, according to Marzuki Darusman, chairman of the UN Independent International
Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar (cited in Miles, 2018). Concerns have also been raised
Page 13 of 34
about the possible abuse of mobile phone location data for surveillance purposes, exem
plified in Lee’s case study (2011) of a South Korean corporate’s alleged tracking of “tar
geted workers” through GPS monitoring.
In parallel, China has launched a Social Credit System, an expansion of the concept of fi
nancial credit scoring. As per this system, each citizen is rated on all aspects of daily life,
rewarded for good deeds such as charity work and recycling, and losing points for social
ly undesirable behaviors or even relationships, both online and offline (Zeng, 2018). In
this setting, opting out altogether is easier said than done. It is reported that not being
online for a prolonged period is also considered as a cause for suspicion by the authori
ties, especially when it comes to Muslim minorities (Sulaiman & Eckert, 2017). This sys
tem, combined with the Chinese government’s keen investment into artificial intelligence
and facial recognition technology, has been compared to popular culture’s depictions of a
dystopian future, ranging from William Gibson’s iconic cyberpunk novel Neuromancer
(1984) to a British sci-fi TV series Black Mirror (2011 to present) (Friend, 2018).
Deliberate Ambiguity, Voluntary Invisibility, and Self-Censorship
Given the wide array of complexities and new challenges, as outlined so far, more schools
explicitly incorporate “information literacy” and “digital literacy” into their curricula
(e.g., Horowitz, 2017; National Literacy Trust, 2018). Such efforts include advising stu
dents to be mindful of the possible consequences of whatever they post and share online,
and in particular making them realize that on social media platforms their posts are not
demarcated by their original purposes and intended audiences. Markwick and boyd
(2011, 2014) refer to this phenomenon as a “context collapse,” i.e., social media technolo
gies lump together otherwise distinct audiences and information norms, making it ex
tremely difficult for individual users to manage their social presence and privacy (see also
Litt, 2012).
According to a 2013 survey by the Pew Research Center (Hampton et al., 2014),
(p. 483)
people are indeed reluctant to express their opinions on controversial subjects on social
media platforms, especially if they anticipate disagreement from their peers, and such re
luctance is greater on social media than in face-to-face settings. This finding is important
yet unsurprising, considering the highly networked and “public-by-default” nature of the
digital communication environment.
One of the tactics that Marwick and boyd (2014) have discovered being used among
American teenagers to safeguard their online privacy is to embed private or sensitive in
formation within what appears to be an ordinary message. This tactic of “hiding in plain
sight,” also known as steganography, predates the digital age, but what is remarkable in
the social media context is young users’ innovative application of it to create multi-lay
ered access points for what they are really conveying in their online posts. In order to see
past the surface content and unlock the full meaning of a post, members of the intended
audience need to be able to recognize multiple referents (p. 22). In other words, it is “a
sort of interpersonal encryption” achieved through use of “in-jokes, nicknames, code
Page 14 of 34
words, and ‘subtweeting,’ ” to name a few (boyd, cited in Quart, 2014). It has been ob
served, for example, that alt-right trolls are replacing racist slurs with everyday words
(“googles,” “skypes,” “yahoos,” and “skittles”) in their tweets to circumvent content mod
eration. In this lexicon, as Sonnad (2016) deciphers, “googles” means the n-word,
“skypes” means Jews, “yahoos” means “spic,” and “skittles” means Muslims and more
specifically Muslim refugees, resulting in unintelligible posts such as “Chain the googles.”
Moreover, in cyberspace, self-expression increasingly takes place under a fictitious or

even non-human identity, challenging the existing notion of personhood and authorship
(O’Hehir, 2015). On the one hand, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg once famously
claimed that “having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity” (cited
in Kirkpatrick, 2011). This remark resonates with another made by Eric Schmidt in 2009,
when he was the CEO of Google: “if you have something that you don’t want anyone to
know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place” (cited in Esguerra, 2009). A
viewpoint shared in these two quotes, as also summarized by van der Nagel and Frith
(2015), is that each one of us has one singular identity and we are authentic and behave
better when we are true to that identity. On the other hand, many have challenged this
viewpoint. Poole, founder of 4chan, argues that “identity is prismatic. [ … ] Google and
Facebook would have you believe that you are a mirror and that there is one reflection
that you have [ … ], but in fact we are more like diamonds” (cited in O’Reilly Media,
2011). This statement reminds us of Gergen’s (1991) concept of the “saturated self,”
which suggests that the self in the era of postmodernism and digital technology is no
longer a bounded being; it has instead been expanded to consist of multiple, overlapping,
and relational selves.
So far, empirical studies on the correlation between anonymity and undesirable social be
havior online have yielded mixed results. Rowe (2015), for example, has found that the
occurrence of uncivil reader comments was significantly higher on the Washington Post
website, where users are able to maintain their anonymity, than on the Facebook page of
(p. 484) the Washington Post, where commenters are identified. In contrast, Maia and
Rezende’s findings (2016) from comparing levels of profanity in user discussions on

YouTube, blogs, and Facebook indicate that digital affordances enabling anonymity and
homophily are not as significantly related to the expression of foul language as was previ
ously assumed.
In this confusing landscape of digital information and communication, when someone de
cides against speaking unreservedly, that decision may not automatically amount to a
case of self-censorship. Giglietto and Lee’s analysis (2017) of 74,047 tweets containing
#JeNeSuisPasCharlie [I am not Charlie] in the wake of a shooting attack at the offices of
French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo in January 2015 shows that online users mobilize a
repertoire of strategies and methods for engaging with sensitive subjects while navigat
ing the challenges specific to speaking in the social media environment. Such a reper
toire often includes being deliberately ambiguous or even cryptic, especially when the
users in question are a minority voice.
Page 15 of 34
The idea of someone opting for ambiguity, silence, or even invisibility online, however, sits
at odds with the mainstream depiction of free speech as a non-negotiable right that one
either possesses or does not. No law, including the First Amendment of the US Constitu
tion, protects individuals from all negative consequences of their speech acts. Neverthe
less, free speech advocates are extremely resistant to the notion of legal interventions
against speech acts. The crux of their argument is encapsulated in Justice Harlan’s epi
gram “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric” in a 1971 US Supreme Court case on free
dom of speech (cited in Kannabiran, 2017). To put it another way, the power to decide
what speech is socially acceptable should not be vested in the government or certain
groups of people, the point also reiterated by Rowland (2018), attorney of the American
Civil Liberties Union.
The age-old debate over the limits of free speech is now further complicated by disagree
ment on whether posts on social media are public or private. While many such posts are
indeed publicly accessible, Zimmer (2010, 2016) cautions that whoever accesses them,
especially researchers, should remember that the content is posted within a certain con
text, which carries with it certain norms and expectations of privacy—or what Nis
senbaum (2004) terms “contextual integrity.” Digitally mediated speech acts tend to at
tract particularly inconsistent interpretations of free speech. On the one hand, for exam
ple, an increasing number of universities in different parts of the world find themselves in
a position where they need to take disciplinary action against students for posting hateful
content on WhatsApp or Facebook (e.g., BBC, 2018a, 2018b), despite some arguing that
the content has been posted to a closed group, hence private. On the other hand, female
victims of digital harassment are often told that much of the blame is on them because
they have posted certain information online in the first place. Hill (2012) aptly describes
this tendency: “ ‘You’re too public with your digital data, ladies’ may be the new ‘your
skirt was too short and you had it coming.’ ”
There has already been a substantial literature on why people express themselves online
(e.g., Barnes, 2018; Miller et al., 2016; Reagle, 2015), but why people choose not to is still
a relatively underexplored question. Baumer (2015), Kania-Lundholm (2018), (p. 485)
Mayer-Schönberger (2009), and Robards and Lincoln (2017), among others, have redi
rected attention to this question, highlighting the need for a more nuanced understand
ing of voluntary disconnection or deletion from online services.
Again, this is an area where the existing “either/or” framework is not helpful, and re
quires further efforts for theoretical reconciliation. To this end, a useful insight can be
drawn from Lim’s statement (2014) that “the ability to be visible and invisible—present
and hidden, alternating between online and offline spheres—creates a possibility for a
movement to articulate its own view, identity, subjectivity and its own emancipation
through online and offline practices” (p. 62, italics in original). This statement is made in
the context of a study of social movements but in a broader interpretation it reminds us
that exercising individual agency in our time involves navigating in both digital and physi
Page 16 of 34
cal spaces, and being able to be both visible (to intended audiences) and invisible (from
surveillance and harassment).
Conclusion: Where from Here?

Central Implications
The purpose of this chapter has been to provide a synthesis of latest developments in the
field of freedom of expression and digital media. It has identified several “tension points”
in the current literature, where emerging digital practices unsettle the existing philoso
phies of truth, authenticity and control. The environment in which we now communicate
is marked by an unprecedented level of hybridity. It is filled with humans and artificial
agents; assigned and chosen identities; physical and virtual spaces and presences; facts,
emotions, and convictions; and grassroots as well as “Astroturf”—or even “stealth”—cam
paigns (Kim et al., 2018; Klotz, 2007; see also Table 17.2 for a summary of new free-
speech challenges posed by digital technologies and practices).
Page 17 of 34
Table 17.2 Free Speech Challenges Posed by Digital Technologies and

Practices
Existing assumptions Digital complications
Freedom of speech refers to Digital content is easier to manipu

the right to express one’s late than non-digital content.
ideas and opinions without Rumors and disinformation travel
fear of government censor faster and further than in pre-digital
ship or punishment. times.
Facts, falsehoods, and opin Factually incorrect information is cir
ions are distinct categories. culated as if it were one of many
equally valid options (a.k.a., “alterna
tive facts”).
Cascading problematic content has
been normalized and is now part of
repertoires for online engagement
(Chadwick et al., 2018).
The label “fake news” has become a
convenient tool for politicians and
their supporters to use to dismiss any
negative press and public criticism
against them.
Paid adverts are almost indistinguish
able from organic content.
A speech act entails com Communications are increasingly tak

posing a message with an ing place under fictitious or even
audience in mind and deliv non-human identities (e.g., bots).
ering the message effective In social media and digital environ
ly to that audience. ments, intended audiences and even
tual recipients of the content hardly
match.
Individual users cannot be sure how
their social media posts are present
ed (or not presented) to others due to
the opaqueness of content curation
algorithms (Tufekci, 2017, 2018).
Online users no longer know if they
are seeing the same information that
others are (Tufekci, 2017, 2018).
Content forwarding is a speech act in
its own right, and motivations vary.
Page 18 of 34
Content shares are much more “engi

neered” than platform operators
make them out to be.
Censorship is exercised by Content is now predominantly regu

governmental authorities to lated by digital service providers as
control information flows. per their own policies and the inter
ests of their stakeholders.
The process of content moderation is
opaque and hence has scope for
abuse.
There are various and conflicting in
terpretations of what is public versus
private space online.
Digital media technologies are
grounded in the specifics of local
laws and cultures.
Holding back what one Users have developed new and innov
wants to say to avoid sanc ative ways of managing their pres
tions is a case of self-cen ence and privacy in a “context-col
sorship. lapsed” digital environment, includ
ing deliberate ambiguity and strate
gic invisibility.
Consequently, nothing online can be taken at face value, but at the same time ordinary
users cannot solely assume the burden of spotting and dismantling all manipulative oper
ations. The strengthening of “media literacy,” “information literacy,” and “digital literacy”
of the public has been, to borrow the words of Livingstone (2018), “everyone’s favourite
solution” to ensuring a healthy information and communication ecosystem. Despite the
importance and usefulness of those concepts, however, attention has been focused too
much on individual citizens not being outsmarted by the media and the establishment. Ac
cording to boyd (2017a), that approach has now “backfired,” deepening the already exist
ing distrust of “liberal media” and experts and effectively contributing to the recent rise
of popular unreason.
One theme that runs across the present chapter is that pathologizing problematic online
content is not suited to addressing today’s heightened information disorder. As revealed
through news reports of the Russian information warfare (allegedly during the (p. 486)
(p. 487) Brexit referendum, the 2016 US presidential election, and the ongoing conflict in
Ukraine) and the Cambridge Analytica scandal, state-of-the-art innovations in the engi
neering of attention and persuasion are bound to outpace policymakers, regulators, and
the public. It will therefore be an almost unresolvable challenge for certain entities to de
fine what content is acceptable for all, to design a mechanism that filters out the unac
Page 19 of 34
ceptable, and to ensure that the mechanism is fair, inclusive, and accountable to the pub
lic it serves.
Avenues for Future Research
As one way of addressing the challenges just summarized, here we suggest some of the
attention be redirected from functional literacy (e.g., detecting fake news and avoiding
trolls) to the heuristic purposes of language. A few decades earlier Abercrombie (1969)
developed, with medical students, a paradigm of the “anatomy of judgement,” through
which she demonstrated the power of preconceptions to distort how one evaluates evi
dence and the common fear of changing one’s position. Adapting this paradigm, we con
sider that free speech should be grounded in analyzing one’s own decisions. In other
words, free speech is an ongoing process, not a static position, of reflection upon how one
decides what one believes and how one knows what one can say in a given situation
(Scott-Baumann, 2017, 2018).
Building on this literature review chapter, our next step will be to investigate the ways in
which university students understand and exercise their communicative agency in diffi
cult social and political situations, both online and offline, including ones that involve
charismatic speakers and provocative speech typical of populism. We are looking at how
university students in different parts of Europe and Asia navigate controversial topics of
race, gender, religion, and politics, and what enhances or undermines their agency, both
online and offline. The ultimate goal of our ongoing and long-term investigation is to re
connect young people to democratic processes and encourage them to realize their poten
tial as “diffusers” of innovative knowledge and attitudes (Rogers, 2003) in the face of so
cioeconomic and gender inequality.
We focus on university students because they are portrayed contradictorily. On the one
hand, the media warn that they are, unlike their counterparts in the 1960s and 1970s, be
coming indifferent and inactive to dangerous political developments around them (Sch
warz, 2018) or, worse yet, uncritically drawn to “hipster fascism” (Allen, 2018; O’Brien,
2018). On the other hand, in many countries, they are often steered away from political
matters through various legal and policy interventions. The UK government’s Prevent
agenda as part of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 is one example of such in
terventions. Heath-Kelly (2017) shows that fears about students being radicalized into
terrorism creates the perception that universities are “pre-criminal space” (p. 312). Born
out of this perception, constraints are imposed upon the curriculum, upon the guest
speakers who can be invited onto campus (Scott-Baumann, 2018, p. 242), and upon what
student unions as charities may or may not comment upon (Charity Commission, 2018).
To put it another way, a university campus is an ironic site of populism, as it is seen both
as a symbol of elitism and intellectualism, which populists oppose, and as a place where
young and susceptible minds may be recruited into populist waves.
Our review suggests that policies to shield students from dissent and “dangerous
ideas” (e.g., Islam and Muslim culture on UK campuses) may inadvertently—but in some
Page 20 of 34
cases also intentionally—do a disservice to the students and render them unable to work
their way through to balanced discourse. Being exposed to opinions that are different
from the dominant narratives can help young citizens to develop their capability to decon
struct some of the false and socially harmful arguments that they may encounter on cam
pus as well as online, but more importantly such exposure can encourage them to anato
mize their own expressions and judgements.
References
Abercrombie, M. L. J. (1969). The anatomy of judgement: Investigation into the processes
of perception and reasoning. London: Free Association Books.
Abeshouse, B. (2018, February 8). Troll factories, bots and fake news: Inside the Wild
West of social media. Al Jazeera. Retrieved from http://www.aljazeera.com/blogs/amer
icas/2018/02/troll-factories-bots-fake-news-wild-west-social-
media-180207061815575.html
Albertazzi, D. & McDonnell, D. (2008). Introduction: The sceptre and the spectre. In D. Al
bertazzi & D. McDonnell (Eds.), Twenty-first century populism: The spectre of Western
European democracy (pp. 1–14). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Albright, J. (2018, February 15). Trolls on Twitter: How mainstream and local news out
lets were used to drive a polarized news agenda. Berkman Klein Center Collection. Re
trieved from https://medium.com/berkman-klein-center/trolls-on-twitter-how-
mainstream-and-local-news-outlets-were-used-to-drive-a-polarized-news-agenda-
e8b514e4a37a
Allen, C. (2018, July 30). “Hipster fascists”: The normalization of the radical right isn’t
just happening in America. Rantt Media. Retrieved from https://rantt.com/hipster-fas
cists-the-normalization-of-the-radical-right-isnt-just-happening-in-america/
An, X. M. (2013). Memes, the street art of the internet. CreativeMornings. Retrieved from
https://creativemornings.com/talks/an-xiao-mina/1 [video]
Ananny, M. & Crawford, K. (2018). Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the trans
parency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society,
20(3), 973–989.
Anstead, N. & O’Loughlin, B. (2011). The emerging viewertariat and BBC Question Time:
Television debate and real-time commenting online. The International Journal of Press/
Politics, 16(4), 440–462.
Ashok, K. M. (2018, May 11). Forwarding social media posts equal to endorsing it:
Madras HC denies anticipatory bail to BJP leader S. Ve Shekher. Live Law. Retrieved from
http://www.livelaw.in/forwarding-social-media-posts-equal-to-endorsing-it-
madras-hc-denies-anticipatory-bail-to-bjp-leader-s-ve-shekher/
Page 21 of 34
Associated Press (2018, January 16). German linguists: “Alternative facts” the non-word
of 2017. AP News. Retrieved from https://www.apnews.com/
ea702667580744c2a53bf9475855b2c2/German-linguists:-
%E2%80%99Alternative-facts%E2%80%99-the-non-word-of-2017
Barnes, R. (2018). Uncovering online commenting culture: Trolls, fanboys and

(p. 489)
lurkers. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Baumer, E. P. S., Ames, M. G., Burrell, J., Brubaker, J. R., & Dourish, P. (2015). Why study
technology non-use? First Monday, 20(11). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/
index.php/fm/article/view/6310/5137
BBC (2017, May 8). “Hijacked” Pepe the Frog “killed off.” BBC News. Retrieved from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39843468
BBC (2018a, March 20). Exeter university students suspended over racism and rape
claims. BBC News. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-de
von-43473517
BBC (2018b, May 9). University of Warwick suspends 11 students over hate posts. BBC
News. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwick
shire-44052070
Beckett, L. & Burke, J. (2017, May 27). Pathway to extremism: What neo-Nazis and jihadis
have in common. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/
2017/may/27/extremism-terrorism-far-right-neo-nazi-devon-arthurs
Berger, J. (2013). Contagious: Why things catch on. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Berger, J. & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What makes online content viral? Journal of Marketing
Research, 49(2), 192–205.
Blackburn, S. (2017, July). There’s nothing new about post-truth politics. Prospect. Re
trieved from https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/theres-nothing-new-
about-post-truth-politics
boyd, d. (2017a, January 5). l, Did media literacy backfire? Data & Society: Points. Re
trieved from https://points.datasociety.net/did-media-literacy-
backfire-7418c084d88d
boyd, d. (2017b, January 5). Hacking the attention economy. Data & Society: Points. Re
trieved from https://points.datasociety.net/hacking-the-attention-
economy-9fa1daca7a37
Bradshaw, S. & Howard, P. N. (2018). Challenging truth and trust: A global inventory of
organized social media manipulation. Oxford, UK: Oxford Internet Institute. Retrieved
from http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2018/07/ct2018.pdf
Page 22 of 34
Brandom, R. (2017, November 7). Why were the Russian Facebook ads so strange? The
Verge. Retrieved from https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/7/16620380/russia-face
book-ad-bernie-sanders-swimsuit
Bridle, J. (2017, November 6). Something is wrong on the internet. James Brindle. Re
trieved from https://medium.com/@jamesbridle/something-is-wrong-on-the-inter
net-c39c471271d2
Broockman, D., Ferenstein, G. F., & Malhotra, N. (2017). The political behaviour of
wealthy Americans: Evidence from technology entrepreneurs. Stanford GSB Working Pa
per 3581. Retrieved from https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/gsb-cmis/gsb-cmis-down
load-auth/441556
Brooker, P. D. & Barnett, J. (2016, December 13). Where is the “alt-left” on social media?
The Conversation. Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/where-is-the-alt-left-
on-social-media-70290
Bruns, A. & Burgess, J. (2015). Twitter hashtags from ad hoc to calculated publics. In N.
Rambukkana (Ed.), Hashtag publics: The power and politics of discursive networks (pp.
13–28). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Cadwalladr, C. (2018, March 18). “I made Steve Bannon’s psychological warfare tool”:
Meet the data war whistleblower. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://
www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/data-war-whistleblower-christopher-
wylie-faceook-nix-bannon-trump
Canovan, M. (1981). Populism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Chadwick, A. (2013). The hybrid media system: Politics and power. Oxford: Oxford Uni
versity Press.
Chadwick, A., Vaccari, C., & O’Loughlin, B. (2018). Do tabloid poison the well of
(p. 490)
social media? Explaining democratically dysfunctional news sharing. New Media & Soci
ety. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818769689
Charity Commission. (2018). Charity commission operational guidance: 48. Students’

unions. Retrieved from http://ogs.charitycommission.gov.uk/g048a001.aspx
Confessore, N., Dance, G. J. X., Harris, R., & Hansen, M. (2018, January 27). The follower
factory. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/
2018/01/27/technology/social-media-bots.html
Conway, M., Khawaja, M., Lakhani, S., Reffin, J., Robertson, A., & Weir, D. (2017). Disrupt
ing Daesh: Measuring takedown of online terrorist material and its impacts. VOX-Pol Net
work of Excellence. Retrieved from http://www.voxpol.eu/download/vox-
pol_publication/DCUJ5528-Disrupting-DAESH-1706-WEB-v2.pdf
Page 23 of 34
Cuevas, J. A. (2018, January–February). A new reality? The far right’s use of cyberharass
ment against academics. Academe. Retrieved from https://www.aaup.org/article/new-
reality-far-rights-use-cyberharassment-against-academics#.WooQAxPFK8
Daniels, J. (2018, February). Far-right attacks on faculty hurt us all. Clarion. Retrieved
from http://www.psc-cuny.org/clarion/february-2018/far-right-attacks-faculty-hurt-
us-all
Digital Forensic Research Lab (2017, December 29). #BotSpot: How bot-makers decorate
bots. DFR Lab. Retrieved from https://medium.com/dfrlab/botspot-how-bot-makers-
decorate-bots-4d2ae35bdf26
Electronic Frontier Foundation (n.d.). Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Retrieved from https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
Esguerra, R. (2009, December10). Google CEO Eric Schmidt dismisses the importance of
privacy. Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/
2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-dismisses-privacy
Facebook (2018). Community standards enforcement preliminary report. Retrieved from

https://transparency.facebook.com/community-standards-enforcement
Fernández-Armesto, F. (2016, February 18). Taking offence: A new pandemic? Times

Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/comment/
felipe-fernandez-armesto-taking-offence-a-new-pandemic
Freedom House (2017). Freedom on the net 2017: Manipulating social media to under
mine democracy. Freedom House. Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/report/
freedom-net/freedom-net-2017
Freelon, D. (2018a, March 8). Personalized information environments and their potential
consequences for disinformation. In Annenberg School for Communication (Ed.), Under
standing and addressing the disinformation ecosystem (pp. 38–44). Retrieved from
https://firstdraftnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/The-Disinformation-
Ecosystem-20180207-v2.pdf
Freelon, D. (2018b, May 2). Filter bubbles are only part of the problem. Trust, Media and
Democracy. Retrieved from https://medium.com/trust-media-and-democracy/filter-
bubbles-are-only-part-of-the-problem-d3add635651c
Friend, T. (2018, May 14). How frightened should we be of A.I.? The New Yorker. Re
trieved from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/05/14/how-frightened-
should-we-be-of-ai
Garland, C. (2018, April 3). “It needn’t be true as long as it’s believable”: Manipulating
data to strategize propaganda in the era of “alternative facts.” Discover Society. https://
Page 24 of 34
discoversociety.org/2018/04/03/it-neednt-be-true-as-long-as-its-believable-manip
ulating-data-to-strategize-propaganda-in-the-era-of-alternative-facts/
Gerbaudo, P. (2018). Social media and populism: An elective affinity? Media, Cul
(p. 491)
ture & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/

10.1177/0163443718772192
Gergen, K. J. (1991). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New
York: Basic Books.
Giglietto, F. & Lee, Y. (2017). A Hashtag worth a thousand words: Discursive strategies
around #JeNeSuisPasCharlie after the 2015 Charlie Hebdo shooting. Social Media + Soci
ety, 3(1), 2,056,305,116,686,992.
Gillespie, T. (2010). The politics of “platforms.” New Media & Society, 12(3), 347–364.
Gillespie, T. (2017, August 24). The platform metaphor, revisited. Culture Digitally. Re
trieved from http://culturedigitally.org/2017/08/platform-metaphor/
Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the
hidden decisions that shape social media. London: Yale University Press.
Graham, T., Jackson, D., & Wright, S. (2016). “We need to get together and make our
selves heard”: Everyday online spaces as incubators of political action. Information, Com
munication & Society, 19(10), 1373–1389.
Hampton, K., Rainie, L., Lu, W., Dwyer, M., Shin, I., & Purcell, K. (2014). Social media and
the “spiral of silence.” Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://
assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2014/08/PI_Social-networks-
and-debate_082614.pdf
Heath-Kelly, C. (2017). The geography of pre-criminal space: Epidemiological imagina

tions of radicalisation risk in the UK Prevent Strategy, 2007–2017. Critical Studies on Ter
rorism, 10, 297–310.
Hern, A. (2013, October 22). Facebook’s changing standards: From beheading to breast
feeding images. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/technol
ogy/2013/oct/22/facebook-standards-beheading-breastfeeding-social-networking
Hill, K. (2012, April 2). The reaction to “Girls Around Me” was far more disturbing than
the “creepy” app itself. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/kash
mirhill/2012/04/02/the-reaction-to-girls-around-me-was-far-more-disturbing-
than-the-creepy-app-itself/#5efd768268d4
Hill, K. (2017, August 25). Facebook figured out my family secrets, and it won’t tell me
how. Gizmodo. Retrieved from http://gizmodo.com/facebook-figured-out-my-family-
secrets-and-it-wont-tel-1797696163
Page 25 of 34
Home Affairs Committee (2017). Hate crime: Abuse, hate and extremism online. House of
Commons. Retrieved from https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmse
lect/cmhaff/609/609.pdf
Horowitz, J. (2017, October 18). In Italian schools, reading, writing and recognizing fake
news. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/world/
europe/italy-fake-news.html
Howard, P. N. & Kollanyi, B. (2016). Bots, #StrongerIn, and #Brexit: Computational pro
paganda during the UK–EU referendum. ArXiv:1606.06356 [cs.SI]. Retrieved from http://
arxiv.org/abs/1606.06356
Hurst, G. (2017, February 23). Lecturers offer advice on “stifling” right-wing views. The
Times. Retrieved from https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/lecturers-offer-ad
vice-on-stifling-right-wing-views-9xh78vwcm?
mc_cid=a8ee39dff5&mc_eid=7d3735eeeb
Jack, C. (2017). Lexicon of lies: Terms for problematic information. Data &
(p. 492)
Society. Retrieved from https://datasociety.net/pubs/oh/

DataAndSociety_LexiconofLies.pdf
Jane, E. A. (2018). Gendered cyberhate as workplace harassment and economic vandal

ism. Feminist Media Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/
10.1080/14680777.2018.1447344
Johnson, C. A. (2012). The information diet: A case for conscious consumption. Se
bastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
Joint Committee on Human Rights (2018). Freedom of speech in universities: Fourth re
port of session 2017–19. Retrieved from https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/
jt201719/jtselect/jtrights/589/589.pdf
Kaján, E. (2017). Hate online: Anti-immigration rhetoric in Darknet. Nordia Geographical

Publications, 46(3), 3–22.
Kania-Lundholm, M. (2018, May 31). Why online disconnection matters: Voluntary ICT
non-use. WIAS Talk, University of Westminster, London, UK.
Kannabiran, K. (2017, July 5). “Hard words break no bones”: Sedition, free speech, acade
mic freedoms and sovereignty in India. DiscoverSociety. Retrieved from https://
discoversociety.org/2017/07/05/hard-words-break-no-bones-sedition-free-speech-
academic-freedoms-and-sovereignty-in-india/
Kim, Y. M., Hsu, J., Neiman, D., Kou, C., Bankston, L., Kim, S. Y., …, & Raskutt, G. (2018).
The stealth media? Groups and targets behind divisive issue campaigns on Facebook. Po
litical Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10584609.2018.1476425
Page 26 of 34
King, G., Pan, J., & Roberts, M. E. (2017). How the Chinese government fabricates social
media posts for strategic distraction, not engaged argument. American Political Science
Review, 111(3), 484–501.
Kirby, E. J. (2016, December 5). The city getting rich from fake news. BBC News. Re
trieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-38168281
Kirkpatrick, D. (2011). The Facebook effect: The real inside story of Mark Zuckerberg and
the world’s fastest growing company. London: Virgin Books.
Klotz, R. J. (2007). Internet campaigning for grassroots and Astroturf support. Social
Science Computer Review, 25(1), 3–12.
Kobie, N. (2017, November 24). YouTube, kids and Silicon Valley’s recurring algorithmic
blind spot. Wired. Retrieved from http://www.wired.co.uk/article/youtube-kids-mod
eration-google
Kramer, A. D. I., Guillory, J. E., & Hancock, J. T. (2014). Experimental evidence of massive-
scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, 111(24), 8788–8790.
Lee, K.-S. (2011). Interrogating “Digital Korea”: Mobile phone tracking and the spatial ex
pansion of labour control. Media International Australia, 141(1), 107–117.
Lewis, P. (2017, October 6). “Our minds can be hijacked”: The tech insiders who fear a
smartphone dystopia. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/tech
nology/2017/oct/05/smartphone-addiction-silicon-valley-dystopia
Lim, M. (2014). Seeing spatially: People, networks and movements in digital and urban
spaces. International Development Planning Review, 36(1), 51–72.
Lim, M. (2017). Freedom to hate: Social media, algorithmic enclaves, and the rise of trib
al nationalism in Indonesia. Critical Asian Studies, 49(3), 411–427.
Liptak, A. (2017, May 21). Leaked moderation guidelines reveal how Facebook approach
es handling graphic content. The Verge. Retrieved from https://www.theverge.com/
2017/5/21/15672242/facebook-files-moderation-guidelines-graphic-content-on
line
Litt, E. (2012). Knock, knock. Who’s there? The imagined audience. Journal of
(p. 493)
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(3), 330–345.
Livingstone, S. (2018, May 8). Media literacy—everyone’s favourite solution to the prob
lems of regulation. LSE Media Policy Project Blog. Retrieved from http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/
mediapolicyproject/2018/05/08/media-literacy-everyones-favourite-solution-to-
the-problems-of-regulation/
Page 27 of 34
Lotan, G. (2014, June 5). (Fake) friends with (real) benefits. I ♥ data. Retrieved from
https://medium.com/i-data/fake-friends-with-real-benefits-eec8c4693bd3
Maia, R. C. M. & Rezende, T. A. S. (2016). Respect and disrespect in deliberation across

the networked media environment: Examining multiple paths of political talk. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 21(2), 121–139.
Marwick, A. & boyd, d. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, con
text collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133.
Marwick, A. & boyd, d. (2014). Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in
social media. New Media & Society 16(7), 1051–1067.
Marwick, A. & Lewis, R. (2017). Media manipulation and disinformation online. Data &
Society. Retrieved from https://datasociety.net/pubs/oh/
DataAndSociety_MediaManipulationAndDisinformationOnline.pdf
Mayer-Schönberger, V. (2009). Delete: The virtue of forgetting in the digital age. Prince
ton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Merelli, A. (2016, November 29). The key difference between populism and fascism.
Quartz. Retrieved from https://qz.com/847040/the-key-difference-between-pop
ulism-and-fascism/
Miles, T. (2018, March 12). U.N. investigators cite Facebook role in Myanmar crisis.
Reuters. Retrieved from https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya-face
book/u-n-investigators-cite-facebook-role-in-myanmar-crisis-idUKKCN1GO2PN
Milkman, K. L. & Berger, J. (2014). The science of sharing and the sharing of science. Pro
ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Supplement 4), 13,642–13,649.
Miller, A. (2008, March). How the news distorts our worldview. TED. Retrieved from
https://www.ted.com/talks/alisa_miller_shares_the_news_about_the_news [video]
Miller, D., Costa, E., Haynes, N., McDonald, T., Nicolescu, R., Sinanan, J. Spyer, J., …
Wang, X. (2016). How the world changed social media. London: UCL Press. Retrieved
from http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1474805/1/How-the-World-Changed-Social-
Media.pdf
Miridjanian, A. (2018, January 22). Réseaux sociaux: Comment réguler sans (toujours)
censurer? Libération. Retrieved from http://www.liberation.fr/planete/2018/01/22/re
seaux-sociaux-comment-reguler-sans-toujours-censurer_1622027
Mounk, Y. (2018). The people vs. democracy: Why our freedom is in danger and how to
save it. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mudde, C. & Kaltwasser, C. R. (2017). Populism: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Page 28 of 34
Murgia, M. & Warrell, H. (2017, April 8). Why tech companies struggle with hate speech.
The Financial Times. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/
2aaa13b2-1ba2-11e7-bcac-6d03d067f81f
Napoli, P. M. & Caplan, R. (2017). Why media companies insist they’re not media compa
nies, why they’re wrong, and why it matters. First Monday, 22(5). Retrieved from http://
journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/7051/6124
National Literacy Trust (2018, February 7). We launch call for evidence on fake news and
critical literacy. National Literacy Trust. Retrieved from https://literacytrust.org.uk/
news/we-launch-call-evidence-fake-news-and-critical-literacy/
Newton, E. (2011). How much comfort news is in your information diet? Search
(p. 494)
lights and Sunglasses. Retrieved from http://www.searchlightsandsunglasses.org/

how-much-comfort-news-is-in-your-information-diet/
Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79(1),

119–158.
Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New
York: NYU Press.
O’Brien, P. (2018, March 1). Fascism in Italy: The hipster fascists trying to bring Mussoli
ni back into the mainstream. Channel 4 News. Retrieved from https://
www.channel4.com/news/fascism-in-italy-the-hipster-fascists-trying-to-bring-
mussolini-back-into-the-mainstream [video]
O’Hehir, A. (2015, July 23). “A Gay Girl in Damascus”: Behind the twisted tale of a blogger
who “catfished” the whole world. Salon. Retrieved from https://www.salon.com/
2015/07/23/
a_gay_girl_in_damascus_behind_the_twisted_tale_of_a_blogger_who_catfished_the_whole_wor
O’Neil, C. (2017, April). The era of blind faith in big data must end. TED. Retrieved from
https://www.ted.com/talks/
cathy_o_neil_the_era_of_blind_faith_in_big_data_must_end. [video]
O’Reilly Media (2011, October 18). Chris Poole, “High Order Bit” talk. Web 2.0 Summit
2011. O’Reilly Media YouTube Channel. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/e3Zs74IH0mc
[video]
Papacharissi, Z. (2016). Affective publics and structures of storytelling: Sentiment, events

and mediality. Information, Communication & Society, 19(3), 307–324.
Perry, D. M. (2018, May 11). If you’re worried about free speech on campus, don’t fear
students—fear the Koch brothers. Pacific Standard. Retrieved from https://psmag.com/
education/koch-heads
Page 29 of 34
Phillips, W. (2015). This is why we can’t have nice things: Mapping the relationship be
tween online trolling and mainstream culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Phillips, W. & Milner, R. M. (2017, June 6). The Harvard case shows a meme is never
“just” a meme. Motherboard. Retrieved from https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/ar
ticle/zmen4y/the-harvard-case-shows-a-meme-is-never-just-a-meme
Poushter, J. (2015, November 20). 40 percent of Millennials OK with limiting speech of
fensive to minorities. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-
speech-offensive-to-minorities/
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants: Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
Quart, A. (2014, April 25). Status update. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://
www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/books/review/its-complicated-by-danah-boyd.html
Reagle, J. M., Jr. (2015). Reading the comments: Likers, haters, and manipulators at the
bottom of the web. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rees-Jones, L., Milkman, K. L., & Berger, J. (2015, April 14). The secret to online success:
What makes content go viral. Scientific American. Retrieved from https://
www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-secret-to-online-success-what-makes-
content-go-viral/
Robards, B. & Lincoln, S. (2017). Uncovering longitudinal life narratives: Scrolling back
on Facebook. Qualitative Research, 17(6), 715–730.
Roberts, S., Wells, B., Cassidy, C., & Howlader, S. (2017, May 28). Scrubbing the net: The
content moderators. Al Jazeera. Retrieved from http://www.aljazeera.com/pro
grammes/listeningpost/2017/05/scrubbing-net-content-
moderators-170527124251892.html
(p. 495) Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Roozenbeek, J. & van der Linden, S. (2018, February 20). Now there’s a game you can
play to “vaccinate” yourself against fake news. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://
theconversation.com/now-theres-a-game-you-can-play-to-vaccinate-yourself-
against-fake-news-92074
Rowe, I. (2015). Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discus
sion. Information, Communication & Society, 18(2), 121–138.
Rowland, L. (2018, March 9). Free speech can be messy, but we need it. ACLU. Retrieved
from https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/free-speech-can-be-messy-we-need-it
Page 30 of 34
Schulson, M. (2018, June 8). Should Google and Facebook censor the pseudoscience post
ed to their sites? Slate. Retrieved from https://slate.com/technology/2018/06/should-
google-and-facebook-censor-pseudoscience.html
Schwarz, G. (2018, April 18). My family has a Nazi past. I see that ideology returning
across Europe. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/
apr/18/family-nazi-past-ideology-europe-germany-fascism-far-right
Scott, M. (2017, December 20). Uber is a transportation company, Europe’s highest court
rules. Politico. Retrieved from https://www.politico.eu/article/uber-ecj-ruling/
Scott-Baumann, A. (2017). Ideology, utopia and Islam on campus: How to free speech a
little from its own terrors. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 12(2), 159–176.
Scott-Baumann, A. (2018). “Dual use research of concern” and “select agents”: How re
searchers can use free speech to avoid “weaponising” academia. Journal of Muslims in
Europe, 7(2), 237–261.
Scrivens, R. & Davies, G. (2018, February 14). Identifying radical content online. VOX-Pol
Network of Excellence. Retrieved from http://www.voxpol.eu/identifying-radical-con
tent-online/
Shifman, L. (2012). An anatomy of a YouTube meme. New Media & Society, 14(2), 187–
203.
Sloam, J. (2014). New voice, less equal: The civic and political engagement of young peo
ple in the United States and Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 47(5), 663–688.
Solon, O. (2018, July 6). The rise of “pseudo-AI”: How tech firms quietly use humans to do
bots’ work. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/
2018/jul/06/artificial-intelligence-ai-humans-bots-tech-companies
Sonnad, N. (2016, October 1). Alt-right trolls are using these code words for racial slurs
online. Quartz. Retrieved from https://qz.com/798305/alt-right-trolls-are-using-
googles-yahoos-skittles-and-skypes-as-code-words-for-racial-slurs-on-twitter/
Stark, L. (2018, February 17). A lack of emotional intelligence is fueling misogyny and
racism at Google—and across Silicon Valley. Berkman Klein Center Collection. Retrieved
from https://medium.com/@lukestark/a-lack-of-emotional-intelligence-is-fueling-
misogyny-and-racism-at-google-and-across-silicon-2d50f3b4c6db
Sulaiman, E. & Eckert, P. (2017, September 11). China runs region-wide re-education
camps in Xinjiang for Uyghurs and other Muslims. Radio Free Asia. Retrieved from
https://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/training-camps-09112017154343.html
Summers, J. (2015, December 26). Evgeny Morozov on Uber’s disruptive, libertarian lie:
“Whatever the CEO of Uber might say about Ayn Rand, the company itself is interested
only in producing regulation that works in its favor.” Salon. Retrieved from https://
Page 31 of 34
www.salon.com/2015/12/26/
evgeny_morozov_on_ubers_disruptive_libertarian_lie_whatever_the_ceo_of_uber_might_say_a
Suzor, N. (2018, May 8). What proportion of social media posts get moderated,
(p. 496)
and why? Digital Social Contract. Retrieved from https://digitalsocialcontract.net/

what-proportion-of-social-media-posts-get-moderated-and-why-db54bf8b2d4a
Swisher, K. (2018, July 18). Zuckerberg: The Recode interview. Recode. Retrieved from
https://www.recode.net/2018/7/18/17575156/mark-zuckerberg-interview-face
book-recode-kara-swisher
Tait, A. (2017, March 31). It me: How memes made us feel less alone. New Statesman.
Retrieved from https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/internet/2017/03/it-
me-how-memes-made-us-feel-less-alone
Thompson, N. & Vogelstein, F. (2018, February 12). Inside Facebook’s two years of hell.
Wired. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/story/inside-facebook-mark-zucker
berg-2-years-of-hell/
Townson, S. (2016, January 26). Why people fall for pseudoscience (and how academics
can fight back). The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/higher-
education-network/2016/jan/26/why-people-fall-for-pseudoscience-and-how-acad
emics-can-fight-back
Tufekci, Z. (2017, September). We’re building a dystopia just to make people click on ads.
TED. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/
zeynep_tufekci_we_re_building_a_dystopia_just_to_make_people_click_on_ads
[video]
Tufekci, Z. (2018). It’s the (democracy-poisoning) golden age of free speech. Wired. Re
trieved from https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-issue-tech-turmoil-new-cen
sorship/
Upadhye, J. (2018, June 28). Meet Mexico’s king of fake news. BuzzFeed. Retrieved from
https://www.buzzfeed.com/watch/video/59338?utm:term=.doNP9YL1J [video]
Van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S., & Maibach, E. (2017). Inoculating the
public against misinformation about climate change. Advanced Science News, 1(2), 1–7.
Van der Nagel, E. & Frith, J. (2015). Anonymity, pseudonymity, and the agency of online
identity: Examining the social practices of r/Gonewild. First Monday, 20(3). Retrieved
from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5615
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science,
359(6380), 1146–1151.
Wardle, C. (2017, February 16). Fake news. It’s complicated. First Draft. Retrieved from
https://firstdraftnews.org:443/fake-news-complicated/
Page 32 of 34
Wardle, C. & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Towards an interdisciplinary

framework for research and policy making. Council of Europe. Retrieved from https://
firstdraftnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/PREMS-162317-GBR-2018-Re
port-de%CC%81sinformation-1.pdf?x39968
Weiss, B. (2018, May 8). Meet the renegades of the Intellectual Dark Web. The New York
Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-
dark-web.html
Wiggins, B. E. & Bowers, G. B. (2015). Memes as genre: A structurational analysis of the

memescape. New Media & Society, 17(11), 1886–1906.
Wilson, J. (2018, February 21). Crisis actors, deep state, false flag: the rise of conspiracy
theory code words. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us-
news/2018/feb/21/crisis-actors-deep-state-false-flag-the-rise-of-conspiracy-theo
ry-code-words
Wines, M. (2009, March 12). A dirty pun tweaks China’s online censors. New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/world/asia/12beast.html
Wright, S. (2012). From “third place” to “third space”: Everyday political talk in non-polit
ical online spaces. Javnost—The Public, 19(3), 5–20.
Wu, T. (2016). The attention merchants: The epic scramble to get inside our
(p. 497)
heads. New York: Knopf Publishing Group.
Zeng, M. J. (2018, January 23). China’s Social Credit System puts its people under pres
sure to be model citizens. The Conversation. Retrieved from http://
theconversation.com/chinas-social-credit-system-puts-its-people-under-pressure-
to-be-model-citizens-89963
Zimmer, M. (2010). But the data is already public: On the ethics of research in Facebook.
Ethics & Information Technology, 12(4), 313–325.
Zimmer, M. (2016, May 14). OkCupid study reveals the perils of big-data science. Wired.
Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/2016/05/okcupid-study-reveals-perils-big-
data-science/
Yenn Lee
Yenn Lee (PhD, University of London) is a widely published researcher in the sociolo
gy of digital technologies, participation, and social change, with a special interest in
the Asia–Pacific region. She has also long collaborated with various activist and non-
profit organizations outside academia, including Freedom House for its annual report
Freedom on the Net since its first edition in 2011. In her current position as Senior
Page 33 of 34
Lecturer in Research Methodology at SOAS University of London, she teachesPhD

students. interdisciplinary and technology-enhanced research methods.
Alison Scott-Baumann
Alison Scott-Baumann is Professor of Society and Belief in the Department of Reli

gions and Philosophies at SOAS University of London. She is a scholar with an inter
national reputation in Islam in Britain, and her recent book Islamic Education in
Britain, with Cheruvallil-Contractor (2015), is highly regarded in British Muslim com
munities. She recently completed her leadership of Re/presenting Islam on Campus
(2015–2018), a major project funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council of
the United Kingdom. In 2017 she gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human
Rights in their investigation of freedom of speech in universities.
Page 34 of 34
ESRC Review: Economy and Organizations

Simeon J. Yates, Paul Hepburn, Ronald E. Rice, Bridgette Wessels, and Elinor
Carmi
This chapter describes the analyses and results for the ESRC Economy and Organizations
domain, guided by two main questions: How do we construct the digital to be open to all,
sustainable, and secure? And what impacts might the automation of the future workforce
bring? The chapter first provides an initial overview of the major insights from the litera
ture review and analysis, the Delphi surveys, and workshop discussions about the rele
vant range of the concepts of economy and organization (initially, economy and sustain
ability). Four main topics emerged: digital technology uptake by both business and con
sumers; social and economic capital of citizens; digital skills; and economic growth and
change. Analysis of a specially curated set of 1900 articles over the 2000-2016 period
showed perhaps the greatest change in focus over time of all the domains. The earlier lit
erature emphasized information as a product (involving property rights, markets, law),
and some technologies. The later literature highlighted knowledge seeking, skills, com
munication, and uses. The analyses also identified the roles of theory (rather under-uti
lized but, when used, were primarily from sociology) and methods (the most common be
ing literature reviews) in this domain. The chapter ends with a discussion of future re
search directions (e.g., the shaping and development of the digital economy while also
fostering sustainability and participation, and impacts of digital labor on people’s life ex
periences) and research challenges (e.g., measuring overall impact of a digital technology
on a business, and measuring new ways of working and consuming).
Keywords: automation, digital economy, digital labor, digital technology, economic growth and change, ESRC
economy and organizations, ESRC Review, future workforce, sustainability
Introduction
THIS chapter provides an overview of the analyses of the Delphi process, literature re
view and any relevant workshops material for what was originally defined as the Econo
my and Sustainability domain. This domain proved difficult to define via the Delphi work
—it both broadened out to wider economic issues while also overlapped with many of the
Page 1 of 35
other domains. Interestingly, the interpretation of “sustainability” remained predominant

ly within the economic realm rather than in relation to social, environmental, or climate
change realms. The chapter first explores the results of the various digital humanities
analyses of the literature and the review of methods and theory. The chapter then sets out
the results of the Delphi Process, concluding with the key questions, topics, and chal
lenges identified by the process. The final section presents the recommendations for ar
eas of future study. The initial ESRC scoping questions for this domain were
• How do we construct the digital to be open to all, sustainable, and secure?

• What impacts might the automation of the future workforce bring?
Initial Comments
This domain proved the most difficult for which to collect data. Response rates to the Del
phi process were low, and the data provided were more limited than in other domains.
One of the major current social, political, and economic concerns for this domain is the
impact of augmentation and automation, although that is notably absent (p. 324) from the
analysis of prior literature. The potential impact of automation and augmentation was ex
tensively addressed by two dedicated workshops jointly funded by the ESRC and the UK
Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, and by the ESRC and US National Science
Foundation, respectively. We speculate that a review of this domain undertaken in the
coming years would see this topic emerge as a major theme. Chapter 24 details more fully
the outcomes from these two workshops. In the present chapter, we report the Delphi da
ta in full, but we caution that this is not as large or robust a data set as that provided for
the other domains, so the data sets used for the consultation workshop were more limit
ed; therefore, the workshop participants provided additional commentary. Although very
useful, this makes the results here dependent on a smaller set of mainly UK expertise.
Literature Analysis
The literature analysis is designed to identify two sets of data. The first data set compris
es the key topics within the existing literature, which will allow the comparison with ar
eas of importance identified by the Delphi review. The second data set is a content analy
sis of the literature to explore the predominance of specific, theory, methods, and ap
proaches.
Topics
Despite the lower number of Delphi responses, the recommended literature was of com
parable size to the other domains. Table 11.1 lists the 10 most common (2% or more of
the identified cases) concepts identified in the Round 1 literature. Table 11.2 lists concept
pairs.
Page 2 of 35
Concepts Percent
Information 13.4
Knowledge 10.3
Computer 9.2
Internet 6.6
Communication 6.0
Work 5.1
Datum 4.9
Medium 3.1
Chain 2.1
Organization 2.0
Page 3 of 35
Page 4 of 35
chain 3.4 datum 7.8 knowledge 16.4
datum 1.9 industry 1.6 likelihood 1.3
system 1.4 mortgage 1.2 work .9
communica 9.6 observation .9 seeker 4.2

tion
competence 3.4 work 1.1 task 2.7
equipment 1.3 standard 3.0 technician 1.1
sage 1.1 information 21.3 transfer 5.0
spectrum 1.7 literacy 2.8 uncertainty 1.2
stress 2.1 mickey .9 medium 5.0
computer 14.7 producer 2.6 narcissism .7
construct .8 production 7.7 newspaper 1.0
course 2.1 proposition 1.3 outlet .7
Page 5 of 35
education 2.5 sale 1.2 platform 1.9
female 1.0 supply 2.0 story .8
measurement 1.0 technician .9 organization 3.2
personality 1.2 visibility 2.0 production 2.2
student 3.8 Internet 1.5 property 1.0
teacher 1.0 literacy 2.4 work 8.1
trait 1.0 servant 1.4 technology 2.2
van .4 skill 5.8 time 2.3
telecommunica 1.0 work 3.6

tion
Page 6 of 35
All the literature collected from both rounds was analyzed using Wordstat. Word
(p. 325)
stat identified 13 topics, presented in Table 11.3.
Page 7 of 35
Social capital SUPPORT; 10.64 30,941 546 96.1

MEMBER;
GROUP;
SOCIAL;
MEDIAT; COM
MUN
Supply chains SUPPLI; JU 3.60 9442 454 79.9

RISDICT; SUP
PLIER; IN
TANG; CUS
TOM; TAXAT;
CHAIN; VAT;
BUSI
Smart energy STRENGER; 3.27 6168 446 78.5

YOLAND; EN
ERGI; SMART;
EVERYDAI;
LIFE
Page 8 of 35
Economic MARKET; 2.81 15,685 521 91.7

growth NATION;
GROWTH; IN
DUSTRI; COM
PETIT
Democracy and DEMOCRACI; 2.36 17,342 529 93.1

public sphere SPHERE;
POLIT; DEMOC
RAT; CIVIC;
CITIZEN; PUB
LIC; MEDIA
Urban migra MIGRANT; CHI 2.13 4169 401 70.6

tion and mobile NA; URBAN;
MOBIL;
CHINES;
PHONE; CITI;
CLASS; ICT
THRIFT;
LEYSHON; FI
NANCI; GEO
GRAPHI;
SPACE
Page 9 of 35
Facebook and FACEBOOK; 1.96 27,056 537 94.5

Internet use USER; ONLIN;
SITE; WEB; IN
TERNET;
GOOGL; NET
WORK
Digital educa EDUC; SKILL; 1.91 7928 478 84.2

tion and skills CHILDREN;
ADULT;
HOUSEHOLD;
LITERACI;
GENDER; IN
TERNET;
SURVEI
Marxist analysis MARX; CAPIT; 1.75 6447 388 68.3

CAPITALIST;
LABOUR;
FUCH
Twitter TWEET; HASH 1.66 1478 109 19.2

TAG; TWITTER
Page 10 of 35
Product and DEVELOP; 1.63 69,507 555 97.7

technology de PRODUCT;
velopment TECHNOLOGI;
KNOWLEDG;
DESIGN; COL
LABOR; AR;
PRACTIC;
SOFTWAR; THI
Intellectual PROPERTI; IN 1.57 9190 507 89.3

property TELLECTU;
LAW; GOVERN;
PRIVAT
Taxation TAX; OECD; 1.55 692 47 8.3

BEP; TAXAT;
DIGIT;
ECONOMI; JU
RISDICT GST;
VAT
Page 11 of 35
In this case the two analyses do not strongly overlap except in the areas of digital skills
and product development. This may reflect substantive differences in the round 1 and
round 2 data sets, but as noted in chapter 2 (Methods), these are new and to an extent ex
perimental methods. Further research work is needed to explore the different representa
tions that alternative concept and topic modelling tools provide. We would also note that
the idea of “sustainability” was predominantly interpreted as the development of “tech
nologies to support environmental sustainability” such as smart meters. Also, it is clear
that our round 2 respondents took a broader “political economy” definition into account.
Finally, a considerable number of identified texts overlapped with the Citizenship and Par
ticipation (chapter 16), Communities and Identities (chapter 14), and Governance and Se
curity (chapter 22) literature. Looking at the underlying keywords in each analysis, seven
key areas stand out (see Table 11.3):
(p. 326)
1. Product and technology development

2. Social and economic capital
3. Facebook and Internet use
4. Democracy and public sphere
5. Economic growth and change
6. Intellectual property
7. Digital education and skills
Of these, Facebook use, and democracy and the public sphere, have been dealt
(p. 327)
with in the Communication and Relationships (chapter 8), Community and Identities
(chapter 14), and Citizenship and Politics (chapter 16) domains.
Looking over time at the smaller curated literature for the subject “economy,” we can see
an early focus in the literature (2000–2004) on information as a product: goods and pro
duction; costs; information as property, and information rights; markets, transactions,
strategy, law, organizations and firms; with a small focus on technologies, such as net
works, websites, the web, and channels. By 2012–2016, there was almost a complete shift
to emphasizing knowledge seeking, skills and experience, communication, uses (purposes
such as health, support, and attitudes such as anxiety and ambiguity), and more global is
sues such as energy and the information society. But in general the pattern of concepts
over time becomes quite diverse. Figures 11.1 and 11.2 display the changing nature and
frequency of concept pairs in the “economy” subject, from 2000–2004 and 2012–2016.1
Page 12 of 35
Figure 11.1 Economy 2000–2004: Most frequent

concept pairs.

in the center.
Figure 11.2 Economy 2012–2016: Most frequent

concept pairs.

in the center.
Page 13 of 35
In the workshops and stakeholder engagements, the impacts of automation, artifi

(p. 328)
cial intelligence, and augmentation on economy and society were often highlighted (and
these issues are dealt with elsewhere; e.g., chapters 12 and 24). This was a strong soci
etal and media topic at the time of this work, so the ESRC commissioned the team to run
two further workshops on these topics. We therefore introduce some themes from the
stakeholder workshops run before and during the project. In these, SMEs (small and
medium sized enterprises) and corporate and government stakeholders predominantly
raised issues with regard to: product and technology development and uptake, the use of
social media and Internet platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Google), economic growth, intel
lectual property, and digital education and skills.
Given the variations between the analyses of the literature and the additional concerns of
stakeholders, picking key topics in the literature was challenging. We have therefore fo
cused here on the topics with a strong economic aspect that point to wider social issues:
(p. 329)
1. Digital technology uptake by both business and consumers

2. Social and economic capital of citizens
3. Digital skills
4. Economic growth and change
Digital technology uptake. In the ESRC and NSF workshop one of the economics con
tributors noted that “small investments in digital innovations can lead to disproportionate
accumulations in wealth.” This comment reinforces one of the key features of our digital
economy is the extent to which the initial development of digital systems can be relatively
low cost but have high economic returns. This has been the underlying drive behind the
substantive venture capital investment in digital start-ups. At the same time, govern
ments have identified basic and advanced digital skills and digital infrastructure invest
ments as key to developing national productivity (for example the UK government’s digi
tal and industrial strategies at the time of writing). It’s therefore clear that digital tech
nologies have and will continue to change, transform, and even transform many aspects
of the economy and business practices and processes. Social research therefore needs to
understand and examine the processes by which digital products are developed, de
ployed, and taken up by both businesses and consumers.
A key business context where uptake of digital technologies is a challenge is that of

SMEs. In the UK close to 30% of SMEs are limited users of the Internet (see chapter 13).
This is a concern for many countries. For example, Ifinedo (2011) examines Canadian
SMEs and the reasons behind their use (or non-use) of Internet and e-business technolo
gies (IEBT). They concluded that the primary factors influencing adoption of the Internet
are: perceived benefits (the most salient factor), management commitment/support, and
external pressure. At the same time, there is a lack of awareness and knowledge of Inter
net services, which are accompanied by a lack of vendor support and access to financial
support from the Canadian authorities. The issue of governmental intervention to support
the development of a “digital society” is considered in chapters 22 and 23. Within organi
Page 14 of 35
zations, Ifinedo notes that digital leadership is key to the uptake of digital technologies:
“The views of the participating SMEs seem to be indicating that top executive support is
considered crucial for IEBT to the accepted in the adopting organization” (Ifinedo, 2011,
p. 269).
Another key issue is how digital technologies change how organizations function, are
managed, and perceive themselves. There is a large body of literature exploring the par
ticular and general impactions of specific technologies or of digital tools in general that
we cannot explore in depth here. But as we note in the content analysis to come, no clear
theoretical position or approach stood out in the literature analyzed. There are examples,
though, of work that seeks to apply digital- or technology-oriented theory to these issues.
As an interesting take on this issue, Flyverbom et al. (2016), in their introduction to a
special issue on “visibility” in the digital age, argue that in order to understand how con
temporary organizations operate in a digital context, we need to understand how they
manage the “visibilities” provided by digital technologies. That is, how do they make
things transparent or keep things hidden within the organization? This in part refers to
the extent that such technologies allow for the observation of work (content) (p. 330) and
workers (connections). Flyverbom et al. identify four central affordances in digital tech
nologies that are enacted in the contemporary workplace: visibility, persistence, editabili
ty, and association. They argue that taking
an affordance perspective on digital technology use for understanding visibility

management seems appropriate in that it allows scholars not only to focus on the
features of technologies that enable visibility but also to simultaneously probe how
those features interact with and produce people’s goals in ways that encourage
them to orient toward visibilities in entirely new ways.
(Flyverbom et al., 2016)
They conclude:
Visibility is a root affordance in the digital age that helps to enable other branch
affordances, including persistence, editability, association, and likely many others.
In other words, these other affordances are possible because of the visibility affor
dance.
(Flyverbom et al., 2016)
Similarly, there is the need to understand and theorize complex networks of people and
systems created by digital technologies—within companies, among citizens, and across
society and the economy. Contractor, Monge, and Leonardi (2011) provided a typology for
such multidimensional networks that draws from and builds on actor-network-theory and
includes multiple kinds of nodes and multiple kinds of relations, involving both human
and nonhuman actors. At the core of their argument is the claim that failing to conceptu
alize human actors and machines or technologies in complex multifaceted networks as in
Page 15 of 35
terrelated in dynamic processes would provide incomplete and partial research or theory.
They argue:
… making technologies endogenous to networks will offer researchers the ability

to begin thinking about networks composed of different types of nodes (e.g., per
sons, databases, books, etc.), and about where the relationships among these vary
ing nodes also differ (e.g., one might have a friendship relationship with another
person, but an information-retrieval relationship with a database). We call these
“multidimensional networks.”
(Contractor, Monge, & Leonardi, 2011, p. 685)
Adoption of technologies by consumers has also been extensively studied across a range
of disciplines. Such work often blends into the policy domain, as there is a focus on issues
such as digital inclusion, service provision, innovation, and market development. An ex
ample would be LaRose et al.’s (2012) study that examines broadband adoption and use
and offers design and monitoring of sustainable broadband adoption interventions. Again
this is an area where a variety of theories are employed. The authors develop a new theo
ry that takes people’s psychological considerations into account, rather than only demo
graphic factors, when thinking about broadband adoption. Another concept that is taken
under consideration as an improvement to the Diffusion of Innovation theory is self-effica
cy, as they argue that, “habitual Internet use can be expected to provide additional oppor
tunities to observe and directly experience the outcomes of broadband (p. 331) adoption
while bolstering beliefs about individual abilities to use the Internet effectively” (LaRose
et al., 2012). They conclude and reinforce this argument by stating that their “results sug
gest that demographic variables such as age, income, and race play a relatively smaller
role in intentions to adopt broadband, whereas socio-cognitive theory variables such as
self-efficacy and habit strength play a relatively larger role” (LaRose et al., 2012).
Social and economic capital. The other side of the discussion around the socio-econom
ic impact of digital media and technologies is that of growing “digital divides.” Though
discussion of digital inequalities can be found in all the domains reported in this book, a
good number of papers address this in terms of economic, social or cultural capital (see
also chapters 5 and 15). For example, Helsper (2012) proposes a theoretical model that
links social and digital exclusion. She shows how fields of social, economic, cultural, and
personal resources influence digital exclusion. Helsper further argues that offline exclu
sion fields influence digital exclusion and are mediated by access, skills, attitude, or moti
vation. But Helsper also contributes to the debate by noting how digital exclusion influ
ences social exclusion, which she categorizes as four digital impact mediators: relevance
(usefulness), quality of experience (ease of use), ownership (agency and empowerment),
and sustainability (social and financial). Helsper argues:
The four top level fields of offline and digital exclusion relate to each other; an in
dividual who is excluded from one is also likely to be excluded from another. Nev
ertheless, the fields are separate constructs addressing different (macro and mi
cro) aspects of exclusion. These economic, cultural, social, and personal fields are
Page 16 of 35
operationalized through underlying specific resources that are similarly interrelat

ed.
(Helsper, 2012, p. 417)
This is of course an issue across the globe. As an example, Cartier, Castells, and Qiu
(2005) examine the category of “information have-less” which described millions in
China’s income groups such as rural migrants, pensioners, and fired employees who are
sitting in a gray zone of China’s digital divide. Because of their lack of financial re
sources, they have to use inexpensive ICTs such as Internet cafes, prepaid phone cards,
and limited smart mobile phones. The people of this category tend to use “have-less” ICT,
which has three characteristics: inexpensive technologies and services; limited mobility
and low functional choice (usually constrained by time and space); and limited ability to
perform critical informational functions. They note:
The growth of have-less ICTs in China reflects the country’s economic boom since
the 1980s, which is characterized by increasing income inequality … Structural in
equality and institutional constraints can systematically keep the have-less from
accessing regular and high-end ICT services.
(Cartier, Castells, & Qiu, 2005, pp. 22–23)
Skills. Within the debate on digital inequalities, a key concern is not just material access
but also skills. A considerable focus of such work is on the acquisition of digital skills
relevant to both work and to aspects of digital exclusion. Van Deursen and van
(p. 332)
Dijk (2010), building on their prior work, point to four types of digital skills:
1. Operational Internet skills

2. Formal Internet skills
3. Information Internet skills
4. Strategic Internet skills
Using two surveys of the Dutch population, Van Deursen and Van Dijk consider how the
levels of such skills vary with key demographics, concluding that
the original digital divide (defined as the gap between people who have and do not
have physical access to computers and the internet) has developed a second di
vide that includes differences in the skills to use the internet … In digital divide
research, the conclusion that operational and formal internet skills are not suffi
cient for an effective use of the internet so far only received little attention. Infor
mation and strategic internet skills are also required. In contemporary (and fu
ture) information society these skills increasingly determine people’s positions in
the labor market and in social life. Unfortunately, these skills appear to be the
most problematic and a large part of the Dutch population seems to be struggling
to equip themselves with the skills they need to participate in contemporary soci
ety.
Page 17 of 35
(Van Deursen & Van Dijk, 2011, p. 908)
Looking at a specific workplace context, Van Deursen and Van Dijk (2010) examine Dutch
civil servants’ Internet skills (operational, information, and strategic) across different
types of civil servant roles (administrators, executive, and policy advisors). As with the
general population, the authors found that these civil servants do not perform well when
it comes to skills involving information and strategic tasks. They conclude that “the levels
of operational and formal internet skills are higher than the levels of information and
strategic internet skills” (Van Deursen & Van Dijk, 2010, p. 140).
They also noted key variations by age:
Age and position appear most important for the civil servant’s level of operational
and formal internet skills. Younger civil servants performed better than their older
counterparts, and the executive employees performed worse than policy advisors
and administrators.
(Van Deursen & Van Dijk, 2010, pp. 140–141)
Economic change and growth. A key area of concern is of course the specifics of eco
nomic change and growth that comes with the use of digital technologies and media. This
includes the challenges of creating global markets for digital technologies, how such
technologies and their users change both industries and markets, and shifts from “materi
al” to “digital or knowledge” products. This is an area of research that has been ongoing
since the rise of ICTs, predating much of the review work reported here. A part of such
work has been the understanding of how technology standards function to underpin mar
kets for digital technologies, or, conversely, the use of digital technologies (p. 333) to un
derpin markets. For example, David and Steinmueller’s (1996) article examined Global In
formation Infrastructures (GII) and the way that standards influence potential contribu
tions to international trade. They point to a fundamental need to reconcile various infor
mation and communication technology standards:
Technical compatibility standards play an essential role in bringing about interna

tional convergence in the production of these investment goods, and, thereby, tend
to promote competition in telecommunications equipment markets.
(David & Steinmueller, 1996, p. 821)
Especially because GII is not under the governance of one country, this brings new chal
lenges whereby parties try to negotiate power and control through common agreements
on standards. The authors argue that there are three economic reasons behind problems
around interoperability: innovation, individuals’ mass adoption of a particular technology,
and attractiveness of “super-setting” (adding features to a popular product on top of ac
cepted standards).
Page 18 of 35
Somewhat supported by history, Sarkar, Butler, and Steinfield (1998) argued that inter
mediaries, termed as cybermediaries, and multi-organization structures, and what we
may now consider to be “platform economics” of organizations and platforms such as
Amazon, Netflix or Facebook, will play a key role in electronic markets:
… in electronic marketplaces, unique features of environment, the nature of the

underlying technology, and other traditional economies of scope and scale com
bine to make it unlikely that the average production firm will be able to perform
channel functions as efficiently as specialized cybermediaries.
(Sarkar, Butler, & Steinfield, 1998, p. 217)
The literature also examines the question of a shift from manufacturing to data or knowl
edge-based economics (see also chapter 1). Steinmueller (2002) points to the transition in
the structure of economic activities towards a knowledge-based economy, and its implica
tions for social development. The special characteristics of a knowledge-based economy—
where information is the main economic product—mean that there is a need for new
analyses and measures for economic growth that take into account their influence. Stein
mueller provides a brief and simplified summary of the unique characteristics of informa
tion:
Information, in turn, has important economic properties not shared by other eco
nomic commodities, namely: (1) nonexcludability (i.e., an individual’s possession
of information does not prevent another from using it as well); (2) non-rivalry in
use (providing a copy of information does not reduce information ‘holding’); and
(3) low marginal cost of reproduction (once the first copy of information has been
produced, subsequent copies are much cheaper to reproduce).
(Steinmueller, 2002, p. 144)
Some of the problems that arise are searching for, filtering, and evaluating information as
part of knowledge management. There are also regulatory issues that arise when trying
(p. 334) to commodify information, such as intellectual property right and competition pol
icy. Furthermore, there is a need to re-examine individual versus collective knowledge

production.
The openness of the Internet and the rapid ability to exchange information therefore po
tentially undermines more traditional aspects of material-based markets. This tension be
tween the ease of reproduction and market value has been played out in a range of indus
tries, especially media industries, which are based on the creation, distribution, commodi
fication, and, more recently, collection of information (see Rice, 2008), of the last decade.
Steinmueller, points out that restriction of access and digital “ownership” rights are re
quired in such markets:
Information can be transformed from a public good into an economic commodity

to the extent that its reproduction can be limited. The most direct way to limit re
Page 19 of 35
production is to assign property rights in information. By creating ‘legitimate own

ers’ of information, the initial conditions are in place for the operation of a market.
(Steinmueller, 2002, p. 144)
As a counter-point to the optimistic and marketplace orientations of much of this litera

ture, there is also a strong element of critical assessment of the socio-economic impact of
digital media, mainly focused around the work of key authors. Clearly the work of
Castells (2011) falls into this category. Literature that specifically takes a critical social
science view on the digital can be found in a number of works by Fuchs. For example
Fuchs (2016) provides a comparative political-economic analysis of China’s social media,
specifically Baidu (search engine), Weibo (micro-blogging), and Renren (social network)
with the USA dominant platforms Google, Facebook and Twitter. One of the key differ
ences pointed out by Fuchs is that the Chinese state owns three of the dominant plat
forms, while two of them use advertising, which means that commercial and profit logics
are guiding the development of the Chinese Internet in a similar manner to the US case.
The work also challenges the common belief that only Chinese platforms are being moni
tored and censored, whereas Fuchs argues that both Western platforms and Chinese sites
employ Internet filtering and control mechanisms. In addition, media companies in the
West and China enjoy low or no tax regimes. Furthermore, both the US and Chinese plat
forms use relatively similar terms of use and privacy policies that enable them to use and
commodify people’s personal data for various commercial purposes. As Fuchs notes:
User data are both in China and the West’s surveillance-industrial complexes first
externalised and made public or semi-public on the Internet in order to enable
users’ communication processes, then privatised as private property by Internet
platforms in order to accumulate capital and finally particularised by secret ser
vices and the police who bring massive amounts of data under their control that
are made accessible and analysed with the help of profit-making security compa
nies.
(Fuchs, 2016, pp. 30–31)
He further points out the strong links between the various elements of the economy, espe
cially the information and finance sectors, in both China and the United States:
(p. 335)
This circumstance is an indication that the capitalist information economy is both

in China and the USA not independent from the finance industry, but dependent
on its investments, support and loans, which results in an interconnection of infor
mational capitalism and finance capitalism and a dependence of informational cap
ital on finance capital.
(Fuchs, 2016, p. 35)
Page 20 of 35
As in the other review chapters this analysis builds on Borah (2017), though as noted in
the introduction, the data collected in this area was not as strong as in the other domains.
Most of the analyzed papers (59%) were inductive, either describing findings or building
theory. The remainder were deductive, undertaking theory testing or assessment (see Ta
ble 11.4). Just under a third of the papers (30%) undertook primary data collection, with
55% being discursive reviews of, or reflective on, existing research (see Table 11.5).
Concerning the role of theory, only actual use of theory for the purposes of design or
analysis were coded, while general reference to prior work and theory were not. The ma
jority of papers (76%) did not utilize theory in the analysis of data. The main discipline
from which theory was taken was sociology (72% of all theory used). There was consider
able variety in the specific theories applied from any disciplines and no clear preference.
No one theory appeared more than three times. The main research method was literature
reviews (36%; Table 11.6). The majority of the empirical work focused on specific groups,
with a limited number of general population studies (see Table 11.7). No papers were
based on the use of big data.
Percent
Percent
Page 21 of 35
Percent
Survey 11.0
Theory building 11.0
Interview(s) 9.2
None 8.3
Other 6.8
Ethnography 6.1
Focus groups 4.0
Experiment 1.2
Social network analysis .3
Percent
Case study(ies) 1.5
Specific group 34.8
No study group 56.0
As noted earlier, this domain may have the least reliable Delphi data set and therefore the
least explicit starting point for the literature collection, although the identified literature
(p. 336) data set is of a similar scale to all the other domains. The literature appears to be
predominantly reflective and review-based as opposed to being based on empirical data

collection and testing. It also appears to be strongly sociological, as reflected in the
Page 22 of 35
strong political economy aspects of the topic analysis. Selecting areas for future work is
therefore more problematic here, especially as the issue of the automation of work has
been addressed separately.
Delphi Review
The following sections summarize the results of the Delphi process for the domain cover
ing: suggested scoping or research questions, key topics to address within these ques
tions, and key challenges to researching these questions.
(p. 337) Scoping Questions
The Delphi review responses indicated that the two ESRC scoping questions were
deemed broadly appropriate for the domain:
• How do we construct the digital to be open to all, sustainable and secure?

Only a limited number of additional questions were provided, so they were not grouped or
coded:
• How is the digital economy constructed through economic, cultural, and political
processes, and how could it be constructed to enable greater participation and sustain
ability?
• How to guide and assist all participating actors in the digital economy to ensure it is
open to all stakeholders, sustainable, and secure?
• How can the digital and society be shaped in order to be sustainable, participatory,
and fostering co-operation and inclusion?
• What interventions are feasible and desirable in order to shape the digital according
to any set of preferences?
• How should those preferences be established? How should those preferences be ne
gotiated, taking into account the global nature of digital?
• Under which conditions and in what contexts is it desirable to construct a digital
world that maximizes openness, and in which contexts is it desirable to construct a rel
atively closed digital environment?
• What conditions and problems can hinder the establishment of a participatory co-op
erative, sustainable, inclusive information society and digital society?
• In a given context, which approaches to openness are sustainable from a variety of
stakeholder points of view?
• What issues of security arise in each of these contexts that then limit the openness of
the digital world?
Page 23 of 35
As noted previously, we have introduced some themes from the stakeholder workshops
(Digital Leader Salons) run before and during the project. In these, SME and corporate
and government stakeholders predominantly raised issues with regard to product and
technology development, the use of social media and Internet platforms (Facebook, Twit
ter, Google), economic growth, intellectual property, and digital education and skills. The
confirmatory survey asked respondents to select the most important of these, presented
in Table 11.8. The three most frequently mentioned scoping questions (24% each for the
first two and 19% for the third) involved (1) the shaping and developing of the digital
economy, especially in ways that promote participation and sustainability, (2) the shaping
of the interrelations of the digital and society to improve sustainability, co-operation, and
inclusion, and (3) the conditions and problems hindering such shaping.
Page 24 of 35
Question Per
cent
How is the digital economy constructed through economic, 23.8

cultural, and political processes, and how could it be con
structed to enable greater participation and sustainability?
How can the digital and society be shaped in order to be 23.8

sustainable and participatory and foster co-operation and
inclusion?
What conditions and problems can hinder the establishment 19.0

of a participatory cooperative, sustainable, inclusive infor
mation society and digital society?
What interventions are feasible and desirable in order to 14.3

shape the digital according to any set of preferences. How
should those preferences be established? How should those
preferences be negotiated, taking into account the global
nature of digital?
Under which conditions and in what contexts is it desirable 9.5

to construct a digital world that maximizes openness, and in
which contexts is it desirable to construct a relatively
closed digital environment?
In a given context, which approaches to openness are sus 9.5

tainable from various stakeholders’ points of view? What is
sues of security arise in each of these contexts, which then
limit the openness of the digital world?
How can all participating actors in the digital economy be 0

guided and assisted to ensure that the digital economy is
open to all stakeholders and is sustainable and secure?
The consultation workshop noted potential gaps in the suggested scoping ques
(p. 338)
tions and offered the reworked question:
• How do specific digital technologies impact SMES, entrepreneurship, business op

portunities, and collaborations; labor markets, work, and productivity; nature of em
ployment, gig economy, self-employment, job insecurity, and cybercrime; taxation; gig
Page 25 of 35
economy (Uber), Amazon, eBay, and online selling; rural and informal economy, and re
gional or geographical implications (e.g., specialist regions)?
Topics
The topics identified in the Delphi review were coded into 14 categories, listed in Table
11.9. The most frequently mention topic was the role and impact of major corporate plat
forms, followed by disruptive technology, environment and sustainability, forms of digital
labor, and governance. Table 11.10 presents the ranked importance of these from the con
firmatory survey, which closely matches the initial Delphi list.
Table 11.9 Key Topics Ranked by Percent of Cases
Topic Per Topic Per

cent cent
Role and impact of major cor 31 Digital di 4

porate platforms vides
Disruptive technology 12 Digital litera 4

cy
Environment and sustainabili 8 Finance and 4

ty capital
Forms of digital labor 8 Methods 4
Governance 8 Politics 4
Productivity 4
Public vs. pri 4

vate
Surveillance 4
Theory 4
Page 26 of 35
Topic/percent Very impor Important Neutral Unimportant Very unimpor

tant tant
Role and impact 85.7% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

of major corpo
rate platforms
Forms of digital 71.4 28.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

labor
Environment 71.4 0.0 28.6 0.0 0.0

and sustainabil
ity
Disruptive tech 57.1 14.3 28.6 0.0 0.0

nology
Governance of 42.9 42.9 14.3 0.0 0.0

digital economy
Page 27 of 35
The consultation workshop offered a number of additional topics, some of which overlap
with those presented earlier:
• Impacts of digital labor on people’s life experience; impacts on firms of digital plat
forms
(p. 339) • Technology adoption in organizations
• Role of digital monopolies and large corporations; digital impacts on the state: taxa
tion, feedback to society
• Inequality and justice, social divides, financing, investment, crowd funding, lending
• Implications of the digital for energy/resource use (i.e., increased paper consump
tion)
• Enabling of sustainability through digital means through new platforms and apps
• Regional urban/rural development
Challenges
grouped into six categories. Table 11.11 lists these categories, ranked by the number of
coded items, with those deemed to be domain specific by the consultation workshop
(p. 340) marked in bold. By far the highest percentage of cases involved new methods and
tools to study the digital economy, followed at much lower levels by access to data on the
digital economy, ethics, and representativeness of data. Table 11.12 shows their ranking
by the confirmation survey. There is an inverse relationship here between these lists, but
given the low response rates, we should not infer too much from this.
Challenge Percent
New methods and tools to study the digital economy 47
Access to data on the digital economy 13
Ethics 13
Representativeness of data 13
Sustainability and digital technologies 7
Understanding impact and development of algorithms 7
Note: Domain-specific challenges in bold
Page 28 of 35

tant tant
Sustainability 57.1% 42.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

and digital tech
nologies
Understanding 42.9 42.9 14.3 0.0 0.0

the impact and
development of
algorithms
Access to data 42.9 14.3 42.9 0.0 0.0

on the digital
economy
Ethics 28.6 28.6 42.9 0.0 0.0
New methods 14.3 42.9 28.6 14.3 0.0

and tools to
study digital
economy
Page 29 of 35
Representative 14.3 42.9 28.6 14.3 0.0

ness of big data
on digital econ
omy and society
Page 30 of 35
The consultation workshop proposed a set of further challenges, some of which overlap
with those mentioned previously. A number of these are reflected in the cross-cutting
challenges discussed in chapter 25. Here are the challenges, with domain-specific ones in
italics:
• The social sciences need to take place within a more technology-oriented area.
• Funding landscape is inevitably shaped by the status quo/current economic modes—
possibly making it harder for radically different modes to be researched.
• Concerns over the allure of “novelty,” as some “older topics” may also be
(p. 341)
highly needed.
• Measuring overall impact of a digital technology on a business is very difficult.
• Is there a bias towards quantitative data?
• Similarly measuring scale and scope of new ways of working and consuming
• Fluctuating and differentiation of prices make certain qualifications challenging
(e.g., consumer price index).
• Challenges around interdisciplinary/cross-sector working
• Incorporating new forms of data, limited resources, extracting information
Conclusion
Given the more limited data for this domain, making both broad and in-depth conclusions
are harder than it is for the other domains. The literature and the various inputs from
Delphi process, stakeholders, and review workshops tended to focus on the social and or
ganizational aspects. The theme of sustainability has not come through strongly, nor has
formal economics work. This likely points to the foci of the theme questions and limitation
of the sample. But we would argue it also points to the fact that understanding the eco
nomic impact of digital systems has a strong social and sociological element that needs to
be explored.
Overall further work needs to be done to explore the specifically economic disciplinary is
sues that digital technologies engender. Within the context of this review we would ar
gue, caveats concerning the representativeness of the data notwithstanding, that the
workshops, Delphi results, and stakeholder input have defined the following key areas for
future research:
1. The role and impact of major corporate digital platforms, including impacts on
firms of digital platforms and the role of digital monopolies and large corporations.
2. The uptake and impacts of digital technologies in organizations, especially au
tomation and augmentation on work and the economy.
3. Tied to both key areas 1 and 2 are forms of digital labor, including impacts of digi
tal labor on people’s life experience, and the gig economy (linked to platforms).
Page 31 of 35
Two of the key challenges that cross-cut these are the finding of new methods and tools
to study digital economy, and access to data on the digital economy.
References
616–636.
Cartier, C., Castells, M., & Qiu, J. L. (2005). The information have-less: Inequality, mobili
ty, and translocal networks in Chinese cities. Studies in Comparative International Devel
opment, 40(2), 9–34.
Castells, M. (2011). The rise of the network society. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Contractor, N., Monge, P., & Leonardi, P. M. (2011). Network theory. Multidimensional
networks and the dynamics of sociomateriality: Bringing technology inside the network.
International Journal of Communication, 5, 39.
David, P. A., & Steinmueller, W. E. (1996). Standards, trade and competition in the emerg
ing global information infrastructure environment. Telecommunications Policy, 20(10),
817–830.
Flyverbom, M., Leonardi, P., Stohl, C., & Stohl, M. (2016). Digital age. The management
of visibilities in the digital age—introduction. International Journal of Communication, 10,
12.
Fuchs, C. (2016). Baidu, Weibo and Renren: The global political economy of social media
in China. Asian Journal of Communication, 26(1), 14–41.
Helsper, E. J. (2012). A corresponding fields model for the links between social and digital
exclusion. Communication Theory, 22(4), 403–426.
Ifinedo, P. (2011). Internet/e-business technologies acceptance in Canada’s SMEs: An ex

ploratory investigation. Internet Research, 21(3), 255–281.
LaRose, R., DeMaagd, K., Chew, H. E., Tsai, H. Y. S., Steinfield, C., Wildman, S. S., &
Bauer, J. M. (2012). Broadband adoption. Measuring sustainable broadband adoption: an
innovative approach to understanding broadband adoption and use. International Journal
of Communication, 6, 25.
Rice, R. E. (Ed.). (2008). Media ownership: Research and regulation. Cresskill, NJ: Hamp
ton Press.
Sarkar, M., Butler, B., & Steinfield, C. (1998). Cybermediaries in electronic marketspace:
Toward theory building. Journal of Business Research, 41(3), 215–221.
Page 32 of 35
Steinmueller, W. E. (2002). Knowledge-based economies and information and com

(p. 343)
munication technologies. International Social Science Journal, 54(171), 141–153.
Van Deursen, A. & Van Dijk, J. (2010). Civil servants’ internet skills: Are they ready for e-
government? In M. A. Wimmer, H. Chappelet, M. Janssen, & H. J. Scholl (Eds.), Interna
tional conference on electronic government. EGOV 2010 (pp. 132–143). Berlin, Heidel
berg: Springer.
Van Deursen, A. & Van Dijk, J. (2011). Internet skills and the digital divide. New Media &
Society 13(6), 893–911.
Notes:
Simeon J. Yates
Page 33 of 35
Paul Hepburn
Paul Hepburn is a Research Associate at Heseltine Institute for Public Policy and
Practice, University of Liverpool. His research interests lie in exploring the potential
of the new digital media to enhance local democracy and local governance. He is also
interested in methods and tools for analyzing and explaining the structure of online
networks. Prior to pursuing an academic career, Paul worked in local government
conducting research, developing policy, and, lately, implementing an e-government
program.
Ronald E. Rice
Page 34 of 35
Bridgette Wessels

Elinor Carmi

Culture & Society.
Page 35 of 35
ESRC Review: Data and Representation

Simeon J. Yates, Liz Robson, Ronald E. Rice, and Elinor Carmi
This chapter describes the analyses and results for the ESRC Domain of Data and Repre
sentation, guided by the question: “How do we live with and trust the algorithms and da
ta analysis used to shape key features of our lives?” It provides an initial overview of ma
jor insights from the literature review and analysis, the Delphi surveys, and workshop dis
cussions about the relevant concepts of data and representation in a digital age. It then
focuses on technology, development, and organizations but later emphasizes data issues
and, less frequently, policy, information, communication, technology, and research. Four
teen main topics emerged: global and urban culture, governance, Twitter and politics, cy
bercrime, Google, law and hate speech, big data, science and methods, health, gender,
consumer services, ethics and impact, mobile, and social media. The chapter provides
brief summaries of publications dealing with three key issues emerging from these topics:
data methods, data sources, ethics and impact, and data representation and other do
mains. The analyses also highlight theory, methods, and approaches in the literature,
showing predominantly inductive work, emphasizing reviews, commentary, or secondary
data. The main theoretical sources were by far sociology, then psychology and communi
cations and media. The plurality of articles involving research used case studies and vari
ous data collection methods. Finally, the chapter discusses future research and scoping
questions (e.g., with social impacts; privacy and surveillance; citizens/everyday life; and
open data/algorithm transparency/accountability) and research challenges (methods; so
cial theory and social questions; access to data; data literacy; education;, ethics; inequali
ty/exclusion/inclusion/divides; and interdisciplinarity).
Keywords: data analysis, data methods, data representation, data sources, ESRC Review, ethics
Introduction
THIS chapter provides an overview of the analyses of the literature review, the Delphi
process, and any relevant workshops for the Data and Representation domain. The chap
ter first explores the results of the various digital humanities analyses of the literature
Page 1 of 45
and the review of methods and theory, providing examples from specific studies. The
chapter then sets out the results of the Delphi Process, concluding with the key ques
tions, topics and challenges identified by the process. These two sets of results are then
compared. The last section presents recommendations for areas of future study. As a re
minder, the initial ESRC scoping question for this area of work was, “How do we live with
and trust the algorithms and data analysis used to shape key features of our lives?”
Initial Comments
The analysis of this domain was very distinct from the other six. Many of the issues and
questions here seemed to be “born digital” (Negroponte, 1995; Tapscott, 1999; see also
chapter 1). That is, they are questions that can only really be asked in and of a digital age.
This was also the area where the questions seemed to fit closest to the issues raised by
stakeholders in the various workshop sessions. In the discussion with stakeholders it was
the disruptive potential, the social impacts of data and automation, and the need for, or
lack of, clear governance of these that came to the fore. Although the questions and is
sues appear “born digital” in how they are articulated, however, they are not necessarily
“new” in that many could be and were asked of the impacts of ICTs over the last 30 years
or so. What makes them all very pertinent is the intensification of digitization, (p. 502) the
migration of digital into all aspects of everyday life, and the growth of platforms that de
liver key social and personal services as well as economic value, but whose use of data
and underlying algorithms are not overtly visible. Also of note is the number of publica
tions utilizing geographical data and information systems. This likely reflects the maturity
of the field in its use of, and discussions around, data derived from digital media and tech
nologies.
Literature Analysis
Topics
The literature analysis was designed to identify two sets of data. The first is key topics
within the existing literature. This allows the comparison with areas of importance identi
fied by the Delphi review. The second is a content analysis of the literature to explore the
predominance of specific, theory, methods, and approaches. Table 18.1 lists the 16 most
common concepts (2% or more of the cases) identified in the Round 1 literature analysis,
with the most frequent being data/datum, news, country, business, government, medium,
and consumer. Table 18.2 lists concept pairings.
Page 2 of 45
Concepts Percent
Datum 10.4
News 6.7
Country 6.6
Business 6.2
Government 5.7
Medium 4.9
Consumer 4.7
Internet 4.1
Arrow 3.5
Community 3.2
Citizen 3.0
Privacy 2.6
Impact 2.4
Group 2.2
Science 2.2
Development 2.0
Page 3 of 45
arrow 5.01 datum 14.79 medium 6.98
change .67 default 1.30 newspaper 1.93
group 1.02 ecosystem 2.84 penetration .88
internet 1.02 embodiment .74 routine 1.82
level 1.23 passport .39 sentiment .88
user 1.09 preservation 2.59 tablet .74
business 8.80 publisher 2.59 texture .74
competence 2.59 repository 3.54 news 9.53
construct .77 selfhood .81 one-off 1.23
manager 1.72 development 2.87 payment 1.26
partnership 1.54 ecosystem 1.16 quarter .56
professional 2.17 program 1.72 rank .95
Page 4 of 45
citizen 4.28 government 8.06 revenue .91
government 4.28 organization 1.93 story 1.19
community 4.56 sector 2.66 tablet 1.12
connection .95 shift 1.44 television 1.33
planning 1.96 spot 2.03 usage .98
resident 1.65 group 3.08 privacy 3.75
consumer 6.73 male .95 springer .60
customization 1.51 receptivity 1.16 stakeholder 2.07
delay .67 reliability .98 tag 1.09
effect 3.05 impact 3.36 science 3.05
enforcement .88 sector 1.86 war 1.72
tag .63 surveillance 1.51
country 9.36 internet 5.78
fuel .39 male .84
Page 5 of 45
nation 1.26 self-service .91
news 2.03 shopping 2.07
organization .91 store 1.96
pollution .70
price .95
resource 3.12
cepts.
Page 6 of 45
All the literature collected from both rounds was analyzed using WordStat. WordStat
identified 14 topics (Global and urban culture, Governance, Twitter and politics, Cyber
crime, Google, Law and hate speech, Big data, Science and methods, Health, Gender,
(p. 503) Consumer services, Ethics and impact, Mobile, and Social media); see Table 18.3.
These topics map closely to the concepts identified in the concept analysis. Table 18.4
presents an analysis of the overlap between the two analyses.
Page 7 of 45
Global and ur GLOBAL; COS 8.84 13,334 520 91.2

ban culture MOPOLITAN;
CULTUR; UR
BAN; MEDIAT;
LOCAL; MOBIL
Governance PRIVAT; SEC 2.68 890 138 24.2

TOR; GOVERN;
PUBLIC;
CITIZEN; EN
FORC EURO
PEAN; COM
MISS; EU; EU
ROP; HTTP;
EGOVERN
Twitter and pol TWEET; HASH 2.31 4039 279 49.0

itics TAG; ELECT;
TWITTER;
CAMPAIGN
Page 8 of 45
Cybercrime WAR; CYBER; 2.20 749 113 19.8

ATTACK; WAR
FAR; MILITARI;
CYBERATTACK;
MORAL; TER
ROR CKING;
TRAF
Google SEARCH; EN 1.97 9168 493 86.5

GIN; GOOGL;
WEB
Law and hate SUPRA; REV; 1.81 7764 406 71.2

speech SPEECH;
AMEND; ID;
HATE; LAW;
COURT
Big data DATA; BIG; AL 1.71 18,512 510 89.5

GORITHM
Science and SCIENC; 1.64 27,358 548 96.1

methods SCIENTI;
SCIENTIST;
KNOWLEDG;
SOCIAL
Page 9 of 45
Health HEALTH; 1.58 6913 410 71.9

MEDIC;
PATIENT;
MEDICIN; LUP
TON; BODI
Gender WOMEN; MEN; 1.53 4308 323 56.7

GENDER;
ADULT
Consumer ser CONSUM; 1.47 15,804 520 91.3

vices MARKET;
PRODUCT;
CUSTOM;
SERVIC
Ethics and im ASSESS; IM 1.45 14,039 495 86.8

pact PACT; PRIVACI;
PIA; ETHIC
Mobile MOBIL; 1.40 4897 404 70.9

PHONE; DEVIC
Page 10 of 45
Social media FACEBOOK; 1.38 50,989 561 98.4

MEDIA;
YOUTUB; CON
TENT; SITE;
PLATFORM;
VIDEO; USER;
SOCIAL; TWIT
TER; ONLIN;
NETWORK
Page 11 of 45
Page 12 of 45
Con So Sci Glo Con Big Eth Goo Hea Law Mo Gen Twi Gov Cy
cep cial enc bal su da ics gle lth and bile der tter er ber
t/ me e and mer ta and hat and nan cri
Top dia and ur ser im e pol ce me
ic met ban vice pac spe itic
hod cul s t ech s
s tur
e
Da
tum
Ne X
ws
Cou X
ntry
Busi X
ness
Gov X
ern
men
t
Page 13 of 45
Med X
ium
Con X X X
sum
er
In X X
ter
net
Ar
row
Co X
mm
uni
ty
Citi X X
zen
Pri X
va
cy
Page 14 of 45
Im X X
pact
Gro X X X
up
Scie X
nce
De X
vel
op
men
t
Page 15 of 45
Unlike the other domains, several of the topics identified earlier—global culture, gover
nance, citizens—are not in and of themselves the focus of the current examination. In
fact, they represent elements of the other domains such as politics, governance, or
health. In examining the domain of “Data and Representation,” we were looking to
(p. 504) explore what new or existing research issues sat behind the social science topics.
Looking at the use of underlying keywords in each analysis over the period we find an im
portant shift.
As Figure 18.1 shows, in the period 2000–2004, the most frequent concept pairs were
fairly general, involving technology (including Internet, information, systems), con
sumers/people, development (along with country, environment, and world) and organiza
tions (including management and business).1 By the period 2012–2016 (Figure 18.2),
there was much more focus on data issues (not surprisingly), including data, access, use,
privacy and protection, and user, and, less frequently, policy, information, communication
(p. 505) (p. 506) and government, and reference to technology (Internet, service), as well
as research (research, science, project). Data (in the form of “datum”) co-occurred with
nearly all of these. So over the 16-year period, the literature clearly changed its focus
from general technology (including the Internet) use in a few contexts to a pervasive em
phasis on data in a wide variety of contexts.
Figure 18.1 Data and representation 2000–2004:

Page 16 of 45
Figure 18.2 Data and representation 2012–2016:

Working through the analyses we would argue that the topics in the literature are split
between data methods, data sources, and ethical and social impacts. So for data methods
we find discussion of science and methods, use of big data, or specific technologies such
as Google. In terms of data sources there is discussion of data from social media (e.g.,
Twitter) and mobile devices. The areas of focus cover the breadth of the other domains in
this volume with topics such as: global and urban culture; consumer services; health; law
and hate speech; gender; politics; governance; and cybercrime. There are strong themes
of governance, ethics and social impact. As we will discuss later this is very similar to the
breakdown of research questions and challenges from the Delphi review.
The following sections address: data methods, data sources, ethics and impact, and data
representation and other domains. We are not looking here to consider what might
(p. 507) be described as the computing or computer science issues underlying the uses
and forms of data. Rather we are exploring how these issues intersect with social re
search questions and methods in regard to the social impacts of digital technologies. As
with the other ESRC review chapters that have analyzed a specific domain, the following
sections provide examples of literature to develop and highlight the identified themes and
issues. These are not intended to be exhaustive discussions of all the literature.
Data methods. As a starting point for the discussion of the uses of data, the literature
has a number of examples where researchers have reflected on the use of digital data—
often referred to as “big data” (see especially chapters 19 and 20). boyd and Crawford
(2012) raise six critical issues regarding the use of “big data” in research, concerning
what this data means, who has access, how it is analyzed, and for what purposes:
1. Big data’s role in potentially changing the definition of knowledge.
Page 17 of 45
2. The potential for misleading claims for objectivity and accuracy based on “vol
ume” of data.
(p. 508) 3. The need to understand that “bigger” data is not necessarily better, in fact
“small” data can provide meaningful insights.

4. That big data is not “unbiased” or context free and needs to be analyzed within its
context to have meaning.
5. Just because data is easily accessible does not make it ethical to use or analyze
that data.
6. Limited access to big data creates a new digital divide.
The authors define big data as a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon that
rests on the interplay of technology, analysis and methodology:
Big Data offers the humanistic disciplines a new way to claim the status of quanti
tative science and objective method. It makes many more social spaces quantifi
able. In reality, working with Big Data is still subjective, and what it quantifies
does not necessarily have a closer claim on objective truth—particularly when con
sidering messages from social media sites.
(p. 667)
They go on to argue that
Interpretation is at the center of data analysis. Regardless of the size of a data, it

is subject to limitation and bias. Without those biases and limitations being under
stood and outlined, misinterpretation is the result. Data analysis is most effective
when researchers take account of the complex methodological processes that un
derlie the analysis of that data.
(p. 668)
Continuing the reflections of methods and technologies that researchers use, Ruppert et
al. (2013) examine social science methods in light of digital media and devices increasing
ly being the “stuff” that rework, mediate, mobilize, and materialize social life. Their arti
cle raises questions of how digital devices complicate social sciences’ “ways of knowing.”
As they argue, digital methods are not conducted in laboratories but involve large statisti
cal procedures which rely on interconnected devices. They are also defining and shaping
human relations. They note tha:
When we speak of methods here we mean the specific apparatuses that assemble
digital devices and data to ‘know’ the social and other relations. We are saying
that digital devices and the data they generate are both the material of social lives
and form part of many of the apparatuses for knowing those lives.
(p. 24)
Page 18 of 45
Considering the way digital devices are entangled with social science research, Ruppert
et al. offer nine provocations for digital methods:
1. Much of the data from digital media is about transactional interactions of ac
tors (whether human or machine). It logs and measures the complex flows and net
works of transactions but may have limited detail on the specific actors. (p. 509) This
means that non-individualist and non-human accounts of the social can be examined,
2. We need to be mindful of the heterogeneity of actors in networks (Latour, 2010;
Latour & Woolgar, 1986) who create, translate and transmit the data—from people to
software agents. It is possible that the “human” description of society is replaced by
a socio-technical and transactional description.
3. The re-emergence of visualization is a key to social analysis. Though many “big
data” analyses remain statistical, visualizations have taken up a greater role in the
presentation, communication, and analysis of social data.
4. Some digital data are available over continuous time. Unlike surveys which are
at best temporal snapshots (e.g., in panel surveys) or ethnographic case studies that
might contain narrative accounts, many forms of digital data such as social media
can be traced over time. That said, many digital data sources do not get archived and
so leave no temporal trace.
5. Many digital data sets claim to have whole populations rather than samples—in
that all users are in the data set. Care needs to be taken here as these are whole
populations of their users—or more accurately of their transactions (see provocation
1)—but these may not be representative of relevant whole populations (within an
area or activity).
6. Slightly counter-intuitively, these whole populations and integrated data (see 5
and 1) allow for forms of granularity in analysis that other methods do not. Individu
als can be formed into groups inductively and statistically validated against criteria
to offer predicators or identify likely features (e.g., credit risk, re-offending, or cul
tural taste).
7. There is a potential changing role for expertise in data collection. If data is pro
duced as a by-product there is no need for experts to be involved in the design of the
tools used in its creation. You may not need a survey design expert, as all your cus
tomer data comes from their transactions. As such, non-social science specialists
such as computer scientists become more prominent mediators of how and what da
ta are collected. Social science expertise may come in after the fact in the forms of
the analysis, critique of the methods, and interpretation and presentation of the re
sults.
8. Data are now generated in complex social spaces that through mobile and mobi
lizing technologies are multi-faceted. You may generate personal data from your mo
bile device while sitting at work, generating occupational data via your laptop. Data
therefore may transcend current institutional boundaries. Many devices actively seek
users’ involvement in logging and selecting data (e.g., Facebook) and to an extent
generate data akin to Mass Observation work of the mid-20th century (Summerfield,
1985), yet on a greater scale and with less structure and obtrusiveness.
Page 19 of 45
9. Given 1 to 8, there is considerable danger of non-coherence of knowledge cre

ation as the data sources, their transience, their accessibility, and the availability of
digital tools to analyze these makes everyone a potential “knowledge creator.”
Though this might seem like a democratization of data and knowledge, Rupert,
(p. 510) Law and Savage note that this may in fact be an erosion of the processes
whereby analyses and knowledge are properly validated. Whatever the balance be
tween these positions, they note that knowledge production may be less coherent in
the context of digital data.
They conclude that
in relation to digital devices, then, we need to get our hands dirty and explore
their affordances: how it is that they collect, store and transmit numerical, textual,
aural or visual signals; how they work with respect to standard social science
techniques such as sampling and comprehensiveness; and how they relate to so
cial and political institutions.
(Ruppert et al., 2013, p. 32)
But of course, digital data are not confined to more quantitative forms. boyd (2015) dis
cusses the way ethnographers can capture ethnographic data when examining teens’
everyday life with technology. To do that, she undertook offline participant observation,
semi-structured interviews, content analysis and “deep hanging out.” One of the main
things boyd emphasizes is the need to discuss wider issues and not focus only on technol
ogy as context in order to understand how and why teens use digital systems. As implied
by Ruppert et al., digital data may be partial and focus on the transactional, and not the
person:
Getting at what teens do and why they do it requires triangulation and persever
ance. It requires being embedded in teen culture and talking with teens about
their practices. Social media may increase the visibility of certain teen practices,
but it does not capture the full story. More often than not, getting at the nuances
of teen life in a networked era requires going back to foundational practices.
(p. 95)
As noted previously (Ruppert et al., 2013), another key method and tool in digital re
search is visualization. Kennedy et al. (2016) highlight methodological and representa
tional concerns and critiques. They argue that data representation through visualizations
is often portrayed as objective and is valued as explanation. The visual structuring and
presentation of the data increases the persuasiveness of the results, especially by using
multiple techniques: showing the data sources, using a “clean” layout, creating order
with shapes and lines, and using two-dimensional viewpoints. They argue that such con
ventions
Page 20 of 45
work to imbue visualizations with the quality of objectivity (which brings together
other qualities such as transparency, scientific-ness and facticity). This produces
the impression that visualizations are showing the facts, telling it like it is, offer
ing windows onto data. It is not visualization designers who are creating this
sense of objectivity, we propose, but rather the conventions on which they neces
sarily draw in producing visualizations.
(p. 716)
These are necessary corollary concerns to raise as digital data are becoming ever
(p. 511)
more embedded in social methods.
Data sources. Digital media and technologies provide for a range of data types—from so
cial interactions, buying preferences, cultural consumption through geographic location
data and more. How we both understand and use this variety of data types to undertake
research and to understand our digital society is a key focus for this domain. As noted
earlier, digital data sources are not free of bias, may be skewed to certain aspects of so
cial behavior, and need to be understood in their context. One of the most obvious current
sources of digital data are social networking sites. boyd and Ellison (2007) examine key
characteristics of social network sites, while exploring their history and how academia
had been studying them up to that time. They defined social network sites as
Web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public

profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they
share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those
made by others within the system.
(p. 211)
Of course, in the time since then, social networking sites have moved beyond the web to
mobile and smart devices, making them even more embedded in everyday life. boyd and
Ellison note how it is the social basis of the networked interaction that is key—even if
these social interactions have a transaction-like format. They note the same issues as all
social research: that understanding of the context and the social structures and groups
within (or that form through) the use of social networking are key.
One way to address such issues is to include communities in the collection and analysis of
data. For example, Elwood (2006a) combines participatory research with the use of GIS
data (sometimes termed as public participation GIS), in part through everyday practices
of knowledge production. The availability of large data sets with GIS data embedded
(e.g., from mobile devices) has expanded the range of potential analyses. As Elwood
notes, such work is not straightforward. Drawing on participatory practices involves ex
clusion and inclusion and also contradictory and ambiguous priorities and strategies for
social and spatial change. Elwood states:
Page 21 of 45
Interventions in the participatory processes in which GIS is used have included

strategies for incorporating local spatial knowledge in these processes. Such
adaptations include collaborative mapping exercises, community review and cri
tique of spatial data developed for a GIS, collective field work to gather data for a
project, or community conflict mediation through a GIS application.
(p. 199)
Elwood also reiterates a version of the points made by Kennedy earlier—that representa
tions of digital data, in this case GIS data, are not neutral. They involve a range of
(p. 512) selection and presentational choices that link the final representations to the con
texts of their production:
Representations of research results reveal similar ambiguities, with some repre

sentational forms proving to be accessible and useful for some audiences and situ
ations but not for others. Using GIS in ways that expand the forms of spatial
knowledge that can be included may have the unintended consequence of limiting
the capacity of some participants to use GIS or gain access to maps and data pro
duced.
(p. 206)
But digital data also change how we “do” research; creating new opportunities and mak
ing new forms of analysis possible. But we have to take into account the points made ear
lier that data from digital systems may foreground certain behaviors (e.g., transactions)
and that we need to draw on other sources for a full picture. For example, Crampton et al.
(2013) provide an outline of the way big data affects the practice of critical human geog
raphy, showing how these are socially produced spaces that combine virtual and material
spaces. The authors propose five extensions to mapping geofenced data in what they call
“beyond the geotag”: going beyond (1) social media visualizations which include geo
graphic coordinates; (2) spatialities of the “here and now” and accounting for relations as
they evolve over time; (3) the proximate, meaning including more dimensions such as so
cial network analysis; (4) the human towards data that is produced by bots; and (5) the
geoweb, meaning to include different types of sources such as governmental data
sources. As they note of digitally generated data,
… while it is often high in quantity, it is not necessarily equally high in quality.

Naturally, big data will often yield insights in and of itself, but we argue that by
leveraging the available user-generated data … with other data sets, and by mar
rying and tracing interactions between user-generated data and events outside
the users’ knowledge or control, that an additional richness is provided to an
analysis otherwise impossible by limiting oneself to single data source.
(p. 137)
Page 22 of 45
Ethics and impact. The final points made previously in regard to “not always benign
ends” highlight the need to address the ethics of data derived from digital systems. Ethics
issues have been raised across all the domains, especially in regard to the use of data. It
seems fitting here to unpack these and indicate some prevalent concerns. We would ar
gue that there are four main areas of ethical concern for digital research and especially in
regard to data and representations. The first is digital inequalities—sometimes referred to
as digital divides, digital exclusion, ICT divides or information divides among other terms.
There are deep ethical concerns about the impacts of lack of digital access, skills and
knowledge can have on citizens. These are not just concerns about the economics of digi
tal exclusion—be that the costs of access or the work and employment consequences of
limited digital skills. Rather, they talk to the consequences for citizens in all the domains
addressed in this book of not having, having limited, or having differentiated, access to
digital technologies (see, for example, chapters 5, 15, and 19). As Mordini et al. (2009)
note,
(p. 513)
The digital divide cannot be characterised solely as a consequence of socio-eco

nomic variables nor can it be conceptualised solely in terms of socio-economic pri
orities. Social dynamics, personal motivations and cultural elements are as impor
tant as economic factors. Digital inclusion, in practice, implies changes affecting
all these threads of the social fabric and promises benefits to society including
economic development, health care improvements and enhanced levels of social
inclusion.
(p. 207)
Much research and policy has been undertaken to understand digital inequalities, but
these are not always framed in terms of ethics.
First, we would argue that these are fundamentally ethical issues, following Mordini et
al.:
We need a flexible and dynamic ethics of digitalisation which takes into account
not only the need to protect individuals from unlawful intrusions, but also the en
abling side of privacy and data protection, i.e., enabling individuals, with different
capabilities, to forge relationships, to stay authentically active in society, to ex
press and share their views.
(p. 218)
Second, we would argue that ethics may have taken a back seat to both technical and
business opportunity as digital technologies have been developed and deployed. These
concerns have been addressed in a variety of publications in our data. For example
Wright (2011) proposes a framework for ethical impact assessment that can be applied to
various information technology applications such as policy, service, projects, or programs.
The four principles that the ethical framework outlines are autonomy (which includes lib
Page 23 of 45
erty and agency), dignity, informed consent (freely given and informed), and safety. Other
issues to take into account are social solidarity, inclusion and exclusion, accessibility, dis
crimination and social sorting, value sensitive design, sustainability, equality and fairness,
and transparency. Some of the tools to investigate whether an application is ethical are
through consultations and surveys, expert workshops, a checklist of questions, an ethical
matrix, consensus conferences, and a citizens’ panel. The paper argues that:
… ethical impact assessment is needed of new and emerging technologies because

technologies are not neutral, nor value free. Technologies, how they are config
ured and used, reflect the interests and values of their developers and owner …
[and that] ethical impact assessment is also needed because ethical considera
tions are often context-dependent.
(p. 223)
Third, there are many and complex issues around the use of digital data. This has recent
ly been framed in terms of the uses of “big data” but debates are pertinent to many forms
of data collected via digital media and technologies. As Crawford et al. (2014) note, criti
cal takes on “big data” cover politics, ethics, and epistemology. These are issues of power
and control over creation and use of big data, social values around its use, and the ethics
of what it represents. Akin to points discussed earlier by Ruppert et al. and by Kennedy et
al., they argue that
(p. 514)
It is big data’s opacity to outsiders and subsequent claims to veracity through vol
ume that discursively neutralizes the tendency to make errors, fail to account for
certain people and communities, or discriminate.
Fourth, and by no means last, there are the standard ethical concerns of conducting re
search. The accessibility, often in public contexts, of digital data may give rise to an as
sumption that it is simply available for research use. In fact, like all research, the analysis
of data from digital systems requires thorough ethical review. Nowhere is this clearer
than in digital health research. For example Ajunwa et al.’s (2016) article provides an eth
ical framework for health data collection conducted by corporate wellness programs. This
ethical framework focuses on three key areas: (1) informed consent to collect the data,
(2) data handling, and (3) employment discrimination concerns. When it comes to con
sent, employees should be informed of the benefits and disadvantages of joining the
health program. They should also be informed about the scientific evidence that backs
the program and should know whether the data collected is accurate. When it comes to
data handling, it is important to make sure there is transparency about who collects, con
trols, and owns the data. And lastly, there is a need to make sure wellness programs do
not become surveillance programs which exclude people who may cost more money to
the company. As they note:
Page 24 of 45
… an important part of an ethical workplace wellness program is transparency

concerning data collection, storage, and also data ownership. Would-be partici
pant employees should be apprised of issues of data management and should also
be informed about steps taken to safeguard the data.
(Ajunwa et al., 2016, p. 478)
Data representation and other domains. There is not space here to address how data
and representations are key to both the research questions and the methods for all the
domains discussed in this book. While these have implications for all the domains, some
domain literature emphasize this issue more than others. There are some social research
questions that are about data from or in digital systems. In particular there are questions
about what communities, groups, and individuals do with such data. For example, Elwood
(2006b) examines the way communities organize urban planning in creative and multifac
eted ways (see especially chapters 19 and 22). The work focuses on communities that use
digital spatial technologies such as geographic information systems (GIS) to deploy statis
tical and spatial data analysis as well as mapping to help them plan and monitor neigh
borhood changes. In particular, Elwood points out that communities produce flexible nar
ratives (neighborhood conditions, needs, goals, activities) for different audiences and
agendas, arguing that these communities
… have devised a more complicated institutional and spatial strategy that allows
them to maintain opportunities to insert their spatial knowledge into key decision-
making practices, sustain long-term working relationships with other influential
agents in urban spatial politics, and enhance their own capacities by drawing on
funds, expertise, and advocacy from other actors and institutions.
(p. 324)
This is a key point—data from digital systems can be used by many groups—there
(p. 515)
fore one of the key social research challenges is that of understanding which and how
communities, organizations, groups, and individuals are using such data.
Similarly there are social, political, governance, and research debates about how data are
generated, shared, and accessed. For example, McKee (2011) examines three issues that
have a huge impact on the future of the World Wide Web and Internet-based communica
tions: net neutrality, corporate data mining, and government surveillance. Net neutrality
is about the way content should be delivered equally across networks in terms of their
transmission speed and priority. Corporate data mining happens as most online services
are provided for free, including software that researchers use such as Google Docs. How
ever, this convenience comes with the cost of this data being captured and recorded and
then packaged, repackaged, and transferred (see Rice & Hoffman, 2018 for an analysis of
the changing business coverage of attention technologies). McKee concludes with advice
on the importance of educating citizens, teachers, researchers, and others about the
Page 25 of 45
changing behavioral patterns around the Internet, especially so as to encourage and pro
mote advocacy for web literacy:
Even as you read this, data about you is being collected, packaged, shipped and
sold all over the world. Data mining for ‘interest-based ads’ (Google’s term) and
‘instant personalization’ (Facebook’s term) is big business, pushing online compa
nies’ stock values soaring and challenging the boundaries of what online users will
accept.
(p. 280)
We note that revelations and concerns about these companies’ use of such data can also
cause their stock values to drop.
This therefore has implications for how to think about educating citizens—at all levels in
the education system—about the types of data collected about us, its uses, and the conse
quences of it being shared:
As we integrate in ever more complex ways Web technologies in our classes, as we

develop digitally-focused writing programs, writing majors, and graduate degrees,
we can aim to build in—as workshops, as activities or units of some courses, as a
course unto itself—explicit discussion of policies that shape and will shape the In
ternet now and in the future.
(McKee, 2011, p. 287)
There are also deeper implications about how we do social research. In one of the project
workshops a question was raised about how research funding, design, and ethical assess
ment could keep pace with the need to undertake research “on the fly” or “in real time.”
As Ruppert et al. (2013) pointed out earlier, data from digital systems can be continuous
—often reflecting potentially much more rapid social processes. This creates the possibili
ty of not only undertaking research in real time but the need to understand these faster-
paced social phenomena. As an example, Elmer (2013) examines vertical tickers on lead
ing social media, focusing on the Canadian Broadcasting corporation, to (p. 516) show
how political parties intervene in real time on Twitter during political debates. Elmer sug
gests that Internet studies must engage with “live-research” in order to understand Inter
net politics and dynamics:
Real-time or ‘live’ research is a bit of a misnomer in that it requires the pre-set

ting of a research agenda, a method of data collection, and, in this instance at
least, a heavy reliance upon other forms of near real-time comparative data (e.g.,
the CBC’s debate transcripts). Live research should therefore be viewed and un
derstood as an effort at developing methods of collecting and analyzing data flows
on platforms that hyper-accentuate the present, rather than simply enacting re
search and analysis in real time.
(p. 27)
Page 26 of 45
Elmore concludes that
Live research, as such, serves not only to question and understand the interface
time of social media practices and platforms, but also challenges the time-com
pressed and space-delimited sphere of academic scholarship.
(p. 28)
This analysis builds on Borah (2017). Most of the analyzed papers (70%) were inductive,
either describing findings or building theory (Table 18.5). The papers were predominantly
focused on reviews of prior work and secondary data (overall 70%) with only 29% under
taking primary data work (Table 18.6). Overall the literature is therefore far more reflec
tive and involving commentary on the issues than that in the other six domains. The main
disciplines from which theory was used or for which theory was developed (p. 517) were:
Sociology (62.5%), Communications and media (20%), and Psychology (17.5%). Only actu
al use of theory for the purposes of design or analysis were coded; general reference to
prior work and theory were not coded. There was considerable variety in the specific the
ories applied from these disciplines, though there was no substantive clear preference.
The main specific theories were from sociology (62.5%; sociomateriality, structuration,
and critical theory), and communications and media (20%; with uses and gratifications,
55% as the main one).
In this domain, the majority of studies (53%) did not involve research methods, with
about a quarter applying non-discourse qualitative analysis (26%) (see Table 18.7). Where
primary research was undertaken, the main research methods were surveys (14%), inter
views (14 percent), literature reviews (14 percent) and experiments (12 percent). The plu
rality of the empirical work focused on case studies (40%) with a limited number of gen
eral population studies (Table 18.8), reflecting the review and commentary nature of the
materials. Less than 2% of studies overtly stated that they were using a “big data” ap
proach.
Percent
Page 27 of 45
Percent
Percent
Discourse (textual-linguistic-discourse) 2.1
Not applicable 53.1
Population Percent
Specific group 36.8
This was the most distinct data set with limited empirical studies across the domains. At
the same time the topics and issues raised were far more clearly “born digital” in that
they focused on what the consultation workshop termed the “datafication” of people and
society. As already noted, some of these questions are not new, having been asked of the
impacts of ICT at home and work for much of the last 30 years. Yet, the intensity of the is
sues and the breadth and depth of the role of digital technologies adds considerable
weight to making such questions mainstream in social research topics, theories, methods,
and approaches.
Page 28 of 45
This was the only area where an overt discussion of the “social construction” of digital
technologies, data, and algorithms clearly surfaced. The team saw this as a (p. 518) foun
dational question for all the domains as it cuts to the heart of questions of technological
determinism that shadow research on society and technology. It was felt that such issues
should underpin any research within the other six domains. This domain also clearly had
the closest connection to debates on the uses and impacts of the digital tools in research
—though it presented very few studies actually using these! We would argue that a key el
ement of future research deploying digital tools should be robust reflection on their effi
cacy, and also clear documentation of the practical steps required for their use.
Delphi Review
Here, the results of the Delphi process for the Data and Representation domain cover:
suggested scoping or research questions, key topics to address within these questions,
and key challenges to researching these questions.
The Delphi review identified a set of scoping questions for the domain, which were coded
into the seven categories detailed in Table 18.9 (citizen and community use of data; citi
zen interaction with data and algorithms; data literacy; methods; power and accountabili
ty for data and algorithms; social construction of data and algorithms; and social implica
tions of data and automation). Their ranked importance from the confirmatory survey is
given in Table 18.10, with social implications ranked highest and power and accountabili
ty ranked second highest. These two lists closely match.
Page 29 of 45

category
Citizen and Alternative: How do groups across society relate to,

community trust, and experience datasets, algorithms, and da
use of data ta analysis that impact directly and indirectly upon
key features of contemporary life?
How are citizens informed of the immediate and po
tential later uses of data that they provide in and of
their uses of both commercial and public digital
services?
Citizen inter What moments of intervention within digital life are

action with programmed and expected? What range of motion
data and al is possible?
gorithms Sub-question: to what extent is trust a feature of
our relationships to data and algorithms?
How do people feel (affectively) about algorithms
and Big Data?
Data literacy What capacities of thought are necessary to recog

nize forms of algorithmic governance in everyday
life?
How do we live with the algorithms and data analy
sis used to shape key features of our lives; how do
we determine and ensure their trustworthiness?
How do we enhance data literacy to improve our
collective abilities to interrogate, assess, under
stand, and communicate about the algorithms and
data analysis increasingly shaping key features of
our lives?
To what extent do we understand the algorithms
and data that shape our lives?
Methods Moreover, which approaches should be developed

or adopted for the study algorithmic culture?
Page 30 of 45
Power and How do we increase the accountability, transparen

accountabili cy, and oversight of the algorithms and data analy
ty for data sis that influence key features of our lives?
and algo Based on Tony Benn’s five questions on power:
rithms What power do specific datasets and algorithms
have over the lives of citizens in contemporary life?
Where does that power originate from? In whose in
terests is it exercised? How is it held to account?
And how can it be avoided or removed?
Social con Who are the organizations and groups that create
struction of socially consequential algorithms?
data and al How do socially consequential algorithms (e.g., for
gorithms social media news feeds and consumer recommen
dations) reflect the social backgrounds of their cre
ators?
How do representations and discourses produce
consent or dissent about algorithms and Big Data?
Social impli What are the possibilities that you see for identify
cations of da ing the social, economic, and political costs, as well
ta and au as the benefits to be derived from expanded use of
tomation algorithms, artificial intelligence, and data analysis
more generally?
What kind of research needs to be done to under
stand the scope and impact of algorithms?
What are the effects of algorithms and data analy
sis?
How do we live with the algorithms and data that
now shape key features of our lives?
How do we materialize data?
What do you see as the most promising paths to
ward the assessment, evaluation, and minimization
of the mal-distributed harms associated with ex
panded use of algorithms and massive data analy
sis?
How do we make sense of these materializations
and incorporate them into our everyday lives?
How to describe and analyze the consequences of
datafication as well as algorithmization?
Page 31 of 45
Relative to other determinants of social position,

such as wealth, education, culture, etc., what influ
ence do specific algorithms and data analysis car
ried out by governments and private firms have on
individual and collective social welfare?
What prior forms of techno-social relations created
foundational experiences for the speedy pervasive
ness of digital life?
How to account for the drive towards further quan
tification and metrification of everyday life?
Social implications of data and automation 24.4
Power and accountability for data and algorithms 22.2
Citizen interaction with data and algorithms 15.6
Data literacy 15.6
Citizen and community use of data 11.1
Social construction of data and algorithms 11.1
Specific scoping questions identified in the Delphi review were coded into nine categories
(see Table 18.11), with social impacts ranked highest, but closely followed by privacy and
surveillance, citizens/everyday life, and open data/algorithm transparency/accountability:
The ranked importance of these from the confirmatory survey are presented in Table
18.12, showing that social implications; privacy and surveillance; citizens/everyday life
experiences and uses of data; and understanding open data/algorithm transparency/and
accountability were rated by over half of the participants as “very important.” As with the
scoping questions, those topics that were most commonly cited in the Delphi workshop
were generally also those deemed most important in the confirmatory survey.
Page 32 of 45

es
Topic Percent
Social impacts 20
Privacy and surveillance 18
Citizens/everyday life 16
Open data/algorithm transparency/accountability 16
Exclusion/inclusion/divides 12
Data visualization/social construction 6
Methods 6
Digital identity 4
Economics 4
Page 33 of 45
Page 34 of 45

tant tant
Social impacts 86.7% 13.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

of data
Privacy and sur 60.0 33.3 6.7 0.0 0.0

veillance
Citizens/Every 53.3 33.3 13.3 0.0 0.0

day life experi
ences and uses
of data
Understanding 53.3 33.3 13.3 0.0 0.0

Open data/Algo
rithm trans
parency Ac
countability
Data exclusion/ 40.0 53.3 6.7 0.0 0.0

inclusion/di
vides
Digital identity 40.0 33.3 20.0 6.7 0.0

and data
Page 35 of 45
Data visualiza 40.0 13.3 46.7 0.0 0.0

tion/Represen
tation/Social
construction of
data
Research meth 26.7 33.3 33.3 6.7 0.0

ods
Economic im 20.0 66.7 0.0 13.3 0.0

pacts
Page 36 of 45
Research Challenges
The consultation workshop was in broad agreement with the preceding scoping questions
as research questions, but argued for a “data”-focused approach with five alternate ways
of viewing the questions and topics, presented in Table 18.13.
Table 18.13 Data-focused Topics and Challenges
Topic Challenge
Datafication Ownership, exploitation, rights, boundaries, new

sources
How is data being stored and by whom?
Data bias: inequity and stereotypes in the data?
Archiving: tools, algorithms and processes
Data literacies Making data and processes visible

Domain and general literacy
People who do not want to/cannot be “datafied”
Privacy, securi Needs to know more about the difference be

ty, and trust tween personal and machine data
Access and permissions
Citizen choice in data creation and use
Unintended consequences
The future? Need to think beyond the current data environ

ment
Data interpreta Beyond data to meaning

tion AI and IoT and how they use data
Algorithms and meaning
Data semantic gap
Accountability, social values, and transparency
Page 37 of 45
Challenge Percent
Methods 57.9
Analytics and measurement 7.9
Combining old and new social research methods 7.9
Concepts 15.8
Social measures 5.3
Understanding and developing new research methods 21.1
Social theory and social questions 7.9
Access to data 5.3
Data literacy 5.3
Education 5.3
Ethics 7.9
Inequality/exclusion/inclusion/divides 5.3
Interdisciplinarity 5.3
Page 38 of 45

tant tant
Ethics 66.7% 26.7% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0%
Data inequality/ 53.3 40.0 6.7 0.0 0.0

exclusion/inclu
sion/divides
Interdiscipli 53.3 26.7 13.3 6.7 0.0

nary working
(Computing and
social science)
Methods—Com 46.7 26.7 20.0 6.7 0.0

bining old and
new social re
search methods
Social theory 40.0 53.3 6.7 0.0 0.0

and social ques
tions
Methods—Con 40.0 33.3 26.7 0.0 0.0

cepts
Page 39 of 45
Higher educa 40.0 20.0 40.0 0.0 0.0

tion and train
ing
Access to data 20.0 60.0 20.0 0.0 0.0
Methods—Ana 20.0 53.3 26.7 0.0 0.0

lytics and mea
surement
Methods—So 20.0 53.3 20.0 6.7 0.0

cial measures
Data literacy 20.0 46.7 33.3 0.0 0.0
Page 40 of 45
(p. 519) (p. 520) The Delphi panel identified eight categories of challenges in un
(p. 521)
dertaking research in this domain: methods; social theory and social questions; access to
data; data literacy; education, ethics; inequality/exclusion/inclusion/divides; and interdis
ciplinarity (see Table 18.14). Over half of the cases involved methods issues, so this cate
gory has been further divided into analytics and measurement; combining old and new so
cial research methods; concepts; social measures; and understanding and developing new
research methods. Over half of the participants ranked the three challenges of ethics; da
ta inequality/exclusion/inclusion/divides; and interdisciplinary working as “very
important” (Table 18.15). Although the ethics and inequality challenges rankings do not
match with their percentages in Table 18.14, these are, nonetheless, key cross-cutting is
sues. The challenges identified point towards specific concerns in working across the so
cial (p. 522) sciences, information studies, and computer science disciplines, as the tools
and methods being used often originate in computer science and information studies, but
must be integrated with or translated into social science. This was the only area where
there was explicit comment on the need to provide higher education support to develop
and train both students and researchers in new methods and deeper data literacy.
(p. 523) To conclude, this domain clearly separated out a set of social science research
questions and areas, with topics that mixed both research and methods issues. Chal
lenges were predominantly around methods.
Conclusion
Contemporary research in the Data and Representation domain studied here appears to
have focused on: data methods (science and methods, big data, and Google), data sources
(social media and mobile), areas of focus (global and urban culture, consumer services,
health, law and hate speech, gender, Twitter and politics, governance, and cybercrime),
and other topics (ethics and impact). These areas closely match the areas identified by
the Delphi process. These include social research questions (citizen and community use
of data, citizen interaction with data and algorithms, data literacy, power and accountabil
ity for data and algorithms, social construction of data and algorithms, and social implica
tions of data and automation). As well, they involve social research topics and challenges
(social impacts of data, privacy and surveillance, citizens/everyday life experiences and
uses of data, understanding open data/algorithm transparency/accountability, data exclu
sion/inclusion/divides, digital identity and data, data visualization/representation/social
construction of data, and economic impacts). And they also include methods challenges
(interdisciplinarity, analytics and measurement, combining old and new social research
methods, concepts, social measures, understanding and developing new research meth
ods).
Missing from this domain are substantive empirical studies of either the research
(p. 524)
questions, or of the implementation of digital methods. We would argue that this domain
therefore needs to develop a set of robust case studies addressing the key research ques
tions identified by the Delphi process.
Page 41 of 45
References
Ajunwa, I., Crawford, K., & Ford, J. S. (2016). Health and big data: An ethical framework
for health information collection by corporate wellness programs. Journal of Law, Medi
cine & Ethics, 44(3), 474–480.

616–636.
boyd, d. (2015). Making sense of teen life: Strategies for capturing ethnographic data in a
networked era. In E. Hargittai & C. Sandvig (Eds.), Digital research confidential: The se
crets of studying behavior online (pp. 79–102). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
boyd, d. & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.
boyd, d. & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultur
al, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society,
15(5), 662–679.
Crampton, J. W., Graham, M., Poorthuis, A., Shelton, T., Stephens, M., Wilson, M. W., &
Zook, M. (2013). Beyond the geotag: Situating “big data” and leveraging the potential of
the geoweb. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 40(2), 130–139.
Crawford, K., Gray, M. L., & Miltner, K. (2014). Big Data| Critiquing Big Data: Politics,
ethics, epistemology| Special section introduction. International Journal of Communica
tion, 8, 10.
Elmer, G. (2013). Live research: Twittering an election debate. New Media & Soci
(p. 525)
ety, 15(1), 18–30.
Elwood, S. (2006a). Negotiating knowledge production: The everyday inclusions, exclu

sions, and contradictions of participatory GIS research. The Professional Geographer,
58(2), 197–208.
Elwood, S. (2006b). Beyond cooptation or resistance: Urban spatial politics, community

organizations, and GIS-based spatial narratives. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 96(2), 323–341.
Kennedy, H., Hill, R. L., Aiello, G., & Allen, W. (2016). The work that visualisation conven
tions do. Information, Communication & Society, 19(6), 715–735.
Latour, B. (2010). Tarde’s idea of quantification. In M. Candea (Ed.), The social after
Gabriel Tarde: Debates and assessments (pp. 129–144). London: Routledge.
Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts.
Page 42 of 45
McKee, H. A. (2011). Policy matters now and in the future: Net neutrality, corporate data
mining, and government surveillance. Computers and Composition, 28(4), 276–291.
Mordini, E., Wright, D., Wadhwa, K., De Hert, P., Mantovani, E., Thestrup, J., … Vater, I.
(2009). Senior citizens and the ethics of e-inclusion. Ethics and Information Technology,
11(3), 203–220.
Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Vintage.
Rice, R. E. & Hoffman, Z. T. (2018). Attention in business press to the diffusion of atten
tion technologies, 1990–2017. International Journal of Communication, 12. http://
ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/8250/2424
Ruppert, E., Law, J., & Savage, M. (2013). Reassembling social science methods: The chal
lenge of digital devices. Theory, Culture & Society, 30(4), 22–46.
Summerfield, P. (1985). Mass-Observation: Social research or social movement? Journal of

Contemporary History, 20(3), 439–452.
Tapscott, D. (1999). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York: Mc
Graw-Hill.
Wright, D. (2011). A framework for the ethical impact assessment of information technol
ogy. Ethics and Information Technology, 13(3), 199–226.
Notes:
Simeon J. Yates
Page 43 of 45
Liz Robson
Liz Robson is a Research Associate at the University of Newcastle. She has a back
ground in economic development with expertise in understanding labor markets, em
ployment, and skills. Liz Robson joined Center for Urban and Regional Development
Studies in September 2000 as a research associate, leaving in 2004 to work for the
Regional Development Agency as a skills and employment analyst. She returned in
2011 as a Visiting Fellow supporting the work of Ranald Richardson and the SIDE
(Social Inclusion through the Digital Economy) project to better understand how
young people might access the life-changing benefits offered by digital technologies.
Her recent research at CURDS has focused on the digital age, which throws up all
kinds of questions regarding how technology, social media, and the so-called fourth
industrial will impact on institutional and organizational arrangements. In June 2017,
she joined the department of sociology to work on a prestigious AHRC (Arts and Hu
manities Research Council) project, which is investigating the different ways audi
ences engage with specialized film outside of London. Research questions encom
pass the range of specialized film venues and events within regional provision, as
well as how digital platforms feature in the venue and event-based film experience.
Ronald E. Rice
Page 44 of 45
Elinor Carmi

Culture & Society.
Page 45 of 45
Digital Citizenship in the Age of Datafication

Arne Hintz
“Digital citizenship” has become a prominent concept to understand the ways in which
we interact with our social, political, and economic environment through digital infra
structures and how our lives—and, more broadly, society—are transformed in the process.
Many accounts of digital citizenship have emphasized its empowering nature and sug
gested a shift towards enhanced agency by citizens and a democratizing trend in state-
citizen relations. However, as contemporary governance becomes increasingly centered
on the collection and analysis of personal data, the age of “datafication” requires us to re
think the concept and its implications. This chapter provides a thorough review of estab
lished understandings of digital citizenship and explores what it means when citizens are
increasingly subject to data processing and data-based categorization. It offers a perspec
tive on digital citizenship that combines the self-enacted and the institutional positioning
of citizens in society in the context of data infrastructures.
Keywords: contemporary governance, datafication, digital citizenship, personal data, state-citizen relations
Introduction
WE increasingly interact with our social and political environment through digital infra
structures. Digital tools and platforms have become essential for us to participate in soci
ety. Political engagement takes place through social media debates and online campaigns;
access to services requires online interactions between citizens and the state or commer
cial providers; and a plethora of digital traces affect and condition human activity, from
crossing borders to operating a phone. Everyday cultural practices involve social media
exchanges, and business transactions are mediated by the platform economy. In these
(and many more) ways, we increasingly enter the sphere of civic activity—and develop
agency—through digital media.
Digital citizenship has emerged as a concept to describe this condition. It has acquired in
creasing popularity although, or perhaps because, it lacks a narrow and commonly
agreed definition, and it is used for various purposes and to understand different prac
Page 1 of 23
tices. It has been applied to describe the centrality of digital infrastructure in contempo
rary social interactions, the implications for people’s identities and forms of belonging,
and necessary skillsets and conditions. Yet in most iterations it tries to understand the re
lation between the digital and the political, and thus the role of the digital subject as po
litical subject. While this may include being a subject to an authority, such as the state,
most accounts of digital citizenship have been interested in the digital citizen as a subject
of his or her own making. They have thus departed from classic understandings of the cit
izen as defined through membership of a nation-state, and have focused instead on the
self-creation and self-assertion of citizens as active participants in society through digital
acts. Such acts may include, for example, the use of digital tools for (p. 527) citizen jour
nalism, online campaigns and digital community-building, and the making of rights claims
in digital environments.
The notion of digital citizenship thus implies a focus on citizens’ agency and the empow
erment derived from the use of digital tools. However, the emerging condition of datafica
tion complicates this perspective. The pervasive collection of data through online plat
forms and smart devices, its analysis by corporate actors and the state, and the profiling
of people through an ever-increasing amount of data points all question the empowering
nature of digital environments. While digital tools continue to help citizens develop their
own position in society, they also enhance the opportunities for governmental and com
mercial institutions to assign – and restrict – citizenship roles through data analysis. In
this chapter, I will explore these conflicting dynamics and trace the consequences of di
verse power shifts between the citizen and the state. The goal is to develop an under
standing of digital citizenship that responds to the challenges of the “age of datafication.”
To start with, I will review key themes and trends in citizenship studies. Then I will ex
plore the notion of digital citizenship as the self-constitution of subjects in society through
digital acts. Finally, I will discuss how datafication challenges previous notions of digital
citizenship and explore the possibilities of agency in a datafied age. This, I hope, will en
hance our understanding of the changes and transformations of citizenship in societies
that are increasingly governed through “big data” analysis.1
Citizenship
Definitions of Citizenship
According to its classic understanding, citizenship denotes the formal relation between a
person and a nation-state. It is a notion of belonging and of membership to a political
community, formalized through documents such as the passport and typically received at
birth. As a concept it is closely connected to territory—the territory where someone is
born or chooses to live—but also to power, resources, and community. It is conferred by a
powerful actor, the state; it determines an individual’s access to and share in the state’s
collective resources; and it strongly affects questions of belonging and identity (Turner,
2009). Citizenship ties people to one another within the jurisdiction of the state and binds
Page 2 of 23
them to the state in specific ways (Tilly, 1997). This is underpinned by the rights (such as
voting) and obligations (such as taxation) of the individual in relation to the state. The ex
istence of, and demand for, civic, social, and political rights that ensure citizens’ equality
and protection is thus a key marker of citizenship (Marshall, 1950). Furthermore, and to
varying degrees, the concept entails the participation of citizens in the community’s polit
ical, social, and economic processes (Bellamy, 2008).
Historically, different strands of citizenship have developed that foreground different

characteristics. The Greek (or republican) model emphasized the participation of (p. 528)
citizens in public affairs and in the institutions of public administration, and thus in the
creation of the rules, laws, and decisions that govern them. Active involvement in the af
fairs of the polis was not just a right but an obligation, and membership was defined by
strong social bonds (and social exclusion according to land ownership, gender, race, and
class). In contrast, the Roman (or liberal) model emphasized the legal status of citizens,
their freedom to pursue their private interests, and the protection they enjoyed from in
terference by state authorities, other powers, and other individuals. According to this
model, “a citizen is one who enjoys the common liberty and protection of
authority” (Walzer, 1970, p. 205). Since the modern period, citizenship has increasingly
become part of state-building efforts and the construction of national consciousness, and
has been intertwined with the emergence and protection of a wider set of civic, political
and social rights (Bellamy, 2008).
These past accounts have shaped how we think about citizenship. They point to a division
in its conception between active and passive forms (Turner, 1990). Active citizens are so
cially and politically engaged with their environment, while passive citizens focus on their
private matters in a given framework of rights, obligations, and protection. While modern
states typically combine political and legal citizenship, contemporary nation-states with
mass societies may reflect more prominently the Roman approach of providing state pro
tection across large territories. As citizens in contemporary societies, we may mostly op
erate as passive recipients of rights, but active engagement is occasionally encouraged or
even required, and more substantial participation in political life is certainly demanded
and enacted by civil society groups and social movements. So both forms of citizenship
are part of how the concept is understood today.
Challenges and Alternatives
These traditional approaches to citizenship have been challenged from different direc
tions. In particular, critics have highlighted the exclusionary nature of citizenship as well
as its alleged equality and universality. Feminist and LGBTQ rights groups, as well as eth
no-cultural communities, have argued that citizenship rights are not distributed in an eq
uitable manner, and have pointed out biases in citizenship conceptions towards white,
male, and property-owning individuals (Fraser & Gordon, 1994; Lister, 1997; Young,
1989). The territorial focus of citizenship has been challenged by processes of globaliza
tion, internationalization, and transnationalization, which affect the autonomy of the na
tion state and its ability to confer rights. The rise of global corporations and civil society
Page 3 of 23
organizations, together with the growing role of both global and regional institutions
such as the UN and the EU, point to transnational forms of authority that convey rights
and generate obligations more widely (Urry, 1999). National rule-making has “become
embedded within more expansive sets of interregional relations and networks of
power” (Held & McGrew, 2003, p. 3) involving cities, provinces, states, and regional as
well as transnational institutions. Similarly, forms of belonging and affiliation have spread
from the national to local and regional communities as well as to transnational (p. 529) di
asporas and non-territorial associations, such as cultural communities and communities
of practice (McNevin, 2011). Further, a (related) challenge to classic forms of citizenship
emerged with the rise of neoliberalism in the late 20th century and the increasing prima
cy of the economic domain over the political (Mouffe, 2000). This has advanced the impor
tance of consumption in contemporary societies, de-emphasized political participation,
and weakened democratic institutions (Crouch, 2004). It has led to the emergence of a
“citizen-consumer” (Clarke et al., 2007) who is politically passive and interacts with soci
ety mainly as a consumer of privatized goods and service (Turner, 2017). Each of these
critiques addresses different dynamics, but together they show that classic reference
points that organize belonging are being challenged, political communities are witnessing
transformations, and new claims for inclusion are being made.
These challenges have led to diverse attempts to address the changing social, political,
and economic situation through new conceptions of citizenship. “Feminist
citizenship” (Lister, 1997), for example, has been proposed as a pluralist conception of
the citizen that is rooted in difference, rather than exclusionary homogeneity. “Postna
tional citizenship” (Soysal, 1994) responds to the growing reality of migration and is
“based on universal personhood rather than national belonging” (p. 1). While maintaining
the classic focus of citizenship models on participation in a political community, it propos
es forms of inclusion that are not bound to historical, cultural, or ethnic ties to that com
munity. “Transnational” (Bauböck, 1994) and “cosmopolitan” (Linklater, 2002) forms of
citizenship move the emphasis further away from the nation-state and respond to the
prominent role of trans-border communities, global civil society, and international law. Ac
cording to this school of thought, rights and obligations are increasingly determined and
implemented by international agreements and institutions, leading to “the emergence of
an international law of citizenship” (Spiro, 2011, p. 696). Without formal acknowledg
ment, transnational citizenship largely remains speculative and aspirational, but it
demonstrates a diversity of affiliations that are interacting with, and potentially supersed
ing, the nation-state. As Isin and Ruppert (2015) note, “the subject is a composite of mul
tiple forces, identifications, affiliations, and associations” (p. 21). They point to NSA
whistleblower Edward Snowden as a representative of a new form of international active
citizenship that responds to an emerging set of international responsibilities and corre
sponds with the transnational circulation (and global collection) of data (Isin & Ruppert,
2017).
Arguably, the most important shift in citizenship studies has come with an increased fo
cus on the acts of citizens in developing their own position in society. This perspective
emphasizes the practice, rather than the status, of citizenship, and views the latter as
Page 4 of 23
“the expression of agency” (Lister, 1997, p. 38). Citizenship scholars have drawn from
theories of performativity to investigate the ways in which people constitute themselves
as citizens (Isin, 2012) and in which they “do citizenship,” for example by claiming new
rights and implementing existing rights through their own acts (Zivi, 2012). As in the re
publican model, the focus here is on participation, but it goes beyond the mechanisms of
receiving citizenship and instead highlights practices of achieving citizenship by doing,
enacting, or performing citizen acts and thereby bringing citizen subjects into being.
(p. 530) This understanding of citizenship begins with the citizen as an active figure, not
with the nation-state or another form of belonging (Clarke et al., 2014). Citizenship thus
becomes a site of contestation and social struggle. Citizen engagement in civil society as
sociations and social movements—from neighborhood groups to NGOs to protest mobi
lizations—are important spaces for “doing citizenship,” and claiming new rights becomes
a key feature of performing and enacting one’s own role as a citizen.
This does not mean that belonging and obedience to the nation-state are magically re
placed by the citizen as a sovereign figure that enacts itself as a subject of power. We are
still members of national jurisdictions, with the rights and obligations assigned to them.
According to Isin and Ruppert (2015), legality remains a core force of subjectivation, as
does the imaginary aspect of national belonging, but these are complemented by perfor
mativity as a key pillar for understanding citizenship. Citizen agency and citizen acts are
thus placed in the forefront of our discussion of citizenship.
From Digital Acts to Digital Citizenship

Digital Acts
In societies that are increasingly mediated through digital technologies, digital acts be
come important means through which citizens create, enact, and perform their role in so
ciety. And just as citizens have traditionally re-asserted their position in relation to the
state by claiming human and civil rights, they are now “making rights claims” (Isin &
Ruppert, 2015, p. 4) in the digital environment. Digital acts may include the wide range of
activities that we are regularly involved with on the Internet, such as emailing, messag
ing, blogging, collaborating, coding, friending, liking, posting, tweeting, and uploading.
These and similar acts help create our role and position in society, and they serve as
claims to the right to act freely in digital environments (Isin & Ruppert, 2017). Yet among
the broad range of digital actions and interactions, we can identify a number of more spe
cific acts that demonstrate how citizens assert themselves. Digital protest and online
campaigns have been, arguably, the most prominent examples, and experiences which
have been widely discussed range from the Anonymous online protests to the use of so
cial media in uprisings such as the Arab Spring, the role of hashtags such as #MeToo,
and the proliferation of campaign platforms.
Page 5 of 23
While there are controversies regarding the extent to which digital tools have enabled re
cent waves of protest and activism (e.g., Dencik & Leistert, 2015; Morozov, 2011), the In
ternet has undoubtedly offered a significant domain for people to raise their concerns,
mobilize for action, generate recognition, and (re)claim rights. A plethora of practices
have emerged from what some have enthusiastically called “liberation
technology” (Diamond, 2010)—including online mobilizations, whistleblowing initiatives
such as (p. 531) WikiLeaks (Brevini, Hintz, & McCurdy, 2013) and Xnet (Siapera, 2016),
“sousveillance” by citizens watching authorities and exposing wrongdoing (Mann et al.,
2003), and many others. Communication tools and platforms are also applied for more di
rect forms of state-citizen communication and citizen participation in public administra
tion, for example for public consultations, citizen-based policy reviews, and participatory
budgeting (Simon et al., 2017). People have thus used a diverse set of tools and practices
to intervene into political debate and interact with their political environment.
Furthermore, the Internet has enabled assertive practices far beyond immediate political
interventions. Citizen journalism has advanced people’s ability to contribute their voice
and expertise to questions of public concern, and it has challenged established profes
sional media (Allan, 2013). Networks such as Indymedia and organizations such as Global
Voices have developed citizen-based platforms for news and debate, while groups like
Riseup.net have set up alternative technical infrastructure and offered online services
(such as web space and mailing lists) to fellow activists (Hintz & Milan, 2013; Milan,
2013). Digital storytelling has advanced processes of narrative exchange and offered
channels for citizen-based knowledges to enter the public realm (Hartley & McWilliam,
2009).
Opportunities for digital subjects to engage with their social and political environment
have opened up, moreover, as forms of social organization have come to be more fluid
and spontaneous in a digital context. “Smart mobs” (Rheingold, 2002) and “connective ac
tion” practices (Bennett & Segerberg, 2014) have reduced access barriers for the individ
ual to purposeful collective action and have challenged classic organizational models
from the pre-digital age. Similarly, participatory modes of production have allowed for en
hanced roles for digitally active subjects in the cultural and economic realm. Digital acts
may include the development of fan fiction, which has increasingly complemented classic
cultural production (Jenkins, 2008), the contribution of one’s skills to free software devel
opment or one’s knowledge to Wikipedia (Shirky, 2010), and a range of other practices of
online collaboration, networked production, and voluntary contributions to larger projects
(Benkler, 2006).
Digital Citizenship
These features of digital activity have been integrated—to varying degrees and with vary
ing priorities—in different iterations of the concept of digital citizenship. Outlining an ear
ly version of the notion in the late 1990s, Katz (1997) defined digital citizens according to
the extent of their Internet use but, at the same time, observed “a new political ethos”
and “a new political sensibility” among this emerging group. In his view, they were civic-
Page 6 of 23
minded, shared common values, revered civil liberties, and were committed to openness.
Digital citizens, according to Katz, regarded the Internet as a “tool for individual expres
sion, democratization, economic opportunity, community and education,” and technology
as “a force for good.” This perspective was certainly grounded in the optimism of cyber-
libertarian approaches of the time, which regarded the Internet as an (p. 532) autonomous
space where citizens (and private business) were freed from coercion by governments.
Just a year before, John Perry Barlow had formulated the promises of the Internet, in his
“Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace,” as a new space “where anyone, anywhere
may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into
silence or conformity” (Barlow, 1996). The idea of cyberspace as a new “agora” of free
and democratic discussion was widely shared and restrictions to this freedom were hard
ly imaginable. Katz thereby set the tone for an understanding of digital citizenship that is
closely related to notions of democratization and empowerment.
Mossberger, Tolbert and McNeal (2007) refined the concept by focusing on the effective
ness of Internet use and on the consequences of an individual’s participation in society.
They adopt a similar starting-point by defining as “digital citizens” those who use the In
ternet frequently but highlight technical competence and information literacy skills for ef
fective use along with the conditions of access. They thereby respond to classic citizen
ship discourses around inclusion and exclusion, and to the conditions of membership in a
community. Yet they also pick up the positive perspective on the Internet as a force that
facilitates democratic participation and, thus, regard digital citizenship as the ability to
participate in society. Their approach has been supported by, for example, Lindgren
(2017), who notes that debates on digital citizenship address “the opportunities and re
sources that a person has to participate online in society and politics” (p. 147). Questions
of access and competence, and inequalities in the capacity to use digital tools, come to
the forefront here. More often, however, contemporary investigations into digital citizen
ship focus on how specific “digital acts” (Isin & Ruppert, 2015) and “acts of
citizenship” (Isin, 2008) constitute people’s role in society and generate their position as
active citizens. Couldry et al. (2014), for example, investigate digital storytelling as a
practice that forms citizenship. Using Dahlgren’s (2003) notion of civic culture which ex
amines the conditions for people’s participation in the public sphere and thereby identi
fies “the possibilities of people acting in the role of citizens” (pp. 154–155), they explore
the implications of digital acts for participation and, by extension, the building of citizen
ship. An important aspect for them is the notion of recognition, as “digital media and digi
tal infrastructures provide the means to recognize people in new ways as active narrators
of their individual lives” (Couldry et al., 2014, p. 615). This resonates with observations
on social media uses of young people who “write themselves and their communities into
being” (boyd, 2007, p. 14).
Extensive case studies have documented how digital acts can enact and perform citizen
ship (McCosker, Vivienne, & Johns, 2016) as a form of do-it-yourself citizenship (Ratto &
Boler, 2014). Taking matters into one’s own hands and becoming producers allows protag
onists to (re)construct identities, develop agency, and intervene into systems of authority
and power. Ratto and Boler reaffirm Hartley’s claim of “self-determination as the founda
Page 7 of 23
tion to citizenship” (Hartley, 1999, p. 178), but add that this act is politically transforma
tive as it leads to “new modalities of political participation” (p. 3). Their broader under
standing of “DIY citizenship” is grounded in what they call “critical making,” which en
compasses both online and offline practices, including non-digital forms of media and di
verse forms of crafting, hacking and making. This perspective connects (p. 533) with pre
vious analyses of how participation in older, non-digital media, such as community radio
and video activism, can generate recognition, self-actuation and community-building. Ro
driguez (2001), for example, conceptualized such practices and their implications in
terms of active “citizenship,” tracing how power relations in communities are changed as
a result, authority is questioned, and new identities (or even new communities) are
formed.
As the notion of “citizenship” is increasingly applied across studies that focus on prac
tices of participation, activism, or DIY culture, the contours of the concept may lose some
of their sharpness. Isin and Ruppert (2015) have addressed this problem by reconnecting
digital citizenship with the classic idea that rights claims against an authority are at the
basis of the (self-)creation of citizens. Digital citizens, in their view, do not just receive ex
isting rights, but also make claims to rights that may not yet exist. They do not just use
the Internet to conduct established forms of citizenship, but to develop new forms and
claim new rights. These go beyond established civic, political, and social rights and ad
dress the technological context of humanity’s future. Further, such rights are not neces
sarily limited to the territory of the nation-state but refer to a different kind of environ
ment—cyberspace—where people meet and interact. The result is, as Siapera (2017)
notes, a new ontology of the citizen, brought into being through digital acts.
Empowerment and New Affiliations
What connects many of these accounts of digital citizenship is a focus on citizens’ agency
and the progressive social change that (may) result from it. At the core of most approach
es is an interest in how people enact themselves as subjects of power (Isin & Ruppert,
2015). Their self-organized acts are often related to social movements, counter-cultural
and political activism (Ratto & Boler, 2014). Effective use of the affordances of digital,
mobile and social media, it is argued, can enhance participation in society (Mossberger,
Tolbert, & McNeal, 2007) and generate innovation, social change, possibilities for con
test, capacity for creative cultures of practice, and public good—in short, “democratize
civic and political participation and facilitate social inclusion” (Vivienne, McCosker, &
Johns, 2016, p. 8).
The concept of digital citizenship therefore has an intrinsic connection with citizen em
powerment. Digital media, it is claimed (explicitly or implicitly) have allowed us to raise
our voice, be heard in social and public debate, and construct our role in society. This im
plies a democratizing trend in state-citizen relations. It does not mean, though, that schol
ars follow uncritically the cyberlibertarian dreams of the earlier phase of Internet devel
opment. Enacting ourselves and performing our own citizenship does not negate the exis
tence of traditional authorities that convey citizenship rights. Isin and Ruppert (2015) ac
Page 8 of 23
knowledge that digital citizens still submit to governments in which they are implicated.
Social media activists, similarly, submit to new regulatory regimes by platform providers.
Vivienne, McCosker, and Johns (2016, p. 8) recognize that digital media environments
may also affect user experiences “in ways that limit (p. 534) users’ agency and capacity to
shape decisions that govern their lives.” But despite these qualifications, the overarching
focus in studies of digital citizenship is on user actions and citizen agency, on claims and
contestations, and on the assertion of rights and voice.
The active digital citizen operates in an environment of changing affiliations and social
configurations. As noted earlier, critical citizenship studies have pointed to a fragmenta
tion of the public sphere into multiple publics and a loss of cohesion based on traditional
bonds. Classic reference points for citizenship—such as national borders and formal orga
nizations—have lost some of the key roles they played in traditional nation-state societies
and are complemented by a wider range of often looser and more fluid affiliations. The
debate over digital citizenship has advanced our understanding of these developments as
the Internet has given rise to new forms of online communities and networked publics.
The individual of the digital age relates to a variety of cultural, social, political and geo
graphic affiliations, which overlay the membership in a nation-state. As already noted, the
digital subject is “a composite” (Isin & Ruppert, 2015, p. 12) of multiple forces, identifica
tions and associations. Social and political belongings become less stable and classic or
ganizational forms less relevant as the collective “we” is increasingly replaced by tempo
rary collaborations of “I”s (Milan, 2013). With concepts such as “networked
individualism” (Rainie & Wellman, 2012) scholars have tried to capture these changing
social formations in and through digital society. As individuals adopt a variety of subjec
tivities and identities, form new kinds of associations and meet in new spaces (beyond the
national), the public sphere becomes divided into diverse sets of what Dean (2001) calls
“cybersalons.” Digital citizens participate in the “salons” that relate to their interests,
tastes, political affiliations or geographic communities, but not necessarily to their nation
al membership.
For Papacharissi (2010), the digital realm has led to the emergence of a “private sphere”
in which public and private activities become intertwined and hard to separate. Digital
citizens, she argues, often interact with their social and political environment (e.g., via so
cial media) from the private space of, for example, their bedroom (and, we may add, via
the privately owned medium of a commercial online platform). Seemingly private acts in
online communities may have public political effects, and civic engagement is often
shared with entertainment and a wider set of motivations—we may think of memes or of
the trolling actions of the Anonymous “smart mobs.” Papacharissi calls this “private citi
zenship,” and it resonates with the fluidity of actions and belongings mentioned earlier.
As noted by other observers, this form of citizenship comes along with a transformation of
social structures from masses and collectivities to “a variety of atomized
actions” (Papacharissi, 2010, p. 131). These actions are collaborative and interactive but
they lack the stability of life-long national affiliation or other traditional organizational
processes.
Page 9 of 23
Understanding digital citizenship as performative enactment of citizenship, in a context

of fluid affiliations and networked individual acts, highlights the empowerment of the citi
zen through digital acts and the democratizing effects derived from this. As a conse
quence, this perspective suggests a power shift from the state and corporate sector
(p. 535) to the citizen. It points to challenges to the authority of the state and its gover
nance of the citizenry.
Digital Restrictions
However, with the evolution of technological infrastructure and the changing political-
economic context of its development and use, the conditions for digital citizenship have
changed. In the early phase of the popularization of the Internet (the 1990s), cyberspace
had challenged the law’s traditional reliance on territorial borders, and thus questioned
government’s ability to control citizens’ behavior. As Internet users moved freely across
the global network, cyberspace was widely seen as distinct from physical space, with a
distinct set of rules and doctrines (Johnson & Post, 1996). However, and contrary to
Barlow’s earlier claims that governments “have no sovereignty where we gather” (Barlow,
1996), states have managed to gain significant influence over technical infrastructures
and digital spaces of human interaction since the start of the new millennium. By exert
ing control over important nodes of the network and by providing regulatory frameworks
for infrastructure and content providers, they have introduced an increasing range of re
strictions and established virtual borders around state territories (Goldsmith & Wu,
2006). This has restricted content flows across territorial borders, most prominently ex
emplified by the “Great Firewall of China.” During times of protests and uprisings, gov
ernments are now routinely closing down online services in their country or in specific lo
cations, or interrupting connections to the outside world. Inside most countries, filtering
and blocking content that transcends moral, religious or political limits set by govern
ments has become common practice (e.g., Deibert et al., 2008). These forms of restric
tions are increasingly complemented by other forms of interventions into content, such as
the strategic dissemination and manipulation of information (Deibert et al., 2012). The
open environment for the creation and exchange of citizen acts is thus gradually trans
forming into a tightly controlled space in which DIY citizen activity is allowed within lim
its, rather than enabled naturally by the technological infrastructure.
Similarly, the possibilities to monitor citizens’ interactions, exchanges, locations and

movements have increased. The Snowden revelations demonstrated the extent to which
state agencies such as the NSA and the GCHQ have intercepted and surveilled much of
our online communication and have hacked into personal devices as well as larger
telecommunications services (Greenwald, 2014). A range of laws and regulations allow
governments to monitor citizens’ communication and require telecommunications opera
tors and Internet service providers to store (and provide access to) detailed communica
tions data (Hintz & Brown, 2017). Whereas a cartoon from the 1990s famously declared
that “on the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog,” our identity, movements and interests
are now closely monitored. Activists and dissidents have suffered in particular ways from
Page 10 of 23
governmental surveillance, as have ethnic and religious minorities. (p. 536) State authori
ties have used Facebook and other social media platforms to scrape the user data of al
leged dissidents and have distributed malware that installs spying software onto the in
fected computer, for example to capture webcam activity (Villeneuve, 2012). In many
countries, including the democracies of the West, the policing of protests and other civic
activities now includes the monitoring of social media activity and the identification of
“threats” through the analysis of social media traffic (Dencik, Hintz, & Carey, 2017).
The role of social media in state strategies points us to the political-economic context of
contemporary digital citizenship. The tools that we use to enact and perform our citizen
ship are increasingly a small set of commercial platforms, provided by a highly concen
trated business sector. We use these platforms to produce, submit, and share content,
connect with fellow users and engage with our environment, but this engagement takes
place in a context of commodification and monetization, and its boundaries are set ac
cordingly (Fuchs, 2014). Social media companies, “sharing” platforms, app stores and
other providers of crucial infrastructure regulate what is allowed on their sites, and they
thus act as gatekeepers that both allow and restrict the activities of digital citizens
(Hintz, 2015). Moreover, their core business model is the extraction, analysis and moneti
zation of personal data. The “data mine” (Andrejevic, 2012) of online platforms enables
the detailed monitoring and analysis of Internet users that is at the core of the emerging
mode of “platform capitalism” (Srnicek, 2016) and of current surveillance trends (Lyon,
2015).
This brief sketch of digital restrictions suggests two complications for the performative
and active (self-)construction of digital citizens. First, the tools, platforms and infrastruc
ture that digital citizens use are subject to limitations (in terms of their organizational
structures as well as interventions by states and the private sector) to the digital acts that
are allowed and enabled. Second, digital citizens are not only constituted through their
actions, but also because everything they do leaves data traces which are analyzed and
used in a variety of ways—not by digital citizens but by platform companies, data brokers,
and the state. The first of these two trends provides problems for digital citizens but does
not question, as such, the concept’s focus on self-enactment through digital acts and
rights claims. The second, however, complicates contemporary notions of digital citizen
ship more profoundly. It suggests that digital citizenship is not only self-constructed and
self-defined, but equally—if not more substantially—constructed by the governmental and
business realm.
Digital Citizenship and Datafication

The Datafication of Life and Governance
Citizens’ active engagement with their environment through digital networks produces
data that is collected, processed and analyzed and can uncover a wide range of prefer
ences, personal traits and social networks. The increasingly close integration of digital
Page 11 of 23
technologies in our everyday lives means that we create data traces when we con
(p. 537)
nect with our friends on apps; share intimate information about our personal lives via
chats; vote, protest and campaign on platforms; and conduct business interactions that
allow us to go about our everyday life—from online banking to ordering food, transport
and lodging. Moreover, much of what previously would have been called “offline” activi
ties, such as moving in the geographical space of a “smart city” that is filled with sensors
or watching a movie on a “smart TV” in a “smart home,” can now produce detailed pro
files about us. Communication devices, which hold a vast range of information about our
personal and professional lives, now extend beyond computers and mobile phones (and,
thus, the tools through which digital citizens have traditionally enacted their role in cy
berspace) to light switches, cars and waste bins. Such data tracking renders ordinary
everyday lives increasingly transparent to large organizations whilst at the same time
those who collect and use the data remain invisible to those whose data are garnered and
used (i.e., citizens; Lyon, 2015).
The technical ability to turn our behavior and social activities into data points that can be
collected and analyzed has become the basis of the digital economy. From the platform
economy to the expanding data broker industry, an ever-growing range of data-driven
businesses develop revenue from the aggregation, re-packaging and circulation of
people’s data (Rieke et al., 2016; Srnicek, 2016), using a wide array of attention technolo
gies (Rice & Hoffman, 2018). The data-focused logic of accumulation that emerges here
has been called “surveillance capitalism” (Zuboff, 2015) as it relies on the processing of
data about people and their activities.
Governments, too, increasingly adopt practices of profiling, sorting and categorizing pop
ulations to allocate and manage public services (Ansorge, 2016). Government depart
ments and state agencies in many countries now rely on the mass collection of data on
people to inform security measures, provide services and devise policy in areas such as
education, child welfare and housing. Categorizations based on citizens’ consumption
habits, political preferences, ethnic backgrounds or geographic location affect the level of
services they get, the ways in which they are regarded as “risks,” or the ease with which
they may cross borders. In predictive policing, for example, data on neighborhood crime
rates, previous arrests, personal living conditions, and a range of other characteristics,
are combined to create categories of potential future criminals and affect sentencing
(Angwin et al., 2016; Trottier, 2015). Predictive risk models are also used to assign child
protective services, decide eligibility for health services, and “vet” migrants and refugees
(Crawford, 2016; Eubanks, 2018; Redden et al., 2019). To that end, citizens are increas
ingly assigned data scores, not just by commercial services such as financial institutions
and insurance agencies, but also by government and public administration (Chin & Wong,
2016; Dencik et al., 2019).
For the public sector, data-based decision-making promises more efficient delivery of pub
lic services, better allocation of resources, and better responses to social problems and a
variety of “risks.” It provides a seemingly “scientific” method for tackling uncertainty by
rendering it perceptible and justifying responses, even if the “science” on which it is
Page 12 of 23
based is often questionable (Amoore and Piotukh, 2016). It enables proactive forms
(p. 538) of governance that utilize the predictive capacities of algorithmic data processing
and allow for pre-emptive measures. The “logic of preemption” (Massumi, 2015) of data-
based governance holds particular attraction for public administration in the context of
security challenges and resource shortages.
Implications of Datafication
The logic of data-based governance requires the collection of the widest-possible range of
data and is therefore inherently in conflict with privacy concerns. Moreover, it establishes
trust in the processes, rationalities, techniques and outcomes of algorithmic decision
making (Aradou & Blanke, 2015). It relies on the assumption that data processing deliv
ers “objective” results. The root of “dataism,” as Van Dijck (2014) calls it, is thus an ideo
logical belief in particular forms of knowledge and social order. As a consequence, algo
rithms adjudicate more and more decisions in our lives and become “new power brokers
in society” (Diakopolous 2013, p. 2).
As noted before, practices of categorization, classification, segmentation and selection of

populations lie at the core of data-based governance. People are increasingly subject to
what Lyon (2015) has described as “social sorting,” with significant consequences for
their economic, social and political opportunities as well as their civic engagement (see
also Cheney-Lippold, 2017; Vagle, 2017). While the segmentation of population groups ac
cording to information gathering is not new, emerging forms social sorting based on “big
data” accumulate a much broader range of personal data, affect a wider reach of both
private and public life, and establish new categories, based on the traces of digital life.
These new forms of social sorting operate, in part, outside established categories of civic
rights, are often created without our knowledge and may be based on criteria that do not
correspond to lived experience. As Couldry and Hepp (2017) note, “when governments’
actions, whatever their democratic intent, become routinely dependent on processes of
automated categorization, a dislocation is threatened between citizens’ experience and
the data trajectory on the basis of which they are judged” (p. 212).
The ways in which people are “judged” through data lead us to, arguably, the most signifi
cant implication of datafication for digital citizenship—the changes in societal power dy
namics. With data-based sorting, scoring and categorizing, the emerging power relations
of the datafied age are between those who provide personal data (digital citizens) and
those who own, trade and control it (typically, large Internet companies and the state).
While datafication is by no means the first instance of the state using information pro
cessing to expand its influence over citizens (Mattelart, 2003), it provides vastly en
hanced possibilities to understand, predict and control citizen activities. This empowers
the state, particularly, in a context of dispersed and individualized social structures that
provide challenges for a comprehensive regulation of the citizenry by state authorities.
Monitoring and profiling the “atomized actions” of populations allows the state to address
a fragmented reality and create a new and governable collectivity. (p. 539) This points us
Page 13 of 23
to the original (French) meaning of the word surveillance: supervision. The digital citizen
is, at the same time, an active citizen and a supervised citizen.
Datafication and Citizenship
So while established understandings of digital citizenship have emphasized the performa

tive and empowering character of people’s self-construction of their own role in society
through digital acts, data-based governance moves the perspective in the opposite direc
tion by assigning people their societal position based on data traces. This has implica
tions for the participatory and “active” forms of citizenship, but it may also affect the
more traditional understandings of citizenship as nationality, which the following example
demonstrates. As the Snowden revelations documented, the NSA is allowed to monitor
the communication of foreigners, but not US citizens, and it establishes whether a piece
of online communication belongs to a foreigner or a US citizen by analyzing the infra
structure that is used (e.g., phone number, IP address) as well as the data that is pro
duced (e.g., language and degree of interaction with people inside and outside the US).
National citizenship thus becomes dependent on communications data. Cheney-Lippold
refers to these designations as jus algoritmi, thus contrasting it with classic legacies of
jus sanguinis (family-based citizenship) and jus soli (location of birth). Jus algoritmi is “a
formal, state-sanctioned enaction of citizenship that distributes political rights according
to the NSA’s interpretations of data” (Cheney-Lippold, 2016, p. 1729). As a consequence,
it “functionally abandons citizenship in terms of national identity in order to privilege citi
zenship in terms of provisional interpretations of data” (p. 1738). It sometimes aligns with
a citizen’s formal nationality, and sometimes becomes detached from it. Like other data
categorizations used in algorithmic governance, it is an identity we are assigned through
data analysis, not necessarily one that we identify with or create for ourselves. Datafica
tion and algorithmic decision making thus change the parameters of citizenship, but not
necessarily in the ways foreseen by scholars of digital citizenship.
What agency, then, does the datafied citizen have? Datafied subjects enact their role in
the digital world, in part, by challenging, mediating and negotiating data collection and
analysis. This has included, for example, practices of technological self-defense to restrict
data gathering. Forums to provide secure digital infrastructures for active digital citizens
have proliferated, with “numerous digital rights and Internet freedom initiatives seizing
the moment to propose new communication methods for activists (and everyday citizens)
that are strengthened through encryption” (Aouragh et al., 2015, p. 213). These have in
cluded privacy-enhancing tools such as the TOR browser, the GPG email encryption sys
tem and the encrypted phone and text messaging software Signal. Privacy guides such as
the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s “Surveillance Self-Defense” (https://ssd.eff.org/en)
and the Tactical Tech Collective’s “Security in a Box” (https://tacticaltech.org/projects/se
curity-box) explain the use of privacy-enhancing tools and offer advice on secure online
communication. “Crypto-parties” have brought necessary training in (p. 540) such tools to
towns and cities worldwide. Digital rights advocacy, moreover, has offered a promising
avenue for claiming rights in datafied spaces and address related challenges. In the UK,
for example, organizations such as Privacy International, the Open Rights Group, Big
Page 14 of 23
Brother Watch, Article 19 and Liberty have regularly issued statements regarding their
concerns about data collection organized public debates and lobbied legislators.
Further, “data activism” has applied alternative forms of data use for social and political
purposes. Initiatives such as Occupy Data have supported social movements through data
gathering, analysis and visualization—both of public datasets that concern the move
ments’ agenda for social change, and of data collected by the movement itself, for exam
ple on police violence. Open Data campaigns have leveraged the availability of public da
ta to support campaigning efforts (Renzi and Langlois, 2015). Using data in empowering
ways and as a means for social and political change, data activism aims to “bring democ
ratic agency back into the analysis of how big data affect contemporary society” (Milan,
2017, p. 153). Data activism scholars suggest that it can empower users of digital infra
structures to be more critical about data collection and thereby alter the relationship be
tween citizens and data collectors. (Milan & van der Velden, 2016). Revisiting and updat
ing the practices of digital citizenship, it re-claims the agency of citizens that is at risk in
datafied societies. However, it does not change the underlying challenge of data collec
tion and analysis that is now inherent in every digital act. Data activism can, in this sense,
add bottom-up sousveillance and dissident data uses to existing top-down surveillance,
but it may expose citizens to the same mechanisms of data collection and profiling.
Digital Citizenship between Empowerment and Control
The performative character of digital citizenship is thus retained in a context of datafica

tion but, as I argue, is severely limited. We can observe a complex set of processes in
which digital citizenship is constituted both through the acts of digital subjects and
through the collection and analysis of their data by state and corporate actors. The con
struction of digital citizenship is thus the result of a combination of acts by the individual,
commercial platform providers, and the state. Many scholars of digital citizenship recog
nize the multiple forces that are at play—between performative enactment and techno-po
litical limitations, and between empowerment and disempowerment. Isin and Ruppert
(2015) acknowledge that the digital citizen is not only a self-enacted subject but also sub
ject to forms of control which include “harvesting, assembling, and storing data about
things we say and do through the Internet” (Isin & Ruppert 2015, p. 1) by states and cor
porations. Digital citizens, they note, have to submit to code as a form of power that, for
the most part, they cannot influence. Vivienne et al. (2016), similarly, acknowledge the
different forms of control and constraints that are wielded by states, institutions and plat
form providers and affect the performative and constitutive acts of digital citizens. Yet the
focus by these accounts remains on the agency of digital citizens (p. 541) and their self-en
actment, even as these citizens negotiate restrictions. In contrast, and as I argue here,
the governance model of datafication with its components of social sorting, profiling and
data-based categorizations points to different sets of power dynamics and questions es
tablished notions of active and empowering digital citizenship.
Page 15 of 23
Conclusion
Digital citizenship has become an important framework for understanding people’s posi
tion as political subjects in digitized environments. The concept typically focuses on the
performative self-enactment of citizens and incorporates a wider set of affiliations and be
longings. It builds on digital acts, the use of digital tools, and digital rights claims, and
conceptualizes the resulting self-construction of people’s active role in society. The digital
realm has offered many possibilities for these acts and has promised citizen empower
ment. However, as we have seen, the technological, political and economic context of dig
ital life may restrict digital acts significantly. Particularly, the key role of data collection
and analysis in contemporary societies complicates an overly optimistic perspective on
citizen agency in online environments. Digital citizens are traced and tracked, scored and
profiled, assessed and monitored, and integrated into new categories of citizenship ac
cording to the data that is collected about them. They are thus constituted and managed,
at least in part, through data analysis by new (the platform economy) and traditional (the
state) institutions.
This questions key coordinates of the concept. It limits the agency of digital citizens as
well as the empowering characteristics of digital acts. Rather than advancing the self-en
actment of citizens, it suggests a power shift in the opposite direction—from the citizen to
the state. Whereas the concept of digital citizenship departed from classic understand
ings in which citizenship is conferred by a powerful actor, “datafied citizenship” returns
the focus towards traditional state-citizen relations. Digital or datafied citizens do have
new practices at their disposal, including techno-legal responses to datafication, claims to
privacy rights and to social justice in datafied environments, and new forms of data ac
tivism that apply the opportunities of data analysis constructively. However these take
place in the context of pervasive data collection and a governance model of data-based
profiling and social sorting that is outside the citizen’s reach. Digital citizenship thus in
tersects the empowered and controlled subject, and traverses the active and monitored
dimensions of citizenship.
What, then, are necessary conditions for digital citizens’ self-determination in datafied so
cieties? Research (Hintz et al., 2017) suggests they would need to include a trustworthy
technical infrastructure that accommodates user rights, such as privacy, in its design, its
physical construction, and its code. Further, they require a supportive legal and regulato
ry framework that limits the collection, analysis and use of personal data; adequate pub
lic knowledge of datafication; and an informed use of the relevant platforms and applica
tions. Underpinning such approaches, this chapter argues that we (p. 542) need a compre
hensive understanding of the changes and challenges to core principles of citizenship
that have emerged in times of datafication.
References
Allan, S. (2013). Citizen witnessing: Revisioning journalism in times of crisis. Cambridge:
Polity.
Page 16 of 23
Amoore, L. & Piotukh, V. (2016). Introduction. In L. Amoore & V. Piotukh (Eds.), Algorith
mic life: Calculative devices in the age of big data (pp. 1–18). New York: Routledge.
Andrejevic, M. (2012). Exploitation in the data mine. In C. Fuchs, K. Boersma, A. Al

brechtslund, & M. Sandoval (Eds.), Internet and surveillance: The challenges of Web 2.0
and social media (pp. 71–88). Abingdon: Routledge.
Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S. and Kirchner, L. (2016, May 23). Machine Bias. Propublica.
https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-
sentencing
Ansorge, J. (2016). Identify & sort: How digital power changed world politics. London,
UK: Hurt & Company.
Aouragh, M., Gürses, S., & Rocha, J. (2015). Let’s first get things done! On division of
labour and techno-political practices of delegation in times of crisis. The Fibreculture
Journal, 26, 208–235.
Aradou, C. & Blanke, T. (2015). The (Big) Data-security assemblage: Knowledge and cri
tique. Big Data & Society, 2(2), 1–12.
Barlow, J. P. (1996). A declaration of the independence of cyberspace. Electronic Freedom

Foundation. http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html
Bauböck, R. (1994). Transnational citizenship. London: Edward Elgar.
Bellamy, R. (2008). Citizenship: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.
Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets
and freedom. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Bennett, L., & Segerberg, A. (2014). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the
personalization of contentious politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
boyd, d. (2007). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in
teenage social life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, identity, and digital media (pp. 119–
142). MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brevini, B., Hintz, A., & McCurdy, P. (Eds.) (2013). Beyond WikiLeaks: Implications for the
future of communications, journalism and society. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Cheney-Lippold, J. (2016). Jus Algoritmi: How the national security agency remade citi
zenship. International Journal of Communication, 10, 1721–1742. http://ijoc.org/
index.php/ijoc/article/view/4480
(p. 543) Cheney-Lippold, J. (2017). We Are data. New York: New York University Press.
Page 17 of 23
Chin, J., & Wong, G. (2016, November 28). China’s new tool for social control: A credit
rating for everything. Wall Street Journal. http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-new-
tool-for-social-control-a-credit-rating-for-everything-1480351590
Clarke, J., Newman, J., Smith, N., Vidler, E., & Westmoreland, L. (2007). Creating citizen-
consumers: Changing publics and changing public services. London: Sage.
Clarke, J., Coll, K. M., Dagnino, E., & Neveu, C. (2014). Disputing citizenship. Bristol: Poli
cy Press.
Couldry, N., Stephanson, H., Fotopoulou, A., MacDonald, R., Clark, W., & Dickens, L.
(2014). Digital citizenship? Narrative exchange and the changing terms of civic culture.
Citizenship Studies, 18(6–7), 615–629.
Couldry, N. & Hepp, A. (2017). The mediated construction of reality. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Crawford, K. (2016). Know your terrorist credit score! Presentation at Re:publica, May,
Berlin.
Crouch, C. (2004). Post democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Dahlgren, P. (2003). Reconfiguring civic culture in the new media milieu. In J. Corner & D.
Pels (Eds.), Media and the restyling of politics (pp. 151–170). London: Sage.
Dean, J. (2001). Cybersalons and civil society: Rethinking the public sphere in transna
tional technoculture. Public Culture, 13(2), 243–266.
Deibert, R. J., Palfrey, J. G., Rohozinski, R., & Zittrain, J. (2008). Access denied: The prac
tice and policy of global Internet filtering. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Deibert, R., Palfrey, J. G., Rohozinski, R., & Zittrain, J. (2012). Access contested: Towards
the fourth phase of cyberspace controls. In R. Deibert, J. G. Palfrey, R. Rohozinski, & J. Zit
train (Eds.), Access contested: Security, identity and resistance in Asian cyberspace (pp.
3–20). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Dencik, L. & Leistert, O. (Eds.) (2015). Critical perspectives on social media and protest:
Between control and emancipation. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Dencik, L., Hintz, A., & Carey, Z. (2017). Prediction, pre-emption and limits to dissent: So
cial media and big data uses for policing protests in the United Kingdom. New Media &
Society, 20(4), 1433–1450.
Dencik, L., Hintz, A., Redden, J., & Warne, H. (2019). The ‘golden view’: data-driven gov
ernance in the scoring society. Internet Policy Review 8(2). https://policyreview.info/ar
ticles/analysis/golden-view-data-driven-governance-scoring-society
Page 18 of 23
Diakopolous, N. (2013). Algorithmic accountability reporting: On the investigation of

black boxes. A Tow/Knight Brief. Tow Center for Digital Journalism, Columbia Journalism
School, New York.
Diamond, L. (2010). Liberation technology. Journal of Democracy, 21(3), 69–83.
Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish
the poor. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Fraser, N. & Gordon, L. (1994). A genealogy of dependency: Tracing a keyword of the US

welfare state. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 19(2), 309–336.
Fuchs, C. (2014). Social media: A critical introduction. London: Sage.
Goldsmith, J. & Wu, T. (2006). Who controls the Internet? Illusions of a borderless world.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Greenwald, G. (2014). No place to hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA and the surveillance
state. London: Hamish Hamilton Press.
Hartley, J. (1999). The uses of television. London: Routledge.
Hartley, J. & McWilliam, K. (Eds.) (2009). Story circle: Digital storytelling around the
world. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
(p. 544) Held, D. & McGrew, A. C. (2003). The great globalization debate. In D. Held, & A.
G. McGrew (Eds.), The global transformations reader (pp. 1–50). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hintz, A. & Milan, S. (2013). Networked collective action and the institutionalised policy
debate: Bringing cyberactivism to the policy arena? Policy & Internet, 5(1), 7–26.
Hintz, A. (2015). Social media censorship, privatised regulation, and new restrictions to
protest and dissent. In L. Dencik & O. Leistert (Eds.), Critical perspectives on social me
dia and protest: Between control and emancipation (pp. 109–126). Lanham, MD: Rowman
and Littlefield.
Hintz, A., Dencik, L., & Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2017). Digital citizenship and surveillance so
ciety. International Journal of Communication, 11, 731–739.
Hintz, A. & Brown, I. (2017). Enabling digital citizenship? The reshaping of surveillance
policy after Snowden. International Journal of Communication, 11, 782–801.
Hintz, A., Dencik, L., & Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2018). Digital citizenship in a datafied society.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Isin, E. (2008). Theorizing acts of citizenship. In E. Isin & G. Nielsen (Eds.), Acts of citi
zenship (pp. 15–43). London: Zed.
Isin, E. (2012). Citizens without frontiers. London, UK: Bloomsbury.
Page 19 of 23
Isin, E. & Ruppert, E. (2015). Becoming digital citizens. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Little
field.
Isin, E. & Ruppert, E. (2017). Citizen Snowden. International Journal of Communication,

11, 843–857.
Jenkins, H. (2008). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York:
New York University Press.
Johnson, D. R. & Post, D. (1996). Law and borders: The rise of law in cyberspace. Stan
ford Law Review, 48(5), 1367–1402.
Katz, J. (1997). The digital citizen. Wired, January 12, 1997, https://www.wired.com/
1997/12/netizen-29/
Lindgren, S. (2017). Digital media & society. London: Sage.
Linklater, A. (2002). Cosmopolitan citizenship. In E. Isin & B. S. Turner (Eds.), Handbook

of citizenship studies (pp. 317–332). London: Sage.
Lister, R. (1997). Citizenship: Feminist perspectives. Basingstoke: MacMillan.
Lyon, D. (2015). Surveillance after Snowden. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Mann, S., Nolan, J., & Wellman, B. (2003). Sousveillance: Inventing and using wearable
computing devices for data collection in surveillance environments. Surveillance & Soci
ety, 1(3), 331–355.
Marshall, T. H. (1950). Citizenship and social class, and other essays. Cambridge: Cam
bridge University Press.
Massumi, B. (2015). Ontopower: War, powers, and the state of perception. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Mattelart, A. (2003). The information society. London: Sage.
McCosker, A., Vivienne, S., & Johns, A. (Eds.) (2016). Negotiating digital citizenship: Con
trol, contest and culture. London, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.
McNevin, A. (2011). Contesting citizenship: Irregular migrants and new frontiers of the
political. New York: Columbia University Press.
Milan, S. (2013). Social movements and their technologies: Wiring social change.
Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Milan, S. (2017). Data activism as the new frontier of media activism. In G. Yang & V.
Pickard (Eds.), Media activism in the digital age (pp. 151–163). London: Routledge.
Milan, S., & van der Velden, L. (2016). The alternative epistemologies of data ac
(p. 545)
tivism. Digital Culture & Society, 2(2), 57–74.

Page 20 of 23
Morozov, E. (2011). The net delusion: The dark side of Internet freedom. New York: Public
Affairs.
Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C., & McNeal, R. S. (2007). Digital citizenship: The Internet, soci
ety, and participation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. London: Verso Books.
Papacharissi, Z. (2010). A private sphere: Democracy in a digital age. Cambridge, UK:

Polity Press.
Rainie, L. & Wellman, B. (2012). Networked: The new social operating system.
Ratto, M. & Boler, M. (Eds.) (2014). DIY citizenship: Critical making and social media.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Renzi, A. & Langlois, G. (2015). Data activism. In G. Langlois, J. Redden, & G. Elmer
(Eds.), Compromised data: From social media to big data (pp. 202–225). New York:
Bloomsbury.
Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart mobs: The next social revolution. Basic Books.
Rice, R. E. & Hoffman, Z. T. (2018). Attention in business press to the diffusion of atten
tion technologies, 1990–2017. International Journal of Communication, 12.
Rieke, A., Yu, H., Robinson, D., & von Hoboken, J. (2016). Data brokers in an open society.
London: Open Society Foundation.
Rodriguez, C. (2001). Fissures in the mediascape: An international study of citizens’ me

dia. Mahwah, NJ: Hampton Press.
Shirky, C. (2010). Cognitive surplus: Creativity and generosity in a connected age. Lon
don, UK: Penguin.
Siapera, E. (2016). Digital citizen X. In A. McCosker, S. Vivienne, & A. Johns (Eds.), Nego
tiating digital citizenship: Control, contest and culture (pp. 97–114). London: Rowman
and Littlefield International.
Siapera, E. (2017). Reclaiming citizenship in the post-democratic condition. Journal of Cit

izenship and Globalisation Studies, 1(1), 24–35.
Simon, J., Bass, T., Boelman, V., & Mulgan, G. (2017). Digital democracy: The tools trans
forming digital engagement. NESTA Working Paper. http://www.nesta.org.uk/publica
tions/digital-democracy-tools-transforming-political-engagement
Soysal, Y. N. (1994). Limits of citizenship: Migrants and postnational membership in Eu

rope. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Page 21 of 23
Spiro, P. J. (2011). A new international law of citizenship. The American Journal of Interna
tional Law, 105(4), 694–746.
Srnicek, N. (2016). Platform capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Tilly, C. (1997). A primer on citizenship. Theory and Society, 26(4), 599–602.
Trottier, D. (2015). Open source intelligence, social media and law enforcement: Visions,
constraints and critiques. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 18(4–5), 530–547.
Turner, B. S. (1990). Outline of a theory of citizenship. Sociology, 24(2), 189–217.
Turner, B. S. (2009). TH Marshall, social rights and English national identity. Citizenship
Studies, 13(1), 65–73.
Turner, B. S. (2017). Contemporary citizenship: Four types. Journal of Citizenship and

Globalisation Studies, 1(1), 10–23.
Urry, J. (1999). Globalization and citizenship. Journal of World-Systems Research, 5(2),

310–324.
Vagle, J. L. (2017). The history, means, and effects of structural surveillance.

(p. 546)
Northeastern University Law Review, 9(1), 103–149.
Van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific
paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197–208.
Villeneuve, N. (2012). Fake Skype encryption software cloaks DarkComet trojan. Trend
Micro Malware Blog, 20 April 2012. http://blog.trendmicro.com/fake-skype-encryp
tion-software-cloaks-darkcomet-trojan/
Vivienne, S., McCosker, A., & Johns, A. (2016). Digital citizenship as fluid interface: Be
tween control, contest and culture. In A. McCosker, S. Vivienne, & A. Johns (Eds.), Negoti
ating digital citizenship: Control, contest and culture (pp. 1–18). London: Rowman & Lit
tlefield.
Walzer, M. (1970). Obligations: Essays on disobedience, war, and citizenship. Boston, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Young, I. M. (1989). Polity and group difference: A critique of the ideal of universal citi
zenship. Ethics, 99(2), 250–274.
Zivi, K. (2012). Making rights claims: A practice of democratic citizenship. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information
civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30, 75–89.
Page 22 of 23
Notes:
(1.) The chapter is informed by a two-year project of empirical research on the conse
quences of datafication and, particularly, increasing surveillance on digital citizenship
(Hintz, Dencik, & Wahl-Jorgensen, 2017), and by the work of the Data Justice Lab at
Cardiff University. The argument presented here has been elaborated in more detail in
the book Digital citizenship in a datafied society (Hintz, Dencik, & Wahl-Jorgensen, 2018).
Arne Hintz
Arne Hintz is Senior Lecturer at the School of Journalism, Media and Culture at
Cardiff University, where he leads the MA Digital Media and Society, and co-directs
the Data Justice Lab. His research addresses questions of digital democracy, datafica
tion, and communication policy. He has led several collaborative research projects,
including Digital Citizenship and Surveillance Society: State-Media-Citizen Relations
after the Snowden Leaks and Towards Democratic Auditing: Civic Participation in the
Scoring Society. His publications include, among others, Beyond WikiLeaks (Pal
grave, 2013) and Digital Citizenship in a Datafied Society (Polity, 2018).
Page 23 of 23
Digitizing Cultural Complexity: Representing Rich Cultural Data in a Big
Data Environment
Digitizing Cultural Complexity: Representing Rich Cul

tural Data in a Big Data Environment
Georgina Nugent-Folan and Jennifer Edmond
One of the major terminological forces driving information and communication technolo
gy (ICT) integration in research today is “big data.” The characteristics of big data make
big data sound inclusive and integrative. However, in practice such approaches are highly
selective, excluding input that cannot be effectively structured, represented, or digitized;
in other words, excluding complex data. Yet complex data are precisely the kind that hu
man activity tends to produce, but the technological imperative to enhance signal
through the reduction of noise does not accommodate this richness. The objective of this
chapter is to explore the impact of bias in digital approaches to knowledge creation by in
vestigating the delimiting effect digital mediation and datafication can have on rich, com
plex cultural data. If rich or complex data prove difficult to fully represent on a small-
scale level, in the transition to a big data environment, we run the risk of losing much of
what makes this material useful or interesting in the first place. We will begin by review
ing some of the existing implicit definitions of data that underlie ICT-driven research. In
doing so will draw attention to the heterogeneity of definitions of data, to identify the key
terms associated with data demarcation and data use, and to then expand on the implica
tions of this heterogeneity.
Keywords: cultural complexity, big data, complex data, datafication, digital mediation, knowledge creation, cultur
al data, information and communication technology, ICT, data demarcation
Introduction
ONE of the major terminological forces driving information and communication technolo
gy (ICT) integration in research today is “big data.” While the characteristics, often de
fined by the multiple “V’s” of big data—volume, velocity, variety, veracity, and value
(BDIOT, 2018)—may make big data sound inclusive and integrative, such approaches are
in fact highly selective, excluding input that cannot be effectively structured, represent
ed, or digitized. Data of this complex sort is precisely the kind that human activity tends
Page 1 of 30
Data Environment
to produce, but the technological imperative to enhance signal through the reduction of
noise does not accommodate this richness.
Data and the computational approaches that facilitate “big data” have acquired a per
ceived objectivity that belies their curated, malleable, reactive, and performative nature.
In an input environment where anything can be “data” once it is entered and accepted in
to the system as “data,” data cleaning and processing, together with references to meta
data and information architectures that structure and facilitate our cultural archives, ac
quire a capacity to delimit what data are that is endemically under-acknowledged or ig
nored outright. This engenders a process of simplification that has major implications for
the potential of future innovation within research environments that depend on rich mate
rial yet are increasingly mediated by digital technologies that delimit, simplify and even
hide or make latent potentially important facets of this material.
The objective of this chapter is to explore the impact of bias in digital approaches
(p. 548)
to knowledge creation by investigating the delimiting effect digital mediation and datafi
cation can have on rich, complex cultural data. Cultural data refers to the rich, complex
data used in analyses of culture (such as anthropological field notes) or by humanities re
searchers (manuscripts, photographs, diaries). The data may often refer to objects that
are rare or even unique. These objects may have complex histories, particularly when it
comes to cultural data or objects that may have passed through hundreds of hands. These
objects may have been subject to rebinding, restoration, damage, losses, or intentional
edits (Edmond & Nugent-Folan, 2017). As Edmond notes, cultural data are particularly
difficult to incorporate into a digital research environment such as a database precisely
because such complexities are at odds with the very functionality of the database and the
findability of the material held within it:
How is this level of uncertainty, irregularity and richness to be captured and inte
grated, without hiding it “like with like” alongside archival runs with much less
convoluted narratives of discovery? Who is to say what […] is “signal” and what
[is] “noise”? Who can judge what critical pieces of information are still missing?
(Edmond, 2016, p. 98)
Cultural data can be contrasted with the comparably “simple” data output of population
counts or environmental sensor readings that may be immediately recognizable as data,
and comforting in their regularity and quantitative nature. Such readings accommodate
partial representations rather than fully representing the people or climate that has been
sampled; itself a near impossible task.
If rich or complex data prove difficult to fully represent on a small-scale level, then in the
transition to a big data environment, we run the risk of losing much of what makes this
material useful or interesting in the first place. We will begin by reviewing some of the ex
isting implicit definitions of data that underlie ICT-driven research. In doing so we will
draw attention to the heterogeneity of definitions of data, to identify the key terms associ
ated with data demarcation and data use, and to then expand on the implications of this
Page 2 of 30
Data Environment
heterogeneity. By establishing a clear taxonomy of existing theories and definitions of da
ta, we provide a foundation that will serve to underpin a more applied understanding of
the term, especially in both humanistic and technical contexts, while also working to un
derstand why these approaches to defining data are often presented in counterpoint, as
mutually exclusive, or antagonistic.
Our taxonomy of data definitions is backed up by the findings of a data mining exercise
wherein we examined usage of the terms “data” and “big data” in the proceedings of a
major international big data journal, the Journal of Big Data, from its inception to the
present day. It outlines key priorities associated with each conceptualization of data, to
gether with key (and under-acknowledged) points of divergence or differences in the use
of these conceptualizations and in the acts of data cleaning and data processing. In addi
tion to developing new perspectives on the rhetorical stakes and action implications of
differing concepts of the term “data,” the chapter moves towards a reconceptualization of
what data are, and how best to go about speaking of and about them.
The first section of this chapter explores how the word “data” is used, or indeed
(p. 549)
misused, in scientific discourse, and examines the implications of these discursive prac
tices. Following this, we will examine how data cleaning and the pre-processing of data
influence our conceptualization of data proper. Section two explores how strategies for
navigating the data deluge (e.g., metadata, keywords, search, and other algorithmic or
organizational strategies) can restrict the interpretative potential of data, and make us
susceptible to an implicit truth claim made on the basis of those strategies.
Defining Pre-Data and the Origins of Data

In the lifecycle of data, there is a sort of spectrum or continuum from pre-data through to
data proper (pre-data, native data, raw data, source data). These phases involve the addi
tion or subtraction of different forms of context or structure. But closer inspection reveals
these to mean, or have the potential to mean, vastly different things. Furthermore, “pre-
data” can be seen to exhibit varying attributes, and if treated differently, the same “pre-
data” can result in vastly different data in later phases. A key facet of this problem is that
the term “data” is ubiquitous, but is consistently interpreted differently, used in different
contexts, or used to refer to different things, leading to confusion and disorganization: in
deed, there is even a lack of consensus as to whether “data” as a term is singular or are
plural. Throughout this chapter, for the sake of clarify and consistency, we will be refer
ring to data in the plural.
Pre-Data
Before we discuss data definitions, it is important to identify the difference between data
and what we might term pre-data, that is “data” before it is datafied and becomes data-
proper. It refers to objects and phenomena in the real world that might be, but have not
yet been, subjected to datification (with all of the losses and gains that that such a
process implies). “Pre-data” involves the material entity that undergoes datafication; it
Page 3 of 30
Data Environment
can be used to describe what data are like before they become, are captured, or are
transformed into data. In this sense, “pre-data” can be just about anything: a conversa
tion (that we may record or transcribe), a paper document (that we may scan or digitally
analyze), a natural phenomenon (that we may photograph, or seek to quantify). Electronic
records such as social media posts, created without the intent of creating data, may al
ready have the form of “data,” and be managed by a company as “data,” but they may not
necessarily be used as “data,” until for example a social researcher downloads and reuses
the post as a part of a corpus, or a third-party analytics firm uses the data to identify
users for advertisers.
If data proper can only ever be considered a partial simulacrum of a real life hap
(p. 550)
pening, event, or entity—not the thing in and of itself, but a recording of the thing—then
“pre-data” can either be the thing in and of itself, the thing in its totality, or the facets of
the thing that are not entirely recordable through datafication, such as context or envi
ronment.
Native Data
Native data are data as they exists/existed in their indigenous environment, the source
context or environ where the native data was extracted from; so it is data plus its environ
mental or source context. So for example, in the case of sensor data recording the sur
face temperature on a mountaintop, native data incorporates points about the environ
ment in which the data was drawn from. It contains all of the data readings in their en
tirety, not just the readings (maximum or minimum temperature) that researchers may be
looking to target or identify. That this additional contextual data may be included as meta
data illustrates just how difficult it can be to keep or maintain cognizance of the context
of your data: where on the mountaintop the sensor was placed, for example. Such infor
mation only makes sense if one has a wider understanding of the environments of con
texts beyond the immediate remit of the sensor, the geographic co-ordinates of the moun
tain, its elevation, the presence of nearby streams, wildlife, pollutants, etc.; such native
context can often only be maintained in a supplemental manner.
“Native data” can also mean, as Christine Borgman outlines in Big data little data no
data, the context(s) the data acquires when it transitions from a “native” to a “non-na
tive” environment; in other words, the data that retains the traces of datafication, the da
ta that is native to a specific software or program (Borgman, 2017, p. 22). So for example,
if a manuscript is scanned and subjected to optical character recognition, the native data
in this case is (depending upon the range and functions incorporate into the software in
question) the output of this initial scanning: it may or may not have been cleaned, or cor
rected for errors or misreadings. It may also retain traces or references to the scanning
process such as the inclusion of dust motes from the camera lens, or registration marks.
“Native data” is a useful term because it retains emphasis on the importance of context
apropos data. However, the term remains overwhelmingly underused.
Page 4 of 30
Data Environment
Raw Data
Raw data supposedly refers to data that has not undergone any processing, or more
specifically, any further processing, as the process of datafication in and of itself is a
transformative process. No data are inherently raw, but this term is nevertheless used to
refer to data we may consider to be relatively unprocessed. “Raw data” are distinct from
“native data” in that it can be considered a step further in terms of levels or degrees of
exposure to datafication. “Native data,” existing in its native environment, becomes “raw
data” when extracted from this native environment. A photograph of a yard full of (p. 551)
wildflowers can be considered the “native data” that allows a person to later study that
photo, identify and list down all the flowers they identify in that photo. This is their “raw
data,” while the photograph, in displaying the totality of the environment—the location of
the flowers, the time of day the time the image was captured, perhaps even the soil type,
and so on—can be considered the “native data.” Despite the existence of a relation be
tween the terms “native data”—that is data in its “rawest” or “native” state—and “raw da
ta,” even “native data” has been processed to a degree (the photographic image is itself a
processed entity), and so one can also argue, as Borgman does, that “Identifying the most
raw form of data may be an infinite regress to epistemological choices about what knowl
edge might be sought” (Borgman, 2017, p. 27). Ribes and Jackson are illuminating on the
processes “native data” undergoes to achieve “raw status” and, further still, the work
that goes into preserving data, observing that “we often think of raw data as following
straight and commonsense pathways from collection to database. Sometimes this is true
[ … ] however the more common story [ … ] [sees] data moving through complex, multi-in
stitutional networks” (Ribes & Jackson, 2013, p. 149).
The so-called “raw data” we are provided with or acquire as researchers has already un
dergone extensive, often undocumented cleaning to get it into a state where it is recog
nizable as data in the first place. And furthermore, what is “raw data” for one researcher
may not be “raw data” for another. For example, Person A collects “raw data” in the form
of a survey of the flowers in the aforementioned yard. This is their “raw data” as they en
deavor to create a very precise description of their garden. Person B takes this data and
adds it to five other such descriptions they have collected from other yards in the area.
This is their “raw data” as they work to develop a floral atlas of the locality. Another per
son (Person C) takes that atlas and extracts only information about purple flowers. This is
their “raw data” for a study of the attractiveness of purple flowers to pollinators. The pol
linators study becomes a part of the “raw data” basis for a study of agriculture, and so on.
Thus, as Borgman notes, “raw is a relative term” (Borgman, 2017, p. 26). While the con
cept of “raw data” is increasingly acknowledged as something of a misnomer or oxy
moron (in his contribution to the aptly titled collection of essays “Raw Data” is an oxy
moron, Matthew Stanley puts it nicely with the observation “raw data is not so raw”;
Stanley, 2013, p. 77), it is still widely used. Specifically at issue is the relativity of the raw
ness, with Borgman noting that “What is ‘raw’ depends on where the inquiry
begins” (Borgman, 2017, p. 26), and the variability of rawness may also be discipline-spe
cific, project-specific, or researcher-specific. In addition, in certain cases, “Only a small
Page 5 of 30
Data Environment
portion of what comes to be considered ‘raw data’ is actually generated in the
field” (Ribes & Jackson, 2013, p. 161). These so-called “raw” data are often subject to ex
tensive cleaning and modification that is not always acknowledged, fully accounted for, or
consistent. The result is that inter-disciplinary projects or conversations that make use of
these frustratingly abstract, idiosyncratic, and variable terms often run the risk of en
countering counter-productive “context collapse” (Marwick & boyd, 2010), to borrow a
term from research into social media in which it is identities rather than discourses that
collapse. Unless the referents of these terms are agreed on and maintained throughout
the course of the project, scholarly discourse may continue but without mutual under
standing.
(p. 552) Source Data
Source data indicates the source of the data for any given research project. For some re
searchers, their source data may not be “native,” or even “raw”; it may already be data
proper and have undergone extensive processing. When understood as the data that is
necessary to conduct a research project, “source data” brings with it a number of impor
tant issues, and these arise well before it has undergone even the most preliminary analy
sis or testing. Particularly in a digital environment, where the contents of online news
sites, for example, change multiple times over the course of an hour, what is available to
you on one day may change, or not even be there, the next day: it may not be locatable in
exactly the same place, or even in the same format; the hyperlink that allowed you to ac
cess this material may not function indefinitely. A very basic example of this is the ever-
changing content interfaces of the digitally available newspapers, or the fact that the lev
els of a given mineral or nutrient recorded in a river will vary from day to day, so the mea
surements taken there over the course of a set period (for example, after an oil spill) will
not necessarily reflect the levels taken at a later date. Elsewhere, and again within a digi
tal environment, hyperlinks frequently become broken or dead (a process commonly re
ferred to as linkrot), and the 404 error message has become a near-universally recog
nized indication of a communications failure and an inability to locate the desired hyper
link. Thus, while one might assume that data that comes from a specific source is stable
or consistent, source data in fact can be variable or even become non-existent. This ties in
with the wider issue of the ephemerality and decay of online documents and their URLs
(Jones et al., 2016; Klein et al., 2014; Koehler, 2004; Mussell, 2012).
One result is that the collected data can quickly become “outdated data” because it no
longer matches or reflects the data at the original site or source of data acquisition. For
this reason researchers will often save their data source by storing duplicates of the data
elsewhere on their computer, in what is known as a cache memory. They may also indi
cate the date at which the data were obtained from a source, as in URL references that
specify a given article was “Accessed on [ … ]” a specific date. They may also include a
caveat that specifies the periodicity of their access to a given data source or the limits or
remits of their study, such as for example by making clear that they had access to the da
ta only for a set period (thereby acknowledging that it may have since changed), or that
the data was collected over a specific period in time, by stating for example “We obtained
Page 6 of 30
Data Environment
this data until the period of …”. Referring to sources in this manner acknowledges prove
nance, and facilitates traceability, which is important when it comes to producing trust
worthy, reliable, and replicable research. Interestingly, however, there is no single or
standardized response to this need, clearly a pressing one in an environment in which up
to 75% of web URLs lead to changed content (Jones et al., 2016). Different communities
will point to different potential solutions, with DOIs (Digital Object Identifiers) being a
preferred technical fix, and style sheets, such as APA or Chicago, suggesting their own,
alternate ways of managing the fact that data often become detached from their context
in the web of documents. None of these solutions, however, truly tackles the root of the
problem, that is that a researcher’s ability to trust data is often based upon (p. 553) tacit
clues derived from the analogue environment, as well as precisely the kinds of prove
nance information that is either not captured or not maintained effectively (Tenopir et al.,
2013, p. 31). The term “source data” therefore indicates where your data came from,
even when you may not be confident of your access to the provenance that implies. So,
whereas “raw data” comes from nowhere, “source data” always comes from somewhere
(and both the “source” and the “data” may change over time), even though the terms may
refer to one and the same object.
Source Data and Data Quality
Researchers source their data from a wide variety of venues. Some source their data from
sensors or instruments, others from open online sources, from colleagues, or archives, or
their data may even have been purchased from companies. Each of these sources has
varying levels of quality and provenance, and this data may have been exposed to grada
tions of processing that are often left undocumented, or implicit. This is why acknowledg
ing the source of data are so important. Making sources available to others indicates con
fidence in the research and findings because it provides the ability of others to query and
test the research findings. As the previous sections have made clear, in many cases,
source data has already been exposed to extensive processing and curation. The list of
wild flowers that makes up a botanist’s raw data may be alphabetized, for example; or in
the case of the researcher investigating pollination, certain self-pollinating flowers may
have been removed from the dataset.
Some data sources, such as text for example, can appear relatively straightforward and
monovalent in terms of content. Other data can, though, be multivalent and contain input
from a variety of sources, such as from the web, newsfeed, legal documents, literature,
etc. Medical data, for example, can contain a myriad of different data forms or modes that
together make up the health profile of a patient, or for the purposes of a medical trial or
study, a section of the population. These data are multivalent and may contain both signal
and “noise” just as, for example, a radio signal may contain both music and static; or in
deed, from a user’s perspective, any given page on an online newsfeed contains text arti
cles, images, and advertisements, not all of which will be of equal interest or relevance to
the user. One of the characteristics of data as it is found in its source environment is that
it often contains noise. Therefore the data targeted at the onset of the study, the data
sought out to conduct the study, may exist in a noisy environment and has to be disassem
Page 7 of 30
Data Environment
bled or extracted or even estimated from the surrounding “noisy data,” the material that
is not required for the purposes of that particular study. As can be seen here then, the
term noise can have both a technical meaning (in the sense of “signal-to-noise ratio”) and
a “noise” in the sense of being superfluous, distracting, or even misleading, to the task at
hand.
Data quality can vary depending on the source. Indeed, the quality of source data is often
directly linked to where and how it was sourced, collected, or scraped. This again influ
ences the approaches one may take to clean, process, or analyze it. For example, (p. 554)
Facebook or Twitter or YouTube content may have language errors that need cleaning,
while content from a major newspaper (such as the Wall Street Journal) rarely includes
those kinds of problems.
Summary
It should be clear by now that to equate source data with pre-data, native data, or even
raw data is ill-advised. And while arguments that distinguish between native and raw da
ta run the risk of becoming tautological and tedious, transparency in relation to the data
source, the native context, and the degree of processing that data have been exposed to,
is clearly necessary. This is particularly so in relation to complex data (data that can have
more than one meaning, more than one signal) and concordantly in research environ
ments where complex data gives rise to situations where one person’s signal (data) may
be another person’s noise (as in dirty or messy data). For example, one person may
choose not to record instances of non-linguistic elements in a transcript of a conversa
tion. A later user will be unable to use this transcript to study the social function of
“backchannel” responses in conversation, as those elements of the exchange are no
longer a part of the available data.
Data Definitions: Theory and Practice

Having covered the origins of data and the various types of pre-data available to the re
searcher, this next section will examine the various definitions of data that have gained
traction among the scholarly community. The challenges that accompany any attempt at
defining data will then be introduced. Following this, we will examine how data process
ing and data cleaning impact upon the interpretation of data, about the terms we use to
speak about data as it transitions through these various phases, and about the important
issue of polysemy in relation to the term “data.”
An Introduction to the Challenges of Defining Data
Rosenberg outlines the history of “data” as a concept originating before the 20th century,
exploring how it acquired its “pre-analytical, pre-factual status” (Rosenberg, 2013, p. 18).
If “data” is “pre-analytical, pre-factual,” then what of “pre-data,” or “proto-data”? Rosen
thal (2017) presents data as an entity that “resists analysis,” an “object that cannot be
questioned.” Borgman further elaborates on this, stating that “Data are neither truth nor
Page 8 of 30
Data Environment
reality. They may be facts, sources of evidence, or principles of an argument that (p. 555)
are used to assert truth or reality” (Borgman, 2017, p. 17). Here already we have a not in
significant contradiction, however, in that two of the foremost theorists on data, Rosen
berg and Borgman, alternately describe data as “pre-factual” and “facts,” respectively.
How can an entity be both pre-factual and factual? How can data be “facts” if they are
pre-factual? Rosenberg further fuels this field of contradictions with the observation that
“When a fact is proven false, it ceases to be a fact. False data is data
nonetheless” (Rosenberg, 2013, p. 18). Rita Riley picks up on this contradiction when she
outlines the arguments for and against data surveillance, noting that such back and forth
arguments “imply that data is somehow neutral and that it is only the uses of data that
are either repressive or emancipatory” (Riley, 2013, p. 130). Data cannot be neutral if it is
a fact, and it cannot be a fact if it is false, yet individually it can be false, a fact, pre-factu
al, and also neutral. This uncertainty around the characteristics of “data” feeds in to a
larger discussion on distinctions between concepts such as data, information, and knowl
edge (Rice, McCredie, & Chang, 2001).
Data has been used to great emancipatory effect throughout projects such as American
slavery as it is, a groundbreaking project that, as Garvey notes, “helped to create the
modern concept of information, by isolating and recontextualizing data found in
print” (Garvey, 2013, p. 91). However, Garvey’s assertion that “data will out” (Garvey,
2013, p. 90) implies that there is some overarching truth-function to data, that it can
somehow speak for itself, as opposed to needing context and modification so as to take on
the values expected or sought out by the researcher. Data only, as Garvey described it,
“outs”—that is, invites interpretation—by means of a complex set of procedures that may
be discipline-specific, case-specific, or even researcher-specific. For example, a re
searcher with a background in palaeography is well suited to decipher the contents of a
manuscript, but not if that manuscript contains text in a language they do not read fluent
ly. They also may not be skilled in the encoding procedure necessary to transcribe the
contents into xml (extensible markup language) for the purpose of disseminating the ma
terial in a digital environment, or capable of building the system that could run and facili
tate this kind of digitally facilitated manuscript analysis. Conversely, the software engi
neer capable of building a system that facilitates the digital analysis of medieval manu
scripts may have little or no background in medieval scholarship or manuscript studies
(see Chandna et al., 2015).
Data Processing and Data Interpretation
The procedures that facilitate the interpretation of data are informed by pre-existing
knowledge bases. A researcher who speaks English but not French or Latin, for example,
will naturally focus on the English contents of a multi-lingual manuscript, to the neglect
of the other material. Furthermore, the purposes for engaging with or seeking out partic
ular data in the first place often determine the types of data obtained, and the interpreta
tions these data are subjected to. If, for example, material is being sought out (p. 556) for
a collection of early English poetry, then material in Latin or French is not required, and
Page 9 of 30
Data Environment
while it may be present within the “source data” or the data when it is in its native con
text, following scanning by OCR software, this material will be removed in order to make
the “raw data” necessary for and relevant to the project.
Many of these approaches to data processing adapt and evolve as the research progress
es. However, data processing choices and provenance records are often left undocument
ed and unaccounted for, with the result that data acquires a factual sheen that belies its
curated and processed status. Even a Google search presents only a certain perspective
on the data available to its search queries, limited by the nature of keyword search, the
way in which the algorithm ranks pages and, further upstream, by how data has been
captured and presented, with or without the context it needs to be exposed in a relevant
query (Horsley & Priddy, 2018). For example, in the case of Garvey’s essay on abolition
ists’ use of facts, “the ads were abstracted, their information pried loose and accumulat
ed, aggregated en masse” (Garvey, 2013, p. 91) in a manner that can be considered a very
early pre-computational approach to aggregating data in a manner akin to a Google
search. This data did not simply “out;” it was pried out.
It’s fitting then, that Rosenberg famously cites data as “rhetorical” (Rosenberg, 2013, p.
18), and Raley argues data are “performative” (Raley, 2013, p. 128). Perhaps these
rhetorical and performative facilities explain data’s mutative nature, for it seems data can
be anything, can mean anything, can be made to mean anything, or that anything can be
data once it is entered into the system as data. Data has largely become a devalued term,
perhaps best equivalent to “stuff” or “things,” sort of as a synonym for input. Data are
culturally specific, idiosyncratic and variable, and this point becomes obfuscated by the
discourse in which data can mean almost everything, and in doing so, mean next to noth
ing. If we subscribe to the argument that anything has the potential to be data, then any
definition of data (or the architecture that makes it available in an analogue or digital en
vironment) needs to maintain an awareness of the interpretative potential of the material
contained within its datasets. If data are of speculative value, then facets discarded or ob
fuscated during the cleaning process could become important or valuable at some point
in the future. But this later contextualization is only possible if the facets are still avail
able, and ideally available with their native context. Raley argues that “Data cannot
‘spoil’ because it is now speculatively, rather than statistically, calculated” (Raley, 2013, p.
124), suggesting both that data are inherently multiply interpretable (which is often
true), but also that “data” itself exists in some original pure form and can therefore never
degrade (which is misleading). Nevertheless, we have to remain cognizant then of “what
could be data to someone, for some purpose, at some point in time” (Borgman, 2017, p.
19).
Data can also become hidden, or be rendered latent within an archive, as a result of the
information architecture employed to organize it within a digital environment. In their
study of historical data and its sources, Horsley and Priddy (2018) draw attention to the
tension that exists between what they describe as the “quick win” of keyword searches
vs. the context and complexities of the material being sought out:
Page 10 of 30
Data Environment
(p. 557)
The feeling of getting to know material was therefore endangered by keyword

searches’ bypassing of context, which also undermined the process through which
archivists deepened their relationships with collections. In this instance, a sense
of context was vital for developing an understanding of connections that might be
missing or yet to be made.
Material can also be missed as a result of “digital information seeking

behaviour” (Rowlands et al., 2008, pp. 294–95). For example, the average user will as
sume that if the information they are looking for does not appear in the first few online
search results, it somehow doesn’t exist (Rowlands et al., 2008). This activity has been de
scribed in the digital age as “horizontal information seeking”: “A form of skimming activi
ty, where people view just one or two pages from an academic site and then ‘bounce’ out,
perhaps never to return. The figures are instructive: around 60 percent of e-journal users
view no more than three pages and a majority (up to 65 percent) never return” (Rowlands
et al., 2008, pp. 294–95).
Inclusion within a formal collection of digitized or digital records, often referred to as a

digital archive, necessitates that data must be organized according to some kind of
framework. The major and minor elements in this framework can be referred to as its ar
chitecture (just as a house will have a certain collection of rooms and hallways into which
furniture—data—can be placed). Problems can emerge when that data are delimited, con
strained, formatted, or structured by the architecture surrounding it within a digital envi
ronment. This architecture itself might use the term “data” as one of its fundamental de
scriptors, and therefore might contain, shape, and affect the management of data within,
while itself also using the term “data” to describe more external, tangential structures,
that are still necessary for the archive to function. “Data” as a term then is used and re-
used in the context of the entities that serve different functions within the digital environ
ment: metadata, the dataset, the database, or data that has been exposed to various levels
of processing. All of these types of data are different, yet the term that signifies them re
mains the same. So how do we maintain an awareness of which data are what data? And
how are we to accommodate fluidity, a capacity for change, and account for the incorpo
ration of material not identified as data at the time of its entry into the system that can
subsequently become data?
Data Definitions and Polysemy
We know, or have known from at least as early as 1951 in Briet’s Qu’est-ce que la docu
mentation? that, “Data are not pure or natural objects with an essence of their own …
[data] exist in a context, taking on meaning from that context and from the perspective of
the beholder” (Borgman, 2017, p. 18). Nevertheless, it is difficult to ascertain a concrete
understanding of what data actually are that satisfies all the uses to which the term is
regularly put. Some of these statements or definitions of data outlined in the previous
(p. 558) section grant the term and its mobile referent a sort of authority it cannot possi
Page 11 of 30
Data Environment
bly obtain. While this is perhaps to be expected among the more philosophical or concep
tual approaches to defining data, inconsistencies and tacit disagreements over what data
are also exist within the computer science community. In a series of interviews conducted
with computer scientists regarding their conceptions of data, Edmond and Nugent-Folan
noted how many “elaborated on how hard it was to define data, nothing on the one hand
that while ‘everything that is not very well defined can cause confusion,’ it is nonetheless
very difficult to define data” (Edmond & Nugent-Folan, 2018, p. 114). However, this vari
ability remains largely undiscussed in the scientific literature: indeed, it seems to be an
acceptable part of the discourse. Within the confines of a single research paper (Tabard
et al., 2011), data can be both simple and complex, pre-epistemic and pre-processed, di
rectly comprehensible to humans and purely machine readable. The word “data” can be
used to refer to something newly drawn out of the environment (“captured,” “collected”)
or as something already available for access, analysis, navigation (“research data” or in
deed just “data”). It can refer to complex hybrid objects (“experimental data,” “digital da
ta”), or to comparatively simple strings of regular meter readings (“sensor data”; Tabard
et al., 2011).
The scale of this polysemy is quite striking and leads to an astonishing reliance on the
single term “data” within certain streams of scientific discourse. A random selection of
five articles from the Journal of Big Data in 2016 yielded over 650 occurrences of the
term “data,” including 325 of the composite phrase “big data” and 124 in the context of a
“dataset” or “database.” Within this corpus we observe such inconsistencies as idiosyn
crasies in spelling key terms within the one paper (dataset/data set); the same term used
to refer to specific data/datasets or to more general data/datasets; the same term used to
refer to different phases of investigation; to different data (data stream/data cluster/origi
nal data/evolved data/evolving data); and to data as a synecdochal term covering both the
whole and the part. The following quotations give a sense of what one finds:
Data pretreatment module is outside from online component and it is done to pre
process stream data from the original data which is produced by the previous com
ponent in the form of data stream.
In addition, we calculate the standard deviation for the entire data in the stream to
check whether all the data are of the same value or not.
Due to visiting data once during the processing data in stream, the performance of
processing data is crucial.
(Khalilian et al., 2016)
It is difficult, if not impossible, to keep track of what data are which in each of these cas
es, and it also appears that that writerly skill and the ability to construct persuasive argu
ments do not appear to be of value in this epistemic culture, where the term “data” takes
precedence above all else. Indeed, to take things further, a 2015 article by Najafabadi et
al. (2015) used the term data an incredible 507 times over the course of 21 pages, which
Page 12 of 30
Data Environment
equates to 24.1 mentions per page. Of these, 124 iterations pertained to “big data,”
which left 383 uses of data “proper.”
Taking these investigations further, we compiled a test corpus that consisted of

(p. 559)
five randomly selected research papers each year from the Journal of Big Data from 2014
(the year of its inception) to 2017 (Volumes 1–4; with the exception of 2014, because of
the six articles in the issue only two papers were research oriented, the others being a
short report, two case studies, and a survey). As Table 20.1 shows, across the entire cor
pus of articles examined as part of this text mining exercise, the most frequent recurring
word, overwhelmingly, was “data,” occupying a staggering 2% of the total sampled cor
pus. The second most-frequent word in the corpus was “big” and, out of 782 appearances
of the adjective, all but seven related to “big data” (99.1%). So of all the words in these
articles from the Journal of Big Data, 2% are “data” and one quarter of those include
“big.” Our conversations on big data are directed and defined primarily by (apparently)
“small” data.
Page 13 of 30
Digitizing Cultural Complexity: Representing Rich Cultural Data in a Big Data Environment
Table 20.1 Analysis of Journal of Big Data, 2014–2017
Year Total words in Average number Total occurrences Total occurrences

corpus of words per sen of the word “data” of the word “big
tence data”
Merged 2014-2017 148,826 25.9 2975 782 (0.5%)

(2%) All but seven of the
iterations of the
word “big” related
to “big data”
2017 50,021 24.8 726 214 (0.42%)

(1.45%) All iterations of the
to “big data”
2016 40,630 26.6 930 329 (0.8%)

(2.3%) All iterations of the
to “big data”
2015 46,603 25.8 1185 225 (0.5%)

(2.5%) All but seven of the
iterations of the
to “big data”
Page 14 of 30
Digitizing Cultural Complexity: Representing Rich Cultural Data in a Big Data Environment
2014 11,572 28.9 134 —

(1%)
Page 15 of 30
Data Environment
If we consider that “big data” is increasingly held to different standards than “data,” then
this feature of “big data” research, namely its reliance on the term “data,” begins to ac
quire potentially worrying consequences. As mentioned previously, Rosenberg cites data
as “rhetorical” while also reminding us that “False data is data nonetheless” (Rosenberg,
2013, p. 18) and that “Data has no truth. Even today, when we speak about data, we make
no assumptions about veracity” (Rosenberg, 2013, p. 37). That last statement is impor
tant, because while, when we speak of data we perhaps make no assumptions about
truth, when we speak about big data, we do, as the five characteristics of big data, noted
earlier, are “volume, velocity, variety, veracity and value” (BDIOT, 2018). Somewhere in
the transition from data to big data, veracity becomes important, even if (p. 560) the
datasets that compose the big data are themselves, when taken on a small scale, repre
sentative of data that has “no truth,” that is “pre-factual,” or that can be described via
any of the definitions of data discussed previously. These conflicting conceptual defini
tions pose a major challenge: How can (small) data bring no assumptions of veracity, but
“big data” be veracious? If “big data” is to have different characteristics than “small da
ta,” then the terminological frame of reference for discussions on “big data” should differ
from that of regular data, but as the results just outlined make clear, this is not the case.
Researchers are speaking about entities with overwhelmingly different properties but us
ing the same terminology, terminology whose usage indicates or imports properties or
connotations that are characteristic of data but may be foreign to the characteristics of
big data, especially if that big data are prescribed as being by definition “veracious.”
The phrase “big data” is dictated by understandings of the term “data” that do not accord
with or accommodate—on a semantic level—veracity, one of the principal characteristics
of “big data,” with the term itself appearing highly malleable and manipulable. Rhetoric
such as this distracts from the fact that problems identifiable at the level of mere “data”
or singular “data points” are magnified when we take it to the scale of big data. “Big da
ta” in particular appears to have been infused with a corporate glow of being the cure for
just about any ill. One particularly striking example of this is the 2015 ad campaign by
Winton Global Investments, which presents “analysing big data” as “the secret to living
happily ever after” (Chandler, 2015). Continuing on the theme of fairy tales, Couldry
(2013) refers to big data as a “myth” because it “is oriented to the social world in a par
ticular way. It does not have as its domain a national population, or even the particular
collectivities that might gather online. It builds its population, data-bit by data-bit,
through a series of operations that bypass earlier ideas of social interrelations.”
People define data differently in the small scale, people interpret data differently in the
small scale, and the term “data” is heavily overdetermined in the small scale. The incon
sistencies of definitions and variability of what data can be, how it can be spoken of, and
what can or cannot be done with it, are striking. While they would indicate that
Rosenberg’s concept of data as “rhetorical” to some extent holds true, the sheer scale
and variance has significantly more impact than can be conveyed with the single term
“rhetoric.” For example, it is possible to have Ambiguous data, anonymous data, bad da
ta, bilingual data, chaotic data, contradictory data, computational data, dark data, hidden
data, implicit data, in-domain data, inaccurate data, inconclusive data,
Page 16 of 30
Data Environment
“information” (rather confusingly, several interviewees referred to data as “information”),
log data, loose data, machine processable data, missing data, noisy data, outdated data,
personal data, primary data, real data, repurposed data, rich data, standardized data, se
mi-structured data, sensitive data, stored data, true data, uncertain data. How exactly all
of these variances of data can be together combined under the umbrella term “big data”
without compromising on their small-scale specificities and complexities remains to be
seen.
To make things even more complex, any definition of data (or the architecture that shapes
it and makes it available in an analogue or digital environment) needs to maintain an
awareness of the speculative potential of the information contained within its datasets.
Remarking on definitions that work by example or by assigning attributes to (p. 561) ex
amples of data—Borgman observes that “any such list is at best a starting point for what
could be data to someone, for some purpose, at some point in time” (Borgman, 2017, p.
19). Not only can data be anything extant, then, it is also notional, and even speculative,
being dependent on its contents suggesting a definition, contents that may change from
discipline to discipline, or over time within a discipline. This again adds credence to
Raley’s notion of data as performative. As a performative entity it has the potential to be
other; to assume, perform, and acquire other values, according to the needs of the user.
An additional problem is that what data are, what can be done with data, and what can be
said about data—and conversely our understandings of what data itself can do to us, to its
interlocutors, environments and to its contexts—all vary drastically from discipline to dis
cipline, and even within disciplines. In addition, this overabundance of rhetorical strate
gies regarding what data are and how we are to speak about it also serves to create a cer
tain distance from data. Because we cannot say with certainty exactly what it is, it ac
quires a mystique that carries both a sense of authority, granting data a certain objectivi
ty that belies its curated, malleable, reactive, and performative nature.
Data Cleaning
Also known as data scrubbing, data cleaning is a process by which elements are removed
from a dataset or data stream, generally because they foul the desired processing, or one
wherein elements or formats are standardized so as to make processing easier. This
process is viewed by some communities as a central part of good research practice; oth
ers, however, view data scrubbing as a form of data manipulation that erodes the credibil
ity of research based upon it. If we are to accept Borgman’s observation regarding the
speculative potential for any item to be identified as, and function, as data “to someone,
for some purpose, at some point in time” (Borgman, 2017, p. 19), then data cleaning in
and of itself then is an interpretative act, because in doing so one establishes and distin
guishes between signal and noise, and removing or muting the noise so as to highlight
the signal. This means that the material scrubbed from the data when it was in its native
environment is no longer accessible, having been deemed external to the remit of data se
lected for inclusion. This expunges items of potential future (speculative) value or merit
as data. However, that which is not presently identified as data of a certain kind or value
Page 17 of 30
Data Environment
at one time, can or could be identified at any given point as data at another time; non-da
ta removed through cleaning thus arguably always has the potential to be or become da
ta. From this perspective all data streams are, to a certain degree, incomplete, and neces
sarily so: while noise may have the potential to be signal, signal can only become appar
ent after having been stripped of noise, such as through data cleaning, even if that mater
ial has the potential to be valuable.
In addition to a lack of transparency regarding the fact that different appearances of the
term data potentially signifies different data, and to the lack of transparency in relation to
the transformations that are applied to data, the technique of cleaning data so as to pro
duce more refined data are not systematized. Rather, it is presented as an almost (p. 562)
esoteric process, one that brings with it implicit assumptions regarding the methods used
to clean or process; assumptions that are not only discipline specific, but often topic-and
researcher-specific. The fact that salient aspects of an original record might have been
lost along the way as data passes through the hands and servers of different actors is not
only not recognized as potentially problematic, it is obliquely recognized as a part of the
scientific process. In her analysis of a collection of papers belonging to Roger Casement,
Edmond (2016) illuminates on what she refers to as the “potential complexity of historical
sources” and the problems they pose when it comes to the provision of workable “big da
ta” environments for historians or other researchers that work with cultural data:
No less than three previous owners of the papers are referenced (one of which is
only known for his or her status as a member of the aristocracy). Their place in
Casement’s life (and indeed his own place in Irish history) is explained, chronolog
ically and in terms of his thematic interests. The material status of the collection is
given, including the fact that it consists of “mainly” (but not exclusively?) letters.
A surprising anecdote is relayed regarding how the archive came to realize they
held such a significant collection, which illustrates how the largely tacit knowl
edge of the archivist enabled their discovery and initial interpretation. This exam
ple is not an exceptional one. How is this level of uncertainty, irregularity and rich
ness to be captured and integrated, without hiding it “like with like” alongside
archival runs with much less convoluted narratives of discovery? Who is to say
what in this account is “signal” and what “noise”? Who can judge what critical
pieces of information are still missing?
(Edmond, 2016)
The NASA protocol for describing the processing levels of research data carefully (see the
next section: Data Variants and Data Treatment) grades data from level 0 (raw or native
data) through 4 additional levels of processing. However, as Borgman observes, these dis
tinctions only pertain to the onset of the research, the point where data are gathered;
thereafter, when the data are taken on by a new researcher or for a new project, the num
ber resets and the data are once again considered raw, until it is subjected to further pro
cessing (Borgman, 2017, p. 26). Transparency regarding the transformations the data
have undergone, and acts of pre-processing, processing, and cleaning should be flagged
Page 18 of 30
Data Environment
for the attention of other potential users of this data. It seems obvious that this should be
a requirement of scientific analysis and publication, as should be accountability regarding
both the provenance of a given dataset, and of the researchers involved in the collection
and curation of that data.
Data Variants and Data Treatment
Rather than attempt something akin to a “definition of culture” that is machine readable,
or a taxonomy of complex cultural data that are digitally compatible, one that would allow
us to somehow create a universal definition for data, we would perhaps be best (p. 563)
served by creating a typology of data variants. This typology would be based upon usage
or how the material is treated, and ultimately how many levels the data are “away from”
its origin material—material that itself may be complex or simple, human created or ma
chine readable—or indeed by adopting one of the many examples of these protocols al
ready in use. This sees data defined by what researchers do to the data to make it data.
One of the most useful example of this comes in the form of NASA’s Earth Observing Sys
tem Data Information System (EOS DIS) (NASA EOS DIS Data Processing Levels, n.d.)
wherein, as Borgman notes, “Data with common origin are distinguished by how they are
treated” (Borgman, 2017, p. 21). The EOS DIS is perhaps one of the most functional defi
nitions of data available because it not only acknowledges the levels of processing materi
al undergoes to become data, but tiers this scrubbing or cleaning process, therein ac
knowledging that some material undergoes more extensive modification than others, and
maintaining traceability to the source context or environ from which the “native data”
was extracted.
Page 19 of 30
Data Environment
Table 20.2 NASA’s Earth Observing System Data Information System

(EOS DIS)
Da Description
ta
level
Lev Reconstructed, unprocessed instrument and payload data at

el 0 full resolution, with any and all communications artifacts
(e.g., synchronization frames, communications headers, du
plicate data) removed. (In most cases, the EOS Data and Op
erations System (EDOS) provides these data to the data cen
ters as production data sets for processing by the Science
Data Processing Segment (SDPS) or by a SIPS to produce
higher-level products.)
Lev Reconstructed, unprocessed instrument data at full resolu

el 1A tion, time-referenced, and annotated with ancillary informa
tion, including radiometric and geometric calibration coeffi
cients and georeferencing parameters (e.g., platform
ephemeris) computed and appended but not applied to Level
0 data.
Lev Level 1A data that have been processed to sensor units (not
el 1B all instruments have Level 1B source data).
Lev Derived geophysical variables at the same resolution and lo

el 2 cation as Level 1 source data.
Lev Variables mapped on uniform space-time grid scales, usually

el 3 with some completeness and consistency.
Lev Model output or results from analyses of lower-level data

el 4 (e.g., variables derived from multiple measurements).
Table 20.2 reproduces the EOS DIS, ranging from “Level 0” data comprising of “Recon
structed, unprocessed instrument and payload data at full resolution, with any and all
communications artifacts [ … ] removed,” to “Level 4” data comprised of “Model output
or results from analyses of lower-level data (e.g., variables derived from multiple
measurements)” (NASA EOS DIS Data Processing Levels, n.d.). The lowest level of data
on the scale is referred to as “unprocessed” yet it has already been processed to a de
gree, as the table clearly states that “any and all communications artifacts [have been] re
moved.” This approach, then, is clearly not without its problems or idiosyncrasies. Fur
thermore, this system of data categorization is incomplete because of the absence of ac
Page 20 of 30
Data Environment
knowledgement (p. 564) of a level that precedes “level 0,” referred to in passing by
Borgman as “native data,” a phrase that has been discussed earlier in this chapter. Se
cond, while the distinctions between levels are relatively explicit here, as noted previous
ly they only pertain to the onset of the research, the point where data are gathered at the
onset of the study:
Although NASA makes explicit distinctions between raw and processed data for
operational purposes, raw is a relative term, as others have noted [ … ] What is
‘raw’ depends on where the inquiry begins. To scientists combining level 4 data
products from multiple NASA missions, those may be the raw data with which
they start. At the other extreme is tracing the origins of data backward from the
state when an instrument first detected a signal.
(Borgman, 2017, p. 26)
Interestingly, not one of the categories employed has an analogous one in the humanities
(aside from the rather loose concept of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources). That is
not to say that a clear, lucid gradation of data that distinguishes how the material has
been treated, or at least flags the fact that the data has been subjected to transforma
tions, would not be beneficial for humanities researchers. A “data provenance record”
that flags the processing, transformations, and contextualization the material has been
exposed to, or expunged from, would be useful here, but maintaining such a record can
be challenging (Edmond, 2016). Again, the fact that the EOS DIS distinctions only apply
up to the point where analysis begins (at which point the data, irrespective of processing
level, becomes “raw data” within the context of that inquiry) is itself problematic.
Even when it comes to an ordered definition as seemingly precise as the EOS DIS, howev
er, we still have to acknowledge the arbitrariness of what we’re dealing with, as Borgman
explains:
No matter how sharp these distinctions between categories may appear, all are ar
bitrary to some degree. Every category, and name of category, is the result of deci
sions about criteria and naming. Even the most concrete metrics, such as temper
ature, height, and geo-spatial location, are human inventions. Similarly, the mea
surement systems of feet and inches, meters and grams, and centigrade and
Fahrenheit reflect centuries of negotiation.
(Borgman, 2017, p. 26)
While this argument is ontological and has the potential to take a philosophical tangent
that is anathematic to the pragmatic aims of this chapter, it is nevertheless worth keeping
in mind that categories or taxonomies that appear neutral or objective now, may not have
been so in the past and may not appear so in the future. Furthermore, different approach
es to the measuring of natural phenomena such as those outlined earlier tend to converge
over time, whereas human societies tend to change out from under them. In other words,
established methodologies may not always fit the changing societies that use them. The
Page 21 of 30
Data Environment
changing vocabularies around issues of gender classification, with the recognition of
transgender and intersex identities, are examples of how evolving social norms drive data
practices to evolve as well, as are the evolving societal understandings of the makeup of a
“family” to incorporate same-sex parents or single-parent families. (p. 565) The evolution
of census forms and social surveys to accommodate these changes, such as the removal
in 1860 of questions about household slaves in the US Census questionnaire, illustrate
how the data domain must at times change to accommodate changing societal values, as
established ones may no longer be flexible enough for the contemporary era (United
States Census Bureau, n.d.). Acknowledging that research is the project of, and reflective
of, specific cultural periods and research practices is important, particularly when it
comes to capturing and reflecting the ambiguities of complex cultural data in a digital
age where, as noted, decisions to digitize or not and how objects are classified can have
an impact on the material available for the development of cultural identities. In other
words, different people interpret and interact with data differently. As Edmond and Nu
gent-Folan note, in the case of “a simple seashell”:
Any given seashell can be said to have certain core properties about which there
is likely to be broad consensus: it is hard, it is hollow, is has a certain color. But
these core properties have the potential to take on—or be attributed with—very
different meanings depending on who or what interacts with them, and what inter
pretation they lay over these core properties. A child, for example, will most likely
appropriate it for use in a manner that is very different from that of a hermit crab.
A fashion designer may take the item and, by inscribing designs on the shell, fun
damentally alter the makeup of the item in and of itself, a factor that would influ
ence how a museum cataloguer, working decades later, would catalogue the item
for display within a GLAM [cultural heritage] institution.
Put another way, each of the agents encountering the shell creates a narrative,
capturing the meaning of the shell for them and for the moment in which they ap
propriate it.
(Edmond & Nugent-Folan, 2017)
If even such a seemingly simple object can have such a multitude of facets and interpreta
tive avenues available to any agent that interacts with it, then cataloguers, archivists, and
database managers clearly play a pivotal and difficult role in ensuring these interpreta
tive avenues are available, while facilitating an operable digital research environment.
This is largely done through the data these figures provide or generate on the data they
are cataloguing or archiving, referred to as “metadata.”
Metadata
With this in mind, we will now turn to a discussion of the issue of metadata’s contextual
and formative influence on data. Metadata is, quite literally, data about data. Metadata
describes data, what it is, what it is comprised or made up of, where it has come from,
Page 22 of 30
Data Environment
who has catalogued it, and so on. It plays a central role in navigating a database, digital
catalogue or digital research environment, and is considered necessary for functionality,
for practicality (planning research trips, navigating the archive etc.) and for documenting
the contents of the archive, to the point where its role as a mediator between scholar/
user (p. 566) and archive has become standard; metadata is now not only an obligatory in
termediary between a scholar and an archive, but a structural facet of the information ar
chitecture that mediates the space between user interface and the database.
The PREMIS Data Dictionary for Preservation Metadata is considered “the international
standard for metadata to support the preservation of digital objects and ensure their
long-term usability” (Premis, n.d.). Traditional examples of metadata include the kinds of
information available beside a painting hanging in a gallery: the artist’s name (if it is
known), the artists’ dates of birth and death (if they are known), the title of the painting
(if it is known), the materials used to realize it (such as oil on canvas, or watercolor, etc.),
the dimensions of the painting, the current owners (or, if it belongs to the museum, who
donated it and when, or when the museum acquired it), and perhaps even a short descrip
tion of facets of the piece that may be considered particularly interesting. In a new media
environment where this image may be reproduced digitally, this same information can al
so be provided in both human and machine readable formats, so you may also be able to
quickly search out and compare it with other paintings by the same artist that may be
held in another collection, or you may be able to view the painting from alternative an
gles, or see further images of the painting pre- and post-restoration. So metadata pro
vides basic, often standardized information about the data one is interacting with, access
ing, or using, and therefore it is an integral and unavoidable tool for researchers as they
seek to use and understand their data.
But questions remain as to how much of this context is being redacted, modified, or hid
den by the surrounding information architecture. In the transition from analogue to digi
tal, data loses facets of its native context: the smell, touch, or feel of the material docu
ment. In the case of a paper manuscript, these may include ink or coffee stains, or pen
tests that may indicate the onset of a new writing session. It also acquires new contexts
in the form of how metadata situates it in the digital environment, such as a keyword as
signment that has the potential to connect seemingly unrelated documents. “Raw” or “na
tive” data can be shaped by the contexts imported onto it in the form of metadata in and
of itself. In addition to the impact of these new contexts, the “native” or “source” contexts
that accompanied the data within its “original,” “pre-data,” or “native” environment, may
not always be transferred to and catered for in the database.
Classification systems and documentation standards are based upon high level, non-gran
ular categories such as author/creator, title, location, or date. Such categories are an ad
vantage because they allow for the classification of diverse and abundant quantity of da
ta, but a disadvantage because they flatten out the data and make the granular more diffi
cult to identify and access. In the previous section we introduced Raley’s concept of data
as “performative” (Raley, 2013, p. 128). Others refer to how data can become “a sort of
actor” “reshaping” (Ribes & Jackson, 2013, p. 148) the social world, or how data can car
Page 23 of 30
Data Environment
ry the imprint of “the original interpretative framework through which they were con
structed, collected or collated” (Drucker, 2014, p. 128). Now if data are performative or
rhetorical, and possess the capacity to shape and be shaped by its contexts, both native
and acquired, the same can be said for the structures that facilitate data access, such as
metadata. Metadata standards such as Dublin Core, MARC 21 or EAD (see, for example,
(p. 567) http://www.loc.gov/ead/) can influence how we approach and conceptualize data,
to the extent that metadata dictates how we read and interact with data; indeed, many
would say that that is their very purpose. As the name implies metadata standards orga
nize diverse objects and information in order to increase their findability and reuse value.
But like bias, this influence can be good or bad. At its most basic level metadata is data
about data—it points the researcher in the direction of data, and gives them more data on
the data they are looking for. In other words, metadata delimits or demarcates data—rep
resenting rich context as or through lean data—and can therefore be similarly argued to
have a performative or rhetorical nature in that it persuades you to consider the material
it relates or refers to as data proper. There is a balance to be struck then between meta
data and data structuring as delimiters of data, but also as a necessary part of navigating
data-rich environments where categories, structuring, and metadata represent attempts
to provide simpler, shorter, and processable indicators of the underlying data, which oth
erwise would be impossible to manage. It is worth considering then what makes up your
data, and what terms we have to refer to the data we have on our data, that is, our meta
data. Both of these aspects can have a significant impact on what you can know about da
ta and how you can access and use it. Furthermore, as Horsley and Priddy note, in the
case of complex cultural data, metadata plays such a central role that these “description
of items [metadata]” was often “acknowledged [by archivists working in cultural heritage
institutions] to be loaded with artefacts of its journey to the user, which become inscribed
in this metadata and are inseparable from the data itself” (Horsley & Priddy, 2018).
The performative facet of metadata is magnified when we are working on the scale of big
data, and is particularly problematic when we are dealing with “uncertain,” “ambiguous”
or “complex” data. This performative effect—intended, deliberate, or unforeseen—is a
phenomenon well illustrated by Presner’s analysis of the relationship between research
subject, research data, and system metadata in the Shoah Visual History Archive (Shoah
Foundation, n.d.). Presner argues that these relationships require an holistic approach to
the conglomeration of complex cultural data in order to achieve “ ‘ethical’ modes of
computation” (Presner, 2016, p. 179). It goes without saying that great sensitivity is re
quired of any project dealing with the personal testimonies of victims of the Holocaust
within a digital environment where the need for “responsible and ethical representations
of the Holocaust” is “dependent on algorithmic calculations, information processing, and
discrete representations of data in digitized formats (such as numbers, letters, icons, and
pixels)” (Presner, p. 179). It is far too easy to err either on the side of losing sight of the
many victims who died anonymously (by focusing on the more famous stories like Elie
Wiesel or Anne Frank), or to lose sight of the human suffering at the core of the holocaust
experience by focusing on the scale of the tragedy (as many have said of the Digital Mon
ument to the Jewish Community in the Netherlands; Joods Monument, n.d.). An algorith
Page 24 of 30
Data Environment
mic approach to the records of the holocaust should, in theory, be able to reconcile these
poles of human frailty in the face of enormous data corpora. However, as Presner ob
serves, the Shoah VHA was reliant on human cataloguers for the creation of metadata
and catalogues or other finding aids, leading to an approach (p. 568) to uncertainty within
the digital archive that saw certain material categorized as “ ‘indeterminate data’ such as
‘non-indexable content’ ” (p. 193). But that which is considered indeterminate or ambigu
ous differs dramatically, ranging from repetition, pauses, emotion, noise, or silence and
even, most troublingly, material the indexer “doesn’t want to draw attention to (such as
racist sentiments against Hispanics, for example, in one testimony)” (p. 192). What re
mains, as Presner notes, is “a kind of ‘normative story’ (purged of certain contingencies
and unwanted elements)” (p. 192).
What about researchers who are interested in what happens to the “non-normative” sec
tions of the dialogues or archival material, the material that is not assigned a keyword or
other metadata indicator? Who, after all, gets to designate the normative and delimit the
non-normative? This is, after all, a central question underlying thesaurus-based indexing
or individual cataloguer indexing (see Horsley & Priddy, 2018, p. 16). Privileging one
facet of the datafied document neglects and undercuts the importance of the other, and
vice versa. Each section assigned a keyword has a relationship with the material on ei
ther side of it within the text, but this un-indexed material is left “silent,” “hidden” (in
certain cases, especially cases such as the one mentioned earlier in which facets of the
testimonies are “purged” (Presner, p. 192) from the keyword thesaurus of the archive), or
alternatively left latent and unstructured in the archive, without a keyword.
It is for this reason that traditionally trained archivists and librarians struggle with meta
data standards that incorporate provenance such as that developed by the International
World Wide Web Standards Community W3C (https://www.w3.org/Consortium/). To even
begin to represent the richness of an archival record, which may have been passed
through numerous hands and families, or contain such a variety of material that its even
tual relevance is hard to judge, transcends the kinds of clear categories and linear rela
tionships such standards propose. We should also remember in this respect that metadata
is not the only technique that hides from us as much as it possibly exposes. Whether or
not something is digitized, for example, and how and where it is made publically avail
able, can have the same effect. Unintentional processes have a different impact, however,
on findability than does the standardization of the descriptors of complex objects by
means of metadata.
Conclusion
This chapter has outlined some of the costs incurred as a result of the imprecision in the
term “data” in an age when our data may be big, but our ability to express its heterogene
ity is limited. Data are teleologically flexible, epistemologically variable, arbitrary, and
categorically indistinct; data sources are also arbitrary and indistinct, particularly in the
humanities. Data also contain errors and unintelligible material. Data can be considered
Page 25 of 30
Data Environment
to have near limitless interpretability, and if curated correctly, any facet of the native
(p. 569) material input can be identified as data at any point. Furthermore, the integration
of data and computer science in humanities research represents a crossover of method

ological and ideological approaches, with humanists adopting technological approaches
they may be unfamiliar with, and computer scientists or engineers designing technology
for complex cultural material they may be unfamiliar with; each community working with
and valuing parts of that eco-system differently, and valuing the potential knowledge gen
erated differently. Naturally, this can influence how we conceive of, manage, interpret,
and use, our data.
Irrespective of how one elects to theorize why “data” is or has become so problematic,
the gradations of data one can encounter in a digital environment can lead to extensive
confusion. We have data at the level of input, we have data that have been cleaned, we
have data that is present but not encoded, we have data that only becomes data when it is
excised from its original context and situated in another context. But for all of these dif
ferent phases or evolutions of data, we have only one term; and thus we have minimal op
portunities (aside from context within an article, discipline specific intuition, explanatory
footnotes, etc.) to deduce what is being referred to when the term “data” is being used,
or what has been done to “this data” to make it different from “that data.”
There needs to be consensus in terms of what we speak about when we speak about data,
one that acknowledges how difficult it is to “define” data when it comes to the diverse
cultural resources that fuel humanities research. Much of this, as this chapter has made
clear, is due to the poverty of our vocabulary for speaking about data—a term whose us
age spans a huge variety of practices—in a way that can accommodate the richness, di
versity, and complexity that is often a feature of cultural data (Edmond, Nugent-Folan, &
Doran, 2019). We need systems that expose their uncertainty regarding what data are, or
the limits of their data, in comprehensible ways for the average user, so that we can see,
for example, where machine translation strips away cultural complexity because it is un
able to transmit the subtle differences in word or phrase the original speaker may have
intended, the web of intertextual references, or indeed the note of sarcasm or irony a hu
man translator would work to convey. Perhaps most importantly, we need the vocabulary
and the knowledge to, as Duportail (2017) puts it, “feel” data, to ascertain the tangible
facets of its materiality, of its provenance, of its makeup that may not be fully accessible
in a digital environment. Human knowledge creation is multi-modal and embodied. As it
is currently conceived, digital information and data struggle to harness this affordance.
To achieve this worthy goal, we will inevitably have to face the fact that data are not, as
the hackneyed phrase has come to suggest, the “new oil” (Humby, 2006; Marr, 2018). The
status of digital information objects as “data” is not a result of fixed and stable processes,
but rather of an individual, corporate, or social recognition of certain information as hav
ing a certain value and place in various stakeholders’ knowledge creation processes. Only
by stripping “big data” of its tacit claims to authority by virtue of qualities it may not even
possess can we actually expose the true value of data, one that can build bridges of
knowledge, rather than silos.
Page 26 of 30
Data Environment
(p. 570) Acknowledgments

This work was developed in the context of the project Knowledge Complexity (KPLEX).
The KPLEX project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 re
search and innovation program under grant agreement No 732340. It bears an intellectu
al debt to Dr. Michelle Doran of the Trinity Centre of Digital Humanities, Trinity College
Dublin.
References
BDIOT 2nd international conference on big data and the internet of things. (2018). [Call
for papers]. Retrieved from http://www.bdiot.org/cfp.html
Borgman, C. (2017). Big data little data no data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chandna, S., Tonne, D., Jejkal, T., Stotzka, R., Krause, C., Vanscheidt, P., … & Prabhune, A.
(2015, February). Software workflow for the automatic tagging of medieval manuscript
images (SWATI). In Document recognition and retrieval XXII (Vol. 9402, p. 940206). Inter
national Society for Optics and Photonics.
Couldry, N. (2013, December 13). A necessary disenchantment: The myth of big data.
Retrieved July 16, 2018, from Culture Digitally, http://culturedigitally.org/2013/12/a-
necessary-disenchantment-the-myth-of-big-data/
Chandler, David. (2015, April 26). #BigData—“the secret to living happily ever after”—
Winton Global Investment ad, St. Pancras International, London. [Twitter post]. Retrieved
from https://twitter.com/davidch27992090/status/592415056052236289
Drucker, J. (2014). Graphesis: Visual forms of knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni
versity Press.
Duportail, J. (2017, September 26). I asked Tinder for my data. It sent me 800 pages of
my deepest, darkest secrets. Retrieved July 9, 2018, from The Guardian, https://
www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/26/tinder-personal-data-dating-app-
messages-hacked-sold
Edmond, J. (2016). Will historians ever have big data? Theoretical and infrastructural per
spectives. In B. Bozic, G. Mendel-Gleason, C. Debruyne, & D. O’Sullivan (Eds.), Computa
tional history and data-driven humanities (CHDDH 2016). IFIP Advances in Information
and Communication Technology, 482, 91–105. Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland
AG.
Edmond J., & Nugent-Folan G. (2017). Data, metadata, narrative. Barriers to the reuse of
cultural sources. In E. Garoufallou, S. Virkus, R. Siatri, & D. Koutsomiha D. (Eds), Metada
ta and semantic research. MTSR 2017. Communications in Computer and Information
Science, 755. Springer, Cham.
Page 27 of 30
Data Environment
Edmond, J., & Nugent-Folan, G. (2018). Redefining what data is and the terms we use to
speak of it. Retrieved from https://kplex-project.eu/deliverables/
Edmond, J., Nugent-Folan, G., & Doran, M. T. (2019). Reconciling the cultural complexity
of research data: can we make data interdisciplinary without hiding disciplinary knowl
edge? Data Science (in press). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2262/83156
Garvey, E. G. (2013). “facts and FACTS”: Abolitionists’ database innovations. In L. Gitel

man (Ed.), “Raw Data” is an oxymoron (pp. 89–102). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Horsley, N., & Priddy, M. (2018). Report on historical data as sources. Retrieved from
https://kplex-project.eu/deliverables/
Humby, C. (2006). Talk delivered at ANA Senior marketer’s summit, Kellogg School. Re
trieved from: http://ana.blogs.com/maestros/2006/11/data_is_the_new.html
Jones S. M., Van de Sompel, H., Shankar, H., Klein, M., Tobin, R., & Grover, C.
(p. 571)
(2016). Scholarly context adrift: Three out of four url references lead to changed content.
PLoS One, 11(12), e0167475.
Joods Monument (n.d.). https://www.joodsmonument.nl/en/
Khalilian, M., Mustapha, N., & Sulaiman, N. (2016). Data stream clustering by divide and
conquer approach based on vector model. Journal of Big Data, 3, 1. doi:10.1186/
s40537-015-0036-x
Klein, M., Van de Sompel, H., Sanderson, R., Shankar, H., Balakireva, L., Zhou, K., & To
bin, R. (2014). Scholarly context not found: One in five articles suffers from reference rot.
PloS One, 9(12), e115253.
Koehler, W. (2004). A longitudinal study of Web pages continued: A consideration of docu

ment persistence. Information Research, 9(2). Retrieved from: http://
www.babapour01.20m.com/Opac_1.htm
Marr, B. (2018). Here’s why data is not the new oil. Forbes, Retrieved March 5, 2018,
from https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2018/03/05/heres-why-data-is-not-
the-new-oil/#1beb06343aa9
Marwick, A. & boyd, d. (2010). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, con
text collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media and Society, 13(1), 114–133. doi:
10.1177/1461444810365313
Mussell, J. (2012). The passing of print: Digitising ephemera and the ephemerality of the
digital. Media History, 18(1), 77–92.
Najafabadi et al. (2015). Deep learning applications and challenges in big data analytics.
Journal of Big Data, 2(1), 1.
Page 28 of 30
Data Environment
NASA EOS DIS Data Processing Levels. (n.d.). Retrieved from: https://science.nasa.gov/
earth-science/earth-science-data/data-processing-levels-for-eosdis-data-products
PREMIS Data Dictionary for Preservation Metadata. (n.d.). Retrieved from: http://
www.loc.gov/standards/premis/
Presner, T. (2016). The ethics of the algorithm: close and distant listening to the Shoah
Foundation visual history archive. In C. Fogu, W. Kansteiner, & T. Presner (Eds.), Probing
the ethics of holocaust culture (pp. 175–202). Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Raley, R. (2013). Dataveillance and countervailance. In L. Gitelman (Ed.), “Raw Data” is

an oxymoron (pp. 121–146). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Ribes, D., & Jackson, S. J. (2013). Data bite man: The work of sustaining a long-term
study. In L. Gitelman (Ed.), “Raw Data” is an oxymoron (pp. 147–166) Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Rice, R. E., McCreadie, M., & Chang, S-J. (2001). Accessing and browsing information and
communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rosenberg, D. (2013). Data before the fact. In L. Gitelman (Ed.), “Raw Data” is an oxy
moron (pp. 15–40). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rosenthal, J. (2017, April 1). Introduction: “Narrative against data.” Genre, 50(1), 1–18.
doi:10.1215/00166928–3,761,312
Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Williams, P., Huntington, P., Fieldhouse, M., Gunter, B., &
Tenopir, C. (2008). The Google generation: The information behaviour of the researcher of
the future. Aslib Proceedings, 60(4), 290–310. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/
10.1108/00012530810887953
Shoah Foundation. Visual History Archive ®. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://

www.sfi.usc.edu/vha
Stanley, M. (2013). Where is that moon, anyway? The problem of interpreting historical
solar eclipse observations. In L. Gitelman (Ed.), “Raw Data” is an oxymoron (pp. 77–88).
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Tabard, A., Hancapié-Ramos, J. D., Esbensen, M., & Bardram, J. (2011). The
(p. 572)
eLabBench: An interactive tabletop system for the biology laboratory. In Proceedings of

the ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces (pp. 202–211).
ACM.
Tenopir, C., Allard, S., Levine, K., Volentine, R., Christian, L., Boehm, R., Nichols, F.,
Christensen, R., Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Hamid, R., Eti, J., & Thornley, C. (2013).
Trust and authority in scholarly communications in the light of the digital transition.
Nashville: University of Tennessee & CIBER Research Ltd.
Page 29 of 30
Data Environment
United States Census Bureau (n.d.). Retrieved from: https://www.census.gov/history/
www/through_the_decades/index_of_questions/1860_1.html
Georgina Nugent-Folan
Georgina Nugent-Folan is Assistant Professor of Modern English Literature, Depart

ment of English and American Studies, Ludwig Maximillians University of Munich,
Germany. She completed her PhD on the works of Samuel Beckett and Gertrude
Stein at Trinity College Dublin in 2016. Georgina is currently preparing a digital ge
netic edition of the Compagnie/Company module as part of the Beckett Digital Manu
script Project (forthcoming, 2020). Articles on Beckett, Stein, and/or James Joyce
have been published in the Journal of Beckett Studies, The Southern Review, Samuel
Beckett Today/Aujourd’hui, and the James Joyce Quarterly. Her article, “Samuel
Beckett: Going On in Style,” received a Special Mention in the 2017 Pushcart Prize.
Jennifer Edmond
Jennifer Edmond is Associate Professor of Digital Humanities at Trinity College

Dublin and the co-director of the Trinity Center for Digital Humanities. She holds a
PhD in Germanic Languages and Literatures from Yale University, and applies her
training as a scholar of language, narrative, and culture to the study and promotion
of advanced methods in and infrastructures for the arts and humanities. Jennifer is
President of the Board of Directors of the pan-European research infrastructure for
the arts and humanities, DARIAH, and was the Principal Investigator for the Euro
pean Commission-funded KPLEX Project.
Page 30 of 30
Motivations for Online Knowledge Sharing

Kristin Page Hocevar, Audrey N. Abeyta, and Ronald E. Rice
Online knowledge sharing systems (KSS) allow individuals to share and retrieve informa
tion across geographic and temporal boundaries. Generally, individuals’ use of these in
formation repositories is voluntary, so scholars have examined the motivating factors un
derlying the use of KSS. Integrating research from diverse disciplines, this chapter pro
vides a comprehensive review of extant research in this area. To begin, the chapter de
scribes the review’s framework and defines key concepts. It then broadly categorizes mo
tivations for knowledge sharing as self- or other-oriented and summarizes research on the
primary motivations within each category. Subsequently, the chapter reviews several con
textual factors that modify the relationships between motivations and online knowledge
sharing. To close, the chapter reflects on the review material, generating several areas
for future research.
Keywords: knowledge contributing, knowledge collecting, motivations, online knowledge sharing systems, public
goods theory
Introduction
ONLINE knowledge sharing systems (KSS) greatly reduce the cost and effort of organiz
ing, finding, and sharing knowledge and social connections, particularly when the content
and users are geographically and temporally dispersed. Through these systems, individu
als can make their privately held knowledge publicly available, and large groups can
more easily share knowledge to support collective action (Bimber, Flanagin, & Stohl,
2005). Despite these advantages, there is often little obvious reward given to those who
contribute knowledge; thus, individuals must be motivated by other factors. Extant re
search on motivations for online knowledge sharing is widely dispersed and can be found
in a variety of disciplines. Moreover, this body of research has generated interesting—but
at times contradictory or problematic—findings. Accordingly, this review synthesizes and
organizes relevant theory and research on motivations for online knowledge sharing.
Page 1 of 34
The first section of this review provides its framework. The following two sections catego
rize motivations for online knowledge sharing by their source or stimulus, moving from
more self-oriented motivations to more other-oriented motivations. The subsequent sec
tion summarizes three factors (self-efficacy, trust, and venue) that are not direct motiva
tors but may provide preconditions or a moderating context. Finally, the review concludes
with suggestions for future research.
(p. 574) Framework

Distinctions
Five distinctions bound this review: the first three explain what is included and excluded,
and the final two define fundamental concepts. First, we focus on research and theory on
more general Internet (and intranet) sites whereby individuals can both collect and con
tribute content. As a result, we do not consider reference databases or data repositories
from which users search and retrieve formally-structured information. Second, we do not
consider technical aspects of knowledge sharing, such as system features or affordances
or user search strategies, except as they are significant influences on the motivations for
knowledge sharing. Third, we distinguish among the components of the knowledge-seek
ing and utilization process (Case & Given, 2016; Rice, McCreadie, & Chang, 2001), which
includes (a) seeking (the process of browsing, accessing, or searching), (b) sharing
(including direct, generalized, or indirect reciprocity, as exchanging tends to imply more
direct reciprocity or even a dyadic transaction), (c) collecting (the process of receiving or
actively obtaining knowledge, which may include posting requests or questions), (d) con
tributing (the process of providing knowledge, either through generalized posting or pro
viding responses to specific requests or questions), (e) evaluating (for accuracy, credibili
ty, or utility), and (f) utilizing (or applying) that knowledge. Here, we focus on sharing as
the general process, and collecting and contributing when they are specifically refer
enced. Fourth, although access to information can refer to knowledge, technology, com
munication, and data or facts, we use the general term knowledge to emphasize the po
tential value of shared information.
Fifth, we group individuals’ motivations to contribute to online KSS into two broad cate
gories: self-focused and other-focused motivations. Based on the source or stimulus of the
motivation, this distinction acknowledges the inherent and crucial social dilemma in KSS:
the tension between individual costs and benefits and collective costs and benefits (Heinz
& Rice, 2009). When people are driven to contribute by self-focused motivations, they
conceive of themselves as unique individuals, acting primarily in their self-interest, who
obtain a personal benefit as a result of contributing. In contrast, individuals driven by
other-focused motivations conceive of themselves as members of a social context, whose
actions are likely to affect or influence others in some way. Moreover, their contributions
may be judged or influenced by a group identity or compared to others’ contributions or
group norms. This distinction is somewhat similar to De Dreu and Nauta’s (2009) concep
tualization of self-interest and other-orientation, but our use refers to the individual or so
Page 2 of 34
cial source or stimulus of the motivation. Self- and other-focused motivations may seem
redundant with the more common distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations
(discussed later in the chapter), but they are conceptually separate. Intrinsic and extrin
sic motivations hinge on the locus of control: intrinsically motivated individuals feel in
control of their actions, whereas extrinsically motivated individuals respond to (p. 575) an
external force. In contrast, self- and other-focused motivations are differentiated by indi
viduals’ perceptions of themselves in relation to others.
Having explained the five distinctions guiding this review, the following section provides
a brief overview of public goods theory, which is foundational to an understanding of on
line knowledge sharing, and briefly introduces several common forms of KSS.
Public Goods and Knowledge Sharing Systems
Using KSS, individuals can collaboratively produce a public good or a good that is both
non-rival (i.e., one individual’s use of the system or its knowledge does not affect
another’s use of it) and non-excludable (i.e., all members of the collective audience can
benefit from the resource, regardless of their contributions to it). Because of these defin
ing characteristics, contribution to online repositories is discretionary: individuals are not
required to contribute their knowledge to the pool, and they can benefit from the pool
without contributing to it (Connolly & Thorn, 1990). Consequently, the rational individual
will act as a free rider or a social loafer; that is, he or she will benefit from others’ contri
butions to the pool but withhold his or her private knowledge (Fulk, Flanagin, Kalman,
Monge, & Ryan, 1996). However, if each individual acted in his or her own interest, on
line repositories would be degraded and eventually destroyed (Hardin, 1968). Thus, the
decision to contribute to online repositories represents a social dilemma, or a situation in
which the interest of the individual is in opposition to the interest of the collective
(Dawes, 1980). Nevertheless, some individuals do share their private knowledge; in doing
so, they are engaging in collective action, an action undertaken by two or more people
that results in the production of a public good (Marwell & Oliver, 1993).
Individuals can share knowledge through a diverse array of online KSS, and research in
this area refers to a dizzying number of systems. In the hopes of providing clarity, we
briefly define three frequently referenced KSS—online repositories, communities or net
works of practice, and social network sites—and characterize them by their level of con
nectivity and communality (Fulk, Flanagin, Kalman, Monge, & Ryan, 1996). Connectivity
refers to the degree to which individuals are directly linked to one another in the net
work, whereas communality describes the extent to which individuals jointly hold, main
tain, and benefit from the knowledge provided in the repository.
Online repositories are information resources developed through individuals’ contribu

tions, transmitted over a digital network, and made accessible for participants’ use
(Cheshire & Antin, 2008). They emphasize the contributing and collecting of knowledge
through the filtering and sharing of content, thus featuring communality instead of con
nectivity.
Page 3 of 34
Communities of practice involve the exchange of knowledge about a shared practice, but
their members typically engage in face-to-face communication and have strong relational
ties with one another (Brown & Duguid, 2000; Wenger, 1998). Both researchers and prac
titioners have noted that communities of practice can arise in virtual communities and
have identified several ways that social media can help facilitate (p. 576) communities of
practice (Barab, 2003; Hoadley, 2012; Johnson, 2001). In the online context, communities
of practice are sometimes also referred to as problem-solving virtual communities (Yu,
Jiang, & Chan, 2007) or electronic networks of practice (Deng & Poole, 2011; Wasko &
Teigland, 2004). Linked by weak ties, these individuals may never meet face-to-face but
are able to exchange knowledge about their shared, specific topic through the network.
Like online repositories, both communities and networks of practice are characterized by
high levels of communality. However, they are also marked by individuals’ mutual engage
ment with one another (Wasko & Teigland, 2004), and therefore exhibit higher levels of
connectivity than online repositories generally do. For instance, wikis not only support
the sharing, revising, and pooling of both explicit and tacit knowledge and the develop
ment of knowledge bases, but they also support conversations about that knowledge, in
cluding revealing revision histories as a kind of threaded conversation (Arazy & Gellatly,
2012).
Web 2.0 and social media are becoming pervasive contexts for diverse kinds of informa
tion sharing for a wide range of purposes (Ellison, Gibbs, & Weber, 2015; Ostauyi, 2013).
Social network sites (SNS) are Web-based services through which individuals create a
public or semi-public profile and maintain connections with other users of the system (El
lison & boyd, 2014). Because of their emphasis on social interaction, SNS can promote
very high levels of connectivity. Additionally, SNS notifications and postings support ambi
ent awareness among users, increasing knowledge sharing (Leonardi & Meyer, 2015).
Some systems (such as Facebook) enable group and network members to easily collect
and contribute knowledge, while others (such as Twitter) allow for rapid contribution to
large numbers of unknown followers (Osatuyi, 2013). However, users of some SNS can
mask their personal information and interactions through privacy settings, resulting in
lower levels of communality than online repositories.
As the preceding paragraphs demonstrate, a wide variety of KSS exist, and these varia
tions are described by a multitude of specific terms. Khansa, Ma, Liginlal, and Kim (2015)
provide an excellent, succinct overview of virtual knowledge collaboration sites, which
consist of organizational knowledge management systems, online professional communi
ties, Wikipedia and other open-source sharing communities, customer-based firm-hosted
online communities, and online question and answer communities. Similarly, Phang,
Kankanhalli, and Huang (2014) present a theoretical model of participation in online poli
cy deliberation forums, which includes knowledge sharing, emotional support, interest- or
hobby-oriented, product consumption, review, and citizen science project sites.
Page 4 of 34
Self-Oriented Motivations
This section explores the more self-oriented motivations for online knowledge sharing, in
cluding enjoyment and entertainment, altruism, expertise, feedback, reputation, (p. 577)
incentives, and expected benefits and costs. To allow for a better understanding of these
motivations, we first provide an overview of three relevant theoretical perspectives—mo
tivational theories, transactive memory theory, and social exchange theory.
Many self-oriented motivations can be categorized as intrinsic or extrinsic motivations. As

a result, many studies (e.g., Bock, Zmud, Kim, & Lee, 2005; Cho, Chen, & Chung, 2010;
Yang & Lai, 2010) are framed by motivational theories of intrinsic and extrinsic motiva
tion, such as self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2013). According to this per
spective, intrinsically motivated individuals engage in an activity for the inherent satisfac
tion it provides rather than for an external reward (Ryan & Deci, 2000); in other words,
the activity “is its own reward” (Deci & Ryan, 2013, p. 88). Consequently, intrinsically mo
tivated behavior produces positive feelings, such as enjoyment, happiness, enthusiasm,
and entertainment (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Individuals engaging in intrinsically motivated
behavior also experience feelings of competence (i.e., the ability to deal effectively with
one’s surroundings) and self-determination (i.e., autonomy or control of one’s actions), as
well as feelings of creativity, flexibility, and spontaneity (Deci & Ryan, 1985). This theoret
ical perspective is relevant to many self-oriented motivations; for example, those who en
gage in online knowledge sharing because it is enjoyable and entertaining are intrinsical
ly motivated. Similarly, individuals who altruistically share knowledge are driven by in
trinsic motivation.
Extrinsically motivated individuals, on the other hand, engage in an activity to satisfy ex
ternal pressures or to earn a tangible reward (Ryan & Deci, 2000). For these individuals,
the desired goal or reward is distinct from the activity itself, and their behavior is often
controlled by external contingencies, such as rewards sought or punishments avoided
(Deci & Ryan, 2013). As a result, individuals engaging in extrinsically motivated behavior
feel pressure and tension, and they may also experience feelings of anxiety and lower
self-esteem (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Several self-oriented motivations are extrinsically moti
vated; for instance, individuals who engage in online knowledge sharing to enhance their
reputation or to earn rewards are extrinsically motivated.
Although many self-oriented motivations are explained by motivational theories, others

are better explained by transactive memory theory, which provides a cognitive and social
basis for understanding why members contribute to and benefit from KSS, especially
across interdependent groups (Huang, Barbour, Su, & Contractor, 2013). This perspective
argues that people working together—typically in organizations and teams—need to be
able to recognize members’ expertise and retrieve information from and provide informa
tion to the relevant expert. In other words, group members do not need to personally re
member others’ expert knowledge, but they must be aware of others’ expertise and able
to collect and contribute knowledge. In doing so, members develop a transactive memory
system. Transactive memory theory explains several self-oriented motivations, such as the
Page 5 of 34
demonstration of one’s expertise or the enhancement of one’s reputation through online

knowledge sharing, but it is also relevant to other-oriented motivations, which are dis
cussed in a subsequent section.
Lastly, social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) can provide a better understanding of self-ori
ented motivations. This perspective portrays individuals as rational beings and (p. 578) ar
gues that their behavior is based on cost-benefit analyses. Blau (1964) asserts that indi
viduals are driven to maximize their personal benefits while minimizing their personal
costs. Accordingly, they will only engage in an activity if the benefits of doing so outweigh
any associated costs. Following this logic, individuals’ decision to contribute to online
repositories is based on the expected costs and benefits of contributing.
Having outlined three theoretical perspectives that undergird self-oriented motivations,

in general, we now transition to a discussion of specific motivations found in the litera
ture on online knowledge sharing.
Enjoyment and Entertainment
For some individuals, online knowledge sharing is enjoyable and entertaining and thus
considered an intrinsically motivated behavior. For example, users of social network sites
identified enjoyment (Lin & Lu, 2011), as well as fun and entertainment (Quan-Haase &
Young, 2010), as primary motivations to share knowledge. Participants in online discus
sion forums (Wasko & Faraj, 2000; Yang, Li, Tan, & Teo, 2007) and online travel communi
ties (Wang & Fesenmaier, 2003) also cited feelings of enjoyment as their motivation to
contribute. Similarly, Wikipedia contributors are primarily motivated by the fun (Nov,
2007) and enjoyment (Hoisl, Aigner, & Miksch, 2007; Moore & Serva, 2007; Schroer &
Hertel, 2009) they derive from contributing. Although many studies have found feelings of
enjoyment and entertainment to motivate online knowledge contribution, others have not.
For example, a study of Wikipedia contributors (Yang & Lai, 2010) found that enjoyment
was not a significant predictor of self-reported knowledge sharing frequency. Similarly,
members of an online photo sharing community with a longer tenure were not motivated
by enjoyment to post or tag photos, though newer members were (Nov, Naaman, & Ye,
2010).
Altruism
Because individuals do not usually receive immediate benefits or rewards in exchange for
contributing to an online repository, some have argued that altruism—“absolute lack of
self-concern in the motivation for an act” (Kankanhalli, Tan, & Wei, 2005, p. 122)—plays a
motivational role. Although this definition suggests that altruism could be considered an
other-oriented motivation, most studies consider it to be an individual, internal motiva
tion; thus, we also consider it to be a self-oriented motivation.
Both qualitative and quantitative work have supported the relationship between altruism
and online knowledge sharing (e.g., Cho et al., 2010; Hew & Hara, 2007; Moore & Serva,
2007). Surveys of participants in a question and answer site (Lou et al., 2013) and a virtu
Page 6 of 34
al community (Chang & Chuang, 2011) indicated that altruism was a significant, positive
predictor of both knowledge contribution quantity and quality. Similarly, individuals who
provided health-related knowledge in a question and answer site (p. 579) (Oh, 2012) and
participants in online technical forums (Wasko & Faraj, 2000) were most motivated by
feelings of altruism. Kankanhalli et al. (2005) noted that altruism was positively associat
ed with individuals’ contribution to electronic organizational repositories, and Jadin,
Gnambs, and Batinic (2013) reported that individuals with a prosocial orientation were
significantly more likely to be authors—as opposed to just readers—of Wikipedia articles.
However, altruism is not always associated with knowledge sharing. For example, Hung,
Durcikova, Lai, and Lin (2011) found that individuals high in altruism did not contribute
significantly more ideas during a computer-mediated group brainstorming task than indi
viduals low in altruism. It is possible that these inconsistent results stem from the various
ways that altruism is conceptually and operationally defined. Whereas many researchers
define altruism as feelings of enjoyment derived from helping others (e.g., Chang &
Chuang, 2011; Cho et al., 2010; Hung et al., 2011; Oreg & Nov, 2008), Hew and Hara
(2007) refer to altruism as feelings of empathy and compassion for others, and Fugelstad
et al. (2012) measured altruism by assessing the frequency at which individuals per
formed helpful behaviors (e.g., giving up a seat on the bus). Theoretically, the existence of
“true” or “selfless” altruism is a matter of some contention. Some scholars argue that al
truism is an evolutionary instinct to reward others for cooperation or adherence to norms
(Fehr & Fischbacher, 2003), but others argue that an altruistic motivation to help others
is actually due to more egotistic reasons (see Andreoni, 1990; Batson, 2014). This sug
gests that relative altruism, in which an act is motivated only by minor self-concern
(Smith, 1981), may also foster knowledge sharing. In sum, whether or not altruism,
specifically, is the correct term (a conceptual issue), and a strong motivating factor (an
empirical issue), is still unclear.
Expertise
Expertise of the collector or the contributor may motivate online knowledge sharing. Al
though Surowiecki (2004) and others argue for the wisdom of the crowd (i.e., aggregated
knowledge contributed by laypeople can generate a more accurate answer than one gen
erated by a single expert), other scholars suggest that aggregated knowledge resources
must include some number of experts or knowledgeable contributors in order to achieve
an accurate and valuable outcome (Sunstein, 2006); this is especially relevant for some
knowledge domains, such as health (Rice, 2004). Not only is expertise needed to con
tribute information, but users also need relevant expertise to determine which knowledge
to collect and to subsequently evaluate it (Rice, McCreadie, & Chang, 2001). Although
self-rated expertise was not a significant predictor of knowledge sharing amount or quali
ty in an online professional association (Wasko & Faraj, 2005), tenure and experience in
the domain were positively related to contribution. Additionally, the expectation that ex
perts will retrieve and use knowledge contributed by team members was positively relat
ed to the likelihood of members contributing knowledge (Huang et al., 2013). However,
experts may contribute less in some contexts because they fear they (p. 580) will lose their
Page 7 of 34
competitive advantage, damage their reputations by sharing inaccurate or biased knowl

edge, be critiqued by other experts, or lose face if they do not provide the best answer
(Heinz & Rice, 2009; Kang, Kim, Gloor, & Bock, 2011).
Feedback
Feedback—both positive and negative—can also motivate individuals to engage in online

knowledge sharing. Although feedback emanates from others—suggesting that it could be
an other-oriented motivation—it is individuals’ need for and interpretation of it that moti
vates contribution. When people receive positive feedback, they feel satisfied and compe
tent, and they may also feel that they are responsible for their good performance; accord
ingly, positive feedback is generally correlated with increased motivation to contribute
knowledge (Cheshire & Antin, 2008; Zhu, Zhang, He, Kraut, & Kittur, 2013). For example,
receiving comments on a photo posted online tends to predict increased future contribu
tion (Burke, Marlow, & Lento, 2009). Surprisingly, negative feedback can also motivate
contribution, as it increases the recipient’s desire to improve others’ perceptions of his or
her performance. However, negative feedback can also decrease motivation (Deci &
Ryan, 2013), as it can be perceived as a challenge to the contributor’s knowledge or ex
pertise or as a signal that the contribution is counter-normative (Zhu et al. 2013).
Reputation
When individuals’ contributions to an online repository can enhance their reputation—or

others’ perceptions of their character or expertise—they may be more motivated to con
tribute (Kollock, 1999). Prior research has found a positive relationship between reputa
tion enhancement and contribution quantity (Nov et al., 2010; Wasko & Faraj, 2005).
Moreover, reputation enhancement is a significant predictor of the quality of individuals’
contributions to virtual communities (Chang & Chuang, 2011) and electronic networks of
practice (Wasko & Faraj, 2005). Even users with an already high reputation in an online
knowledge sharing community may contribute more—as well as higher quality—content
(Javanmardi, Ganjisaffar, Lopes, & Baldi, 2009). However, reputation enhancement does
not always motivate information contribution. For example, Oreg and Nov (2008) found
that Wikipedia editors are more motivated to contribute by enjoyment than perceived rep
utation building, and other studies failed to find a significant correlation between users’
desire to enhance their reputation and their contributions to the online repositories
(Lampe, Wash, Velasquez, & Ozkaya, 2010; Yang & Lai, 2010).
Reputation enhancement might be particularly motivating for individuals with profession

al identities or those participating in professional sites, as reputation has significant im
plications for organizational and professional outcomes. In a survey of participants in a
voluntary, organizational community of practice, Jeon, Kim, and Koh (2011) determined
that participants’ anticipated recognition from superiors and co-workers (p. 581) signifi
cantly predicted their contribution. Knowledge contribution to such an online community
or network of practice could affect the contributor’s organizational reputation or others’
perceptions of his or her professionalism or even of the shared profession itself (Heinz &
Page 8 of 34
Rice, 2009; Wasko & Faraj, 2005). The importance of reputation in professional communi
ties is underscored by Oreg and Nov’s (2008) study of contributors to open source
projects, which revealed that reputation was a stronger motivator of knowledge sharing
for open source software developers than for open source content creators (e.g.,
Wikipedia editors). Whereas open source content creation is accessible to all interested
individuals and rarely requires peer review, open source software developers must pos
sess a degree of expertise, and their work is vetted by a review process; as result, devel
opers’ contributions could result in professional reputation-building that benefits their ca
reers (Oreg & Nov, 2008).
Incentives
Individuals are sometimes offered virtual or tangible incentives in exchange for contribut
ing knowledge to online repositories. For example, some repositories (e.g., TripAdvisor,
Yelp, Foursquare, and Wikipedia) recognize contributors with virtual badges, whereas
other repositories may provide contributors with tangible incentives (such as free prod
ucts or monetary compensation). Rewards have been found to be a significant, positive
predictor of knowledge contribution quantity (Lou, Fang, Lim, & Peng, 2013), and person
ally meaningful incentives are especially motivating (Karau & Williams, 1995). For exam
ple, Farzan and Brusilovsky (2011) offered students access to a career planning tool in ex
change for their contributions to a course recommendation system. The incentive was an
effective motivator: students who had access to the career planning tool contributed sig
nificantly more knowledge to the system than those who did not.
However, the effect of incentives on individuals’ contribution behavior varies; paradoxi

cally, incentives may even discourage individuals from engaging in voluntary knowledge
sharing. A meta-analysis of the effect of external rewards on intrinsic motivation
(Cameron & Pierce, 1994) found that expected, tangible rewards consistently have a neg
ative effect on individuals’ intrinsic motivation to engage in a task, as do rewards that are
contingent on an individual’s performance on a task. Two theoretical explanations have
been proposed for this apparent paradox. According to the overjustification hypothesis
(Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973), when intrinsically motivated individuals are provided
with an external reward for their behavior, they attribute their behavior to the external
reward and discount the role of intrinsic motivation in their behavior. Cognitive evalua
tion theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) posits that individuals have a need for competence and
self-determination and intentionally engage in behaviors that fulfill these needs. However,
those feelings can be diminished by controlling events, or events that are perceived as an
attempt to determine one’s behavior, such as expected rewards, which results in de
creased intrinsic motivation.
(p. 582) Expected Individual Benefits and Costs
Individuals’ motivation to contribute to online goods is dependent on the costs and bene
fits they expect to experience as a result of sharing their knowledge (Fulk et al., 1996;
Heinz & Rice, 2009). Like social exchange theory, information foraging theory (Pirolli &
Page 9 of 34
Card, 1995) suggests that online information seekers make an a priori estimation of the
costs and benefits associated with information from certain sources as part of the online
information search (and subsequent sharing) process (Taraborelli, 2008).
In addition to the motivations already discussed, the online knowledge sharing literature
reveals a number of motivating individual benefits in these systems (Ardichvili, 2008),
such as improved work performance or social activities, emotional benefits, intellectual
benefits, and material gain. Additionally, KSS allow individuals to save time, compare in
formation from different sources and experts, search at their own pace during problem-
solving, engage in asynchronous use, and access information without having to know the
specific individual provider (Yuan, Rickard, Xia, & Scherer, 2011).
However, users also incur individual costs from using a KSS. Learning to use the KSS, as
well as browsing, collecting, evaluating, and managing information requires time, energy,
and expertise. Contributing knowledge requires similar resources, and users must learn
how to codify their knowledge for retrieval and use by others. Additionally, individuals
must consider the potential decrease in competitive advantage when sharing exclusive or
valuable knowledge (Allen, 1990; Fulk et al., 1996), and they must also consider the po
tential damage to themselves or others from sharing low-quality or incorrect knowledge
(such as in scientific KSS; Kim & Adler, 2015).
Although users differ in their perception of these costs and benefits, most users value in
formation accessibility over quality (Simon, 1972) or sufficiency (Chen, Duckworth, &
Chaiken 1999). However, individuals with a high need for information tend to weigh infor
mation quality more heavily than accessibility (Lu & Yuan, 2011). Thus, users’ motivation
to commit their time and effort to sharing accurate information will depend on the pur
pose of the information (i.e., benefits) and the consequence (i.e., costs) of collecting inac
curate information (Metzger, 2007). For example, individuals may be more motivated to
share and collect accurate health or financial information than information of less conse
quential types, such as entertainment-related.
Other-Oriented Motivations
As discussed, self-oriented motivations do not sufficiently explain all online knowledge
sharing. Indeed, some studies (e.g., Chiu, Hsu, & Wang, 2006; Rashid et al., 2006) sug
gest that self-oriented benefits may not be the strongest motivations for online knowledge
sharing. Thus, this section explores these other-oriented motivations, which include reci
procity, social comparison, social loafing, group belonging and sociality, and social/group
identity. Before these motivating factors are addressed, we provide an (p. 583) overview of
the social identity approach, which allows for a better understanding of other-oriented
motivations.
According to social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner, 1975, 1991), indi
viduals possess both personal (i.e., those based on individual characteristics) and social
(i.e., those based on group membership) identities; together, these identities constitute
Page 10 of 34
individuals’ self-concept. Individuals are motivated to attain and maintain a positive self-
concept, and they frequently engage in social comparisons to assess their standing rela
tive to others; depending on the context, these comparisons are based on either their per
sonal or social identities. When social identity is salient, self-categorization theory (SCT;
Turner, 1991; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) argues that individuals
see themselves as representatives of their social group rather than unique individuals;
consequently, their behavior is guided by the values and norms of their group. Moreover,
individuals—driven by their desire for a positive self-concept—engage in behavior that
will increase their social group’s status. The social identity approach provides a theoreti
cal explanation for many other-oriented motivations, such as social comparison and group
identification. Although SIT and SCT are relevant to many other-oriented motivations, so
cial exchange theory (summarized in the previous section, Self-Oriented Motivations) can
also explain several other-oriented motivations, such as reciprocity.
Reciprocity
Often, individuals are motivated to engage in a behavior because of expected reciprocity

by others. According to social exchange theory and related theories of social capital and
group behavior (e.g., Blau, 1964; Ekeh, 1974; Putnam, 2000; Thibaut & Kelly, 1965), peo
ple tend to expect direct reciprocity from those who benefit from their time, effort, or oth
er resources (e.g., knowledge). For example, users of social media sites (Oh & Syn, 2015)
and newsgroups (Wasko & Faraj, 2000) were motivated to share knowledge by feelings of
reciprocity. Similarly, individuals’ expectations of reciprocal relationships significantly
predicted contribution to a voluntary, organizational community of practice (Jeon et al.,
2011), and participants’ perceptions of reciprocity in virtual communities significantly
and positively predicted both the quantity and quality of their contributions. Moreover,
Cheung, Lee, and Lee (2013) found that contributors to an online professional community
were more satisfied with their knowledge sharing experience and more likely to engage
in future contributions when their expectations of reciprocity were fulfilled.
Nonetheless, reciprocity is not uniformly associated with increased knowledge sharing. In

fact, Wasko and Faraj (2005) found a negative relationship between expectations of reci
procity and knowledge sharing quantity, and others found no significant association be
tween expectations of direct reciprocity and the quantity or quality of knowledge sharing
in virtual communities (Chiu et al., 2006; Hung et al., 2011; Lin, Hung, & Chen, 2009).
Changes in the online environment have expanded this one-to-one relationship to a one-
to-many relationship. Thus, reciprocity can also be indirect or generalized; that is, a
(p. 584) contribution to a community can be reciprocated in the future by other communi
ty members or through access to a community resource (e.g., Ekeh, 1974; Kollock, 1999;
Putnam, 2000; van Doorn & Taborsky, 2012; Wasko, Teigland, & Faraj, 2009). In fact, the
ories of social capital indicate that people volunteer or become civically active because
they anticipate a “long term and conjectural” (Putnam, 2000, p. 135) return—not because
they expect direct, immediate reciprocity. Scholars have used indirect or generalized reci
procity to help explain motivations for online knowledge sharing with varying success. In
Page 11 of 34
their larger knowledge sharing model, Cho et al. (2010) reported that a sense of belong
ing positively influenced generalized reciprocity, which positively influenced intention to
share knowledge in Wikipedia. Similarly, teachers participating in an online community of
practice were frequently motivated by the expectation of generalized reciprocity (Hew &
Hara, 2007). Thus, in many online communities, a sense of generalized reciprocity is like
ly more motivating than expected direct reciprocity.
Social Comparison
According to social comparison theory, individuals evaluate their opinions and abilities by
comparing themselves to groups of similar or valued others, especially when objective,
non-social criteria are few or non-existent (Festinger, 1954). If these comparisons reveal a
discrepancy between an individual’s opinions or abilities and those of their group, the in
dividual will attempt to reduce the discrepancy by improving his or her deficient opinion
or ability. To do so, the individual may try to influence other group members, or—in the
case of extreme discrepancies—they may try to redefine, disidentify with, or leave the
group. Because most online sharing sites do not enforce or require membership, the easi
est response to highly unfavorable social comparisons concerning contributions is to con
tinue social loafing or to leave the group (Rice, 1987).
Prior research (Samak & Sheremeta, 2013) has shown that social comparison influences
online knowledge contribution. For example, Farzan et al. (2008) implemented a ranking
system in an enterprise social networking site that highlighted the most productive con
tributors, making their reputation visible to other users of the site; following the imple
mentation of this system, users contributed significantly more content to the site. Similar
ly, Hung et al. (2011) motivated participants in a computer-mediated group brainstorming
task to contribute by providing them with information about their unique contributions
and their ranking relative to other members of the group. After receiving this informa
tion, participants contributed significantly more ideas (quantity), and their ideas were sig
nificantly more useful and more creative (quality). Feedback that includes specific social
comparison information (i.e., positive or negative comparisons of an individual’s contribu
tions to those of other users) is also associated with future knowledge sharing (Cheshire
& Antin, 2008; Harper, Li, Chen, & Konstan, 2007).
In a field experiment, Harper et al. (2007) provided some users of a user-generated movie
rating and recommendation site with information about their contribution amount com
pared to other users of comparable tenure in the community. Users who (p. 585) received
this information rated significantly more movies in the following week than users who
were not given this information; they were also more likely to express a desire to increase
their standing, relative to other users, and they exceeded their lifetime average weekly
contribution amount. Interestingly, there was a decline in the number of reviews provided
by “above average” contributors in the week following receipt of the information, indicat
ing users’ tendency to alter behavior to correspond to the social comparison norm.
Page 12 of 34
Cheng and Vassileva (2005) implemented a hierarchical membership system in a peer-to-

peer file and bookmarking system, placing users into one of three membership categories
based on their contribution amount relative to that of others. Each membership category
was associated with additional functions within the system, and users who belonged to
more prestigious membership categories—high contributors—had access to more addi
tional functions than less frequent contributors. Following the introduction of the mem
bership system and the additional functions, users increased their log-ins, time spent on
line in the network, and the number of resources shared. Approximately half of the users
checked their membership data weekly, and virtually all of these users reported increased
effort to upgrade their membership status. Surprisingly, many of the additional functions
were not widely used by those who became eligible to do so, indicating that the desire to
improve their ranking relative to other users was an effective motivator by itself. Ulti
mately, the implementation of this system resulted in increased quantity of contributions
but decreased quality of contributions.
One context for social comparison is social facilitation, which refers to the increase in ef
fort that individuals exhibit when they are working coactively and know they can be com
pared to others (Huang & Fu, 2013). In social facilitation research, individuals work col
lectively with others, but their individual efforts are identifiable and, therefore, potential
ly evaluable. As a result, individuals experience increased motivation because they be
lieve they are in competition with others (Cottrell, 1972) or because the possibility of
evaluation leads to increased self-awareness (Carver & Scheier, 1981) and concerns about
self-presentation (Bond, 1982). Extended to online repositories, this approach suggests
that new contributors who experience an ambiguous situation may be influenced to con
tribute more knowledge when they are provided with statistics about users’ past contri
bution amounts (i.e., social comparison), especially if these statistics are based on high
contributors; however, prior contributors would need different motivations.
Social Loafing
The non-excludable and discretionary nature of online repositories, in combination with

the costs of contributing, encourages individuals to engage in social loafing, or the ten
dency to be less motivated and exert less effort when working collectively than alone (Ka
rau & Williams, 1995). The tendency to engage in social loafing is exacerbated when
(p. 586) individuals’ outputs are pooled, with this sum representing the group’s perfor
mance (Harkins, 1987). Individuals’ tendency to engage in social loafing has been attrib
uted to the reduced ability to monitor the efforts of any one individual (Karau & Williams,
1995). Harkins (1987) found that individuals participating in collective tasks were more
productive and more accurate when their efforts would be evaluated than when they
would be pooled. Thus, reduced visibility may be the primary cause of social loafing.
Williams, Harkins, and Latané (1981) concluded that identifiability mediates the relation
ship between collective tasks and social loafing. Based on this line of research, the collec
tive effort model (Karau & Williams, 1995) posits that social loafing will be reduced when
individuals believe others can evaluate their efforts, which requires visibility and identifi
ability, and when they feel an affinity for or identify with the group with which they are
Page 13 of 34
working. Thus, expectations of being able to engage in social loafing can serve as a moti
vation to not share knowledge.
The possibility of social loafing is heightened in the online context, due to factors such as
anonymity (i.e., low identifiability or visibility), ephemeral group membership, few expec
tations of future interaction, ease of access, decreased costs of storage and transmission,
and the negligible or absent costs of non-participation, or “lurking” (Rice, 1987; Shirky,
2008). Several studies of online knowledge sharing support this line of reasoning. For in
stance, Samak and Sheremeta (2013) conducted a laboratory experiment in which indi
viduals participated in a computer-mediated public goods game; participants’ contribu
tions were either private (not visible) or public (visible). When all participants’ contribu
tions were visible, participants contributed significantly more than when participants’
contributions were not. Erickson and Kellogg (2000) argued that, in face-to-face interac
tions, individuals’ behavior is based on social cues that are often absent in mediated con
texts. To reduce this problem, they designed a socially translucent knowledge-sharing
system that allowed for visibility, awareness, and accountability. As a result, users were
more aware of other individuals’ presence and felt more accountable for their actions.
Zhang, de Pablos, and Zhou (2013) examined the effect of visibility on sharing behavior in
an organizational knowledge management system, taking into account organizational re
ward and exchange ideology, or the belief that an individual’s work effort is dependent on
the organization’s treatment of the individual. Organizational reward was not significant
ly related to knowledge sharing behavior when visibility was low; however, when visibility
was high, the relationship between organizational reward and knowledge sharing behav
ior was stronger for individuals with high exchange ideology.
Group Belonging and Sociality
People may be more likely to share and seek knowledge online when they perceive simi
larity between themselves and other community members, perceive a sense of belonging
with other online community members, or identify with the community or group, even
when they do not know the others’ true identity (Chiu et al., 2006; Cho et al., 2010;
(p. 587) Flanagin, Hocevar, & Samahito, 2013; Lampe et al., 2010; Ling et al., 2005;
Rashid et al., 2006).
Users of a movie recommendation site were significantly more likely to rate a movie when
they believed their rating would benefit movie viewers who were similar to them (Rashid
et al., 2006). People are likely to seek out, evaluate, and select knowledge from online
health information sharing communities using heuristic cues that are based in perceived
similarity with other users, even if they do not know them personally (Sillence, Briggs,
Harris, & Fishwick, 2007). A desire to maintain interpersonal connectivity has also been
positively linked to perceived contribution to an online community (Lampe et al., 2010).
Similarly, affiliative tendency, or positive expectations in social relationships, positively
corresponds with knowledge sharing amount even when the knowledge was shared with
others unknown to the contributor (Lee & Jang, 2010). This supports research that has in
dicated a potential “social” nature of online knowledge sharers, even when the sites or
Page 14 of 34
systems used are mostly or wholly anonymous (Burke et al., 2009; Correa, Hinsley, & Gil
de Zúñiga, 2010; Hocevar, Flanagin, & Metzger, 2014; Hughes, Rowe, Batey, & Lee, 2012;
Mikal, Rice, Kent, & Uchino, 2015).
Belonging influences knowledge sharing via a variety of mediators, including generalized

reciprocity, altruism, subjective norms, and self-efficacy (Cho et al., 2010). For example,
Lampe et al. (2010) found that Everything users with a strong sense of belonging—or af
fective commitment toward a community—were more likely to contribute to the online en
cyclopedia in the future. Similarly, bloggers’ group involvement, or attachment and sense
of belonging to a group, was positively related to their contributions (Kim, Zheng, & Gup
ta, 2011), and Hew and Hara (2007) found that commitment to the group was a strong
motivation for knowledge sharing.
Group Identity
Research has shown a direct relationship between shared group identity and online con
tent contribution. Individuals’ identification with a particular virtual community can be a
significant, positive predictor of both the quantity and quality of knowledge contribution
(Chang & Chuang, 2011). Nov, Anderson, and Arazy (2010) showed that individuals who
were affiliated with a project team contributed more to SETI@home, a volunteer science
computing project, than those who were not.
Group identity may also have indirect effects with online knowledge sharing. In Nov et
al.’s (2010) study, team membership moderated the negative relationship between project
tenure and contribution; in other words, the general decline in contribution over time was
not as steep for individuals affiliated with a team. However, in order to be effective, this
group identity must be salient or meaningful to the individuals. Flanagin et al. (2013) un
covered an indirect relationship between group identity, motivation, and contribution to
an online course rating site. When individuals believed other users of the site were simi
lar to them (i.e., high group identification), they experienced higher motivation to con
tribute and submitted more knowledge to the site than those who believed (p. 588) the
other users of the site were dissimilar to them (i.e., low group identification). Similarly,
Dholakia, Bagozzia, and Pearo (2004) surveyed participants in several types of online
communities (e.g., email lists, bulletin boards, newsgroups, chat rooms, multiplayer
games) and also discovered an indirect relationship between social identity and contribu
tion. Social identity was a significant predictor of individuals’ desire to interact with their
community, which significantly predicted their commitment to participate in a joint ac
tion.
Expected Collective Costs and Benefits
Expected collective benefits and costs are other-oriented motivations. Collective benefits
include establishing ties with others, building a stronger, more sustainable online commu
nity, enhancing the relevant profession or community, broadly distributing relevant
knowledge throughout a profession or community, and reinforcing normative considera
Page 15 of 34
tions such as shared values, reciprocity, and conformity (Bagozzi & Tsai, 2014; Chen &
Hung, 2010; Heinz & Rice, 2009; Yates, Wagner, & Majchrzak, 2010). Collective costs may
occur through difficulty in filtering, collecting, and interpreting relevant knowledge in
massive online systems. Additionally, the community’s credibility or reputation may be
damaged by the spread of incorrect or harmful knowledge, breach of confidential or pro
prietary knowledge, and fluctuations in membership (Kraut & Resnick, 2011).
Contextual Factors
The preceding sections reviewed self- and other-oriented motivations that drive online
knowledge sharing. This section briefly reviews several contextual factors. These factors
do not motivate contribution, but they serve as preconditions or moderators of relation
ships between motivations and online knowledge sharing.
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy refers to a person’s judgment of his or her ability to execute a behavior and
generally correlates with better performance (Bandura, 1997). Some scholars have sug
gested that self-efficacy can directly influence knowledge sharing; for example, self-effica
cy positively relates to the amount of knowledge exchanged via an organizational knowl
edge management system (Cabrera, Collins, & Salgado, 2006). Studies have also suggest
ed that self-efficacy indirectly affects knowledge sharing, either by mediating the rela
tionship between sense of belonging and intent to contribute knowledge (Cho et al.,
2010), or by predicting personal outcome expectations (i.e., positive personal outcomes
associated with knowledge sharing), which then predict knowledge sharing (p. 589) intent
(Hsu, Ju, Yen, & Chang, 2007). Self-efficacy can also reduce the perceived difficulty of an
online knowledge seeking activity (David, Song, Hayes, & Fredin, 2007). Although self-ef
ficacy can enhance performance, it may or may not be thoughtfully processed or per
ceived by an individual as a motivation to engage in an activity. Thus, self-efficacy may be
more of a precondition of online knowledge sharing than a motivating factor by itself.
Trust
Trust is positively associated with the quality of knowledge shared in online virtual com
munities (Chang & Chuang; 2011; Chiu et al., 2006), and trust based on identification
with a virtual community of practice positively relates to knowledge sharing (Usoro, Shar
ratt, Tsui, & Shekhar, 2007). Indeed, trust and community- or group-related motivations
likely go hand in hand, as people are more likely to trust those with whom they share
group or community membership (Turner, 1991). However, a certain level of trust may be
a necessary precondition of knowledge sharing rather than a motivation itself, as the po
tential knowledge sharer must have some level of additional motivation (Ardichvili, 2008).
Huang et al.’s (2013) study of 17 work groups across the US and Western Europe ex
plained how trust is required for developing both connective and communal knowledge
and for knowing what knowledge is valuable and usable for collecting and contributing.
Page 16 of 34
Venue
The venue—or the contextual, design, or environmental factors of specific online KSS—
may influence the relationship between motivations and sharing. Research on organiza
tional technology-mediated KSS indicates a host of such factors. These include organiza
tional support or incentives, an organizational culture that is supportive of knowledge
sharing, job autonomy, level of activity load, team characteristics, and KSS affordances
(Cabrera et al., 2006; Ellison, Gibbs, & Weber, 2015; Heinz & Rice, 2009; Rice et al.,
2017; Wang & Noe, 2010; Yu, Lu, & Liu, 2010). In contexts such as organizational in
tranets, where knowledge sharing carries potential, professional risk, or the sharers may
know each other personally, factors such as power differences between seeker and shar
er, desire for impression management, evaluation apprehension, and organizational cul
ture may influence sharing (Cabrera et al., 2006; Kim & Lee, 2006; see reviews in Hall,
2001; Heinz & Rice, 2009; Wang & Noe, 2010). Unfortunately, few studies compare moti
vations for knowledge sharing across venues or sites/systems.
One problem with the knowledge sharing literature, particularly in the online context, is
that many scholars tend to implicitly presume that all users of all kinds of online knowl
edge sharing venues have similar motivations for various sharing behaviors. An exception
is Moore and Serva’s (2007) review of the literature on motivations for (p. 590) contribu
tion to virtual communities, which classified 14 motivations identified by prior studies by
their relevance in different types of virtual communities at that time. Prior studies had
identified motivations to contribute to Internet forums and wikis to include altruism, be
longing, recognition, and reputation, while motivations for blog contribution included
recognition and reputation, but not altruism or belonging. In Fuglestad et al.’s (2012)
study of MovieLens.com users, different reasons for joining the online community were
similarly associated with different patterns of knowledge sharing.
Directions for Future Research

Studies of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for online knowledge sharing have struggled
with effectively or consistently conceptualizing the two types of motivation, calling into
question some of the results in this area of research. As a result, it may be prudent to rely
on the operationalization (e.g., enjoyment) rather than the larger concept it is purported
to represent (i.e., intrinsic or extrinsic motivation) when interpreting its relationship with
online knowledge sharing. Future research should also examine the influence of intrinsic
motivation on other motivational factors. For example, higher initial levels of intrinsic mo
tivation can decrease the effects of other potential motivations on knowledge sharing
(David et al., 2007), and extrinsic motivations can decrease intrinsic motivations
(Cameron & Pierce, 1994). This suggests that intrinsic motivation should be measured
even in research that is focused on other motivating factors.
Though the fundamental challenge to online knowledge contribution is the social dilem
ma of individual self-interest versus collective action and public goods, more conceptual
Page 17 of 34
work needs to distinguish which motivations are clearly self-oriented versus other-orient
ed, and which aspects of those motivations involve one or the other, or both. For example,
reputation typically refers to an individual motivation, but reputation is created through
and embedded in social norms, comparisons, and consequences. Further, both intrinsic
and extrinsic motivations can be more or less self- versus other-oriented.
It would be useful to better understand when generalized or indirect reciprocity is more

or less motivational to users. Possible avenues for future research include community mo
tivations (cultural values and norms such as collectivism or individualism; Kang, Kim,
Gloor, & Bock, 2011), and the explicitness and time frame of possible generalized reci
procity.
Unfortunately, the literature examining online knowledge sharing only rarely distinguish
es between knowledge collecting and contributing (typically referring to “sharing” or “ex
change”). For example, Chai, Das, and Rao’s (2011) integrated model of motivations for
knowledge-sharing behaviors does not distinguish between collecting and contributing.
Nor does much prior research analyze relations between motivations and the quality
(accuracy, helpfulness, usefulness, depth, etc.) and quantity (number or length of (p. 591)
contributions) of the content (for two exceptions, see Chang & Chuang, 2011; Phang,
Kankanhali, & Huang, 2014). Understanding what motivates users to share high quality
knowledge is critical to the larger understanding of factors that influence the overall
quality of Internet information (especially, for example, health information). One of the at
tributes of information that can influence its value is its accuracy (Laxminarayan &
Macauley, 2012). In traditional media effects and persuasion literature, message charac
teristics such as information accuracy can influence perceptions and behavior (e.g., Mil
lar & Millar, 2000; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). In the online context, people who are knowl
edgeable about and involved in a topic may identify inaccuracies about that topic and
thus be motivated to contribute content of their own (e.g., comments or edits) to correct
it. This is especially valued in open source software communities and the Wikipedia com
munity (Kittur & Kraut, 2008; Nov, 2007; Schroer & Hertel, 2009). Few studies have ex
amined motivations for online sharing of high-quality knowledge, though Chang and
Chuang (2011) and Chiu et al. (2006) reported that trust, community-related outcome ex
pectations, shared vision, social interaction, and reputation significantly predict shared
knowledge quality. Some research in virtual communities suggests that group identifica
tion positively relates to the quantity but not quality of shared knowledge (Chiu et al.,
2006). Interestingly, out of many factors that predicted knowledge sharing quantity
(social interaction ties, norms of reciprocity, identification, shared language, and shared
vision), only trust, community-related outcome expectations, and shared vision (i.e.,
whether members share the same goals and values about knowledge sharing) significant
ly also predicted knowledge sharing quality. While group identification was not a signifi
cant predictor of knowledge quality, other group- or community-based variables (i.e.,
shared values/vision, community outcome expectations) were.
Page 18 of 34
Few studies consider both individual and collective levels of both costs and benefits as
motivations for of online sharing, as reviewed by Heinz and Rice (2009); an exception is
Brake’s consideration of benefits of online community knowledge sharing at both levels
(2014). Finally, while much research considers a wide variety of aspects of KSS venues,
few relate those to motivations for sharing. Extending Morre and Serva’s (2007) ap
proach, it would be useful to conceptually or operationally define multiple motivations
and venues, and to provide a theoretical rationale for the relationships found between
each motivation and venue.
Conclusion
Digital KSS (such as online repositories, networks of practice, and social network sites)
have fostered the development of diverse online public goods, such as connectivity among
known and unknown users worldwide as well as communality of shared content. This
sharing has raised the question of why individuals would voluntarily share knowledge,
when rational actor theory and self-interest would argue against engaging in (p. 592) di
rectly unreciprocated activity. So identifying and explaining the motivations for such on
line knowledge sharing has generated considerable research, although often contradicto
ry and confounded. By identifying two categories of motivations, based on self-oriented
and other-oriented factors, along with contextual factors such as self-efficacy, trust, and
the social and technological venue, this chapter has aimed to clarify distinctions and sum
marize considerable research on this fundamental question. Figure 21.1 portrays the or
ganizing framework of motivations for online knowledge sharing.
Figure 21.1 Summary of review of motivations for

online knowledge sharing.
Page 19 of 34
Yet a variety of research questions remain. As digital technology continues to evolve and
diffuse, answering these questions will help system designers, practitioners, researchers,
and users better understand how to motivate the important process of sharing knowledge
online. However, ongoing developments in digital technology will likely reveal other moti
vations, possibilities, obstacles, and contextual factors.
References
Allen, B. (1990). Information as an economic commodity. American Economic Review, 80,
268–273.
Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-
glow giving. Economic Journal, 401, 464–477. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234133
Arazy, O., & Gellatly, I. R. (2012). Corporate wikis: The effects of owners’ motivation and
behavior on group members’ engagement. Journal of Management Information Systems,
29(3), 87–116. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222290303
Ardichvili, A. (2008). Learning and knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice:

Motivators, barriers, and enablers. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(4),
541–554. doi:10.1177/1523422308319536
Bagozzi, R. P. & Tsai, H-T. (2014). Contribution behavior in virtual communities: Cogni
tive, emotional, and social influences. MIS Quarterly, 38(1), 143–164. https://doi.org/
10.25300/misq/2014/38.1.07
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman
and Company.
Barab, S. A. (2003). An introduction to the special issue: Designing for virtual communi
ties in the service of learning. Information Society, 19, 197–201. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01972240309467
Batson, C. D. (2014). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. New

York, NY: Psychology Press.
Bimber, B., Flanagin, A. J., & Stohl, C. (2005). Reconceptualizing collective action in the
contemporary media environment. Communication Theory, 15, 365–388. doi:10.1111/j.
1468–2885.2005.tb00340.x
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.
Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in
knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological
forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29, 87–111. https://doi.org/
10.2307/25148669
Page 20 of 34
Bond, C. (1982). Social facilitation: A self-presentational view. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 42, 1042–1050.
Brake, D. R. (2014). Are we all online content creators now? Web 2.0 and digital divides.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 591–609. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12042
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Boston, MA: Harvard Busi
ness Press.
Burke, M., Marlow, C., & Lento, T. (2009). Feed me: Motivating newcomer contribution in
social network sites. In Proceedings of CHI 2009 (pp. 945–954). New York, NY: ACM
Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518847
Cabrera, Á., Collins, W. C., & Salgado, J. F. (2006). Determinants of individual engage
ment in knowledge sharing. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
17(2), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190500404614
Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A
meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64(3), 363–423. https://doi.org/
10.2307/1170677
Carver, C., & Scheier, M. (1981). The self-attention-induced feedback loop and social facil
itation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 545–568. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0022–1031(81)90039–1
Case, D. O. & Given, L. M. (2016). Looking for information: A survey of research on infor
mation seeking, needs, and behavior (4th ed.). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing
Ltd.
Chai, S., Das, S., & Rao, H. R. (2011). Factors affecting bloggers’ knowledge shar
(p. 594)
ing: An investigation across gender. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(3),

309–342. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222280309
Chang, H. H., & Chuang, S. S. (2011). Social capital and individual motivations on knowl
edge sharing: Participant involvement as a moderator. Information & Management, 48(1),
9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2010.11.001
Chen, C. J. & Hung, S. W. (2010). To give or to receive? Factors influencing members’

knowledge sharing and community promotion in professional virtual communities. Infor
mation & Management, 47(4), 226–236. doi:10/1016/j.im.2010.03.001
Chen, S., Duckworth, K., & Chaiken, S. (1999). Motivated heuristic and systematic pro
cessing. Psychological Inquiry, 10(1), 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327965pli1001_6
Cheng, R., & Vassileva, J. (2005, January). User motivation and persuasion strategy for
peer-to-peer communities. Proceedings of the 38th annual Hawaii international confer
ence on system sciences, user motivation and persuasion strategy for peer-to-peer com
Page 21 of 34
munities (10 pp.). Hawaii: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
https://doi.org/10.1109/hicss.2005.653
Cheshire, C., & Antin, J. (2008). The social psychological effects of feedback on the pro
duction of Internet information pools. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13,
705–727. doi:10.1111/j.1083–6101.2008.00416.x
Cheung, C. M., Lee, M. K., & Lee, Z. W. (2013). Understanding the continuance intention
of knowledge sharing in online communities of practice through the post-knowledge-shar
ing evaluation processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 64, 1357–1374. doi:10.1002/asi.22854
Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., & Wang, E. T. G. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in vir
tual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision
Support Systems, 42(3), 1872–1888. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2006.04.001
Cho, H., Chen, M., & Chung, S. (2010). Testing an integrative theoretical model of knowl
edge-sharing behavior in the context of Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for In
formation Science and Technology, 61(6), 1198–1212. doi:10.1002/asi.21316
Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A., Haugen, J., & Miene, P.
(1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional ap
proach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1516–1530. https://doi.org/
10.1037//0022–3514.74.6.1516
Connolly, T, & Thorn, B. K. (1990). Discretionary databases: Theory, data, and implica
tions. In J. Fulk, & C.W. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology
(pp. 219–233). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Correa, T., Hinsley, A. W., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2010). Who interacts on the Web? The in
tersection of users’ personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior,
26(2), 247–253. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.003
Cottrell, N. (1972). Social facilitation. In C. McClintock (Ed.), Experimental social psychol

ogy (pp. 185–236). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Cova, B., Pace, S., & Skålén, P. (2015). Brand volunteering: Value co-creation with unpaid
consumers. Marketing Theory, 15(4), 465–485. doi:10.1177/1470593115568919
David, P., Song, M., Hayes, A., & Fredin, E. S. (2007). A cyclic model of information seek
ing in hyperlinked environments: The role of goals, self-efficacy, and intrinsic motivation.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(2), 170–182. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.
2006.09.004
Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 169–193.

(p. 595)
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.001125
Page 22 of 34
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nauta, A. (2009). Self-interest and other-orientation in organization

al behavior: Implications for job performance, prosocial behavior, and personal initiative.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 913–926. doi:10.1037/a0014494
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). Motivation, personality, and development within embed
ded social contexts: An overview of self-determination theory. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Ox
ford handbook of human motivation (pp. 85–107). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Deng, L. & Poole, M. S. (2011). Knowledge utilization in electronic networks of practice.

In H. E. Canary & R. D. McPhee (Eds.), Communication and organizational knowledge:
Contemporary issues for theory and practice (pp. 209–220). New York: Routledge.
Dholakia, U. M., Bagozzi, R. P., & Pearo, L. K. (2004). A social influence model of con
sumer participation in network-and small-group-based virtual communities. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 21, 241–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.
2003.12.004
Ekeh, P. (1974). Social exchange theory: The two traditions. Boston: Harvard University
Press.
Ellison, N. B. & boyd, D. M. (2014). Sociality through social network sites. In W. H. Dutton
(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of internet studies (pp. 153–172). Oxford, UK: Oxford Univer
sity press.
Ellison, N. B., Gibbs, J. L., & Weber, M. S. (2015). The use of enterprise social network
sites for knowledge sharing in distributed organizations: The role of organizational affor
dances. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(1), 103–123. doi:10.1177/000276421450510
Erickson, T, & Kellogg, W A. (2000). Social translucence: An approach to designing sys

tems that support social processes. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction,
7, 59–83. https://doi.org/10.1145/344949.345004
Farzan, R., & Brusilovsky, P. (2011). Encouraging user participation in a course recom
mender system: An impact on user behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 276–284.
doi:10/1016/j.chb.2010.08.005
Farzan, R., DiMicco, J. M., Millen, D. R., Dugan, C., Geyer, W., & Brownholtz, E. A. (2008,
April). Results from deploying a participation incentive mechanism within the enterprise.
In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp.
563–572). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357145
Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425(6960),
785–791. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02043
Page 23 of 34
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2),

117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202
Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2013). Trusting expert- versus user-generated ratings
online: The role of information volume, valence, and consumer characteristics. Computers
in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1626–1634. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.001
Flanagin, A. J., Hocevar, K. P., Samahito, S. N. (2013). Connecting with the user-generated
web: How group identification impacts online information sharing and evaluation. Infor
mation, Communication, & Society, 17(6), 683–694. doi:10.1080/1369118x.2013.808361
Fuglestad, P. T., Dwyer, P. C., Moses, J. F., Kim, J. S., Mannino, C. A., Terveen, L., & Snyder,
M. (2012). What makes users rate (share, tag, edit & )? Predicting patterns of participa
tion in online communities. In Proceedings of CSCW ‘12 (pp. 969–978). New York, NY:
ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145349
Fulk, J., Flanagin, A. J., Kalman, M. E., Monge, P. R., & Ryan, T. (1996). Connective
(p. 596)
and communal public goods in interactive communication systems. Communication Theo

ry 6(1), 60–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468–2885.1996.tb00120.x
Fulk, J., Heino, R., Flanagin, A. J., Monge, P. R., & Bar, F. (2004). A test of the individual
action model for organizational information commons. Organization Science, 15(5), 569–
585. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0081
Hall, H. (2001). Input-friendliness: Motivating knowledge sharing across intranets. Jour

nal of Information Science, 27(3), 139–146. doi:10.1177/016555150102700303
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248.
Harkins, S. G. (1987). Social loafing and social facilitation. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 23, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(87)90022-9
Harper, F. M., Li, S. X., Chen, Y., & Konstan, J. A. (2007). Social comparisons to motivate
contributions to an online community. In Y. de Cort, W. Ijsselsteijn, C. Midden, B. Eggen,
& B. J. Fogg (Eds.), Persuasive technology: Second international conference on persuasive
technology, PERSUASIVE 2007, Palo Alto, CA, USA, April 26–27, 2007, Revised Selected
Papers (pp. 148–159). Berlin, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-540-77,006-0_20
Heinz, M. & Rice, R. E. (2009). An integrated model of knowledge sharing in contempo

rary communication environments. In C. S. Beck (Ed.), Communication yearbook 33 (pp.
134–175). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hew, K. F., & Hara, N. (2007). Empirical study of motivators and barriers of teacher on
line knowledge sharing. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(6), 573–
595. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9049-2
Page 24 of 34
Hoadley, C. (2012). What is a community of practice and how can we support it? In D.
Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 286–
300). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hocevar, K. P., Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2014). Social media self-efficacy and in
formation evaluation online. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 254–262. doi: 10.1016/
j.chb.2014.07.020
Hoisl, B., Aigner, W., & Miksch, S. (2007). Social rewarding in wiki systems—Motivating
the community. In D. Schuler (Ed.), Online communities and social computing (pp. 362–
371). Berlin, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Hollingshead, A. B., Fulk, J., & Monge, P. (2002). Fostering intranet knowledge sharing:
An integration of transactive memory and public goods approaches. In P. Hinds, & S.
Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 335–355). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hsu, M. H., Ju, T. L., Yen, C. H., & Chang, C. M. (2007). Knowledge sharing behavior in
virtual communities: The relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome expecta
tions. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(2), 153–169. doi:10.1016/
j.ijhcs.2006.09.003
Huang, M., Barbour, J., Su, C., & Contractor, N. (2013). Why do group members provide
information to digital knowledge repositories? A multilevel application of transactive
memory theory. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 64(3),
540–557. doi:10.1002/asi.22805
Huang, S. W., & Fu, W. T. (2013, April). Don’t hide in the crowd!: Increasing social trans
parency between peer workers improves crowdsourcing outcomes. Proceedings of the
SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 621–630). Paris, France:
Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470743
Hughes, D., Coulson, G., & Walkerdine, J. (2005). Free riding on Gnutella revisited: The
bell tolls? Distributed Systems Online, IEEE, 6(6), 1–18. doi:10.1109/MDSO.2005.31
Hughes, D. J., Rowe, M., Batey, M., & Lee, A. (2012). A tale of two sites: Twitter
(p. 597)
vs. Facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage. Computers in Human
Behavior, 28(2), 561–569. doi:10.1016.j.chb.2011.11.001
Hung, S. Y., Durcikova, A., Lai, H. M., & Lin, W. M. (2011). The influence of intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation on individuals’ knowledge sharing behavior. International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, 69, 415–427. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2011.02.004
Jadin, T., Gnambs, T., & Batinic, B. (2013). Personality traits and knowledge sharing in on
line communities. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 210–216. doi:10.1016/j.chb.
2012.08.007
Page 25 of 34
Javanmardi, S., Ganjisaffar, Y., Lopes, C., & Baldi, P. (2009). User contribution and trust in
Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 5th international ICST conference on collaborative com
puting: networking, applications, worksharing (pp. 1–5). https://doi.org/10.4108/
icst.collaboratecom2009.837
Jeon, S. H., Kim, Y. G., & Koh, J. (2011). Individual, social, and organizational contexts for
active knowledge sharing in communities of practice. Expert Systems with Applications,
38, 12,423–12,431. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.023
Johnson, C. M. (2001). A survey of current research on online communities of practice.

The Internet and Higher Education, 4(1), 45–60. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(01)00047–1
Kalman, M. E., Monge, P., Fulk, J., & Heino, R. (2002). Motivations to resolve communica
tion dilemmas in database-mediated collaboration. Communication Research, 29, 125–
154. doi:10.1177/0093650202029002002
Kang, M., Kim, B., Gloor, P., & Bock, G-W. (2011). Understanding the effect of social net
works on user behaviors in community-driven knowledge services. Journal of the Ameri
can Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(6), 1066–1074. doi:10.1002/asi.
21533
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C., & Wei, K. K. (2005). Contributing knowledge to electronic
knowledge repositories: an empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 29, 113–143. https://
doi.org/10.2307/25148670
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1995). Social loafing: Research findings, implications, and
future directions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 134–139. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1467–8721.ep10772570
Khansa, L., Ma, X., Liginlal, D., & Kim, S. S. (2015). Understanding members’ active par
ticipation in online question-and-answer communities: A theory and empirical analysis.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 32(2), 162–203. doi:
10/1080/07421222.2015.1063293
Kim, H. W., Zheng, J. R., & Gupta, S. (2011). Examining knowledge contribution from the
perspective of an online identity in blogging communities. Computers in Human Behavior,
27, 1760–1770. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.03.003
Kim, S., & Lee, H. (2006). The impact of organizational context and information technolo
gy on employee knowledge-sharing capabilities. Public Administration Review, 66(3),
370–385. doi:10.1111/j.1540–6210.2006.00595.x
Kim, Y. & Adler, M. (2015). Social scientists’ data sharing behaviors: Investigating the
roles of individual motivations, institutional pressures, and data repositories. Internation
al Journal of Information Management, 35(4), 408–418. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.
2015.04.007
Page 26 of 34
Kittur, A., & Kraut, R. E. (2008, November). Harnessing the wisdom of crowds in
wikipedia: quality through coordination. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on
Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 37–46). New York, NY: ACM.
Kittur, A., Chi, E. H., Pendleton, B. A., Suh, B., & Mytkowicz, T. (2007, April). Power of the
few vs. wisdom of the crowd: Wikipedia and the rise of the bourgeoisie. Proceedings of
the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–9). San Jose, CA: As
sociation for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1460563.1460572
Kollock, P. (1999). The economies of online cooperation: Gifts and public goods in
(p. 598)
cyberspace. In M. A. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace. London: Rout

ledge.
Kraut R. E. & Resnick, P. (2011). Encouraging contribution to online communities. In R. E.

Kraut & P. Resnick (Eds.), Building successful online communities: Evidence-based social
design (pp. 21–76). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lakhani, K. R., & Von Hippel, E. (2003). How open source software works: “Free” user-to-
user assistance. Research Policy, 32, 923–943. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.290305
Lampe, C., Wash, R., Velasquez, A., & Ozkaya, E. (2010). Motivations to participate in on
line communities. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Human factors
in computing systems—CHI 10 (pp. 1927–1936). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:
10.1145/1753326.1753616
Laxminarayan, R., & Macauley, M. K. (2012). The value of information: Methodological

frontiers and new applications in environment and health. New York, NY: Springer
Science & Business Media.
Lee, E. J., & Jang, J. (2010). Profiling good Samaritans in online knowledge forums: Ef
fects of affiliative tendency, self-esteem, and public individuation on knowledge sharing.
Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1336–1344. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.04.007
Leonardi, P. M. & Meyer, S. R. (2015). Social media as social lubricant: How ambient
awareness eases knowledge transfer. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(1), 10–34.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214540509
Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic inter
est with extrinsic reward: A test of the “overjustification” hypothesis. Journal of Personali
ty and Social Psychology, 28, 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035519
Li, X. (2011). Factors influencing the willingness to contribute information to online com
munities. New Media & Society, 13(2), 279–296. doi:10.1177/146444810372164
Lin, K., & Lu, H. (2011). Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study inte
grating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 27,
1152–1161. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.009
Page 27 of 34
Lin, M. J. J., Hung, S. W., & Chen, C. J. (2009). Fostering the determinants of knowledge
sharing in professional virtual communities. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 929–939.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.03.008
Ling, K., Beenen, G., Wang, X., Chang, K., Frankowski, D., Resnick, P., & Kraut, R. E.
(2005). Using social psychology to motivate contributions to online communities. Journal
of Computer Mediated Communication, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083–
6101.2005.tb00273.x
Lou, J., Fang, Y., Lim, K. H., & Peng, J. Z. (2013). Contributing high quantity and quality
knowledge to online Q&A communities. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, 64, 356–371. doi:10.1002/asi.22750
Lu, L., & Yuan, Y. C. (2011). Shall I Google it or ask the competent villain down the hall?
The moderating role of information need in information source selection. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(1), 133–145. doi:10.1002/
asi.21449
Marwell, G., & Oliver, P. (1993). The critical mass in collective action: A micro-social theo
ry. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Metzger, M. J. (2007). Making sense of credibility on the Web: Models for evaluating on
line information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the American Soci
ety for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2078–2091. doi:10.1002/asi.20672
Mikal, J. P., Rice, R. E., Kent, R., & Uchino, B. (2015). 100 million strong: A case study of
group identification and deindividuation on imgur.com. New Media & Society,18(11),
2485–2506. doi:10.1177/1461444815588766
(p. 599) Millar, M. G., & Millar, K. U. (2000). Promoting safe driving behaviors: The influ
ence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
30(4), 853–866. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559–1816.2000.tb02827.x
Moore, T. D., & Serva, M. A. (2007). Understanding member motivation for contributing
to different types of virtual communities: A proposed framework. In Proceedings of SG
MIS-CPR ‘07 (pp. 153–158). New York, NY: ACM Press. https://doi.org/
10.1145/1235000.1235035
Nov, O. (2007). What motivates Wikipedians? Communications of the ACM, 50, 60–64. doi:
10.1145/1297797.1297798
Nov, O., Anderson, D., & Arazy, O. (2010, April). Volunteer computing: A model of the fac
tors determining contribution to community-based scientific research. Proceedings of the
19th international conference on World Wide Web (pp. 741–750). Raleigh, NC: Associa
tion for Computer Machinery. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1772690.1772766
Page 28 of 34
Nov, O., Naaman, M., & Ye, C. (2010). Analysis of participation in an online photo-sharing
community: A multidimensional perspective. Journal of the American Society for Informa
tion Science and Technology, 61, 555–566. doi:10.1002/asi.21278
Oh, S. (2012). The characteristics and motivations of health answerers for sharing infor
mation, knowledge, and experiences in online environments. Journal of the American So
ciety for Information Science and Technology, 63, 543–557. doi:10.1002/asi.21676
Oh, S., & Syn, S. Y. (2015). Motivations for sharing information and social support in so
cial media: A comparative analysis of Facebook, Twitter, Delicious, YouTube, and Flickr.
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10), 2045–2060.
doi:10.1002/asi.23320
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Oreg, S., & Nov, O. (2008). Exploring motivations for contributing to open source initia
tives: The roles of contribution context and personal values. Computers in Human Behav
ior, 24(5), 2055–2073. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.09.007
Osatuyi, B. (2013). Information sharing on social media sites. Computers in Human Be
havior, 29(6), 2622–2631. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.001
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Ad
vances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205. doi:10.1016/
S0065-2601(08)60214–2
Phang, C. W., Kankanhalli, A., & Huang, L. (2014). Drivers of quantity and quality of par
ticipation in online policy deliberation forums. Journal of Management Information Sys
tems, 31(3), 172–212. doi:10.1080/07421222.2014.995549
Pirolli, P., & Card, S. (1995, May). Information foraging in information access environ
ments. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems
(pp. 51–58). New York, NY: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/223904.223911
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community.
New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Quan-Haase, A., & Young, A. L. (2010). Uses and gratifications of social media: A compar
ison of Facebook and instant messaging. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30,
350–361. doi:10.1177/027046761038009
Rashid, A. M., Ling, K., Tassone, R. D., Resnick, P., Kraut, R., & Riedl, J. (2006, April). Mo
tivating participation by displaying the value of contribution. Proceedings of the SIGCHI
conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 955–958). New York, NY: ACM
Press. doi:10.1145/1124772.1124915
Page 29 of 34
Rice, R. E. (1987). New patterns of social structure in an information society. In J. Sche

ment & L. Lievrouw (Eds.), Competing visions, complex realities: Social aspects of the in
formation society (pp. 107–120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Rice, R. E. (2004). The Internet and health communication: An overview of issues

(p. 600)
and research. In P. Lee, L. Leung, & C. So (Eds.), Impact and issues in new media: Toward
intelligent societies (pp. 173–204). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Rice, R. E., Evans, S. K., Pearce, K. E., Sivunen, A., Vitak, J., & Treem, J. W. (2017). Orga
nizational media affordances: Operationalization and associations with media use. Journal
of Communication, 67(1), 106–130. doi:10.1111/jcom.12273
Rice, R. E., McCreadie, M., & Chang, S. J. L. (2001). Accessing and browsing information
and communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions
and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67. doi: 10.1006/ceps.
1999.1020
Samak, A., & Sheremeta, R. (2013, May 6). Visibility of contributors and cost of informa
tion: An experiment on public goods. Retrieved from https://mpra.ub.uni-
muenchen.de/46779/1/MPRA_paper_46,779.pdf
Schroer, J., & Hertel, G. (2009). Voluntary engagement in an open web-based encyclope
dia: Wikipedians and why they do it. Media Psychology, 12(1), 96–120. doi:
10.1080/15213260802669466
Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations.
New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Shirky, C. (2010). Cognitive surplus: How technology makes consumers into collaborators.
New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Sillence, E., Briggs, P., Harris, P. R., & Fishwick, L. (2007). How do patients evaluate and
make use of online health information? Social Science & Medicine, 64(9), 1853–1862. doi:
10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.01.012
Simon, H. A. (1972). Theories of bounded rationality. Decision and Organization, 1(1),

161–176.
Smith, D. H. (1981). Altruism, volunteers, and volunteerism. Journal of Voluntary Action

Research, 10, 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/089976408101000105
Sunstein, C. (2006). Infotopia: How many minds produce knowledge. New York, NY: Ox
ford University Press.
Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
Page 30 of 34
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.
Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 2–24). Chicago, IL:
Nelson-Hall.
Taraborelli, D. (2008). How the web is changing the way we trust. In K. Waelbers, A. Brig
gle, & P. Brey (Eds.), Current issues in computing and philosophy (pp. 194–204). Amster
dam: IOS Press.
Thibaut, J. W. & Kelley, H. H. (1965). The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Tsai, M. T., Chang, H. C., Cheng, N. C., & Lien, C. C. (2013). Understanding IT profession
als’ knowledge sharing intention through KMS: A social exchange perspective. Quality &
Quantity, 47(5), 2739–2753. doi: 10.1007/s11135-012-9685-4
Turner, J. C. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup
behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.
2420050102
Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscov
ering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
Usoro, A., Sharratt, M. W., Tsui, E., & Shekhar, S. (2007). Trust as an antecedent
(p. 601)
to knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice. Knowledge Management Re

search & Practice, 5(3), 199–212. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500143
van Doorn, G. S. & Taborsky, M. (2012). The evolution of generalized reciprocity on social
interaction networks. Evolution, 66(3), 651–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558–
5646.2011.01479.x
Wang, Y., & Fesenmaier, D.R. (2003). Assessing motivation of contribution in online com
munities: An empirical investigation of an online travel community. Electronic Markets,
13, 33–45. doi:10.1111/j.1558–56462011.01479.x
Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future re
search. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.hrmr.2009.10.001
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2000). “It is what one does”: Why people participate and help
others in electronic communities of practice. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9,
155–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0963-8687(00)00045-7
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and
knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 35–57.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25148667
Page 31 of 34
Wasko, M. M., & Teigland, R. (2004). Public goods or virtual commons? Applying theories
of public goods, social dilemmas, and collective action to electronic networks of practice.
Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 6, 25–41.
Wasko, M. M., Teigland, R., & Faraj, S. (2009). The provision of online public goods: Ex
amining social structure in an electronic network of practice. Decision Support Systems,
47(3), 254–265. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2009.02.012
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems

Thinker, 9(5), 2–3.
Williams, K., Harkins, S. G., & Latané, B. (1981). Identifiability as a deterrant to social
loafing: Two cheering experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(2),
303–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.40.2.303
Yang, H. L., & Lai, C. Y. (2010). Motivations of Wikipedia content contributors. Computers
in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1377–1383. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.04.011
Yang, X., Li, Y., Tan, C.H., & Teo, H. H. (2007). Students’ participation intention in an on
line discussion forum: Why is computer-mediated interaction attractive? Information &
Management, 44, 456–466. doi:10.1016/j./im.2007.04.003
Yates, D., Wagner, C., & Majchrzak, A. (2010). Factors affecting shapers of organizational
wikis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 61(3), 543–554.
doi:10.1002/asi.21266
Yu, J., Jiang, Z., & Chan, H.C. (2007). Knowledge contribution in problem solving virtual
communities: The mediating role of individual motivations. Proceedings of SIGMIS-CPR
conference on Computer personnel research: The global information technology work
force (pp. 142–152). St. Louis, MO: Association for Computing Machinery. https://
doi.org/10.1145/1235000.1235034
Yu, T. K., Lu, L. C., & Liu, T. F. (2010). Exploring factors that influence knowledge sharing
behavior via weblogs. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(1), 32–41. doi:10.1016/j.chb.
2009.08.002
Yuan, Y. C., Rickard, L. N., Xia, L., & Scherer, C. (2011). The interplay between interper
sonal and electronic resources in knowledge seeking among co-located and distributed
employees. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 62(3),
535–549. doi:10.1002/asi.21472
Zhang, X., de Pablos, P. O., & Zhou, Z. (2013). Effect of knowledge sharing visibili
(p. 602)
ty on incentive-based relationship in Electronic Knowledge Management Systems: An em

pirical investigation. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 307–313. doi:10.1016/j.chb.
2012.01.029
Page 32 of 34
Zhu, H., Zhang, A., He, J., Kraut, R. E., & Kittur, A. (2013). Effects of peer feedback on
contribution: A field experiment in Wikipedia. In Proceedings CHI 2013 (pp. 2253–2262).
New York, NY: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2481311
Kristin Page Hocevar
Kristin Page Hocevar (PhD, UC Santa Barbara) is an Assistant Professor at Southern

Oregon University. She has worked in television, documentary film, and web produc
tion for multiple Public Broadcasting Service stations and affiliated organizations.
Her current research focuses on online health information sharing, selection, and
evaluation, and the social and health implications of the interactions, communities,
and pooled information facilitated by the Internet.
Audrey N. Abeyta
Audrey N. Abeyta (MA, UCSB) is a doctoral candidate at the University of California,

Santa Barbara and an instructor in the Department of Communication at the Univer
sity of Missouri. Her research explores the creation and consumption of online infor
mation, focusing specifically on individuals’ motivations to share information online
and their assessment of that information. Audrey teaches courses in public speaking,
group communication, research methods, and statistics.
Ronald E. Rice
Page 33 of 34
Page 34 of 34
ESCR Review: Governance and Security

Simeon J. Yates, Gerwyn Jones, William H. Dutton, and Elinor Carmi
This chapter describes the analyses and results for the ESRC Domain of Governance and
Security, guided by two questions: What are the challenges of ethics, trust, and consent in
the digital age? How do we define responsibility and accountability in the digital age? It
first provides an overview of the major insights from the literature review and analysis,
the Delphi surveys, and workshop discussions about pertinent concepts of governance
and security in a digital age. The most frequent concepts emerging from topic modelling
included social movements and protest communication, Internet governance, measure
ment, automation, EU commission and privacy, urban migration mobile, social media, law
enforcement, and Marxist analysis. Comparing these results with the most common
words in the literature review, five major topics emerged: state use of digital media, espe
cially surveillance of social movements and protest; Internet regulation and governance,
both national and international; children’s use of digital media, both protection and regu
lation; regulation and governance of automated systems; and deception in digital media.
Gradually, emphases shifted from regulation of general technology use to concerns with
privacy, data protection, and children’s use of digital technologies. The analyses also
identified the kinds of theory, methods, and approaches in the literature. The review pro
vides examples of literature in the project’s time period that illustrate these topics. It
ends with a discussion of future research directions (e.g., accountability for digital sys
tems and their impacts, algorithms and the law, human factors in cyber security, and
ethics) and research challenges (e.g., cybersecurity, governance, and transnational gover
nance).
Keywords: ESCR Review, governance, security, digital media, social movements and protest, Internet regulation
and governance, regulation, deception, privacy, data protection
Introduction
THIS chapter provides an overview of the analyses of the literature, Delphi process and
any relevant workshops for the Governance and Security domain. The chapter first ex
plores the results of the various digital humanities analyses of the literature and the re
Page 1 of 40
view of methods and theory. In the case of this domain the Delphi process did not provide
as clear a set of ideas by the close of the second round. Not only did the responses move
away from the initial scoping questions, there was also a lot overlap with the Citizenship
and Politics domain (chapter 16). We have therefore focused on those topics that are dis
tinct from the other domains. The recommendations for areas of future study are present
ed in the last section. As a reminder, the initial ESRC scoping questions for this area of
work were
• What are the challenges of ethics, trust and consent in the digital age?
• How do we define responsibility and accountability in the digital age?
Initial Comments
The naming of this domain as “Governance and Security” broadened the potential re
sponses to a wider range of topics than these initial scoping questions, as became clear in
the Delphi review, including elements from other domains. Separating out the distinctive
elements, we identified an emphasis on issues of privacy, law, and governance. However,
issues of trust, accountability, and responsibility and their governance remain (p. 606) im
portant. A key issue was brought up by team members and by stakeholders in Digital
Leader salon events—namely the relative success of some, but more often the well docu
mented failure of other, government projects to successfully deploy digital technologies
for governance. There is little literature from this review that empirically documents the
failure, over the last quarter century, of successive governments to exploit the particular
communicative and networking affordances of digital technology in the interests of more
equitable, inclusive, and cost-effective government. As will be discussed later, the ab
sence from the Delphi review and the literature of detailed work on success and failure
factors may indicate a key area for future work.
Literature Analysis
Topics
The literature analysis is designed to identify two sets of data. First, key topics within the
existing literature, which also allow comparison with areas of importance identified by
the Delphi review. Second, a content analysis of the literature to explore the predomi
nance of specific theory, methods, and approaches. Table 22.1 lists the 10 most common
(at least 2% of the cases) concepts identified in the Round 1 literature. Table 22.2 lists the
concept pairs.
Page 2 of 40
Topic Percent
Child 11.1
Datum 7.3
Privacy 6.8
Law 5.0
Internet 4.7
Information 4.4
Parent 4.0
Governance 3.9
Protection 3.0
Innovation 2.9
Health 2.8
Government 2.2
Inspectorate 2.1
Code 2.0
Page 3 of 40
child 19.15 health 4.85 law 8.60
childhood 1.47 item 1.47 principle 1.92
harm 3.10 locus 1.14 protection 2.89
literacy 1.87 score 1.10 rule 2.81
parent 5.42 topic 1.14 weber .98
pornography 3.55 innovation 4.97 parent 6.97
robot 3.75 logic 1.10 quality 1.92
code 3.50 meaning 1.87 restriction .73
regulation 2.16 police 2.00 school 3.63
zip 1.34 inspectorate 3.67 visit .69
datum 12.67 parent 1.79 privacy 11.74
directive 2.57 school 1.87 protection 6.60
Page 4 of 40
inspectorate 1.02 internet 8.03 regulator 1.55
protection 6.40 legitimacy 1.83 rev .61
regulator 1.34 para .65 security 2.97
request 1.34 protocol 2.53 protection 5.22
governance 6.81 religion .90 regulation 1.55
internet 5.75 religiosity 1.06 right 3.67
security 1.06 self-regulation 1.06
government 3.83
probability .98
regulation 1.67
Note: bolded term is the main concept; the unbolded terms below that and above the line are the related sub-con
cepts.
Page 5 of 40
Page 6 of 40
Topics Keywords Eigenvalue Freq Cases Cases (%)
Social move SOCIAL; COM 1.80 40,072 592 97.9

ments and MUN; SOCIETI;
protest com POLIT; MEDIA;
munication ORGAN; PRO
TEST; MOVE
MENT; THEORI
Internet gov GOVERN; SEC 1.53 35,868 578 95.5

ernance TOR; PRIVAT;
SERVIC; PUB
LIC; POLICI;
INTERNET;
REGUL; BUSI
Measurement VARIABL; WA; 3.31 23,554 572 94.6

MEASUR;
TEST; RATE;
PARTICIP; AV
ERAG; EFFECT
Page 7 of 40
Automation HUMAN; AU 1.58 16,711 565 93.4

TONOM;
AGENT; RO
BOT; COMPUT;
SYSTEM
EU commis EUROPEAN; 1.72 22,750 562 92.9

sion and pri PRIVACI; COM
vacy MISS; PRO
TECT; EU; DA
TA; IMPACT;
ASSESS
Urban migra CHINA; MI 2.95 9095 522 86.3

tion mobile GRANT;
CHINES; UR
BAN; CITI;
PHONE;
MOBIL; CLASS;
LABOR; ICT
Social media FACEBOOK; 2.13 8508 504 83.3

SITE; TWIT
TER; USER;
GOOGL
Page 8 of 40
Law enforce LAW; LEGAL; 9.67 15,647 497 82.2

ment COURT; EN
FORC; REGUL;
RULE; PRO
TECT; CRIMIN
Marxist analy CAPIT; CAPI 2.35 7147 493 81.5

sis TALIST; MARX;
LABOUR;
ECONOMI;
FUCH; PROD
UCT
Education TEACHER; 1.83 6712 484 8.0

LEARNER;
STUDENT;
CLASSROOM;
LEARN; EDUC
Children’s in CHILDREN; 2.49 7451 436 72.1

ternet use PARENT;
CHILD;
LIVINGSTON;
RISK
Page 9 of 40
Voting ELECT; VOTE; 1.92 3525 383 63.3

PARTI; DEMOC
RAT
Employment EMPLOY; EM 1.98 2481 262 43.3

PLOYE; WORK
ER
Deception DECEPT; DE 1.68 2871 256 42.3

CEIV; TRUTH;
DETECT; BUR
GOON
Surveillance VEILLANC; 1.93 1218 90 14.9

SUR
Page 10 of 40
All the literature collected from both rounds was analysed using WordStat. WordStat
identified 15 topics, shown in Table 22.3. There is a much stronger correlation between
(p. 607) the topic and concept mapping for this domain (see Table 22.4). There appear to
be five major topics in this literature:
• State use of digital media—especially with regard to surveillance of social move

ments and protest
• Internet regulation and governance—both national and international
• Children’s use of digital media—both protection and regulation
• Regulation and governance of automated systems
• Deception in digital media
Page 11 of 40
Co So In Me Au EU Ur So La Ma Ed Chi Vot Em De Sur
nce cia ter asu to co ba cia w rx uca ldr ing plo cep veil
pt/ l net re ma m n l en ist tio en’ ym tio lan
Top mo gov me tio mis mi me for an n s ent n ce
ic ve er nt n sio gra dia ce al in
me na n tio me ysi ter
nts nce an n nt s net
an d mo use
d pri bil
pro va e
tes cy
t
co
m
mu
nic
ati
on
Chi X
ld
Da X
tu
m
Page 12 of 40
Pri X X
va
cy
La X
w
In X X
ter
net
In
for
ma
tio
n
Par X
ent
Go
ver
na
nce
Page 13 of 40
Pro X
tec
tio
n
In X
no
va
tio
n
He X
al
th
Go X
ver
nm
ent
In X X
spe
cto
rat
e
Page 14 of 40
Co X
de
Page 15 of 40
Looking at the variation in key concepts from 2000 to the present, there is a shift from
general issues around the regulation of technology use, to a much stronger contemporary
focus on privacy and data protection. One consistent conceptual focus is on the use of
digital technologies by children.
In terms of the most frequently occurring topic pairs, early on (2000–2004; Figure 22.1),
the primary concerns were about Internet use or access, information and (p. 608) technol
ogy, cable companies and cable policies concerning access and broadband, technical poli
cy issues such as information and privacy or government and statistics or domain names,
computers and education (schools, teachers, students), technology and women, and chil
dren and media.1 By 2012–2016 (Figure 22.2) emphases had shifted to greater coverage
of parents and school or education, data and information (p. 609) (p. 610) privacy and pro
tection, and concerns with children and risk or various media (Internet, medium, social
networking sites), as well as more explicit treatment of relationships among data, infor
mation, education, and school.
Figure 22.1 Governance and security 2000–2004:

Page 16 of 40
Figure 22.2 Governance and security 2012–2016:

State use of digital systems. In contrast to the Citizenship and Politics domain (chapter
16) where engagement with politics and political action via digital media is a focus, here
the question is about the extent to which governments monitor, control, or utilize digital
media. Within this are debates around the rights of citizens, the use and sharing of
citizen’s data, and broader concerns about “surveillance societies.” For example, Elahi
(2009) sets out five dilemmas about the way data is used, how it is stored, for what pur
poses, and who has access to it. The first dilemma is about tensions and shifts among cul
tures, values, and identities, and attempts to find a shared practice and set of regulatory
practices for them all. The second is about individual rights versus society’s well-being.
The third is conflicting attitudes about data ownership. The fourth is about tensions
around scale in terms of temporal, geographical, and political environments. And finally,
fifth is about trust and control. As Elahi notes:
(p. 611)
The institutions tasked with regulation of the physical world are not equipped with
the necessary speed and flexibility to undertake a similar role in the virtual world;
the scale and scope of the task are materially different. The challenge for the fu
ture of privacy and consent in the cyberspace domain is one of adaptation.
(Elahi, 2009, p. 114)
One of the key tensions in the literature, and potentially between the work presented in
this domain with that of the Citizenship and Politics domain, is this one between individ
ual and state needs, and thus rights and the balance of power in political systems. Again,
as Elahi notes:
Page 17 of 40
While digital technology has increased the power of the individual, it has also
challenged the human rights of the individual with regard to privacy and consent.
The same technologies that have forced governments and institutions to become
more transparent and driven down costs for the consumer have also enabled
(p. 612) governments and businesses to collect personal information on the public
to an unprecedented degree.
(Elahi, 2009, p. 115)
The use of digital and media technologies to monitor citizens has been widely debated.
Lyon has written on this at length, noting how digital surveillance has become an in
escapable part of everyday life in the global north. Lyon suggests thinking about surveil
lance as “social sorting” in order to divert the singular focus on privacy. Lyon argues that
we have seen “the rise of the safety state” which enables social sorting and other discrim
inatory judgment through the processing of personal data for the purpose of care or con
trol. These automated surveillance systems enable the state to gain have power over citi
zens through influencing or managing people’s behaviors. he shows how digital surveil
lance has become everyday practice in a wide variety of organizations such as schools,
day care for children, or in the protection of homes. Importantly, Lyon notes that this is
not necessarily in all cases an attempt to create a centralized surveillance state. Surveil
lance is often fragmented among organizations and between state and private organiza
tions. As Lyon notes:
In many cases, however, surveillance is the by-product, accompaniment, or even

unintended consequence of other processes and practices. It is sometimes not un
til some system is installed for another purpose that its surveillance potential be
comes apparent … Retailers may install ceiling mounted cameras in stores to com
bat shoplifting only to discover that this is also a really good way of monitoring
employees as well.
(Lyon, 2010, p. 111)
As has become very apparent with the rise of “Big Data,” everyday interactions become
points of surveillance:
… the mundane activities of shopping using credit and loyalty cards may also con
tribute to profoundly significant processes of automated social sorting into newer
spatially based social class categories that modify older formations of class and
status.
(Lyon, 2010, p. 112)
One of the major social concerns that is reflected in the research is the use of data by the
state to directly monitor citizens. Brown and Korff (2009) argue that the disproportionate
power of surveillance enabled by the Internet and conducted by police, intelligent agen
cies, and government is problematic for democracy and rule of law. They raise concerns
that grounds for suspicion that agencies such as the police need to justify monitoring and
Page 18 of 40
surveillance of digital media has become increasingly vague—especially in the context of

counter-terrorism. These debates have been played out in a range of policy measures and
legislation in Europe over the last decade and have become more pressing with the rise of
social media. The recent European “General Data Protection Regulation” (GDPR, 2016)
has provided some very restrictive requirements on uses of citizens’ data, though we wit
ness a range of caveats for policing and security work. However, the GDPR’s principles fit
with Brown and Korff’s argument that data should not be held (p. 613) “just in
case” (2009, p. 129). The political, social, and research debate around the justified use of
citizens’ data and the surveillance of citizens is on-going. Those such as Brown and Korff
who are concerned about the regulation of digital surveillance argue the following:
… the collection of data on ‘contacts and associates’ (i.e., on persons not suspect
ed of involvement in a specific crime or of posing a threat), the collection of infor
mation through intrusive, secret means (telephone tapping and email intercep
tion) and the use of ‘profiling’ techniques, and indeed ‘preventive’ policing gener
ally, must be subject to a particularly strict ‘necessity’ and ‘proportionality’ test,
and surrounded with particularly strong safeguards.
(Brown & Korff, 2009, p. 130)
Such concerns overlap with the next topic, namely the regulation—by both government
and commercial platform providers—of digital media and technology use.
Internet regulation and governance. An obvious area of research work is on the gov
ernance of digital media themselves. This covers a range of issues including attempts by
national government and international agencies to regulate digital media, its use, for
mats, and access. It also covers the governance and regulation of technical standards and
data protection, through to the legal underpinnings of our use of specific platforms. A key
area is the manner in which commercial providers of digital technologies, platforms, and
media regulate their use, and the use they make of citizens’ data. This ranges from copy
right issues through to “acceptable” use as well as commercial use of collected data. For
example, Pollach (2005) examines commercial websites’ privacy policies and checks
whether they adequately communicate data handling practices so that people can have
informed decisions when using the web. Her analyses show that most of the policies are
written in complicated and vague ways, justify placing cookies on people’s computers,
and set the default to sending unsolicited marketing communication. Only some of the
websites openly and clearly admit to sharing and selling people’s data with third party
companies. Pollach argues that these companies use several communicative strategies
such as mitigation and enhancement, obfuscation, relationship building, and persuasive
appeals, noting:
Overall, the analysis of communicative strategies in privacy policies has revealed

that they contain vague statements, which prevents informed consent on the part
of Internet users and may lead to ethical problems if they misinterpret the claims
made in these documents.
Page 19 of 40
(Pollach, 2005, p. 232)
Such behavior has policy and ethical implications:
Web merchants do not seem to abide by these common ethical principles when
they communicate their privacy standards. It seems that they still need to learn
how to use the power the Internet has bestowed on them in an ethical and re
spectful way, for example by posting clearly and unequivocally worded privacy
policies.
(Pollach, 2005, p. 232)
At a national and transnational government level there has been a sustained poli
(p. 614)
cy drive to support the development of digital technologies, digital service, and more
broadly a “digital society.” Mansell (2014) examines the history of policy initiatives de
signed to push the “Digital Agenda” from the mid-1980s to the present. The goal of the
work is to provide a critical assessment of the values and priorities these policy agendas
portray. Mansell focuses on the flagship European initiative “A Digital Agenda for Eu
rope,” arguing that economic growth is one of the top priorities endorsed by the Euro
pean Commission and that the program privileges the commercial interests of industry
stakeholders:
There is a continuous emphasis on stimulating investment in the infrastructure, in

the early period, in reference to promoting integrated broadband communication
and, later, to underpinning the mobile Internet and new delivery channels and
platforms.
(Mansell, 2014, p. 207)
She further argues that the social and citizen (demand side) aspects of digital technology
policies have been underplayed in these policies:
Social and demand-side issues made appearances but the principal goals re
mained consistent with supply-oriented strategies, commercial market priorities
and competitiveness. These tensions reflect the contradictory values embedded in
the scaffolding of information society policies. They are particularly visible in
three areas: (i) trust and security; (ii) open information and copyright; and (iii)
public service media.
(Mansell, 2014, p. 207)
These two areas come together in the actual use of systems by citizens and in their un
derstandings of how they and their data are regulated. For example, Fogel and Nehmad
(2009) provide an early example of the examination of risk taking, trust, and privacy con
cerns in relation to social media—focusing on the use of Facebook and Myspace by col
lege students. Young people who had a social media profile were significantly more risk-
Page 20 of 40
taking in data they shared than ones that did not, and men tended to take more risks and
to have less privacy concerns than women:
As the Internet is not a private club, clearly those who are posting information
about themselves on their social networking profiles are more comfortable with
the possible risks of their information being seen by others.
(Fogel & Nehmad, 2009, p. 159)
Such work points out that many aspects of regulation are relative to the social and cultur
al expectations of citizens. Data that contemporary users may be happy to share may
have been considered too private or too risky to share by a prior generation. It may also
be the case that users look to play off potential risks of data sharing with the benefits and
services offered by platforms. Or alternatively, repeated data breeches and their implica
tions may make people more wary of what data they share. Even in this early work of so
cial media Fogel and Nehmad note:
(p. 615)
As our data were collected in 2007 … it is possible that more people are aware to
day of the possible privacy concerns of disclosing a home address on a social net
working profile.
(Fogel & Nehmad, 2009, p. 159)
When it comes to sharing and privacy risks of data, most of the concerns arise around
children’s use of digital technologies, as the next section discusses.
Children’s use of digital media. Regulating children’s use of any new medium (from ra
dio to TV to computer games) has always generated a strong research program. This is
very much the case for the full variety of digital media and technologies. Such work often
focuses on aspects of media regulation, but more in-depth work explores how govern
ment, schools, and parents look to manage and regulate digital media use by children.
One of the key researchers in this area, Sonia Livingstone, early on examined the emerg
ing research agenda in relation to children’s Internet use (2003). Some of the problems in
this initial research were: seeing children as a homogenous category, while rendering
them marginal to “general” Internet use. As Livingstone argues, there is not enough con
sideration taken of what children and youth actually do and want from the Internet,
which leads to a lack of proper understanding of how they use it. Primarily, she argues
that children’s main interest in the Internet is new opportunities to communicate with
their social networks; hence, most of the contacts are mostly local. In terms of education,
there is little evidence on whether or how the Internet benefits children’s education.
Livingstone notes that differences in digital media use between adults and children can
also lead to challenges in regard to digital media use in the home:
Page 21 of 40
Parents are developing strategies to manage and regulate the internet within the
home, framed by educational aspirations for their children; meanwhile children
prefer online entertainment centred on fandom transferred from already estab
lished media—music, celebrities, sports, television programmes.
(Livingstone, 2003, p. 149)
She also points out that much of the early debate around digital technology use by chil
dren focuses on its educational value:
Parents themselves seem conflicted about the value of computers, and in some
ways they are also in conflict with their children. This conflict centers on the po
tential educational value of computers, on the use of so-called ‘educational’ appli
cations, and on the grey area of ‘edutainment.’
(Livingstone, 2003, p. 153)
Livingstone and Bober (2006) explore the negotiations that parents conduct with their
children in regard to the opportunities and risks that Internet use entails, as they seek for
meaningful engagement with it in their daily lives. Parents’ strategies are often con
cerned with practicalities (such as affordability), use (through discussion, sharing media
time with children, and control), and cultural and cognitive issues relating to (p. 616) the
Internet. Children’s tactics, however, are often about resisting these strategies, especially
since they sometimes have more expertise with new media than their parents. The au
thors take a child-centered approach, which includes in the research design an examina
tion of adult-child divergence and taking into account the child’s concerns:
At least two difficulties undermine parents’ attempts to regulate their children’s

internet use. The first is that while parents are responsible for their children’s
safety, they must also manage their children’s growing independence and rights to
privacy, something that children themselves feel strongly about. The second is
that, as parents and children agree, children are more often more expert on the
internet than their parents.
(Livingstone & Bober, 2006, p. 103)
In the conclusion of their substantive work Kids Online, Livingstone and Haddon (2009)
argue that research about children needs to be conducted with them, not on them. In ad
dition, usage varies, influenced by socio-economic differences which correlate with edu
cation and regional and other sources of inequality. In terms of gender, they note that
there has been a substantive increase in girls’ use of the Internet to the point of parity, al
though there are still some key differences in types of use linked to gender preferences
and confidence in skills.
As the Internet and digital media have developed, so has the assessment of the risks
faced by children using the Internet. The authors identify more contemporary risks as be
ing commercial exploitation, hate online, seeing violence and harmful content, seeing
Page 22 of 40
pornography, and self-harm. Yet the benefits from digital media use are also complex and
not solely derived from educational uses:
Two implications follow. First, the simple fact of using the internet may not mean
that a child achieves their potential or gets the most from it, and further support
and encouragement to progress or expand their activities may be required. Se
cond, the fact that a child plays games online may not be, as worried adults are
tempted to judge, a ‘waste of time,’ for this may represent a step towards further
activities, one that is fun, gives confidence and develops skills.
(Livingstone & Haddon, 2009, p. 5)
With the rise of social media and the linkage between social media use, popular media,
and interpersonal interaction, concerns have shifted to issues of young adults and rela
tionships. This work clearly overlaps with the Communication and Relationships (chapter
8) domain. Within this, feminist scholars have pointed out the extent to which existing in
equities and sexual double standards remain, and may be reinforced by, the use of digital
media. As an example, Ringrose et al. (2013) examine teens’ (12–15) digital image ex
change, commonly called “sexting,” mainly focused on the UK context. The researchers
have conducted interviews, focus groups, and analyzed Facebook and Blackberry online
posts. They argue that teen girls receive contradictory messages about the way to per
form their gender; on the one hand they are supposed to perform and (p. 617) produce
forms of “sexy” self-display, and on the other hand they face legal, moral, and “slut sham
ing” consequences. The authors argue that
we have to understand the underlying gendered discourses and power that enable
a context where girls’ mediated body parts (e.g., images of breasts) are highly val
ued as commodities, where it is possible for such images to be traded like curren
cy, which then constructs a situation where girls stand to ‘lose’ something (namely
their sexual reputation) when images are shared, in ways similar to debates on fe
male virginity.
(Ringrose et al., 2013, pp. 319–320)
Thus identities and social roles are shaped and changed, in part through their articula
tion via digital media and technologies. As Ringrose et al. note, since girls must negotiate
moral discourses regarding their sexual reputation, and being attractive and wanted,
when deciding whether to send images, this suggests a new norm of feminine desirability
as mediated (though not determined) by the affordances of digital technology. (Ringrose
et al., 2013, p. 312).
Regulation and governance of automated systems. A growing a new area of concern

is that around the governance of automated systems—especially when understood as arti
ficial intelligence (AI). An example from early in our data set is Quesenbery (2002), who
provides an overview of electronic performance support systems (EPSS) such as intelli
gent agents, information visualization, search engines, and collaborative filtering. These
Page 23 of 40
agents have several properties: they are reactive, autonomous, goal-oriented, temporally
continuous, communicative, adaptive, mobile, flexible and demonstrate “character.” They
help users by performing tasks autonomously, training or teaching users, helping users
collaborate, or monitoring procedures. Importantly, Quesenbery points out that despite
their benefits, agents have several drawbacks, particularly around trust, privacy, control,
and personalization:
Users must trust that the software will work properly, and help them do their jobs
well and provide adequate support for those tasks, but they do not typically need
to worry about whether it will work in ways that are contrary to their own inter
ests. They may, however, not feel trusted by their employer if they are not suffi
ciently empowered to do their work by overly restrictive software or inadequate
performance support.
(Quesenbery, 2002, p. 454)
This concern about trust runs through much of the literature on the social and organiza
tional impacts of automation and was a major theme of our workshops that explored the
impacts of automation and augmentation (see chapter 24). A key issue in the discussion of
trust in AI and automated systems is the visibility of their underlying processes—the ex
tent to which they are a “black box.”
A critical factor in establishing trust is how transparent the agent’s action is—that
is, how easily the user can see inside the transaction or independently validate the
results. This transparency is just as important in establishing trust with a software
agent as with a human vendor.
(Quesenbery, 2002, p. 455)
Ethics stand out as a key concern in this literature. Sharkey and Sharkey (2012)
(p. 618)
outline the development of robot applications for helping the elderly and their carers,
monitoring their health and providing them companionship.
As well as giving the elderly an increased sense of control and autonomy, robotic
assistive technology could increase the social contact the elderly person experi
ences, by making it possible for them to get to and from social meeting places;
again with likely improvements in their psychological welfare.
(Sharkey and Sharkey, 2012, p. 31)
However, the authors raise six ethical concerns around this topic based on human rights
and shared human values:
1. The reduction of human contact because of the robots leading to neglect

2. Increasing of feelings of objectification and losing control
3. Loss of privacy
4. Loss of personal liberty
Page 24 of 40
5. Potential for deception and loss of dignity

6. The conditions by which elderly people should be able to control the robots
Importantly, Sharkey and Sharkey do not use these ethical concerns as an argument
against the use of robots, but rather they emphasize that with a proper balance between
benefits and ethical issues, robots could improve the quality of life of elderly people.
They also point out that there is a need for governance and regulation, as technologies
are moving beyond current legislation. This issue of digital media and technologies mov
ing beyond current governance provision and the need to balance innovation and regula
tion permeates many of the domains covered in this book: for example, social media plat
forms in the context of both interpersonal and political communication, data use by major
platforms, or technologies in health care. In relation to health care based robotics,
Sharkey and Sharkey note:
Since the effect of robots on the lives of the elderly depends on the ways in which
they are deployed, the development of guidelines about their use in care homes,
and in their own homes, could help to guard against their misuse. At present,
apart from fundamental human rights legislation, there is little protection for el
derly people against the potential downsides of robot care.
(Sharkey & Sharkey, 2012, p. 37)
One area where ethics, regulation, and trust of autonomous systems is most acute is
around their use for military and policing activities (related to the first topic of state use
of digital systems). For example, Noorman and Johnson (2014) seeks to uncover the
“black box” discourse around the autonomy of military robots to show how the question
of responsibility changes once this framing is peeled back. Noorman and Johnson argue
that more analysis into what is inside robots is needed in order to understand responsibil
ity (p. 619) issues surrounding military autonomous robots. They uncover the negotiations
about the meaning of autonomy of robots, and the desires and goals of various social
groups with an interest in the development of these technologies. Their argument is that
humans still have influence and hence responsibility in autonomous robots:
1. Designers and developers outline the problem that these autonomous systems are
supposed to solve and create their behavior.
2. Norms and rules still govern the behavior of autonomous systems.
3. These systems depend on people who develop verification and validation methods
of ensuring trust and confidence of such systems.
Technologies do not merely replace human beings; rather they complement and
change human activity. They allow human actors to do things they could not do be
fore, and as a result they shift roles and responsibilities and create new ones. So it
is with robots. Tracing the distinctive ways in which robotic systems perform tasks
is essential to understanding how tasks and responsibilities are created and dis
tributed across the broader sociotechnical system.
Page 25 of 40
(Noorman & Johnson, 2014, p. 55)
In this sense they are repeating the key argument of Actor Network Theory (see Latour, &
Woolgar, 1986, for example) in which human agency is key at all stages, but that elements
of systems with agency are no longer just humans. Many aspects of the social system—be
that a robot or a workplace device—become “black boxes” where the social and technical
systems and infrastructures behind them are hidden from the user or citizen. Thus,
The important question is not whether human actors can be held responsible (they
can), but how tasks are distributed among human and non-human components of
the system, whether the machine parts have been adequately tested, whether the
human actors involved have been adequately trained for their tasks, what risks
are involved, and how those risks are being managed and minimized.
(Noorman & Johnson, 2014, p. 60)
As with the other review chapters, the following analysis builds on Borah (2017). It ex
plores the extent to which theory and methods were employed in the reviewed papers.
Most of the analysed papers (60%) were inductive, either describing findings or building
theory, with 40% being deductive (testing existing theory). Only 24% of the papers under
took primary data collection, with 63% being discursive reviews of or reflective on exist
ing research (Table 22.5). The main disciplines from which theory was used or for which
theory was developed were sociology (52%), psychology (17%), communication and me
dia (12%), politics (9%), economics (5%), and philosophy (3%). Only actual use of (p. 620)
theory for the purposes of design or analysis were coded; general reference to prior work
and theory were not coded. There was considerable variety in the specific theories ap
plied from these disciplines. Theories of the information or networked society prevailed in
the sociology discipline (12% of total) and theories of identity within psychology (3%). Of
the theories explored, either empirically or discursively, it was those pertaining to the in
formational or network society that proved most popular. This was followed by those that
examined privacy, the public/private sphere, or political economy. Surprisingly little atten
tion appears to have been paid to exploring issues of trust between government and the
governed, public participation in the government decision-making process or, indeed uses
of technology to improve the governance of our communities.
For those studies that undertook empirical research, the main research methods were lit
erature reviews (38%), surveys (26%), and interviews (16%), with 61% qualitative and
39% quantitative (Tables 22.6 and 22.7), with none of the work using a “big data” ap
proach. The majority of the empirical work focused on specific groups, with a limited
number of general population studies (Table 22.8).
Page 26 of 40
Percent
Primary empirical (data collected and analysed) 23.6
Table 22.6 Research Methods
Percent
Literature Review (general or narrative) 38.0
Survey 26.7
Interview(s) 16.0
Focus groups 4.0
Ethnography 4.0
Experiment 1.3
Other 1.3
Percent
Discourse (textual-linguistic-discourse) .7
Page 27 of 40
Percent
Specific group 67.3
Unfortunately, there is little account (as of yet) of how government, at either the national
or local level, has managed and responded to the social media and big data revolutions. It
is a surprising omission given the recent emphasis on the centrality of government, par
ticularly local government, to implementing aspects of “digital society” from the “smart
city agenda,” through “digital by default government services” to industrial strategies fo
cused on AI and automation. This may be a feature of the selected literature, as we have
focused primarily on social research, and much of the recent work on the technologies of
digital government has been undertaken within the Information and Computer Science
disciplines. That literature reports on designing and building technical systems, with
some social science input rather than with much examination of their actual social im
pacts.
There was limited discussion of how technology might be used to “foster a civic well-be
ing.” This would fit with arguments made in the ESRC project’s Digital Leaders Salons
and review events with stakeholders, where a “public value” orientation for the adminis
tration of public services in place of the current was put forward. This was contrasted
with current digital government approaches that are formulated much more around sys
tems efficiency and cost savings—referred to by some as the New Public Management
paradigm, as in the United Kingdom. It was argued that a public value governance ap
proach to service delivery and regulation is more congruent with the information and
communication affordances of digital technology, particularly those associated with the
(p. 621) advent of social media. As such it may be more likely to usher in a smart gover
nance process that can integrate and take advantage of the local democratic and econom
ic opportunities long associated with digital media, but which local government has hith
erto failed to grasp. However, these emergent ideas do rest upon a number of assump
tions, not least of which that there is a favorable local governance environment capable of
sustaining this approach, that have themselves received little empirical investigation.
Delphi Review
The following sections detail the results of the Delphi process for the Governance and Se
curity domain, covering suggested scoping or research questions, key topics to address
within these questions, and key challenges to researching these questions.
Page 28 of 40
(p. 622) Future Research and Scoping Questions
The Delphi review identified a set of scoping questions for the domain; these were coded
into the eight categories detailed in Table 22.9, while Table 22.10 presents their ranked
importance from the confirmatory survey. As will be discussed later (chapter 25), there
are a number of areas identified in the scoping question and challenges analysis that
cross-cut all the domains, a key one being ethics.
Page 29 of 40

category
Privacy and How do we manage privacy in the age of Wik

access to iLeaks? Can any email or digital communication be
work of gov considered private or should all Government offi
ernment and cials, including University Professors, assume their
public bodies email is open for the public to read?
Fake news How do we separate fact from fiction? Once claim

being made in the current US Electoral campaign is
that WikiLeaks and other hackers are trying to in
fluence the US election by not only revealing but al
so manipulating the information they leak. How
does the public know that leaked information is ac
curate?
Accountabili In addition to regulatory oversight, how do we en

ty for digital courage organisations, especially companies, to
systems and recognise and accept responsibility and account
their impacts ability for their actions?
Transnation How do we go about making rules in the digital

al gover economy? It may be worthwhile to explore how the
nance of digi TPP (let’s call it TPP2) might be negotiated using
tal economy processes for the digital economy.
Algorithms What are the risks to modern norms and practices

and the law of law as more and more of our interactions and da
ta are defined by algorithms we do not understand
or have access to, as well as by monetization
processes—as these and related phenomena under
mine basic conceptions of transparency, agency, au
tonomy, respect for the human person, etc.?
Human fac On security, it’s been said that the weakest link in
tors in cyber security is the human element. Yet, a lot of the work
security seems to be in the technical/technological area.
What can be done to improve the human element in
security?
Page 30 of 40
Ethics How will ethics—especially the virtue ethics ques

tion of what is the good life, the good life worth liv
ing, both individually and collectively—proceed as
our technological future becomes ever less pre
dictable as it simultaneously threatens all but un
thinkable outcomes? (See Vallor, 2016).
Agency and What will happen to our sense of human identity,

autonomy in agency, and capacities for intimate relationships,
digital age ranging from friendship through long-term relation
ships and parenting as AIs and social robots be
come increasingly human-like, thereby calling into
question core notions of agency and autonomy, af
fection and love, etc. (Cf. the Foundation for Re
sponsible Robotics, https://responsiblerobotics.org/,
for a much more extensive list of questions.)
Accountability for digital systems and their impacts 16.7
Algorithms and the law 16.7
Human factors in cyber security 16.7
Ethics 16.7
Fake news 11.1
Agency and autonomy in digital age 11.1
Privacy and access to work of government and public 5.6

bodies
Transnational governance of digital economy 5.6
The consultation workshop identified a set of scoping areas that added to those
(p. 623)
from the Delphi process, namely:
• Understanding government levels (international, national, regional, local)

• The role of key decision makers within government
Page 31 of 40
• Cultural differences in digital governance

• Legalization behind users, uses and technology developments
• Public services—especially how surveillance is now “normal”
• A need for a focus on policy instead of starting with the technology
• What are digital technologies’ role in governance in very different socio-economic ar
eas?
We note that these issues are far more focused on aspects of governance than on the
more personal issues of trust and accountability in the original scoping questions. The
topics identified in the Delphi review were coded into 10 categories shown in Table 22.11,
with their ranked importance from the confirmatory survey in Table 22.12.

es
Topic Percent
Cyber security 37
Governance of digital economy 11
Government digitization 11
Privacy 11
Education 5
Ethics 5
Legal issues 5
Methods 5
Political communication 5
Transnational governance 5
Page 32 of 40

tant tant
Privacy 83.3% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Cyber security 66.7 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Governance of 33.3 50.0 16.7 0.0 0.0

digital economy
Government 16.7 50.0 33.3 0.0 0.0

digitization
Page 33 of 40
The consultation workshop highlighted the following additional topics or modifica

(p. 624)
tions to topics:
• Access to data (who owns it?) And how “re-combining data” needs to be included in
privacy issues
• Legislation governing the digital economy
• Citizens’ attitudes toward digital technology governance and links with actual behav
ior
• Cyber-security needing to be broadened out to be more relevant to people and soci
ety (what exactly are the dangers?)
Research Challenges
grouped into 8 categories. Table 22.13 lists these, ranked by the number of coded items,
with those deemed by the consultation workshop to be domain specific marked in bold.
Table 22.14 shows their ranking by the confirmation survey.
(p. 626) Table 22.13 Challenges Ranked by Percent of Cases
Challenge Percent
Ethics 31
Big data and analytics 23
Cross-cultural engagement 8
Cybersecurity 8
Digital divide 8
Disruptive change 8
Governance 8
Transnational governance 8
Note: Those considered as specific to the Governance and Security

domain in bold.
Page 34 of 40

tant tant
Big data and an 66.7% 16.7% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0%

alytics - both
methods and
use by govern
ment
Detecting cyber 50.0 33.3 16.7 0.0 0.0

attacks
Ethics for digi 16.7 66.7 16.7 0.0 0.0

tal research
Transnational 16.7 66.7 0.0 16.7 0.0

governance of
digital economy
Understanding 16.7 50.0 33.3 0.0 0.0

disruptive
change
Understanding 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 0.0

digital divides
Page 35 of 40
Understanding 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 0.0

cross-cultural
engagement via
digital technolo
gies
Page 36 of 40
The consultation workshop highlighted a set of challenges not covered in the Delphi re
turns, including
• Governance based on values, culture, beliefs and evidence

• Future proofing governance for the digital age
• Big data
• Reconstituting labor contracts
• Being people centric not technology driven
• Understanding how people benefit—governance that achieves the best trade-off be
tween human need and economic need
Given the considerable breadth of ideas and responses in the Delphi responses
(p. 625)
and the consultation workshop, we looked to combine this broad range of ideas with the
material from the literature section to provide a clearer picture of future research chal
lenges. The next section undertakes this reflection.
Conclusion
As with the Organizations and Digital Technologies domain (chapter 11) the lower re
sponse rates from the Delphi phase limit some of the confidence in the results. Also, it is
clear from the Delphi responses that the identified key literature presents a broader brief
than that in the initial ESRC scoping questions.
Finally, there are two areas identified by the research that are important, but which may
already have substantive ongoing activity, namely cybersecurity and children’s use of dig
ital media. Both of these are clearly mature research areas with substantive empirical re
search behind them. We would argue that future work in these areas should target specif
ic issues, potentially where they intersect with cross-cutting themes (see chapter 25),
such as inequalities and divides in children’s digital lives, or digital literacies and cyber
security.
The following four potentially overlapping areas need further work, especially as there
appears to be less empirical work in these areas:
1. Impact of social media on governance

2. Success factors in digital governance at local, national, and international levels
3. Privacy, citizenship, the state, and surveillance in the digital age
4. Regulation and governance of automated systems
Having said that, these topics and the majority of questions and topics identified in the
Delphi and workshop discussions crossover with the other domains. We would note that
that they in particular cut across the Citizenship and Politics (chapter 16) and Data and
Representation (chapter 18) domains. It is also the case that the challenges identified
within this domain all fall within the cross-cutting issues to be discussed in chapter 25.
Page 37 of 40
Governance and security of ourselves as citizens, of our data, and of the systems we use
is clearly not just a technical issue. It is core to how we govern, manage, and regulate our
digital society. It therefore needs to be underpinned by our assessment of and debates
around ethics and rights. Social research on the impacts of digital media and technolo
gies needs to provide a strong empirical basis for these debates.
References
616–636.
Brown, I., & Korff, D. (2009). Terrorism and the proportionality of internet surveillance.
European Journal of Criminology, 6(2), 119–134.
Elahi, S. (2009). Privacy and consent in the digital era. Information Security Technical Re
port, 14(3), 113–118.
Fogel, J., & Nehmad, E. (2009). Internet social network communities: Risk taking, trust,
and privacy concerns. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1), 153–160.
Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts.
Livingstone, S. (2003). Children’s use of the internet: Reflections on the emerging re
search agenda. New Media & Society, 5(2), 147–166.
Livingstone, S., & Bober, M. (2006). Regulating the internet at home: Contrasting the per
spectives of children and parents. In D. Buckingham & R. Willett (Eds.), Digital genera
tions: Children, young people, and new media (pp. 93–113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl
baum.
Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. (Eds.). (2009). Kids online: Opportunities and risks for chil
dren. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
Lyon, D. (2010). Surveillance, power and everyday life. In P. Kalantzis-Cope & K. Gherab-
Martin (Eds.), Emerging digital spaces in contemporary society (pp. 107–120). London,
UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mansell, R. (2014). Here comes the revolution—the European digital agenda. In K. Don
ders & C. Pauwels (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of European media policy (pp. 202–
217). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Noorman, M., & Johnson, D. G. (2014). Negotiating autonomy and responsibility in mili
tary robots. Ethics and Information Technology, 16(1), 51–62.
Pollach, I. (2005). A typology of communicative strategies in online privacy policies:

Ethics, power and informed consent. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(3), 221.
Page 38 of 40
Quesenbery, W. (2002). Who is in control? The logic underlying the intelligent technolo
gies used in performance support. Technical Communication, 49(4), 449–457.
Ringrose, J., Harvey, L., Gill, R., & Livingstone, S. (2013). Teen girls, sexual double stan
dards and “sexting”: Gendered value in digital image exchange. Feminist Theory, 14(3),
305–323.
Sharkey, A., & Sharkey, N. (2012). Granny and the robots: Ethical issues in robot care for
the elderly. Ethics and Information Technology, 14(1), 27–40.
Vallor, S. (2016). Technology and the virtues. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Notes:
million rows of data. The website https://www.dhi.ac.uk/waysofbeingdigital/provides
access to the top 50 most frequently occurring pairs and trios through a series of data vi
sualizations. Click on View Data Visualisations at the top. Then check/submit which of the
results/for interactive visualizations with mouse-overs of the main clusters of concepts
Simeon J. Yates
Page 39 of 40
Gerwyn Jones
Gerwyn Jones is a Senior Research Fellow working at Liverpool John Moores

University’s Screen School. He is currently program leader for the MA in Cities, Cul
ture, and Creativity. Gerwyn has over 15 years academic and consultancy experience
relating to urban policy, governance, and regeneration. In recent years, Gerwyn has
undertaken ESRC funded research and published articles on the impact of austerity
on the cities of Liverpool and Bristol.
William H. Dutton
William H. Dutton is an Emeritus Professor at the University of Southern California,

Senior Fellow of the Oxford Internet Institute, and Oxford Martin Fellow with the
Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre, Department of Computer Science at the Uni
versity of Oxford, and Visiting Professor in the School of Media and Communication
at the University of Leeds. He was the Quello Professor of Media and Information
Policy in the Department of Media and Information, College of Communication Arts
and Sciences, Michigan State University, where he was also Director of the Quello
Center.
Elinor Carmi

Culture & Society.
Page 40 of 40
Governance and Accountability in Internet of Things (IoT) Networks
Governance and Accountability in Internet of Things

(IoT) Networks
Naomi Jacobs, Peter Edwards, Caitlin D. Cottrill, and Karen Salt
Societies and their underlying infrastructure are in the process of being transformed by
digital technology, a change that requires updated legislation and governance structures
to respond to new information contexts. One particular area of rapid growth is that of
connected devices that are increasingly being deployed in the physical environment as
part of the so-called Internet of Things (IoT). There has been significant attention by poli
cymakers at both national and international levels as to the economic and social benefits
these technologies can bring and how they can be effectively implemented, leading to a
range of different governance models. Many of these models relate to larger scale deploy
ments as part of “smart city” urban infrastructure programs. Unlike private sector Inter
net of Things devices, which require buy-in from individuals who voluntarily purchase
technology and choose to use it, public space deployments can affect entire communities.
They must therefore particularly include mechanisms by which citizens can be empow
ered. We present a thematic review of literature and policy pertaining to IoT governance
models, and construct a framework of principles for IoT governance, highlighting emerg
ing and remaining questions. Four emergent themes (Levels of Governance, Legitimacy
and Representation, Accountability, and Transparency) are illustrated using case studies
at two levels; national and supranational top-down governance models, and city-based
context-specific implementation models.
Keywords: Internet of Things, IoT, IoT governance models, IoT governance, accountability, urban infrastructure
programs
Introduction
AS digital technology becomes smaller, and processing power greater, there are opportu
nities to integrate it more fully into our environment and society. We are coming closer to
achieving Mark Weiser’s (1991) concept of ubiquitous computing, where objects in our
environments are able to collect, store and transmit data they integrate to the point that
they “disappear” and are no longer noticed as distinct from the general surroundings.
Page 1 of 32
While this brings potential societal benefits, it also introduces novel challenges in terms
of governance.
In the late 1990s, Kevin Ashton coined the term “Internet of Things” (IoT) to describe
supply chain technology that could collect and share data without direct human interven
tion (Ashton, 2009). This term is now used more extensively, and covers a wide range of
spatially distributed sensors and devices that collect and share data. This concept is now
driving a major technological shift and is affecting numerous aspects of society. Projec
tions suggest there may be 20 billion connected devices by 2020 (Gartner, 2017), and this
level of deployment has profound economic implications. The Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development mentions “industrial and commercial processes, consumer
and home services, energy, transport systems, health care, infotainment and public ser
vices” as key areas that are likely to be affected (OECD, 2015, p. 240), with estimates for
added global economic value by 2020 ranging from US$1.9 to $14.4 (p. 629) trillion (Wal
port, 2014). Such broad-scale implementation and impact raises questions of governance,
defined in the next section. As these connected technologies become critical parts of soci
ety and infrastructure, significant attention has been focused by policymakers at the in
ternational, national, and city level on how they should be regulated and managed. The
Internet of Things introduces new complexities of governance which are distinct from
general digital governance, given levels of information sharing involved, multiple actors
and stakeholders, questions of accountability when issues arise, and distribution in physi
cal space.
Media attention has frequently focused on the IoT at the level of objects and technologies
available commercially for private use, often in the household setting; for example, smart
fridges that know when you need more milk and purchase it for you (Hammersley, 2013;
Walker, 2018; Molloy, 2018). Existing regulations and policy often focus on new consumer
products delivered by technology innovation (with products such as “wearables,” “smart
homes” and other consumer applications acting as a driver for industry).1 However, such
regulations also cover large public-sector infrastructure projects using widely deployed
IoT sensor networks, which are becoming more common in civic settings. Projects such
as these are often framed as part of the notion of the “smart city.” “Smart city” is used ex
tensively when discussing the use of technology to strategically enhance civic infrastruc
ture (such as traffic and energy management); however, many have expressed concern
that it is not a useful term. Angelidou (2014) extends this criticism by noting that there
remains no agreed definition of smart (or intelligent) cities. While not all so-called smart
city solutions involve IoT technology, and not all IoT technologies at the city level are nec
essarily part of smart city initiatives, there is a significant crossover between public im
plementations of IoT and the smart city rhetoric (e.g., Future Cities Catapult, 2017; Hill
et al., 2016). This may be shaping discussion of IoT at the national and international level
as a significant amount of funding focusses narrowly on smart city programming rather
than on the more general concept of the IoT and the potential it has for system-wide
change (Gunashekar et al., 2016, p. 40). This lack of differentiation could be an issue if
other areas are neglected, and critical reflection is side-lined in the rush to be included in
those gaining from the widely lauded benefits of IoT. Governance for diverse utilizations
Page 2 of 32
will be increasingly challenging, as already seen in live projects such as the Chicago Ar
ray of Things (discussed later in this chapter). Gaps in governance will remain without a
consideration of responsibility, accountability, and what technology can actually achieve.
Questions of accountability and governance in relation to the IoT are central to the work
of the “TrustLens” project: Trusted Things & Communities: Understanding & Enabling a
Trusted IoT Ecosystem. This project, funded by the United Kingdom’s Engineering and
Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), asks questions such as: What are the appro
priate governance arrangements covering IoT deployments? How do we deliver meaning
ful accountability? How can we develop an understanding of the interplay between indi
viduals and devices, and the wider relationship to social/cultural norms? Work carried out
as part of this project to understand the existing literature on governance in IoT deploy
ments has informed this review, which is not a comprehensive (p. 630) systematic review
but instead a deep foray into governance in this context that we hope may spark addition
al research and further work. This is, ultimately, a societal issue—not just one for technol
ogists and sociologists to debate.
To this end, this chapter will explore the literature on and current examples of gover
nance structures in IoT systems. We will focus on public deployments rather than individ
ual consumer purchases, as this is a potentially more complex and understudied land
scape. While private (household) and public (shared) deployments may entail different da
ta storage and privacy implications, and thus require different or complementary gover
nance models, this review will have applicability for all IoT systems. A focus on public de
ployments includes the potential impact for a wide range of citizens above and beyond
those who choose to purchase IoT technologies for household or individual use. This is
particularly the case because in these circumstances many public or community users
have limited agency and choice over their interaction with these technologies, as we shall
see.
The review builds on existing literature and case studies to construct a framework of
principles for IoT governance, highlighting emerging and remaining questions about gov
ernance. The case studies are not chosen to be representative examples, but, instead,
represent diverse scenarios, deployments, and policies that can be aligned with the
framework, drawing commonalities between theory and practice. Because the prolifera
tion of devices outpaces the literature, by including these we aim to encourage scholars
to include an analysis of active deployments in order to narrow this distance.
Principles of Internet of Things Governance

Considering Governance
Governance is a complex topic with a variety of definitions. UNESCO, for example, de
fines it as “the exercise of political, economic and administrative authority in the manage
ment of a country’s affairs, including citizens’ articulation of their interests and exercise
Page 3 of 32
of their legal rights and obligations” (Furness, 2012, p. 204). Weber, one of the relatively
few to have written about governance specifically in the context of the IoT, describes it as
“the design of institutions and the structure of authority to allocate resources and coordi
nate or control activities in the society” (Weber, 2013, p. 341).
As discussed previously, realization of IoT projects has far reaching economic and social
implications. These can be complex and involve many actors; for example, individuals,
communities, service providers, and others. In this multi-actor context, governance re
quires careful consideration. Different governance regimes may be applicable for differ
ent circumstances, and change accordingly, requiring flexible IoT governance. Mah
eswaran and Misra (2015) suggest the following four orientations to considering (p. 631)
flexible IoT governance challenges: space-, time-, device-, and data-oriented governance,
which provide a framework for this variation.
IoT technologies can be used to promote social good, foster learning, and promote jus
tice, but may also be used to exert control and exacerbate inequality, therefore we have a
duty to not only consider “what is possible, but what is responsible” (Surman & Thorne,
2016, p. 3). This question of exerting control speaks to the balance or imbalance of power
that technology can foster.
In examining literature pertaining to governance of IoT, we have identified four emergent

themes and principles that should inform any discussion of governance structures in
these systems. These are as follows: Levels of Governance (describing multi-level opera
tion of governance), Legitimacy and Representation (describing how citizens are repre
sented in governance models), Accountability (describing obligations to justify actions),
and Transparency (describing visibility of processes and procedures). We will review key
literature which foregrounds these topics in relation to IoT governance and will explain
their significance. While these themes emerged as a consequence of reviewing the litera
ture, three out of the four share commonalities with the principles that Weber (2013)
identifies as key for IoT governance, which are: Legitimacy and representation, trans
parency, accountability, and infrastructure governance. There is also some overlap evi
dent with the four principles listed by Almeida, Doneda, and Monteiro (2015) that they
suggest should be adopted for data protection: notice and choice, data minimization, ac
cess to personal data, and accountability.
Levels of Governance
There already exist many national and international bodies devoted to the governance of
the internet, and there has been some discussion as to whether IoT governance at the
highest level is encompassed by that, or needs separate regulatory and policy oversight
(Smith, 2012). High level top-down governance, at an international level, would depend
on the agreement of consensus rules and policies. Weber (2016) suggests that based on
the failure of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) to reach consensus on
such rules for the internet, it is unlikely that such implementation of a top-down approach
would be possible for the IoT. This is especially the case given the broad proliferation of
Page 4 of 32
devices and implementations. Top-down governance does not, however, have to be global
ly applied, and can exist at several different levels using different tools, as illustrated by
Smith (2012), see Figure 23.1.
Figure 23.1 Governance tools and their application

at different levels of IoT activity. (Smith, 2012)
Weber (2013) also emphasizes that tools for governance must encompass requirements at
different levels including grass-roots, national, and city governance. Reviewing the scope
of IoT projects, we also find it important to consider governance at different geographic
and socio-cultural scales. There may be governance implications for IoT initiatives even
below the city level. There may be small-scale local projects, tailored to particular com
munities. An example of this is the “damp buster” frog-shaped humidity sensors deployed
by the REPLICATE project in Bristol (The Bristol Approach, 2018). (p. 632) Projects may
be initiated via bottom-up rather than top-down development, outside of the control or
knowledge of city officials (Jiang et al., 2016). Citizen developed grass-roots initiatives
nevertheless have governance requirements. Earlier, we distinguished between individual
IoT enabled objects that function in private spaces, and larger linked deployments which
may be in public spaces. These latter IoT deployments may consist of individual citizen
action, but gain their power from data collected from a large number of distributed de
vices such as air quality sensors (Chen et al., 2016). This collective data gathering is of
common interest, thus models of equitable sharing and collaboration are necessary for
wider impact.
Grass-roots governance models can vary. For example, deployments might be examples of
“citizen science,” where members of the public actively engage in scientific projects ad
dressing real-world problems (Angelidou & Psaltoglou, 2017). These may be initiated by
research groups and cultural institutions, arise from concerns of local groups, or be a
consequence of publically shared data generated as an integral feature of crowdsourced
sensing devices. Balestrini, Diez, Marshall, Gluhak, and Rogers (2015) make a distinction
between citizen science and participatory sensing, noting that in the latter case users can
appropriate IoT devices for their own situated purposes, not necessarily responding to
the specific needs of a community or scientific endeavor. They suggest that crowdfunded
participatory sensing initiatives can be less effective for successful use of IoT technolo
gies as community tools unless other support features are implemented, such as local
Page 5 of 32
champions, peer-learning (which can strengthen social interactions as well as providing

skills), and reward mechanisms.
There may also be interactions between different governance strategies both at different
levels, and when multiple authorities within an IoT ecosystem each have their own mod
els. The existence of multiple platforms may impact citizens’ rights in ways that may
(p. 633) not be evident at the level of the individual deployment; for example, numerous
studies have revealed the potential to re-identify “anonymous” individuals via the use of
linked data sets (Douriez et al., 2016; Narayanan & Shmatikov, 2008; Sweeney, 2002).
Given distributed data collection and ownership rights in the IoT, the potential for such
re-identification of individuals due to inconsistent or conflicting data policies is likely to
grow.
Legitimacy and Representation
Representation of different stakeholders at different levels is a critical component of the

ideals of democratization. Weber (2013) argues that an IoT that was within the power of a
specific private or public authority would not comply with the principle of legitimacy be
ing granted by democratic participation, “since the outcome should reflect the values of
the stakeholders represented” (p. 345). Citizens’ rights must be protected, especially giv
en that there are serious implications of these technologies in areas such as privacy. Mah
eswaran and Misra (2015) suggest that governance schemes that are beneficial for all
stakeholders and therefore likely to see good compliance are ones where there is effec
tive information flow between the user and corporate network operators.
How much control citizens have in various governance models is also critical. A tradition
al top-down high level governance model in which a designated authority implements a
governance plan may appear to have limited scope for direct citizen engagement, such as
the development of Songdo, South Korea (see the case study under that subheading). Citi
zen governance may be introduced later, such as through the invitation of representatives
to sit within a consultation group (as with the Chicago Array of Things in the United
States: see under the Chicago, United States subheading); however, there may still be
limited control. Similarly, the level of authority available to citizens is variable within bot
tom-up participatory governance models even if citizen involvement appears to be more
direct. Balestrini, Diez, Marshall, Gluhak, and Rogers (2015), in discussing crowdfunded
IoT initiatives, note that the ability for individuals to perceive they are making a meaning
ful contribution is important.
Grass-roots, bottom-up efforts may find it difficult to effect change because of resource,
infrastructural, or technological limitations. This does not mean that effective participato
ry governance is not possible, just that it is not always a consequence of increasing par
ticipation. Current projects underway to examine such systems of governance include the
Jam & Justice project, which is mapping instances of participatory urban governance. By
crowdsourcing examples of initiatives including active citizen participation, they are
building a collection which aims to offer insights to understand the range of practical ef
Page 6 of 32
forts to achieve more inclusive governance, not only listing examples but “exploring what
makes them exciting, what they are aiming to achieve, what makes them effective, and
how they might contribute to more just outcomes.”2
Open systems which allow control by people directly affected by the implementation of
technology may provide flexibility, but this openness may depend on factors of account
ability and transparency.
(p. 634) Accountability
Accountability is a theme that much of the literature highlights as particularly important

given the implications for privacy of the data gathering and monitoring capabilities of
many IoT systems. Weber (2011) acknowledges the complexity of the concept of account
ability in different contexts, but argues that, “a general definition incorporating the main
elements of accountability is directed to the obligation of a person (the accountable) to
another person (the accountee), according to which the former must give account of, ex
plain and justify his actions or decisions in an appropriate way” (p. 134). This definition
presupposes that both the accountable and accountee are known, and that the order of
operations that take place is understood by both parties. The potential for these assump
tions to be violated may often cast doubt upon the ability to ensure accountability in the
IoT—a situation that requires further exploration of the concept.
Weber and Weber (2010) suggest that placing IoT systems wholly within the power of a
specific private or public authority risks decreasing legitimacy and democratic participa
tion. In order to mitigate these risks, they suggest systems should be designed to pro
mote accountability by ensuring that formal requirements about how rules are made, in
terpreted, and applied are inherent to the framework of the system. The legitimacy of or
ganizations is also heightened when all stakeholders concerned with the IoT are included,
generally by some form or reasonable representation, and thus Weber and Weber suggest
multipolar and decentralized policy within an institutional setting.
Almeida, Doneda, and Moneiro (2015) point out that boundaries between IoT and surveil
lance may blur or vanish if initiatives to protect privacy are not put in place. They include
accountability as one of the four principles on which rules and norms must be built to en
sure this (the others being: notice and choice, data minimization, and access to personal
data). Weber (2011, p. 134) identifies key elements of accountability serving as a basic
guideline for what must be included when establishing a legal framework for accountabil
ity measures for governing bodies: standards that hold governing bodies accountable at
the organizational level; readily available information, including consultation procedures
enabling active rather than passive information flow to concerned recipients; and the
ability for beneficiaries of accountability to impose sanctions if standards are not met,
which requires adequate participation schemes through direct voting channels and indi
rect representation schemes.
Page 7 of 32
Transparency
Much of the literature related to IoT governance highlights transparency as a critical as
pect. For stakeholders to be able to follow-up on governance actions, they need to know
what actions exist or are possible, and understand the details. If procedures are transpar
ent, citizens have the capacity for active involvement and a certain level of control over
the decision-making process, allowing for “a certain level of ‘democratic’ legitimization
and predictability” (Weber & Weber, 2010, p. 75). This may be of particular (p. 635) impor
tance given that in the IoT there may be private actors involved in deployments, and pri
vate entities responsible for governance of some aspects.
Regulation to enforce transparency must therefore also extend to rules governing manu
facturers, which, given the global marketplace, may require a global view being applied
to the governance process (Almeida, Doneda, & Moneiro, 2015). This includes trans
parency in the data collection process, so that data owners can understand what data is
being collected (or has already been collected), where it goes, and who has access. This is
related to accountability and protection of rights.
In the case of the IoT, Weber and Weber (2010) identify several different categories of
transparency. Transparency in this context must include both the functioning of the gov
ernance system and consequences of actions within it. For this reason, they include the
category of procedural transparency, which covers the disclosure to the public of rules
and procedures in the operation of organizations, and the necessity of governance and
law-making being made both accessible and comprehensible. Other categories of trans
parency identified are decision-making transparency, which allows scrutiny of the deci
sion-making purpose and the reasons decisions were made, and substantive transparency
in which rules are established to avoid arbitrary or discriminative decisions, and may in
clude requirements of rationality and fairness. Weber and Weber also note that trans
parency can operate in different “directions”—superiors might have insight into the ac
tions of subordinates (transparency upwards), and vice versa (transparency downwards),
as well as transparency between those inside and outside organizations in both direc
tions.
Maheswaran and Misra (2015) suggest that transparency is important so that users can
understand and have input into policies and their selection, and can understand which
policies are operating in different spaces (to allow navigation between them). To enable
this, they propose a novel management framework for the IoT called Social Governance.
The literature indicates that transparency should be in place throughout the lifetime of
projects, and be adaptive, allowing consultation by users during both the preparation and
launch of projects through feedback mechanisms. In addition, final decisions of governing
bodies should be published alongside the decision-making process and considerations
that led to them (Weber & Weber, 2010). This, it is suggested, will “allow the participants
in the process to understand how their insights and expertise have influenced the policy
outcomes” (p. 85).
Page 8 of 32
Use of Themes
The literature overview we have outlined has identified four themes, which provide an ini
tial exploratory framework that might be used when considering the principles of gover
nance models in place for public IoT deployments. Ideally, governance models should ex
hibit legitimacy and representation, accountability, and transparency, and operate at a
suitable level or levels for the deployment in question, which may span several layers of
governance.
With these principles of governance in mind, the following section of this review
(p. 636)
will explore in further detail some case studies of operational governance models with the
aim of understanding the current landscape and how these themes are or are not met. Al
though the themes have relevance to all case studies, first the importance of considering
the level of governance is uncovered by examining different national and regional exam
ples, and then each theme is illuminated through three city case studies. Table 23.1
summarizes the key theme for each case study.
Table 23.1 Key Emergent Themes and the Case Studies to Which They
Particularly Relate
Emergent governance Focus case study

theme
Level at which governance Comparison of top-down national poli

model functions cies and local implementations
Citizen representation and Chicago, United States

agency
Accountability of gover Songdo, South Korea

nance
Transparency of gover New York, United States

nance
Case Studies: Regional/National IoT Gover

nance
National and regional governmental bodies are increasingly acknowledging the impor
tance of implementing policies to manage IoT governance, reflected in frameworks devel
oped by a range of bodies. Looking at the similarities and differences between some of
these approaches provides insight into the origins and current state of policy and regula
tion. We present a selection of case studies, while noting that these are examples rather
Page 9 of 32
than a comprehensive list. Each emergent governance theme highlighted previously with
in the literature review will be presented alongside a relevant case study.
Top-down IoT Governance in the European Union
The European Commission was the first supranational body to attempt to create an IoT
governance framework (Weber, 2013). The European Union has actively included IoT poli
cies in strategies such as the Digital Agenda for Europe 2020, and has promoted IoT re
search and innovation (OECD, 2015).
In 2013, the European Commission released a report containing the results of a public
consultation on the governance of the IoT which had been carried out in 2012, consisting
(p. 637) of more than 600 responses to an online questionnaire including stakeholders
from academia and industry, and members of the public (European Commission, 2013). In
this report, there appears to have been a contrast between the views of those represent
ing industry, and citizens and consumer organizations, particularly with regard to privacy.
The former suggested that the current Data Protection framework was sufficient, while
the latter desired greater focus on privacy and data protection, with emphasis on control
of data remaining with data subjects. Industry representatives were cautious of the sti
fling effect which inappropriate governance might have on a fledgling industry, in con
trast to non-industry respondents who stressed the importance of ensuring fundamental
rights are maintained. In several points of the survey it was emphasized that governance
models should preserve these rights, giving people the ability to choose whether to be
part of an IoT system, the right to “disconnect” at any time and the ability to ensure that
their data is not used without explicit consent, so that they would have control of their da
ta at all times.
Despite the fact that a bottom-up multi-stakeholder approach is suggested for defining
the ethical framework, governance was considered by many respondents to be necessary
beyond self-regulation, with calls for independent public-sector organizations to provide
regulatory oversight and governance including regular audits (European Commission,
2013, p. 9).
In January 2015, a report produced by the CEN-CENELEC-ETSI Smart and Sustainable

Cities and Communities’ Coordination Group (SSCC-CG) was released, providing a first
overview of IoT standardization at the European level. Shortly after this, in March 2015,
the European Commission launched the Alliance for Internet of Things Innovation
(AIOTI). This organization is intended to develop and support dialogue and interaction
among European IoT players, and create “a dynamic European IoT ecosystem to unleash
the potentials of the IoT” (European Commission, 2016b). This organization has several
working groups focusing on different aspects of European IoT development.
In April 2016 the European Commission released a Staff Working Document entitled Ad
vancing the Internet of Things in Europe (European Commission, 2016a). It highlights da
ta ownership as a critical issue currently without consistent practice in standards across
the Union, and that a lack of common technical standards for IoT platforms, including ar
Page 10 of 32
chitecture and data models, may cause obstacles for the proper operation of systems
across EU member states. The report recommended action under three pillars of IoT ad
vancement (European Commission, 2016a, p. 4):
1. A single market for the IoT: IoT devices and services should be able to connect
seamlessly and on a plug-and-play basis anywhere in the European Union and scale
up across borders.
2. A thriving IoT ecosystem: open platforms used across vertical silos will help devel
oper communities innovate. As a kick-start, IoT deployments in selected lead markets
will be supported.
(p. 638) 3. A human-centered IoT: the IoT in Europe is to respect European values,
empowering people along with machines and businesses, thanks to high standards
for the protection of personal data and security, visible notably through a ‘Trusted
IoT’ label.
The report also identified a list of challenges that must be addressed for users’ trust in
the IoT to be obtained, including “trustworthy identification both of users and devices in a
distributed environment, where governance structures are not always clear” (European
Commission, 2016a, p. 29). This highlights that lack of transparency in governance may
be (at least partially) overcome by transparency of actors and systems. The General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force in May 2018, is highlighted as a
means by which privacy protection and thus trust can be increased, as it requires “data
protection by design and by default” (GDPR Art. 25).3 The proposition of a “Trusted IoT
Label,” as mentioned in the third of the three pillars (see preceding list), is expanded as
being similar to the EU energy labelling scheme (EU Directive 92/75/EC) which rates en
ergy efficiency of appliances on a scale from A to G. Such an IoT trust label might func
tion as a demonstration of compliance with measures taken to effectively meet these chal
lenges. Similar initiatives to develop such a labelling scheme are underway by other bod
ies, such as the IoT Trustmark initiative (Bihr, 2017).
In November 2016, Working Group 4 of the Alliance for Internet of Things Innovation (the
working group focused on European IoT policy) followed this up with a recommendations
report related to the digitization of industry. The report points out that IoT security is not
easily measured and thus implementation of such a labelling system may be difficult. The
working group, instead, suggests the development of a Trust Charter, which is proposed
as being led by industry. Such a charter would outline best practice, identify security is
sues for consideration and support compliance. Table 23.2 summarizes how the themes
relate to the case study.
Page 11 of 32
(p. 639) Table 23.2 Mapping of Themes in EU Governance
Emergent governance Mapping from case study

theme
Level at which governance Supranational top-down policy

model functions Multi-stakeholder approach
Citizen representation and Public consultation process

agency Balance between maintaining rights
and encouraging innovation
Inclusion of consent and control
highlighted, “right to disconnect”
Accountability of governance Regulatory framework with inde

pendent oversight suggested
Technical standards
Transparency of governance Transparency noted as increasing

trust
Trusted IoT Label suggested, but
difficult to implement
Development of a Trust Charter pro
posed
Top-down IoT Governance in the United States
The United States has also recognized the potential economic and social impacts of IoT
technologies. Several organizations within or supporting the government have examined
issues surrounding the IoT and provided advisory information. One of these is the Techno
logical Advisory Council, which was formed in 2010 to provide technical advice to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and is comprised of academic and industry
experts appointed by the FCC Chairman. In December 2014 this body provided a recom
mendations report to the FCC that focused on maintaining security and privacy, and in
cluded the following: monitoring network traffic, ensuring availability of network capacity
and spectrum space for IoT growth, defining the role of FCC in this context, participating
in IoT security activities with other government stakeholders, and conducting consumer
awareness campaigns and internal scenario exercises to be able to respond to “wide
spread consumer events related to IoT” (OECD, 2015).
In 2016, the United States passed a bill which required “the establishment of a working
group tasked with identifying proposals meant to facilitate IoT growth.” The bi-partisan
Page 12 of 32
Developing Innovation and Growing the Internet of Things (DIGIT) Act requires the fol
lowing:
The working group must: (1) identify federal laws and regulations, grant prac
tices, budgetary or jurisdictional challenges, and other sector-specific policies that
inhibit IoT development; (2) consider policies or programs that encourage and im
prove coordination among federal agencies with IoT jurisdiction; (3) implement
recommendations from the steering committee; (4) examine how federal agencies
can benefit from, use, and prepare for the IoT; and (5) consult with nongovern
mental stakeholders.4
In January 2017 the US Department of Commerce released a “green paper” which identi
fied four areas of engagement related to IoT on which to focus: enabling infrastructure
availability and access, crafting balanced policy and building coalitions, promoting stan
dards and technology advancement, and encouraging markets. This report was based on
analysis of comments gathered during a consultation process that included a wide variety
of stakeholders (from private sector, academia, government, and civil society). The execu
tive summary suggests four key principles to define US IoT policy: ensuring an IoT envi
ronment that is inclusive and widely accessible to consumers, workers and businesses;
recommending policy and taking action to support a stable, secure and trustworthy IoT
environment; advocacy for an open and globally interoperable IoT environment built on
industry-driven, consensus-based standards; and encouraging growth and innovation by
reducing barriers to entry for expanding markets and by convening stakeholders to ad
dress public policy challenges (US Department of Commerce, 2017, p. 2).
US policy is currently positioned to encourage private sector leadership in the area of

technology development. The role of government in this area is identified but remains
light-touch, reducing barriers for expanding markets rather than imposing strict regula
tion. The green paper indicates that “The Department will also advocate (p. 640) against
attempts by governments to impose top-down, technology-specific ‘solutions’ to IoT stan
dardization needs” (p. 13). The need for flexibility and the fostering of an “innovative and
adaptive environment” is highlighted. However, coordination across US Government part
ners is also mentioned as a potentially important area to develop because of the complex
nature of the IoT landscape. Certain areas of IoT development are highlighted as warrant
ing particular policy attention, including smart cities, “due to the investment and cooper
ation required to help communities realize the benefits of connectivity” (p. 8). Standards
development is also included as an area on which to focus, highlighting that while no sin
gle organization has the resources or expertise to develop the standards necessary for
this developing field, the US could play an important role in the development of interna
tional standards that are “voluntary, consensus-based, and open to participation by inter
ested stakeholders” (p. 48). As with EU policy, interoperability is a key concern.
Initiatives described cover a range of methods to optimize IoT availability, digital inclu
sion and utility across the United States, including “empowering communities to become
smart cities” (p. 21). Such programs support the development of smart municipal infra
Page 13 of 32
structure, including broadband provision. Questions of privacy, security, and data owner
ship, as well as standards development, are also addressed by the proposed initiatives;
however, while comments from stakeholders who took part in the consultation are noted
as highlighting transparency in both the decision-making process and in data handling, it
is not clear exactly how some of these will be implemented. Table 23.3 summarizes how
the themes relate to the case study.
(p. 641) Table 23.3 Mapping of Themes in United States Governance
Emergent gover Mapping from case study

nance theme
Level at which gover National policy

nance model func Light-touch top-down governance, reduc
tions ing market barriers
Co-ordination across US Government part
ners
Consultation with non-government stake
holders
Private-sector leadership
Citizen representation Policy promoting inclusive and widely ac

and agency cessible systems
Digital inclusion highlighted, including
“empowering communities to become
smart cities”
Accountability of gov Focus on development of international IoT

ernance standards that are consensus-based and
open to participation by interested stake
holders
Otherwise limited focus on accountability
Transparency of gov Transparency mentioned as a concern of

ernance stakeholders for addressing privacy con
cerns
Implementation of policies not necessarily
clear
Top-down IoT Governance in the United Kingdom
The UK government has invested significantly in IoT, with funding allocated under Inno
vateUK, the Catapult schemes, and through the Department for Digital, Culture, Media,
Page 14 of 32
and Sport.5 Many cities around the United Kingdom are implementing IoT technology so
lutions and aiming to become “smart cities.” This has included the identification of 22
“superconnected cities” and a specific program of investment to these between 2010 and
2015, with up to £150 million to develop cities’ digital infrastructure, focusing primarily
on broadband capacity and provision of public WiFi.
In December 2014, the UK Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor Sir Mark Walport re
leased a report, the Blackett Review on the Internet of Things, discussing potential im
pacts and risks of IoT technology. In this report, the Internet of Things was highlighted as
critical to the United Kingdom’s economic growth, with discussion of the importance of
developing national or international standards to enable a consistent infrastructure,
cross-connectivity and interoperability, as well as to “ensure the system is trustworthy
and trusted” (Walport, 2014, p. 8). Security is a key concern raised in maintaining trust
worthy devices and data systems, with standards recommended to provide “security by
default.” For this to be implemented, there is a need to consider both the devices and the
system(s) in which they are embedded.
In May 2015, a briefing paper highlighted the Internet of Things as one of the key issues
for Parliament.6 IoTUK, a collaboration between the Digital Catapult and Future Cities
Catapult, was set up to manage and coordinate UK IoT investment and growth, support
ing government funded projects.7 Additionally, an all-parliamentary group on smart cities
was set up. The British Standards institute has also published several guidance docu
ments and standards, including in 2015 an overview of the smart cities landscape,8 and
Publicly Available Specification (PAS) documents in 2017 giving practical guidance for de
veloping smart city strategies.9 This is in addition to a policy paper on UK digital strategy
published in March 2017, which includes a short section on the Internet of Things (De
partment for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, 2017).
By 2016, IoTUK was reporting large amounts of UK IoT investment, including £42m pri
vately invested into IoT companies since mid-2015 (IoTUK, 2016). The fast growing scope
of the industry indicates the criticality and urgency of introducing appropriate policy and
regulation. The same year, a study designed to support policy feedback for IoT develop
ment in the United Kingdom was commissioned by IoTUK and BCS, The Chartered Insti
tute for IT, and carried out by policy research organization RAND Europe. The nature of
IoT governance, and specifically data governance, was a question raised in the report,
with indication from case studies that there has been a lack of consistency in this area,
with businesses creating their own data governance structures in an ad hoc manner to
suit their needs. Some of those organizations that contributed to the report saw data gov
ernance as an ethical rather than a technical question, relating to who should have ac
cess to personal data. The report also highlighted that because there (p. 642) has not yet
been much experience of privacy breaches, technology providers “rarely considered po
tential wider privacy implications when developing and implementing their
solutions” (Gunashekar et al., 2016, p. 30). The report also considered the importance of
citizen representation and involvement, stating that “the significance of involving con
sumers of technology in informing IoT policy and in decision making cannot be
Page 15 of 32
overestimated” (p. ix). It did, however, conclude that clearly defined data governance pro
cedures were, in general, seen as “the key to joining up systems, facilitating seamless in
teroperability, and, consequently, enabling successful IoT implementations” (p. 23).
The UK Digital Strategy published in 2017 highlights three examples of funding for re
search and innovation in IoT: NHS test beds for health-related IoT innovations,10 the PE
TRAS IoT research hub,11 and the Manchester Cityverve smart city demonstrator.12
Manchester was well-placed to obtain the large Cityverve project, as a pioneer of new de
volved government structures in the United Kingdom, giving greater local power and ac
countability through an elected mayor via the 2014 Devolution Agreement (GMCA, 2018).
This project has enabled the region to join up public services and centralize data systems,
facilitating “open data” access to regional datasets, coordinated by the Greater Manches
ter Data Synchronization program (GMDSP).13 Speaking at the All-Parliamentary Group
on Smart Cities, Minister for International Trade Greg Hands stated a commitment to
supporting the Internet of Things and being a world-leader in smart cities by co-operating
to present a single UK smart city offer (Say, 2017). It is not clear, however, what support
is being offered at the individual city level beyond the larger projects mentioned earlier.
Table 23.4 summarizes how the themes relate to the case study.
(p. 643) Table 23.4 Mapping of Themes in UK Governance
Emergent governance Mapping from case study

theme
Level at which governance National policy

model functions Ad hoc governance models developed
by businesses
Regional devolved governance poli
cies for IoT and open data
Citizen representation and Citizen representation highlighted as

agency critical in decision making
Accountability of gover Studies to examine the nature and

nance consistency of IoT governance
Local devolution provides greater
power and accountability regionally
Transparency of gover Necessity of clearly defined data gov

nance ernance procedures highlighted
PAS documents include guidance for
developing smart city strategies
Page 16 of 32
Case Studies: Local IoT Deployment

Many cities in many countries around the world are taking up opportunities offered by
national government initiatives, aiming to become a part of the “smart city” trend by in
troducing IoT technology in a variety of contexts. As already described, it is difficult to
find consensus on the definition of a smart city, and there is great variation in what makes
these cities “smart,” the level of implementation, and the governance strategies that are
employed.
One approach in comparing smart city implementation is that taken by digital market re
search organization Juniper Research, which defines a smart city as “an urban ecosystem
that places emphasis on the use of digital technology, shared knowledge and cohesive
processes to underpin citizen benefits in vectors such as mobility, public safety, health
and productivity” (Sorrell, 2017, p. 2). Based on metrics including technology, transport,
energy, open data, apps and the economy, Juniper Research14 releases an annual report
with a ranking of “top smart cities.” The top ranked cities in 2017 were Singapore, Lon
don, New York, San Francisco, and Chicago. Previous years’ lists also included high rank
ings for Barcelona and Oslo, but there are numerous other examples of smart city initia
tives worldwide.
Popular deployments that different cities are implementing include smart lighting, waste
management, traffic management, air quality sensors, and services associated with free
WiFi. Long range, low power wireless technologies such as HaLow and LoRaWan15
promise capacity for a wide deployment of sensors and other devices, expanding the ca
pabilities and versatility. In the last few years, many applications and services have been
implemented at the local level by councils or other city governance bodies. Some of these
may be deployed individually through smaller initiatives, while others are part of concert
ed efforts to create connected smart city environments. IoT deployments are generally
implemented with the aim of providing benefit to the people, often under programs with
broadly defined goals such as “reducing harm” (Aberdeen City Council, UK).
Three short case studies of IoT deployments in Chicago (US), Songdo (South Korea), and
New York (US) will now be presented. While relatively similar in their profile as large
cities, they demonstrate differences that provide an indication of the wide variance in
terms of governance models in urban spaces, and each provides a focus on one of the
three principles of governance identified previously.
Chicago, United States
The city of Chicago has a long history of data collection for public use. Set up in 2010, a
data portal16 requires by executive order the provision of data from every city agency, and
provides public access to wide ranging data sets, from metrics of sanitation and (p. 644)
graffiti removal, to building permits issued, and individual taxi trips taken in the city. The
Open Data Executive Order (No. 2012-2) specifies unprecedented transparency, honesty
and accountability as objectives for the city.
Page 17 of 32
The Chicago Array of Things project began in 2014, and received funding as part of the
United States’ national Smart Cities Initiative. It grew out of a smaller project initiated in
2013 by Charlie Catlett and the Computation Institute’s Urban Center for Computation
and Data, to teach high school students about data collection in cities (Mendelson, 2015).
The project describes itself as a “fitness tracker” for the city, with the goal of measuring
detail of the city “to provide data to help engineers, scientists, policymakers and resi
dents work together to make Chicago and other cities healthier, more livable and more ef
ficient.”17 The intention was that devices would be deployed at a variety of locations in
the city, placed on municipal lampposts, housing a variety of sensors chosen based on in
formation from local citizens and stakeholders about what would be of use (Moser, 2014).
For example, Catlett was contacted by residents and local services who wanted air quali
ty data, therefore involving sensors to measure nitrogen dioxide, ozone, carbon monox
ide, hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide levels.
The original deployment was managed by the University of Chicago and Argonne Nation
al Laboratory, in collaboration with the City of Chicago. This work encountered issues
finding appropriate locations, power sources, and data connectivity to deploy air quality
sensors, despite support from government officials. However, it laid the groundwork for a
much larger initiative. The subsequent collaboration to develop the Array of Things aimed
to deploy a wide range of sensors across the city. Initially proposing a roll-out in 2014, the
project experienced some controversy and push back from the public, who proved to be
wary about potentially intrusive technological installations and the privacy implications
that might result (Mosendz, 2014; Moser, 2014).
Concerns raised in press coverage included the fact that the devices would collect infor
mation on WiFi and Bluetooth devices in order to gather data on pedestrian numbers.
There were also questions about the decision-making and governance process. For exam
ple, Alderman Robert Fioretti said that the project team should have obtained permission
from the City Council before going ahead with the project (Byrne, 2014). This was not on
ly due to the potential privacy issues raised by the installation, but also by questions of
ownership of data, and accusations of potential lost income by not charging a private da
ta collection service for using public utility poles, rather than permit free use to a public-
academic collaboration.
There was significant media interest in the project and the implications for the public,
which led to a delay while the privacy policies and technical infrastructure were redevel
oped to address some of the concerns raised. Deployment recommenced in 2016 with
more attention to the governance of the project in part as a response to the public push
back noted previously.
Initial privacy policy and oversight arrangements were made public on June 13, 2016, fol
lowed by a three-week “listening period” during which residents were invited to provide
feedback. This included two public listening sessions at libraries, managed by the non-
profit organization Smart Chicago Collaborative (Elahi, 2016a). Additionally, input
(p. 645) was sought via public forums and a digital tool called MyMadison.io, created by
Page 18 of 32
the OpenGov Foundation and described as “a government policy co-creation platform that
opens up laws and legislation previously off-limits to individuals and the Internet commu
nity.”18 Responses to these policy events and questions asked by the public are available
online19 and consider several key aspects of privacy, governance, and accountability.
It was agreed that the first nodes in the system would not be installed until finalization of
the policies, two or three weeks after the completion of the public consultation. The final
policy would also be approved by employees from the city’s Department of Innovation and
Technology, as well as the law department, and communities would be able to make sug
gestions on the placement of sensor nodes using the project website. The governance and
privacy policies were released in their final form on August 15, 2016 and are available on
the project’s website.20 These include details of an Executive Oversight Council responsi
ble for oversight of the program, co-chaired by the Commissioner of the City’s Depart
ment of Innovation and Technology and Charlie Catlett (Director of the Urban Center for
Computation and Data, and the original founder of the project). This committee is made
up of representatives from academia, industry, non-profits and the community, and sup
ported by additional specialist groups such as the Technical Security and Privacy Group
and Scientific Review Group, who will evaluate operations and give recommendations, as
appropriate.
The project now presents itself as “community technology” (Mendelson, 2015) and high
lights its focus on transparency and openness. The devices do not collect data on individ
uals, and have been modified to process and analyze the data directly, reducing security
and privacy concerns by removing the necessity to store or transmit data. The devices
themselves have been designed to be large and mounted at eye level “to be more visible
and less mysterious” (Mendelson, 2015).
Some people, however, were still concerned about issues of privacy even in this second it
eration of the project. For example, Stella (2016) questions the implementation of the
new privacy policy, commenting that the algorithms do still retain some photographic da
ta for later access despite the privacy policy stating that images will only be used for a
short time for analysis. The data itself is owned and thus controlled by the University of
Chicago. Some also criticized the privacy policy as initially written for being too brief in
its descriptions of how data will be collected and used, with Ray Everett, a founding
board member of the non-profit International Association of Privacy Professionals, noting
that unlike a consumer purchased device that individuals place in their own home (such
as an Amazon Echo) it is not possible to opt-out when you are walking in a public space.
Due to the nature of the deployment, it would affect many citizens in Chicago, even those
who might be unaware of it, and a greater level of scrutiny is needed (Elahi, 2016b).
Chicago Array of Things is unusual in its direct academic origins and the nature of its im
plementation, delay due to public pushback, and incorporation of consultation. The con
troversy that the project experienced led to changes in implementation, both in terms of
governance and the functioning of the devices themselves.
Page 19 of 32
This case study demonstrates the importance of transparency and accountability,

(p. 646)
since the initial iteration of the project raised concerns due to deficits in these key areas;
however, it is particularly useful for examining issues of citizen representation and
agency. When the project began, citizens’ views were incorporated in terms of where sen
sors may be most usefully placed, and what data might benefit the city and its residents.
However, a lack of public consultation and transparency meant that concerns were raised
about the purpose and nature of the deployment. By incorporating new governance struc
tures that more heavily incorporated public consultation, the project aimed to more fully
provide representation and agency. Despite this, there are still concerns with deploy
ments of this nature where citizens have limited control over whether or not their data is
collected, since “opting out” is difficult when IoT devices are deployed in public spaces.
Songdo, South Korea
South Korea has a reputation as an extremely technologically advanced nation. The capi
tal, Seoul, initiated the Smart Seoul 2015 project to capitalize on existing developments
and bring together many different initiatives to boost the city’s smart infrastructure
(Hwang & Choe, 2013). Much of this smart city development work is government-facilitat
ed. However, there have also been initiatives that are public-private collaborations, such
as an NFC-based mobile payment system, and citizen developed initiatives such as the
School Newsletter Application, which sends alerts to parents (Hwang & Choe, 2013).
In 2003, construction began on a purpose-built smart city development close to Incheon,

around 40 miles from Seoul, on reclaimed land (Carvalho, 2015). This created the In
cheon Free Economic Zone, made up of three areas, including the city of Songdo, which
was intended to foster international business relating to key technological areas such as
information technologies, nanotechnologies and biotechnologies. This purpose-built “from
scratch” smart city development was “planned in greenfield areas with almost no former
residents or infrastructure, with purposely loose and flexible regulations” (Carvalho,
2015, p. 44). The initial development project to create a new Smart City was due to be
completed in 2015, but still has some ongoing construction with investment plans until
2022 (Lee, Kwon, Cho, Kim, & Lee, 2016). There are a variety of different smart city IoT
implementations in the Songdo city infrastructure, including traffic control, emergency
response co-ordination, abnormal sound monitoring, energy saving, and citizen communi
cation.
Songdo’s development as a “ubiquitous city” underwent implementation planning in

2008–2009 and a private and public joint corporation (U-City Corporation) was estab
lished to undertake a pilot project to achieve some of the goals. The largest single share
holder is Incheon Metropolitan City (28.6 percent), with the rest shared between private
corporations, including Incheon IT Corporation (Lee et al., 2016). While Lee et al.’s exam
ination of the city’s development includes a section on governance, it focusses primarily
on the organizational structure of this corporation and the strategies for sharing informa
tion (p. 647) and, ultimately, data produced from the integrated technology being imple
mented. The case study notes that the city will be guaranteed independence from stan
Page 20 of 32
dard governance structures in Korea, which it suggests “will make the daily lives of citi
zens more convenient and simplify decision making procedures when problems arise thus
making swift actions possible” (p. 31). However, there are no details provided about how
these simplified decision-making structures will operate and how they will incorporate
citizens’ views and needs, or what other risks may arise from reduced governance struc
tures. Some have noted similarities between the governance exemptions here and in oth
er spatially limited, highly controllable regions such as Singapore, which, although por
trayed technically as a democracy, is dominated by a single party with a high level of con
trol of systems (Maxwell, Watts, & Purnell, 2016). Carvalho includes a little more detail
on this flexible governance structure, including the fact that exemptions were granted
from national and local policy frameworks such as procurement and building height regu
lations. They argue that this provided opportunities to test new services and business
models which would not fit with existing regulations and practices, such as foreign and
privately supplied IT solutions which may be partly monopolistic (Carvalho, 2015).
The private party in question is largely Cisco, who gained the contract to implement the
city structures, and aims to offer “cities as a service” whereby a single, Internet-enabled
utility will charge residents to provide bundled urban necessities such as water, power,
traffic and telephony (Lindsay, 2010). Carvalho also criticizes aspects of the implementa
tion, suggesting that technology was “largely pushed from corporations to residents, in a
rather inflexible fashion” (Carvalho, 2015, p. 50). Carvalho is concerned that Cisco’s solu
tions have been developed outside of the country and brought in, leaving limited possibili
ties for input from local expertise of users and stakeholders. In fact, as Shwayri (2013)
points out, the city was planned in large part with foreign investors and immigrants in
mind. There is also a suggestion that solutions being offered are at the level of individual
consumption and not structural, providing ease of use but not infrastructural benefits to
improve wider city efficiencies.
This case represents a public-private partnership model with a consortium of organiza

tions, and demonstrates the purpose-built “smart city.” This is distinct from governmental
strategies to transform existing cities with infrastructure technology. The high flexibility
of governance afforded to the city by its centralized government also provides particular
ly favorable circumstances for rapid smart city development, but may be difficult to repli
cate elsewhere, and may lead to industry influence with reduced transparency in their
governance. Additionally, it seems that uptake of new residents to the area has been limit
ed, with a struggle to find those who want to live and work there, and the city seems emp
ty and soulless (as described by Borowiec, 2016, and James, 2016). It is difficult to say yet
whether this will prove to be a successful smart city initiative.
This case study raises questions around transparency and citizen representation and
agency, but primarily highlights accountability as an issue. While facilitated by govern
ment, implementation is led by private companies. This may have a significant impact on
accountability, particularly if their involvement has been facilitated by suspending normal
standards and regulatory processes.
Page 21 of 32
(p. 648) New York, United States
In January 2016, New York City began to install free WiFi across the city (Lufkin, 2016),
through the installation of “links”—hub kiosks that deliver high-speed gigabit WiFi as well
as phone calls, device charging, and city services via a touchscreen interface. These
LinkNYC devices were developed and provided by a company called CityBridge, a consor
tium of companies which ultimately is part of Google’s umbrella corporation, Alphabet
(Pinto, 2016); their aim is to roll out 7,500 units over 12 years.21 The units are not only
free to users but provided to the city free of charge, funded by “advertising, sponsorships
and partnerships” (as described on the project website).
The provision of the technology by a private company means that CityBridge is responsi
ble for its management and implementation. Sottek (2014) points out that the commercial
motivations of the system makes it likely that that its roll out will be influenced by profit
rather than public service, and that poor neighborhoods may be unfairly discriminated
against when choices are made as to where to install the devices, as they will be placed
preferentially based on predicted advertising revenues. This is an issue given that the
system was promoted to the city in part based on solving the digital divide by the provi
sion of free municipal WiFi. The level of service provided is also affected by this, as re
ported by Smith (2014), who found that while kiosks were being deployed throughout the
city, WiFi speeds were up to 10 times slower for those kiosks without advertising. These
slower kiosks make up a much larger proportion of those in poorer areas of the city, po
tentially increasing rather than reducing the digital divide, and demonstrating segmented
service in a similar manner to that enabled by the decision of the FCC to no longer en
shrine Net Neutrality (Fung, 2018).
There have also been issues in the deployment with regards to governing the usage of the
devices. When initially deployed, the LinkNYC kiosks included the facility to operate as a
web browser, allowing users to view internet content. In September 2016, however, the
web browser functions were removed after complaints from residents, businesses, and
elected officials that they were being abused by users spending excessive time at them,
or using them to view pornography (McGeehan, 2016). LinkNYC released a statement de
scribing changes made in response to this and other community concerns such as limiting
maximum volume at night, suggesting that the system was designed to be flexible “so we
can learn how people use LinkNYC, how they want to see it improved, and make adjust
ments over time” (Citybridge, 2017).
Another issue which has arisen concerns the potential of the devices to infringe upon pri
vacy. They require a log in, and collect MAC and IP addresses which, since they are asso
ciated with personal mobile devices, can be used to identify and track individuals and
connect this with their web browsing. Pinto (2016) raises this concern but also questions
the right of the city to surrender personal data on behalf of citizens by agreeing to the
private contract for the service, in effect selling citizens’ privacy to a for-profit company.
They also are not reassured by the company’s response that they are reviewing their pri
vacy policies to reflect actual practices, since the privacy policy was “written (p. 649) be
Page 22 of 32
fore we knew exactly how the network would operate.” In Pinto’s view this indicates City
Bridge is “making this up as they go along.”
Other companies are now competing with LinkNYC. For example, LQD WiFi, bought by
telecommunications company Verizon in November 2016, has developed a similar kiosk
system called Palo. It appears that LQD Wifi is planning to pilot these in at least one area
of New York, New Rochelle (Lunden, 2016). This may introduce competition or it may
mean that the city must introduce further governance and regulations regarding the de
ployment.
This case study provides a contrast to those discussed so far as it is a wholly private ser
vice deployed in the city at no point of use cost to the city or citizens, providing technolo
gy infrastructural services but supported by commercial concerns of advertising and data
sales. This leads to particular issues with regards to transparency, as the private compa
ny does not make clear the details of their governance, nor underlying motivations which
may impact upon the service and its function, such as the discriminatory impact of adver
tising-led service. As a privately led deployment that is authorized by the city, this also
places limits on accountability, and citizen agency or representation.
Conclusion
The case studies presented each show elements of how different IoT governance princi
ples can affect or interact with the nature and outcomes of IoT deployments. They also
represent different levels of governance in operation, particularly between the top-down
national governance and more bottom-up city-level deployments that may include differ
ent stakeholders. Currently there are many different governance strategies for IoT de
ployments, as the number of these interventions steadily grows. Without proper gover
nance, there are risks that these deployments can have consequences for the public, af
fecting privacy and security, especially given the extreme rate at which the use of these
devices and systems is growing (Umeh, 2014). This applies at the national and suprana
tional level in terms of top-down legislation, regulation and national policy, and also at the
local deployment level where currently there seems to be a wide range of governance
models and strategies that do not necessarily appear to be guided by specific national
policy. This is understandable given that said national policies are often limited in terms
of guidelines for local implementation.
Looking at the top-down governance models we examined of the European Union, the
United States, and the United Kingdom, we can see that they share several common fea
tures. Economic growth and innovation are often priority areas of national interest, and
funding packages and incentives for private sector leadership are encouraged. All three
also highlight the importance of trust, privacy, and security, and include the need for reg
ulation and ethical standards to prevent exploitation of the public. But despite this strong
support from central government for IoT investment, implementation at the (p. 650) city
level is often less structured and inconsistent. There appears to be a gap between the
type of top-level recommendations and regulations that are communicated by governing
Page 23 of 32
bodies, and the day to day governance structures that are required locally for a success
ful implementation.
The three examples of local (city-level) deployments indicate a small fraction of the range
of different models that might allow deployments, including public-academic partnerships
(in Chicago), public-private partnerships (in Songdo), and fully private initiatives support
ed by local government (in New York). We must also consider the critical role played by
fully grass-roots, citizen-led deployments, which can improve democratization. These are
becoming more common with the availability of cheap, off-the-shelf IoT devices and com
ponents (Surman & Thorne, 2016), and open-source code bases that allow “tinkering” by
citizen groups and individual hobbyists to contribute to IoT infrastructure and address
shared concerns (Kortuem & Kawsar, 2010).
The examples given also show that pushing out a deployment rapidly without full consid
eration of governance, privacy implications for the public, and the long-term implications
of such technologies can have negative impacts such as increasing public mistrust (as in
the case of Chicago) or introducing discriminatory practices in provision of “public” ser
vices (in New York). While it is not uncommon that such systems encounter challenges
and need revising after their deployments occur, this may be exacerbated by the urgency
with which these projects are being implemented. The perceived benefits of being able to
implement smart cities technology, and the numerous organizations offering “solutions,”
mean that there has to date been a rush to be included and seen as successful in doing
so.22 Thus, we have seen around the world a large number of pilot projects, demonstrator
indicatives, and rapid deployments,23 which are generally discussed in terms of their posi
tive outcomes, yet undertake limited information sharing about the issues that are en
countered, the barriers to scaling, and other limitations that prevent such pilots being
rolled out more widely in a sustainable manner. In the United Kingdom, for example,
while there are many such initiatives, several of which are world-leading, there is not a
self-sustaining private sector market that can function effectively without public sector in
volvement, and, as Altabev (2017) notes, “we’re still very experimental, we have a situa
tion where we seem to be forever stuck in pilot phases and loving grant funded projects.”
Supporting citizens in IoT deployments requires addressing questions raised by each of

the themes we have identified from the literature. This may be supported by effective
consultation and inclusion, transparency of governance, and the closing of the gover
nance gap identified here between top-down policy and city or citizen level implementa
tion. We should also carefully consider representation and individual agency—whether
citizens have any say in what IoT devices they interact with, where they are installed,
what data is collected and how it all comes together in the background—including educa
tion about why this matters. These are both critical areas for ongoing research. As IoT
technology becomes more ubiquitous, the data collected becomes ever more powerful in
what it can “say” about individual habits, practices, behaviors and beliefs. Developing a
trusted IoT ecosystem will require the realization of transparent and accountable sys
tems. These should not only make citizens aware of deployments which impact them,
(p. 651) but enable querying of the system to provide an appropriate level of transparency
Page 24 of 32
for their needs, and evaluation of risk. This is a critical area for ongoing research. Fur
ther, reviewing the literature leads us to recommend that governance of these systems
should be an evolving process rather than a static decision, adaptable to the changing
technologies involved, and to the needs of stakeholders including industry, citizens and lo
calities.
References
Almeida, V. A., Doneda, D., & Monteiro, M. (2015). Governance challenges for the Inter
net of Things. IEEE Internet Computing, 19(4), 56–59.
Altabev, D. (2017). Citycast [Podcast], Episode 6. https://soundcloud.com/cityverve/

citycast-episode-6-with-david-altabev
(p. 652) Angelidou, M. (2014). Smart city policies: A spatial approach. Cities, 41, S3–S11.
Angelidou, M., & Psaltoglou, A. (2017). Enhancing urban sustainability through social in
novation: Citizen environmental sensing for air quality monitoring. Sixth international
conference on environmental management, engineering, planning and economics, (CE
MEPE) and SECOTOX, Thessaloniki, Greece. https://www.researchgate.net/publica
tion/318014463
Ashton, K. (2009). That “internet of things” thing. RFID Journal, 22(7), 97–114.
Balestrini, M., Diez, T., Marshall, P., Gluhak, A., & Rogers, Y. (2015). IoT community tech
nologies: Leaving users to their own devices or orchestration of engagement. EAI En
dorsed Transactions on Internet of Things, 1(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.4108/eai.
26-10-2015.150601
Bihr, P. (2017). A TrustMark for IoT. Thingscon. https://www.thingscon.com/report-a-

trustmark-for-iot/
Borowiec, S. (2016). Skyscrapers? Check. Parks? Check. People? Still needed. Los Ange
les Times (May, 31st). Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-korea-
songdo-snap-story.html
The Bristol Approach. (2018). Project: Damp Homes. Bristol, UK: The Bristol Approach.
http://www.bristolapproach.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Portrait-Resource-
DAMP-HOMES.pdf
Byrne, J. (2014). Alderman wants hearing on Emanuel deal to install light pole sensors.
Chicago Tribune (June, 23). Retrieved from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/lo
cal/politics/chi-alderman-wants-hearing-on-emanuel-deal-to-install-light-pole-
sensors-20140623-story.html
Carvalho, L. (2015). Smart cities from scratch? A socio-technical perspective. Cambridge

Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), 43–60.
Page 25 of 32
Chen, L. J., Hsu, W., Cheng, M., & Lee, H. C. (2016). LASS: A location-aware sensing sys
tem for participatory PM2. 5 monitoring. In Proceedings of the 14th annual international
conference on mobile systems, applications, and services companion (p. 98). ACM. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1145/2938559.2938560
Citybridge. (2017). Update about our services. Citybridge. Retrieved from https://
www.link.nyc/service-update.html
Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. (2017). Policy paper: UK Digital Strate
gy. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-digital-strategy
Douriez, M., Doraiswamy, H., Freire, J., & Silva, C. T. (2016, October). Anonymizing NYC
taxi data: Does it matter? In IEEE international conference on data science and advanced
analytics (DSAA), 2016 (pp. 140–148). IEEE.
Elahi, A. (2016a). City seeks input on privacy policy for Array of Things sensor network.
Chicago Tribune (June, 10th). Retrieved from http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/
originals/ct-array-of-things-privacy-policy-bsi-20,160,610-story.html
Elahi, A. (2016b). City needs more detail in Array of Things privacy policy, experts say.
Chicago Tribune (June, 20th). Retrieved from http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/
originals/ct-expert-array-of-things-privacy-policy-bsi-20,160,621-story.html
European Commission. (2013). Report on the Public Consultation on IoT Governance. Eu
ropean Commission. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/
news/conclusions-internet-things-public-consultation
European Commission. (2016a). Commission staff working document: Advancing the In
ternet of Things in Europe. European Commission. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/
digital-single-market/en/news/staff-working-document-advancing-internet-
things-europe
European Commission. (2016b). The Alliance for Internet of Things Innovation (AIOTI).
European Commission. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/
alliance-internet-things-innovation-aioti
Fung, B. (2018). The FCC’s net neutrality rules are officially repealed today.
(p. 653)
Here’s what that really means. Washington Post (June, 11). Retrieved from https://
www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/06/11/the-fccs-net-neutrality-
rules-are-officially-repealed-today-heres-what-that-really-means/?utm:term=.
7af6cb96fdc4
Furness, A. (2012). Foundations for IoT Governance. In I. G. Smith (Ed.), The Internet of
Things 2012: New Horizons. CASAGRAS2. http://www.internet-of-things-research.eu/
pdf/IERC_Cluster_Book_2012_WEB.pdf
Page 26 of 32
Future Cities Catapult. (2017). Smart City Strategies: A Global Review 2017. Future
Cities Catapult. https://futurecities.catapult.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/
GRSCS-Final-Report.pdf
Gartner. (2017). Leading the IoT: Gartner insights on how to lead in a connected world.
Gartner. https://www.gartner.com/imagesrv/books/iot/iotEbook_digital.pdf
GMCA (Greater Manchester Combined Authority). (2018). Devolution. https://

www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/homepage/59/devolution
Gunashekar, S., Spisak, A., Dean, K., Ryan, N., Lepetit, L., & Cornish, P. (2016). Accelerat
ing the Internet of Things in the UK. Santa Monica, CA, and Cambridge, UK: Rand Corpo
ration.
Hammersley, B. (2013). When the world becomes the Web. Wired. (July 4). Retrieved from
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/when-the-world-becomes-the-web
Hill, N., Gibson, G., Guidorzi, E., Amaral, S., Parlikad, A. K., & Jin, Y. (2016). Scoping
study into deriving transport benefits from big data and the Internet of Things in smart
cities: Final report for Department of Transport. Didcot, UK: Ricardo Energy & Environ
ment.
Hwang, J. S., & Choe, Y. H. (2013, February). Smart cities Seoul: A case study. ITU-T Tech
nology Watch Report. Seoul. https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/23/01/
T23010000190001PDFE.pdf
IoTUK. (2016). IoTUK Industry Insights: UK IoT Investment by VCs, Angels and the
Crowd. IoTUK. https://iotuk.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/
UKIoTInvestment.pdf
James, I. (2016). Songdo: No Man’s City. Korea Expose (October, 14). Retrieved from
https://koreaexpose.com/songdo-no-mans-city/
Jiang, Q., Kresin, F., Bregt, A. K., Kooistra, L., Pareschi, E., Van Putten, E., Volten, H., &
Wesseling, J. (2016). Citizen sensing for improved urban environmental monitoring. Jour
nal of Sensors, 2016, Article ID 5656245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/5656245
Kortuem, G. & Kawsar, F. (2010). User innovation for the internet of things. Proceedings
of the Workshop: What can the Internet of Things do for the citizen (CIoT), Eighth Inter
national Conference on Pervasive Computing (Pervasive 2010), Helsinki, Finland.
Lindsay, G. (2010). Cisco’s big bet on new Songdo: Creating cities from scratch. Fast
Company (February, 1st). Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany.com/1514547/cis
cos-big-bet-new-songdo-creating-cities-scratch
Lee, S. K., Kwon, H. R., Cho, H., Kim, J., & Lee, D. (2016). International case studies of
smart cities: Songdo, Republic of Korea. Washington, US: Inter-American Development
Bank.
Page 27 of 32
Lufkin, B. (2016). NYC’s new public wi-fi is obscenely fast. Gizmodo. Retrieved from
http://gizmodo.com/nycs-new-public-wifi-is-obscenely-fast-1753825735
Lunden, I. (2016). Verizon buys LQD WiFi to expand its IoT strategy into “smart cities.”
Techcrunch. Retrieved from https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/14/verizon-buys-lqd-
wifi-to-expand-its-iot-strategy-into-smart-cities/
McGeehan, P. (2016). Free Wi-Fi kiosks were to aid New Yorkers. An unsavory side has
spurred a retreat. New York Times (September 15). Retrieved from https://
www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/nyregion/internet-browsers-to-be-disabled-on-new-
yorks-free-wi-fi-kiosks.html
Maxwell Watts, J. & Purnell, N. (2016). Singapore is taking the “Smart City” to a whole
new level. The Wall Street Journal (April, 24). Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/arti
cles/singapore-is-taking-the-smart-city-to-a-whole-new-level-1461550026
Maheswaran, M. & Misra, S. (2015, December). Towards a social governance

(p. 654)
framework for Internet of Things. In IEEE 2nd world forum on Internet of Things (WF-
IoT), 2015 (pp. 801–806). IEEE.
Mendelson, Z. (2015). Chicago’s array of things may give big data boost to urban plan
ning. Next City (October 15). Retrieved from https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/array-of-
things-chicago-smart-cities-data-sensors
Molloy, F. (2018). Fridges that order milk? How the IoT will ease everyday drudgery. The
Lighthouse. (February 13th). Retrieved from https://lighthouse.mq.edu.au/article/
fridges-that-order-milk-how-the-internet-of-things-will-change-everyday-life
Moser, W. (2014). What Chicago’s “Array of Things” will actually do. Chicago Magazine
(June 27). Retrieved from http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/June-2014/What-
Chicagos-Array-of-Things-Will-Actually-Do/
Mosendz, P. (2014). Chicago gets a new surveillance system straight out of a video game.
The Atlantic (June 24th). Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/
archive/2014/06/chicago-gets-a-new-surveillance-system-straight-out-of-a-video-
game/373339/
Narayanan, A. & Shmatikov, V. (2008, May). Robust de-anonymization of large sparse

datasets. In IEEE Symposium on security and privacy, 2008. SP 2008 (pp. 111–125). IEEE.
OECD. (2015). OECD Digital economy outlook 2015. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:http://
dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264232440-en
Pinto, N. (2016). Google is transforming NYC’s payphones into a “Personalized Propagan

da Engine.” The Village Voice (July 6th). Retrieved from http://www.villagevoice.com/
news/google-is-transforming-nycs-payphones-into-a-personalized-propaganda-en
gine-8822938
Page 28 of 32
Say, M. (2017). Minister calls for “single UK smart city offer.” UK Authority. Retrieved
from http://www.ukauthority.com/smart-places/entry/6861/minister-calls-for-sin
gle-uk-smart-city-offer
Shwayri, S. T. (2013). A model Korean ubiquitous eco-city? The politics of making Songdo.
Journal of Urban Technology, 20(1), 39–55.
Smith, I. G. (Ed.) (2012). The Internet of Things 2012: New horizons. CASAGRAS2 http://
www.internet-of-things-research.eu/pdf/IERC_Cluster_Book_2012_WEB.pdf
Smith, G. (2014). Exclusive: De Blasio’s Wi-Fi plan gives slower service to poorer neigh
borhoods. New York Daily News (November 24). Retrieved from http://
www.nydailynews.com/new-york/exclusive-de-blasio-wi-fi-plan-slower-poor-nabes-
article-1.2021146
Stella, R. (2016). Chicago’s innovative new streetlights will monitor the city’s every move.
Digital Trends. Retrieved from http://www.digitaltrends.com/home/city-of-chicago-
adding-sensors-to-its-streetlights/
Sorrell, S. (2017). Smart cities: Strategies, energy, emissions & cost savings 2017–2022.
Juniper Research. https://www.juniperresearch.com/researchstore/iot-m2m/smart-
cities/strategies-forecasts-in-energy-transport-lighting
Sottek, T. C. (2014). New York City’s ambitious free Wi-Fi plan sounds great, unless you
live in a poor neighborhood. The Verge (November 24). Retrieved from http://
www.theverge.com/2014/11/24/7275567/nyc-public-wifi-is-rich
Surman, M. & Thorne, M. (2016). We all live in the computer now: A Netgain paper on so
ciety, philanthropy and the Internet of Things. Netgain Partnership. Retrieved from
https://netgainpartnership.org/internet-of-things/
Sweeney, L. (2002). k-anonymity: A model for protecting privacy. International Journal of

Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 10(05), 557–570.
Umeh, J. (2014). Internet of Things: Exciting yet scary. BCS (September 19). Retrieved
from http://www.bcs.org/content/conBlogPost/2357
US Department of Commerce. (2017). Green Paper: Fostering the advancement of

(p. 655)
the Internet of Things. The Department of Commerce Internet Policy Taskforce & Digital
Economy Leadership Team, National Telecommunications and Information Administra
tion. Retrieved from https://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2017/green-paper-
fostering-advancement-internet-things
Walker, T. (2018). Smart refrigerators that let you know when the milk is on the turn,
toothbrushes that keep track of dental hygiene and tennis rackets that help you play bet
ter: Welcome to ‘the internet of things’. The Independent. (January, 12th). Retrieved from
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/smart-refrigera
Page 29 of 32
tors-that-let-you-know-when-the-milk-is-on-the-turn-toothbrushes-that-keep-
track-of-9053681.html
Walport, M. (2014). The Internet of Things: Making the most of the second digital revolu
tion. A report by the UK Government Chief Scientific Adviser. The Government Office for
Science. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/up
loads/attachment_data/file/409774/14-1230-internet-of-things-review.pdf
Weber, R. H. (2011). Accountability in the Internet of Things. Computer Law and Security
Review, 27(2), 133–138.
Weber, R. H. (2013). Internet of things: Governance quo vadis? Computer Law and Securi
ty Review, 29(4), 341–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2013.05.010
Weber, R. H. (2016). Governance of the Internet of Things: From infancy to first attempts
of implementation? Laws, 5(3), 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws5030028
Weber, R. H. & Weber, R. (2010). Internet of Things. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Weiser, M. (1991). The Computer for the 21st Century. Scientific American, 265(3), 94–
105.
Notes:
(1.) http://www.urbantransformations.ox.ac.uk/project/jam-and-justice-co-producing-ur
ban-governance-for-social-innovation/
(2.) http://ontheplatform.org.uk/article/mapping-participatory-urban-governance.
(3.) Though a number of the articles do not yet have corresponding laws, making it a doc
ument in development.
(4.) https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2607
(5.) For a list of UK investments see Appendix E of Gunashekar et al. (2016).
(6.) https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-parliament-2015/
technology/internet-of-things/
(7.) https://iotuk.org.uk/
(8.) PD 8100, Smart cities overview—Guide, summarized in the document Making cities
smarter: Guide for city leaders.
(9.) PAS 183, 184, 185.
(10.) https://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/innovation/test-beds/
(11.) https://www.petrashub.org/
Page 30 of 32
(12.) https://cityverve.org.uk/
(13.) http://gmdsp.org.uk/
(14.) https://www.juniperresearch.com/home
(15.) https://www.lora-alliance.org/what-is-lora/technology
(16.) https://data.cityofchicago.org/
(17.) https://arrayofthings.github.io/index.html
(18.) http://opengovfoundation.org/the-madison-project/
(19.) https://arrayofthings.github.io/policy-responses.html
(20.) https://arrayofthings.github.io/final-policies.html
(21.) https://www.link.nyc/faq.html#when
(22.) This may be due to pressure from national bodies and funders, but also is likely to be
exacerbated by the tone of numerous workshops, symposiums and conferences aimed at
officials around smart cities, which use language that consistently seems to imply that
public service has to be offering these technologies or they are not modern.
(23.) For example, see https://www.nominet.uk/list-smart-city-projects/for a non-compre

hensive list of such projects.
Naomi Jacobs
Naomi Jacobs is a Research Fellow currently based at the University of Aberdeen,

whose interdisciplinary work focuses on social impacts of technology for interaction
in digital and physical spaces. Her research to date has included examining the na
ture and impacts of the digital public space, developing new tools for interdiscipli
nary collaboration and knowledge exchange, and using design ethnography and spec
ulative design to investigate factors affecting trust by citizens and communities with
regard to the Internet of Things.
Peter Edwards
Peter Edwards is Professor of Computing Science at the University of Aberdeen. Be

tween 2009 and 2015 he was Director of the RCUK Digital Economy Hub dot.rural—a
large interdisciplinary research effort which explored how digital technologies could
transform rural life; from 2006 to 2012 he was Director of the ESRC Digital Social
Research Node, PolicyGrid—exploring the role of computational models of prove
nance in documenting social policy formulation. He has over 25 years of experience
of research into distributed information systems and their applications, working in
Page 31 of 32
domains as diverse as transport, health care, environmental modelling, and food

safety.
Caitlin D. Cottrill
Caitlin D. Cottrill is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Geography and Environ

ment at the University of Aberdeen. Her primary research interests span the interre
lated topics of transport, individual behavior, technology, and data, linked by an un
derlying commitment to encouraging sustainable and efficient mobility. Her work has
a strong focus on facilitating data sharing between transport service providers and
travelers in a privacy-preserving manner, in order to encourage better decision mak
ing. She has, additionally, worked to ensure that this research takes place in a multi
disciplinary context, with collaborators from the areas of computing science, engi
neering, statistics, and information sciences.
Karen Salt
Karen Salt is Director of the Centre for Research in Race and Rights (C3R) and Assis
tant Professor at the University of Nottingham. She is an interdisciplinary scholar
with strong interests in transnational American studies and Afrodiasporic studies. A
significant portion of her work investigates how black nation-states have fought for
their continued existence within a highly racialized world. As this work has devel
oped, Dr. Salt has considered the relationship of sovereignty and race to environmen
tal consumption and protection, enabling her to craft new research on racial ecolo
gies. In addition to this work, she currently leads or co-leads projects on reparative
trust, collective activism, racial equity, and transformative justice politics.
Page 32 of 32
ESRC Review: Future Research on the Social, Organizational, and Personal
Impacts of Automation: Findings from Two Expert Panels
ESRC Review: Future Research on the Social, Organiza

tional, and Personal Impacts of Automation: Findings
from Two Expert Panels
Simeon J. Yates and Jordana Blejmar
Two workshops were part of the final steps in the Economic and Social Research Council
(ESRC) commissioned Ways of Being in a Digital Age project that is the basis for this
Handbook. The ESRC project team coordinated one with the UK Defence Science and
Technology Laboratory (ESRC-DSTL) Workshop, “The automation of future roles”; and
one with the US National Science Foundation (ESRC-NSF) Workshop, “Changing work,
changing lives in the new technological world.” Both workshops sought to explore the key
future social science research questions arising for ever greater levels of automation, use
of artificial intelligence, and the augmentation of human activity. Participants represented
a wide range of disciplinary, professional, government, and nonprofit expertise. This
chapter summarizes the separate and then integrated results. First, it summarizes the
central social and economic context, the method and project context, and some basic defi
nitional issues. It then identifies 11 priority areas needing further research work that
emerged from the intense interactions, discussions, debates, clustering analyses, and in
tegration activities during and after the two workshops. Throughout, it summarizes how
subcategories of issues within each cluster relate to central issues (e.g., from users to
global to methods) and levels of impacts (from wider social to community and organiza
tional to individual experiences and understandings). Subsections briefly describe each of
these 11 areas and their cross-cutting issues and levels. Finally, it provides a detailed Ap
pendix of all the areas, subareas, and their specific questions.
Keywords: ESRC review, ESRC-DSTL, automation, ESRC-NSF, social science, artificial intelligence, augmentation
Introduction
THIS chapter, like the final chapter (chapter 25), is concerned with future research chal
lenges. Whereas the final chapter is based on all elements of the ESRC project and the
Page 1 of 49
non-ESRC chapters, this draws on the two workshops undertaken during the projects that
specifically focused on the social impacts of artificial intelligence (AI) and automation:
• UK Economic and Social Research Council and UK Defence Science and Technology
Laboratory (ESRC-DSTL) Workshop: “The automation of future roles”
• UK Economic and Social Research Council and US National Science Foundation
(ESRC-NSF) Workshop: “Changing work, changing lives in the new technological
world”
Both workshops sought to explore the key future social science research questions aris
ing from ever-greater levels of automation, use of artificial intelligence, and the augmen
tation of human activity. Both workshops consisted of a set of domain experts brought to
gether to review these issues in a structured setting. The chapter provides an overview of
the issues identified by the two workshops. Though both workshops followed a similar
format and were supported by the same facilitation team, the approaches (p. 660) taken
and outcomes, though highly complementary, were slightly different. Both workshops de
veloped a broad structure within which to explore questions or issues ranging from global
or societal issues through to personal or individual foci. The ESRC-DSTL workshop pro
duced less of a focus on individual and behavioral aspects compared to the ESRC-NSF
workshop. The ESRC-DSTL workshop developed very specific questions for each level,
whereas the ESRC-NSF workshop generated a set of questions potentially addressed at
one or more levels. Unlike the other ESRC chapters in this book, there is no extensive lit
erature review underpinning the results.
The chapter begins with an overview of the context in which the workshops were devel
oped, followed by an outline of the methods used to facilitate the workshops. Then it con
siders how the workshops defined their scope—this proved broader than the initial start
ing points. Next is an overview of the identified research areas integrating the outcomes
from both workshops. This is followed by more detailed descriptions of the issues and
questions identified in the workshops. The chapter concludes with some reflections on
the key issues and overlaps with the rest of the ESRC review, and provides a detailed Ap
pendix of all the issues, themes, and questions arising from the two workshops.
The impact of digital technologies on work and work experience has been extensively dis
cussed, across multiple academic disciplines, for much of the last half-century: from the
more utopian visions of an “end to work” (Gorz, 1985), to detailed critical studies of the
impact on organizations (Zuboff, 1988), and of course more contemporary accounts and
predictions (Anderson & Rainie, 2010; see also chapters 1, 12, and 23). The issue also at
tracts considerable policy attention in the United Kingdom and the United States where it
is likewise both a major concern for industry (Chui et al., 2015; Manyika, 2017) and a re
curring topic of discussion in the media and popular writing (e.g., Ford, 2015).
Page 2 of 49
For academic researchers, however, it is an area fraught with challenges, with many of
the key unanswered questions seeming to require interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary
approaches. With these issues in mind, the aims and objectives of the workshops were to
• Assess the social and behavioral research challenges of understanding the impacts of
automation, AI, and augmentation
• Assess major knowledge gaps and discuss how research could help in addressing
these gaps
• Identify priority areas for research and potential research collaborations
• Identify and assess prior academic and stakeholder predictions of the impact of new
technologies on human tasks, roles, and jobs
• Identify and assess methodologies by which impacts and effects can be assessed, in
particular:
◦ Tasks, roles, and jobs

◦ Human knowledge, skills, and attributes
◦ Organizational structures and cultures
◦ Organizational development
(p. 661) ◦ Workforce training, recruitment, engagement, and motivation
◦ Decision making in organizations.
These issues were organized into thematic questions as starting points for the workshops:

• What new forms of work emerge because of digital technologies?
• How do we live with and trust the algorithms and data analysis used to shape key
features of our lives?
• How do we construct the digital to be open to all, sustainable and secure?
• How does digital technology affect our autonomy, agency, and privacy?
• Does digital technology help or hinder us in participating at individual and communi
ty levels?
• What new forms of community emerge because of digital technologies?
• Will digital technology make us healthier, better educated, and more productive?
Social and Economic Context

Concerns and questions about the impact of automation and augmentation have been
with us throughout history, often focusing on how and where technologies were imple
mented. There is the often-quoted example of why Heron of Alexandria’s “invention” of
steam power in 50 AD never got used—the arguments being the presence of “cheap” and
Page 3 of 49
reliable slave labor or the higher reliability of water power. Over time, automation of pre
viously manual work and the augmentation of human performance with machines has
been at the heart of the “industrial revolution” from the Spinning Jenny through to
present day digital technologies. This automation and augmentation underpins the con
stant increase in human productivity (see Figure 24.1).
Figure 24.1 Productivity graph.
Why then the current concerns over automation and augmentation? A quick review of re
cent media coverage would point to issues of
• Robotics
• Artificial intelligence
• Data analytics
In each case the concern is for human roles being replaced by computing and technology
solutions, from the military (drones), through manufacturing (robots) to office work (AI
and algorithms). Notably the issue of human augmentation with technology is not exten
sively addressed—unless the use of (or claimed excess use) of digital media by children
and young people may be considered an example of media panic over an (p. 662) augment
ing technology (see, for example, chapters 4 and 9). These discussions reflect and are re
flected in popular science and technology books and articles that have often focused on
the negative consequences for work and employment (e.g., Ford, 2015; see also chapter
1) The debate in public media reflects the ongoing debate in academic work around au
tomation, with very different conclusions being drawn over the likely impact of automa
tion and augmentation on work and society. Arguments about the more negative aspects
are often balanced with the more positive or “business as usual” models. The common
thread in much of this debate is the question of the impacts upon levels of employment
that automation and augmentation may engender.
Long-term structural unemployment due to technological innovation has been a concern

of economists since Ricardo (1821/2009). During the majority of the 19th and 20th cen
Page 4 of 49
turies, the more positive argument was that in the long term “compensation effects” in
the economy would generate new jobs that would match or outweigh short term “techno
logical unemployment.” Compensation effects include: manufacture of new machines, in
vestments in new products, wage changes either increases and spending or reductions
leading to increased reemployment, and lower prices and higher demand. As a result, lev
els of wage growth, employment, and productivity have grown together over the long
term—though short-term technological unemployment and de-skilling have happened (see
Figure 24.1). More recently, economists have argued that compensation effects are no
longer keeping pace with the impacts of high-performance computing; thus, technological
unemployment has become a structural feature of the economy (Brynjolfsson & McAfee,
2014; Ford, 2015). This has been popularized as (p. 663) the “hollowed out middle” where
higher-skilled “blue collar” and lower-skilled “white collar” work has become automated,
such as through robots in the factory and algorithms in the office (Ford, 2015; Madland,
2015).
These debates are of course of central importance to economics as a discipline and to

long-term social and economic policy. At the same time, this debate does not address the
myriad of specific issues and consequences (intended or otherwise) that come from in
creased automation and augmentation. Identifying and exploring this broader set of is
sues was the goal of the ESRC-NSF workshop. The workshop did not seek to answer
these questions—rather it sought to identify the broad topics where social and behavioral
sciences could provide important novel or further insight.
Method and Project Context

The two two-day workshops funded and supported by the ESRC, DSTL, and NSF in 2017
included a mix of academics from the United Kingdom and the United States from a
range of social and behavioral sciences (see Table 24.1). The workshops formed the final
part of the ESRC “Ways of Being in a Digital Age” review project, the main results of
which are presented in the ESRC review chapters (2, 3, 8, 11, 14, 16, 18, and 22). The
ESRC-NSF workshop had a stronger focus on workplace and socio-economic issues both
by design and as a function of attendees. The ESRC-DSTL workshop had a broader remit
and included some computer science and industry colleagues.
Page 5 of 49
Table 24.1 Expertise Represented at the Two Workshops
ESRC-DSTL ESRC-NSF
Artificial intelligence, agents Anthropology

and autonomous systems
Computer science Behavioral science affecting mar

kets for technology products.
Computer science Cognitive science
Cyber security Community in virtual environments

and other emerging social media
Digital culture and digital in Computer science

equalities
Digital cultures and automa Computer science and human per

tion formance
Digital humanities, automa Consumption and use of new ICTs

tion and media archaeology and the coevolution of technology
and culture.
Employment research Data science
Employment studies Design and creative technology
Human sciences Developmental psychology
Information systems and in Digital cultures

formation management
Interaction design methods, Digital globalization and feminist

human computer interaction labor theory
Law and regulation Digital humanities
Management and digital orga Digital humanities

nizations
Page 6 of 49
Management systems and Digital technology and travel

digital economies
Management, work, technolo Economics and technology diffu

gy, and globalization sion
Operations and process man Hispanic studies and digital cultur

agement al memory
Personnel development Human computer interaction
Philosophy of mind, philoso Information studies

phy of language and cognitive
science
Robotics Information systems
Robotics and autonomous sys Organization studies and human-

tems centered technology
Social and occupational psy Organizational communication, dif

chology fusion of innovations, environmen
tal communication
Sociology and computer sci Psychology

ence
Sociology of contemporary Psychology, human geography and

work science and technology studies
Sociology of inequalities Robotics, neurobiology of the sen

sory motor system and computa
tional neuroscience
Sociology of work and organi Situated decision making and tech

zations nology mediated mobility
Social change and digital culture
Social informatics, human factors,

and interactive computer systems
design
Page 7 of 49
Sociology of work and organization
Both workshops were facilitated discussions designed to collectively develop a set

(p. 664)
of consensus positions though documenting interactions and debates. In this sense the
workshops functioned as a condensed Delphi consultation (see Linstone & Turoff, 1975;
chapter 2). In both cases the workshops involved participants engaging in a range of ac
tivities designed to break down potential issues and questions, gain consensus on the key
issues, and then restructure these into themes. This also included work on likely time
lines and challenges. Much of the work involved applying visual sorting and clustering
methods to topics generated through the interactions and debates. The methods used
were designed (p. 665) by the facilitators and built on prior work designed to generate
ideas for and develop the details of interdisciplinary research projects. Figures 24.2 to
24.4 provide examples of the clustering work undertaken at the workshops (providing two
examples of the Post-it Notes prepared and initially organized by the teams, and re-orga
nized through general discussion; and an example of how those were re-analyzed to de
rive a more condensed and clear structure).
Figure 24.2 Clustering of ideas: ESRC-NSF work

shop.
Page 8 of 49
Figure 24.3 Political, economic, social, technical, le

gal, and environmental clustering: ESRC-NSF work
shop.
Figure 24.4 Final research topic template: ESRC-

DSTL workshop.
The primary outcomes from the workshop are a set of future research areas broadly de
fined, as well as specific research questions, to which the attendees thought that social
and behavioral sciences could or should make a significant contribution. Within these, a
large number of specific research questions and topics were identified and are detailed in
the Appendix. The “Ways of Being” team built on the clustering and linking work under
taken in the workshop to collate these questions and topics into coherent themes. The
themes from both workshops show considerable overlap, and the following sections
present overviews of these themes.
Page 9 of 49
Definitions
In both of the workshops the definition of key terms and scope was an important initial
discussion point. Though the declared foci of the workshops were on workplace (p. 666)
technologies, especially automation and AI, separating automation, AI, augmentation, al
gorithms, and digital technologies in general proved problematic, as did the distinction
between workplace and broader socio-economic issues. As a result, at its broadest the
discussion addressed the social and global impacts of digitization, but also addressed nar
rower questions of human-machine interaction. The discussions especially reflected on
• Automation versus or alongside augmentation?

• How to distinguish between “automation” and “digital”
It was noted that “Automation” and “Augmentation” marked points on a spectrum of tech
nological interventions in human action. Some systems remove all human intervention
and are fully “automated”; others “augment” human abilities through the automation or
enhancement of aspects of a task or activity. It was strongly argued that separating these
in an arbitrary manner was unhelpful. Further, it was noted in the workshops that ideas
of “digitization” and “automation” appeared to both overlap and sometimes be synony
mous. Importantly, it was recognized that digitization provides (p. 667) (p. 668) the oppor
tunity for considerable automation of tasks or augmentation of human actors, as it opens
the data or activity to computational processing. For the purposes of this chapter, the fo
cus is therefore on systems that automate tasks or augment human action—where digiti
zation or artificial intelligence is in many cases a necessary but not sufficient condition
for the automation or augmentation.
Proposed Research Areas

Both workshops produced priority lists of areas that the participants believed needed to
be the focus of further research work. The ESRC-NSF workshop in particular generated
10 broad research areas from the clustering work of the workshop and further analysis of
the workshop materials by the research team:
1. Technology development and adoption

2. Trust
3. Complexity and the scale of the topic
4. Evidence and methods
5. Global environments
6. Education, skills, and employment
7. Inequalities
8. Embodiment and cognitive demands
9. Ethics
10. Impactful social science
Page 10 of 49
Reviewing these areas, the team noted that each included, to a greater or less extent, the
following issues:
• User issues—such as psychological capacity or system interactions

• Citizen issues—such as questions of rights or individual consequences
• Social issues—cultural, political or economic, including policy
• Global issues—such as environmental impact or global economy
• Methodological issues—how to undertake relevant social and behavioral research
Not all topics were seen to intersect with all issues, although taken together the two lists
produced 29 intersecting topic–issue pairs (see Table 24.2).
Page 11 of 49
ESRC Review: Future Research on the Social, Organizational, and Personal Impacts of Automation: Findings from
Two Expert Panels
(p. 671) Table 24.2 ESRC-NSF Workshop: Topics by Issues
Topics User Issues Citizen Issues Social Issues Global Issues Methods Is
sues
Technology X X X X
development
and adoption
Trust X X X
Complexity X X X
and the scale
of the topic
Evidence and X
methods
Global envi X X X
ronments
Education, X X
skills, and em
ployment
Inequalities X X X
Page 12 of 49
ESRC Review: Future Research on the Social, Organizational, and Personal Impacts of Automation: Findings from
Two Expert Panels
Embodiment X X
and cognitive
demands
Ethics X X X
Impactful so X X X X X
cial science
Page 13 of 49
These topics and issues are very similar to the outcomes of the ESRC-DSTL workshop.
The eight main topics identified by the workshop were
1. Social and cultural attitudes to automation

2. Community and social issues
(p. 669) 3. System design for being (in)digital
4. Organizations, professions, and work

5. Trust and accountability
6. Meaningful life roles
7. Oversight and governance
8. Research methods
As with the ESRC-NSF workshop, questions about impacts were grouped into three lev
els:
• Wider social impacts

• Community and organizational level impacts
• Individual experiences and understandings
All topics were deemed to intersect with these, creating 24 potential starting points for
research. Finally, the workshop noted some specific concerns that were relevant for some
topic-level intersections. Table 24.3 provided the topics, levels, intersections, and those
specific concerns.
Page 14 of 49
Table 24.3 ESRC-DSTL Workshop: Topic Areas by Level of Impact
Topic Wider so Communi Individual ex

cial im ty and or periences and
pacts ganiza understand
tional ings
Social and cul X X Impacts on be

tural attitudes liefs about and
to automation experiences of
technologies
Community X X X
and social is
sues
System design X Develop X

for being ment and
(in)digital implanta
tion of sys
tems
Organizations, Government Overall so X

professions, and organi cio-econom
and work zational poli ic impacts
cy and strat
egy
Overall so
cio-econom
ic impacts
Trust and ac X X X

countability
Meaningful life X X X
roles
Oversight and Government X X

governance and organi
zational poli
cy and strat
egy
Page 15 of 49
Research meth X X X
ods
Looking at the content and discussion underlying these lists from the two work
(p. 670)
shops we find very similar issues. We have combined these into 11 core topic areas that
are examined in the next section:
1. Social and cultural attitudes toward AI and automation

2. Technology development, system design, and adoption
3. Trust in automated systems; Oversight and governance
4. Complexity and the scale of the topic
5. Evidence and research methods
6. Global environments
7. Education, skills, and employment; organizations, professions, and work
8. Inequalities; Community and social issues; Social impacts
9. Embodiment and cognitive demands; System design for being (in) digital
10. Ethics
11. Impactful social science
Identified Research Topics

Social and Cultural Attitudes toward AI and Automation
This issue probably underpins the whole debate. Although it shows up in a variety of is
sues in the all the following discussion, it was only separately identified in the ESRC-
DSTL workshop. Table 24.4 highlights the potential research questions that the workshop
identified for each level. These clearly overlap with issues around trust and also around
technology development. These are clearly research questions that can be addressed by a
variety of disciplines, from the humanities (especially the historical, media, and cultural
aspects) as well as social sciences, political sciences, and economics. It reflects the large
question of how societies understand, discuss, and evaluate AI and automation technolo
gies.
Page 16 of 49
Table 24.4 ESRC-DSTL Workshop: Social and Cultural Perceptions by

Level of Impact
Wider social Community and or Individual experi

ganizational ences and under
standings
Does everyone How do attitudes to How do attitudes to

benefit equally automation vary by so wards technology and
from automa cial class, age, and automation shape the
tion? ethnic background? development and imple
Do differences What can we learn mentation of technology
between na from social/cultural (acceptance/rejection)?
tional cultures anxieties about au
affect atti tomation concerning
tudes to au regulation and acces
tomation? sibility of automated
What can we systems?
learn about
historic de
bates and con
troversies
about automa
tion?
Technology Development, System Design, and Adoption
All the workshop discussions included very high level and broad questions about the so
cial, personal, and psychological impacts of automation. Much of this discussion focused
around issues of technology adoption. Technology adoption (see chapter 13) is a well-re
searched area (Davis et al., 1989; Venkatesh, 2000; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Venkatesh
et al., 2003) with many case study-based studies of specific technology implementations.
Within the analysis, this category functioned as a catch-all for general questions about
the impacts of automation. These often reflected broader general questions proposed in
media coverage and popular accounts. Examples included
(p. 672)
• How do we prepare for a world of intelligent computational aspects (beyond work is
sues)?
• What are the risks and benefits of emerging technologies?
• Will we be blindsided by some new technology, such as a brain-computer interface?
Page 17 of 49
• How do you conduct research concerning citizens who do not want to adopt technol
ogy?
• People working longer with technology. Will new technology allow people to work
more efficiently or have more leisure time? Is there an absence of utopian thinking
about the future of work?
The ESRC-DSTL workshop identified “system design” as a key topic area, though the un
derlying questions clearly overlap with topics from the ESRC-NSF workshop that focused
on embodiment, cognitive demands, and ethics. Table 24.5 details the questions identified
in the ESR-DSTL workshop.
Table 24.5 ESRC-DSTL Workshop: Technology Acceptance and Sys

tems Design by Level of Impact
Wider social Community and Individual experi

organizational ences and under
standings
How do we design How can we de Why should tasks (as

“roles” in an auto sign ways of being opposed to roles) be
mated society that digital that respect automated in a socio-
can withstand or re alterity and differ technical system?
sist commodification ence? What are the benefits
and the profit mo What are the ef of replacing or aug
tive? fects on “being” in menting or evading
What ethical consid digital spaces? automation of tasks?
erations should be What are the theoret
“built into” systems ical and practical con
prior to automation? tingencies in the
move from operator
to operated?
Trust in Automated Systems; Oversight and Governance
This was a key discussion point throughout the workshop. There appeared to be three
themes to this cluster in the ESRC-NSF workshop:
• Citizen knowledge and skills

• Understanding and addressing human-machine trust
• Social impacts and consequences of trust in algorithms
The first theme focuses on the knowledge and skills of citizens and their ability to assess
(or not) technology; i.e., to what extent is trust of technology based on substantial under
Page 18 of 49
standing. Do citizens have the digital knowledge and skills to evaluate automated, algo
rithmic, and augmented systems at work and in everyday life? Do they understand
(p. 673) what data they are sharing? How can research help them to understands this?
What research is needed to highlight the understandings and assumptions citizens have
about automated systems?
• Implicit in these questions was a need to enhance citizens’ digital literacy so as to

support their ability to evaluate how much to trust automated systems and services.
This second theme focused more on the relationship between citizens and automated sys
tems. In particular, there was a focus on how to manage and develop a trusting relation
ship and to mitigate conflict with automated systems. Questions included:
• How is trust established in and through use?

• How do we research the process by which trust is established in human-machine re
lationships?
• How do we ensure that trust is based on knowledgeable decisions by citizens?
The third theme concerned the social and political impacts of automation and trust in au
tomated systems. This included both issues of challenging these new technologies as well
as the consequences of not challenging these. Overall, there was a focus on the social
consequences (positive or negative) of ever-increasing automation of systems and ser
vices (whether well-designed or not). Key questions were
• How do we assess and evaluate consequences?

• What cultures and norms around the trust of technologies have developed or are de
veloping?
The ESRC-DSTL workshop issues of trust clearly overlap with the topics from the ESRC-
NSF workshop, though presented differently (see Table 24.6). One of the key (p. 674) con
cerns at the ESRC-DSTL workshop was that of governance and oversight of AI and aug
mentation. At all three levels of impacts the following question was asked:
• What are the appropriate oversight and governance models for an automated world?
Page 19 of 49
Table 24.6 ESRC-DSTL Workshop: Trust and Automation by Level of

Impact

standings
What automated How will technology Trust and account

systems need to be transform organiza ability and organi
certified in the fu tions, their tasks, and zations, profes
ture to ensure true decision-making sions, and work?
accountability for processes in the light How does trust in
autonomous enti of AI and automation? automated systems
ties? Who within the orga develop?
nizations will lead or How does trust in
will do this? automated systems
What is the responsi develop?
bility versus account Do the human-to-
ability of automated human trust mod
systems? els translate to the
human-to-artificial
intelligence interac
tions?
Complexity and the Scale of the Topic
A recurring theme in the discussions was the “complexity and scale of the topic.” Many of
the points made were not “research questions” but rather “meta” questions or proposals
on how to manage and deliver research in a complex and quickly changing technical and
social landscape. As already noted, the workshop found it difficult to focus simply on au
tomation, or workplace technology interaction. The implications of greater automation
across work domains and non-work contexts could not be easily unpacked. Digital tech
nologies were seen to be pervasive and have multiple interlinked consequences. This led
to concerns and questions about how research topics could be managed, interdisciplinari
ty, speed of change, slow processes of research funding and execution, need to obtain and
provide data for policy “quickly,” and relevance of academic work to a fast-moving indus
try. These were grouped into four clusters:
• Inter- and multidisciplinary issues

• Managing scale and rate of change
• Undertaking responsive and timely research
• Policy or managing the social impacts and asking relevant questions
Page 20 of 49
Interdisciplinarity was a consistent theme in the discussions. This was of course the con
sequence of a strongly multi-disciplinary meeting and event. The need to utilize multiple
disciplines in addressing the complexity of the issues was noted—especially across the
arts-social science-engineering spectrum. A number of consequences of this were also
noted, especially the need to recognize that topics new to one discipline may have al
ready been examined (though potentially in different ways) by other disciplines. This pri
or work might have already generated data sets available for re-analysis. This pointed to
a need for disciplines to support each other, including the sharing of tools, methods, and
knowledge, as well as re-analysis of data.
As noted earlier, the workshop participants emphasized the scale of the impacts of au
tomation and digital technologies. This awareness raised a set of practical questions
about how to manage research in such a dynamic context. A key one was undertaking re
sponsive and timely research. This arises form practical concerns of dealing with a dy
namic and changing evidence base, the timeliness of research, the need to develop re
sponses to support policy and action quickly, and the contrast of these timelines with
those for academic publishing.
This cluster included a mix of thoughts and comments by participants with regard to both
the practical and the more theoretical challenges for research on automation that is
(p. 675) relevant to policy or that itself has broader social implications. In particular, ethi
cal questions were raised about what should or should not be researched or developed.
Practical questions focused on short- to medium-term policy questions about appropriate
research and development. More theoretical questions considered the utopian and
dystopian implications of research and development around AI and automation.
Evidence and Research Methods
Cross-cutting all discussions were questions around what types of evidence we need in
order to understand the social impacts of automation and what methods are needed to
gather and assess this data. A recurrent issue in these discussions was the pace of
change. The perennial question in the study of the social impacts of technology of “Do we
need new methods for studying technologies?” was repeated throughout the discussion in
both workshops. This is of course a double-edged question, as new technologies also pro
vide both new methods and new data sets. Both workshops highlighted the importance of
valuing different disciplinary positions. This was especially the case in the ESRC-NSF
workshop, where participants were from a broad range of disciplines covering all the so
cial and behavioral sciences from anthropology and psychology, through economics and
sociology, to human–computer interaction (HCI) and information studies (see Table 24.1).
The issues of interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinary research were therefore prevalent
throughout the discussion, with a key theme being the need to respect different disci
plines approaches to the same topic. This includes both quantitative and qualitative work,
especially in the context of studying technologies. Both the tension between and comple
mentarity of these approaches and their underlying disciplines arose because studies sup
porting the development of these technologies were predominantly quantitative, while re
Page 21 of 49
search on the impacts of these technologies was sometimes examined through more qual
itative case studies.
Thus the ESRC-DSTL workshop proposed a simple general question:
• Which are the most appropriate methods to address questions at the societal, com
munity, organizational, and individual levels?
Both workshops pointed out that this may also reflect disciplinary foci (see Tables 24.2
and 24.3). Psychological methods, for example experimental analysis of person-machine
interaction, may be more appropriate at the individual or organizational level. Potentially,
however, psychological tools to measure attitudes may be used to address wider social
concerns. Sociological survey and ethnographic work might be more likely to be used for
social and community studies. Economics is appropriate for modelling wider impacts in
such areas as jobs and productivity. Cross-disciplinary work was also thought to be key to
a full understanding of issues; for example, psychological studies or purchasing behavior
online, or ethnographic studies of workers in highly automated workplaces (or even of
workplaces undergoing automation).
The need to support methods that deliver for policy or for commercial research
(p. 676)
and development was also noted by participants in both workshops. Given the important
practical and policy implications of potential research in this area, the participants point
ed out that research needs to reach out beyond academia. These questions are not just
about how knowledge can be transferred, but how academic social science can and
should play an integrated role in shaping the consequences of new research and develop
ment in the areas of AI and automation.
Concerns were raised about both methods that use AI or big data but also about the use
of such analytic methods in society without proper thought and review. Many cases of
bias, discrimination, and misinformation as a result of the poor use of AI and data analyt
ics technology across society were highlighted (see chapters 7, 18, 19, and 23). The uses
and abuses of personal and social media data were particularly noted. This pointed to a
broader social and ethical concern for digital research methods: the need to be highly
vigilant for bias in data sets, or bias developed from the use of specific data sets (see
chapter 20). It was noted that society can no longer follow the cultural assumption that
technology is neutral; rather, all digital systems, including AI, are a product of human ac
tion and social processes. Therefore, as researchers we need to be highly aware of the po
tential bias in data gained from, around uses of, or provided about, AI and automated sys
tems. We also need to help educate the public about such potential bias.
Global Environments
Workshop participants did not feel that the impact of automation was confined to either
human-machine interaction or to individuals, groups, or organizations. The ESRC-NSF
Page 22 of 49
workshop particularly and repeatedly highlighted the impact of automation across a
range of global issues, including
• Environment
• Policy
• Culture
• Economics
In terms of the environment, the focus was on long-term impacts, whether beneficial or
detrimental on the global environment of the generation of ever more automated systems
—either for use by citizens or as tools for cheaper, faster mass production (see chapters 7,
15, 16, and 17). The team considered the extent to which some of the research questions
around automation may be cultural, both as topics and in terms of the topics selected. Im
portantly, might the focus of current research be driven by Western, Global North, US-
UK-EU concerns? At the same time, technologies might alter aspects of global culture
around intercultural communication or the nature of relationships (see chapters 8 and
10). The likely global economic impact of automation was stressed at a number of points
in the discussion. Automation technology as a sector is (p. 677) itself already global and
may not be mainly focused in the United States–United Kingdom–European Union. As
economies around the globe are impacted by productivity changes due to automation, we
are also likely to see changes in the flows of capital, people, goods, and services. Social
research needs to document and understand these changes so as to support policymak
ers, organizations, and citizens. Following on from the concerns noted earlier were ques
tions about how social science research can support and evaluate global policy to address
these environmental, cultural, and economic concerns.
Education, Skills, and Employment/Organizations, Professions, and

Work
The ESRC-NSF workshop highlighted six areas where social research could contribute to
debates over education, employment, and skills:
• Education
• Training and skills
• Careers and employment
• Nature of digital work
• Workers’ rights, rewards, and trust
• Disruption and change
Page 23 of 49
In relation to education there are questions about its role an increasingly automated soci
ety. What it will mean to be a student, and how our understanding of learning in a digital
environment, may need to change. Following on from broader education questions are
concerns around the skills citizens will need. Two questions were posed:
• How can social research support and help understand what and how skills are need
ed?
• What are the social and economic challenges of ensuring skilled workers in an ever-
changing work setting?
A key role for the social study of work and employment at all scales—global, national, or
ganizational, and individual—has to be that of understanding new work and career path
ways (see chapters 10, 11, 12, and 13). The workshop proposed this key question:
• How will work identities, relations between workers and employers, and career pro
gression function in ever more automated workplaces?
A key area for social science to study, and where there has already been research, is in
the changing nature of the “work” as an activity. This includes
(p. 678)
• The places and spaces where we work

• Effects of the separation and experience of work “time”
• Changes to productivity and types of employment (including work “beyond the orga
nization”)
• How we separate issues of work and non-work in a digital context?
These concerns lead to questions about workers’ rights, especially in regard to trust in
both the technologies and organizations. It was argued that this relationship appears to
be potentially threatened by AI and automation. This may be heightened where technolo
gies are involved in the monitoring and assessment of performance. Of course, the most
difficult task is that of predicting where and how AI and automation will make significant
disruptive impacts. Social research can in part help to understand how disruptions have
affected and may affect markets and employment (see chapters 12 and 13). Research may
also help examine how organizations can react to and manage disruptive technological
change. The ESRC-DSTL workshop covered very similar ground (see Table 24.7), focusing
mainly on wider social and on organizational issues.
Page 24 of 49
Table 24.7 ESRC-DSTL Workshop: Work and Organizational Topics by

Level of Impact
Wider social Community and organizational
How does technological How will technology transform or

change impact existing jobs, ganizations, their tasks, and deci
leading to the emergence of sion-making process? Including
new ones and the disappear their implications.
ance of others? How can one manage (semi-) auto
How can we include the non- mated teams?
human in our social theoriz How do these technological
ing? changes affect the boundaries be
tween professions?
Inequalities/Community and Social Issues/Social Impacts
The pressing social research question posed multiple times in both workshops was
• Who are the winners and the losers in an increasingly automated world?
In unpacking this question, the ESRC-NSF workshop highlighted further issues such as
the unequal distribution of cost, risks, and benefits. Other areas of concern included
growing disparities in the uses of technology, in access to digital opportunities and in the
distribution of wealth. The questions were grouped into three categories:
• Growth in inequalities
• Using digital technologies to address inequalities
• How to support all citizens post automation
Overall, there appeared to be consensus that a major consequence of further au

(p. 679)
tomation may be further growth in social inequalities in access to work, wealth, educa
tion, and wellbeing. These socio-economic processes and outcomes therefore need to be
extensively studied. At the same time, a role was seen for social science in providing data,
analyses, and insight that might help ensure digital technologies alleviate or address is
sues of inequality. A final concern was around how societies might look to support a grow
ing population of under-employed citizens, or citizens being more productive to support
the wider population. These concerns are reflected in the outcomes of the ESRC-DSTL
workshop (see Table 24.8).
Page 25 of 49
Table 24.8 ESRC-DSTL Workshop: Areas of Inequality by Level of Im

pact

standings
How will automa How is life changing How will automation

tion affect in in an automated soci differentially affect
equality? ety? identity?
Is automation go How will automation
ing to make in affect community and
equalities worse? identity?
Which communi Understanding in con
ties are going to text of social chal
be most affected? lenges/issues?
Addressing im Might automation free
pacts on places? up people to focus on
Are there inter social actions?
sectional impacts What parts of commu
(gender, age, nity/social eco-sys
class, ethnicity, tems are damaged by
etc.)? automation?
Are there differen
tial impacts on do
mestic and work
roles?
Embodiment and Cognitive Demands/System Design for Being (in)

Digital
Much of the prior comments have focused on inequalities and automation. A parallel is
sue is that of augmentation—the adaptive use of technologies by human beings (as we
noted earlier, there is a gradient from augmentation through to full automation). The fo
cus here for social and behavioral sciences is on the physical and cognitive capacities of
people, their ability to utilize augmentations, and the impacts on them. This discussion
had two clear themes:
• The impact and assessment of cognitive demands from high levels of digital technolo
gy use
• The understanding of human behavior to enhance the capabilities and usability of
Page 26 of 49
There is a clear role for the social and behavioral sciences in helping to under
(p. 680)
stand the impact of digital technology use on (and by) human cognition—both beneficial
and detrimental. Understanding of these issues could help address the everyday and spe
cific demands that citizens face in using such technologies, especially in the workplace,
but also in everyday life. While research on our use of technologies may provide insight
into human behavior and capabilities, at the same time, understanding human behavior
and cognitive abilities may also help us to better develop relevant technologies.
Ethics
Ethical issues appeared throughout the discussions in both workshops. We classified

these into two groups:
• Ethics and social consequences of automation

• How do we research and develop an ethics for automation?
These questions extensively overlap with issues of inequalities, rights, and values noted
earlier. However, they were framed in the workshops in terms of the ethical implications
of these factors. A deeper set of questions in both workshops addressed how we develop
relevant ethical frameworks through research, debate, and social engagement.
Impactful Social Science
As a matter of course, the participants were concerned about how to understand and im
prove social, economic, political, community, and citizen impacts associated with automa
tion. This includes questions about how best to engage policymakers and organizations.
The ESRC-DSTL workshop formulated this as a set of research questions detailed in Table
24.9. Again, different questions arose at the three levels of impact: wider social, commu
nity and organizational, and individual experiences and understandings.
Page 27 of 49
Table 24.9 ESRC-DSTL Workshop: Research Impact Questions by Lev

el of Impact
Wider social Community and Individual experi

organizational ences and under
standings
How are different To what extent and What does it mean to

groups of people af what elements of have meaningful/ful
fected by automa work do we want filling life in an auto
tion?E.g., those to be automated? mated world?
whose jobs are re How will the value To what extent is it de
placed vs. those in of human labor sirable or acceptable
teracting with the change in an auto to have automated
automated system? mated economy? systems make “objec
How do we ensure How do we predict tive” or “value-free”
that future AI is not that people may decisions about daily
unknowingly biased “game” the sys lives?
in its analysis—en tem? How do we verify a
sure systems behave What could possi system that is self-
in an unbiased man bly go wrong? learning?
ner? How do we antici What can we learn
pate potential from those who resist
crises? the imposition, deploy
What is the rela ment, or use of auto
tionship between mated systems?
quantity of data
and quality of de
cision making?
And understand
ing.
Conclusion
Given the nature of the work reported here, there is no single clear conclusion to draw.
Both workshops highlighted the need for both breadth and depth of research on the im
pacts of automation, AI, and augmentation. In both cases the experts could not separate
out these issues fully from the broader question of the social impacts of digital media and
technologies—especially as in nearly all cases this involves some form of automation or
augmentation of human practices. Though these issues are clearly in the public eye—es
pecially given the media focus on issues of AI and automation—the workshop participants
argued strongly that many research gaps remain to assess.
Page 28 of 49
(p. 681) Appendix
1 Detail of the ESRC-DSTL Research Clusters

and Questions
1.1 Social and Cultural Attitudes to Automation
1.1.1 Question Set 1: Social Benefits and Attitudes
• Does everyone benefit equally from automation?

• How to attitudes to automation vary by social class, age and ethnic background?
• Do differences between national cultures affect attitudes to automation?
• What can we learn about historic debates and controversies about automation?
• What can we learn from social and cultural anxieties about automation concerning
regulation and accessibility of automated systems?
1.1.1.1 What Evidence will this Generate? What could this be Used for?
• Policy regarding education and skills training

• Design insight into automated systems that need to oppose e.g. across national cul
tures
• Inform public debates about accountability of automation
• Regulation and investment decisions regarding automation
1.1.1.2 Which Disciplines Need to be Involved?
• Computer science
• Design
(p. 682) • Economics
• HCI
• Law
• Media and communications
• Social history
• Sociology
1.1.2 Question Set 2: Technology Implementation Attitudes
• How do attitudes towards technology and automation shape the development and im
plementation of technology (acceptance versus rejection)
Page 29 of 49
1.1.2.1 What Evidence will Generate this? What could it be Used for?
• Inform business how technology is made, how it can be more inclusive
• Business
• Design
• Economics
• Information systems/computer science
• Media and communications
• Sociology
1.2 Community and Social Issues
1.2.1 Question Set 1: Macro-Level Issues (Society)
• Is automation going to make inequalities worse?

• Which communities are going to be most affected and/or effected?
• Addressing impacts on places?
• Are there gender, age, and other impacts?
• Also—domestic versus/and work/roles
• Social and economic impacts

• Data for policy planning
1.2.1.2 What Disciplines Need to be Involved?
• Economics
• IMF/CS
• Social policy
• Sociology
• Urban regeneration
(p. 683) 1.2.2 Question Set 2: Meso-Level Issues (Community)
• Understanding in context of social challenges/issues?

• Might automation free up people to focus on social actions?
• What parts of community and social eco-systems are damaged by automation?
Page 30 of 49
• Social policy
• Resilient communities
• Ideas for social action
1.2.3 Question Set 3: Micro-Level Issues (Individuals and Workplaces)
• Understanding roles, employee perceptions of role and what can/should be automat

ed?
• Understanding from workers perceptions of automated impacts?
• Are there variations in perceptions by occupation?
• What remains of value to the human/of the human?
1.2.3.1 What Evidence will this Generate? What could it be Used for?
• Help design
• Policy
• Consequences
• P/R
• Job design
• Workplace conduct
• Information studies/CS
• Management
• Occupational psychology
• Sociology
• Studies
1.3 System Design for Being (in)Digital
1.3.1 Question Set 1
• Why should takes (as opposed to roles) be automated in a socio-technical system?

• What are the benefits of replacing or augmenting or evading automation of tasks?
• How do we design “roles” in an automated society that can withstand or resist com
modification and the profit motive?
• How can we design ways of being digital that respect alterity and difference?
• What ethical considerations should be “built into” systems prior to automation?
Page 31 of 49
(p. 684) • What are the effects on “being” in digital spaces?
• What are the theoretical and practical contingencies in the move from operator to
operated?
• Design rules and approaches, and the consequences of such design with socio-techni
cal systems
• Inform industry practice by highlighting visible as well as invisible automations of
roles
• Insight into the effects of automation in/between tasks and roles
• Artificial intelligence
• Data science
• Designers
• Human geography
• Information systems
• Legal
• Management and business
• Marketing and consumer science
• Philosophy of technology
• Psychology
1.4 Organizations, Professions, and Work
• How will technology transform organizations, their tasks and decision-making

processes?
• How can one manage (semi-) automated teams?
• How does technological change impact existing jobs, lead to the emergence of new
ones and the disappearance of others?
• How do these technological changes affect the boundaries between professions?
• How can we include the non-human in our social theorizing?
• Inform workforce policy and planning

• Update professional jurisdiction
Page 32 of 49
• Align education with (new) job market demands

• To better understand organizational and team boundaries and their processes
• Update out theoretical “toolkits”
• Anthropologist
• Data/computer science
(p. 685) • Economy
• Industrial relations
• Informational systems
• Organization science
• Organizational psychology
• Philosophy
• Sociology
1.5 Trust and Accountability
• How does trust in automated systems develop?

• Do the human-to-human trust models translate to the human-to-artificial intelligence
interactions?
• What automated systems need to be certified in the future to ensure true account
ability for autonomous entities?
• What is the responsibility versus accountability of automated systems?
• Allow us to engineer systems where trust develops appropriately; enable us to devel

op legal and governance processes and procedures for future automated systems
• Cluster
• Computer scientists
• Educationalists
• Law
• Manufactures (including software engineers)
• Policymakers
Page 33 of 49
• Psychology
• Regulators
• Safety engineering
• Science providers
• Sociology
1.6 What Is Human?—What Is the Role of Humans in a Future Soci

ety?
• How are different groups of people affected by automation? For example, those
whose jobs are replaced versus those interacting with the automated system
• What does it mean to have meaningful, fulfilling life in an automated world?
• To what extent and what elements of work do we want to be automated?
• How will the value of human labor change in an automated economy?
• To what extent is it desirable and/or acceptable to have automated systems
(p. 686)
make “objective,” “value-free” decisions about daily lives?
• Could be used to inform policy and governance around automation

• Facilitate public conversation around automation
• Improve efficiency and productivity through workforce optimism
• Anthropology
• Economics
• Management and business studies
• Medicine
• Philosophy
• Political science
• Psychology
• Sociology
1.7 Technological Limitations
• How do we predict that people may “game” the system?

Page 34 of 49
• How do we ensure that future AI is not unknowingly biases in its analysis—ensure

systems behave in an unbiased manner?
• How do we verify a system that is self-learning?
• What could possibly go wrong? How do we anticipate potential crises?
• What is the relationship between quantity of data and quality of decision making?
And understanding.
1.7.1.1 What Evidence will this Provide? What could this be Used for?
• Data that can help understand how fair/good outcomes are. Feedback loops checks
and balancing
• Informs engineers on how systems can improve
• Computer/data scientists
• Educationalists
• Law
• Manufacturers
• Policymakers
• Psychology
• Regulators
(p. 687) • Safety engineering
• Service providers
• Sociology
1.8 “Refuse-nicks”
• What can we learn from those who resist the imposition, deployment, or use of auto
mated systems?
1.8.1.1 What Evidence will this Generate?
• Everything
• Everyone
Page 35 of 49
2 Detail of the ESRC-NSF Research Clusters

and Questions
2.1 Trust
This was a key discussion point throughout the workshop. There appeared to be three
themes to this cluster:
1. Citizen knowledge and skills

2. Understanding and addressing human-machine trust
3. Social impacts and consequences of trust in algorithms
2.1.1 Citizen Knowledge and Skills
• Implicit in these questions was a requirement to enhance citizens’ digital literacy so

as to support their ability to evaluate how much to trust automated systems and ser
vices.
Original Questions
• How can we get citizens to understand the data they give to companies and the con
sequences of handling the data?
• How can people be trained to interpret algorithms?
• Intelligibility, how do people navigate the world? Understand and use and correct the
systems around them?
• How can people understand what underlies technological decision making?
• How do we expose the fact that tech is not value-neutral?
• How do we expose tech presuppositions?
• What is the level of public’s understanding of new technologies?
(p. 688) • Digital empowerment?
• What shape people’s misconceptions about personal data?
2.1.2 Understanding and Addressing Human–Machine Trust

Original Questions
• How do we resolve human–robot conflict?

• Should we trust technology and implementation?
• How do we avoid blind trust?
• How do we establish trust? Especially in algorithms.
• How do we understand the trust people have in machine learning?
Page 36 of 49
2.1.3 Social Impacts and Consequences of Trust in Algorithms
Original Questions
• Trust in outcomes?
• When do we challenge the digital?
• How do people resist change? Why and when, versus accepting?
• Is there a connection between automation, migration, and regressive politics?
• Have we been misled by social media?
• Trust in the use of personal data?
• Relationship between trust and risk: culture, social norms.
2.2 Complexity and the Scale of the Topic
WE HAVE BROKEN THE ISSUES DOWN INTO FOUR CLUSTERS:
• (Inter/Multi) Disciplinary issues

• Managing scale and rate of change
• Undertaking responsive and timely research
• Policy or managing the social impacts and asking relevant questions
2.2.1 (Inter/Multi) Disciplinary Issues

Original Questions
• Disciplinary issues: HCI physics, what mechanisms have been developed?

• How do we cope with the complex interlocking and networking effects of AI? Break
ing silos
2.2.2 Collating Data, Cases, and Methods

Original Questions
• Develop resources to support knowledge sharing and tool management

• Possibility of re analysis of data
• New methods, practices to share
(p. 689) 2.2.3 Managing Scale and Rate of Change

Original Questions
• How do we navigate the hugeness of the topic?

• What would happen if we only looked at home enhancement?
• How do we keep pace with tech that moves faster than research perspectives?
• How can our research remain relevant to industry?
Page 37 of 49
• How do we cope with such a fast-moving environment?
2.2.4 Undertaking Responsive and Timely Research

Original Issues
• Recognizing emergent issues during projects (by scoping)

• Less rigorous evidence base- expectations to change
• Half-answered for immediate issue with longer term development
• Quasi-results
• Academic outputs often take a long time
2.2.5 Policy or Managing the Social Impacts and Asking Relevant Questions
Original Questions or Comments
• Unintended messages from research?

• Policy implications—a given technology not to be used for what purpose?
• Patent issues and restrictions?
• What shouldn’t be done?
• Human centered is profit centered
• Creating collaborative workspaces for humans with intelligent machines for utopia
experiments
• How is utopia being framed?
• Extension of machine and human at same time augmented both ways to enhance
them together?
• “Designing for humanity” appeals to engineers
• Are automated vehicles and ride sharing creating dystopian/utopian issues?
• How can we use our developing knowledge to solve the big global problems? AI +
CO?
2.3 Evidence and Methods
2.3.1 Methods
the perennial question in the study of the social impacts of technology is
• Do we need new methods for studying technologies?
• Research methods: Are current methods appropriate for understanding data or AI?
• Social science: Building new technology to undertake research
Page 38 of 49
(p. 690) • How do we develop new approaches to evaluate the impacts of new technolo
gy?
• How do we encourage robust evidence around what is happening and what is going
to happen?
• How are we able to be creative with technology?
2.3.1.1 Valuing Different Disciplinary Perspectives

• How can ethnography win respect in an industry dominated by quantitative ap

proaches?
• How is accuracy proved?
• What can be learnt from historical discourses of techno-futures?
• How do we deal with conflicts in terms and definitions between disciplines?
• How do we respect the gaps between disciplines?
• How is this respect linked to gender?
• What can be learnt from contemporary culture about automation?
2.3.2 Supporting Research Policy and Commercial R&D

• Could we build tools to reason scenarios?

• How can research best guide tech developments and their consequences?
• Who gets to decide research questions—stakeholder, policy members, etc.?
• How can digital technology enable greater user involvement?
• How do we reason possible futures?
• Understanding the role of academia within wider stakeholders; academics as consul
tants?
• How to create a pro-social agenda?
• Is technical research expected to cure ailments in multiple ways? (it’s not happening)
2.3.3 Data and Bias

• Data etc. inherently with bias—how do we make progress and avoid reinforcing these
biases?
• How might we ensure we avoid polarization and spend research time on more strate
gies to collect representative data?
Page 39 of 49
• Language—technologies both connect people but also contribute to miscommunica

tion
• How do we overcome obstacles related to language technology?
• How do we use existing data when it is programmed by humans? For example, biases
in word searches, languages on the Internet, etc.
2.4 Global Environments
The impact of automation was not felt to be confined to either human-machine interac
tion, nor to the individuals, groups or organizations. Rather the meeting repeatedly high
lighted the impact of automation across a range of global issues including:
• Environment
• Culture
(p. 691) • Economics
• Policy
2.4.1 Environment
• How do we build technologies with social sustainability?

• What is the impact of future work on mobility and transport services?
• Climactic disruption
• How new ways of living impacting resources we use?
• Study existing alternatives
• Create resilient products rather than just creative ones
2.4.2 Culture
• The filter bubble in the physical world

• Reach out of our US-UK-EU bubble?
• Machine translation
• Physical relations
2.4.3 Economics
• Scenario planning cost/benefit

• Global shifts in labor and automation in the global south
Page 40 of 49
• Transport/logistics in uncertain times

• Envisioning business models for sustaining life/society under extreme conditions
• Embodiment of filter economics
• How do platforms impact economic decisions and access and embodiment?
• How to ensure value is sustained when platforms/systems/countries cease or get shut
down?
• How might we understand trans-national north south implications for labor?
2.4.4 Policy
• Study scale-bridging (global systems and localized problems or manifestations of

global problems)
• We need new categories for planning for (planetary, multi-systemic) instability, uncer
tainty, crisis?
• How do we build resilient and agile and adaptive infrastructure and cultures of
change for an unthinkable future?
• How do we build Intelligence for crisis, not for empire?
• Differential impacts of AI in one part of the world or other parts
• Understanding technologies in the context of multi-systemic instability
• Surveillance access issues: Control (lack of transparency)
(p. 692) • New/work life arrangements to even out regional inequality and for sustain
ability
• How do platforms interact or intersect a policy or national projects (of surveillance,
social protection, etc.)?
• Global political environment
• How are filters playing out in shaping decisions? Choices? Access?
2.5 Changing Education, Skills, and Employment
Although the discussion was set to be on new employment pathways, the discussion
quickly highlighted six areas where social research could contribute:
• Education
• Training and skills
• Careers and employment
• Nature of digital work
• Workers’ rights, rewards, and trust
• Disruption and change
Page 41 of 49
2.5.1 Education
• What will be the role of education and training in the responses to new digital tech
nologies?
• How do we create students? (to value and recognize others)
• We used to understand how learning happens in human-machine interaction
• How to transform education to address social tensions created by automation?
2.5.2 Training and Skills

• How do we ensure that there are sufficient resources for people to learn new skills?
• How do we help people do research with the focus on how we train people to learn
(help) new technologies?
• How do we educate and train future workforce, learners, and students?
• How do we make sure people are not in knowledge and skills silos?
• How do we help people understand their skill level; and how do we help them learn
new skills?
• How do we study and cope with skill degradation related to increasing use of AI, au
tomation, and robotics?
2.5.3 Careers and Employment

• Employability—adaptability resilience
• Career paths and work
• Work identities
• Matching employers and new recruits. How can we use technology for this
(p. 693)
matching?
• What people are enabled to pursue their career paths in the new world of work?
• What will the future of new technological “occupational résumés” be? Records of
what we’ve done in work?
• The digital career coach: How can we enable people to understand their own skills
and contributions?
• What is the role of organizations in helping workers adapt to new technologies?
2.5.4 Nature of Digital Work

• What are effects on productivity?

Page 42 of 49
• How to create new jobs for regular people with tech?

• What is the role of jobs that remain nondigital?
• What are meanings and boundaries of work?
• How are spaces and places where people work changing?
• What is the role of digital technology in experience of time in work?
• How is work becoming less contained in organization?
• What are people’s values and views on the meaning of work? Can digital technology
augment this?
• What is the role of managers in new work structures? (e.g., flexible work)
• What about “not-work” leisure, but also volunteer work and different kinds of unpaid
work, especially in “flexible” times?
• How do we retain dignity, not thinking only in terms of production but also the mean
ing of labor?
2.5.5 Workers’ Rights, Rewards, and Trust

• Work and reward systems and how they’re evolving; how is the need to be rewarded
more over time clouded by financial considerations?
• What are the challenges to worker motivations of new digital technologies?
• How might we keep focus on how labor, equality, justice, and technology interact?
• Are new technologies of AI undermining or improving historical values and trust
within different sectors and professions?
• How can self-monitoring help people, e.g., in the gig economy?
2.5.6 Disruption and Change

• How might we tie into the (fast-growing) service industry to make those jobs?
• How might we help people work in a rapid, dynamic gig economy, and work
(p. 694)
with or around the systems that will mediate that? For example, overcome or work
around discrimination, algorithmic bias, and unfair power structures, embedded or
mediated by technology.
• How do organizations learn about how new technologies are different and how they
are implemented? (unintended consequences)
• Emerging technologies and changing work practices: How are emerging technolo
gies introduced, adapted, or rejected in professions and sectors, e.g., eagel, health
care and medicine, service sector, business, agriculture?
• How can we describe the innovation in these domains? What explains the factors that
underpin the dynamics of innovation?
Page 43 of 49
• How are emerging technologies introduced, adopted, or rejected into work practice?
2.6 Inequalities
The pressing social research question, posed multiple times in the workshop, was
• Who are the winners and the losers in an increasingly automated world?
The questions appeared to split into three categories:
• Growth in inequalities
• Using digital technologies to address inequalities
• How to support all citizens post-automation
2.6.1 Growth in Inequalities

• How are all benefits, costs, and risks of digital not evenly distributed?
• How does inequality of resources play out as inequalities of meaningful work?
• Are there growing disparities in the use of digital technology?
• How is distribution of wealth affected by growth of digital-technology investments ?
Is only little investment needed to disrupt or capture markets?
• How does individualization of work (of ratings) of a gig economy (e.g., Uber) affect
subsequent work? How to avoid exclusion that could result from this?
• How might we consider race, class, gender, and sexuality in access to, use of, and
outcomes of technology?
• Will technology reinforce inequality and polarization?
2.6.2 Using Digital Technologies to Address Inequalities

• How can we create a social and technical world to provide opportunity, income, and
personal fulfilment?
• How can technologies enable fewer people to work? Help us work less? Help more
people work more and longer?
• How do we help people make a living?
• Disabled communities have the most to win from inclusive design. How can
(p. 695)
we get for profit-companies to design them and not just for masses?
2.6.3 How to Support All Citizens Post-Automation
Page 44 of 49
• How do we get people to work longer versus raise productivity of others to support
the whole?
• How paid work of 50% supports 100% of population. How numbers change.
2.7 Embodiment and Cognitive Demands
This discussion had two clear themes:
• The impact and assessment of cognitive demands from high levels of digital technolo
gy use
• The understanding of human behavior to enhance the capabilities and usability of
2.7.1 Cognitive Demands

• Should we demand unlimited cognitive resources? And how we might study the ef
fects on social resources too?
• Competition from many sources of information gets your attention. How does that af
fect demands for cognitive resources and organization of information?
• How might we design and manage this overwhelming demand on cognitive re
sources?
• How might we understand shifting demands from a variety of devices?
• What impact does high screen use have on the developing brain?
2.7.2 Capabilities
• What neuroscience research do we need to design/mimic the human brain? Will this
matter?
• How will technology (and at what point) remove the need to co-present?
• What does technology tell us about ourselves, and how do we use it?
• Computers recognizing and manipulating emotions.
• How can we design and control machines that read or respond to human emotions to
enhance our strengths and minimize our weakness?
2.8 Ethics and Research Challenges
Page 45 of 49
Ethical issues appeared throughout the discussions, and we have classified these into two
groups:
• Ethics and social consequences of automation

• How we research and develop an ethics for automation
(p. 696) 2.8.1 Ethics and Social Consequences of Automation

• How to have value set that is not an economic driver of what jobs to automate?
• Do we assume technologies are all advancing the same way everywhere?
• Role of politicians and ethics
• Concentration of wealth: Is it inevitable?
• What’s going to happen to the workers (including “think- up” entities ASPCA for in
telligent machines)?
• AI and use of algorithms in decision making
2.8.2 How Do We Research and Develop an Ethics for Automation?

• What are the ethics of technology?

• What kind of ethical technology can we build?
• Who is accountable when the AI- aided product and services go wrong?
• Use of big data in understanding issues of individuals
• Do we need new philosophical principles for privacy?
• Do we need new philosophical principles for new technology?
2.9 Impactful Social Science
• How we get social science focused from Google?

• How can social science be embedded in technology?
• How does policy address the inequality?
• How do social sciences get a seat at the policy table?
• Should technology be used for decisions that are impactful?
• How do we social scientists get back our disciplines from Google?
• How do we open the category of de-industrialization and social dislocation? But in a
socio-tech context?
Page 46 of 49
• Creating technologies with universal accessibility built in from the beginning, not as
an old one. Potential for accessibility is barriers?
2.10 Technology Development and Adoption
• Understand better what algorithms are really doing (and how they work): Big data/
Big nets
• How do we prepare for a world of intelligent computational aspects? (beyond work
issues)
• How to make system more intelligent by better adding expects in these domains?
• What are the risks and benefits of emerging technologies?
• Will we be blindsided by some new technology? Human brain technology. Brain com
puter interface.
(p. 697) • Are these new technologies that will completely change core thinking?
• How do you research citizens that don’t want to adopt technology?
• How technology influences sociality.
• What is the process through which innovations were implemented?
• Important to understand diffusion of digital technologies.
• What drives diffusion of technologies; What makes them available?
• Digital and biotechnology: Are we undergoing normalization through ubiquity? How
does this affect diversity?
• How can technology incorporate and facilitate diverse perspectives?
• People working longer with technology: Will new technology allow people to work
more efficiently or have more leisure time? Is there an absence of utopian thinking
about work?
References
Anderson, J., & Rainie, L. (2010). Future of the Internet IV: Experts and stakeholders dis
cuss predictions about the future of the internet. Pew Internet & American Life Project.
http://www.pewinternet.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/media/Files/Reports/2010/
Future-of-internet-2010-AAAS-paper.pdf
Broekens, J., Heerink, M., & Rosendal, H. (2009). Assistive social robots in elderly care: A
review. Gerontechnology, 8(2), 94–103.
Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and pros
perity in a time of brilliant technologies. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
Page 47 of 49
Chui, M., Manyika, J., & Miremadi, M. (2015). Four fundamentals of workplace automa
tion. McKinsey Quarterly, 29(3), 1–9. https://roubler.com/au/wp-content/uploads/
sites/9/2016/11/Four-fundamentals-of-workplace-automation.pdf
Davidson, P. (2013). Income inequality and hollowing out the middle class. Journal of Post
Keynesian Economics, 36(2), 381–384.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technol
ogy: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.
Ford, M. (2015). The rise of the robots: Technology and the threat of mass unemployment.
London, UK: Oneworld publications.
Gorz, A. (1985). Paths to paradise: On the liberation from work. London, UK: Pluto Press.
Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (1975). The Delphi method. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Madland, D. (2015). Hollowed out: Why the economy doesn’t work without a strong mid
dle class. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
Manyika, J. (2017). A future that works: AI, automation, employment, and productivity.
McKinsey Global Institute Research, Technology Report. https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/
fileadmin/user_upload/research/centres/risk/downloads/170622-slides-
manyika.pdf
McIntosh, S. (2013). Hollowing out and the future of the labour market. BIS Research Pa
per, (134). http://www.niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/files/PDF/Presentations/Hol
lowing-out%20and%20the%20future%20of%20the%20labour%20market.pdf
Ricardo, D. (2009/1821). On the principles of political economy and taxation (1821).

Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing.
Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic

motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Re
search, 11(4), 342–365.
Venkatesh, V. & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology ac

(p. 698)
ceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of infor
mation technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. New
York: Basic Books.
Simeon J. Yates
Page 48 of 49
Jordana Blejmar

Page 49 of 49
Conclusion: Cross-Cutting, Unique, and General Themes in the Oxford
Handbook of Digital Technology and Society
Conclusion: Cross-Cutting, Unique, and General

Themes in the Oxford Handbook of Digital Technology
and Society
Ronald E. Rice, Simeon J. Yates, and Jordana Blejmar
We conclude the Handbook of Digital Technology and Society by identifying topics that
appear in multiple chapters, are more unique to some chapters, and that represent gener
al themes across the material. Each of these is considered separately for the ESRC theme
chapters and the non-ESRC chapters. In the ESRC theme chapters, cross-cutting re
search topics include digital divides and inequalities; data and digital literacy; gover
nance, regulation, and legislation; and the roles and impacts of major platforms. Cross-
cutting challenges include methods; theory development, testing, and evaluation; ethics;
big data; and multi-platform/holistic studies. Gaps include policy implications, and digital
culture. In the non-ESRC chapters, more cross-cutting themes include future research
and methods; technology venues; relationships; content and creation; culture and every
day life; theory; and societal effects. More unique, these were digitization of self; manag
ing digital experience; names for the digital/social era; ethics; user groups; civic issues;
health, and positive effects. The chapter also shows how the non-ESRC chapters may be
clustered together based on their shared themes and subthemes, identifying two general
themes of more micro and more macro topics. The identification of both more and less
common topics and themes can provide the basis for understanding the landscape of pri
or research, what areas need to be included in ongoing research, and what research ar
eas might benefit from more attention. The chapter ends with some recommendations for
such ongoing and future research in the rich, important, and challenging area of digital
technology and society.
Keywords: cross-cutting challenges, cross-cutting themes, cross-cutting research, digital technology and society,
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)
Page 1 of 42
Introduction
THE range of issues raised by the study of digital technology and society are both broad
and deep: moving from research and theory, to design and constant technological devel
opments, through policy and economics, to management, use, adaptation, and effects.
Further, these issues are inherently interrelated, as all play a part in shaping, and being
shaped by, information and communication technologies. So it should be no surprise that
many topics and themes appear in multiple chapters in this Handbook. As a conclusion
and review of the themes in the Handbook, we summarize both the common and unique,
and the general and specific, topics and challenges presented. We look first to the ESRC
Domain chapters, and then to the non-ESRC chapters. Drawing on the chapters and the
overarching analysis from the ESRC project, we make some suggestions for areas of
medium-term future digital media and society research.
Throughout the chapter we will talk about the “social impact of digital”—however, this in
no way implies that we are taking a technological determinist stance. As the chapters in
the volume clearly demonstrate, the key issues are understanding and unpacking where
possible the complex web of interactions between digital media systems, the processes of
their design and implementation, the different forms of appropriation by users, and the
multiple consequences of their use—intended and unintended. It is this complexity we
seek to encompass via the shorthand of “social impacts of digital.” We are very aware of
the challenge of not falling into the trap of what Grint and Woolgar (1997) (p. 700) called
“technism” whereby technological determinism implicitly creeps into social analysis; on
the other hand, of course Grint and Woolgar’s Actor Network Theory approach (also see
Latour, 2005) is not used by the majority of the writers in this volume. We are also aware
that in the analysis of actual use and practice, the limiting and determining features of
technologies (what are often called “affordances”) are key to the analysis—whatever their
socio-technical antecedents and the social processes behind their original design.
Cross-Cutting Topics and Challenges in the

ESRC Review Chapters
As we have noted before (especially in chapter 1), the interconnections among topics is a
key feature of studying digital society, as the very nature of digital systems is to intercon
nect content, people, programs, and entities, within and across contexts.
Co-occurring Terms and Cross-cutting Topics
To get a sense of the changing prevalence of major concept interconnections, Figure 25.1
shows the most frequent concept pairs from 2000-2004, and Figure 25.2 shows those for
2012–2016.1 Early on, the most frequent concept pairs emphasized the new communica
tion technologies, their users, and their uses. Table 25.1 summarizes those most frequent
concept pairs from Figure 25.1 comprising these three foci. By 2012–2016, the most fre
quent concept pairs had shifted emphasis somewhat. First, technology as a communica
Page 2 of 42
tion medium is the most frequent pair, but communication as a use does not appear much
thereafter (compared to the prior period). While combinations among technology, users,
and uses still dominate, we now see an increased focus on data, access, and privacy is
sues (including data collection for research), and interventions and research (studies or
projects applying technology to effect changes, typically in health contexts, analysis, stu
dent or group participation). Table 25.2 summarizes those most frequent concept pairs
from Figure 25.2 comprising these five foci.
Figure 25.1 All seven domains 2000–2004: Most fre

Figure 25.2 All seven domains 2012–2016: Most fre

Page 3 of 42
Table 25.1 Main Themes of Concept Pairs, 2000–2004
Concept pair Technology User Use
Internet/use X X
Internet/user X X
Site/web X
Access/Internet X
Communication/medium X
Group/support X X
Man/woman X
Group/member X
Community/member X
Communication/interaction X
Community/network X
Group/participant X
Health/support X
Child/computer X X
Communication/relationship X
Care/health X
Network/support X X
Information/source X X
Interaction/relationship X
Other/people X
Page 4 of 42
Network/tie X
Home/internet X X
Culture/medium X X
Life/people X
Citizen/government X X
Group/interaction X X
Note: Concept pairs listed in decreasing order of frequency, as shown

in Figure 25.1.
Page 5 of 42
Conclusion: Cross-Cutting, Unique, and General Themes in the Oxford Handbook of Digital Technology and Society
Table 25.2 Main Themes of Concept Pairs, 2012–2016
Concept pair Technology User Use Data, access, Interventions,

privacy studies
Communication/ X
medium
Internet/use X X
Care/health X
Analysis/datum X X
Internet/user X X
Access/datum X
Datum/privacy X
Access/internet X X
Participant/stu X X
dent
Intervention/ X
study
Page 6 of 42
Health/interven X X
tion
Group/partici X X
pant
Care/patient X X
Medium/news X X
Datum/project X X
Health/support X
Datum/source X
Intervention/ X
participant
Information/pri X
vacy
Group/support X X
Network/sup X X
port
Page 7 of 42
Intervention/tri X
al
College/student X
Model/variable X
Datum/research X X
Collection/da X X
tum
Page 8 of 42
However, looking at the main topics identified in each domain provides a deeper analysis
of shared concerns across the domains. The cross-cutting topics can be dealt with in two
ways: either as research areas to be addressed, or as key methods and challenges for fu
ture research projects within the domains examined in this book. Several topics and chal
lenges appear across the ESRC Review chapters. Table 25.3 details the most common top
ics and Table 25.4 the most common challenges. To create these lists the topics and chal
lenges were recoded into a standard format for all domains. Those topics that cross more
than three domains are in bold. The highest ranked cross-cutting challenges are common
to all the domains.
Table 25.3 Cross-cutting Topics in ESRC Themes
Topics Percent
Digital divide 8.0
Privacy 6.8
Data access and literacy 6.1
Citizenship 4.5
Device, environment and service design 4.5
Participation 3.2
Methods 3.2
Governance 2.9
Education 2.6
Role and impact of major corporate platforms 2.6
Mobilization 2.6
Talk 2.3
Cyber security 2.3
Note: Topics in bold cross-cut more than three of the seven ESRC do
mains.
Page 9 of 42
Table 25.4 Most Frequent Cross-cutting Challenges in ESRC Themes
Topics Percent
Methods 38.0
Theory 12.0
Ethics 9.5
Big data 8.7
Co-design 5.0
Multi-platform studies 3.3
Holistic understanding 2.9
Digital divide 2.5
Education 2.1
Data access 2.1
Interdisciplinarity 2.1
(p. 701) Cross-cutting Research Questions
In regard to research questions, we would argue that there are two research topics that
are strongly cross-domain but that also warrant separate consideration. Nearly all the
questions you can ask about the social impacts of digital media start with who has access
(digital divides) and what uses they can make of or what can they do with the media (data
and digital literacy):
• Digital divides and digital inequalities—including the two-way interaction between

digital inequities and other areas of social inequity
• Data and digital literacy—not just skills but also the depth of understanding citizens
have of the systems they use, their use of them and the uses that are made of citizens
data
All the work we have covered raises questions of digital inequality. Chapter 15 (Yates &
Lockley) examines this question in more detail. The key argument is that such inequali
ties are not just about access. The issue is how variations in access, skills, knowledge,
Page 10 of 42
and practice are in correspondence with other aspects of social inequality—such
(p. 702)
as access to education or health care, wealth, employment, housing, or cultural and com
munity life. Digital technologies have the possibility to reduce but also to further exacer
bate these issues. Within this research topic there are then two broad sets of questions:
• How digital media are incorporated into existing systems and processes that gener
ate inequity, the specifics of how they correspond and interact with systems of inequity
and distinction, and how they themselves include levels and forms of inequity and dis
tinction. For example, how does access to digital media affect employment opportuni
ties and outcomes?
• How are digital media used and deployed by citizens, institutions, organizations and
governments to seek to address either digital inequities, or broader social inequities?
For example, how can digital media be used to improve educational outcomes?
These are not necessarily new questions, but each iteration of technological
(p. 703)
change brings new possibilities and new consequences—intended and unintended—that

need to be understood.
We would also argue that two other topics cross cut, but they also need to be considered
in and of themselves. These are
• Governance, regulation, and legislation in regard to digital media—how societies

chose to manage (or not) the development, implementation, and uses of digital media.
• Roles and impacts of major platforms—many corporate platforms (e.g., Google, Face
book, Uber), as well as core technology providers (e.g., Intel, Cisco).
These scenarios are more likely to be dependent on social, national, or technology con
texts. Governance issues vary from such things as debates in the United States over
net-neutrality to issues of Internet censorship of different kinds in various na
(p. 704)
tions. These are also driven by the new circumstances of technology use. Some examples
include how to legislate for and address hate speech on-line across jurisdictions, defining
liability for automated and AI systems, or national and international market regulation of
digital products and services. Global digital platforms for services have become a norm in
the current digital environment. Though the dominant digital platforms may change over
time (Myspace to Facebook) or vary between regions (Facebook/Twitter/WhatsApp vs.
Weibo/WeChat) it can be argued that we are currently in period where “platforms” are
key to social, cultural, and economic behaviors and outcomes. These platforms have both
numbers of members and financial turnover greater than a large proportion of countries
in the world. We would strongly argue that understanding the role of platforms is key to
understanding our current digital world in all the domains addressed in this volume. The
dynamics of a platform economy, of identity management via the limiting constraints of a
few platforms, or of the political implications of platform-based social networks, are ques
tions where the role of platforms is key to three of the domains discussed in this volume.
Page 11 of 42
We acknowledge that disruptive technological, political, or economic changes might over
turn the importance of platforms as currently understood.
(p. 705) Cross-cutting Challenges
In the ESRC project we asked what the key challenges researchers are facing in each of
our domains. Looking across the chapters in this volume it is clear that many of these are
cross-cutting and pertinent to any work on the social impacts of digital media. We would
therefore argue that all near-term projects on digital technology and society should seek
to examine or address each of the following:
Methods innovation. This should include reflection on and evaluation of: digital tools,
analytic approaches, and the digital representation of results. This could and should
(p. 706) include taking risks based on the efficacy of new tools and methods as they are
tried out and tested.
Theory testing and evaluation, with theory development where needed. In all the
domains, we found a great variety of theory, but much of that was used as a general back
drop without operationalization or evaluation. For example, many of the sociology-based
items reference “Network Society” theory without operationalizing this in any clear man
ner. In contrast, much of the psychology work directly applies theory, but with extensive
variety. We would caution about the need to develop new theory for its own sake. As was
noted by participants in the consultation workshops, just because digital technologies are
new, they may not need new social science theories to understand their uses and implica
tions. There may be a need for greater clarity on “most relevant” theory and on incremen
tal theory development as opposed to a need for “digital specific” theory development.
This makes theory testing, new and old, essential.
Ethics. Ethics, especially around the use of publicly visible social media data, remain a
challenge for researchers, though clearer guidance is being provided by academic organi
zations (e.g., the Association of Internet Researchers, and the British Psychological Asso
ciation). There are also considerable ethical questions around what researchers, govern
ment, businesses, and organizations do with the data of respondents, citizens, and con
sumers data. Further, the increasing integration of digital technologies into medical, so
cial, work, and biological contexts raises a wide variety of general as well as novel ethical
issues. We would argue that projects should have a component that assesses the ethical
challenges faced, in order to help build a knowledge base of best practices and key con
cerns. In the United Kingdom, the Nuffield Foundation (http://
www.nuffieldfoundation.org/), which supports innovative social research, has established
the Ada Lovelace Institute to address these research questions and promote ethical prac
tices, importantly by convening “diverse voices to build a shared understanding of the
ethical questions raised by the application of data, algorithms, and artificial intelligence.”
Similarly, the UK government has established a Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation to
advise on data ethics policy. Social research can make considerable impact here through
Page 12 of 42
addressing these issues both through research about the ethical challenges and by devel
oping ethical research practices.
Big data. Many research funding agencies are currently supporting initiatives that ad
dress big data (however that is understood in their disciplines; e.g., chapter 18 (Yates,
Robson, Rice, & Carmi), chapter 19 (Hintz), and chapter 20 (Nugent-Floan & Edmond)).
We would caution against focusing specifically on this as a methodological issue separate
from the context of the discipline (or set of disciplines) within which research is taking
place. The key challenge is that many disciplines now face the possibility of documenting,
archiving, and analyzing what would have previously been impossibly large amounts of
data to assess in analogue format. Separate from methods innovation, we would argue
that projects which seek to use “big data” should include a robust element of reflection
and evaluation on the usefulness, limitations, tools used to analyze, and representative
ness of the examined big data sets.
Multi-platform/holistic studies. Analyses of the literature shows that research

(p. 707)
has often focused solely on one technology or platform, though with much good work al
ready been done exploring specific technologies—Twitter, Facebook, Google, Uber, mo
biles, smart phones, blogs, specific government systems, etc. However, the reviews also
note an increasing trend in which research is undertaken in a comparative way between
existing and new technologies or platforms. In general people do not use digital media
platforms or technologies in isolation from each other nor separate from other social ac
tion (e.g., as covered in most of the Handbook chapters, but especially chapter 4 (Meier
et al.), chapter 8 (Yates et al.), chapter 9 (Rice et al.), chapter 10 (Cecchinato & Cox),
chapter 15 (Yates & Lockley), chapter 19 (Hintz), chapter 20 (Nugent-Folan & Edmond),
chapter 23 (Jacobs et al.), and chapter 24 (Yates & Blejmar)). Such work is necessary to
understand the specifics of technologies or socio-technical contexts. The Delphi respons
es have strongly argued for the need to look at digital technology use overall, and in com
bination, to ask broad social science questions and then explore which technologies are
relevant to citizens’ actual practice and in what ways. From this we can develop a more
holistic picture of the integration of digital into everyday lives (or not, in the case of digi
tal inequalities). This does not preclude single technology studies where this has rele
vance, but such decisions should have a strong social science basis—not simply one of the
accessibility of data or the novelty of a new device or app. For example, there appear to
be class differences in the uses of different social media platforms. If this is valid, a case
could be made for a project to focus on a specific platform as used by a specific communi
ty (i.e., mobile phones in low-income areas). One area where this may be more acceptable
would be in the economic domain, as the study of the impact of a platform on a sector
might be limited to one technology (e.g., Uber). However, overall, the Delphi and work
shop results highlight a contemporary need to “reverse the telescope” and focus on the
breadth and depth of citizens’ digital worlds, as they navigate among multiple technolo
gies and platforms. This puts social science questions to the fore within which a mix of
digital technologies may play a part.
Page 13 of 42
Missing Areas and Gaps
One of the separate policy workshops brought together scholars from across the disci
plines covered by this review, as well as from the UK’s media regulator Ofcom, the ICT
sector, the UK’s Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and the UK’s Depart
ment of Work and Pensions. Resonating with the gaps identified in the ESRC Domain
chapters as summarized above, the workshop identified two other areas where digital fac
ing research may inform policy: impact and policy implications, and digital culture.
What are the broader policy implications of the results of our social science work on digi
tal media? Research outputs should not remain isolated and can contribute to evidence-
based policymaking. This is clearly crucial in all our domains, but especially (p. 708) areas
such as politics, governance, health, economics, and social inclusion. The ESRC project
did not look to explore the links between research and policy, though we feel that work
documenting the policy relevance and impact of research on digital media is needed, im
portantly to identify where high-quality research may not be reaching policymakers. Key
areas for policy identified in the workshop were: digital inclusion and exclusion; creative
and digital industry sector policy/regulation, digital skills, digital and social policy, and
arts and culture policy. A related issue was further research needed on the general use of,
and also evaluating the effectiveness of, digital tools that support policymaking, as well as
how digital tools and media may impact the methods of policymaking—such as the rise of
“agile” policymaking. Finally, more work should be done on how digital media are used,
with what implications, in the policy delivery.
The other gap is the role of digital media in culture. There is of course a whole body of
work on Digital Humanities and a vast body of practice around digital arts. But processes
of digital consumption and digital cultural practices clearly cut across social science
questions. This includes questions such as how digital consumption corresponds with so
cial inequalities; how digital cultural production (from YouTube to more conventional art
forms) intersects with questions of community or the role of platforms; how cultural insti
tutions are addressing the impacts of digital systems; or how arts and cultural gover
nance and funding might intersect with new(ish) digital media formats such as games,
virtual reality, and augmented reality. There is a need to ensure such questions are con
sidered from both social science and arts perspectives—that they are not solely about the
aesthetics or the value of the practices—especially as variations in taste, consumption,
and practice may be key to how people utilize digital media, with positive and negative
implications.
Cross-cutting and Unique Topics and General

Themes in the non-ESRC Chapters
As with the ESRC Domain chapters, the non-ESRC chapters also manifest a wide range of
themes and subthemes, some of which cross-cut more or less frequently across the chap
ters, and some of which are fairly infrequent and unique. Further, the patterns of relation
Page 14 of 42
ships among the themes and the chapters provide some basis for identifying larger, more
general themes associated with digital technology and society.
Common and Unique Themes
We began with the coding typology developed in chapter 1, based on 89 recent books on
digital technology and society. However, we added relevant emergent codes in NVIVO
(p. 709) as we re-read and coded each of the 14 non-ESRC chapters, consolidated “partici
pation, engagement” (non-civic) into C5 Inclusion, exclusion, discrimination, and deleted

all of the initial subthemes that did not appear in these chapters. This resulted in 22
themes with 144 subthemes. Table 25.5 presents the number of chapters that included
each (p. 710) (p. 711) (p. 712) (p. 713) theme or subtheme, and the number of instances
each theme or subtheme was coded overall (i.e., a given subtheme could be coded multi
ple times within one chapter, but only if it was presented in a different context).
Page 15 of 42
Table 25.5 Non-ESRC Chapters: Number of Themes and Subthemes

by Chapters and by Total Instances
Themes and Subthemes # Chap # In

ters stances
A1 Theory 10 45
Actor-network theory 1 1
Attitude change, persuasion 1 1
Behavior change, motivations, percep 2 3

tions
Boundary theory 1 2
Citizenship theories 2 2
Collective action theory 1 1
Diffusion of innovations 2 2
Digital divide, digital inclusion 1 1
Domestication theory 1 1
Dramaturgical approach (Goffman) 1 1
Economic rationalism 1 1
Industrialization and capitalism 1 1
Media mastery 1 1
Mediation theories 2 2
Network theory 3 3
Practice theory 2 2
Public good 1 2
Page 16 of 42
Self-determination theory 1 1
Social capital 1 2
Social comparison theory 1 1
Social construction of technology 2 3
Social exchange theory 1 1
Social identity theory 1 2
Social loafing 1 1
Socio-technical 1 2
Space vs Place 1 1
Structuration 2 2
Technology acceptance model 1 1
Transactive memory theory 1 1
A2 Names for new social era 5 9
Datafication 1 1
Digital age, society, revolution 2 2
Digital citizenship 1 2
Digital natives, immigrants 1 1
Information, knowledge society 1 1
Liberation technology 1 1
Second machine age 1 1
B1 Technology venues 13 58
Algorithms 2 5
Page 17 of 42
Artificial Intelligence 1 3
Computer-mediated communication 2 2
GPS, locational 1 1
Infrastructure 1 2
Intelligent machines 1 1
Internet of things 3 4
Knowledge sharing systems 1 1
Mobility, mobile phones 5 7
Multiple media, ICTs 1 1
Other 2 2
Resource usage feedback technologies 1 1
Robots & social robots 2 4
Smart homes, cities, e-government 4 7
Social media, networking sites 6 9
Sustainable HCI 1 2
Ubiquitous computing 1 1
Visualization 1 1
Wearable computing, devices, sensors, 3 4

smartwatches
B2 Technology characteristics 9 17
Affordances 4 5
Habitual, familiar, updating 2 3
Page 18 of 42
Materiality 1 1
Mediation vs. objects, devices, apps 1 1
Usage types, forms 3 7
C1 Content, creation 9 25
Crowdfunding 1 1
Design 2 4
Emotional content, responses 2 3
Humor, memes, hashtags 1 2
Knowledge sharing 1 1
Online expression 1 3
Producers, users, producers, sharing 6 10
Storytelling 1 1
C2 Big data, data mining, data stor 7 32

age, analytics, user data
Attention industry, marketplace, mer 2 4

chants, customers
Big data, data mining, data analytics, data 4 14

definitions
Data user, personal, online, digital traces 2 3
Privacy, surveillance, security, anonymity 5 11
C3 Civic issues 5 33
Civic media, citizenship, democracy, pub 4 7

lic sphere, the news press
Digital countercultures, underground 1 1
Page 19 of 42
Engagement, participation civic 3 6
Free speech, censorship 1 7
Political, politics 2 2
Power 4 6
Social movements & digital activism (incl. 2 4

feminist activism, play as resistance), col
lective action
C4 Ethics, ethical issues 4 8
C5 Inclusion, exclusion, discrimina 8 20

tion
Class (social, economic) 1 3
Digital divide, access 4 6
Discrimination 1 1
Gender 1 3
Inclusion, exclusion; equality, inequality 2 6
Participation, engagement 1 1
C6 Manage digital experience 4 16
D1 Digitization of self, others 1 1
Biosensing, quantified self & animals 1 1
D2 Health 6 28
Digital health 5 8
Healthspan and lifespan 1 1
Online information, interventions 2 2
Page 20 of 42
Psychological condition or effect (e.g., 5 10

well-being, depression, stress)
Support, coping (psychological, physical) 3 7
D3 Relationships 12 59
Community, offline and online 3 6
Families 2 5
Friendship, friends 3 4
Identity, selfhood, self-presentation, self- 7 12

disclosure
Individual, collective; public, private 2 2
Intimacy 1 1
Social (interactions, relationships, net 7 14

works, group identity)
With machines, devices 5 15
D4 User groups 4 6
College students 1 1
Elderly 1 3
User types 1 1
Women 1 1
D5 Culture, everyday life, education, 10 33

learning, training
Consumption 3 5
Culture — organizational, national 7 9
Education, learning, training 4 4
Page 21 of 42
Everyday life, practice, contexts 3 4
Literacy 5 11
D6 Work and organizations 8 26
Business models 1 1
Innovation, adoption, acceptance 4 9
Labor, creative, digital, employment 1 4
Media use policies 1 1
Organizations & business 2 2
Work, work-life boundaries 5 9
D7 Law, policy, regulation 7 17
E1 Effects Negative 9 47
Addiction, problematic use 3 7
Attention, brain, overload, interruptions 4 9
Cyberbullying, harassment 3 5
Danger, harm, risk 4 4
Disconnection (among people), loneliness 1 1
Fake news, alternative facts 1 5
Fragmented media devices and platforms 1 1
Free riding, social loafing 1 1
Knowledge sharing costs 1 2
Multitasking 2 3
Online hate and shaming 1 1
Page 22 of 42
Pressure for access, connectedness, re 3 6

sponse
Work difficulty, processes 1 1
Work-Life conflict 1 1
E2 Effects Positive 7 12
Collaboration, cooperation, sharing 2 2
Connectivity, connectedness 3 3
Knowledge sharing benefits 1 1
Safety 1 2
Social capital 1 1
Technology interventions (sustainability) 1 1
Work ease, effectiveness, efficiency, pro 1 1

ductivity
Work-family enrichment 1 1
E3 Effects Societal 8 17
Crime 1 1
Economy, economics 1 2
Environment implications of digital media 1 3
ICTs for development 1 2
Institutions 1 1
Societal impacts 8 8
E4 Effects contradictions, paradoxes, 7 15

tensions, unintended
Page 23 of 42
F1 Future research, methods 12 39
Methods 5 9
Research 11 30
First, we consider common or cross-cutting themes—those (aggregated across their sub

themes) appearing in over half (8 or more) of the 14 chapters. These include B1 Technolo
gy venues (in all but one chapter); D3 Relationships, and F1 Future research and meth
ods (12 chapters); A1 Theory, and D5 Culture, everyday life, education, learning, training
(10); B2 Technology characteristics, C1 Content, creation, and E1 Effects negative (9);
and C5 Inclusion, exclusion, discrimination; D6 Work and organizations; and E3 Effects
societal (8).
The most unique theme, appearing in only one chapter, was Digitization of self & others.
Other infrequent and thus unique themes were C4 Ethics, ethical issues; C6 Manage digi
tal experience; and D4 User groups (4 each); and A2 Names for new social era; and C3
Civic issues (5 each).
The themes that appear more frequently across the chapters can be interpreted as more
pervasive or central themes, while those appearing less frequently can be seen as more
unique and less central themes, associated with digital technology and society. This distri
bution does not necessarily imply that the less frequent themes represent “gaps” or un
der-researched areas; some themes and subthemes may be just more specialized or more
narrowly focused (e.g., digitization of self, ways of managing one’s digital experience,
particular user groups), or more relevant to books about the macro issues of digital tech
nology and society (such as particular names or terms for the era), or of particular inter
est to only a few of the authors.
However, the overall distribution of more or less frequent themes can be useful in identi
fying more common themes as a guide for literature reviews, or less frequent and more
unique themes as opportunities for more in-depth and novel research. For example, we
should expect that F1 Future research and methods reasonably appears in all chapters,
and B1 Technology venues in all but one. Particularly interesting is that all but two chap
ters also discuss D3 Relationships. This frequent and common focus highlights that the in
herent nature of information and communication technologies and systems involves rela
tionships within individuals (e.g., well-being, identity and self-presentation), among users
(e.g., caregivers and the elderly, or online communities), among users and technologies/
devices (e.g., between individuals and their smartphones or smarthomes), among users,
their media, and third parties (e.g., big data and the attention economy), among different
social and cultural groups (e.g., power, digital divides, inclusion/exclusion, literacy lev
els), and among systems and devices (such as the Internet of Things). Also, instances of
negative, positive, societal, and contradictory effects were all discussed by about the
same number of chapters (from 7 to 9), indicating again that neither a fully utopian nor a
Page 24 of 42
fully dystopian perspective towards relationships between digital technology and society
seem justified (for example, see Katz & Rice, 2002, for an explication of the synthesizing
Syntopian perspective, which rejects both utopian and dystopian approaches).
Perhaps more fundamental is that, as described in chapter 1, the seven guiding

(p. 714)
ESRC Domains resulted from a comprehensive analysis of the literature designed to iden
tify possible new research areas for funding, and these 14 non-ESRC chapters were sub
mitted to the follow-up conference, and selected, largely as complements to those seven
themes. Thus, some topics appearing in recent books simply were not included in the
overall project’s domain. Certainly, the literature associated with digital technology and
society is vast and would include a much wider array of topics than are included in this
Handbook. These would include more technological, computer, software, and engineering
aspects; more contexts related to arts and humanities; more legal and policy issues; more
business and economic dimensions; more context from other countries and cultures; oth
er use contexts such as gaming, virtual reality, wearable and embedded media; more fo
cus on the needs and uses of groups such as low income, rural, differentially abled, eth
nic, feminist, activist, and LBGTQ, among many others; more consideration of cultural dif
ferences in access, meaning, use, and implications; and more focus on qualitative and
case studies (for just a few examples, see Borah, 2017; Lee, Ho, & Lwin, 2017; Rice &
Fuller, 2013; Rice & Leonardi, 2013; Röhle, 2005).
More General Themes Emerging from Relationships among the Chap

ters
In addition to assessing common and unique themes, we can also identify how the non-
ESRC chapters relate to each other, reflecting a more general view of shared foci in this
Handbook. Table 25.6 indicates which themes appeared in which chapters.
Page 25 of 42
Table 25.6 Non-ESRC Chapters Including at Least One Instance of Each Theme
Chapters
Th 04 05 06 07 09 10 12 13 15 17 19 20 21 23 To
em tal
e
A1 X X X X X X X X X X 10
The
ory
A2 X X X X X 5
Na
me
s
for
ne
w
so
cial
era
Page 26 of 42
B1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13
Tec
hno
lo
gy
ven
ues
B2 X X X X X X X X X 9
Tec
hno
lo
gy
cha
rac
ter
is
tics
C1 X X X X X X X X X 9
Con
ten
t,
cre
atio
n
Page 27 of 42
C2 X X X X X X X 7
Big
da
ta,
da
ta
min
ing,
da
ta
stor
age
,
an
alyt
ics,
use
r
da
ta
C3 X X X X X 5
Civi
c
is
sue
s
Page 28 of 42
C4 X X X X 4
Eth
ics,
eth
ical
is
sue
s
C5 X X X X X X X X 8
In
clu
sio
n,
ex
clu
sio
n,
dis
cri
mi
na
tion
Page 29 of 42
C6 X X X X 4
Ma
nag
e
dig
ital
ex
pe
ri
enc
e
D1 X 1
Dig
iti
za
tion
of
self
&
oth
ers
D2 X X X X X X 6
He
alth
Page 30 of 42
D3 X X X X X X X X X X X X 12
Re
la
tion
shi
ps
D4 X X X X 4
Use
r
gro
ups
Page 31 of 42
D5 X X X X X X X X X X 10
Cul
tur
e,
eve
ry
day
life,
ed
uca
tion
,
lear
nin
g
D6 X X X X X X X X 8
Wo
rk
and
or
ga
niz
atio
ns
Page 32 of 42
D7 X X X X X X X 7
La
w,
pol
icy,
reg
ula
tion
E1 X X X X X X X X X 9
Ef
fect
s
Ne
gati
ve
E2 X X X X X X X 7
Ef
fect
s
Pos
itiv
e
Page 33 of 42
E3 X X X X X X X X 8
Ef
fect
s
So
ci
etal
E4 X X X X X X X 7
Ef
fect
s
con
tra
dic
tion
s,
par
ado
xes,
ten
sio
ns,
un
in
ten
ded
Page 34 of 42
F1 X X X X X X X X X X X X 12
Fu
tur
e
re
sea
rch,
met
hod
s
To 10 13 16 14 15 10 13 9 12 12 12 5 10 13 —
tal
the
me
s
for
eac
h
cha
pte
r
Page 35 of 42
Notes: 04 = MeierDomahidiGuentherCMCMentalHealth; 05 = WaggDigitalInclusionWomensHealth; 06 =

PetrieDarzentasDigitalTechOlderPeople; 07 = GreenComberKuznesofDigitalNexus; 09 = RiceZamanzadehHagen
MediaMastery; 10 = CecchinatoCoxBoundariesCommTechsFinal; 12 = CoombsHislopTanevaBarnardChangingNa
tureOfWorkIntelligentMachines; 13 = YatesLockleyDigitalCultureAtWorkAndTheUptakeOfDigitalSolutions; 15 =
YatesLockleySocialMediaSocialClass; 17 = LeeScottBaumannDigitalEcologyFreeSpeech; 19 = HintzDigitalCitizen
ship; 20 = NugentFolanEdmondDataDefinitions; 21 = HocevarAbeytaRiceMotivationsOnlineKnowledgeSharing; 23
= JacobsEdwardsCottrillSaltGovernanceAndAccountabilityInIoTNetworks
Page 36 of 42
All but one chapter included from 10 to 16 (out of 22) themes. Thus, most chapters por
tray over half of the themes, with chapters 6 (Petrie & Darzentas: Digital Technology for
Older People), 9 (Rice, Zamanzadeh, & Hagen: Media Mastery for College Students), 7
(Green, Comber, & Kuznesof: A Digital Nexus), 5 (Wagg Cooke, & Simeonova: Digital In
clusion and Women’s Health … ), and 12 (Coombs, Hislop, Taneva, & Barnard: Changing
Nature of Work with Intelligent Machines) involving the most. Clearly, we would not ex
pect chapters by different authors to engage the same themes, much less all of them.
However, partially as a byproduct of the bounded number of themes (22) across the chap
ters (14), partially because of the interrelatedness of these themes within most any treat
ment of digital technology and society, and partially because of the focused nature of the
ESRC project and the conference call for papers, there should be considerable commonal
ity.
Figure 25.1 displays a hierarchical clustering of the 14 chapters, based on the Jaccard
similarity coefficients derived from the co-occurrence of the 22 theme codes among all
the themes (and their aggregated subthemes) across the chapters (provided through NVI
VO 11). We can see two large clusters. The top cluster represents more macro and con
ceptual or definitional issues, emphasizing knowledge, citizenship and free speech, data,
and digital technology venues (sustainable HCI, intelligent machines, and Internet
(p. 715) (p. 716) of Things). The bottom cluster emphasizes more contexts and implications
of digital technology uses, at both social (class, inclusion, digital divides) and psychologi
cal levels (work-home boundaries, older uses, mental health, and media mastery).
At least two implications for readers and researchers follow from the clustering. First,
based on the extent to which the chapters shared codes from the more general coding
framework derived in chapter 1, the chapters in this Handbook could be regrouped and
resequenced from the current table of contents and sections. Possible sections could be
concepts, venues, social issues class and inclusion, and psychological issues of health,
well-being, and media mastery. Second, researchers focusing on any of these general ar
eas may wish to use the relevant chapters as initial literature reviews and foundations for
further research.
Figure 25.3 Hierarchical clustering of non-ESRC

chapters based on co-occurrence of coded themes.
Page 37 of 42
Conclusion
The ESRC project was defined as a scoping review to identify key areas for future re
search. One potential outcome from such a project would have been to identify one or two
pressing research concerns. The reality of digital media use is that they pervade nearly
all aspects of contemporary society and have touched nearly all aspects of everyday life,
and conversely are shaped and adapted by a wide range of actors and contexts. Even
those who do not use digital media are directly and indirectly affected, as lack of access
or skills creates substantive disadvantage in societies where services and even everyday
interaction are predominantly undertaken via digital devices. In each of the main do
mains we have sought to identify key future research questions and challenges—those is
sues that we need to better understand in order to get a clearer and more (p. 717) com
prehensive picture of the contexts and implications of digital media use. Focusing on just
one area within a domain, or claiming that just one domain has priority, would be both
limiting and a false assertion. Having said this, we can see some key commonalities in the
overall results, and we would argue that bringing these together provides a broad set of
themes that might serve as a medium-term framework for exploring digital media and so
ciety. We believe that combing the overlaps between the following areas creates two sub
stantive and relatively integrated domains of study in regard to digital media:
• Communication and relationships with communities and identities

• Citizenship and politics with governance and security
Based on discussions in the workshops, we would argue that a third major medium-term
area of study has to be
• Social, economic and cultural impacts of automation, augmentation, and virtual reali
ty
We would then suggest four smaller focused areas that could stand alone or cross cut
these three main areas:
• Digital economy, with a focus on the impact of major platforms

• Data and digital literacies
• Health and well-being focused on workplace, every day and governance issues
• Digital divides and digital inequalities, including the two-way interaction between
digital inequities and other areas of social inequity
We would also strongly emphasize the need for projects that address the following:
• Multi-platform/holistic studies: To ask broad social science questions and then ex
plore which technologies are relevant to citizens’ actual practice and in what ways. To
develop a more holistic picture of the integration of digital into their lives (or not, in
the case of digital inequalities).
Page 38 of 42
• Methods innovation: Including risk taking on digital tools—with a strong methods

evaluation component.
• Theory development, testing, and evaluation: We are agnostic on the need to inher
ently develop new theory to understand the everyday uses and impacts of digital tech
nologies. The literature content analysis has found little evidence of consistent domi
nant theory in the area. There may be a need for greater clarity on “most relevant”
theory and on incremental theory development as opposed to a need for “digital specif
ic” theory development.
• Ethics: This needs to cover both ethics with regard to methods, but also wider social
ethics around social, commercial, and government use of data, systems automation,
and human augmentation.
The work we have undertaken here has highlighted the very large amount of re
(p. 718)
search and scholarship dedicated to understanding the impacts and roles of digital media
in contemporary society. At the same time, it is clear that much work remains to be done.
It is a concern that funding (from government and industry) remains focused on technolo
gy development and implementation—with the clear policy goal being economic growth.
For example, the recent UK Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, the UK Digital Economy
program, and the EU Framework and H2020 programs have all funded high-quality work
focused on the creation of new technologies and their commercialization. This has includ
ed funding for creative and digital industries. Yet funding to support the evaluation of the
social impacts of these innovations, their ethics and governance, the process of their
adoption, and the social process of their creation remains far more limited. We also have
some concern that some social science colleagues continue to view digital issues as sec
ondary to, or as “add-ons” to formal social research questions—rather than seeing these
as fundamentally integrative to contemporary social research. Understanding contempo
rary interpersonal interaction or understanding UK benefits policy is not separate from
the digital technologies being used to create and maintain these relationships or manage
these services.
Finally, and most importantly, the key point we draw from the chapters in this Handbook
is both exciting and challenging—namely the vast range of research opportunities that
the study of digital media still provides and will continue to generate. This includes not
only the range of questions that still need answering, nor simply the new innovative meth
ods and data sets being developed and becoming more accessible, but importantly the
chance to be part of understanding and influencing some of the most historically impor
tant social, political, economic, and cultural changes taking place in contemporary society
References
616–636.
Page 39 of 42
Grint, K., & Woolgar, S. (1997). The machine at work: Technology, work and organization.
Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Katz, J. E. & Rice, R. E. (2002). Social consequences of Internet use: Access, involvement
and interaction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Ox

ford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Lee, E. W., Ho, S. S., & Lwin, M. O. (2017). Explicating problematic social network sites
use: A review of concepts, theoretical frameworks, and future directions for communica
tion theorizing. New Media & Society, 19(2), 308–326.
Rice, R. E. & Fuller, R. P. (2013). Theoretical perspectives in the study of communication

and the Internet. In W. Dutton (Ed.), Oxford handbook of Internet studies (pp. 353–377).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Rice, R. E. & Leonardi, P. M. (2013). Information and communication technology in orga

nizations, 2000–2011. In L. Putnam, & D. K. Mumby (Eds.), Sage handbook of organiza
tional communication (3rd ed., pp. 425–448). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Röhle, T. (2005). Power, reason, closure: Critical perspectives on new media theory. New
Media & Society, 7(3), 403–422.
Notes:
(1.) As part of the review, the Digital Humanities Institute at the University of Sheffield
million rows of data. The website https://www.dhi.ac.uk/waysofbeingdigital/provides
access to the top 50 most frequently occurring pairs and trios through a series of data vi
sualizations. Click on View Data Visualisations at the top. Then check/submit which of the
results/for interactive visualizations with mouse-overs of the main clusters of concepts
Ronald E. Rice
Page 40 of 42
Simeon J. Yates
Page 41 of 42
Jordana Blejmar

Page 42 of 42
Index
Index
(p. 720) (p. 721) Index

Note: Tables and figures are indicated by an italic “t” and “f”, respectively, following the
page number.
absenteeism 303
abstracts 100
acceptance. See technology acceptance
access 428, 701
AI and 431
broadband 128
cognition and 274–75
content 266
to databases 100
digital divide and 370
at home 370, 381t
ICTs 118
Internet 116
lack of 432
media mastery and 266
patterns of 426
problematic Internet usage and 267
accountability 480, 605, 646, 647
for algorithms 518
automation and 685
for data 518
definition of 634
governance and security and 622
for intelligent machines 355–56
IoT governance and 628–30, 633–34
limits 649
action 454
active citizenship 533, 539
activism 17, 459, 530, 540
Activity Theory 116, 117t
Page 1 of 66
Index
Actor-Network Theory (ANT) 202–3, 206, 619, 700

Ada Lovelace Institute 706
adaptive structuration 251
addiction 21, 254
CMC, mental health and 82, 89
Internet 89, 98, 275
to smart phones 267, 269, 270, 272
ADHD. See attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
adolescents 228, 235
chatrooms and 234
independence of 233
media mastery and 252
online self 233
privacy of 229
social competence of 233
socialization of 232–33
social media and 229
social support and 233–34
adoption 398, 671
automation and 696–97
broadband 330–31
of intelligent machines 349, 352–53, 358
Internet 120, 126, 128
of technology 330
adult-child divergence 616
Advancing the Internet of Things in Europe 637
affective publics 479
affiliative tendency 587
Africa, Internet in 111
African Americans 20
age, digital skills and 382
agency 200, 451, 619
citizenship and 527, 533, 539, 541, 649
expression of 529
structure and 201
age of enlightenment 4
(p. 722) aging. See older people
AI. See artificial intelligence

AICPs. See artificial intelligence care providers
AIOTI. See Alliance for Internet of Things Innovation
Akshaya e-literacy project 120
algorithms 53, 67, 662–63
accountability for 518
AI 355
clustering 46
data and 518
data mining and 18
Facebook 481
Page 2 of 66
Index
governance and 539

opacity of 481
power of 5
privacy and 645
search and 15, 18, 21
social construction of 518
transparency about 67, 480
trust and 501
of YouTube 481
alienation, of older people 144
All Chile Connected (Todo Chile Comunicado) 120
Alliance for Internet of Things Innovation (AIOTI) 637–38
Alphabet 648
alternative facts 477
alt-right 479
altruism, KSS 578–79
Alzheimer’s disease 148
Amazon 333
ambiguity 482–85
American Civil Liberties Union 484
American slavery as it is (Garvey) 555
analytic approach 71t, 87–88, 101, 145, 461t, 517t, 621t
analytics 16–17
Anderson, Benedict 231
Anderson-Rubin method 394
anonymity 223, 414, 483
Anonymous 530
ANT. See Actor-Network Theory
anti-establishment views 477
anti-intellectualism 476–77
anti-rationalism 476–77
anti-vaxxers 477
anxiety 267
aphasia 148
appropriate use, of technology 438
apps 369
Arab Spring 467, 530
archivists 568
Arpanet 250
artificial intelligence (AI) 21, 328, 344, 348, 620, 659, 666
access and 431
algorithms 355
communication 357
complexity of 355
cultural attitudes toward 671, 671t
culture and 253
cyber security and 352–53
decision making 353
Page 3 of 66
Index
defining 346–47
disruption of 678
emotional support from 358–59
ethics of 346, 353
evidence and research methods 675–76
human intelligence and 347
implications of 675
jobs and 352, 353
legislation 359
policy 359
pseudo 481
social attitudes toward 671, 671t
systems 704
trust in 352–53
weak 346
artificial intelligence care providers (AICPs) 354, 355
arts attendance 441t
ASD. See autism spectrum disorder
Ashton, Kevin 628
Asimov, Isaac 477
assisted care, of older people 149–50
assistive technology 138
association 330
ATMs. See automated teller machines
attachment theory 91
attention
fragmented 24
inattention management 311
(p. 723) meta 253
motivated 253
span 2
splitting 273
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) 275
attitudes 198–200. See also cultural attitudes; social attitudes
toward digital solutions 383–84
about problematic Internet usage 276
UK workforce 387–88
at work 398
audiences x
augmentation 358, 666
authentication 66
authenticity 406, 413
authoritarianism 24
autism spectrum disorder (ASD) 350, 351
automated teller machines (ATMs) 137
automation 429, 431, 620
accountability and 685
adoption and 696–97
Page 4 of 66
Index
assumptions about 673

augmentation and 666
benefits of 358
categorization through 538
cognitive demands of 679–80, 695
communities and 678–79, 682–83
complexity and scale of project 674–75, 688–89
cultural attitudes toward 671, 671t, 681–82
data and 501
disruption of 678
economic context of 661–63
education and 677–78, 692–94
employment and 662, 677–78, 692–94
ESRC-DSTL 660, 663–65, 663t, 667f, 668, 670t
ESRC-NSF 660, 663–65, 663t, 665f, 668–69, 669t
ethics and 680, 695–96
evidence and research methods 675–76, 689–90
forms of 186
global environments of 676–77, 690–92
governance and security and 617–19
impacts of 43, 323–24, 328, 674
inequalities and 678–79, 679t, 694–95
of knowledge labor 348
levels of 352
policy 674–75
politics and 673
productivity and 662f, 677
professions and 677–78, 684–85
of service work 348
skills and 677–78, 692–94
social attitudes toward 671, 671t, 681–82
social context of 661–63
social impacts and 678–79
social issues and 678–79, 682–83
social science and 680, 696
of social sorting 612
surveillance and 612
system design and 679–80, 683–84
technological limitations and 686–87
technology 676–77
technology development 696–97
topics 668–69
trust and 672–74, 673t, 685, 687
work and 4, 30, 336, 344–45, 429, 677–78, 684–85
The Automation of Future Roles 30
autonomy 351, 451, 619
availability, of self 268
awareness
Page 5 of 66
Index
cues 310
features 310–11
self-awareness 585
usage 275–78
of work 310–11
balance 251–52, 301
banks 137
Barlow, John Perry 531
behavior
boundary management 314
change 194–98, 207, 208n3
datafication of 537
intention and 198
modification 197–98
online group 413
sexual 276
shared behavioral 200
SIDE model of online group 223
social 98, 222
trolling 92
(p. 724) Bell, Daniel 345
bias 91, 548, 676

big data 558, 620, 706–7, 710t
analysis of 16–17, 246
approach 71, 239, 247, 416, 507, 517
data and representation and 507–8
definition of 508, 560
environments 562
human geography and 512
ICTs and 547
objectivity and 547
opacity of 514
scale of 560
social sorting and 538
use of 513–14
warnings about 64–65
Big data little data no data (Borgman) 550
binary digits. See bits
biosensors 19, 66
Bit by bit (Salganik) 26
bits 4
Blackberries 306
Blackett Review on the Internet of Things 641
blockchain technology 18, 21
blogging 530
books
codes 12t, 25f
Page 6 of 66
Index
digital society in 9, 10t, 11, 11f, 12t

digital technology in 9, 10t, 11, 11f, 12t, 15–16
effects in 21–24
subcodes 12t, 25f
themes 12t
theory and conceptualization 12t, 14–15
Borgman, Christine 550, 551, 564
bots 480
bottom-up boundary strategies 313–15
boundaries. See also work-home boundaries
bottom-up boundary strategies 313–15
identity centrality and 302
integration-segmentation continuum and 302–3
management of 300–301, 306, 312–15
media mastery and 268–71
nature of 302
perceived boundary control 302, 306
permeation of 312
physical 301
preferences 311
psychological 301
roles and 302
social interaction and 300
temporal 301
theory 299–303
top-down strategies for management of 312–13
brainstorming 579, 584
Brexit 452, 467
Bridging the gender gap 122–23
Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) 312
British Empire 3
British Social Attitudes Survey 436
broadband. See also Internet
access 128
adoption 330–31
communication 614
bubble map 48f
burnout 93, 303, 309
butler lies 311
buzzwords, media 473
BYOD. See Bring Your Own Device
cache memory 552
caller ID 314
cancer 64
Capability Approach 127–28
capitalism 192, 194, 335, 536, 537
career planning 581
caring machines 354, 358
Page 7 of 66
Index
Casement, Roger 562

Catlett, Charlie 644, 645
CDA. See Communications Decency Act
cell phones. See smart phones
censorship
government 476
Internet 704
privatization of 480–82
self 482–85
Census 565
Censuswide 373
Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation 706
(p. 725) challenges. See also organizational challenges
change as vii–viii
citizenship and 465, 466t, 528–30
communities and identities 420–21, 420t
data and representation 518–23, 522t
Delphi process 75–76, 75t, 242–43, 243t, 245t, 339–41, 340t
interdisciplinary views and vi
volume of literature and digital tools vii
change 273
Changing Work, Changing Lives in the New Technological World 30
Charlie Hebdo 484
chatrooms 234–35
chatting 92
Chicago, IoT governance in 643–46
Chicago Array of Things 629
child development 354, 414
childhood 20
child mortality rates 126
children. See also adolescents
communities and 414
digital image exchange of 616–17
digital media use by 615–17
identities and 414
Internet and 615–17
privacy of 616
risks of 616
China, digital divide in 331
citizenship v, 29, 113, 118, 235, 246, 406, 434
active 533, 539
acts of 532
agency and 527, 533, 539, 541, 649
challenges 465, 466t, 528–30
classic forms of 529
communication and 535
communities and 413
concept of 455t, 531
Page 8 of 66
Index
concept pairs 453f, 455t

consumption and 537
control and 540–41
datafication and 536–41
definition of 526, 527–28
Delphi process and 417, 451, 460–65, 461t
digital 246
digital acts and 530–33
digital inclusion and 532
digital literacy and 29, 673, 687
digital restrictions 535–36
DIY 532–33
ecological 199, 208n3
education and 515
empowerment 68–69, 533–35, 540–41
engagement 530
exclusion and 532
feminist 529
governance and 633
government and 535
information and 481
international law of 529
involvement and 633, 642
journalism 527, 531
literature analysis 453–60
nationality and 539
norms 237
participation 531, 533, 633
politics and 452, 459
power dynamics and 541
reference points for 534
representation and 642, 646, 647, 649
rights 528, 533, 610
role of 530, 532
sensing 192
smart phones and 414
society and 541
studies 434
surveillance and 535, 542n1, 612–13
theory, method, and approach 460
topics 456, 456t, 458–60, 464–65
Twitter and 458
WordStat tool and 456t
CityBridge 648, 649
civic engagement 118, 415, 442, 459, 534, 538
civic infrastructure 629
Page 9 of 66
Index
civic issues 17, 710t

civic mobilization 415
civic participation 118
civic well-being 620
civil rights 530
classification, of objects 565
Clementi, Tyler 268
climate change 323
(p. 726) climate control technology 149
closed circuit TV cameras 149

cloud computing 15
clustering algorithms 46
co-designing technology 244
coding typology 708–9
cognition
access and 274–75
contradictions and 271–72
distraction and 275
multitasking and 273–74
cognitive computing 348
cognitive demands, of automation 679–80, 695
cognitive evaluation theory 581
collaboration 22, 405, 531
collective action 422, 459, 460, 575
collective costs and benefits 588
collective effort model 586
collectivism 590
college students, Facebook and 614
colonization 187
commodification 334, 536
communality 575
communication v, 15, 19, 22, 28, 222, 453. See also computer-mediated communication; informa
tion and communication technologies
AI 357
behaviors 245
broadband 614
cancer and 64
channels 390–91, 390f
child development and 414
citizenship and 535
communities and identities, media theories and 416
concept pairs 226f, 227f
culture and 230
Delphi process for 239–45
density 246
digital literacy and 240t
face-to-face 81
of foreigners 539
Page 10 of 66
Index
health and 59, 75, 76

information and 484
intercultural 22
Internet and 515
norms and 240t
older people and 144, 145–48, 151
online 478, 539
overload 308
patterns 232
physical aspect of 246
platform affordances and 240t
platforms 244, 301
politics and 236–37, 415, 459–60
process of 226
public-by-default nature of 483
relationships and 240t
scoping review and 86
smart phones and 266, 307
social relations and 272
studies 49, 466
successful 391
technology, mobility and 304–5
technology, work-home boundaries and 304–11
temporal properties of 311
texting and 277
tools 531
Twitter and 236
work and 312
Communications Decency Act (CDA) 480
communities v, 28
authenticity of 413
automation and 678–79, 682–83
children and 414
citizenship and 413
concept pairs 408t
connectivity and 640
credibility of 413
data and representation and 514–15
Delphi process for 405, 406
digital inclusion and 120–21
dynamics 409
education and 415
empowerment 64
Facebook and 481
formation 441
gender and 414–15
identities and 406, 409f, 410
Page 11 of 66
Index
imagined 231
(p. 727) Internet and 116
knowledge 409
KSS and 580
leadership 409
literature on 407–15
membership to 406, 413, 418t, 422
network 409
online 406, 410–11, 414
participation 409
politics and 529
power relations in 533
of practice 575–76
reciprocity in 583–84
reputation of 588
scoping review for 406
sense of 231
smart cities and 640
social capital and 441
social media and 64
topics 407, 407t, 409–10, 409f, 411t, 413–15
Twitter and 231–32
virtual 583, 590
women’s health and well-being in rural 113, 121–22, 125–26, 129
WordStat analysis of 411t
communities and identities
challenges 420–21, 420t
collective action and 422
communications and media theories and 416
Delphi process and 417
future research and scoping review for 417–19, 418t
psychological theories and 416
sociological theories and 416
theory, method, and approach to 415–17, 416t
computer-mediated communication (CMC) 223, 227, 246–47
definition of 80, 86
growth of 299
identities and 422
platforms 307
social support and 234
temporal patterns of responses in asynchronous 309
computer-mediated communication, mental health and 79
addiction and 82, 89
analytical approach 87–88, 101
articles per discipline 95f
changes over time 93
chatting 92
Page 12 of 66
Index
concept operationalization 87t

concepts 88–89
core topics 89–93, 90t, 94f
CTM 88
cyberbullying 92
databases 87t
debate on 83, 98
defining key constructs 80–81
Facebook 90–91
future research agenda for 101
ICT adoption and 92–93
Internet addiction 89
in journals 94f, 95, 95f, 100–101
limitations in sampling and analysis 99–101
manual topic selection and merger 88
mental health concepts 96–98, 96f, 97t, 101
methodology 85–89
network structures and 99
problematic Internet usage 82, 89
publication behavior in field 88, 93–96
publication of research 83–84
publications 100
reduction of 99
relationships and 91–92
research on 81–83, 86, 98, 100–101
results 89–98
sample 86–87
scoping review 85–86, 99
search terms 87t
sleep and 93, 99
smart phones and 91
SNS and 82, 90–91
software 89
study on 83–85
texting 92
topic modeling 87, 100
topics 83, 97t
work-related 93
(p. 728) Computer-mediated communication in personal relationships (Wright & Web) 26
computers 4, 6
games and mental health 65–66
literacy 125
older people and 141, 143, 144, 153
women and 123
computer science vi, 522
computing 5, 186
cloud 15
cognitive 348
Page 13 of 66
Index
ethics and 567

high-performance 662
power 15
concept-modelling 46, 47t, 77n1, 247n1, 341n1, 423n1, 467n1, 524n1, 626n1, 718n1
concept pairs 48f
all seven domains of 701f
citizenship 453f, 455t
communication 226f, 227f
communities 408t
data and representation 503t, 506f
Delphi process 325t, 327f
economy 327f
ESRC project 224t, 226f, 227f
governance and security 607t, 610f
health and well-being 60f, 61f
literature 59t
main themes of 703t
tree map of 49f
conferences, older people and 137–38
confidence
at home 380t, 396
knowledge labor and 383
literacy and 440
at work 372, 381t, 396, 400
connective action 460
connectivity 22, 23, 122, 422, 575
communities and 640
conscientious 18, 253
culture of 14–15
FOMO and 271
health and 126, 269
multitasking and 275
problematic Internet usage and 269
social relations and 268–69
Twitter and 231
conscientious connectivity 253
conscious consumption 253
consent 611
conservation, resources and 198
conspiracy theories 478
constant connection 268–69
Constitution, U.S. 484
constraints, media mastery 271–72
consumerism 208n4
consumers 195
consumption 187–88, 207
citizenship and 537
conscious 253
Page 14 of 66
Index
cultural 436, 511

digital 708
domestic energy 193–94, 199, 205, 206
household energy 203
infrastructures of 202
measurement of 194
media and 232
resources and 197, 199, 202
routines 201
sustainability and 192, 199, 201, 208n4
content
access 266
analysis 49
creation 16, 710t
management, media mastery and 272–74
sharing, freedom of speech and 478–80
viral 478–79
context collapse 551
contextual factors, of KSS 588–90
continuous time 509
contradictions 23, 271–72, 712t
Conway, Kellyanne 476
co-occurring terms 700–701
cookies 613
co-operation 337
corporate wellness programs 514
Correlated Topic Model (CTM) 88
costs, of problematic Internet usage 275
counter-terrorism 473, 612
Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 487
country contexts, digital inclusion and 128
creativity 24, 577
credibility, of communities and identities 413
crime 24
(p. 729) critical thinking 127
cross-cutting topics 700–701, 713

crowdfunding/sourcing 16, 20–21
CTM. See Correlated Topic Model
cultural attitudes
toward AI 671, 671t
toward automation 671, 671t, 681–82
cultural capital 22, 427, 431–32, 435, 437–41, 440f, 445
cultural consumption 436, 511
cultural data 548, 562, 567
cultural identity 565
cultural production 531, 708
culture 20, 429, 479, 711t
AI and 253
Page 15 of 66
Index

inequalities and 445
nature and 187
technology and 676
cyberbullying 92, 268, 271, 274
cybermediaries 333
cyber-optimism 14
cybersalons 534
cyber security, AI and 352–53
cyberspace 532
cyber troops 473
cyborg 19
dangerous ideas 488
data vi, 29
accountability for 518
acquisition 552
activism 540
algorithms and 518
analytics 710t
automation and 501
brokers 536
categorization 563–64
classification systems 566
cleaning 548, 556, 561–62
collected by Facebook 226–28
collection 151–52, 509, 635
context of 556
cultural 548, 562, 567
defining 548, 549, 554–55, 557–61
delimiters 567
digital environments and 556, 558
documentation standards 566
duplicates 552
errors 568
facts and 554–55, 556
false 555, 559
governance 641–42
handling 514
hidden 556, 568
indeterminate 568
informed consent and 514
integration of 569
interpretation 555–57, 568–69
literacy 521, 522, 701
management of 557
manipulation 561
medical 553
Page 16 of 66
Index
methods of data and representation 507–8

minimization 634
mining 16–17, 18, 515, 536, 548, 710t
NASA protocol for 562–63
native 550
noise and 553
objectivity and 561
original 558
outdated 552
ownership 610, 640
as performative 566
pre 549–50, 554
pretreatment module 558
processing 548, 554, 555–57, 558
protection 637
provenance record 564
quality 553–54
raw 550–51, 553
rich environments 567
source 552–54
sources, data and representation 511
storage 16–17, 630, 710t
stream 558
structuring 567
surveillance and 481–82
terminology 569
transparency 562
treatment 562–65
truth and 559–60
(p. 730) types of 560
unprocessed 564
use of 513–14
variants 562–65
visualizations 77n1, 247n1, 341n1, 423n1, 467n1, 509, 510, 524n1, 626n1, 718n1
data and representation
big data and 507–8
challenges 518–23, 522t
communities and 514–15
concept pairs 503t, 506f
continuous time 509
data methods of 507–8
data sources 511
data visualizations 509, 510
Delphi process and 518–21, 519t, 523t
ethics and 512, 521
expertise and 509
future research and 518
Page 17 of 66
Index
granularity and 509

heterogeneity and 509, 548
impact and 512
initial comments 501–2
literature analysis of 502–16
mobile and mobilizing technologies and 509
non-coherence of knowledge creation 509–10
objectivity and 510
other domains and 514–16
scoping review and 518
theory, method, and approach 516–18, 516t
topics 502–16, 502t, 521t, 522t
transactional interactions 508–9
whole populations and 509
WordStat tool 504t
databases, access to 100
datafication 5, 517, 527
of behavior 537
citizenship and 536–41
governance and 536–38, 541
implications of 538–39
of life 536–38
pre-data 549
dataism 538
dating 91–92
dating apps 271
DCMS. See Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s
dead time 309
debates ix
deception 223
Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) 43
Delphi process 39, 41–49, 41f, 57, 221
challenges 75–76, 75t, 242–43, 243t, 245t, 339–41, 340t
citizenship and 417, 451, 460–65, 461t
for communication 239–45
for communities 405, 406
communities and identities and 417–19, 418t
data and representation and 518–21, 519t, 523t
first round 222t
future research and 72–75, 73t, 244–45, 247, 341, 462–63, 462t
for governance and security 605
for identities 405, 406
literature analysis 324–36, 324t
politics and 417, 451
results 707
scoping review 240t, 241, 337–38, 338t
Page 18 of 66
Index
survey response 74t

topics 74, 74t, 241–42, 242t, 324–35, 326t, 338–39, 339t
dementia 137, 148, 354
democracy 471, 472, 477–78, 532, 612
democratization 24, 532, 650
Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s (DCMS) 38
Department of Innovation and Technology 645
dependencies 21, 254, 276
depression 79, 90–91, 92, 267, 270, 276
design
automation and system 679–80, 683–84
co-designing technology 244
politics of 208
sustainability and 191, 193, 196, 205–6
system 672t
(p. 731) Developing Innovation and Growing the Internet of Things (DIGIT) Act 639
development 14
Development and access to information 122–23
devices 22. See also smart phones/mobile phones
interconnected 508
IoT governances and 645–46
multi-device ecology, work-home spaces and 305–7
privacy and 645, 648
specialization 305
Devolution Agreement 642
DHI. See Digital Humanities Institute
dictatorship 471
diet 70, 205
diffusion of innovation 330
Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) Theory 116, 117t
DIGIT. See Developing Innovation and Growing the Internet of Things Act
digital acts, citizenship and 530–33
digital age 6, 25
childhood in 20
first substantive entry 10t
in Nexis Uni (News) 8t
in NGram 10t, 11f
in Proquest Periodicals Index Online 9t
in ScienceDirect 7t
in Web of Science 7t
digital agenda 614
digital by default 429
digital capital 427, 432–33, 438, 445
Digital Catapult and Future Cities Catapult 641
digital citizenship. See citizenship
digital communication. See communication
digital consumption. See consumption
Page 19 of 66
Index
digital culture. See culture

digital development, environmental crisis and 187–88
digital disruption 369–70, 401
digital divides 129, 443, 701
access and 370
in China 331
digital skills and 332
distinction among 428–29
gender and 111, 122
literature and 115
policy and 118
research on 112, 332
socio-economic aspect of 513
types of 429
digital economy 429
digital efficacy 380–83, 380t, 382t
digital engagement 428
digital environments 527, 530, 552, 556, 558
digital era 6
in NGram 10t, 11f
in ScienceDirect 7t
digital exclusion 111, 122, 331, 443, 708
digital experience 18, 711t
digital feedback systems 196, 205
digital health 29
digital health technology 74, 76
digital humanities 57, 708
Digital Humanities Institute (DHI) 37, 46, 47t, 247n1, 341n1, 423n1, 467n1, 524n1, 626n1, 718n1
digital identities 413, 419
digital impact mediators 331
digital inclusion 17–18, 337, 421, 428, 513, 708, 709, 711t
Activity Theory 116, 117t
Akshaya e-literacy project 120
citizenship and 532
community and 120–21
country contexts and 128
culture and 121
defining 112, 117–18
digital literacy and 127
digital skills and 124, 125
DOI Theory 116, 117t
education and 121
Page 20 of 66
Index
elements of 112
frameworks, measurement, and evaluations 123–24
(p. 732) gender and 121–22
government and 120

health and well-being and 125–26
health care and 123
ICTs and 112
illiteracy and 121
information literacy and 111–14, 125–26, 127–28, 129
initiatives 111, 119–25
in journals 127
levels and approaches 119–21
libraries and 121, 123, 128
literature review 115–16
Media Richness theory 117
methods 114–15
mobile technology and 122–23
outcomes-based evaluations of 124
policy 111, 119, 127
rural communities and 119
smart phones and 122–23
social activity and 121
social barriers to 121
terminology 117–18
theory and methods 116–17, 117t, 128–29
3G wireless connections 120
training 124–25
women’s health and well-being in rural communities 113, 121–22, 125–26, 129
digital inequalities. See inequalities
digital information 4–5
digital infrastructure 329, 526
digital innovation, wealth and 329
digital interventions 196
digitalization, ethics of 513
Digital Leaders network 39, 43
digital leisure 429
digital lifestyles 76
digital literacy 18, 125, 482, 485, 701
citizenship and 29, 673, 687
communication and 240t
cultural capital and 437–38
digital resources and 433
five central components of 253
inequalities and 427, 428, 440, 444
issues 65
learning 117
need for 20
Page 21 of 66
Index
of women 121
digitally mediated interactions 479
digital media
children use of 615–17
education and 443
employment and 702
health and well-being and 71
health care and 65
implementation 699
interpersonal interaction and 45
production 16
role of 718
social class and 428
social interaction and 232
social life and 430
society and vi, 718
socio-economic impact of 334
use 61, 427, 460, 716–17
weight loss and 69–70
digital networking 5–6
Digital Object Identifiers. See DOIs
digital objects 566
digital only 429
digital ownership 334
digital prayer chapels 20
digital products 329
digital resources, digital literacy and 433
digital restrictions, citizenship 535–36
digital rights 539, 540
digital roll-outs
experience of 383–88
jobs and 385–87, 385f
knowledge labor and 383, 384f
negative impacts of 386, 387f
organizational challenges and 388–93, 389f
organizational size and sector and 374, 375f, 376, 376t, 377f, 388, 389f, 390
positive impact of 386f
regression model 397f
success of 384f, 391, 392f, 393, 397f, 397t
technology acceptance and 384
digital skills 112, 329, 380–83, 380t, 382t, 428, 512
acquisition of 331
age and 382
(p. 733) digital divide and 332
gender and 124

inclusion and 124, 125
training 129
types of 332
Page 22 of 66
Index
digital society 6, 329, 620

in books 9, 10t, 11, 11f, 12t
in NGram 10t, 11f
in ScienceDirect 7t
digital solutions
attitudes toward 383–84
implementation of 389f
organizational culture and 400
organizational size and 389f
by organizational size and sector, increase in 377, 378f
SMEs and 374
UK organizations and 374–80, 375f, 376t, 377f
UK workforce and 399
uptake 370–73, 373t
digital storytelling 531
digital technology 6, 27
in books 9, 10t, 11, 11f, 12t, 15–16
control of 151–52
education and 429
governance and 467
health care and 76
interventions 65
negative impacts of 76
in NGram 10t, 11f
older people and 136–37, 142–45, 151
opportunity structures of 431
policy 614
in ScienceDirect 7t
social construction of 517–18
society and 31, 714
UK workforce and 387–88
uptake 329–31
digital terminology
in NGram 10t, 11f
in ScienceDirect 7t
in Web of Science 6, 7t
digital tools vii, 45–46, 53, 65, 383, 386f, 526
Page 23 of 66
Index
digitization 4–5, 6, 666

of industry 638
intensification of 501–2
of others 18–19
of self 18–19, 711t, 713
disabilities 17
discrimination 17–18, 421, 514, 709, 711t
discursive concept 46
disempowerment 540
disinformation 471, 477, 478, 480
display technologies 194
disruption
of AI 678
of automation 678
digital 369–70, 401
distractions
cognition and 275
health and 275
distribution 194, 195, 629
DIY citizenship 532–33
DOI. See Diffusion of Innovation Theory
DOIs (Digital Object Identifiers) 552
domestication theory 254
domestic energy consumption 193–94, 199, 205, 206
domestic utility systems 205
downloads 549
doxa 427, 438, 445
drugs 271
drug trafficking 22
DSTL. See Defence Science and Technology Laboratory
Dutton, W. 26
dynamic network analytics 244
Earth Observing System Data Information System (EOS DIS) 563–64, 563t
eco-feedback systems 196
ecological citizenship 199, 208n3
(p. 734) ecological governance 201
ecology of transition 267

economic capital 331, 431, 433, 435–37, 436t, 437f, 440f, 444–45
economic change 332–33
economic context, of automation 661–63
economic growth 332–33
economic inequality 427
economics 333, 663, 675
Economics of the Internet 26
economy vi, 206, 327
concept pairs 327f
digital 429
gig 21
Page 24 of 66
Index
information and 333

information resources and 3
political 325
Economy and Sustainability domain 325
ecosystems 196
eco-visualization 194
editability 330
education 14, 20, 113, 711t
applications 615
automation and 677–78, 692–94
of citizens 515
communities and 415
digital media and 443
digital technology and 429
eEducation 128
health 59
identities and 415
opportunities 438–39
technology and 59–60
eEducation 128
effects 25
in books 21–24
of KSS, indirect 587
media 591
negative 21, 712t
positive 22, 712t
societal 22, 712t
effort expectancy 371
eGovernment 128
eHealth 65, 128
EHIL. See everyday life health information literacy
elderly. See older people
election 452, 459, 467, 480, 482
electronic intrusion 92
electronic networks of practice 580
electronic pillbox 137
electronic records 549
elitism 488
emails 4, 93, 251, 267, 303, 306, 530
encryption 539
after work 313
emancipation 451
embodied cultural capital 432
emojis 479
emotional contagion 478–79
emotional loneliness 148
emotional support 22, 358–59
Page 25 of 66
Index
emotions 69
empirical approach 71t, 238t, 335t, 416t, 461t, 516t, 620t
empirical methods 52
empirical research, on intelligent machines 357
empirical work, theories of 52
employees, productivity of 313
employment
automation and 662, 677–78, 692–94
discrimination 514
opportunity, social networks and 444
empowerment
citizenship 68–69, 533–35, 540–41
communities 64
disempowerment 540
of women 121
encounter of knowing 311
encryption 66, 483, 539
energy 202, 327
Energy Saving Trust 195
engagement 17, 458, 709
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) 629
enjoyment and entertainment, KSS 578
environment
digital development and 187–88
human desires and impact on 196
environmental agency 200
envy 79
(p. 735) EOS DIS. See Earth Observing System Data Information System
epistemological approach 70t, 238t, 335t, 416t, 516t

EPSRC. See Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
ESRC-DSTL 660, 663–65, 663t, 667f, 668, 670t, 672, 674–75, 678, 678t, 681t
ESRC-NSF 660, 663–65, 663t, 665f, 668–69, 669t, 675, 677, 678, 687–88
ESRC project vii–ix, 26–31, 77n1, 221. See also specific topics
analysis concepts ranked 224t
approaches for review 40–52
challenges 43
concept pairs 224t, 226f, 227f
cross-cutting challenges 705–7, 705t
cross-cutting topics 705t
definition of 716
Delphi methods 39, 41–43, 41f
key authors 42–43
key literature 42–43
key topics 43
literature analysis 223
methods 40
Page 26 of 66
Index
participants 36–39
review chapters 44
scoping review 39–40, 39t, 42, 222t, 323
stakeholder engagement 38–39, 43–44
Steering Group 37t, 41
systematic literature reviews 44–52
team 36–37
theory 40
topics 223–37
Wordstat analysis of topics 225t, 325
workshops 43–44
ethics 18, 244, 247, 711t, 717
of AI 346, 353
automation and 680, 695–96
computing and 567
data and representation and 512, 521
of digitalization 513, 521
governance and 637
intelligent machines and 353–56, 358–59
Internet and 613
of LAWS 355
older people and 150
workplace 514
EU Framework 718
European Commission 614
European Commission’s Digital Competence Framework for Citizens 124
European Union, top-down IoT governance in 636–38, 638t
evaluation, of theories 706, 717
everyday life 20, 434–35, 612, 711t
everyday life health information literacy (EHIL) 118
exclusion 17–18, 421, 532, 709, 711t
expertise
data and representation and 509
KSS 579–80
self-presentation and 276–77
traits and 277
extrinsic motivation 574–75, 577, 590
Facebook 232, 235–37, 246, 267, 270, 308, 333, 334
algorithms 481
API 482
bias 91
college students and 614
community and 481
Community Standards of 481
data collected by 226–28
depression and 90–91, 276
Page 27 of 66
Index
election and 480

loneliness and 79
norms and 69–70
political engagement and 442, 459
privacy 229
privacy breach scandals of 482
surveillance and 17
use 327
face-to-face communication 81, 234, 267
facilitating conditions 371
facts, data and 554–55, 556
fairness 429
fake news 471, 477–78, 487
false data 555, 559
(p. 736) false positives 86, 89, 100
familiarity 151, 152

family
older people 148
planning 126
relationships 20
work and 303–4, 306
fascism 471, 487
FCC. See Federal Communications Commission
fear of missing out (FOMO) 271, 276
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 639
feedback, KSS and 580
feminist citizenship 529
feminist rights 528
Fioretti, Alderman Robert 644
First Amendment 480, 484
Five Star Movement 472
flexibility 577
FOMO. See fear of missing out
food
preparation by robots 153
provisioning 197, 207
waste 197, 204
Food and You 195
4chan 483
Fox, Martha Lane 38
fragmentation 305
freedom of speech 17
central implications of 485–87, 486t
challenges 486t
content sharing and 478–80
crisis 472
democracy and 477–78
Page 28 of 66
Index
fake news and 477–78

findings about 476–85
future research 487–88
hate speech and 476
keywords 473, 474t
memes and 479
political correctness and 476
privatization of censorship 480–82
Supreme Court and 484
tension points about 485
Twitter and 479
universities and 472
free riders 575
fridge-cams 197, 204
friendship 91–92
networks 273, 414
Furie, Matt 479
future research 712t
for communities and identities 417–19, 418t
for computer-mediated communication, mental health and 101
Delphi process and 72–75, 73t, 244–45, 247, 341, 462–63, 462t
freedom of speech 487–88
for intelligent machines 356–59
KSS 584, 590–91
on older people 152–53
scoping review and 72–75, 73t
gaming communities 253–54
gaps 713
Garvey, E. G. 555
GDPR. See General Data Protection Regulation
gender 18, 276
classification 564
communities and 414–15
digital divide and 111, 122
digital skills and 124
equity 122
ICTs and 115, 122
identities and 414–15, 564–65
IM and 230
inequality 487
Internet and 111, 115, 616
transgender 564
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 612, 638
geofencing 512
geographic information systems (GIS) 511–12, 514
Page 29 of 66
Index
geotag 512
geoweb 512
Germany 313
gig economy 21
(p. 737) GII. See Global Information Infrastructures
GIS. See geographic information systems

global culture 506
global environments, of automation 676–77
global financial crisis 472
Global Information Infrastructures (GII) 333
global information/network society 14–15
globalization 186, 187, 206, 208n2, 528
global markets 332
global position system of satellite (GPS) 22, 137
Global Voices 531
Gmail 308
GMDSP. See Greater Manchester Data Synchronization program
goals, of robots 355
Good Things Foundation 431
Google 334, 556, 648
Google Scholar 44
Gore, Al 477
gout management 67–68
governance vi, 29, 235, 458, 466, 501, 528. See also IoT governance
algorithms and 539
citizenship and 633
data 641–42
datafication and 536–38, 541
definition of 630
of digital health technology 74
ecological 201
ethics and 637
gaps in 629, 650
grass-roots 632
IoT, accountability and 628–30
IoT levels of 631–33, 632f
issues 703–4
models 633
participatory 633
principles of IoT 630–36
social 635
structures of 201
technology and 629
urban 633
governance and security
accountability and 622
automation and 617–19
Page 30 of 66
Index
children use of digital media 615–17

citizenship and 610
communities and 620
concepts 606t
Delphi process for 605, 621–24, 622t
digital systems used by state 610–13
Internet regulation and 613–15
literature analysis of 606–21
personal information and 612
research challenges 624–25, 625t
theory, method, and approach to 619–21, 620t
topics 606–8, 607t, 610–19, 623t
trust and 622
WordStat tool 608t
government
censorship 476
citizenship and 535
intervention 329
punishment 476
role of vii
surveillance and 15, 515, 535
GPS. See global position system of satellite
GPS monitoring 482
Graham, N. 26
granularity, data and representation and 509
grass-roots governance 632
gratification 272–73
Greater Manchester Data Synchronization program (GMDSP) 642
Great Firewall of China 535
green behavior 205
grey literature 45, 114–15, 121, 124, 126, 129, 473
groups
belonging, KSS and 586–87
dynamics, politics and 413
identities 271, 587–88
identity, KSS and 587–88
membership 413
online group behavior 413
SIDE model of online group behavior 223
user 20, 711t
H2020 programs 718
habit, social interaction and 273
(p. 738) hacking 22
Haddon, L. 616
HaLow 643
Handbook of children and the media 26
Page 31 of 66
Index
Handbook of digital games 26

Handbook of mobile communication studies 26
Handbook of porous media 26
Handbook of research on computer-mediated communication 26
Handbook of the psychology of communication technology 26
harassment, online 22
hashtags 236, 479
hate crime 22, 459
hate speech 472, 476, 484
HCI. See human-computer interaction
health and well-being vi, 19, 113, 711t
choices and 276
communication and 59, 75, 76
concept pairs 60f, 61f
connectivity and 126, 269
delivery, privatization of 57–58
digital 28, 29
distractions and 275
education 59
inequalities 73–74
privacy and 66, 75
problematic Internet usage and 268, 270–71
in rural communities 125–26
social media usage and 251
studies 57
unintended consequences with 272
vulnerability and 270–71
health apps, social media and 67
health care
evidence-based 65
literature 60–64
relationships 67
robots and 354
smart phones and 66–68
social media and 64
social support and 68–69
health information literacy (HIL) 118
healthism 67
healthy living 67
Heider, Fritz 301
heterogeneity, data and representation and 509, 548
hidden data 556, 568
Page 32 of 66
Index
high culture 440

higher education 522
high-performance computing 662
HIL. See health information literacy
hipster fascism 487
Hogg, David 478
homes
access at 370, 381t
confidence at 396
smart 143, 149, 186, 207, 629
technology and 399
horizon scanning v
horizontal information seeking 557
household energy consumption 203
HRP Socio-Economic Classification 437f
human-computer interaction (HCI) 138, 188–94, 190t, 196–97, 200, 203–7, 299–300, 675
human relations 508
intelligent machines and 346, 347, 349–51, 357–58
resources and 201
with robots 352
humans
capital 124
computer/object relationships 203
desires, environmental impacts of 196
geography, big data and 512
intelligence, AI and 347
life 187
machines and 22, 346, 349, 353–56, 661, 666, 676
resource relationships 207
rights 473, 530
robot dynamics 357
robot hybrid teams 351
robot interaction 349–50
robots and 359
(p. 739) role of 685–86
social relationships 203, 208n2

society and 509, 685–86
technology and 357
human-to-human interaction 350
hyperlinks 552
ICTs. See information and communication technologies
identities v, 14, 19, 28
authenticity and 406, 413
centrality 302
centrality, boundaries and 302
children and 414
CMC and 422
communities and 406, 409f, 410
Page 33 of 66
Index
credibility of 413
cultural 565
Delphi process for 405, 406
digital 413
education and 415
experimentation 252
faceted 307
gender and 414–15, 564–65
group 271, 587–88
online 252, 418t, 422
self and 307
self-expression and 483
theft 22
verification of 413
virtual 413
IEBT. See Internet and e-business technologies
IHDs. See In-Home Displays
illiteracy, digital inclusion and 121
illness 65
IM. See instant messaging
imagined communities 231
Impact Factor 138
impacts
of automation 43, 323–24, 328, 674
social 678–79, 699, 718
implementation 703
digital media 699
of digital solutions 389f
IoT governance 649–50
perceived stress of 396–98, 397t
smart cities 643
inattention management 311
incentives, KSS 581
Incheon Free Economic Zone 646
inclusion. See digital inclusion
independence, of adolescents 233
indeterminate data 568
India, smart phones in 117
individual benefits and costs 582
individualism 459, 534, 590
industrialization 192, 194
industrial revolution 3–4, 14–15, 661
Indymedia 531
inequalities 29–30, 421–22, 512–13, 701–2
automation and 678–79, 679t, 694–95
culture and 445
Page 34 of 66
Index
definition of 427, 428–29

digital literacy and 427, 428, 440, 444
in everyday life 434–35
formation of 435
forms of 427
health and well-being 73–74
impact of 433, 443
patterns 431
policy and 430
political 453
research 430–35
social distinctions and 426, 431–32, 434
structural 331
information
capital 427, 438, 445
citizenship and 481
commodification of 334
digital 4–5
disinformation 471, 477, 478, 480
divide 428, 512
economy and 333
encoding of 4
gaps 428
misinformation 4, 476, 477
norms 482
overload vii, 22, 45
quality 582
(p. 740) research 45
resources 3
science 118
search 582
seeking 268, 557
sharing 576, 629
societies 3
studies 236, 522
technology 208
warfare, of Russia 485–86
information and communication technologies (ICTs) 80, 83, 85, 92–93, 99, 331, 699
access 118
big data and 547
divide 428
gender and 115, 122
information literacy and 118
infrastructure 124
positive aspects of 250–51
work-home boundaries and 300
Page 35 of 66
Index
information-based rights framework 128

information literacy 482, 485, 532
categorization of 114–15
defining 112–13
digital inclusion and 111–14, 125–26, 127–28, 129
ICTs and 118
in journals 118
informed consent, data and 514
infrastructure
civic 629
of consumption 202
digital 329, 526
ICTs 124
technology 647
In-Home Displays (IHDs) 197, 205
innovation 21, 329, 333
diffusion of 330
methods 717
social impact of 718
insomnia 267
Instagram 79
instant messaging (IM) 230, 308
awareness cues and 310
gender and 230
relationships and 230–31
role of 230–31
instant personalization 515
institutionalized cultural capital 432, 435, 440
integration-segmentation continuum 302–3
intellectualism 488
intelligent machines
acceptance of 352–53, 358
adoption of 349, 352–53, 358
applications of 355
augmentation of 358
context of 355, 356–57
cross-cutting requirements of 356–57
defining 346
empirical research on 357
ethics and 353–56, 358–59
future research agenda for 356–59
human relations and 346, 347, 349–51, 357–58
human-robot hybrid teams 351
human-robot interaction 349–50
jobs and 344–45
literature 348–49
multi-disciplinary approach 356
Page 36 of 66
Index
responsibility and accountability for 355–56

safety and risks of 354–55
subversion via practice 358
technology acceptance of 358
intention, behavior and 198
Interactive topic modelling graph 50f, 51f
interconnected devices 508
interdisciplinary research 84
interdisciplinary views vi–vii
intergenerational interaction, with older people 147
intermediality 254
International Bibliography of the Social Sciences 44
International encyclopedia of digital communication and society (Mansell et al.) 26
internationalization 528
(p. 741) International World Wide Web Standards Community W3C 568
Internet 4, 5, 79. See also problematic Internet usage

access 116
addiction 89, 98, 275
adoption 120, 126, 128
in Africa 111
broadband access 128
censorship 704
children and 615–17
citizenship and 531–32
community and 116
connection quality 275
ethics and 613
filtering 334
gender and 111, 115, 616
governance and security and regulation of 613–15
interventions 61–62
literacy 125
loneliness and 233–34
mental health and 82
older people and 144, 153
openness of 334
perceived benefits 329
politics and 516
self-expression and 531
skills 125
social class and 438f
social resources and 82
of Things 250
usage, socio-economic aspect of 616
use 82, 252
Page 37 of 66
Index
women and 122

Internet and e-business technologies (IEBT) 329
Internet studies 26
interpersonal interaction, digital media and 45
The intersectional Internet (Noble & Tynes) 26
intersex 564
Intertopic Distance Map 50f
intimacy 19–20, 23, 268
intrinsic motivation 574–75, 577, 581, 590
investments
digital infrastructure 329
venture capital 329
invisibility 482–85
involvement, citizenship and 633, 642
IoT governance
accountability and 628–30, 633–34
advancement 637
case studies of regional and national 636–42, 649–50
challenges 631
in Chicago 643–46
democratization and 650
deployments 632
devices and 645–46
European Union top-down 636–38, 638t
implementation 649–50
legitimacy and representation 633
levels 631–33, 632f
local deployment 643–49, 650
in media 629
in New York, United States 648–49
policy 631, 640
principles of 630–36, 649
requirements 632
social 635
in Songdo, South Korea 646–47
standardization 637, 640
theme usage 635–36, 636t
tools 631, 632f
transparency and 634–35, 638, 651
trust and 638
UK top-down 641–42, 642t
United States top-down 639–40, 640t
IT skills gap 370
Jam & Justice project 633
jobs
AI and 352, 353
digital roll-outs and 385–87, 385f
Page 38 of 66
Index
intelligent machines and 344–45

journalism, citizen 527, 531
Journal of Big Data 558–59, 559t
(p. 742) journals 25
CMC, mental health and in 94f, 95, 95f, 100–101

digital inclusion in 127
information literacy in 118
older people in 137–38
psychological 84
Juniper Research 643
Keen, Andrew 477
keyword assignment 566, 568
keyword searches 556–57
Kids Online (Livingstone & Haddon) 616
K-Means clustering 381, 382t
knowledge 569
bias and 548
communities 409
creation, non-coherence 509–10
labor 4, 345, 348, 383, 384f
organizational knowledge management system 586
societies 3
knowledge sharing systems (KSS)
altruism 578–79
anonymous 587
behavior 590
collective costs and benefits expected 588
community and 580
components of 574
contextual factors of 588–90, 592
cost reduction with 573
digital 591
distinctions 574–75, 592
enjoyment and entertainment 578
expected individual benefits and costs 582
expertise 579–80
feedback and 580
framework 574–76
frequency 578
future research 584, 590–91
group belonging 586–87
group identity 587–88
incentives 581
indirect effects of 587
literature 589
motivations for 573, 592f
online 584
other-oriented motivations 582–88
Page 39 of 66
Index
public goods and 575–76, 590

quantity 583
reciprocity 583–84, 590
reputation and 580–81
rewards 586
self-efficacy and 588–89
self-oriented motivations 576–82
social comparison 584–85
sociality and 586–87
social loafing 575, 582, 584, 585–86
socially-translucent 586
technical aspects of 574
trust and 589
venue of 589–90
labor
knowledge 4, 345, 348, 383, 384f
market 332, 338
of robots, slave 661
landlines 232
language, thought and 46
laws 21, 528, 605, 712t
LAWS. See Lethal Autonomous Weapon System
leadership 371, 390, 391, 392f, 400
communities 409
private sector 639, 649
by sector 393f
learning 20, 711t
digital literacy 117
of machines 344–45
social media and 271–72
legislation 359, 703
legitimacy and representation, IoT governance 633
Lethal Autonomous Weapon System (LAWS) 355
leveraging on technology 314
lexical relationships 77n1, 247n1, 341n1, 423n1, 467n1, 524n1, 626n1, 718n1
LGBTQ 18
LGBTQ rights 528
liberal media 485
liberation technology 530–31
libertarianism 480
(p. 743) librarians 568
libraries, digital inclusion and 121, 123, 128

life
datafication of 536–38
opportunities 438–39
satisfaction, social media and 269
work and 21, 23
Page 40 of 66
Index
lifestyles 76, 198–200, 207

limited users 439t
linguistic differences 223
linguistic DNA 46
LinkNYC 648
literacy 222, 427, 440
literature
analysis 58–70
analytic approach 71t
citizenship 453–60
on communities 407–15
concept pairs 59t
concepts ranked 58t
of data and representation 502–16
Delphi process 324–36, 324t
digital inclusion 115–16
empirical approach 71t
epistemological approach 70t
ESRC project 42–52, 223
grey 45, 114–15, 121, 124, 126, 129, 473
health care 60–64
intelligent machines 348–49
measures and measurement 64–66
media mastery 256
smart phones 66–68
social support 68–69
topics 58–70, 58t, 62t
volume of vii
weight loss 69–70
live-research 516
Livingstone, Sonia 615, 616
local deployment, IoT governance 643–49
Logan, Jessica 268
loneliness
Facebook and 79
of older people 148–49
LoRaWan 643
loss 273
lurking 586
machines. See also intelligent machines; robots
humans and 22, 346, 349, 353–56, 661, 666, 676
learning of 344–45
networked 344
technology 350
malinformation 477
Page 41 of 66
Index
Mansell, R. 26
manual topic selection and merger 88
manufacturing, robots and 15
marketing 613
mass media 472
materiality 201, 202–3, 206, 569
Matilda 350
measures and measurement 64–66
media
buzzwords 473
comparison, social influence and 277
consumption and 232
dual nature of 252
effects 591
hybrid systems 460
ideologies 254
IoT in 629
liberal 485
literacy 253, 485
manifold 254
mass 472
moral panic and 232
polymedia 254
studies 452
medialife 254
media mastery 250
access and 266
adolescents and 252
balance and 251–52
boundaries and 268–71
complexity of 278
concept 252–56
constraints 271–72
content management 272–74
context of 252–53, 257
definition of 251–52
(p. 744) factors 257
literature 256
materials and coding 256–66, 257t, 260t
obstacles to 274–75
paradoxes, tensions, and contradictions in 252, 712t
sample description 259, 260t, 266
structurational theory and 251–52
typology 257, 257t
usage awareness 275–78
Media Mastery Project 255
mediapolis 254
Media Richness theory 117
Page 42 of 66
Index
mediatization 254–55
medical data 553
medical information systems 60
memes 479
mental health 275. See also computer-mediated communication, mental health and
AICPs and 354
CMC, mental health and 96–98, 96f, 97t, 101
CMC and 79–80
computer game and 65–66
definition of 84
impairment of 84–85
Internet and 82
of older people 153
SNS and 91
mental illness 80–81, 85
mental thriving 81
meta-attention 253
metadata 100, 557, 565–68
methods innovation 717
microboundaries 314–15
microprocessors via integrated circuits 5
millennials 399, 400, 472
mindfulness 253
misinformation 4, 476, 477
missing areas 707–8
mobile phones. See smart phones
mobile technology
mobility
communication technology and 304–5
work-home boundaries and 304–5
Mohammed, Shaheed Nick 477
monetization 536
monitoring technology 149–50, 151
mood management 85
moral panic, media and 232
mothers 122
motivated attention 253
motivational theories 577
motivations 198
extrinsic 574–75, 577, 590
intrinsic 574–75, 577, 581, 590
for KSS 592f
other-oriented motivations KSS 582–88
rewards 581
self-oriented KSS 576–82
MUDs (multi-use dimensions) 414
Page 43 of 66
Index
multi-device ecology, work-home spaces and 305–7

multidimensional networks 330
multidimensional scaling 50f
multi-disciplinary approach 356
multimodality 142, 243–44
multi-organization structures 333
multi-platform ecologies, work-home boundaries and 307–9
multi-platform/holistic studies 707, 717
multiplayer games 414
multitasking 272–74, 278
multi-use dimensions. See MUDs
musculoskeletal symptoms 272
MyMadison.io 645
Myspace 614
narrative exchange 531
NASA protocol, for data 562–64
national borders 534
national consciousness 528
nationality, citizenship and 539
National Science Foundation 30, 43, 324
native data 550, 566
native speakers, of chatrooms 234–35
natural phenomena, measuring 564
natural resources, depletion of 187
nature, culture and 187
negative effects 21, 712t
negative impacts
of digital roll-outs 386, 387f
of digital technology 76
(p. 745) neoliberalism 529
Netflix 333
Net Inclusion Summit 127
net neutrality 515, 704
networked individualism 534
networked machines 344
networked privacy 229
networking 15
networks 200–203, 452, 454
communities 409
dynamics 459
friendship 273, 414
of practice 576
sociability 407
society 416, 458, 460, 706
theory 14, 330
New Public Management 620
new social era 709t
New York, United States, IoT governance in 648–49
Page 44 of 66
Index
Nexis Uni (News) 8t

NFC-based mobile payment system 646
NGram Viewer 9, 10t, 11f
Nix, Alexander 477
Noble, M. 26
noise, data and 553
nomophobia 91
non-coherence of knowledge creation 509–10
non-ESRC themes 659, 699, 703–14, 709t, 715t, 716f. See also specific themes
non-users 438–39, 438f, 440
nonverbal cues 478
norms 198
citizenship 237
Facebook and 69–70
information 482
work 302–3
notifications 576
NRS social grades 436t, 438f
NS-SEC classifications 436, 436t, 437f
Nuffield Foundation 706
obesity 69–70
objectified cultural capital 432
objectivity
big data and 547
data and 561
objects, classification of 565
occupational psychology 315
Occupy Data 540
Occupy Wall Street 459
OECD. See Organization for Economic Co-operation Development
Ofcom Media Literacy Survey 381, 436, 438
offline, online and 433, 485
older people 20
alienation of 144
assisted care of 149–50
communication and 144, 145–48, 151
computers and 141, 143, 144, 153
conferences and 137–38
data collection and 151–52
digital technology and 136–37, 142–45, 151
ethics and 150
Facebook and 146
facilitating interaction with 146
familiarity and 151, 152
family 148
interaction with mainstream technology 139–42, 151
Page 45 of 66
Index
intergenerational interaction with 147

Internet and 144, 153
in journals 137–38
learning and 143, 144
loneliness of 148–49
mainstream technology and 139–50
mental health of 153
monitoring technology and 149–50, 151
motivations for interaction with 146–47
multimodality and 142
physical health of 153
physical interaction with technology 141
PSR 136
quality of life in 143, 149–51, 618
reminiscing of 148
research on 137–39, 138t, 140t, 150–54
robots and 350
search engines and 144
security and 142, 145
self-efficacy of 144–45
smart phones and 141, 143, 148
SNS and 145–46, 151
social interaction and 145–48, 151
(p. 746) social networking and 145
spoken dialogue interaction and 141–42

stigma and 145
tablets and 141
technology acceptance and 143–44
technology types and 143
technology value and 144
television and 153
terms for 139t
working age and 136
online
collaboration 531
communication 478, 539
communities 406, 410–11, 414
expression 16, 23
group behavior 413
harassment 22
identity 252, 418t, 422
interaction 223
KSS 584
leisure activities 266
news sites 552
offline and 433, 485
privacy 229
public sphere as 17
Page 46 of 66
Index
radicalization 476
research 64–65
security issues, older people and 145
self 233
social interaction 69
third spaces 472
Open Data 540
Open Data Executive Order 644
OpenGov Foundation 645
open source software 581
opportunity structures, of digital technology 431
optical character recognition 550
orality 222
organizational challenges
digital roll-outs and 388–93, 389f
of SMEs 389
organizational culture
digital solutions and 400
measures of 394, 394t, 396
positive 398
strategy and 399–400
transformation of 401
organizational factors 396
organizational knowledge management system 586
organizational rewards 586
organizational size, digital solutions and 389f
organizational size and sector
digital roll-outs and 374, 375f, 376, 376t, 377f, 388, 389f, 390
digital solutions increase 377, 378f
Organization for Economic Co-operation Development (OECD) 124
organizations 20–21, 712t
original data 566
origins 27–28
othering 472
others, digitization of 18–19
outdated data 552
overjustification hypothesis 581
overuse 267
Oxford handbook of Internet psychology 26
The Oxford handbook of Internet studies 26
Oxford Internet Institute 473
Palmer 195
Palo 649
paradoxes 23
parallelism 305
parental monitoring 20
Page 47 of 66
Index
parents 615–16
Parkland school shooting 478
Paro 354, 356
participation 14, 17, 23–24, 458, 709
citizenship 531, 533, 633
civic 118
communities 409
in democracy 532
political 459, 533
participatory governance 633
partisan interaction 459
PAS. See Publicly Available Specification
(p. 747) patient safety 64
PDA (Personal Digital Assistant) 314

peer-to-peer file and bookmarking system 585
perceived boundary control 302, 306
perceived stress, of implementation 396–98, 397t
performance expectancy 371
persistence 330
personal availability 309–11
personal coaching 70
Personal connections in the digital age (Baym) 26
Personal Digital Assistant. See PDA
personal experience 372
personal health 67
personal information
health and 274
self-presentation and 274
sharing 228
persuasion 208n3
PETRAS IoT research hub 642
phones. See smart phones
phubbing 91
physical boundaries 301
physical health 81, 153
physical interaction with technology, older people and 141
physical robots 348
picture-based authentication 142
piracy 268
place, space and 305
platforms 704
affordances, communication and 240t
capitalism 536
economics 333
multi-platform ecologies and work-home boundaries 307–9
multi-platform/holistic studies 707, 717
sharing 536
Page 48 of 66
Index
social media 228–29, 232

plausible accounting 310–11
plausible deniability 310–11
Pointwise Mutual Information 46
polarization 23–24
policy 21, 466, 660, 712t, 714
AI 359
automation 674–75
digital inclusion 111, 119, 127
digital inequalities and 430
digital technology 614
economics 663
evidence-based 707–8
implication 707–8
IoT governance 631, 640
privacy 334, 613, 645
research 430
work-home boundaries 313
political capital 433
political correctness 472, 476
political debate 531
political economy 325
political engagement 442, 452, 459, 526
political inequality 453
political interventions 531
political participation 459, 533
political parties 472
political science 466
political studies 452
politics v, 29
automation and 673
citizenship and 452, 459
climate of 471
communication and 236–37, 415, 459–60
communities and 529
Delphi process and 417, 451
of design 208
group dynamics and 413
Internet and 516
radicalization of 471
truth and 477
Twitter and 458, 467, 516
polymedia 254
polysemy 557–61
population demographics 193
population growth 187
Page 49 of 66
Index
populism 471, 487, 488

pornography 274
positive effects 22, 712t
positive impact, of digital roll-outs 386f
(p. 748) postmodernism 483
Potential Support Ratio. See PSR

power dynamics, citizenship and 541
Powering the nation (Palmer & Terry) 195
power relations, in communities 533
practices 200–203
pre-data 549–50, 554, 566
predictive risk models 537
preemption 538
pregnancy 126
PREMIS Data Dictionary for Preservation Metadata 566
privacy 247, 276, 451, 605, 611, 630
of adolescents 229
algorithms and 645
breaches 642
breach scandals 482
of children 616
concerns 17
devices and 645, 648
enhancing tools 539
Facebook 229
FCC and 639
health and well-being and 66, 75
networked 229
online 229
policy 334, 613, 645
protection 638
rights 541, 616
risks 615
robots and 18
SNS and 146, 244, 576
social implications of 518
steganography and 483
technology and 644
WiFi and 648
private sector leadership 639, 649
privatization
of censorship 480–82
of health delivery 57–58
problematic Internet usage 98, 254
access and 267
attitudes about 276
computer-mediated communication, mental health and 82, 89
Page 50 of 66
Index

costs of 275
gratification and 273
health and 268, 270–71
self-regulation and 277–78
procrastination 272, 273
production scales 201
productivity 315
automation and 662f, 677
of employees 313
professionalism, reputation and 581
professions, automation and 677–78, 684–85
propaganda 4, 473, 480
Proquest Periodicals Index Online 9t
protest 530
proximate 512
PSR (Potential Support Ratio) 136
psyche 479
psychological boundaries 301
psychological journals 84
psychological theories, communities and identities and 416
psychological well-being (PWB) 81, 84–85, 96, 99, 101
psychology 84, 195
psychopathology (PTH) 81, 84–85, 88, 89, 92, 96, 99, 101
public goods, KSS and 575–76, 590
public health interventions 61
public libraries 116
Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 641
public-private partnership model 647
public safety 643
public space 305
public sphere, as online 17
punishment, government 476
purpose 27
PWB. See psychological well-being
Python 47
quality of life, in older people 143, 149–51, 618
racism 471, 479
radicalization 473, 476
rational actor theory 591–92
rational choice 194–98
raw data 550–51, 553, 564, 566
“Raw Data,” 551
readers x
reciprocity, KSS 583–84, 590
(p. 749) reemployment 662
regression model, digital roll-outs 397f

regulation 21, 703, 712t
Page 51 of 66
Index
related work 25–26

relationships v, 19, 23, 222, 276, 711t, 713
CMC, mental health and 91–92
family 20
health care 67
human-resource 207
human-social 203
IM and 230–31
lexical 77n1, 247n1, 341n1, 423n1, 467n1, 524n1, 626n1, 718n1
management of 240t
multimodality and 243–44
social media platforms and 232
themes about 714–16
WEF and 188, 193, 204
reminiscing, of older people 148
REPLICATE project 631–32
representation vi, 642, 646, 647, 649. See also data and representation
Republican Tea Party 459
reputation
of community 588
KSS and 580–81
sexual 617
research. See also challenges; future research
on CMC, mental health and 81–83
cross-cutting questions 701–5
on digital divide 112, 332
eHealth 65
inequality 430–35
information 45
integration 86
interdisciplinary 84
methods 72t
on older people 137–39, 138t, 140t, 150–54
online 64–65
policy 430
resilience 206–8
resources 188–89
conservation and 198
consumption and 197, 199, 202
distribution of 194, 195
human relations and 201
sustainability and 206–8
usage of 192–95
responsibility, for intelligent machines 355–56
revenge porn 274
rewards 581, 586
RFID tags 5, 146
Page 52 of 66
Index
rights
citizenship 528
civil 530
to disconnect 637
feminist 528
human 473, 530
LGBTQ 528
privacy 541, 616
risks
of children 616
of intelligent machines, safety and 354–55
privacy 615
Robotic Process Automation (RPA) 347, 352
Robotized Stereotactic Assistant (ROSA) 350
robots 143, 149, 344
autonomy of 351, 619
child development and 354
defining 347–48
food preparation by 153
goals of 355
health care and 354
human relations with 352
humans and 359
manufacturing and 15
mobile 345
nannies 354
physical 348
privacy and 18
slave labor and 661
social 347–48, 354
trust in 352–53
roles
boundaries and 302
of citizenship 530, 532
conflict 309, 312
of digital media 718
of government vii
of humans 685–86
IM 230–31
work-home conflict and 303
(p. 750) ROSA. See Robotized Stereotactic Assistant
Routledge handbook of Internet politics 26

RPA. See Robotic Process Automation
rule of law 612
rules 314, 528
rumors, social media and 477
rural communities
Page 53 of 66
Index

health in 125–26
information literacy and 114
Internet and 117
women’s health and well-being in 113, 121–22, 125–26, 129
rurality 119
Russia, information warfare of 485–86
safety and risks, of intelligent machines 354–55
Sage handbook of social media 26
Salganik 26
salon events 41, 43, 606
sanitation 187
ScienceDirect 7t
scoping review 80
CMC, mental health and 85–86, 99
about communities 406
for communities and identities 417–19, 418t
Delphi process 240t, 241, 337–38, 338t
ESRC project 39–40, 39t, 42, 222t, 323
future research and 72–75, 73t
Scopus 114
SCOT. See social construction of technology
screen time 99
screen use 22
search
algorithms and 15, 18, 21
keyword 556–57
terms, CMC, mental health and 87t
secondary audiences 64
security vi, 66
cyber 352–53
by default 641
FCC and 639
self
availability of 268
digitization of 18–19, 711t, 713
identity and 307
saturated 483
self-awareness 585
self-broadcasting 268, 269–70
self-categorization theory 583
self-censorship 482–85
self-concept 583
self-construction 539
Page 54 of 66
Index
self-control 278
self-diagnosis apps 67
self-disclosure 91, 266, 270
self-efficacy 144–45, 330, 587, 588–89
self-esteem 267, 577
self-expression 276–77
identity and 483
Internet and 531
memes and 479
self-injury 271
self-monitoring 70
self-oriented motivations 576–82
self-presentation 268, 269–70, 585
expertise and 276–77
on SNS 82
self-preservation, choices and 276
self-regulation 277–78, 637
Seoul 646
service delivery 429
service sector 345
service work, automation of 348
sexting 276, 616–17
sex trafficking 22
sexual behavior 276
sexual intercourse 271
sexual reputation 617
shared behavioral routines 200
shared space 305
sharing platforms 536
Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (SWEMWBS) 124
SIDE model of online group behavior 223
Silicon Valley 480
simulations 354
Singapore 647
(p. 751) singularity 19
skills, automation and 677–78, 692–94

Skype 137
slave labor, robots and 661
slaves 565
sleep 93, 99
sleep deprivation 272
slut shaming 617
Small and Medium Sized Enterprise (SME) 38, 328–29, 337, 370, 374, 389
Smart and Sustainable Cities and Communities’ Coordination Group (SSCC-CG) 637
Smart Chicago Collaborative 644–45
smart cities 629, 640, 642, 643, 645, 651n22
smart homes 143, 149, 186, 207, 629
Page 55 of 66
Index
smart machines 348

smart metering 204
“Smartphone by default” internet users 123
smart phones/mobile phones 6, 23, 79, 369
addiction to 267, 269, 270, 272
awareness cues and 310
citizenship and 414
CMC, mental health and 91
communication and 266, 307
communities and 414
costs of 275
emotional attachment to 91
gender and 111
health care and 66–68
identities and 414
in India 117
Internet and 123
intimacy and 19–20
literature 66–68
location of 482
market growth of 307
older people and 141, 143, 148
overuse of 267
self-monitoring 70
social space and 509
students and 267–68
use 91
women and 123
work and 300, 306, 308–9
smart scales 70
Smart Seoul 646
smart TV 537
SME. See Small and Medium Sized Enterprise
SnapChat 270
Snowden, Edward 529
SNS. See social networking sites
social activity, digital inclusion and 121
social anxiety 91
social attitudes
toward AI 671, 671t
toward automation 671, 671t, 681–82
social barriers, to digital inclusion 121
social behavior 98, 222
social capital 22, 91, 237, 268, 270, 331, 427, 431, 441–42, 445
social change 14, 186, 458
social class 419
Page 56 of 66
Index
formation of 426
groupings 444
Internet and 438f
social media and 437f, 442, 443f, 444f
social comparison 79, 584–85
social compensation 91
social competence, of adolescents 233
social construction
of algorithms 518
of data 518
of digital technology 517–18
of technology 255
work and 302–3
social construction of technology (SCOT) 300, 315
social context 93, 229, 661–63
Social Credit System 482
social cues 222–23
social displacement 82
social distinctions, digital inequalities and 426, 431–32, 434
social dynamics 513
social environment 445
social era, names for new 14–15
social exchange theory 577–78
social exclusion 331, 426–27, 434
social expectations 269, 309
social facilitation 585
social governance 635
(p. 752) social identity theory 583, 588
social impacts 678–79, 699, 718

social implications, of privacy 518
social inclusion 124, 513
social influence 371
contradictions and 271
media comparison and 277
multitasking and 274
social interactions 14, 80
boundaries and 300
habit and 273
management of 231
older people and 145–48, 151
online 69
social involvement 82
social issues, automation and 678–79, 682–83
sociality, KSS and 586–87
socialization 20, 232–33, 271
Page 57 of 66
Index
social justice 118

social life, digital media and 430
social loafing 575, 582, 584, 585–86
social loneliness 148
social media 473
adolescents and 229
class and 442, 443f
communication 23
community and 64
companies 480
contradictions of 271
debates 526
ethics and 706
health apps and 67
learning and 271–72
life satisfaction and 269
notifications 253
platforms 228–29, 232
politics and 478
privacy and 229
regulations 480–81
rumors and 477
self-esteem and 267
social class and 437f, 444f
social influence and 271
social interactions and 269
students and 267–68, 270
traffic 536
transitions and 270
usage 251–52
visualizations 512
social movements 415, 485, 533
social networking sites (SNS) 64, 137, 253, 704
analysis 226, 227–28, 230, 235–37, 459, 512
computer-mediated communication, mental health and 82, 90–91
defining 235, 511
employment opportunity and 444
functions 61
key characteristics of 511
mental health and 91
older people and 145–46, 151
privacy and 146, 244, 576
self-presentation on 82
social capital and 441–42
social psychology 195
social relations 266
connectivity and 268–69
Page 58 of 66
Index
gratifying 272–73
loss and 273
usage and 276
social resources, Internet and 82
social robots 347–48, 354
social science v, 45, 196, 200, 208n2, 510
automation and 680, 696
theories 706
Social Sciences Citation Index 256
social shaping, of technology 255
social sorting 538, 541, 612
social space, smart phones and 509
social support 82, 91, 268, 271
adolescents and 233–34
CMC and 234
health care and 68–69
literature 68–69
social theory, viii
social welfare system 430
social wellbeing 270
societal effects 22, 712t
society. See also digital society
citizenship and 541
digital media and vi, 718
(p. 753) digital technology and 31, 714
humans and 509, 685–86

networks 416, 458, 460, 706
softwarization of 15
Society & the Internet (Graham & Dutton) 26
socio-economic status 442
of digital divides 513
of digital media, impact of 334
of Internet usage 616
socio-emotional context 223
sociological theories, communities and identities and 416
sociology 236, 517, 706
socio-technical networks 202, 203
softwarization, of society 15
Songdo, South Korea, IoT governance in 646–47
source data 552–54, 566
space, place and 305
space shift, work place and 304–5
spatialities 512
speech 46, 223
spoken dialogue interaction, older people and 141–42
spontaneity 577
SSCC-CG. See Smart and Sustainable Cities and Communities’ Coordination Group
stakeholder engagement 38–39
Page 59 of 66
Index
state, digital systems used by 610–13

status updates 268
steganography 483
stigma 143, 145
storytelling 16
strategy, organizational culture and 399–400
stress 309
structural inequality 331
structurational theory 251
structure, agency and 201
structure-agency dualism 201
students 267–68, 270
successful communication 391
suicide 100, 268, 269, 274
superconnected cities 641
super-setting 333
supply chain technology 628
supporting materials ix
Supreme Court, U.S. 484
surveillance 17, 150, 334, 518
automation and 612
big data and 612
capitalism 537
centralized 612
citizenship and 535, 542n1, 612–13
data and 481–82
everyday life and 612
Facebook and 17
government and 15, 515, 535
IoT governance and 634
surveys 64–65
sustainability vi, 323, 337, 341
consumption and 192, 199, 201, 208n4
design and 191, 193, 196, 205–6
HCI and 188–94, 190t, 196, 197, 200, 203–7
lifestyles and 199
resources and 206–8
technology and 325
SWEMWBS. See Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale
symbolic analysts 345
syntopian perspective 713
system design 672t, 679–80, 683–84
tablets 141
technism vi, 700
technocratic rationality 192
technological determinism vi, 233, 518, 699
technological limitations, automation and 686–87
technological unemployment 662–63
Page 60 of 66
Index
technology 138
adoption of 330
appropriate use of 438
automation 676–77
change of 703
characteristics 16, 710t
co-designing 244
culture and 676
dependence on 150
development, automation and 696–97
education and 59–60
governance and 629
home and 399
human and 357
infrastructures 647
(p. 754) leveraging on 314
machines 350
older people and mainstream 139–50
older people interaction with mainstream 139–42, 151
privacy and 644
rules for 314
social behavior and 98
social shaping of 255
standards 333
sustainability and 325
types, older people and 143
value, older people and 144
venues 15–16, 710t
work and 399
technology acceptance 370
digital efficacy 380–83, 380t, 382t
digital roll-outs and 384
ESRC-DSTL 672t
factors of 371–72
of intelligent machines 358
key elements of 382
models 371, 387, 398
older people and 143–44
organizational challenges and 372
organizational culture and 372
survey and analysis methods 372–74
in UK workforce 369, 372
Technology and engagement (Rowan-Kenyon and Alemán) 267
techno-resistance 271–72
technostress 93
teenagers. See adolescents
telecare 143, 145
Page 61 of 66
Index
telecommunications vi
telephone 4, 232
telepressure 93
television 85, 142, 146, 148, 153
teleworkers 304–5
temporal boundaries 301
temporal properties, of communication 311
tensions 23
terrorism 24, 459, 487
Terry, N. 195
Tesler, Larry 347
texting 92, 277, 539
theories viii, 70–72, 416, 709t
books, conceptualization and 12t, 14–15
conspiracy 478
Delphi process 335–36, 335t
development of 52, 706, 717
of empirical work 52
evaluation of 706, 717
motivational 577
social science 706
testing 706, 717
thought, language and 46
thoughtfulness 24
3D printer 5–6
3G wireless connections 120
Todo Chile Comunicado (All Chile Connected) 120
top-down strategies for management of boundaries 312–13
touchscreens 141
trade 333
training 711t
traits, expertise and 277
transactional interactions 508–9
transactive memory theory 577
transgender 564
transitions, social media and 270
transnationalization 528–29
transparency 646, 647, 649
about algorithms 67, 480
data 562
IoT governance and 634–35, 638, 651
tree map, of concept pairs 49f
troll farms 480
trolling behavior 92
Trump, Donald 452, 482
trust 605
in AI 352–53
algorithms and 501
Page 62 of 66
Index
automation and 672–74, 673t, 685, 687

IoT governance and 638
KSS and 589
in robots 352–53
(p. 755) truth
data and 559–60

function 555
politics and 477
Turing Deceptions 355–56
Twitter 228, 235, 246, 334, 436, 441–42
citizenship and 458
community and 231–32
freedom of speech and 479
metrics of interaction on 236
politics and 458, 467, 516
Uber 480
unavailability 311
unemployment, technological 662–63
unintended consequences, with health 272
unintended effects 23
United Kingdom (UK) 193, 208n1
Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) 43
Digital Economy program 718
Economic and Social Research Council v, 27–28, 30, 36
Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund 718
organizations, digital solutions and 374–80, 375f, 376t, 377f
top-down IoT governance in 641–42, 642t
United Kingdom (UK) workforce
attitudes 387–88
digital solutions and 399
digital technology and 387–88
organizational barriers and 371
perception of digital-roll outs success in 397f, 397t
technology acceptance in 369, 372
United States (U.S.) 484, 639–40, 640t
universities
freedom of speech and 472
as pre-criminal space 487
University of Liverpool 30
unprocessed data 564
urban culture 506
urban governance 633
urbanization 187–88
URL references 552
usage awareness 275–78. See also problematic Internet usage
Page 63 of 66
Index
user data 16–17, 710t

user groups 20, 711t
utility companies 193
utopia 660
values 198–200, 207
venture capital investments 329
venue, of KSS 589–90
verification, of identities 413
viral content 478–79
virtual communities 583, 590
virtual identity 413
virtual reality 347
virtual settlement 231
visibility 329–30
visualizations ix, 194
data 77n1, 247n1, 341n1, 423n1, 467n1, 509, 510, 524n1, 626n1, 718n1
tools 205
voicemail 314
voting 459
vulnerability, health and 270–71
Walport, Mark 641
Wards clustering method 381
Waste and Resources Action Program (WRAP) 196
wasting time 24
Water, Energy, and Food (WEF) 187, 202
production of 205
relationships and 188, 193, 204
resources 195
sustainable HCI and 203–6
tipping point in 188
use 199
waterbot 194
water power 661
ways of being 222
“Ways of Being in a Digital Age,” v, 28, 36
wealth 4, 329
webcam activity 536
web literacy 515
Web of Science 7t, 44, 114
WEF. See Water, Energy, and Food
weight loss 69–70
(p. 756) Weiser, Mark 628
well-being vi, 29
WhatsApp 308, 310
whistleblowing 530–31
white nationalism 479
whole populations, data and representation and 509
WiFi 641, 648–94
Page 64 of 66
Index
Wikipedia 531, 578, 580, 584

women
computers and 123
digital literacy of 121
empowerment of 121
health and well-being in rural communities, digital inclusion of 113, 121–22, 125–26, 129
Internet and 122
Women and the Web 122
WordStat tool analysis 47–48, 52f, 326t
analysis of ESRC project 225t, 325
citizenship and 456t
of communities 411t
data and representation 504t
governance and security 608t
topics analysis 62t
work 20–21, 712t
attitudes at 398
automation and 336, 344–45, 429, 677–78, 684–85
awareness of 310–11
CMC, mental health and 93
confidence at 372, 381t, 396, 400
digital tools at 383
emails after 313
end to 660
environments 93, 299, 353
expectations and personal availability 309–10
family and 303–4, 306
flexibility 304
life and 21, 23
norms 302–3
place, space shift and 304–5
pressures 309
smart phones and 300, 306, 308–9
social-constructionism and 302–3
spaces 304–5
technology and 399
work-home boundaries 299–300, 301, 315
awareness of work and personal availability 310–11
boundary theory and 301–3
communication technology and 304–11
conflict 303–4, 309
enrichment 304
ICTs and 300
mobility and 304–5
multi-device ecology and space in 305–7
multi-platform ecologies and 307–9
Page 65 of 66
Index
policy 313
productivity and 313
segmentation of 312–13
spaces, multi-device ecology and 305–7
terminology about 300–301
violations of 314
work expectations and personal availability in 309–10, 314
working age, older people and 136
workplace
digital culture 394
ethics 514
workshops 43–44
WRAP. See Waste and Resources Action Program
writing 223
young people 228, 232–35
YouTube 478, 481
Zuckerberg, Mark 483
Page 66 of 66

Comunicacao - Oxford Handbook of Digital Technology and Society

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comunicacao - Oxford Handbook of Digital Technology and Society

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copyright Page

(p. iv) Copyright Page

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

© Oxford University Press 2020

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

You must not circulate this work in any other form

Library of Congress Control Number: 2020938283

Printed by LSC Communications, United States of America

Initial Domains and Scoping Questions

1. Citizenship and politics

2. Communities and identities

3. Communication and relationships

4. Health and well-being

Does technology make us healthier, better educated, and more productive?

5. Economy and sustainability

6. Data and representation

7. Governance and security

Interdisciplinary Views of the Digital Society

Another major challenge is that of interdisciplinary collaboration. Many questions require

Volume of Literature and Digital Tools

(Petticrew & Roberts, 2008, p. 7)

• How is the digital socially and technically conceptualized?

(p. ix) Chapters in the Book

(p. x) Potential Audiences

this book’s disciplinary, multidisciplinary, and interdisciplinary perspectives. Given the

Simeon J. Yates, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom

Ronald E. Rice, University of California, Santa Barbara, United States

(p. xi) Acknowledgments

(p. xxi) List of Figures

13.9 Level of employment and number of roll-outs experienced. 385

13.10 Positive impacts of new digital tools. 386

(p. xxiii) List of Tables

Overlapping Topic Clusters, Sorted by Aggregated Frequencies (k = 110, N = 1780,

11.6 Research Method 336

13.2 Organization Size and Number of Digital Roll-Outs 376

16.3 WordStat Analysis of Topics 456

18.4 Comparison between Concepts and WordStat Topics 505

22.4 Comparison between Concepts and WordStat Topics 609

25.2 Main Themes of Concept Pairs, 2012–2016 704

About the Contributors

(p. xxviii) (p. xxix) About the Contributors

methods—in particular, linguistic and discourse analytic methods. https://

is an Assistant Professor in Sociology of Contemporary Work and a member of the

(MPhil, PhD as a Gates Scholar, University of Cambridge) is Lecturer in Visual Media

(PhD, Media and Communications Department at Goldsmiths, University of London) is

is an Senior Lecturer at Northumbria University, working in human-computer interac­

is a human-computer interaction researcher working at the Swedish Institute for

(p. xxxii) Louise Cooke

is Professor of Information and Knowledge Management in the School of Business

is a Reader in Information Systems (Associate Professor) and Head of the Information

is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Geography and Environment at the Univer­

is Professor of Human-Computer Interaction at the University College London Inter­

(p. xxxiii) Jenny S. Darzentas

is an Assistant Professor for Computational Communication Science at the Technische

is an Emeritus Professor at the University of Southern California, Senior Fellow of the

is Professor of Computing Science at the University of Aberdeen. Between 2009 and

(p. xxxiv) Alexander Frame

is an Associate Professor in Communication Science at the Languages and Communi­

is a Research Associate with the OpenLab, Newcastle University. She is a sociologist

is a PhD candidate at the Department of Communication, University of Münster, Ger­

(PhD) is a Professor in Psychology at the Department of Psychology, Norwegian Uni­

is a postdoctoral researcher at the Urban Institute at the University of Sheffield. To­

is an Senior Lecturer at Northumbria University, working in human-computer interac

is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Geography and Environment at the Univer

is Professor of Human-Computer Interaction at the University College London Inter

is an Associate Professor in Communication Science at the Languages and Communi

is a PhD candidate at the Department of Communication, University of Münster, Ger

(PhD) is a Professor in Psychology at the Department of Psychology, Norwegian Uni

is a postdoctoral researcher at the Urban Institute at the University of Sheffield. To

is a Research Fellow currently based at the University of Aberdeen, whose interdisci

is Professor of Information Systems at the University of Bath. He conducts inter-disci

is a Senior Lecturer and applied qualitative social scientist working in an interdiscipli

(PhD, University of London) is a widely published researcher in the sociology of digi

is a PhD candidate at the Department of Communication, Johannes Gutenberg-Univer

is Assistant Professor of Modern English Literature, Department of English and Amer

is a Research Associate at the University of Newcastle. She has a background in eco

is Lecturer in Information Management at Loughborough University, United King

joined the School of Management at University of Bradford in March 2017 as Profes

is Professor of Human Factors in Cyber Security at the University of Melbourne, Aus

Introduction to the Oxford Handbook of Digital Tech

digital Zenman, M. J. (1982). Even in a digital age, scopes re

Table 1.2 First Appearances of Four Major Digital Terms in ScienceDi

digital Delorme, J-C. (1985). Education in a digital world. Educa

digital Beaverstock, M. C. & Bernard, J. W. (1977). Advanced con

digital Heine, C. (1970). This diabolical hipster hoodwinker al

digi Watkinson, J. (1990). Coding for digital .00000040;

digi Parrish, L. (1969). Space flight simula .00000002;

digi White, T. H. (1965). The making of the .00000000;

digi Canada. Department of Communica .00000100;