Unequal Struggles and Impossible Digital Choices for Parents During COVID19 (Part 1)

Sonia Livingstone: This is an extraordinary time for parents trying to ensure their children learn and gain a good education, while also working, and worrying about the family’s income, health and a host of everyday practicalities during COVID-19. Among the problems they need to tackle are how tomaximize the opportunities and minimize the risksof the digital technologies they are able to access. Of course, achieving such a balance has long been a concern of parents, but this is hugely exacerbated at a time when, it seems, so much of our daily lives has gone online. This includes, for many, their children’s education, contact with friends and relatives, access to information, and much of their entertainment, all of which are fast becomingdigital by default. Also to be contended with is that many commercial and institutional services, including most forms of welfare and support, are now functioning only online, and that isolation is difficult for many, resulting in adverse consequences for mental health.

I’m especially interested in the ways that life online brings its own problems.Digital inequalitiesare heightened, and lack ofmeaningful accessor digital skills matters more than ever. Reports suggest that online risks of harm of all kinds have increased – from scams and cybercrime to bullying and sexual abuse. Less obvious perhaps but also of growing concern is the fact that life online means ever more of our daily activities and interactions aredigitally tracked, with our personal data being collected and aggregated by others and possibly hacked or exploited. COVID-19 is far from the only “digital” problem of the recent period: the challenge ofmisinformation or false informationremains largely unmet, with many parents and children struggling to locate or evaluate reliable information regarding news, learning, health, finances, or other significant matters. All this contributes to a climate of confusion, mistrust, and tension.

On a more positive note, I suggest that this unprecedented turn to the digital has laid to rest some myths that have undermined parents in recent years. Three myths have been of particular concern to me in my own research on “Parenting for a Digital Future.”

The first myth is that “screen time” matters. In fact, thedemise of screen timehad already been announced by a series of high-level expert pronouncements, including from the American Academy of Pediatrics who originally invented and promoted the notion of screen time 30 years ago. Reviews of the available evidence have been increasingly critical of the quality of that evidence as well as the conclusions popularly drawn from it, that namely that what matters is the amount of time children spend with one screen or another rather than the quality of the content that they engage with, the context in which they watch, or the social connections that mediated engagement makes possible. Still, as we found our in-depth qualitative research with parents, even though the academics and other experts were voicing doubts, for parents, screen time has been a rod for their backs, asource of conflictin its own right, and a source of guilt and shame regarding their parenting practices and their seeming laxity in “controlling” or, worse, “policing” their children’s activities. But since COVID-19, the mass media and public opinion has radically shifted, and it is at last acknowledged that technology, perhaps like books or bicycles, can be good or bad for children, depending on how they are used and by whom.

The second myth that my research contradicts, and that I believe we now should lay to rest, is that parents know nothing about the digital world and the children know everything. The idea ofdigital natives and digital immigrants. This idea has been extraordinarily successful, and it has had the advantage of recognizing that, perhaps for the first time in history, children genuinely have knowledge of value in the wider society, well beyond the small private sphere in which they are often sequestered. But it also had two adverse consequences. First, it hasallowed policymakersto rhetorically celebrate children’s digital expertise with the effect of undermining the case, or perceived need, for educational support or, indeed, regulation of the digital realm. Second, and receiving less attention still, it has led many to undervalue the contribution that parents could make to the children’s development and digital literacy. As I saw clearly in our “parenting for a digital future” research,parental interests and expertiseregarding digital technologies, while of course heavily stratified by class and other forms of inequality, is nonethelessroutinely underestimatedby schools and other societal institutions, as well as by themselves. With appropriate encouragement and guidance, parents could harness their digital knowledge gained through our personal interest to benefit their children. Indeed, many are trying to do exactly this, with some success.

Third, it has been often said in recent years that young people prefer the online world to the offline world, that they would rather talk to their friends online than engage with a person in front of them, and there is no natural limit on their desire to go digital. Life during COVID-19 has clearly proved the falsity of such a myth. For young people as for the rest of us, the task of balancing online and offline remains critical and difficult, and the value of seeing friends face-to-face, of going out into the world, into the community, and engaging there freely with others, is as vital to them as for everyone. The “COVID generation,” so-called, is becoming angry, let down by the generations in power on this as in other matters. We may expect them to take increasingly to the streets, and to digital public spaces, as the actuality and perception ofgenerational injusticegrows.

Meryl Alper: These are indeed isolating times for so many families; a stretch of months (though it feels so much longer) during which technology has been a lifeline for connecting with friends, extended family, community, and the broader public. This dependency on social media and digital platforms, as Sonia notes, has also created new possibilities for those who seek to further surveil, sow conflict among, and physically and emotionally harm young people, particularly those from poor and minoritized communities. I additionally appreciate Sonia’s work to illustrate that various myths about children, youth, and media were false long before COVID-19 and should not be perpetuated going forward: beliefs in the utility of “screen time” as a concept, the idea that children can fend for themselves online and well intentioned adults have nothing to contribute, and the notion that adolescents and teens choose media over people when most are just finding ways to bond and thrive through whatever form of sociality is available and useful to them.

Particularly within the U.S. context, I have been thinking a lot about how the “choices” parents are being offered right now for managing their household’s health and well-being (and sometimes that of their own older parents), their family’s media use, and their children’s education (i.e., “Zoom school” and “learning pods”) are not really choices at all under the conditions of capitalism, neoliberalism, and “rugged individualism.” As they stand, the institutions and infrastructures are not built for marginalized parents to make mistakes just like any other parents because the systems are not designed for interdependency and collective care across families and within communities. Moreover, the illusory nature of choice is only now being discovered by some (primarily white)families when other parents (especially Black and brown caregivers) have not been under any such illusion.

Distance learning in the pandemic has enabled some students with disabilities to thrive while it has set others back significantly.In my work, I am especially interested in how children with disabilities and their families—across race, ethnicity, and social class—have been making the most of sometimes fairly awful (and illegal) learning conditions for their child, and to what extent digital media and technology have helped or hurt them in their efforts to thrive. Over the past seven years, I have been conducting ethnographic research in the homes of over 60 children ages 3 to 13 on the autism spectrum in Boston and Los Angeles (remotely starting in April 2020) by interviewing parents, observing kids engaged in their media habits and rituals, and asking them to explain the appeal and challenges of technology to me. What I have found so far is that for many families of disabled children in the COVID era, being cut off from various forms of institutional support and caregivers turning to technology to provide some form of relief is not an unfamiliar experience.

Take Sofia Acosta (pseudonym), a five-year-old non-speaking Latina girl on the autism spectrum with a deep love of the classic storybook character Clifford the Big Red Dog. When I visited her Boston apartment in July 2019, her mom April explained that Sofia was stuck at home and not attending summer camp, that her days at home lacked structure, and that she was usually up all night for those reasons, combined with the fact that she had a naturally dysregulated sleeping pattern. Watching media, and especially Clifford videos on YouTube, was the only thing that helped keep Sofia calm and maintain control of her body. While staying home, having no summer camp options, and passing time on structureless days was new for many families in July 2020, my visit with Sofia was a year earlier. She was not attending camp because local programs for autistic kids were too expensive. She was not leaving the apartment much because her home was in a predominantly Black and Latinx neighborhood with very little green space and Sofia’s senses got easily overwhelmed on mass transit. And she was spending so much time using media as a coping mechanism because she was on a never-ending wait list for speech and behavioral therapy services that might have given her important communicative and expressive tools.

Many people have made excruciatingly hard choices and major sacrifices to incorporate social distancing and self-isolation into their vocabularies and lifestyles post-COVID-19. Interlocking forms of structural inequality have meant, though, that Sofia and the Acosta family were already intimately familiar with being socially distanced and heavily technologically mediated. Disabled adults, youth, and their loved oneshave been telling us for a long timehow unsustainable it is to leave families with no other options but to turn to media and technology to offset undue caregiving responsibilities that are actually failed societal and moral obligations.

S. Craig Watkins: In the work that we did for the Digital Edgethe core focus was on addressing the inventive ways Black and Latinx youth navigate social, educational, and digital inequality.  The Digital 'Edge' is a recognition of the tension that shapes how people of color engage technology.  On the one hand, "edge" represents the cutting edge or the ways in which Black and Latinx youth have been leaders, innovators, and early adopters, especially when it comes to social and mobile media. Black youth were the first among their generational counterparts to adopt Twitter at scale, leading to the rise of the highly influential Black Twitter.  But "edge" in this context also points to marginalization and inequality.  Thus, even as Black and Latinx youth have asserted a strong presence in the digital world, they do so under social, educational, and economic constraints not of their own making.

As we did the research for the Digital Edge we also explored the home life of students and this gave us an opportunity to learn more about their parents. The educational levels among many of the parents were quite low, thus severely restricting their employment prospects.  Most of the parents in our sample worked in low-skill, low-wage occupations.  Still, the parents that we met were extraordinarily savvy and had a sharp understanding of society.  

Many of these parents made enormous sacrifices to ensure their children had access to computers, the internet, and mobile devices.  And although consistent and robust access to these technologies were often marred by economic precarity, parents felt it was important that their children had internet connectivity even though it was difficult to afford. Over the years research has shown that the presence of a child in the home is a strong predictor of whether technology will be in the home.  

I've always been struck by the "technology dilemma" that parents grapple with.  Even as they may have some concerns about screen time  or more specifically the kind of content their children are exposed to, most parents tell us that they believe they must make computers, internet, and mobile devices available to their kids.  They understand in some opaque way that mastery of these technologies is now required to find opportunity in the economy of tomorrow. When it comes to providing their children access to technology, parents feel as if they are damned if they do and damned if they do not.

We learned that parents in low-wage occupations have the same concerns as parents in high-wage occupations.  All parents want their kids to be safe, happy, and able to access good schools and meaningful opportunities to pursue the aspirations.  But not all parents have the full stack of resources--money, good schools, extra-curricular activities, robust social supports, or a stay-at-home parent-- to bolster their children's life chances.  Likewise, not all parents have access to the social and informational capital that deepens their knowledge, parental efficacy, and ability to support how their children navigate the digital world.  Meryl, I really appreciate your assertion that parents who care for kids with learning disabilities struggle to find the adequate social and technological supports to engage their children’s potential for learning and development.  I also like how you draw similarities between the challenges they face, “being socially distanced and heavily technologically mediated,” and the challenges millions of families with kids restricted to their homes for learning and recreation now face.

We must figure out more effective ways to support parents and their efforts to support their children.  This includes finding culturally relevant ways to introduce parents to ideas and potential strategies they can employ in their efforts to equip their children with the resources to participate in the connected world.  Now more than ever, young children must learn how to protect their privacy and data rights while also increasing their accumulation of social, civic, and educational capital via digital technologies. As Sonia and Meryl note, one of the outcomes of COVID is the increased reliance on social and digital platforms. Among other things, this means that we are all subjected to more surveillance, scams, and disinformation campaigns as Sonia explains.  

Sonia’s point that we should forever do away with the “young people as digital natives” and “old people as digital immigrants” perspective is well taken.  The framework overlooks the fact that parents have a lot to offer young people including experience, wisdom, and the importance of empathy in the connected world.  Most parents are looking for answers instead of fear mongering and misinformation.  More affluent parents have access to the social and informational networks that enhance their capacity to support how their children navigate the digital world.  But many parents do not have access to these resources, hence their ability to support their children's digital activities face severe challenges.  

I'll end with this question: how do we design ways for parents and guardians who manage resource-constrained households to access the social and informational networks that empower their desire to support their children's participation in the connected world and secure pathways to opportunity? 

Bios

Meryl Alper is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Northeastern University, where she researches the social and cultural implications of communication technologies, with a focus on disability and digital media, children and families’ technology use, and mobile communication. She is the author of Digital Youth with Disabilities(MIT Press, 2014) and Giving Voice: Mobile Communication, Disability, and Inequality(MIT Press, 2017), which was awarded a 2018 PROSE Award Honorable Mention from the Association of American Publishers and the 2018 Outstanding Publication in the Sociology of Disability Award from the American Sociological Association. In her research and teaching, Dr. Alper also draws on over 15 years of professional experience in educational children’s media as a researcher, strategist, and consultant with Sesame Workshop, PBS KIDS, Nickelodeon, and Disney.

Sonia Livingstone is a professor in the Department of Media and Communicationsat the London School of Economics and Political Science. Taking a comparative, critical and contextualised approach, her research examines how the changing conditions of mediation are reshaping everyday practices and possibilities for action. She has published 20 books on media audiences, especially children and young people’s risks and opportunities, media literacy and rights in the digital environment. Her new book is “Parenting for a Digital Future: How hopes and fears about technology shape children’s lives” (Oxford University Press, with Alicia Blum-Ross). Sonia currently directs the Digital Futures Commission(with the 5Rights Foundation) and the “Global Kids Online”project (with UNICEF), among other projects. She blogs at www.parenting.digital.

S. Craig Watkins is the Ernest A. Sharpe Centennial Professor at the University of Texas at Austin.  He is the author of six books including The Digital Edgeand Don’t Knock the Hustle.  Craig is also the founding Director of the Institute for Media Innovation, a boutique hub for research and design. Among other things, the Institute is currently working on projects that address technology and mental health, bias in the deployment of artificial intelligence, and the social, racial, and economic aspects of a post-COVID world.