Interaction 2: A day in the technological life of : a tool for investigating extent of

I  wanted  to  explore  participants’  degree  of  breadth  of  technology  use  as  early  as   possible,  once  they  understood  the  reality  of  participating  in  the  research  process.   As  a  result,  the  second  Interaction  asked  the  participants  to  provide  a  24-­‐hour   diary  of  their  technology  use  over  a  weekend.  Participants  were  asked  to  make  a   record  of  every  occasion  in  which  they  used  any  kind  of  technology  in  the   following  way:  

What  technologies  do  you  use  over  24  hours?      

Choose  a  Saturday  or  Sunday  to  do  this  activity.    Make  a  record  every  time  you  use   technology.  This  includes  mobile  phones,  video  cameras  or  cameras,  computers,   gaming  consoles  or  anything  else  that  you  think  of  as  technology.  

You  can  record  this  any  way  you  like.  You  could  use  the  notebook  and  pen  that   was  provided  in  your  starter  pack.  You  could  use  a  camera  or  video  camera  (if  you   would  like  to  use  one  of  these  but  don’t  have  one,  let  me  know  and  I  can  lend  one   to  you).  You  could  draw  a  set  of  pictures  or  sketches,  or  you  could  do  all  three.    

For  each  record,  please  make  a  note  of:  

-­‐ the  time  you  started  using  the  technology  

-­‐ what  sort  of  activity  you  did  

-­‐ how  you  felt  when  you  finished  using  the  technology.  You  can  record  this  in   words  or  smiley  faces  or  any  other  way  you  want.  If  you  didn’t  feel  anything,   then  don’t  worry  about  recording  an  emotion.    

Don’t  worry  if  you  forget  to  record  an  exact  time  or  emotion  –  just  do  your  best.  J    

At  the  end  of  the  record  please  say  whether  this  was  an  ordinary  Saturday  or   Sunday  for  you,  or  whether  it  was  unusual.    

(See  Appendix  1  for  the  full  tool).  The  option  to  draw  or  record  the  technology  was   provided  given  the  young  age  of  some  of  the  sample,  although  this  option  was  not   taken  up  by  any  participant.  I  chose  to  use  a  weekend  for  two  reasons.  Firstly,  I  did   not  want  to  disrupt  their  school  day,  and  secondly,  the  focus  of  this  study  was  on   technology  use  outside  of  the  school  context.    

An  alternative  approach  would  have  been  to  create  a  more  detailed,   formally  structured  diary.  For  example,  the  diary  might  have  contained  

information  about  where  the  participant  was  when  they  were  using  the  technology,   their  level  of  confidence  in  that  use,  and  whether  a  friend  or  family  member  was   with  them  at  the  time.  While  this  information  would  have  been  interesting,  I  felt  it   was  important  to  minimize  the  amount  of  ‘work’  the  participants  had  to  do  in   order  to  quickly  retrieve  the  most  important  information.  I  knew  I  could  explore   the  relevant  details  via  emails  or  during  the  interview  process  later  in  the  study.  

Key  to  the  task  at  hand  was  establishing  whether  these  participants  were,  in  fact,   using  technology  as  frequently  as  their  parents  and  I  thought  they  were.  This  

would  confirm  early  on  in  the  research  process  that  the  chosen  participants  were  

appropriate  for  the  sample.    

Another  alternative  would  have  been  to  use  a  free  text  diary,  in  which   participants  were  asked  to  write  as  much  or  as  little  about  their  technological  lives,   perhaps  over  a  longer  period  of  time.  This  would  have  been  more  in  keeping  with   Allport’s  idiographic  perspective  and  the  qualitative  psychology  approach  overall.  I   decided  against  this  because  I  did  not  want  the  data  gathering  to  become  

burdensome,  and  because  I  suspected  it  would  result  in  pockets  of  rich  data  from   participants  who  enjoyed  writing,  but  could  produce  large  gaps  from  younger  or   more  writing-­‐averse  participants.    

The  outcome  of  these  deliberations  was  the  creation  of  a  light-­‐touch,  

researcher-­‐driven  diary.  The  diary  did  not  seek  to  explore  much  beyond  a  snapshot   of  the  extent  and  nature  of  participants’  technology  use,  with  a  rough  indication  of   their  feelings  during  that  use.  Although  it  gathered  quantitative  data  in  the  forms   of  length  of  time  used,  I  did  not  use  the  data  in  conventionally  quantitative  ways.   For  example,  I  did  not  use  it  to  compare  within  the  sample.  Rather,  this  

information  was  used  to  assess  whether  the  participant  was,  as  suspected,  

someone  who  used  technology  more  than  most  of  their  peers  might  be  expected  to,   based  on  the  research  done  by  Livingstone  and  her  colleagues  in  the  EU  Kids   Online  team.    

Limitation   Mitigation  

Diaries  capture  an   ‘ever  changing   present’  (Plummer,   2000,  p.43).  Without   ongoing  commitment   or  repetition,  they   cannot  give  a  sense  of   change  over  time.    

This  Interaction  was  not  intended  to  provide  any   data  on  participants’  use  of  technology  and  its   changes  over  time.  Rather,  I  intended  to  use  this   to  confirm  the  participants’  suitability  for  the   project,  and  to  give  an  initial  indication  of  their   technological  interests  and  uses.  I  used  

subsequent  email  exchanges  and  the  interview  as   opportunities  to  assess  whether  their  use  changed   during  the  data  gathering  period.  For  example,   TL5  started  out  the  research  process  deeply   interested  in  Zondle.  During  the  data  gathering   period  she  moved  away  from  this  software,   through  a  short  period  of  playing  Howrse   frequently,  to  her  high  volume  interest  in   watching  gameplay  on  YouTube  and  a  growing   interest  in  coding  games  by  her  final  interview.       This  form  of  diary  did  

not  capture  the  detail   of  participants’  lives  or   introduce  a  space  for   participants  to  reflect   on  their  technology   use.    

Email  exchanges  and  subsequent  data  gathering   exercises  reflected  on  these  issues.    

The  need  to  limit  the   time  commitment  and   maximize  willingness   from  the  participant.    

I  kept  the  length  and  burden  of  this  tool  to  a   minimum,  as  described  above.    

The  need  to  account   for  the  capability  of   the  participant  to   complete  the  diary   (e.g.  levels  of  literacy).  

I  acknowledged  that  participants  may  not  be  able   to  contribute  to  a  written  diary,  and  as  such   offered  an  alternative  to  draw  their  diary,  or  make   recordings  of  it  on  a  loaned  camera  or  video   camera.  None  of  the  participants  took  up  this   offer,  choosing  to  use  the  form  provided  instead.    

Table  8:  Limitations  of  the  solicited  diary  

The  diary  was  a  tool  with  a  specific  purpose  within  clearly  defined  

To  that  extent  it  was  successful.  Were  I  to  do  the  study  again,  I  might  be  tempted  

to  re-­‐run  this  survey  at  several  intervals  (with  participants’  consent),  to  gain  a   deeper  picture  following  key  life  changes,  such  as  the  start  of  menarche.  

4.4  Interaction  3:  Relationships  with  others:  a  tool  for  investigating