Absence and Family Life: Understanding and Supporting Adaption to Change

  • William Odom
  • Richard Harper
  • Abigail Sellen
  • Jodi Forlizzi
  • John Zimmerman
  • Richard Banks
  • Dave Kirk
Chapter

Abstract

What and who a family is, is continually changing. Family is a place, an ever changing set of social relationships, an evolving archive of precious artefacts and the actions collectively unfolding that bring all of these elements into meaningful cohesion. Over space and time familial structure shifts; it expands, contracts, solidifies and dissolves. As people grow older, family members may grow apart, move away, craft a new family with another spouse, or experience the loss of those that once were core to the family’s foundation. In any circumstances, and perhaps especially these, characterizing and understanding family life is complex. What is certain is significant and diverse work is done by a family to adapt to unfolding changes, and the practices and processes though which this work is achieved is partly constitutive of the evolving idea of family itself. While the ways members of a family personally and collectively work to adapt to unfolding changes are heterogeneous, it is clear that interactive technology is becoming a common part of the fabric of this kind of work.

References

  1. Amato, P.R. (2001). Children of Divorce in the 1990s. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 3, 355-370.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Amato, P.R. (2004). Parenting Through Family Transitions. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 23, 31-44.Google Scholar
  3. Arditti, J. A. (1999). Rethinking relationships between divorced mothers and their children: Capitalizing on family strengths. Family Relations, 48, 109-119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beech, S., Geelhoed, E., Murphy, R., Parker, J., Sellen, A. and Shaw, K. (2003). The Lifestyles of Working Parents: Implications and Opportunities for New Technologies. HP Technical Report: HPL-2003-88, 1-114.Google Scholar
  5. Bovil, M., Livingstone, S. (Eds.) (2001). Children and their changing media environment. London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, B., Taylor, A, Izadi, S., Sellen, A., Kaye, J. (2007). Locating Family Values: A Field Trial of the Whereabouts Clock. In Proc. of UbiComp '07, 354-371.Google Scholar
  7. Cowan, P. A. and McHale, J. P. (1996). Coparenting in a Family Context: Emerging Achievements, Current Dilemmas, and Future Directions. New Directions for Child Development, 74, 93-106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chawla, L. (1992). Childhood Place Attachments. In Place Attachment. Altman, I., Low, S. (ed). Plenum Press, 63-86.Google Scholar
  9. Csikszenthmihalyi, M., Rochberg-Halton, E. (1981). The Meaning of Things: Domestic Symbols and the Self. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  10. Darrah, C. et al. (2001). Families and Work: An Ethnography of Dual Career Families. Final Report to Sloan Foundation grant # 95192-0113.Google Scholar
  11. Davidoff, S., Lee, M. K., Yiu, C., Zimmerman, J. and Dey, A. K. (2006). Principles of Smart Home Control. In Proc. of UbiComp, Springer, 19-34.Google Scholar
  12. Davidoff, S., Zimmerman, J., & Dey, A. (2010). How Routine Learners can Support Family Coordination. In Proc. of CHI ’10, 2461-2470.Google Scholar
  13. Finch, J., Mason, J. (2000). Passing On: Kinship & Inheritance in England. Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Fitzpatrick, M, Vangelisti, A. (Eds.) (1995). Explaining Family Interactions. Sage Publications: London.Google Scholar
  15. Frissen, V. A. Icts in the Rush Hour of Life. The Information Society, 16 (March 1999), 65-75.Google Scholar
  16. Frohlich, D., Murphy, R. (2000). The Memory Box. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 4, 4 (January 2000), 238-240.Google Scholar
  17. Golden, A., Dalgleish, T., Mackintosh, B. 2007. Levels of Specificity of Autobiographical Memories and of Biographical Memories of the Deceased in Bereaved Individuals With and Without Complicated Grief. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 116, 4, 786-795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hallam, E., Hockey, J. (001). Death, Memory and Material Culture, Oxford, Berg.Google Scholar
  19. Harper, R. (2010). Texture: Human Expression in the Age of Communications Overload. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  20. Ito, M. et al. (2009). Hanging Out, Messing Around, Geeking out: Kids Living and Learning with New Media. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  21. Kelly, J.B. (1997). Children’s Living Arrangements Following Separation and Divorce: Insights From Empirical and Clinical Research. Family Process, 46, 1, 35-52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim, S., Kim, M., Park, S., Jin, Y., & Choi, W. (2004). Gate Reminder: A Design case of a smart reminder. In Proc. DIS ‘04, 81-90.Google Scholar
  23. Kharfen, M. (1999, March 26). HHS LAUNCHES “BE THEIR DAD” PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY CAMPAIGN. US Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from on 2011, 21 June: http://archive.hhs.gov/news/press/1999pres/990326.html
  24. Kirk, D., Sellen, A. (2010). On human remains: Values and practice in the home archiving of cherished objects. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 17, 3, Article 10 (July 2010).Google Scholar
  25. Kleine, S., Baker, S. 2004. An Integrative Review of Material Possession Attachment. Academy of Marketing Science Review. 1-39.Google Scholar
  26. Massimi, M., Odom, W., Kirk, D., Banks, R. (2011). Matters of Life and Death: Locating the End of Life in Lifespan-Oriented HCI Research. In proceedings of SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Vancouver, Canada. CHI ’11. ACM.Google Scholar
  27. McHale, J.P. (1997). Overt and Covert Coparenting Processes in the Family. Family Process, 36, 2, 183-201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miller, D., Parrot, F. 2009. Loss and material culture in south London. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol 15, 3, 502-519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Neustaeder, C., Bernheim Brush, A.J., Greenburg, S. (2009). The Calendar is Crucial: Coordination and Awareness through the Family Calendar. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 16, 1, Article 6.Google Scholar
  30. Newman, D., Grauerholz, L. (2002). Sociology of Families. Sage publications: London.Google Scholar
  31. Nunes, M., Greenburg, S., Neustaeder, C. 2008. Sharing digital photographs in the home through physical mementos, souvenirs, and keepsakes. In Proc. of DIS ’08, 250-260.Google Scholar
  32. Odom, W. Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J. (2011). Teenagers and Their Virtual Possessions: Design Opportunities and Issues. In proceedings of SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Vancouver, Canada. CHI ’11. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  33. Odom, W., Harper, R., Sellen, A., Kirk, D., Banks, R. (2010). Passing On & Putting To Rest: Understanding Bereavement in the context of Interactive Technologies. In proceedings of SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Atlanta, USA. CHI ’10. ACM Press, 1831-1840.Google Scholar
  34. Odom, W. Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J. (2010). Designing for Dynamic Family Structures: Divorced Families and Interactive Systems. In proceedings of Designing Interactive Systems. Aarhus, Denmark. DIS ’10. ACM Press, 151-160.Google Scholar
  35. Park, S.Y., and Zimmerman, J. (2010). Investigating the Opportunity for a Smart Activity Bag. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI  '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2543-2552.Google Scholar
  36. Petrelli, D. et al. (2008). AutoTopography: what can physical mementos tell us about digital memories? In Proceedings of CHI '08, ACM Press 53-62.Google Scholar
  37. Petrelli, D., van den Hoven, E., Whittaker, S. (2009). Making history: intentional capture of future memories. In Proc. of CHI  '09, ACM Press, 1723-1732.Google Scholar
  38. Prigerson et al. (2009). Prolonged Grief Disorder: Psychometric Validation of Criteria Proposed for DSM-V and ICD-11. PLoS Med 6(8): e1000121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Proshansky, H., Fabian, A. & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57-83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Steele, J.R. & Brown, J.D. (1995) Adolescent room culture: Studying media in the context of everyday life. In Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 5, 551-576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Strain, J. (2003). Households as Morally Ordered Communities: Explorations in the Dynamics of Family Life. In Harper, R. (ed.) Inside the Smart Home. Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Sudnow, D. 1967. Passing On: The Social Organization of Dying. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  44. Taylor, A. S. and Swan, L. (2005). Artful systems in the home. In Proc. of CHI '05, 641-650.Google Scholar
  45. Taylor, A., Harper, R., Swan, L., Izadi, S., Sellen, A., Perry, M. 2007. Homes that make us smart. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 11, 5 (June 2007), 383-393. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. United States Census. 2005. Children Under 18 Years Old By Presence Of Parents: 1980, 1990, 1995, 2000 And 2004 [By Race And Marital Status], p. 54.Google Scholar
  47. van Gennep, A. (1977). The Rites of Passage. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Williams, A., Anderson, K., Dourish, P. (2008). Anchored Mobilities: Mobile Technology and Transnational Migration. In Proc. of DIS 08, 323-332.Google Scholar
  49. Wortham, J. (2010). As Older Users Join Facebook, Network Grapples With Death. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/technology/18death.html?_r=1%26scp=1%26sq=ghosts%20reach%20out%26st=cse.
  50. Yarosh, S., Chieh, Y., Chew, D., Abowd, G. (2009). Supporting Long-Distance Parent-Child Interaction in Divorced Families. in International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Volume 67, Issue 2, February 2009, 192-20.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer London 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • William Odom
    • 1
  • Richard Harper
    • 2
  • Abigail Sellen
    • 3
  • Jodi Forlizzi
    • 1
  • John Zimmerman
    • 1
  • Richard Banks
    • 3
  • Dave Kirk
    • 4
  1. 1.Carnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Microsoft Research Ltd.CambridgeUK
  3. 3.Microsoft ResearchCambridgeUK
  4. 4.University of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations