How Families Use Video Communication Technologies During Intergenerational Skype Sessions

  • Gillian BuschEmail author
Part of the International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development book series (CHILD, volume 22)


Geographical distances between family members have propelled the use of video communication technologies (e.g., Skype, FaceTime) to maintain and facilitate family relationships. Skype enables access to a visual on the screen, and the use of wireless technology (WiFi) facilitates Skype sessions to be mobile and to occur in various spaces in the family home. This chapter examines an extended sequence of talk during a Skype session between young children, their mother, and grandparents. Interactions were video-recorded and then transcribed using the Jeffersonian system. Analysis of the sequences establishes first how children and adults manage the affordances of the Skype technology to accomplish the social activity and, second, how the adults support the children’s interaction and how prosody and gesture accomplish the interaction. This chapter contributes understandings of how social orders (Unravelling the fabric of social order in block area. In Hester S, Francis D (eds) Local educational order: ethnomethodological studies of knowledge in action. John Benjamins Pub. Co., Amsterdam, pp 91–140, 2000) are assembled during family Skype sessions.


Young children Families Skype Conversation analysis Intergenerational interaction Grandparents 


  1. Ames, M., Go, J., Kaye, J., & Spasojevic, M. (2010). Making love in the network closet: The benefits and work of home videochat. Paper presented at the Computer Human Interaction, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  2. Ballagas, R., Kaye, J., Ames, M., Go, J., & Raffle, H. (2009, June 03–05). Family communication: Phone conversations with children. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, Milano, Como, Italy.Google Scholar
  3. Butler, C. W. (2008). Talk and social interaction in the playground. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  4. Cekaite, A. (2010). Shepherding the child: Embodied directive sequences in parent-child interactions. Text & Talk, 30(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Danby, S., & Baker, C. (2000). Unravelling the fabric of social order in block area. In S. Hester & D. Francis (Eds.), Local educational order: Ethnomethodological studies of knowledge in action (pp. 91–140). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Follmer, S., Raffle, H., Go, J., Ballagas, R., & Ishii, H. (2010, June 9–12). Video play: Playful interactions in video conferencing for long-distance families with young children. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
  7. Garfinkel, H. (1984). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  8. Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical actions. In J. D. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology (pp. 337–366). New York: Appleton Century Crofts.Google Scholar
  9. Goodwin, M. (1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among black children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Heritage, J. (1984a). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  11. Heritage, J. (1984b). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversational analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hester, S., & Eglin, P. (1997). Membership categorisation analysis: An introduction. In S. Hester & P. Eglin (Eds.), Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis (pp. 1–24). Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America.Google Scholar
  13. Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–23). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Judge, T., Neustaedter, C., Harrison, S., & Blose, A. (2011). Family portals: Connecting families through a multifamily media space. Paper presented at the 11th Computer-Human Interaction, Vancouver, BC.Google Scholar
  15. Judge, T., & Neustaedter, C. (2010). Sharing conversation and sharing life: Video conferencing in the home. Paper presented at the at Home with Computing, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  16. Kelly, C. (2013). Let’s do some jumping together’: Intergenerational participation in the use of remote technology to co-construct social relations over distance. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 12(3), 1–18.Google Scholar
  17. Larson, J. (1995). Talk matters: The role of pivot in the distribution of literacy knowledge among novice writers. Linguistics and Education, 7(4), 277–302.Google Scholar
  18. Lerner, G. H. (2003). Selecting next speaker: The context-sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society, 32, 177–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mondada, L. (2009). The methodical organization of talking and eating: Assessments in dinner conversations. Food Quality and Preference, 20, 558–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moffatt, K., David, J., & Baeker, R. (2013). Connecting grandparents and grandchildren. In C. Neustaedter, S. Harrison, & A. Sellen (Eds.), Connecting families: The impact of new communication technologies on domestic life (pp. 173–194). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Oduor, E., Neustaedter, C., Venolia, G., & Judge, T. (2013). The future of personal video communication: Moving beyond talking heads to shared experiences. Paper presented at the Computer Human Interaction, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  22. Pomerantz, A. (1988). Offering a candidate answer: An information seeking strategy. Communication Monographs, 55(4), 360–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pomerantz, A., & Fehr, B. J. (1997). Conversation analysis: An approach to the study of social action as sense making practices. In T. A. Van-Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 64–91). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Psathas, G. (1995). The study of extended sequences: The case of the garden lesson. In G. Watson & R. Seiler (Eds.), Text in context: Contributions to ethnomethodology (pp. 99–122). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Raffle, H., Ballagas, R., Revelle, G., Horii, H., Follmer, S., & Go, J. (2010). Family story play: Reading with young children (and Elmo) over a distance. Paper presented at the Computer Human Interaction, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  26. Raymond, G., & Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35(5), 677–705.
  27. Rintel, S. (2013). Video calling in long-distance relationships: The opportunistic use of audio/video distortions as a relational resource. The Electronic Journal of Communication/La Revue Electronic de Communication (EJC/REC) (Special issue on Videoconferencing in Practice: 21st Century Challenges), 23(1&2).Google Scholar
  28. Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on conversation: Volumes 1 & 2. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schegloff, E. A. (1990). On the organization of sequences as a source of coherence in talk-in-interaction. In B. Dorval (Ed.), Conversational organization and its development. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  30. Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics. In B. A. Fox (Ed.), Studies in Anaphora (pp. 437–485). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organisation in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schegloff, E., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 7, 280–327.Google Scholar
  33. Speier, M. (1973). How to observe face-to-face communication: A sociological introduction. Pacific Palisades: Goodyear Publishing Company Inc.Google Scholar
  34. Stivers, T., & Robinson, J. D. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society, 35(3), 367–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vutborg, R., Kjeldskov, J., Pedell, S., & Vetere, F. (2010). Family storytelling for grandparents and grandchildren living apart. Paper presented at the 6th NordiCHI conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending boundaries. Reykjavik, Iceland.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CQ UniversityRockhampton NorthAustralia

Personalised recommendations