Abstract
In this book’s discussion of young people’s encounters with the digital, we, the authors, speak as and primarily with those who identify or are interpolated as adults; subjects whose sense-making, like that of Mr. Deane, is always already structured by our discursive positioning in linear time as ‘no longer young’. We choose to address adults not because we consider conversations with young people unimportant. To the contrary, we will argue throughout this book that intergenerational dialogue is crucial to navigating the challenges that confront us. Nor, in addressing our audience, is our invocation of the first-person plural (‘we’) intended to gloss the differences that shape diverse groups’ and individuals’ conceptualizations of, access to and use of technology. Rather, the desire is to assert a heterogeneous ‘we’ that nonetheless shares the experience of ‘being adult’—or, at least, of being no longer young—and, generationally speaking, enjoys the privilege of the unmarked case (Livingstone and Third 2017, 661). Acknowledging this, the book draws upon the attitudes, experiences and feelings of a diverse range of young people, who played a central role in the research that is elaborated here. This is deliberate, because adult ways of being have dominated, for too long, how young people and the digital are configured in mainstream debates. We contend that alternative ways of thinking and doing are urgently demanded, and that young people’s insights and experiences are a powerful and necessary resource for such a reorientation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
While we do not have the space to elaborate further here, we would also add that such ‘adult’ framings are principally Western, white, middle-class and heteronormative.
- 2.
We define the digital in more detail in Chap. 2.
- 3.
This focus has begun gradually to be supplanted by alternative formulations. For example, since at least as early as 2014, when the United Nations Committee for the Rights of the Child met in Geneva to debate how to reinterpret the Convention on the Rights of the Child for the digital age, rights-based approaches to children’s and young people’s digital practices have begun to assert themselves in debates about digital practice globally. This debate’s emphasis on approaches that can encompass children’s and young people’s provision, protection and participation rights is beginning to inspire more strengths-based, participatory research, policy and practice, and is receiving significant attention globally. See, for example, Third et al. (2014a); Livingstone and Bulger (2013) and the work of Global Kids Online (see Global Kids Online 2019).
- 4.
Recent years have seen enormous increases in the take-up of online technologies globally. In many instances, however, adoption of digital media is taking place in the context of limited or non-existent policy and legal frameworks, institutional capacities and financial resources for the development of protective strategies, all of which may expose children and young people to genuine and serious dangers. See, for example, Gasser et al. (2010); ITU (2014); Livingstone and Bulger (2013); Livingstone et al. (2015b); Livingstone et al. (2017); Third (2016a); Milosevic (2017).
- 5.
For example, Third’s and Collin’s work with others on the Cultivating Digital Capacities project (Magee et al. 2018) has highlighted the relational dimensions of digital media practices, demonstrating that children, young people and adult family members—parents, grandparents and extended family—often negotiate the digital together, transforming their collective understandings of both the risks and the opportunities presented by the digital age.
- 6.
danah boyd recounts a similar experience of teenagers engaging with computer-mediated culture in the mid-1990s. She writes, ‘I was fascinated with the new communication and information technologies that had emerged since I was in high school. I had spent my own teen years online, and I was among the first generation of teens who did so. But that was a different era; few of my friends in the early 1990s were interested in computers at all’ (2014, 4).
- 7.
- 8.
McArthur elaborates: ‘Moreover, the term geek has been used in relationship to some of the players in the political economy of computer-based communication. The pioneers of computer systems and software and the founders of popular Web-based services such as Google and Facebook have carried this appellation to positions of power and wealth in the American economy’ (2009, 61).
- 9.
The rapidity of this shift in uptake of digital media by children and young people globally is by no means cause for blind celebration. As much research shows, children and young people’s digital participation raises many new challenges, not the least of which are incursions on children’s and young people’s privacy rights, the unauthorized collection of digital data from children and young people and children’s and young people’s interpolation as consumers within emerging global political and economic structures (via, for example, the Internet of Toys. See FPF and FOSI 2016; Nelson 2016). These issues require urgent attention from the global research, policy and practice community working in the field of children’s and young people’s digital practices.
- 10.
For example, seniors have recently been identified as a population group that is vulnerable to cybercrimes, as opposed to cybersafety risks: ‘Anyone can be a victim of cybercrime but… Australia’s seniors, as a relatively wealthy and recently growing demographic online, are an attractive target for innovative cybercriminals… Available research also suggests Australian seniors are being disproportionately targeted by, and fall victim to, certain types of online criminal activity dependent on age’ (Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia 2013, 37).
- 11.
Sonia Livingstone and Leslie Haddon have clustered the risks children encounter online into three categories: ‘content risks’, where the child or young person is the largely passive recipient of risky images or text; ‘contact risks’, in which they interact with risky individuals or groups; and ‘conduct risks’, in which the risk ensues from the child or young person’s active behaviours and interactions with others (2009). It should be noted that Livingstone and Haddon’s categories do not map straightforwardly onto the discourses of youth at risk and youth as risk. Sometimes they align and sometimes they operate as cross-currents.
- 12.
In this book, we draw on the work of Michel de Certeau and Henri Lefebvre to theorize the everyday. For an alternative theorization of the everyday, see Smith (1987).
- 13.
For example, some research has shown that young people translate their moral frameworks between online and offline settings (Third et al. 2011). This means that if families are taking regular opportunities to have conversations about the values they stand for, young people are likely to mobilize these values when making decisions online. This same research showed that parents find this idea very comforting because it gives them agency and a degree of influence over the things their children do in spaces that are (often deliberately) distanced from parental intervention. Similarly, young people report that they much prefer their parents to use active mediation strategies to help guide their digital practices. Above all, they say, they just want to be trusted by adults to use digital media wisely and reach out when they need help (Third et al. 2014a, 41–2).
- 14.
- 15.
Liminality is a condition that Victor Turner describes as ‘ambiguous’ (Victor Turner as cited in McClintock 1995, 24).
- 16.
See footnote 14.
- 17.
The pernicious coalition of data mining and constituted power has reached new heights with recent political events, namely, the election of Donald Trump as president of the USA and the UK’s decision to exit the European Union (Brexit). See Grassegger and Krogerus (2017).
- 18.
We are mindful here of Paul Virilio’s argument that speed underpins domination. See Armitage (2000).
- 19.
Indeed, noting the ‘teleological model of the child across biological, social and cultural domains’, Claudia Castañeda argues that the child—which we understand here as the prototypical young person—has been key to thinking development as a concept of ‘human and embodied transformation’ (2002, 4) broadly. She argues, further, that the child was key to the emergence of the modern discourse of development and the proliferation of racist discourses of progress.
- 20.
As Sara Ahmed has explained, orientations ‘point us toward the future… Orientations are effects of what we tend toward, where the ‘toward’ marks a space and time that is almost, but not quite, available in the present’ (2006, 554).
- 21.
Importantly, this is not to suggest a libertarian approach to young people’s futures. We follow Arendt in arguing that the key task for adults is to ‘decide whether we love our children enough not to expel them from our world and leave them to their own devices, nor to strike from their hands their chance of undertaking something new, something unforeseen by us, but to prepare them in advance for the task of renewing a common world’ (Arendt 1961, 196).
- 22.
These memories are both those of individuals—what Stiegler calls ‘secondary retentions’—and collective or cultural memories—or what he terms ‘tertiary memories’; ‘sedimentations that accumulate across generations and are central to the process of creating collective individuation’ (2010, 5).
- 23.
Here, what we refer to as ‘excess’ parallels what Derrida calls ‘differánce’ or the ‘supplement’. See Derrida (1982).
- 24.
Castañeda writes, ‘once the adult’s temporal distance from childhood has been secured, the adult draws on the past as a resource for the present’ (2002, 5).
- 25.
As we discuss in Chap. 5, movements such as 15-M, the Indignants, Take the Square and #spanishrevolution in Spain, and Party X in Canada, have engaged young people in what are described as ‘new, deeper and stronger form[s] of democracy’ (Party X 2015). In the USA, it is claimed that young people associated with the Occupy movement are the ‘new democratic leaders’ and ‘prime mover[s] in perhaps the most promising protest movement to sweep the country in decades’ (Manson 2011). Young North Americans currently dominate the ‘Fight for 15’, a movement of fast food workers campaigning for a minimum wage and the right to form a union, which, like many similar movements, uses social media and a strong online presence to engage members, organize events and revitalize the labour movement (Hackman 2014).
- 26.
All quotations of young people’s contributions in this book have been edited for clarity, with attention to maintaining their integrity.
References
Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall Giesinger, C., and Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC Horizon Report: 2017 Higher Education Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Ahmed, S. (2006). ‘Orientations: Toward a Queer Phenomenology’. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 12(4), 543–74.
Ang, I. (2011). ‘Navigating Complexity: From Cultural Critique to Cultural Intelligence’. Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 25(6), 779–84.
Arendt, H. (1961). Between Past and Future: Six Exercises in Political Thought. New York: Viking Press.
Armitage, J. (2000). ‘The Kosovo War Took Place in Orbital Space: Paul Virilio in Conversation’. CTheory. Accessed 2 July 2018: https://journals.uvic.ca/index.php/ctheory/article/view/14599/5752
Arneil, B. (2002). ‘Becoming Versus Being: A Critical Analysis of the Child in Liberal Theory’. In D. Archard and C. M. Macleod (eds), The Moral and Political Status of Children, 70–96. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2016). Household Use of Information Technology, Australia, 2014–15: DataCube 81460DO001_201415. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). (2010). ‘Cybersmart Parents: Connecting Parents to Cybersafety Resources’. Accessed 7 July 2019: https://www.acma.gov.au/-/media/Research-and-Analysis/Information/pdf/connectingparentstocybersafetyresources-pdf.pdf?la=en
Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). (2014). ‘Aussie Teens Online: Research Snapshot’, 1 July 2014. Accessed 23 February 2017: http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/engage-blogs/engage-blogs/Research-snapshots/Aussie-teens-online
Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). (2016a). ‘Aussie Teens and Kids Online: Research Snapshots’. Accessed 2 July 2018: https://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/engage-blogs/engage-blogs/Research-snapshots/Aussie-teens-and-kids-online
Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). (2016b). Communications Report 2015–16. Sydney: Australian Communications and Media Authority. Accessed 21 May 2019: https://www.acma.gov.au/~/media/Research%20and%20Analysis/Report/pdf/ACMA%20Communications%20report%202015-16%20pdf.pdf
Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). (2016c). ‘Digital Lives of Older Australians: Research Snapshot’. Accessed 2 July 2018: www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/engage-blogs/engage-blogs/Research-snapshots/Digital-lives-of-older-Australians
Australian Cybercrime Online Reporting Network (ACORN). (2017). ‘ACORN Snapshot 1 January – 31 March 2017’. Accessed 2 July 2018: www.acorn.gov.au/sites/g/files/net1061/f/acorn_snapshot_1_january_-_31_march_2017.pdf
Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
Beck, U. (2000). The Brave New World of Work. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Black, R. and Walsh, L. (2011). ‘Students in the Lead: Increasing Participation by Young People in a Distributed Leadership Framework’. In T. Mackay and V. Zbar (eds), Leading the Education Debate: Selected Papers from the CSE Series and Occasional Papers, 2007–2010, 240–51. Melbourne: Centre for Strategic Education.
Black, R., and Walsh, L. (2015). ‘Educating the Risky Citizen: Young People, Vulnerability and Schooling’. In K. te Riele, and R. Gorur (eds.), Interrogating Conceptions of ‘Vulnerable Youth’ in Theory, Policy and Practice, 181–94. Rotterdam: Sense.
boyd, d. (2011). ‘Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications’. In Z. Papacharissi (ed.), Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites), 39–58. New York: Routledge.
boyd, d. (2014). It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. New Haven: Yale University Press.
boyd, d. (2015). ‘Social Media: A Phenomenon to be Analyzed.’ Social Media + Society, 1(1), 1–2.
Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang.
Castañeda, C. (2002). Figurations: Child, Bodies, Worlds. London: Duke University Press.
Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Chandler, D. (2014). Resilience: The Governance of Complexity. New York: Routledge.
Cohen, S. (2002). Folk Devils and Moral Panic: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers (3rd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.
Coleman, S. (2008). ‘Doing IT for Themselves: Management versus Autonomy in Youth E-Citizenship’. In W. L. Bennett (ed.), Civic Life Online: Learning How Digital Media Can Engage Youth, 189–206. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Collin, P. (2015). Young Citizens and Political Participation in a Digital Society: Addressing the Democratic Disconnect. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Couldry, N. and McCarthy, A. (eds.) (2003) MediaSpace: Place, Scale and Culture in a Media Age. London and New York: Routledge.
Coyne, R. (2001). Technoromanticism: Digital Narrative, Holism, and the Romance of the Real. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cultivating Digital Capacities (CDC). (2016). ‘Cultivating Digital Capacities’. Accessed 20 May 2019: www.digitalcapacities.org
de Certeau, M. (1988). The Practice of Everyday Life. S. Rendall (Trans). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Derrida, J. (1981). ‘Plato’s Pharmacy’. In Dissemination, 61–172. B. Johnson (Trans.). London: Athlone Press.
Derrida, J. (1982). Margins of Philosophy. A. Bass (Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Eliot, G. (1860). ‘The Mill on the Floss’. Edinburgh and London: W. Blackwood and Sons.
Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police and Punish the Poor. New York: St Martin’s Press.
France, A., Freiberg, K. and Homel, R. (2010). ‘Beyond Risk Factors: Towards a Holistic Prevention Paradigm for Children and Young People’. British Journal of Social Work, 40, 1192–210.
Furlong, A. and Cartmel, F. (1997) Young People and Social Change. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Future of Privacy Forum (FPF) and Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI) (2016). Kids and the Connected Home: Privacy in the Age of Connected Dolls, Talking Dinosaurs, and Battling Robots. Accessed 2 July 2018: https://fpf.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Kids-The-Connected-Home-Privacy-in-the-Age-of-Connected-Dolls-Talking-Dinosaurs-and-Battling-Robots.pdf
Gasser, U., Maclay, C. M. and Palfrey, J. G. (2010). Working Towards a Deeper Understanding of Digital Safety for Children and Young People in Developing Nations. Harvard Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper Series: Paper No. 10–36; Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2010–7. Cambridge, MA: Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. Accessed 17 June 2019: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1628276
Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Global Kids Online. (2019). ‘Global Kids Online’. Accessed 21 May 2019: http://www.globalkidsonline.net.
Görzig, A., Livingstone, S. and Haddon, L. (eds.) (2012). Children, Risk and Safety on the Internet: Research and Policy Challenges in Comparative Perspective. Bristol: Policy Press.
Grassegger, H. and Krogerus, M. (2017). ‘The Data that Turned the World Upside Down’. Motherboard. Accessed 2 July 2018: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/big-data-cambridge-analytica-brexit-trump
Green, N. (2002). ‘On the Move: Technology, Mobility, and the Mediation of Social Time and Space’. The Information Society 18, 281–92.
Green, L., Brady, D., Ólafsson, K., Hartley, J. and Lumby, C. (2011). ‘Risks and Safety for Australian Children on the Internet’. Cultural Science Journal, 4(1). Accessed 25 June 2019: https://culturalscience.org/articles/abstract/10.5334/csci.40/
Hackman, R. (2014). ‘Occupy the Minimum Wage: Will Young People Restore the Strength of Unions?’. The Guardian. Accessed 17 June 2019: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jan/26/minimum-wage-young-people-unions-corporations
Harris, A. (2001). ‘Revisiting Bedroom Culture: New Spaces for Young Women’s Politics’. Hecate, 27(1), 128–38.
Harris, A. (2008). ‘Young Women, Late Modern Politics, and the Participatory Possibilities of Online Cultures’. Journal of Youth Studies, 11(5), 481–95.
Harris, A. (2015). ‘Transitions, Cultures, and Citizenship: Interrogating and Integrating Youth Studies in New Times’. In D. Woodman and A. Bennett (eds.), Youth Cultures, Transitions, and Generations: Bridging the Gap in Youth Research, 84–98. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Harris, A., Wyn, J. and Younes, S. (2007). ‘Young People and Citizenship: An Everyday Perspective’. Youth Studies Australia, 6(3), 19–27.
Hartley, J. (2010). ‘Silly Citizenship’. Critical Discourse Studies, 7(4), 233–48.
Harvey, D. (1989). The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Herring, S.C. (2008). ‘Questioning the Generational Divide: Technological Exoticism and Adult Constructions of Online Youth Identity.’ In D Buckingham (ed.). Youth, Identity, and Digital Media, 71–92. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Honwana, A. (2014). ‘Waithood: Youth Transitions and Social Change’. In D. Foeken, T. Dietz, L. Haan and L. Johnson (eds), Development and Equity: An Interdisciplinary Exploration by Ten Scholars from Africa, Asia and Latin America, 28–40. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., boyd, d., Cody, R., Herr-Stephenson, B., Horst, H. A., Lange, P. G., Mahendran, D., Martinez, K. Z., Pascoe, C. J., Perkel, D., Robinson, L., Sims, C. and Tripp, L. (2010). Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out: Kids Living and Learning with New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ito, M., Davidson, C., Jenkins, H., Lee, C., Eisenberg, M., and Weiss, J. (2008). ‘Foreword.’ In D. Buckingham (ed.), Youth, Identity, and Digital Media, vii–ix. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
ITU (International Telecommunication Union) (2014). Measuring the Information Society Report 2014. Geneva: International Telecommunication Union. Accessed 20 June 2019: www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/publications/mis2014/MIS2014_without_Annex_4.pdf
James, A., Jenks, C. and Prout, A. (1998). Theorizing Childhood. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Kelly, P. and Kamp, A. (eds.). (2014). A Critical Youth Studies for the 21st Century. Amsterdam: Brill.
Keltie, E. (2017). The Culture Industry and Participatory Audiences. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kristeva, J. (1982). Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection. L. S. Roudiez (Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.
l’Anson, J. (2013). ‘Beyond the Child’s Voice: Towards an Ethics for Participation Rights’. Global Studies of Childhood, 3(2), 104–14.
Lash, S. (2002). Critique of Information. London: Sage.
Lash, S. and Urry, J. (1994). Economies of Signs and Space. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lefebvre, H. (2000). Everyday Life in the Modern World. S. Rabinovitch (Trans.). London: Athlone.
Lievrouw, L. A. and Livingstone, S. (2006). The Handbook of New Media (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Livingstone, S. and Bulger, M. (2013). A Global Agenda for Children’s Rights in the Digital Age: Recommendations for Developing UNICEF’s Research Strategy. Florence: UNICEF Office of Research. Accessed 2 July 2018: https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/lse%20olol%20final3.pdf
Livingstone, S., Byrne, J. and Bulger, M. (2015b). Researching Children’s Rights Globally in the Digital Age. London: Media@LSE, UNICEF, EU Kids Online. Accessed 12 June 2019: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/62248/.
Livingstone, S., and Haddon, L. (2009). EU Kids Online: Final Report. LSE, London: EU Kids Online. (EC Safer Internet Plus Programme Deliverable D6.5). Accessed 16 May 2019: http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/EU%20Kids%20I%20(2006-9)/EU%20Kids%20Online%20I%20Reports/EUKidsOnlineFinalReport.pdf
Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G., Dreier, M., Chaudron, S. and Lagae, K. (2015a). How Parents of Young Children Manage Digital Devices at Home: The Role of Income, Education and Parental Style. London: EU Kids Online, London School of Economics and Political Science.
Livingstone, S., Nandi, A., Banaji, S. and Stoilova, M. (2017). Young Adolescents and Digital Media Uses, Risks and Opportunities in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Rapid Evidence Review. London, UK: Gender and Adolescence: Global Evidence (GAGE). Accessed 15 May 2019: https://www.gage.odi.org/publication/digital-media-risks-opportunities/.
Livingstone, S. and Sefton-Green, J. (2016). The Class: Living and Learning in the Digital Age. New York: New York University Press.
Livingstone, S. and Third, A. (2017). ‘Children and Young People’s Rights in the Digital Age: An Emerging Agenda’. New Media and Society, 19(5), 657–70.
Lupton, D. (1995). ‘The Embodied Computer/User’. Body and Society, 1(3–4), 97–112.
Magee, L., Kearney, E., Bellerose, D., Collin, P., Crabtree, L., Humphry, J., James, P., Notley, T., Sharma, A., Third, A., Yorke, S., (2018). ‘Addressing a Volatile Subject: Adaptive Measurement of Australian Digital Capacities’. Information, Communication and Society, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1543441
Magee, L., Neilson, B., Third, A., James, P., Stone, G., Keltie, E., Thomson, R., Bhatia, S. and Huang, Q. (2017). Gen NBN™: 2020 and Beyond, the Future of a Connected Australia. Sydney: NBN Co. Ltd.
Manson, J. (2011). ‘Occupy Wall Street: A New Generation, a New Kind of Leadership’. National Catholic Reporter. Accessed 17 June 2019: https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/occupy-wall-street-new-generation-new-kind-leadership
Marshall, P. D. (1997). ‘Technophobia: Video Games, Computer Hacks and Cybernetics’. Media International Australia, 85, 70–8.
McArthur, J. A. (2009). ‘Digital Subculture: A Geek Meaning of Style’. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 33(1), 58–70.
McClintock, A. (1995). Imperial Leather: Race, Gender and Sexuality in the Colonial Contest. New York: Routledge.
McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
McQuivey, J. (2013). Digital Disruption: Unleashing the Next Wave of Innovation. Las Vegas: Amazon Publishing.
Michael, M. (2012). ‘Anecdote’. In C. Lury and N. Wakeford (eds.), Inventive Methods: The Happening of the Social, 25–35. New York: Routledge.
Milosevic, T. (2017). Protecting Children Online?: Cyberbullying Policies of Social Media Companies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nelson, B. (2016). Children’s Connected Toys: Data Security and Privacy Concerns. United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Office of Oversight and Investigations, USA. Accessed 16 May 2019: https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=797394
Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia (2013). Cybersafety for Seniors: A Worthwhile Journey. Second Interim Report: Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Party X. (2015). ‘Party X’. Accessed 28 July 2015: http://partyx.ca/
Piaget, J., and Inhelder, B. (1969). The Psychology of the Child. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Platt, A. M. (2009). The Child Savers: The Invention of Delinquency. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Richardson, I., Third, A. and McColl, I. (2007). ‘Moblogging and Belonging: New Mobile Phone Practices and Young People’s Sense of Social Inclusion’. DIMEA 2007: Second International Conference on Digital Interactive Media in Entertainment and Arts, 73–8. Perth: Murdoch University.
Ruddick, S. (2007). ‘Geographies of Young People: The Morally Contested Spaces of Identity by Stuart Aitken and Growing Up Global: Economic Restructuring and Children’s Everyday Lives by Cindi Katz’. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 97(3), 661–4.
Smith, D. (1987). The Everyday World As Problematic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Star, S. L. and Bowker, G. C. (2006). ‘How to Infrastructure’. In L. A. Lievrouw and S. Livingstone (eds), The Handbook of New Media (2nd ed.), 230–45. London: Sage.
Stiegler, B. (2010). Taking Care of Youth and the Generations. S. Barker (Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Swist, T., Hodge, B. and Collin, P. (2016). ‘“Cultural Making”: How Complexity and Power Relations are Modulated in Transdisciplinary Research’. Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 30(4), 489–501.
Third, A. (2014). Gender and the Political: Deconstructing the Female Terrorist. New York and London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Third, A. (2016a). Researching the Benefits and Opportunities for Children Online: Method Guide 6. London: Global Kids Online. Accessed 2 July 2018: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/71259
Third, A. (2016b). ‘The Tactical Researcher: Rethinking Cultural Studies Research as Pedagogy’. In A. Hickey (ed.), The Pedagogies of Cultural Studies, 98–118. London and New York: Routledge.
Third, A., Bellerose, D., Dawkins, U., Keltie, E. and Pihl, K. (2014a). Children’s Rights in the Digital Age: A Download from Children Around the World. Melbourne: Young and Well Cooperative Research Centre. Accessed 6 July 2019: https://researchdirect.westernsydney.edu.au/islandora/object/uws%3A28202
Third, A., Bellerose, D., Diniz De Oliveira, J., Lala, G. and Theakstone, G. (2017). Young and Online: Children’s Perspectives on Life in the Digital Age (The State of the World’s Children 2017 Companion Report). Sydney: Western Sydney University. Accessed 23 May 2019: https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/1334805/Young_and_Online_Report.pdf
Third, A. and Collin, P. (2016). ‘Rethinking (Children’s and Young People’s) Citizenship Through Dialogues on Digital Practice’. In A. McCosker, S. Vivienne and A. Johns (eds.), Negotiating Digital Citizenship: Control, Contest and Culture, 41–59. London: Rowman & Littlefield International.
Third, A., Forrest-Lawrence, P. and Collier, A. (2014b). Addressing the Cyber Safety Challenge: From Risk to Resilience. Melbourne: Telstra Corporation. Accessed 6 July 2019: http://www.telstra.com.au/uberprod/groups/webcontent/@corporate/@aboutus/documents/document/uberstaging_279130.pdf
Third, A., Richardson, I., Collin, P., Rahilly, K. and Bolzan, N. (2011). Intergenerational Attitudes Towards Social Networking and Cybersafety: A Living Lab. Melbourne: Cooperative Research Centre for Young People, Technology and Wellbeing. Accessed 6 July 2019: https://researchdirect.westernsydney.edu.au/islandora/object/uws:11518
Tilleczek, K. and Campbell, V.M. (eds.). (2019). Youth in the Digital Age: Paradox, Promise, Predicament. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Urry, J. (2001). ‘Globalising the Tourist Gaze’. Paper presented at the Cityscapes Conference, Graz, Austria: November 2001. Published by the Department of Sociology, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YN, UK. Accessed 17 May 2019: http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/resources/sociology-online-papers/papers/urry-globalising-the-tourist-gaze.pdf
Urry, J. (2000). Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-First Century. London: Routledge.
Valentine, G. and Holloway, S. (2001). ‘Technophobia: Parents’ and Children’s Fears About Information and Communication Technologies and the Transformation of Culture and Society’. In I. Hutchby and J. Moran-Ellis (eds.), Children, Technology and Culture: The Impacts of Technologies in Children’s Everyday Lives), 58–78. London and New York: Routledge.
van Dijck, J. (2012). ‘Facebook as a Tool for Producing Sociality and Connectivity’. Television and New Media, 13(2), 160–76.
Vargas, J. A. (2010). ‘The Face of Facebook: Mark Zuckerberg Opens Up’. The New Yorker. Accessed 2 July 2018: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/09/20/100920fa_fact_vargas?printable=true
Virilio, P. (2000). Open Sky. London: Verso.
Virilio, P. (2001). ‘Perception, Politics and the Intellectual: Interview with Paul Virilio’. In J. Armitage (ed.), Virilio Live: Selected Interviews, 82–96. London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage.
Virilio, P. (1995). The Art of the Motor. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Walsh, L. and Black, R. (2018). Rethinking Youth Citizenship after the Age of Entitlement. London: Bloomsbury Academic Publishing.
Wajcman, J. (2008). ‘Life in the fast lane? Towards a Sociology of Technology and Time’. The British Journal of Sociology, 59(1), 59–77.
Weintraub, H. (2015). ‘Youth Must Fight for 15’. The Huffington Post. Accessed 2 July 2018: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hannah-weintraub/youth-must-fight-for-15_b_6981056.html
White, R. and Wyn, J. (2004). Youth and Society: Exploring the Social Dynamics of Youth Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilken, R. and Goggin, G. (2012). ‘Mobilizing Place: Conceptual Currents and Controversies’. In R. Wilken and G. Goggin (eds.), Mobile Technology and Place, 3–25. New York and London: Routledge.
Wood, B. E. (2017). ‘Youth Studies, Citizenship and Transitions: Towards a New Research Agenda’. Journal of Youth Studies, 20(9), 1176–90.
Woodman, D. and Wyn, J. (2011). ‘Youth Research in a Changing World’. In S. Beadle, R. Holdsworth and J. Wyn (eds). For We are Young and…: Young People in a Time of Uncertainty, 5–28. Carlton, Victoria: Melbourne University Press.
Wyn, J. (2016). ‘Educating for Late Modernity’. In A. Furlong (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Youth and Young Adulthood, 91–8. New York: Routledge.
Yu, J., Wang, G., and Mu, Y. (2012). ‘Provably Secure Single Sign-On Scheme in Distributed Systems and Networks’. In G. Min, Y. Wu, L. C. (Chris) Liu, X. Jin, S. Jarvis, and A. Y. Al-Dubai (eds.). Proceedings of The 11th IEEE International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications – The 11th IEEE International Conference On Ubiquitous Computing and Communications: 25–27 June 2012 / Liverpool, United Kingdom, 271–78. Piscataway, USA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Third, A., Collin, P., Walsh, L., Black, R. (2019). Introduction. In: Young People in Digital Society. Studies in Childhood and Youth. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57369-8_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57369-8_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-57368-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-57369-8
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)