1 / 16

N = 400+ single country studies (600+ multi-country) See online database at

N = 400+ single country studies (600+ multi-country) See online database at www.eukidsonline.net. Children online 6-17 years Eurobarometer surveys, 2005/2008. Policy context and dilemmas. Theory: perspectives & debates. Opportunities and risks online. Online activities of children.

oona
Download Presentation

N = 400+ single country studies (600+ multi-country) See online database at

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. N = 400+ single country studies (600+ multi-country) See online database at www.eukidsonline.net

  2. Children online 6-17 years Eurobarometer surveys, 2005/2008

  3. Policy context and dilemmas

  4. Theory: perspectives & debates

  5. Opportunities and risks online

  6. Online activities of children Access Age Risks and opportunities Gender Usage Attitudes and skills SES/inequality Mediation by parents, teachers and peers Individual level of analysis Media environment ICT regulation Public discourse Attitudes and values Educational system Country level of analysis Structure of the research field

  7. Evidence I: incidence of online risks across Europe (% online teens) • Disclosed personal information (c. 1 in 2 online teens) • Exposed to pornography (c. 4 in 10 across Europe) • Exposed to violent or hateful content (c. 1 in 3) • Been bullied/harassed (1 in 5 or 6) • Received unwanted sexual comments (1 in 10 in DE, IE, PT; 1 in 3 or 4 in IS, NO, UK, SE; rising to 1 in 2 in PL) • Met an online contact offline (c. 9% overall, rising to 1 in 5 in PL, SE, CZ) • Overall, distress/threat reported by 15-20% online teens But – risks not studied, vulnerabilities unclear, consequences unknown

  8. Evidence II:Demographic similarities in risk • Teens encounter more risks, because do more; unknown how younger kids cope • Lower SES children encounter more risks also ( cycles of disadvantage) • Boys - more porn, violent content, meetings, give out personal info • Girls – chat with strangers, unwanted sexual comments, asked for personal info • Both – harassment, bullying • Parental mediation – prefer social to technical approaches (effective?) • Less mediation for boys, teens, lower SES (compare with risk incidence) • It seems likely that internet-related skills increase with age (self-protection?) • Growing evidence of array of coping strategies (e.g., though unknown if effective)

  9. Evidence III: Qualitative research • Pleasures of communication, networking, self-expression – ‘project of the self’ • Growing need and strong desire for privacy from supervising adults/parents • Cultures of experimentation, risk taking, negotiating boundaries • Fascination with ‘adult’ themes – sex, violence, paedophiles • Routine acceptance of reality of weirdos, bullies, exploitation • Concerns – less pornography or paedophiles than viruses, scams, spam, bullying • Carefree assumption of competence in their world; others are losers

  10. Pressing agenda Scale of the problem: • Need robust indicators, incidence across demographics • Severity of risks: sexual explicitness, degree of violence, naughtiness or nastiness? • Perspective: comparison of offline (e.g. bullying) and online (e.g. cyberbullying) • Need surveys to square with clinical and law enforcement data • Identification of vulnerable (already disadvantaged or newly at risk?) New research areas: • Surveys of children (not parents on behalf of children) – younger if possible • In international policy context, need for directly comparable research • Longitudinal follow-ups – account of consequences of exposure (risk  harm?) • New risks (suicide, self-harm), and growth of user-generated content and conduct • New contexts – mobile, games, in bedrooms, beyond supervision • Challenge that victims and perpetrators can be one and the same

  11. Methods, measurement, ethics Ask a direct question without explanation – • ‘Have you ever experienced bullying online?’ • ‘How often have you accidentally visited a site with naked people (porn site)?’ • ‘How often do you view pictures of naked women or men on the internet?’ Or with an explanation – • ‘Which of the following have you personally done: Sent/received a sexually suggestive picture’ (i.e. semi-nude or nude pictures taken of oneself and not found on the internet or received from a stranger) Or only ask indirectly: • ‘Do you post images of yourself and/or personal information up online?’ • ‘Have you seen things on the internet you think your parents don’t want you to see?’ Or ask the child to make judgement – • ‘Do you think the internet makes it easier to bully?’ • ‘How common would you say this is among people your age - sending sexy messages?’

  12. Evidence-based policy recommendations • E-inclusion (rights/opportunities/positive content) • Education (schools and ICT) • Awareness-raising • Parental mediation • Media and digital literacy • Self-regulatory codes and practices • Child welfare and protection (incl. law enforcement) • The research agenda – available data and key gaps

  13. More questions than answers . . . www.eukidsonline.nets.livingstone@lse.ac.uk

More Related