n = 400+ single country studies (600+ multi-country) see online database at
TRANSCRIPT
Iceland13
Spain25
Belgium39
France23
Estonia23
Germany84
Poland14
Ireland14
Sweden37
Norway26
UK66
The Netherlands
19
Portugal33
Italy29
Greece33 Cyprus
5
Bulgaria9
Austria27
Czech Republic15
Denmark40
Slovenia14
Iceland13
Spain25
Belgium39
France23
Estonia23
Germany84
Poland14
Ireland14
Sweden37
Norway26
UK66
The Netherlands
19
Portugal33
Italy29
Greece33 Cyprus
5
Bulgaria9
Austria27
Czech Republic15
Denmark40
Slovenia14
N = 400+ single country studies
(600+ multi-country)
See online database at
www.eukidsonline.net
Children online 6-17 years Eurobarometer surveys, 2005/2008
95
92
90
90
89
88
86
84
81
78
78
73
70
70
68
68
66
65
65
62
61
54
52
52
44
42
41
39
93
93
93
91 9
4
75
91
71
88
84
76
83
75
86 8
8
78
77
75
88 89
81
68
45
70
50
70
81
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100D
K
NL
EE
UK FI
LU
SE
BE SI
CZ
FR LV
EU
27
LT
MT
SK
AT
DE
HU PL IE PT IT ES
CY
RO
BG EL
%
2005 2008
NL
NO
DK
PT
SE
RO
AT
SI
ES
HU
EE
LU
MT
LVLT
IT
PL
EL
IESK
FR
FI
GB
IS
CZ
CY
BG
BE
DE
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Parent internet use (%) in 2008
Chi
ld in
tern
et u
se (
%)
in 2
008
Countries with less child use than parent use
Countries with more child use than parent
use
Policy context and dilemmas
UK EU USA
Recent history
Home Secretary’s Task Force for Child Protection on the Internet
The Byron Review on Children and New Technology
Safer Internet Programmes (DG InfoSoc & Media)
- Hotlines
- Awareness nodes
- Helplines
- Qual/quant research
Different legal and moral context
NCMEC – research
Present UK Council on Child Internet Safety
CEOP, IWF
Multistakeholder dialogue
Increased self/co- reg.+ new research on:
- Perpetrators
- Victims
- Incidence of risk
- Positive content
Internet Safety Technical Task Force(Attorneys general)
Dilemmas - Beyond ‘magic bullet’ solutions
- Evidence-based: what is the scale of the problem?
- Balancing self-, co- and state regulation: responsibility, proportionality?
Theory: perspectives & debates
Psychology Sociology Media/internet
Main trad.
The child:
- ages and stages
- singular, universal
- developing, becoming
- vulnerable, innocent
- needs protection
Childhood:
- structure and agency
- diverse, context-dependent
- person in own right
- skilled, sophisticated
- needs inclusion
The internet:- socially shaped- affordances not impacts- change: evolution not revolution- continuities on and offline
But … Also interest in resilience, risk-taking, social environment
‘New sociology of childhood’ underplays age, inequality, ‘at risk’ welfare provision…
Specific affordances – anonymity, speed etc.
A matter of design: defaults, conventions - law/politics/commerce
?? - Moral/ media panics (or celebration of ‘digital natives’)
- Risks and opportunities – definitions, overlaps and trade-offs
Opportunities and risks onlineContent:
Child as recipientContact:
Child as participantConduct:
child as actor
OPPS
Education learning and digital literacy
Educational resources Contact with others who share one’s interests
Self-initiated or collaborative learning
Participation and civic engagement
Global information Exchange among interest groups
Concrete forms of civic engagement
Creativity and self-expression
Diversity of resources Being invited/ inspired to create or participate
User-generated content creation
Identity and social connection
Advice (personal/ health/sexual etc)
Social networking, shared experiences with others
Expression of identity
RISKS
Commercial Advertising, spam, sponsorship
Tracking/ harvesting personal info
Gambling, illegal downloads, hacking
Aggressive Violent/ gruesome/ hateful content
Being bullied, harassed or stalked
Bullying or harassing another
Sexual Pornographic/harmful sexual content
Meeting strangers, being groomed
Creating/ uploading pornographic material
Values Racist, biased info/ advice (e.g. drugs)
Self-harm, unwelcome persuasion
Providing advice e.g. suicide/ pro-anorexia
Structure of the research field
Media environment
Mediation by parents, teachers and peers
Online activities of children
UsageAttitudes and skills
Risks and opportunities
Access
SES/inequality
Gender
Age
Individual level of analysis
ICT regulation
Educational system
Attitudes and values
Public discourse
Country level of analysis
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
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)
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
Pressing agendaScale 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
Methods, measurement, ethicsAsk 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?’
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
