The Household Internet:

Issues and Processes of Domestication

 

Tracy L.M. Kennedy

Department of Sociology

University of Toronto

 

June 2004

Draft Copy Only

 

 

 

 

 

Please do not cite without permission of the author

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract

 

 

 

 

More and more Canadians are using the Internet from the household. 62% of Canadians are now online either from home, work, school or public facilities, with 51% using the Internet from the household, and the numbers continue to grow. Given the steady increase in household Internet users, the intention of this paper is to review the current state of research regarding the Internet in the household. I contend that this research is insufficient in understanding the motivations and factors behind the household Internet, and articulates that wider socio-cultural constructions influence both the household and the uses of technology. I discuss existing Internet studies, which examines who is using the Internet, how they are using it and how the Internet is becoming domesticated. However, I argue that household Internet research needs to include the prevalence of household roles, gender, race and class roles, and the domestic division of labour, as this ultimately frames why people use the household Internet the way they do.

 

 

Introduction:

 

In September 2002, the average Canadian family spent more than 32 hours a week on the Internet (Ipsos-Reid 2002). Recently, there has been a plethora of media attention given to ‘the wired household’. A look at recent New York Times articles indicates that there is a current “buzz” surrounding the use of the Internet in the home[1]. The personal computer has become the nerve centre of the new online home, with more families reconfiguring living spaces to accommodate Internet use, and utilizing home networking systems to share access (Pastore 2002). Some researchers argue Internet use in the home is an asocial activity (Nie & Hillygus 2002). Other studies indicate that many conclusions regarding the Internet as asocial are oversimplified and do not account for societal and lifestyle changes (Anderson & Tracey 2002).

 

This increase in media articles concerning the ‘wired household’ indicates that the Internet in the home is increasing and having a significant impact on people’s daily lives. Therefore Internet research has reached a point where a detailed analysis of the household Internet is necessary. To date, there are a limited number of empirical researchers examining the intricacies of the Internet in the home at a time where Internet use has significantly shifted from the workplace to the more ‘personal’ context of the home (Cumming & Kraut 2001; Dickson & Ellison 2000). There is little discussion of why people use the Internet within the context of everyday life, especially within the framework of the household. The intention of this paper is to review research regarding the Internet in the household, and argue that this research is insufficient in understanding the motivations and factors behind the household Internet, and articulates that wider socio-cultural constructions of the household Internet should be considered. I briefly look at technological studies, and articulate the socio-cultural factors necessary when thinking about how to study technology. In particular, this framework is useful when examining the household Internet and the nature of Internet Studies to date. I next discuss existing Internet studies, which examine the following areas:

 

  1. Who uses the Internet?
  2. How do people use the Internet in general?

 

In relation to the household Internet:

 

  1. How has the Internet become domesticated?
  2. Private and Public Spheres
  3. Organizing Household Spaces

 

However, I argue that in order to truly comprehend the household Internet and how it is becoming domesticated, it is necessary to include the following situational contexts:

 

  1. Household Roles
  2. The Domestic Division of Labour

 

Additional factors such class and race also need to be examined, as these social factors also influence the structure of the household. Doing so will help us understand why people – as a diverse group - use the Internet in the home they way that they do.

 

The complexity and fluidity of household usage becomes apparent when examining social structures, and reveals the possibilities and constraints that the Internet provides for domestic relationships and households. I use the term ‘household’ to reflect the diversity of 'family' types in our society today. The term ‘family’ comes with much cultural baggage, and denotes a heterosexual nuclear family. As Eichler (1988) asserts, there is not one monolithic type of family, but many different family arrangements (depending on class and race as well as sexuality) including single parents, gay, lesbian and bisexual families, extended families and so forth. However, the notion of ‘family’ is still quite relevant within people’s lives. While there may be many different types of families, individuals are often influenced by traditional notions of what a ‘family’ should be and what they should do. Because of this, individual roles within the household reflect cultural and ideological expectations of behaviour.

 

Situating Technological Studies

Before discussing the household Internet, it is useful to consider how technology is conceptualized and why women and men use technology the way they do? ‘Technology’ is a dynamic and complex term, involving different layers of meaning (MacKenzie & Wajcman 1999). Technology is often considered merely ‘objects’ of use (such as cars, vacuum cleaners or computers) whose construction has been affected by social factors. This understanding of technology is very simplistic and narrow because it does not consider how these physical objects have a relationship to human activities. Without human activity, these objects would be nothing more than a ‘thing’ (MacKenzie & Wajcman 1999). Therefore, technology refers to human activity; something that people ‘do’, an action (a verb) (MacKenzie & Wajcman 1999). If technology is something that is performed in an active sense, then there must be an understanding of how people carry out the action, and why they do so. For example, a person who has a computer must have the ‘knowledge’ of how to use it (MacKenzie & Wajcman 1999), however this knowledge is situational depending on the individual. Before there is a physical relationship with the object, there must be an intellectual and ideological understanding otherwise the object becomes useless. Similarly, Jary & Jary (1995) define technology as:

 

The practical application of knowledge and use of techniques in productive activities. This definition reflects a sociological concern with technology as a social product, which incorporates the ‘hardware’ of human artifacts such as tools and machines and the knowledge and ideas involved in different productive activities (p678).

 

Technical things have political qualities that are embedded within the social and economic system that is context specific (Winner 1999). Technology use should be understood as a result of social processes (Henwood 1993; Game & Pringle 1984).

 

As well, some people argue that part of what makes us men and women is our relationship to technology (Cockburn 1985; Cowan 1999; Cockburn & Furst-Dilic 1994); “Gender relations shape technology and technology, in turn, shapes gender relations” (Henwood 1993: 39). However, this is deterministic, as technology does not necessarily define our identities. There are additional processes at work also such as the relationships that surround us, in addition to class, race, age that frame how we use and do not use technology. Understanding the lived experiences of technology will help in understanding the context of Internet use:

 

Technologies themselves are understood as ‘cultural products’, objects’ or ‘processes’, which take on meaning only when experienced subjectively and where those meanings will vary according to the context in which particular technologies are encountered in everyday life (Henwood 1993: 43).

 

It is this lived experience of household Internet use that should frame Internet research. While previous research has begun to address notions of the computers or the Internet in the home (Cumming & Kraut 2001; Habib & Cornford, 2001; Bakardjieva & Smith, 2001; Dryburgh 2001; Haythornewaite & Kazmer 2002), they often fail to examine these everyday lived household experiences and their implications on the relationships between men and women, social roles, the division of labour, social interaction, and relationships in the household. As a small number of researchers are beginning to consider the social contexts of household Internet use (Frohlich & Kraut 2002), they often do not connect these contexts to broader social relations such as race, class, gender and the relations of power inherent within the household.

 

Internet Studies

If technology involves an intellectual and ideological relationship, then Internet studies should also be placed within such contexts. The term ‘Cyberspace’ was created by William Gibson, a science fiction writer, in the novel Neuromancer (1984). It was used to define the computer-generated multi sensory experience of virtual reality and the globally interactive space on the Internet (Wooley, 1992). The Internet means many different things to different people. Costigan (1999) explains that the Internet cannot be captured in a singular definition. The Internet is in constant state of change, because it is created by networks and from these networks, new networks are created. These ‘network of networks’ (Craven & Wellman 1973) each has their own design and unique structure that interconnect (Costigan 1999).

 

In the early Internet days, context was often missing as ‘cyberspace’ was conceived of as that ‘other place’ people visited but which bore little relationship to the physical environment surrounding them. Early research often looked at the negative impact of the Internet on social relations, and much of these reports document either a Utopian or Dystopian view of cyberspace.  Cyberspace has become less of the ‘other’ place, and more integrated within our daily lives and routines (Wellman & Haythornthwaite 2002). A move away from dichotomous views of experiences in cyberspace, researchers began to address the integration of the Internet in our daily routines (Lessig 1999; Wallace 1999), and the convergences or overlap between physical and virtual spaces (Clement, Viseu, Aspinall & Kennedy 2003). These situational contexts of daily life change the perception and understanding of the Internet.

 

However, Canadian research regarding the Internet is still scarce. American studies of household Internet use are useful as a framework but given the diversity of the Canadian population, hardly applicable to Canada. Hampton’s (2001) neighbourhood study entitled “Netville” examines the use of the Internet within the context of community, and includes some of the ways households have adapted to having the Internet. As well, Andrew Clement’s research entitled “The Everyday Internet Project” examines the use of the Internet both within public and private spaces and the convergences of these two spheres (Viseu, Clement, Aspinal & Kennedy forthcoming 2004). Moreover, Barry Wellman has contributed much to literature concerning virtual communities on a local and ‘glocal’ scale (Wellman 2002).

 

Who uses the Internet?

Initially there was much concern over the ‘digital divides’, the ‘haves and have-nots’ in terms of access to the Internet, and the skills to use it. Understanding how exclusionary the Internet was to some people became a focus of analysis. Where the Internet was once a place where generally men dominated (Balka 1997; Spender 1995; 1997), the gender divide in terms of access has now ceased to exist with women and men on the Internet in same amounts. Other divides in terms of ethnicity (Kolko, Nakamura & Rodman 2000; Nakamura 2002), class and skill (Hargittai 2002) still exist and serve as barriers to the Internet. The plethora of literature concerning the digital divide (Kennedy, Wellman & Klement 2003; Loges & Jung 2001; Reddick 2000; Fong, Wellman, Kew & Wilkes 2001; Chen & Wellman 2004) suggests problems that concern gender, race and class with equal access, adequate skills for use and diverse usage patterns. The Internet has also been cited as a place of harassment and stalking for women and children (Bell & de la Rue 1996; Kennedy 2000; Rommes 2002). Therefore, Internet studies noted the complexity of access and use, but often did not articulate daily contexts and the implications of such on patterns of use.

 

The number of people using the Internet continues to grow. Computer Industry Almanac[2] projects that the worldwide Internet population in 2004 will be 945 million. On a Canadian scale, most recent statistics (2002) indicate that 62% of Canadians are now online either from home, work, school or public facilities, with 51% using the Internet from the household. Individuals with higher levels of education, working people with higher income, and those with children still at home are the leading users of the Internet in Canada (Statistics Canada 2002 – US Census Bureau 2000 states similar findings in the USA). This is also the case for other technology such as telephone, television and so forth (Dutton, Rodgers & Jun 1987; Dutton 1999; also the computer Murdock, Hartmann & Gray 1995). Statistics also reveal that 85% of non-Internet using households were either families without children or one-person households (Statistics Canada 2002). Family structure is important to who adopts the Internet in the household.

Table 1

Household Internet Use Rates,

By Household Income

 Income

% of households

All households

51

Lowest quartile ($23,000 or less)

25

Second quartile ($23,001 to $39,999)

40

Third quartile ($40,000 to $69,999)

62

Highest quartile ($70,000 and more)

78

*Statistics Canada 2002

 

 

Table 2

Household Internet Use Rates,

By Age

Age

% of households

All households

51

Less than 35

56

35 to 54

64

55 to 64

49

65 and over

20

*Statistics Canada 2002

 

 

Table 3

Household Internet Use Rates,

By Education

Education

% of households

All households

51

Less than high school

24

High school/college

54

University degree

76

*Statistics Canada 2002

 

Table 4

Household Internet Use Rates, By

Household Type

Household Type

% of households

All households

51

Single-family with children

70

Single-family without children

51

One-person

26

Multi-family

62

*Statistics Canada 2002

 

How do People Use the Internet?

As the number of people using the Internet continues to grow, considerable research addresses how people use the Internet in general (see Pew Internet and American Life[3]; Howard, Rainie & Jones 2002). Overall, there are four general ways of using the Internet – communication, information, recreation, and commerce. Using the Internet for communication– email and instant messaging – to keep in touch with family, friends, co-workers and peers is a popular use for the Internet (Katz & Rice 2002). Similarly searching for information and web surfing for leisure is also popular. As well, people are increasingly purchasing products and conducting their banking online. While there may be patterns of use amongst the population, Internet use is context specific depending on each individual person (Nie, Hillygus & Erbring 2002), there is no monolithic Internet. That is to say that where people use the Internet (home, work, school, public places) is important, as is what is going on in the life of the Internet user. There is a clear sense of how people use the Internet, but not why. Convenience and ease of use are certainly factors, but there is much more to it. For this reason, looking at the household context provides insight into how social structures shape Internet use.

 

The Domestic Internet

Studies such as the HomeNet Project (1995-1997)[4] illustrate that communication, information and leisure are the most popular uses of the household Internet. Within Canada, Internet usage patterns are similar to the USA, with a growing number of households accessing the Internet from home. Canadian Internet use is highest from home, with 62% of households using the Internet at least once a day on average from home (Statistics Canada 2002). Of those households, the most popular uses of the Internet are email (95%), general browsing (90%), searching for medical or health information (64%) and travel information and arrangements (59%). Given that Canadians are taking advantage of the many affordances the Internet offers, Canadian Internet studies at this time needs to focus not only on how the household shapes Internet use, but also on the implications of the Internet on the household, and also ask why people are using the Internet in the household the way they do?

 

 

Table 5

Households Using The Internet From Home By Purpose Of Use

Regular Home-use Households

Purpose of Use

%

Email

95

General Browsing

90

Medical/Health Information

64

Travel Information/arrangements

59

Government Information

57

View the News

53

Electronic Banking

51

Playing Games

50

*Statistics Canada 2002

 

 

Understanding the domestication of technology in general is well documented (Cowan 1983; 1987; 1999). However, the domestication of the Internet is still in its early stage (Singh 2001), and has not been analyzed in the same amount or in the same framework as other technology. Much of the current literature concerns the computer, how it “found a place within the domestic sphere, and how it (is) appropriated by family members” (Habib & Cornford 2001; 130), as this was prior to the surge of the Internet in the late 1990s. Regardless, this literature is pertinent to how the household Internet is similarly becoming domesticated.

 

The introduction of computers in the home in the 1980s (Frohlich & Kraut 2002; Lally 2002) notes the changing nature of its use. In the 1980s the few home computers that existed were used for word processing, tele-work, bringing work home and children’s games (Venkatesh 1996). However, in the 1990s it is evident that the nature of computer use changed and adapted to the household, as it became domesticated; education, family communication, family recreation and travel, shopping and domestic finances were common computer uses (Venkatesh 1996). The domestic computer is often discussed in relation to other household technologies as a “domestic media ensemble” (Moores 1993; Haddon & Silverstone 1993; Silverstone & Hirsh 1992). This is also the case with the introduction of the Internet into the household. The household Internet became both a communal activity as well as an individual one, and diverse for everyone.

 

Literature concerning the Internet in the home is often framed around how it has become ‘domesticated’, though this term seems to mean different things to different researchers, and through different processes. What does it really mean? Domesticating something (an animal or person) denotes discipline, taming or civilizing, or making something fit for life in the home or participate in society (Habib & Cornford 2001). Domestication can be conceptualized as shaping the use of technology in order to fit the household, which eventually becomes embedded and almost invisible (Rommes 2002). It is the way technology influences a user, and the user influences technology (Rommes 2002). Information and Communication Technologies are often ‘domesticated’ to serve people’s own values and interests (Dutton 1999). This indicates that domestication of the Internet can vary from household to household, but is also “never finished and always under contestation” (van Zoonen 2002), and is a continual site of cultural struggle over the meaning of the machine and what it should be used for (Murdock, Hartmann & Gray 1995). There is a need to better understand the process of domestication that situates all technology in diverse ways within the household (Silverstone 1993). “All in all, the domestication approach seems suitable to analyze the ‘mechanisms of adjustments’ that take place between users and a new technology” (Rommes 2002; 213).

 

Private and Public Spheres

The domestication of technology in the household is situated within cultural and material contexts, and the Internet is no exception (Silverstone 1993). Cultural and material contexts involve both private and public spaces. The Internet in the household often works to blur and overlap these two separate boundaries, an interweaving of domestic and public discourses (Morely & Silverstone 1990). Public and private spheres are often situated as dichotomous both within feminist literature, and within Internet studies (Morrison, Brown, Hemmings & Svennevig 2000). The family is an inside ‘private’ space, often untouchable or removed from the outside modern word. 

 

In the physical world, men tend to be situated in the masculine public sphere – work and government – whereas women tend to be situated in the feminine private sphere – family and sexuality (Lorber, 2001). This public/private split reflects the basic structure of the ‘gendered social order’ that is pervasive in people’s lives -- both physically and virtually (Lorber, 2001: 22). Because of this perception of the private sphere, the Internet in the household is often subsumed under general Internet use and ignored.

 

The Private Sphere

Looking at television studies might be useful for studies concerning household Internet use and private spaces. For example, there are different viewing patterns between men and women, where men perceive the home as a ‘haven’ from outside work and a place for leisure activities (Morely 1987). Women however, perceive the home is a place of additional work with little time for leisure or escape, and therefore viewing patterns are often associated with guilt (Morely, 1987). Technology in the private sphere is connected with different experiences of leisure and relaxation (Frissen 1992). This might not be totally untrue for household Internet use. The problem is, little research examines the household Internet in the ways television or the telephone are examined. These analyses are valuable.

 

Examining New Communication Technologies (prior to the Internet) in relation to the private sphere has been framed around women working at home in the instances of tele-work (Gurstein 2001; Armstrong 1997). Tele-work allows women to work from home with a flexible schedule, one that permits them to continue with their domestic responsibilities. Much of this work is low-paid with no benefits, and no protection (such as unions) for workers (Frissen 1992). What is useful from the tele-work literature is the notion of technology use in addition to other household responsibilities, and the time arrangements that are made in relation to domestic work in the private sphere – the public and private restructuring (Salaff 2002). The private domestic space for women is a working space, not one of leisure, and the boundaries between work and leisure are therefore unclear (Frissen 1992). This is significant to contextualizing household Internet use.

 

Another instance of situating Internet use within the private sphere is communication. Communicating through the Internet is not only an example of gendered use of the Internet (see later discussion), but also how household roles are split into public and private spheres. Email is a useful way to sustain relationships within private spaces. Howard, Rainie & Jones (2001) argue “that use of email helps people build their social networks by extending and maintaining friend and family relationships” (p1). The Internet is often utilized to extend social networks and allow people to stay in touch with family and friends.

 

However it is primarily women who do the communicating (Kennedy et al 2003; Boneva & Kraut 2002; Pew 2000). As women tend to use the Internet to reinforce existing personal relationships, they are therefore reinforcing their private lives (Shade 2004). Women utilize the Internet to cultivate relationships with their family and friends (Pew Internet and American Life 2000). Women are the ‘kin-keepers’ in relationships (Kennedy, Wellman & Klement 2003), more so then men, which is reflected within how they use the Internet primarily for communication with family and friends (Cumming & Kraut 2001). This is also reflected in other technologies, such as the manner in which women adopted the telephone (Rakow 1988; 1992; Moyal 1992). Internet communication also allows people, particularly women at home, to overcome isolation, as the Internet has the potential to expand sociability (Bakardjieva & Smith 2001).

 

It is not sufficient to say then that communication is a gendered role, but rather this needs to be understood within expectations of the private sphere, both within relationships and the household. Households situate their technologies in diverse ways “creating private meanings (redefining public ones) in their positioning, patterns of use and display” (Morely & Silverstone 1990: 35). Knowledge of the private domain, and the role that women and men play (Frissen 1992) is key to understanding the development of the household Internet.

 

The Public Sphere

Literature concerning technologies in public spaces often addresses the work and labour force, with men heavily involved with computers and informatics (Frissen 1992). Men’s Internet use is located within the public sphere. As men are the information seekers, they engage more so with the public sphere (Shade 2004). While women are more apt to maintain relationships, men spend more time looking for information. Men use the Internet as a source of information more than women do, consistent with the ongoing suggestion in the gender literature that men are more task oriented than the more socially oriented women (Kennedy, Wellman & Klement 2003). As well, men are responsible for managing household finances through the Internet, which is also located outside domestic spaces (Kennedy, Wellman & Klement 2003).

 

It is not clear if setting up such a duality of private and public is effective when examining the household Internet. The prevalence of household technology can influence the traditional divisions between public and private spaces (Frissen 1992), however Internet research in this respect is scarce. It appears that there can be a blurring or overlap, especially with information coming into the home. As technology has often being considered as part of a male-dominated culture in the public sphere where women were often excluded (Frissen 1992; Cushing 1996; Davidson & Cooper 1987), the movement of the Internet into the household, with an equal amount of women and men using it seems to distort the dichotomy of public and private spaces.

 

The progression of domesticating of the Internet needs to include the processes within the household that shapes how and why people use the Internet in the home they way they do.  Studies concerning the television have argued that television viewing needs to be understood “within the broader context of a range of domestic practices” (Morely & Silverstone 1990: 34), a useful suggestion for Internet studies.

 

Organizing Household Spaces

The presence of the Internet in the household has called for considerations on where to put it. New homes are being constructed are beginning to reflect the prevalence of the computer and Internet, indicating that the Internet is indeed becoming domesticated (Dutton 1999), with changes in the design of houses reflect cultural changes (Frohlich & Kraut 2002). The experiences and contexts outside the household will also ultimately affect the structure of the home itself (Haddon 1999).

 

As well, the choices of technology use – such as telephones, Personal Computers and televisions - in the home and where they are located are determined by beliefs and attitudes about household organization, which is greatly determined by one’s culture, socioeconomic status and ethnicity (Dutton 1999). Even the choice of Internet connection – dial-up, high-speed phone or cable, wireless and so forth - is also dependant on this. Similar arguments have been made about other technologies such as the television. The physical position of televisions in the household, the incorporation of it into the daily routine and how it is incorporated into private and domestic lives will differ among individuals and households (Morely & Silverstone1990).

 

Internet space is constructed in ways that suit the household, however, external factors are also influential. Therefore, there are multitudes of ways to use the Internet in the home, depending on the household members. The size of the home, presence of children, whether a household member is working or running a business from home, and a household member’s perception of the appropriateness of the Internet in various rooms will affect where the Internet is located (Frohlich & Kraut 2002).

 

Where to place the computer, either in a private office in the home, or a communal space, will greatly affect who uses it, and when (Frohlich & Kraut 2002; Haddon & Skinner 1991; Aro & Peteri 2003). When the personal computer is placed in a husband’s private office space, it deters his spouse and children from using it (Haddon & Skinner 1991). Gendering of technology and space is common within the home (Dutton 1991; Frohlich & Kraut 2002). Similarly, if the computer (with Internet) is placed in a parent’s or child’s bedroom, it is often difficult for other household members to have access to it, for example when they are sleeping (Frohlich & Kraut 2002).

 

Some household spaces are more conducive to social interaction with other household members (Frohlich & Kraut 2002). Households are likely to put the Internet in communal areas such as the dining room, family room, spare room or basement (Frohlich & Kraut 2002). As well, other places are more semi-private such as a study in which all household members can access it (Frohlich & Kraut 2002). The place where households put their household Internet signifies its importance in their lives, from communication centre (Rommes 2002), to information centre in the library (Aro & Peteri 2003).

 

Location of the household Internet in spaces that are available to others, or in areas where other household technologies may be (such as the television) also influences notions of privacy and concentration (Frohlich & Kraut 2002). While communal spaces allows for easy monitoring of children’s activities, it also allows everyone else to easily view what parents and spouses may be doing. Under the gaze of others, searching for information or communicating with others may be limited. For household members working from home or doing school work, loud communal spaces may not be as useful as a more private space.

 

Having the Internet in a household space is also often difficult for people who bring work home, or are doing work online. Interruptions by household members can be commonplace, where other household members may not understand the boundaries between work and home when the work is being done at home (Haythornewaite & Kazmer 2002). Finding a quiet place to work, and negotiating household responsibilities becomes tricky for those household members doing work or school at home.

 

Internet use in communal spaces can be beneficial for household members in that more time is spent together. While Robert Putnam (2000) suggests that computers are partly responsible for the decline of social interaction between family members, research indicates that this is not the case (Anderson & Tracey 2002; Frohlich & Kraut 2002). More and more family are spending time on the Internet together in the family-hub (if that is where the Internet is located) (Frohlich & Kraut 2002; Lally 2002). However, what is not commonly known is what they are doing or why. Web surfing together is common (though it is not clear what they are surfing for), whereas communicating is a more personal and private activity (Frohlich & Kraut 2002).

 

The location of the computer (with Internet access) must “fit in with cultural and family norms regarding the use of different rooms in the house, its appearance and image must be consistent with the décor of the room and the personality of its users” (Frohlich & Kraut 2002: 6). What becomes unclear is why households choose to place the Internet where they do, and whether the location changed in any way, and for what reason. Given that these diverse contexts of organizing space for the household Internet are recognized, they are rarely researched with any great detail. Household spaces are being reorganized to accommodate the Internet, but what also needs to be considered is how this technology might be intrusive to the household, or how household members navigate and organize themselves around the Internet (Ward 2002).

 

Contextualizing Household Internet Use

As discussed, much of the existing literature concerning the Internet in the household concerns who and how people use the Internet, public and private spheres, and the organization of space. The context of household Internet use is still not clear and not fully developed. What is it that is going on within the household that influence how people use the Internet they way they do? There is a clear gap in much of the literature. There are two particular areas that should be considered in order to contextualize the household Internet. The first is household roles – interactions and relationships shaped by societal expectations and social roles (gender, class and race). The second is the domestic division of labour – who is responsible for domestic jobs and how does this influence household Internet use? The household becomes an important site for cultural production (Ribak 2001), which influences the context of how the Internet is used and perceived.

 

Household Roles

What must first be understood about household Internet use are the roles or the expectations that people have of one another in the household. Roles within the home are gendered, raced and classed, and are often reinforced and strengthened through social interaction between people (West & Zimmmerman 1987). For example, there are existing social arrangements, cultural conditions and practices that surround household technologies (Ribak 2001), and the Internet in the household must be examined with this in mind. Examining how the household Internet is becoming domesticated should also address how a technology shapes, and becomes a part of one’s gender identity, and how women and men often relate to stereotypical images of gender identity (such as men being technologically competent) (Rommes 2002).

 

Women utilize the Internet in ways that reflect their everyday gendered roles (Shade 2004), and household roles. Women maintain social networks by remembering birthdays, holidays, contacting friends and relatives and organizing get-togethers (Wellman & Wellman 1992), reflected also in the virtual world. This is their ‘private’ household role delegated to them inside the household (Singh 2001). Therefore, the expectations of roles in relationships, and ultimately gender roles, greatly influence how women and men use the Internet in the household and shapes how they interact with one another. Within daily social interaction, “asking spouses to bring milk home” (Hampton & Wellman 1999:6) illustrates the influence of domestic roles on the household Internet. It also affects the relationships of other members in the household such as children. The role of the Internet in the household in terms of creating, reinforcing and perpetuating gendered relationships and identity is also important, as are the intergenerational relationships between parents and children (Ribak 2001). Household roles affect household Internet use, however, the presence of the Internet in the household also works to affect its members. This complex relationship is not examined with any depth.

 

Of particular importance in looking at relationships between household members are also relations of power – both in the instances between parents, and parents and children, but also those who have more Internet skills then others. It is often stated that women are less comfortable with technology than men (Ribak 2001; Singh 2001; Faulkner 2001; Wajcman 1991), thereby leaving technological ‘fix-its’ to others or using it less. Women have often been excluded from the design, production and use of technology (Frissen 1992; Franklin 1990). What do these relations of power look like in today’s household? The skills of children cannot be ignored either. Children’s knowledge of the Internet often surpasses that of their parents. In cases where households have only one computer, relations of power, based on skill or comfort, has an impact on the amount of time household members might spend on the Internet and who feels they are entitled to use it more. While there might be a power relationship between parents regulating children’s use, the power is reversed when children are able to maintain, modify the household Internet (Frohlich & Kraut 2002).

 

As well, competition and struggle (Ribak 2001) over the household Internet needs to be considered. Hierarchies of access and time available for household members will ultimately affect its use. Issues such as who can get on the Internet, at what time, and for how long is just as significant as what they do once they are online (Frohlich & Kraut 2002). The question becomes what type of use by various household members is most important? Is this contingent on household roles? Internet use based on work/school becomes prioritized over leisure, with many households accepting this hierarchy (Ribak 2001). What is not entirely apparent is how these practices are established, how they are negotiated or how they change over time. Are households with one computer scheduling Internet time? If so, what is this process and who is responsible? The co-ordination and scheduling of Internet use is rather fuzzy; is there a daily routine or is it unpredictable (Frohlich & Kraut 2002)? As well, how prevalent is the existence of multiple computers with Internet access points in the home? Can multiple computers with Internet access address issues of contention among household members? Does this promote more individual use rather than collective household use?

 

Parental roles are also important. The presence of children in the household adds to the responsibility of parents in terms of Internet use. Concern over what children may be doing online, and how much time they spend playing games, surfing or chatting becomes an issue for many parents. There is little detail on who is responsible for children’s Internet use with the household. One could speculate that women may be more responsible because they are primary caregivers. However, it can also be said that men might be responsible for governing household technology such as the Internet (as technology is said to be masculine). It is difficult to say, as there is little research on whether one parent is solely responsible, but instead studies generally discuss the parents collectively (Frohlich & Kraut 2002).

 

The Domestic Division of Labour

Household roles encompass not only gender roles, but also the roles of parents and children. However, these roles are also framed by domestic labour. The word domestic is often associated with unpaid work in the household or ‘homemaking’ that is divided by the different jobs that women and men do (Habib & Cornford 2001). Domestic labour – unpaid work – involves such tasks as cooking, cleaning, washing, shopping, emotional care of husband and childcare (Wajcman 1991). The household division of labour often presumes that women are responsible for this domestic work (West & Zimmerman, 1987), as gender is important in household maintenance and how domestic work is allocated (Van Every, 1997). Women do more work in the home than men (Shelton & John 1996; Hochschild 1989; Luxton 1980; Robinson & Godbey 1997), and the amount of domestic work increases for women with the presence of spouses and children (Wajcman 1991; McMahon 1999). Men are considered ‘helpers’ rather than ‘sharers’ in the domestic sphere (McMahon 1999) indicating that domestic work is still perceived as women’s responsibility. Shelton & John (1996) state that although relative resources, time constraints and ideology affect the division of household labour, gender is still the key determinant.

 

Table 6

Average Time Spent On Activities,

By Sex

Avg. Hours Per Day

 Activity                                                  Female           Male

Paid Work

7.1

8.2

Unpaid work

4.6

3.2

Household work and related activities

4.3

2.8

Cooking and washing up

1.3

0.7

Housekeeping

1.8

1.5

Maintenance and repair

2.0

2.7

Other household work

1.1

1.6

Shopping for goods and services

1.9

1.8

Child care

2.4

1.8

Free Time

5.7

6.1

*Statistics Canada 2002

 

Canadian statistics (Statistics Canada 2002) confirm that women do more unpaid work then men do. In an average day, women spend 4.6 hours on unpaid work, where as men spend 3.2 hours. As well, women spend more time on household work (4.3 hrs) then men do (2.8 hrs), and more time on childcare (2.4 hrs) then men (1.8). Similarly, with household tasks that are more masculine (such as maintenance and repair), men spend a daily average of 2.7 hours, compared to women’s 2 hours. Considering the differences between women and men on time spent on household responsibilities, it is worthwhile to consider what the implications are on household Internet use. The interactive processes between husband and wife, and the gender ideology (Komter 1989) that rests within the home, are important factors to consider when examining the domestic division of labour. While not every household is identical (Hochschild 1989), and depending on race and class (McMahon 1999; Cohn 2000; Calliste 1996) there are overwhelming similarities between heterosexual households.

 

Examining the Internet in the home must include a look at social contexts of individual household Internet experiences. For example, feminist literature concerning technology in the home is often useful as a framework because it focuses on the importance of social roles, the hierarchy of these roles, and the relationships of power between women and men in relation to technological skills and use (Cowan 1983; 1987; 1999). There are often expectations that technology in the home (domestic technology) will be labour and time saving devices that alleviate women’s domestic responsibilities, but his has not been the case (Wajcman 1991). As the Internet in the household has been discussed within the context of ‘domestication’, it is useful to consider some of these previous arguments concerning domestic technology - washing machine, microwave, dishwasher and so forth - and how these affect household members.

 

Wajcman (1991) discusses changes in the household labour force that are a result of household industrialization, signifying a change in ideologies of housewifery. Domestic labour became associated with romantic love and maternal affection, so that with the arrival of household technology, women were not freed from their domestic roles of housework and childcare as expected. Furthermore, she argues that women were not inventors and designers of household technology, but merely presented as unskilled consumers and users, and the gender identities were not changed by use of machines.

 

Therefore, domestic technology ultimately reproduces ideas of appropriate femininity (and masculinity), and often reflects technologies that require less technical skill to use and operate. The structure of the household division of labour tends to produce technologies that replicate the status quo rather than challenge them. Is the household Internet any different? If indeed the Internet has become ‘domesticated’, we need to consider what this really means to household members, and whether the household Internet exacerbates gender stereotypes and the domestic division of labour, or challenge them. The household Internet may provide an opportunity to contest household roles, the division of labour, and the expectations that women possess less technological skills.

 

How does this affect women and men’s household Internet use? If early domestic technology did in fact increase the productivity of housework (though standards and expectations of women increased as well), then does the household Internet also increase the amount of domestic labour and raise standards? Domestic work is declining (Wajcman 1991), yet it is important to consider the changing nature of domestic work and what it entails. What further expectations are there upon women and men in the household with the presence of the Internet?

 

Given that women are primarily responsible for domestic labour, women will have less time for Internet use. In terms of time available, women with children spend less time communicating and searching for information then men do (Kennedy, Wellman & Klement 2003). Time is an important factor when considering household Internet use. Various time use studies (Robinson & Godbey 1997; Robinson 1988) illustrate time available for household members in respect to daily and leisure activities. Domestic labour takes time, and therefore less time is available for those responsible for domestic work. Previous research has shown that both women and men with children at home spend less time talking on the phone, reading a newspaper, watching television and attending cultural events (Robinson & Godbey, 1997). Since women are primary caregivers of children in the home, then Internet use in the home should reflect this status. For example, seeking support from other mothers, offering support through email, list servs and instant messaging is important to mothers (Miyata, 2002; Bakardjieva & Smith 2001). However, this is dependant on whether women perceive the Internet as a ‘personal and intimate medium’ (Singh 2001). Women who do not perceive it as such, will be less inclined to use the Internet for communication and will favour face-to-face communication (Singh 2001).

 

Furthermore, women and men utilize the Internet differently within the household. Women’s use of technology the household is often functional so that work is done more efficiently and quickly (Frissen 1992). Women tend to use it more instrumentally in such instances of helping children with homework and communicating with family and friends, using it as a tool (Singh 2001). Women are less concerned with mastering the technology or using it for recreation – a toy - then men are (Singh 2001; Turkle 1984). Therefore, gender and household roles play an important role in household Internet use. Needless to say, class and race are important as well, yet these are rarely discussed as contextual within the literature.

 

As well, the kinds of information that women seek online could also reflect their caregiver status. More women than men seek health information online, with women twice as likely to seek health information for their children (Shade 2004: 62). Women’s role as caregiver is clearly reflected in the kinds of information they seek online. However, the literature does not seem to make the connection between domestic responsibilities and Internet use, or does not present it as important or relevant.  It is difficult to establish exactly what the contributing factors might be, yet household roles and responsibilities must be considered when researching the domesticated Internet.

 

Women and men are not necessarily victims of household arrangements and domestic responsibilities. While household roles and the division of labour within the home is clearly influential to how the Internet is used, there is certainly room for transgressing expectations. As the drive towards “smart homes” (Berg 1999), “digital homes” increases, there will be changes within the household, both with the presence of new technologies and with changing dynamics of its members. Will the sexual division of labour be re-divided in the “wired home”?

 

Much of the discussion so far has concerned how household roles and domestic responsibilities can shape Internet use. What also needs to be considered is the ‘flip-side’ or how the presence of Internet in the home has changed or challenged the current structure of the home. For example, De Hann & Huysman (2002) argue “home Internet users spend two hours less on paid work and almost two hours less on childcare and domestic tasks…” (p83), and claim that Internet users have more free time than non-users. However, it is not clear why; does using the Internet in the household save time on other tasks? Do households lower their cleanliness standards? It is difficult to say. Other researchers illustrate parents who are users of the Internet spend more time on childcare, less time sleeping, and more time on hobbies (Fu, Wang & Qiu 2002). Some researchers (Cranmer 2000; Livingstone 1992; Wheelock 1992) have examined how individuals negotiate (and re-negotiate) their gender identity in relation to technology and other household members, which is important to understanding the reciprocal relationship between people and (in this case) the Internet.

 

There is much that is not known about household Internet use. In particular, little is known about household members that stop using the Internet all together; “In 2002, 896, 000 households indicated that a member of the household either used the Internet infrequently, or had pulled the plug entirely” (Statistics Canada 2002). Almost half of these households have a home computer, and stated that they had no need or use for it, or found it too costly. What we do not know is what their needs are, or why the Internet did not prove useful to them.

 

Conclusions

The intention of this paper is to examine the current state of knowledge regarding household Internet use. I argue that one’s relationship with technology based on socio-cultural expectations is important. Existing literature focuses on who uses the Internet, how often and in what way, but little on why within the household context. As well, the current notion of domesticating the Internet within the context of private spaces is also documented. However as argued, Internet studies need to go beyond these simplistic frameworks. The existence of roles and expectations, formulated around gender, race and class, and the division of labour are clearly factors that must be examined to understand household Internet use. Research concerning technology such as the telephone and the television are useful when thinking about Internet studies. When studying a domestic technology, domestic context is important: “It also requires attention to similarities and differences between families and households and an understanding of their place in the wider culture and society, where issues of class, ethnicity, ideology and power define (should they be forgotten) the materials of the everyday-life world” (Morley & Silverstone 1990: 34).

 

If the household Internet is to be understood in terms of its complexity, then additional factors must be considered as well. As indicated, households vary within homogenous groups. What also needs to be reflected upon is how class and race (Nelson, Tu & Hines 2001) may alter the arrangements of households and ultimately Internet use. For example, African-Americans differ in their general Internet activities then European Americans (Pew Internet and American Life 2000). Importantly, African-Americans utilize the Internet for practical information pertinent to their lives, with boundless knowledge at their fingertips. As Internet skills play an important part of use and access (Hargittai 2002), African-Americans often feel at a computer and Internet disadvantage because of their skill level (HomeNet 2 1998-99), and are concerned about feeling inadequate.

 

As well, the second HomeNet Study (1998-99) reveals how household Internet use is different for low-income families. An interesting finding in the HomeNet 2 Study is the use of the Internet to communicate. The decrease in phone bill costs due to Internet communication was very important to some of their participants. Therefore, the motivations of low-income families can differ greatly than those in a higher income bracket. Moreover, the Internet as a source of information gave parents a sense of opportunity for their children and ‘leveling of the playing field’: “This is the future of our kids, this is what the world’s going to; to survive, our future is right here” (Jackson, Barbatsis, Biocca, Zhao, Ey & Fitzgerald 2002 – HomeNet2[5]). Moreover, Canadian statistics illustrate that of the 3.8 million households that have never used the Internet, 47% of non-users earned below-average household income (Statistics Canada 2002). Income plays an important role with household Internet use. 

 

The household Internet is used in different ways for household members, and varies from household to household. As Frissen (1992) states: “One of the ways to understand these differences is to study the specific ways technologies are introduced and incorporated into everyday life and the role they play in the social dynamics of the domestic scene” (p44). Additional research using interviews and ethnography would be useful in understanding the modern household and Internet use, and would situate broader processes into the domestic context (Morely & Silverstone 1990). As Shade (2004) argues, quantitative data only presents a snap shot of the big picture in terms of the factors affecting household Internet use. How do social meanings of the household Internet come into being?

 

Therefore, the goal of future Internet studies should move beyond quantifying and predicting Internet use (Singh 2001), to a more comprehensive analysis that involves recognizing the contexts – both micro and macro - of household Internet use. Though given in the context of the home computer, this quote is particularly effective when thinking about household Internet use:

 

We will also need to look for better ways of linking these micro processes to the wider economic, social and symbolic formations that surround and shape them. We need more sensitive explorations of the continual traffic between public and private, interiors and exteriors... (Murdock, Hartmann & Gray 1995: 281)

 

 

 

References

 

Anderson, B. & Tracey, K. (2002) The Impact (or Otherwise) of the Internet on Everyday

British Life. In B. Wellman and C Haythornthwaite (eds.), The Internet in Everyday Life (pp 139-163). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

 

Armstrong, N.J. de F. (1997). Negotiating the boundaries between ‘home’ and ‘work’: a

case study of teleworking in New Zealand. In E. Gunnarsson (ed) Virtually Free? Gender, Work and Spatial Choice (pp 175-200). Stockholm: NUTEK.

 

Aro, J. & Peteri, V. (2003). “Constructing Computers at Home” Conference Paper,

Association for Internet Researchers, Toronto, Ontario.

 

Balka, E. (1997). Computer Networking: Spinsters on the Web. Ottawa: CRIAW

Publications.

 

Bakardjieva, M. & Smith, R. (2001). The Internet in Everyday Life: Computer

Networking from the Standpoint of the Domestic User. New Media and Society, Vol 3 (1): 67-83.

 

Bell, V. &  de la Rue, D. (1996). 'Gender Harassment on the Internet': Georgia State

University College of Law. http://www.gsu.edu/~lawppw/lawand.papers/harass.html

 

Berg, A. (1999). A gendered socio-technical construction: the smart house. In D.

MacKenzie & J. Wajcman (eds), The Social Shaping of Technology (pp. 301-313). Philadelphia: Open University Press.

 

Boneva, B. & Kraut, R. (2002). Email, Gender and Personal Relationships. In (eds.) B.

Wellman and C Haythornthwaite (eds.), The Internet in Everyday Life (pp 372-403). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

 

Calliste, A. (1996). Black families in Canada: Exploring the interconnections of race,

class, and gender. In M. Lynn (ed.) Voices: Essays on Canadian Families (pp. 243-270). Toronto: Nelson.

 

Chen, W. & Wellman, B. (2004). Charting Digital Divides: Comparing Socioeconomic,

Gender, Life Stage, and Rural-Urban Internet Access and Use in Five Countries. To appear in W. Dutton, B. Kahin, R. O'Callaghan, & A. Wyckoff (eds.), Transforming Enterprise.  Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

 

Clement, A., Viseu, A., Aspinal, J. & Kennedy, T. (2003). Public Access, Personal

Privacy And Media Interweaving In Everyday Internet Experiences: Exploring Current Policy Concerns Via A 'Neighbourhood Ethnography’. In L. Shade & M. Moll (eds.), Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

 

Cockburn, C. (1985). Machinery of dominance: women, men and technical know how.

London: Pluto Press.

 

Cockburn, C. & Furst-Dilic, R. (1994). Bringing Technology Home: Gender and

Technology in a Changing Europe. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

 

Cohn, S. (2000). Race, Gender and Discrimination at Work. Boulder, CO: Westview

Press.

 

Costigan, J. T. (1999) Forest, Trees, and Internet Research. In S. Jones (ed.), Doing

Internet Research: Critical Issues and Methods for Examining the Net (pp. xvii-xxiii). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

 

Cowan, R.S. (1983). More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology from

the Open Hearth to the Microwave. New York: Basic Books.

 

Cowan, R.S. (1987). The Consumption Junction: A Proposal for Research Strategies in

the Sociology of Technology. In W.E. Bijker, T.P. Hughes and T.J. Pinch (eds.), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (pp 261-280).  Cambridge: MIT Press.

 

Cowan, R.S. (1999). The Industrial Revolution in the Home. In D. MacKenzie & J.

Wajcman (eds), The Social Shaping of Technology (pp. 269-300). Philadelphia: Open University Press.

 

Cranmer, S. (2000). Gender, Family use and the Internet.

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/suejcranmer/UELfinal.pdf

 

Craven, P. & Wellman, B. (1973). The Network City. Sociological Inquiry, 43: 57-88.

 

Cumming, J. & Kraut, R. (2001). Domesticating Computer and the Internet.  The

Information Society. http://homenet.hcii.cs.cmu.edu/progress/domesticating-computers-21.pdf

 

Cushing, P.J. (1996). Gendered Conversational Rituals on the Internet: An Effective

Voice is Based on More than Simply What One is Saying. Anthropologica, 38, 1, 47-80.

 

Davidson, M. & Cooper, C. (1987). Women and Information Technology. New York:

         John Wiley & Sons.

 

De Haan, J. and Huysmans. F. (2002). Differences In Time Use Between Internet Users

and Nonusers In The Netherlands. It and Society Vol 1, Issue 2: 67-85. www.itandsociety.org

 

 

Dickson, P. & Ellison, J. (2000). Plugging In: The Increase of Household Internet Use

Continues into 1999. Statistics Canada Report, Connectedness Series. http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/56F0004MIE/56F0004MIE2000001.pdf

 

Dryburgh, H. (2001). Changing Our Ways: Why and How Canadians use the Internet.

Statistics Canada Publication.

http://www.statcan.ca/cgi-bin/downpub/listpub.cgi?catno=56F0006XIE

 

Dutton, W. (1999). Society In the Line: Information Politics in the Digital Age. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

 

Dutton, W., Rogers, E.M. & Jun, S. (1987). Diffusion and Social Impacts of Personal

Computers.  Communication Research, 14(2), April, 219-50.

 

Eichler, M. (1988). Families in Canada Today. Toronto: Gage Publishing.

 

Faulkner, W. (2001). The Technology Question in Feminism: A View from Feminist

Technology Studies. Women’s Studies International Forum, 24(1), pp. 79-95.

 

Fong, E., Wellman, B., Kew, M. & Wilkes, R. (2001). Correlates of the Digital Divide:

Individual, Household and Spatial Variation. Report to Office of Learning Technologies, Human Resources Development Canada. http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/publications/digitaldivide/digital-report2d.htm

 

Franklin, U. (1990). The Real World of Technology. Toronto: Anansi Press.

 

Frissen, V. (1992). Trapped in electronic cages? Gender and new information

technologies in the public and private domain: an overview of research. Media, Culture & Society, Vol 14, 31-49.

 

Frohlich, D. & Kraut, R. (2002). The social context of home computing.  Inside the Smart

Home. http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2003/HPL-2003-70.pdf

 

Fu, S., Wang, R. & Qiu, Y. (2002). Daily Activity and Internet Use in Dual-Earner

Families: A Weekly Time-Diary Approach. It & Society, Vol. 1, Issue 2, Fall 2002, 37-43. http://www.ITandSociety.org

 

Game, A. & Pringle, R. (1984). Gender at Work. George Allen & Unwin Australia Pty

Ltd, North Sydney.

 

Gibson, W. (1984). Neuromancer. Mass Market Paperback

 

Gurstein, P. (2001). Wired To The World, Chained To The Home: Telework In Daily Life.

Vancouver: University of British Columbia.

 

Habib, L. & Cornford, T. (2001). “Computers in the Home: Domestic Technology and

the Process of Domestication” presented at the European Conference on Information Systems, Bled, Slovenia, June 2001. http://is.lse.ac.uk/Staff/cornford/downloads%20and%20pdfs/bled.pdf

 

Haddon, L. (1999). Gender and the Domestication of the Home Computer: A Look Back.

In W.H. Dutton (ed.) Society on the Line: Information Politics in the Digital Age (pp 353-54). New York: Oxford University Press.

 

Haddon, L. & Silverstone, R. (1993). Teleworking in the 1990s: A View from the Home.

SPRU/CICT Report Series, No.10, University of Sussex, Falmer.

 

Haddon, L. & Skinner, D. (1991). The Enigma of the Micro: Lessons from the British

Home Computer Boom. Social Science Computer Review, 435-49.

 

Hampton, K.N. (2001). 'Living the Wired Life in the Wired Suburb: Netville,

Glocalization and Civic Society' Doctoral dissertation, Department of Sociology.

Toronto: University of Toronto.

 

Hampton, K. & Wellman, B. (1999). Living Networked On and Off Line. Contemporary

Sociology 28: 648-54.

 

Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-Level Digital Divide: Differences in People's Online Skills.

First Monday 7: 4.  www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue7_4/hargittai

 

Haythornewaite, C. & Kazmer, M.M. (2002). Bringing the Internet Home: Adult

Distance Learners and Their Internet, Home and Work worlds. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (eds.), The Internet in Everyday Life (pp 431-463). Oxford: Blackwell.

 

Henwood, F. (1993.) Gendered by Design? Information Technology and Office Systems.

London: Taylor & Francis.

 

Hochschild, A.R. (1989). The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at

Home. New York: Viking Penguin.

 

Howard, L., Rainie, L. & Jones, S. (2001). Days and Nights on the Internet: The Impact

of a Diffusing Technology. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 3: 383-404.

 

Ipsos-Reid (2002). “The Internet Is Shaping The Way In Which Canadian Families Live

And Work Together” http://www.ipsos-reid.com/pdf/media/mr020122-1.pdf

 

Jary, D. & Jary, J. (1995). Collins Dictionary of Sociology, Glasgow, Harper Collins.

 

Katz, J. & Rice, R. (2002). Social Consequences Of Internet Use: Access, Involvement

and Interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge.

 

Kennedy, T. (2000). An Exploratory Study of Feminist Experiences in Cyberspace.

Cyber Psychology and Behavior, Vol 3, No 5: 707-719.

 

Kennedy, T., Wellman, B. & Klement, K. (2003). Gendering the Digital Divide.  IT &

Society, Vol 1, Issue 5, Summer 2003, pp 149-172.

 

Kolko B., Nakamura L. & Rodman, G. (2000). Race in Cyberspace. London: Routledge.

 

Komter, A. (1989). Hidden power in marriage. Gender & Society 3, 2: 187-216.

 

Kraut, R., Scherlis, W., Mukhopadhyay, T., Manning, J. & Kiesler, S. (1996). The

HomeNet Field Trial of Residential Internet Services. Communications of the ACM, 39, 12, 55-65.

[Online]. Available at: http://www.acm.org/pubs/articles/journals/cacm/1996-39-12/p55-kraut/p55-kraut.pdf

 

Lally, E. (2002). At Home with Computers. Oxford: Berg.

 

Lessig, L. (1999). Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.

 

Livingstone, S. (1992). The Meaning of Domestic Technologies: A Personal Construct

Analysis of Familial Gender Relations. In R. Silverstone & E. Hirsch (eds.), Consuming Technologies. London: Routledge.

 

Loges, W.E., & Jung, J. (2001). Exploring the Digital Divide: Internet Connectedness

and Age. Communication Research, 28:536‑562.

 

Lorber, J. (2001). Gender Inequality: Feminist Theories and Politics. Los Angeles, CA:

Roxbury Publishing Co.

 

Luxton, M. (1980). More Than a Labour of Love: Three Generations of Women's Work

in the Home. Toronto: The Women's Press.

 

MacKenzie, D. & Wajcman, J. (1999). The Social Shaping of Technology: How the

refrigerator got its hum. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

 

McMahon, A. (1999). Taking care of men: sexual politics in the public mind. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press

 

Miyata, K. (2002). Social Supports for Japanese Mother Online and Offline. In B.

Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (eds.), The Internet in Everyday Life (pp 520-548). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers:

 

Moores, S. (1993). Interpreting Audiences: The Ethnography of Media Consumption.  

London: Sage.

 

Morely, D. (1987). Family Television. London: Routledge.

 

Morley, D. & Silverstone, R. (1990). Domestic Communication Technologies and

Meanings. Media, Culture and Society 12: 31-56.

 

Morrison, D., Brown, R., Hemmings, T. & Svennevig , M.(2000). Finding A Home For

New Technology: A Virtual Ethnography Of The Social Changes In Relation To The New Technology.  In Virtual Society? Get Real!

http://www.brunel.ac.uk/ research/virtsoc/events/Grvirtual.htm

 

Moyal, A. (1992). Women Calling! The Gendered Use Of The Telephone.

TeleGeography: 5-11.

http://www.telegeography.com/resources/essay_archive/telephony/tg1992_women_calling.html

 

Murdock, G, Hartmann, P., & Gray, P. (1995). Contextualizing Home Computing:

Resources and Practices. In N. Heap, R. Thomas, G. Einon, R. Mason & H. Mackay (eds.), Information Technology and Society (pp 269-283). London: Sage.

 

Nakamura, L. (2002). Cybertypes: Race, Ethnicity, and Identity on the Internet. New

York: Routledge.

 

Nelson, A. Tu, T.N & Headlam Hines, H. (2001). Technicolor: Race, Technology, and

Everyday Life. New York: New York University Press

 

Nie, N. & Hillygus, D.S. (2002). The Impact Of Internet Use On Sociability: Time-Diary

Findings. It & Society, Vol 1, Issue 1, Summer 2002: 1-20.

 

Nie, N., Hillygus, D.S. & Erbring, L. (2002). Internet Use, Interpersonal Relations, and

Sociability: A Time Diary Study. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (eds.), The Internet in Everyday Life (pp215-243). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers:

 

Pastore, M. (2002). “Internet Part of the Family in Canada”

http://cyberatlas.Internet.com/big_picture/geographics/article/0,,5911_964381,00.html

 

Pew Internet and American Life Project. “Tracking Online Life: How women use the

Internet to Cultivate Relationships”. May 2000. http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/11/report_display.asp

 

Pew Internet and American Life Project. “African-Americans and the Internet”. October

2000. http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/25/report_display.asp

 

Pew Internet and American Life Project. “America's Online Pursuits: The Changing

Picture Of Who's Online And What They Do” December 2003 http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/106/report_display.asp

 

Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.

New York: Simon & Schuster.

 

Rakow, L. (1988). Women and the Telephone: The Gendering of a Communications

Technology. In C. Kramara (ed.), Technology And Women's Voices: Keeping In Touch. New York: Routlede & Kegan Paul.

 

Rakow, L. (1992). Gender On The Line: Women, The Telephone, And Community Life.

Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

 

Reddick, A. (2000). The Dual Digital Divide: The Information Highway in Canada.

Ottawa: Public Interest Advocacy Centre.

 

Riback, R. (2001). Like immigrants”: Negotiating power in the face of home computing.

Media, Culture & Society, Vol 3(2), pp 220-238).

 

Robinson, J.P. (1988). Who’s Doing the Housework?. American Demographics, Sept:

434-37.

 

Robinson, J.P. & Godbey, G. (1997). Time for Life: The Surprising Ways Americans Use

Their Time. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.

 

Rommes, E. (2002). Gender Scripts and the Internet. Enshede, Netherlands: Twente

University Press.

 

Salaff, J. (2002). Where Home is the Office: The New Form of Flexible Work. In B.

Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (eds.), The Internet in Everyday Life (pp 464-495). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

 

Shade, L. (2004). Bending Gender Into the Net, Feminizing Content, Corporate Interests,

and Research Strategy. In P.N. Howard & S. Jones (eds.), Society Online: The

Internet in Context (pp 57-83). Sage: Thousand Oaks.

 

Shelton, B.A., & John, D. (1996). The division of household labor. Annual Review of

Sociology, 22, 299-322.

 

Silverstone, R. (1993). Time, Information and Communication Technologies in the

Household. Time and Society, Vol.2, No.3, pp.283-311.

 

Silverstone, R. & Haddon, L. (1996). Design and the domestication of information and

communication technologies: technical change and everyday life. In R. Mansell & R. Silverstone (eds.), Communication by Design: The Politics of Information and Communication Technologies (44-74). Oxford University Press: New York.

 

Silverstone, R. & Hirsch, E. (eds.)(1992). Consuming Technologies: Media and

Information in Domestic Spaces. Routledge: London.

 

Singh, S. (2001). Gender and the use of the Internet in the home. Media, Culture &

Society, Vol 3(4), pp 395-416.

 

Spender, D. (1995). Nattering on the Net: Women, Power and Cyberspace. Toronto:

Garmond Press.

 

Spender, D. (1997). The Positions of Women in Information technology - or Who Got

There First and with What Consequences. Current Sociology (45)2: 135-147.

 

Statistics Canada (2002). http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/cultur.htm#int

 

Turkle, S. (1984). The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit. New York: Simon

and Schuster.

 

US Census Bureau (2001). “Home Computers and Internet Use in the US – August 2000”

 

VanEvery, J. (1997). Understanding Gendered Inequality: Reconceptualizing

Housework. Women's Studies International Forum, Vol 20, No 3: 411-420.

 

Van Zoonen, L. (2002). Gendering the Internet. European Journal of Communication,

Vol 17 (1), pp 5-23.

 

Venkatesh, A. (1996). Computers and other interactive technologies for the home.

Communications of the ACM, 39 (12). 47-54.

 

Viseu, A., Clement, A., Aspinal J. & Kennedy, T. (forthcoming 2004). The Interplay of

Public and Private Spaces in Internet Access. In Information, Communication & Society.

 

Wallace, P. (1999). The Psychology Of The Internet. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

 

Wajcman, J. (1991). Feminism Confronts Technology. Pennsylvania: University Press.

 

Ward, K. (2002) “Domesticity, Public Communication and the WWW”.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/EMTEL/Public_Communication/emtel_wp_4.doc

 

Wellman, B. (2002). Little Boxes, Glocalization, and Networked Individualism. In M.

Tanabe, P. van den Besselaar & T.Ishida (eds.) Digital Cities II: Computational and Sociological Approaches (pp. 10-25). Berlin: Springer.

 

Wellman, B. & Haythornthwaite, C. (eds) (2002). The Internet in Everyday Life. Oxford:

Blackwell.

 

Wellman, B. & Wellman, B. (1992). Domestic Affairs and Network Relations. Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships 9: 385-409.

 

West, C. & Zimmerman, D. (1987). Doing Gender. Gender and Society 1,2: 125-152.

 

Wheelock, J. (1992). Personal computers, gender and an institutional model of the

household. In R. Silverstone & E. Hirsch (eds.), Consuming Technologies (pp 97-112). London: Routledge.

 

Winner, L. (1999). Do artifacts have politics?. . In D. MacKenzie & J. Wajcman (eds),

The Social Shaping of Technology (pp. 3-40). Philadelphia: Open University Press.

 

Woolley, B. (1992). Virtual worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.

 

 

 


[1] Some recent New York Times articles: “If the Kitchen’s Warm, It may be the PC” by Katie Hafner, December 11, 2003; “That Parent-Child Conversation Is Becoming Instant, and Online” by John Schwartz, January 3, 2004; “Intel to Invest $200 Million in Home Media Networking” by Laurie J. Flynn, January 7, 2004; “Wireless Networks Unite Home Office and Hearth” by Jeanette Borzo, January 15, 2004; “Let’s All Gather Around The Screen” by Katie Hafner, February 5, 2004.

[2] http://www.c-i-a.com/pr032102.htm see also http://www.clickz.com/stats/big_picture/geographics/article.php/5911_151151

[3] http://www.pewinternet.org/

[4] http://homenet.hcii.cs.cmu.edu/progress/

[5] http://www2002.org/CDROM/alternate/649/