Philippa (Pip) Amery

Email: philippa.linton@hdr.qut.edu.au

Pip is a PhD candidate in the ARC Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child at the Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.

The ubiquity of digital technologies in daily lives raises concerns of whether mother-infant relationships are harmed by mothers’ digital device use. Large scale research designs frame mothers’ digital device use as problematic yet they preclude the capacity to collect detailed observational data reflective of real-life practice. To date, there is limited empirical understandings of what constitutes mothers' digital device use in everyday lives. Pip’s PhD study focuses on first-time mothers and their babies (three to nine months) to examine the organisation of everyday interactions around digital device usage. A methodological reframing that asks how device use may be social and active presents opportunities to reconceptualise mothers’ digital device use as a useful tool. Data will consist of ethnographic observational video data of mother-infant interaction, and mothers' accounts. A feminist ethnomethodological lens will analyse mothers' everyday practices around mothering and mobile device usage. Findings aim to understand mothers' everyday digital practices to provide nuanced accounts of mother-infant interaction and technology use, contribute empirical understandings to existing tools and guidelines around digital technology use, and support mothers, families, clinicians and educators to support parenting practices with digital devices.

Selected readings

Baker, C. (2004). Membership categorization and interview accounts. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (2nd ed., pp. 162-176). Sage.

Busch, G. (2018). How families use video communication technologies during intergenerational skype sessions. In S. Danby, M. Fleer, C. Davidson, & M. Hatzigianni (Eds.), Digital childhoods (pp. 17-32). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6484-5_2

Danby, S. (2017). Social interactional understandings in investigating family practices of digital media use. In A. R. Lahikainen, T. Mälkiä, & K. Repo (Eds.), Media, family interaction and the digitalisation of childhood (pp. 29-48). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Danby, S., Davidson, C., Theobald, M., Houen, S., & Thorpe, K. (2017). Pretend play and technology: Young children making sense of their everyday social worlds. In S. Lynch, D. Pike, & C. à Beckett (Eds.), Multidisciplinary perspectives on play from birth and beyond (pp. 231-245). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-

2643-0_14

Danby, S., Davidson, C., Theobald, M., Scriven, B., Cobb-Moore, C., Houen, S., Grant, S., Given, L. M., & Thorpe, K. (2013). Talk in activity during young children’s use of digital technologies at home. Australian Journal of Communication 40(2), 83-99.

 Davidson, C., Danby, S., Ekberg, S., & Thorpe, K. (2020). The interactional achievement of reading aloud by young children and parents during digital technology use. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 0(0), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798419896040

 Edwards, S., Straker, L., & Oakey, H. (2018). Statement on young children and digital technologies. Early Childhood Australia. http://www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Digitalpolicy-statement.pdf

Filipi, A. (2009). Toddler and parent interaction: The organisation of gaze, pointing and vocalisation. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Kidwell, M. (2014). The role of gaze in conversational interaction. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. Ladewig, D. McNeill, & J. Bressem (Eds.), Body – Language –Communication; Linguistics and communication sciences: An international handbook. (Vol. 2, pp. 1324-1333). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/doi:10.1515/9783110302028.1324

Kidwell, M., & Zimmerman, D. H. (2007). Joint attention as action. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(3), 592-611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.012 

Kitzinger, C. (2015). Conversation Analysis, Feminist. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie, & T. Sandel (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction (pp. 1-5). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi152

Kitzinger, C., & Frith, H. (1999). Just say no? The use of conversation analysis in developing a feminist perspective on sexual refusal. Discourse & Society, 10(3), 293-316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926599010003002

Speer, S. A. (2005). Gender talk: feminism, discourse and conversation analysis. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203321447

Stokoe, E. (2006). On ethnomethodology, feminism, and the analysis of categorial reference to gender in talk-in-interaction. The Sociological Review, 54(3), 467-494. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954x.2006.00626.x

Stokoe, E. (2010). ‘I’m not gonna hit a lady’: Conversation analysis, membership categorization and men’s denials of violence towards women. Discourse & Society, 21(1), 59-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926509345072

Stokoe, E. (2012). Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies, 14(3), 277-303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612441534

Stokoe, E. H. (2003). Mothers, single women and sluts: Gender, morality and membership categorization in neighbour disputes. Feminism & Psychology, 13(3), 317-344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353503013003006

Theobald, M. (2008). Methodological issues arising from video-stimulated recall with young children. Australian association for research in education 2008 international research conference. Changing climates: education for sustainable futures, Brisbane.https://eprints.qut.edu.au/17817/