Domestication Analysis, Objects of Study, and the Centrality of Technologies in Everyday Life

The article first introduces the domestication approach, its origins, its key elements, and its general contributions and limitations. It then examines ways in which the domestication analysis could be developed. One issue concerns contemporary objects of study and research questions given developments in information and communication technologies since the earliest domestication studies. Other issues include developing the analysis of the centrality of ICTs in our lives. Where appropriate, these issues are illustrated by considering examples of the computer, the Internet, and the mobile phone. To illustrate how the domestication framework can inform wider academic and policy fields, the final section considers its contribution to debates about the digital divide. KEyWORDS Technology theory; Telephony; Internet; Personal computers RéSUMé Cet article porte sur la domestication en tant que théorie sur la manière dont l’individu intègre de nouveaux objets dans son quotidien. Il décrit les grandes lignes de cette approche, ses origines, ses éléments clés et ses contributions et limitations générales. Il examine ensuite certaines manières dont on pourrait faire avancer cette théorie aujourd’hui. Une possibilité concernerait le développement des technologies de l’information et de la communication (TIC) depuis les premières études en domestication, et l’impact des TIC sur les objets d’étude et les questions de recherche contemporains. Une autre possibilité consisterait à approfondir l’analyse de la centralité des TIC dans la vie quotidienne. Cet article, quand cela s’avère pertinent, a recours aux exemples de l’ordinateur, de l’Internet et du téléphone mobile. La section finale considère la contribution de la domestication aux débats sur le fossé numérique, afin de montrer comment cette théorie peut jeter de la lumière sur des questions académiques et politiques plus vastes. MOtS CLéS Théories sur la technologie; Téléphonie; Internet; Ordinateurs personnels Introduction the aim of this article is twofold: first, to introduce the domestication approach to those less familiar with it; and second, to indicate future potential directions in which it might develop and challenges it might face. by way of introduction, the first sections discuss the origins of this approach, the original key elements, how the approach has evolved over time to address various issues, how it can provide insights, but also its limitations. Canadian Journal of Communication Vol 36 (2011) 311-323 ©2011 Canadian Journal of Communication Corporation Leslie Haddon is Senior Researcher in the Department of Media and Communications at the London School of Economics & Political Science, Houghton Street, London, UK WC2A 2AE, where he is working on the EU Kids Online II project. Email: [email protected] . 312 Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol 36 (2) the second aim, to contribute to the ongoing development of the framework by also addressing domestication researchers, involves reflecting on two aspects. One is how the object of research in domestication analysis may well have to change since the earlier studies using this framework. the second aspect is how domestication analysis can approach the issue of the centrality of information and communication technologies (ICts) in our lives, which in turn introduces the issue of how domestication analysis can handle change over time. Where appropriate, these issues are illustrated by considering three ICts: the computer, the Internet, and the mobile phone. Lastly, to illustrate how the domestication framework can inform discussions beyond academia, including areas of policy debate, the final section considers how this approach can contribute to debates about the digital divide. Origins and elements of the domestication framework the domestication approach as first developed in the U.K. originated in part from anthropology (e.g.. Douglas & Isherwood, 1980) and from consumption studies (e.g., McCracken, 1990). both of these disciplines asked how goods and possessions enter into our lives and what symbolic meaning they have (e.g., bourdieu, 1986), both of which relate to how we use them. When applied to ICts, an additional impetus to develop this framework related to a particular strand within media studies interested in the contexts in which established media were experienced (e.g., Hobson, 1980; Lull, 1988; Morley, 1986). At the same time as this british version of domestication analysis was being formulated, Norwegian researchers in trondheim (Lie & Sørensen, 1996; Sørensen, 1994) helped to develop the concept by linking it to the social shaping of technology literature, a body of work concerned with why and how technologies emerge in the form they do. these researchers were interested in asking how that shaping process continued once ICts started to be consumed.1 Outlines of the domestication framework emerged at the start of the 1990s (Silverstone & Haddon, 1996; Silverstone, Hirsch, & Morley, 1992), subsequently reaching a wider European audience partly through the European academic networks in this field that were emerging in the 1990s (for a review, see Haddon, 2006). Subsequently, the approach was used further afield in Australia, Canada, the United States, Korea, and Singapore.2 the framework that emerged considered the processes shaping the adoption and use of ICts, but in so doing also asked what the technologies and services mean to people, how they experience ICts, and the roles that these technologies can come to play in their lives. In fact, the term “domestication” itself evoked a sense of “taming the wild,” and we see in many domestication studies the processes at work as people, both individually and especially in households, encounter ICts and deal with them, sometimes rejecting the technologies, at other times working out how exactly to fit them into their everyday routines. this is the micro-level of domestication discussed in the rest of this article, although some other authors explore the processes of domestication in society: Sørensen (2005) on the car, Morley (2005) on tV. In the earliest work on domestication in households, a number of (much-cited) processes were identified regarding how ICts find a place in the rest of (in this case domestic) life. In brief, “appropriation” captured the types of negotiations and considerations that led to the acquisition of technologies, “incorporation” referred to how the ICts were located spatially within the home, “objectification” drew attention to how their use was scheduled in people’s routines and hence time structures, while “conversion” dealt with how we mobilize these ICts as part of our identities and how we present ourselves to others, for example, in how we talk about and display these technologies. Such terms can help to sensitize researchers to the kind of consumption questions they could be attentive to in order to understand not just the meanings that technologies have for different people, but also, sometimes, how users try to constrain their use (to be developed later in this article) and how they evaluate these ICts. At one level these questions could be treated as something akin to a research “checklist,” but perhaps characterizing domestication analysis as a “framework” or “approach” does more justice to the systematic attempt to think about the wider consumption, rather than just the use, of ICts. Contributions and limitations If the above provides a broad outline of the framework, what are its contributions, how does it provide insights, and what are its limitations in practice? Essentially, the domestication approach provides contextual information about households and individuals to better appreciate why they use ICts in the way they do. Part of that research process involves allowing those researched to explain their actions in their own words, although this is only ever part of the picture. After all, people are to varying degrees articulate, they in part react to the interview situation (and sometimes return to change their story a little on reflection), they are presenting themselves to the researcher, and they are sometimes concerned to provide justifications for their decisions. but if we complement this verbal feedback with other information that can include an understanding of their wider values and aspirations, their general circumstances (e.g., their organization of time, the spaces in which they live, their financial situation) and their relationships with others (e.g., parents making rules about how their children can use technologies, social network commitments), then we can formulate a broader understanding of people’s different forms of engagement with ICts. In other words, while the ultimate research interest is in technology, this approach also relates ICts to the non-technological aspects of people’s lives. this means that an in-depth approach is often favoured, which can include interviews, observation, and a range of other methodologies to illicit this information. Obviously, like detective work, it involves fitting the pieces together and hence interpretation. but in reporting findings the evidence can be cited—the quotations, the ambivalences they may reflect, the description of circumstances—allowing readers to judge whether the interpretations are reasonable. In practice, the above process does not simply produce a set of descriptions of unique individuals and households. Inevitably there are patterns, often a (limited) range of certain common experiences, albeit experienced in slightly different ways. there are parallels with the way in which Goffman’s observations about everyday life led him to formulate a taxonomy of ways in which we manage the impressions we present to others (Goffman, 1959). In domestication studies we have the teleworkers who display their technologies to visitors because they are concerned that others may think that if they are at home they are not really working. We have the young elderly who did not engage with some new technology because it was coming into their workHaddon Centrality of Technologies in Everyday Life 313