Integration and audience research: digital participation in the face of social semiexclusion

Conference Paper “Transforming Audiences 3”, London 1-2 September 2011 Ponte et al.

1

Integration and audience research: digital participation in the face of social semi-exclusion [email protected] Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas, Universidade Nova de Lisboa – Av. Berna, 26C / 1069-061 Lisboa – PORTUGAL Co-authors: José Alberto Simões, Ana Jorge, Ricardo Campos, Luciana Fernandes1

Abstract

This paper presents results from a research on digital inclusion and participation amongst

deprived children in Portugal. Thanks to the national program to distribute laptops and

mobile internet access, several of these children already have access to the internet, but

the time spent online and the activities they conduct are limited by the type of access and

usually by a lack of digitally competent parents.

In the scope of a funded international project on Digital Inclusion and Participation

(http://digital_inclusion.up.pt) focused on socially disadvantaged groups, we adapted part

of the EU Kids Online survey to study 9 to 16-year-olds that use the Digital Inclusion

Centres in the Escolhas [Choices] Program, which is part of a public policy for social

inclusion. A selected group of questions on access, frequency, activities, skills and

mediations were adapted and asked to these children.

After discussing the concept of poverty and deprivation amongst children and presenting

a brief portrait of the national context, this paper discusses results from the interviews

(N294) focusing on the resources, activities and skills the deprived children and young

people in this study revealed.

Deprived children and their media experience

In contemporary societies, besides the relative social invisibility of children as a social

group, information and research on the most vulnerable groups of children are

particularly missing, namely on children living in poverty or in alternative care, from

ethnic minorities or migrant children, thus being ignored their particular life experiences

facing the mainstream reference of “being a child”. Fewer children but more children in

poverty were pointed out by Qvortrup (1994: xii) as an emerging social trend in European

1 This research was conducted in the scope of Digital Inclusion and Participation project (UTAustin/CD/0016/2008), funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, and coordinated by Cristina Ponte (FCSH-UNL), Joseph Straubhaar (University of Texas at Austin) and José Azevedo (FL-UP).


2

countries at the beginning of the 1990s that continues to be a reality: one in five children

in the EU were at risk of poverty before the current economic crisis struck –

approximately 20 million children, according to Eurostat (2010).

There are many ways of defining poverty, ranging from absolute or relative definitions

based on income to indicators of social inequality and deprivation. As far as children are

concerned, a move to indicators of child well-being has been recognized as particularly

relevant for measuring their social inclusion (Bradshaw, 2007: 106). Among those

indicators is their material, educational and subjective well-being, already explored in

recent UNICEF reports (UNICEF 2007, 2010). In fact, if children cannot function as

"normal" members of society because they do not have access to the material goods that

others deem necessary, then this indicator of deprivation is a useful one, points

Montgomery (2009: 166). Under this perspective, for European low-income children

internet represents “not a new opportunity but potentially a new danger, a new form of

difference and exclusion”, as Ridge (2007: 174) reports: “as children’s social lives are

increasingly developed, explored and negotiated in the world of virtual time and space,

new sites of social exclusion are emerging”, namely through “unsustainable consumption

demands of high-tech accessories”.

Even if disadvantaged children gain more internet access, they may remain relatively

disadvantaged both in terms of the quality of internet access they enjoy and because one

form of this disadvantage is generally correlated with others, e.g. parents’ available time,

parental education and expertise, educational values at home, calm places to study in and

so forth (Livingstone, 2009).

As noted above, for socially marginalized children and young people, poverty is not only

the scarcity of material or educational resources: it is also an internal construction of a self

that makes certain choices unthinkable, from reading a book from the library in their

leisure times to considering an ambitious career in their future. As Montgomery (2009:

170) points out, Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus (considering individual, familiar and

societal dispositions) and social and cultural capitals (Bourdieu, 1979, 1993) are here

particularly productive, taking the debate about poverty away from economics and the

lack of material possessions and back to issues of deprivation and inequality, making

visible the lack of various forms of cultural and social capital. On cultural capital one can

distinct: institutional cultural capital (such as academic qualifications), embodied cultural

capital (the ways in which people use language, present themselves, display social


3

competence or confidence and so on) and objectified cultural capital (their ownership or

use of material goods such as books or paintings). The social capital involves networks and

connections and how these networks are sustained.

Based on her ethnographic research among children in the US, Ellen Seiter (2005) argues

that, far from leveling class differences, the internet has deepened social divisions along

the lines of class, race and ethnicity, both within and between countries. Middle-class

children are not only likely to have better quality computers and software; they also are

likely to have much more informed support in using them from parents and other adults,

and a greater access to social networks which will provide them with a sense of

motivation and purpose in using such technology in the first place. By contrast, poorer

children simply have less access to cultural goods and services: “they live not just in

different social worlds, but in different media worlds as well” (Buckingham, 2007: 84).

These different media worlds might be contrasted in the types of access to two levels of

digital divide (Hargittai, 2002): a first level of digital divide means having access to digital

technologies, considering ownership and use; and a second level is related to the user

profiles, assuming that more advanced users will develop a more functional rather than an

entertainment-oriented user profile. The differentiation hypothesis considering that

sociological variables continue to be important predictors including for the digital

generation (Peter and Valkenburg, 2006; Livingstone and Helsper, 2007) also confirms

that idea. The exploration of how far the digital experience of particularly deprived

children goes nowadays is the aim of the current ongoing research. Preceding others that

will focus on the second level of the digital divide, this paper is focused on the first level,

also providing a contextualization of the participant children and youth.

The Portuguese context and the Program Escolhas

Living the economic and cultural globalization from a semi-peripheral situation, Portugal

still experiences an “unfinished modernity” (Almeida & Costa, 1998). In the last two

decades, large transformations occurred in its demographic and structural composition

and in lifestyles, both having impacts on children’s and young people’s experiences: a

decrease in birth rate among native families, one of the most accentuated in Europe; the

increase of recomposed families, which create more complex parental relations; the

differences in the attainment levels of education among generations (low literate grand-

parents; a majority of parents who attained only compulsory school; adolescents that that


4

have already surpassed their parents’ schooling); the income gap among families, with

25% of children living in poverty (INE, 2010).

Being for decades a relatively closed and ethnically homogenous society, Portugal also

faces the consolidation of a broader cultural and ethnical heterogeneity. Besides gipsy

families spread throughout the country, there is an increase of immigrant families, and

their second generations, mostly concentrated in the capital area and in Algarve, and

having more children than the Portuguese ones. Therefore, there is now a bigger diversity

of children’s social and cultural backgrounds, as well as different paths and trajectories in

their families, both conditions placing relevant questions on social identities and social

inclusion and participation.

As for the lifestyle changes, it could be mentioned the late arrival to consumption patterns

compared to other contemporary societies, which have had an increasing expression

within the leisure cultures: the changes in the TV panorama (multiplicity of private

channels entertainment-oriented) and in other mass media; an explosion of shopping

centres attracting family outings; the embellishment of the households with individualized

technology, amongst them the digital technologies oriented to entertainment,

communication and information à la carte (gaming consoles, DVD players, plasma TV,

laptops, digital cameras, mobile phones and so on). These postmodern scenarios contrast

with low levels of informational literacy amongst adult generations. Among older

generations, shared childhood memories of poverty are combined with the willingness of

providing their children with all the material comfort that they themselves had the lack of.

This potpourri of pre-modern, modern and postmodern structures and values is marked

by a high social inequality: amongst the 25 countries that participated in the EU Kids

Online survey, Portugal occupies the second highest position in the social inequality index

(ratio of share of income or expenditure of the richest 10% to the poorest 10% of the

population), after Turkey and followed by the UK.

In recent years, public policies have tried to change the educational scenarios, investing

both in adults and children, around Programs such as Novas Oportunidades [New

Opportunities], targeted at adults with low school attainment, the upgrade of school

equipments (e.g. broadband access, digital boards) and stimulus to the industries to

produce and sell low cost laptops to students since the early years of schooling (Programs

Magalhães and E-Escolas). By 2010, more than 800 thousand families had already

answered positively to these Programs, considered as references for digital inclusion.


5

Combining social and educational aims, Escolhas is a nationwide program aiming to

promote social inclusion of children and young people (6-24 years old) from the most

vulnerable socio-economic contexts, particularly descendants of immigrants and ethnic

minorities. Digital inclusion is one of its five priority areas of intervention, crosscutting

and cumulative with the others: school education, vocational training, community

participation and citizenship, and entrepreneurship. Its 132 centres are mostly placed in

the metropolitan areas of Lisbon and Oporto, created by local NGOs and working in the

inner of vulnerable contexts, these being social housing, old buildings in the city center or

slums in the suburbs. Each center is equipped with a minimum package of six PCs,

broadband access and a printer. Digital activities include guidance, free activities, those

aimed at developing skills and school success, and more formal ICT courses. Local teams

are composed by 3-4 technicians and include a young person living in the community and

who acts as mediator.

Adapting the EU Kids Online questionnaire, collecting data

These Escolhas centres were the scenario for our interviews with deprived children and

young people, from 9 to 16, the same age range of EU Kids Online study. Our initial aim

was to compare as far as possible the national results of 1000 respondents, which are

representative, on access, uses, activities, skills and mediations with those from a

purposive sample of children and young people attending those centres. Therefore, 23

questions from the EU Kids Online face-to-face questionnaire were selected following, as

much as possible, the protocols and guidelines for application and interviewing. However,

a discussion with Escolhas local coordinators and animators made clear that even the 14+

year-olds would be unable to answer many questions by themselves, therefore implying

the reduction of sentences to a minimum of information as well as the number of

questions. Issues such as the family composition - potentially sensitive for most children

interviewed - were identified in those local meetings. Since many children did not seem to

live in structured families composed by both parents, the solution was starting the

questionnaire by asking the child: Who do you live with?, and adapting the questions on

parental mediation to the adults which he/she lives with2.

2 The process of adapting the EU Kids Online questionnaire to this group of children and young people is more developed in Ponte, Simões and Jorge (2011).


6

At the end, the questionnaire was divided into two versions, one for the younger (9-13)

and another for the older (14-16). The version for the 9-13 was designed as a structured

interview of 30 questions, some of them open-ended questions: From this list of activities,

what do you prefer? Why?; What are you forbidden to do on the internet?, and ending with a

sensitive question: And tell me what is for you using the internet in a safe way? How do you

do it? The version for the 14-16 was a self-completion questionnaire of 29 questions that

included a broader question on cultural interests and practices as well as three open-

ended questions: From this list of activities, which do you prefer?; What is your blog about?,

for those who declared having a blog, and the final one: We have asked you some questions

about good and bad things that can happen on the internet. Is there anything you would like

to warn people of your own age about?

The interviews were conducted between March and May 2011, in 19 Escolhas centres in

the urban areas of Lisbon and Oporto, where most of the centres were located. Children

and young people were informed of the aims of the interview/questionnaire (e.g. examine

their habits and uses of the internet). After being invited to fill the questionnaire and

answer the questions, they were told they would receive a gift at the end (a T-shirt with a

safety message on the internet). While some refused to participate, others accepted the

invitation by answering with different levels of personal involvement. Among the 284

respondents in this convenience sampling, all with internet access, age groups are

relatively balanced; still, differences among female and male participants express the

reality of Escolhas: there are much more boys than girls attending the centres (Table 1).

Table 1: Distribution of respondents per gender and age groups

Indicator Frequency %

Gender

Female 96 34%

Male 188 66%

Age

< 14 162 57%

>= 14 122 43%

Source: Escolhas questionnaire; Ponte, Simões and Jorge, 2011

Families, media environments and the first level of the digital divide

Although the different nature of the samplings imposes cautiousness and only partially

some questions might be compared due to the complex process of length reduction and

wording, it is interesting to look at the patterns of differences and similarities that emerge


7

from the samples when they are side by side. Let’s start with the background of the

families and the conditions (Table 2).


8

Table 2: Results from the EU Kids Online survey and from the Escolhas centres

EU Kids Online Portugal Centros Escolhas

Household composition

Living with one adult 8% 7%

Living with two adults 65% 20%

Living with three adults 21% 25%

Living with 4+ adults 5% 48%

Family type

Single parent 20% 31%

Two parents 79% 52%

Other 1% 6%

Education and cultural among parents

Primary education (9 years) or less 47% 92%

Internet access at home

No internet access 7% 29%

At least one parent use the internet 60% 46%

Devices for accessing the internet

Personal laptop 65% 46%

Personal PC 33% 17%

Shared laptop 35% 37%

Shared PC 35% 25%

Game console 25% 12%

Mobile devices 7% 3%

TV 28% 8%

Mobile phone 31% 25%

Places of Access

At home 87% 56%

At school 72% 59%

In a public library 25%

In the Digital Inclusion Centre 79%

Frequency of access

Everyday or almost everyday 54% 56%

Once or twice a week 39% 36%

Once or twice a month 4% 6%

Less than once or twice a month 3% 2%

Source: Escolhas questionnaire; Ponte, Simões and Jorge, 2011

In terms of family structure, the results highlight the differences in the households’

composition: nuclear family is dominant in the national sample, while about half of

Escolhas children live in extended families with more than four adults in the household:

grandparents (especially grandmothers), aunts, uncles and brothers and sisters-in law are

relatives that cohabit with the child and take care of him/her. This picture confirms the

sensitivity of the family issues, and the need to avoid the implicit frame of the nuclear

family model when asking questions on family mediation.


9

School attainment and educational capital are one of the key sensitive points in Portugal

due to its socio-cultural history, with implications at all levels of social life, including

digital inclusion. Nowadays adolescents might easily have more school attendance than

their parents and grandparents, the latter frequently illiterate (35% of illiterate people in

1960). Table 2 shows that nationwide almost half of households still have a parent that

didn't reach the Secondary level (12 years of school), while among

the Escolhas participants the percentage of parents having the Elementary level (9 years of

school) or less almost reached the total sample (92%).

While all children declared themselves as internet users the contexts of access clearly

diverge: whereas in the national sample only 7% don’t have internet access at home, in the

Escolhas sample almost one in three children (29%) don’t have this access. The percentage

of parents that are internet users is also below the national average: less than half (46%)

of these children and youth have at least one member of the family that knows how to use

the internet, in particular the mother (49%) or father (44%), against 60% in the EU Kids

Online sample, both depicting families where children lead the use of the internet.

With the exception of shared laptops, for Escolhas sample the devices for accessing the

internet are below the national average: less than half have a personal laptop, the device

that is owned by about two in three children accessing the internet in Portugal.

Furthermore, the comparison on the places of access shows that they find them real

spaces for their internet access: almost all declare accessing the internet at CID centers

while declaring a lower use of the internet at school and at home (four out of ten don’t

refer neither the school nor the household as a place of access). Finally they don´t diverge

so much from the EU Kids Online answers on the frequency of use, both being one of the

lowest values in the European landscape.

Hence, in spite of the democratization of the internet access among Portuguese children,

there is scarcity of access and resources among deprived children and the first level of

digital divide is real among young people. Furthermore, for a large part of those children,

schools don’t seem to be realizing the inclusive work of facilitating the internet access and

use, and almost all live in families with very low levels of educational capital.

Consequences of these constraints, either at home or at school, are visible in the activities.


10

Comparing activities: from the homework gap to shared interests

In the national EU Kids Online results, Doing school work was the most reported activity

(90%), even higher than the European trend (85%), suggesting that Portuguese children

are aware of the dominant discourse that associates internet with learning and

educational purposes, reinforcing its use for school work where internet plays a key role

as a search tool, a discourse also reproduced by families. However, this picture doesn’t fit

so well among children and youth from Escolhas sample, where one in four ignore the use

of internet for homework purposes. In addition, sending/receiving e-mails or instant

messaging, activities that involve writing skills, are also less common, and another activity

related with informative contents, reading/watching the news, is at the bottom of the list.

Playing games, watching videos on Youtube and visiting SNS sites (mainly Facebook) are

the main reported activities, highlighting a culture directed to entertainment. Among the

less important activities we found downloading music or movies probably due to the

scarcity of personal resources (Table 3).

Table 3: Activities on the internet

% Who have… EU Kids Online

Portugal Centros Escolhas

Used the internet for school work 90 59

Watched videoclips 82 72

Used instant messaging 78 66

Sent/received email 73 54

Visited a social networking profile 63 69

Played games 60 74

Download music or films 49 13

Read/watched the news 38 10

Source: Answers from EU Kids Online Portugal and Escolhas; Ponte, Simões and Jorge, 2011

Younger children (9-13) report gaming – including educational/school games such as

those provided by Escola Virtual, a partner of Escolhas - as their main online activity

(96%), followed by listening to music (92%), watching videos (89%) and searching

information for school homework (79%). Therefore, among this age group, school related

activities seem to be still important and they continue to access and use the internet for


11

educational purposes. The change in practices occurs among those who are aged 14 to16,

whose educational background is very different from their parents’ path, as they have

generally more education than their parents, thus having lack of cultural and educational

capital and the related informational skills, and frequently they face school failure. These

gaps might be one of the explanations for a smaller use of the internet as a tool to search

information for school work (34%). Turning to their interests, main reported activities are

those related to listening to music (64%), video watching (50%) uploading (48%) and

gaming (47%). While we were conducting the fieldwork, we could also see how the social

networking sites were also taking on in young people’s interests, even among younger

children. In fact, they surpass the national result, but that can also be related to the time

gap between the EU Kids Online survey (2010) and the Escolhas study (2011).

Digital skills

In the country, among youngsters from 14 to 16, most digital skills were declared by about

three quarters of the respondents of EU Kids Online survey. The same question, included

in our survey to youngsters of the same age in Escolhas centres, showed identical values in

several skills, like blocking unwanted messages, delete records, change privacy settings,

finding information on internet safety, but less in skills connected with informational uses

and managing received information, such as bookmarks, blocking spam and comparing

websites to decide if information is true, with less than half declaring the latter. Also

changing of filter preferences, which is related to managing the information, appears

remarkably less among young people attending Escolhas (Table 4).

Table 4: Children’s digital literacy and safety skills (age 14+)

Internet skills EU Kids Online Portugal (%)

Centros Escolhas (%)

Bookmark a website 86 77

Block messages from someone you don’t want to hear from 77 77

Delete the record of which sites you have visited 77 79

Change privacy settings on a SNS 75 72

Find information on how to use the internet safely 77 74

Block unwanted adverts or junk mail/spam 73 55

Compare websites to decide if information is true 67 46

Change filter preferences 60 39

Source: Answers from EU Kids Online Portugal and Escolhas; Ponte, Simões and Jorge, 2011


12

An active group of bloggers?

Due to the adaptation of questions, the one on blogging is not exactly the same as far as

time and asked actions are concerned. In the EU Kids Online, respondents were asked

whether in the past month they had written a blog or online diary, in the Escolhas they

were asked whether they had ever created a blog or a site (alone or with friends). These

textual differences might lead to different understandings, recalls and judgments, certainly

influencing the results. Keeping also in mind that the two samples are not equivalent and

comparisons should be read carefully, while in the EU Kids Online national survey only

10% of youth with 13-16 years old answered they had written a blog or a online diary in

the last month (this activity being the less reported and following the European average),

in the Escolhas sample about one in three 14-16 respondents declared having already

created a blog, this being more declared by male (30 in 86) than by female (9 in 35).

Creating a blog in the classroom is part of the ICT national curriculum at Elementary level,

therefore being a relatively common practice at schools. As all the Escolhas respondents

were students, it was expectable that a high number answered positively. In fact, 38 out of

the 122 recall this scholar activity, thus suggesting that for the majority this ICT content

didn’t constitute a relevant memory.

Taking into account their home environments (Table 3), it is worth to look at the internet

access of these 38 adolescents and see how they differ from the others. In fact, this group

present differences on their conditions for accessing the internet, activities and literacy:

29 use their own computer to go to the internet (26 having laptops), 27 also refer to the

computer at school and 23 use relatives’ computers, suggesting a will for being online

using multiple access if needed; 25 go to the internet daily and 10 once or twice a week; on

a school day only seven declare spending more than two hours online but this value

duplicates on the non school days (ten declare spending more than four hours). Besides

their blogs, the most reported activities are listening to music, instant messaging, watching

videos and playing games, following the overall pattern. The gap is that all declare using

the internet for purposes such as school home work, download music and films,

watching/reading the news and send and receive emails, evidencing a more proactive

profile of users, for instance on searching information for learning purposes.

They also seem to be more aware of protecting their privacy, almost all declaring they

block unwanted messages (36) and delete the records of the visited sites (34).

Furthermore, they present comparatively higher values on informational skills: 32 know

how to bookmark a website and 25 report comparing websites.


13

On the other hand, their parents continue reproducing the main pattern on internet: only

18 fathers and 18 mothers were internet users. Although their educational capital is also

low (only five have post Elementary degrees), they seem to be more aware on providing

cultural resources to their children: in fact, almost all (35) declare having shelves with

non-scholar books at home, while only 71% respondents from the Escolhas sample declare

the same.

Among the 30 young people that answered the respective open question, the influence of

school and ICT curriculum is visible, indicating both how in some educational contexts the

ICT activity allows a more participatory experience in the school life, and how its

compulsory nature and too focused scholar topics risk to lead to a distant experience and

eventually its abandon and forgiveness.

I have a site with my class where we discuss ideas about school and how we can improve

something. (Male, 14)

How was school 100 years ago. (Male, 14)

My blog is about my course (school trips, etc.). (Male, 14)

I created [a blog], just for doing it, but I’ve dropped it. (Male, 15).

I created on for school (a site) -> was evaluated; and a blog -> [for] a IT course. (Male, 16)

Out of the school context and besides shared blogs related to sports and leisure/

entertainment, the main picture is provided by using blogs as a platform for self-

disclosure and expression of their personal choices, musical taste and games activities.

Expressed by 13 adolescents, their less school-framed and more individualized practice

suggests also a more regular writing, approaching the values (13 in 122) to the ones from

the national survey. Besides the ‘I’ discourse, another difference is the reduction on gender

gap.

It’s about what I do and it talks about some things about me. (Female, 14);

It’s about me, it has all my favorite music. (Female, 14);

It’s a site about the games I create. (Male, 14);

What I like the most is to make [create the blogs]. (Male, 14)

My blog is a page with the friends I know. (Male 14)


14

My blog or page/site talks a bit about myself and has a space for fun and people can

comment on the website and send messages. (Male, 14)

Just put on my blog my own texts, to whom I dedicate or even texts that reflect my life

experiences and events. (Female, 15)

It’s where I share information or videos and any other stuff with friends friends (sic) (Male,

15)

It depends, I have many but the main (blog) is about the things I like to do. (Male, 15)

It’s about myself, I have the books I like to read, the musics, videos and photos. (Male, 16)

It talks about myself. (Female, 16)

Synthesis and next steps

At the end of this glance at the family contexts and digital experiences of those attending

the Digital Inclusion Centres of Escolhas, several methodological remarks and comparative

observations need to be made:

Firstly, the importance of considering family compositions and access to the media in the

households that don’t fit the mainstream model of middle-class, high educated parents

and well equipped households, thus the importance of avoiding wording questions that

might be insensitive to such contexts.

Secondly, the similarities that emerge between this sensitive group of less privileged

children and the national trend, expressed in the enthusiasm of the families to adhere to

campaigns such as “one laptop per child”, had two important consequences: on one hand,

at a basic level, made those families move from exclusion to ownership; on the other hand,

it apparently had no outstanding affect on the amount of use, since this tends to coincide

with the relatively low level of frequent internet access.

Thirdly, the high value of informal public spaces with relatively low level of adult

mediation among both groups, which we could see during our interviews at the Digital

Inclusion centres, as happens in the public libraries, suggests the unexplored potential of

these places for other kind of uses and opportunities, this being particularly relevant when

considering the cultural capital and educational level among the low SES families.

Finally, and not forgetting the particularities of each sample, we should note the

differences between the national representative sample and this group attending Escolhas

as far as more informational and learning activities (as it is the case of the school


15

homework) and declared digital skills are concerned. These differences might be related

to the differences on ownership of other digital equipments, on the household resources

(including the lack of digital and educational capital by parents and relatives) and on the

school environments, less present in the Escolhas samples, hence broadening the gap on

opportunities for exploring and using the digital media in different activities and for the

digital literacy.

Both levels of digital divide pointed by Hargittai (2002), being the first focused on

ownership and use and the second on user profiles, are visible when we look at the

particular profile of active bloggers in the Escolhas sample: in spite of their contextual

difficulties, compared with their colleagues that attend those centers, they emerge as a

minority group of activists exploring the internet potential for creativity and self-

expression in a particularly lively way. Their enthusiasm and declared competencies could

be regarded as incentive to empowering them on the informational and communicational

skills and contributing to place them as positive examples and trusty digital experts

among the peer groups and as agents within the family and community.

References

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1979. La distinction: critique sociale du jugement. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. Londres: Polity Press.

Bradshaw, J. (2007). Child benefit packages in 22 countries. Childhood, generational order

and the welfare state: exploring children's social and economic welfare. H. Wintersberger, T.

Olk and J. Qvortrup. Odense, COST: 141-160.

Buckingham, D. (2007). Youth, Identity, and Digital Media. John D. and Catherine T.

MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cidade, editor.

Hargittai, E. (2002). "Second-level digital divide: difference in people's online skills." First

Monday 7(4): http://webuse.org/pdf/Hargittai-SecondLevelFM02.pdf.

INE, Instituto Nacional de Estatística. (2010). Indicadores Sociais 2009. Lisboa: Instituto

Nacional de Estatística, I.P. Retrieved from the Internet June 1, 2011.

http://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_publicacoes&PUBLICACOESpub_

boui=105186688&PUBLICACOEStema=55445&PUBLICACOESmodo=2

Livingstone, S. (2009). Children and the internet. London, Polity Press.

http://webuse.org/pdf/Hargittai-SecondLevelFM02.pdf

http://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_publicacoes&PUBLICACOESpub_boui=105186688&PUBLICACOEStema=55445&PUBLICACOESmodo=2

http://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_publicacoes&PUBLICACOESpub_boui=105186688&PUBLICACOEStema=55445&PUBLICACOESmodo=2


16

Livingstone, S. and Helsper, E. (2007). “Gradations in digital inclusion: children, young

people and the digital divide”. New Media & Society, 9 (4): 671-696.

Montgomery, H. (2009). Children, young peple and poverty. Children and Young People's

Worlds. H. Montgomery and M. Kellett. Milton Keynes, The Open University: 165-180.

Peter, J. and Valkenburg, P. M. (2006). “Adolescents’ internet use: Testing the

‘disappearing digital divide’ versus the ‘emerging digital differentiation’ approach”.

Poetics, 34: 293-305.

Ponte, C., J. A. Simões, et al. (2011). Digital inclusion in the face of social semi-exclusion:

adapting the EU Kids Online questionnaire. IAMCR 2011. Istambul, 13-17 July.

Qvortrup, J. (1994). Childhood matters: an introduction. Childhood Matters: Social Theory,

Practice and Politics. J. Qvortrup, M. Bardy, G. Sgritta and H. Wintersberger. Vienna,

European Centre: 1-24.

Ridge, T. (2007). Negotiating childhood poverty: children's subjective experiences of life

on a low income. Chidhood. Generational Order and the Welfare State: Exploring Children's

Social and Economic Welfare. H. Wintersberger, L. Alanen, T. Olk and J. Qvortrup. Odense,

University Press of Southern Denmark: 161-180.

Seiter, E. (2005). The Internet Playground. Chilkdren's access, entertainment, and miss-

education. New York, Peter Lang.

UNICEF (2010). Humanitarian Action Report: partnering for children in emergencies. New

York: UNICEF. Retrieved from the Internet June 1, 2011.

http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/UNICEF_HAR_2010_Full_Report_EN_020410.pd

f

UNICEF. (2007). Annual Report: covering 1 January 2007 through 31 December 2007. New

York: UNICEF. Retrieved from the Internet June 1, 2011.

http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/Annual_Report_2007.pdf

http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/UNICEF_HAR_2010_Full_Report_EN_020410.pdf

http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/UNICEF_HAR_2010_Full_Report_EN_020410.pdf

http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/Annual_Report_2007.pdf

Integration and audience research: digital participation in the face of social semiexclusion

Education

Transcript of Integration and audience research: digital participation in the face of social semiexclusion