This is a sel -a chi ed e sion o an o iginal a icle. This e sion
may di e om he o iginal in pagina ion and ypog aphic de ails.
Au ho (s):
Ti le:
Yea :
Ve sion:
Copy igh :
Righ s:
Righ s u l:
Please ci e he o iginal e sion:
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Re amilisa ion in he b oadband socie y – he e ec s o ICTs on amily solida i y in
Finland
© 2018 The Au ho (s). Published by In o ma UK Limi ed, ading as Taylo & F ancis G oup
Published e sion
Hänninen, Rii a; Taipale, Saka i; Ko honen, A mi
Hänninen, R., Taipale, S., & Ko honen, A. (2021). Re amilisa ion in he b oadband socie y – he
e ec s o ICTs on amily solida i y in Finland. Jou nal o Family S udies, 27(2), 161-177.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/13229400.2018.1515101
2021
Full Te ms & Condi ions o access and use can be ound a
h ps://www. and online.com/ac ion/jou nalIn o ma ion?jou nalCode= j s20
Jou nal o Family S udies
ISSN: 1322-9400 (P in ) 1839-3543 (Online) Jou nal homepage: h ps://www. and online.com/loi/ j s20
Re amilisa ion in he b oadband socie y – he
e ec s o ICTs on amily solida i y in Finland
Rii a Hänninen, Saka i Taipale & A mi Ko honen
To ci e his a icle: Rii a Hänninen, Saka i Taipale & A mi Ko honen (2018): Re amilisa ion in he
b oadband socie y – he e ec s o ICTs on amily solida i y in Finland, Jou nal o Family S udies,
DOI: 10.1080/13229400.2018.1515101
To link o his a icle: h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/13229400.2018.1515101
© 2018 The Au ho (s). Published by In o ma
UK Limi ed, ading as Taylo & F ancis
G oup
Published online: 29 Aug 2018.
Submi you a icle o his jou nal
A icle iews: 427
View C ossma k da a
Re amilisa ion in he b oadband socie y – he effec s o ICTs
on amily solida i y in Finland
Rii a Hänninen
a
, Saka i Taipale
b
and A mi Ko honen
b
a
Depa men o His o y and E hnology, Uni e si y o Jy äskylä, Jy äskylä, Finland;
b
Depa men o Social
Sciences and Philosophy, Uni e si y o Jy äskylä, Jy äskylä, Finland
ABSTRACT
In his a icle we explo e he effec s ha new in o ma ion and
communica ion echnologies (ICTs) ha e on amily ela ions in
Finland. The idea o ‘new connec i i ies’wo ks as a s a ing poin
o he s udy di ec ing a en ion o ICT-media ed o ms o being
oge he wi h dis an amily membe s. The esea ch da a consis s
o 22 s uden epo s encompassing a o al o 133 in o man s
om ex ended Finnish amilies. Ex ended g oup in e iew (EGI)
echnique was de eloped and used o da a collec ion in o de o
g asp he unde lying social p ac ices and alues behind he use o
ICTs in ex ended amilies. The esul s show ha new ICTs,
especially mobile social media, enhance amily solida i y among
amily membe s who do no li e in he same household. The
concep o ‘ e amilisa ion’is in oduced o encapsula e he di e se
effec s o new ICTs such as democ a iza ion o he amily, ise o
p oxy pe sons, in ensifica ion, and compa men aliza ion o amily
communica ion on amily solida i y.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Recei ed 19 May 2017
Accep ed 15 Augus 2018
KEYWORDS
Family; communica ion;
democ a iza ion; ICT; social
media; mobile media;
connec i i ies; e amilisa ion;
collabo a i e e hnog aphy;
ex ended g oup in e iew
In oduc ion
The ise o in o ma ion and communica ion echnology (ICT), especially new social mobile
media, has media ed and al e ed amily ela ions (Cabalquin o, 2017a,2017b; Cla k, 2013;
Li ings one, Masche oni, D eie , Chaud on, & Lagae, 2015; Neus aed e , Ha ison, &
Sellen, 2013) by in oducing new ools o communica ion a ailable o all amily membe s.
Ne e heless, he ques ion emains how hese new ools a e dis ibu ed in he con ex o
amily and whe he hey ac ually con ibu e o he sense o belonging cha ac e is ic o
amily solida i y. Hence, in his a icle we ask wha kind o effec s new ICTs, anging
om pe sonal communica ion de ices o social media applica ions, ha e on amily
ela ions in Finland. Addi ionally, we examine he in e play be ween ICTs and s uc u al
elemen s o amily li e. Ou analysis is based on 22 in e iews wi hin Finnish amilies,
encompassing a o al o 133 in o man s.
Daa land and He lo son (2003)define amily solida i y as ‘ he el obliga ions owa ds
child en and pa en s’. In his esea ch amily solida i y is a mul i- ace ed concep
© 2018 The Au ho (s). Published by In o ma UK Limi ed, ading as Taylo & F ancis G oup
This is an Open Access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion-NonComme cial-NoDe i a i es License
(h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which pe mi s non-comme cial e-use, dis ibu ion, and ep oduc ion in any
medium, p o ided he o iginal wo k is p ope ly ci ed, and is no al e ed, ans o med, o buil upon in any way.
CONTACT Rii a Hänninen ii a.j.hanninen@jyu.fiDepa men o His o y and E hnology, Uni e si y o Jy äskylä,
PO Box 35, 40014 Jy äskylä, Finland
JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/13229400.2018.1515101
employed in o de o highligh he posi i e and coun e -p oduc i e aspec s o ‘belonging’
associa ed wi h amily li e and consequen ly amily solida i y in he b oadband socie y
(abou he concep , see Fo una i, Vincen , Gebha d , Pe o cic, & Ve shinskaya, 2010).
Family no ms and solida i y canno be ega ded as absolu e ules defining he li es o
all amilies, bu a he as guidelines ha ake new o ms om si ua ion o si ua ion
unde gi en social condi ions (Finch & Mason, 1993). Ins ead o s udying how ICT use
is associa ed wi h pa icula o ms o solida i y (also see Beng son & Robe s, 1991),
his a icle explo es and cla ifies wha a e he daily si ua ions and social condi ions ha
make ICTs significan in e ms o amily solida i y (Baldassa , Nedelcu, Me la, &
Wilding, 2016). While wo king o his end, he analysis is fi mly ancho ed on a g ass oo s
le el da a, which leads us o con empla e he s udied phenomenon h ough he concep o
e amilisa ion. Bo owing om social policy and amily esea ch (see Lei a, 2002) whe e i
highligh s he shi in ca e esponsibili ies om he s a e back o he amily and hence also
calls o in e gene a ional amily solida i y.
As li le as a decade ago i was widely conside ed ha one- o-one communica ion ools,
such as mobile elephone calls, ex -messages and emails, we e especially use ul in in e-
g a ing he spa ially and empo a ily sepa a ed daily agendas o indi iduals. Consequen ly,
i was a gued ha he indi idual had become he p ima y uni o household connec i i y,
eplacing adi ional amily solida i ies based on sha ed alues and no ms (Kennedy &
Wellman, 2007). I was also suspec ed ha he In e ne and mobile phone would ha e
led o inc eased social isola ion and a decline in he a e age size and di e si y o co e
social ne wo ks (McPhe son, Smi h-Lo in, & B ashea s, 2006).
Mo e ecen ly, no leas because o social media, schola s ha e ques ioned hese esul s,
showing ha hose who use he In e ne and specific o ms o social media such as pho o
sha ing and ins an messaging ha e mo e ex ensi e and di e se co e ne wo ks han hose
who do no (Hamp on, Sessions, & He , 2011; Lam, 2013). While he ise o social media
inspi ed much esea ch on social ne wo ks and g oup-based communica ion (e.g. Ling &
Lai, 2016; Neus aed e e al., 2013), his a icle a gues ha amily solida i ies ha e been
subjec o many significan changes as well.
New o ms o amily connec i i ies
Con empo a y ICTs ha e no only os e ed indi idual ne wo king and added o he ‘p i-
a iza ion o communica ion’, hey ha e also made possible he main enance o –and
some imes in ensified – amily and o he co e ies. Mesch (2006) summa izes he effec s
o ICT’s amilies, men ioning posi i e effec s such as he possibili y o collabo a i e
use, be e coo dina ion o amily ac i i ies, and dis ance pa en ing. The nega i e effec s
we e seen o acc ue om amily membe s soli a y use o ICTs (wa ching o playing
ideos alone), which was conside ed o de ac om ime spen oge he wi hin he
amily (Nie, 2001; Nie & Hillygus, 2002). This in u n diminishes ime spen oge he ,
which is ega ded as a p econdi ion o a sense o ‘ oge he ness’in he amily.
Rela ing o he po en ial isks o soli a y use o echnologies, many s udies ha e in es-
iga ed pa en ing s yles and pa en al media ion in ela ions o child en’s use o ICTs
(Cla k, 2013; Lee, 2013; Li ings one e al., 2015; Mesch, 2009; Shephe d, A nold, &
Gibbs, 2006). Despi e he me i s o hese s udies, exis ing li e a u e abou he impac o
compu e echnologies on he amily is s ill su p isingly limi ed in scope. Mos o
2R. HÄNNINEN ET AL.
s udies ha e ocused on indi idual amily membe s o amily membe s esiding in he
same household. The only ema kably expec a ion is he mig an s li ing in diaspo ic
amily ela ions (Cabalquin o, 2017a,2017b; Madianou, 2016; Mille & Madianou,
2012). Conside ably less is known abou he use o ICTs in ex ended amilies whose
membe s li e in diffe en loca ions a ound Finland –o in o he de eloped Wes e n
coun ies –and s ay in ouch wi h one ano he by means o communica ion echnologies.
Following he example o Ch is ensen’s(2009), we hink ha he e m dis ibu ed amily
desc ibe his amily ype unde in es iga ion pe haps mos accu a ely. Rega ding ICT use
in his ype o amilies, Lam (2013, p. 323) p esen s ha among Chinese mig an wo ke s
who main ain anslocal ela ions wi h amily and cons uc anslocal iden i ies, ICT use
leads o ‘a new o m o in e gene a ional solida i y among he elde ly pa en s and he
young amily membe s who a e dis an and canno physically ga he oge he o a long
pe iod o ime’. These dis an -bu -in ima e connec ions, Lam concludes, ha e made in e -
gene a ional ela ionships and amily obliga ions mo e symme ical and egali a ian.
Howe e , esea ch has also poin ed ou ha gende , age and social class diffe ences some-
imes ansla e in o asymme ical use o digi al communica ion echnologies, which in dis-
pe sed amilies c ea e new social inequali ies be ween amily membe s (Cabalquin o,
2017a,2017b).
This kind o new connec i i y is commonly desc ibed using he e m ‘connec ed p es-
ence’, which e e s o he eeling o a pe pe ual connec ion ha can be ac i a ed a any ime
(Licoppe, 2004). Fo connec ed p esence, small ges u es and communica i e ac s a e as
impo an elemen s as he con en o communica ion o messages (Licoppe & Smo eda,
2005). Rega ding in a- amily communica ion, Ch is ensen (2009) no es ha equen
mobile phone calls and ex messages se e he eeling o closeness while membe s a e
physically sepa a ed. Addi ionally, wi h he ise o new social media, a a ie y o new
simple modes o communica ion, such as p essing a ‘Like’bu on in Facebook o in
Twi e , ha e eme ged which p o ide new means o nu u e amily solidi y om a dis ance
(E an i & Lonkila, 2015). The significance o such small communica ion ac s, o ins ance
g oup messaging, has been mos ly discussed in connec ion o pee - ela ions (e.g. Ling &
Lai, 2016;O’Ha a, Massimi, Ha pe , Rubens, & Mo is, 2014). La ely, a en ion has been
also paid o a a ie y o small o dina y communica i e p ac ices ha se e he eeling o
co-p esence in ansna ional dis ibu ed amilies (Nedelcu & Wyss, 2016). Madianou and
Mille (2012) ha e o example in oduced he no ion ‘polymedia’ o ha e a be e g asp o
his en i onmen o mul iple communica ion oppo uni ies, and o add ess he social,
emo ional and mo al consequences o choosing be ween hem in he con ex o in e pe -
sonal and amily communica ion.
Finland has some specific amily ea u es ha shape he need and ac ual use o com-
munica ion echnologies in amilies. Fi s , one-fi h o Finns li e alone and app oxima ely
one- hi d o hem li e in wo-pe son amilies. One eason o he high p opo ion o small
amilies is ha young people, who a e en i led o uni e sal public s udy and housing
benefi s, lea e hei childhood homes a a conside ably young age. The sha e o 20–24
yea -olds li ing in hei pa en s’home declined o a leas h ee decades, bu has ecen ly
s abilized being a he le el o 24 pe cen in 2014 (S a is ics Finland, 2015). Secondly, he
pe cen age o amilies wi h child en has dec eased om 64 in 1950 o 39 in 2014 (S a is ics
Finland, 2015). In con as o many Sou he n Eu opean coun ies, mul i-gene a ional
housing a angemen s a e almos non-exis en in Finland. Thi dly, i is in e es ing o
JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES 3

no e ha ace- o- ace ime wi h o he amily membe s has clea ly d opped be ween 1999/
2000 and 2009/2010 in Finnish amilies; his applies o all age g oups including bo h men
and women (Hanifi,2015). All hings conside ed, nuclea amilies in Finland di ide ela-
i ely ea ly in o smalle uni s, con ibu ing o he eme gence o dis ibu ed amilies and
making daily in e ac ions inc easingly elian on ei he physical isi s o –mo e com-
monly –on ICT-media ed amily communica ion.
ICT-media ed amily communica ion has no been s udied e y sys ema ically in
Finland. Punamäki, Wallenius, Höl ö, Nygå d, and Rimpelä (2009) in es iga ed he
ela ionships be ween ICT usage, pee and pa en ela ions in ea ly adolescence. Rega ding
child–pa en ela ions, hey ound ha in ensi e ICT use o digi al playing, In e ne
su fing, as well as o emailing and cha ing, we e ela ed o poo child–pa en ela ions.
Hu me, Wes e back, and Quad ello (2010) examined communica ion pa e ns be ween
g andchild en and g andpa en s in Finland wi h wo s a is ical su eys. The da a collec ed
om g andpa en s indica ed ha he u he away g andchild en li ed, he less landline,
mobile and ace- o- ace con ac he e was. Only he exchange o le e s and pos ca ds wi h
g andchild en inc eased wi h dis ance. Simila ly, da a collec ed om g andchild en
showed ha hey used less ex messaging wi h g andpa en s when he geog aphic dis ance
be ween he wo gene a ions became g ea e .
D awing on Finnish ime-use su eys collec ed be ween 1979 and 2009/2010, Repo and
Nä i (2015) main ain ha young people (10–19 yea -olds) use compu e s mos ly alone in
Finnish households. In e ne use is also men ioned as a soli a y ac i i y among child en.
By con as , wa ching ele ision has emained as an ac i i y ha child en do oge he wi h
hei amily membe s mo e o en han wi h hei iends. All hese p e ious accoun s ely
on ela i ely simple, unidimensional indica o s o ICT use ( ime use, equency). O he
kinds o me hods a e equi ed in o de o cla i y he easons behind he use o a ious
digi al communica ion echnologies in amily communica ion, and o illumina e he posi-
i e and nega i e consequences o hei diffe en uses o amily cohesion/solida i y (see
also Ch is ensen, 2009).
Resea ch da a
The esea ch da a consis s o wen y- wo (22) epo s based on ex ended g oup in e iews
and obse a ion. The epo s we e w i en by Finnish social sciences and communica ions
s udies s uden s a he Uni e si y o Jy äskylä be ween Decembe 1024 and Ma ch 2015.
The s uden s’assignmen was o obse e ICT- ela ed communica ion in hei amilies and
in e iew fi e (5) amily membe s who use ICT. The o al numbe o in o man s in his
s udy is he e o e 133 including he 22 key in o man s.
Nine een (19) o he key in o man s we e emale and h ee (3) male. The age o he key
in o man s a ied be ween 20 and 38 al hough only wo o hem we e in hei hi ies.
The e we e 61 emale and 50 male amily membe s in e iewed and obse ed by he
key in o man s, meaning ha women a e sligh ly o e ep esen ed in his esea ch
ma e ial. All amilies pa icipa ing in he esea ch we e s udied in he con ex o h ee gen-
e a ions including child en, siblings, spouses, pa en s and g andpa en s ha ypically
o med he immedia e amily o he key in o man s. Some key in o man s ex ended he
in e iews o hei cousins, child en and spouse’s ela i es. Geog aphically he key in o -
man s and in o man s ep esen all he majo egions o Finland. Social class backg ound
4R. HÄNNINEN ET AL.
was no specifically inqui ed om he key in o man s. Ne e heless, i can be assumed ha
he esea ch da a is skewed in his espec , as he child en o highly educa ed pa en s a e
mo e likely o a end uni e si ies also in Finland (Ki inen, Hedman, & Kaipainen, 2012).
Based on hei fieldwo k, he key in o man s w o e a o al o h ee (3) epo s wi h a
minimum o 300 wo ds pe epo in which hey we e asked o desc ibe: (1) wha ICT
ools and applica ions we e used o s ay in ouch wi h amily membe s, (2) how he key
in o man s conside hei ICT skills in ela ion o one ano he and finally (3) how ICT
affec s he oles wi hin hei amily. ICT was defined as all kinds o digi al communica ion
ools and applica ions ha a e used o s ay in con ac and communica e wi h amily
membe s including mobile phones, e-mails, Facebook, Twi e , Wha sApp, and
Ins ag am.
Fo compa a i e easons he key in o man s we e ad ised o in e iew a leas one o
hei pa en s and one g andpa en , i possible. The h ee emaining in e iewees we e
eely de e mined by he key in o man s p o iding ha hey we e o diffe en ages. Key
in o man s also ga he ed backg ound in o ma ion on each in e iewee including
gende , age, ela ionship wi h he key in o man and whe he he key in o man and in o -
man sha ed a household. Geog aphical dis ance was documen ed i he key in o man
and he in o man we e no membe s o he same household. Las ly, he me hod o in e -
iew used wi h diffe en in o man s was epo ed.
Resea ch me hods and analysis
S uden s ha e good knowledge ega ding he amily ela ions and ICT skills wi hin hei
amilies. Due o hei educa ional backg ound, hey also possess he necessa y ools o
communica e hei findings o he esea che in an unambiguous manne . Fu he mo e,
as he s uden s a e pa o he amilies hey obse e and in e iew, hey a e able o gain
in o ma ion ha migh no be accessible o an ou side in e iewe . In esea ch ocusing
on gene a ional ela ionships and amily solida i y, his kind o collabo a ion is e en
mo e significan as i p o ides access o he expe iences o no only he 22 key in o man s
bu hei 111 amily membe s as well.
The ex ended g oup in e iew (EGI) employed in his s udy is a quali a i e esea ch
me hod ha we ha e de eloped in o de o be e g asp he unde lying social p ac ices
and alues behind he use o ICTs in amilies. We ha e designed i o desc ibe amilies
and hei ela ionships wi h a ious ICTs, bu pa icula ly o deepen ou unde s anding
o he changes ICTs ha e b ough on amily solida i y wi hin he amily. EGI also
enabled us o each a ela i ely la ge numbe o amily membe s wi hou comp omising
he quali y o he obse a ions and in e iews. As a esea ch me hod, EGI d aws upon
bo h new me hodological aspi a ions ega ding g oup in e iews in he con ex o he
amily s udies (Reczek, 2014) as well as he collabo a i e na u e o he e hnog aphic
enqui y (Lassi e , 2005).
By he e m ‘ex ended’in EGI, we wish o emphasis he scope o he esea ch ma e ial:
ins ead o he nuclea amily, he g oup in e iews conduc ed in his s udy consis ed o
h ee gene a ions ex ending om g andchild en o g andpa en s. The second meaning
a ached o he concep o ‘ex ended’highligh s he me hodological expansion o he
no ion o g oup in e iew de eloped in his esea ch. The epo s a e based on a a ie y
o in e iews and obse a ions conduc ed by he key in o man s including adi ional
JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES 5
indi idual and g oup in e iews as well as ace- o- ace and phone in e iews. Fu he mo e,
EGI and obse a ion we e no necessa ily conduc ed a one specific ime o place, bu
a he as a se ies o indi idual o g oup in e iews in which amily membe s desc ibed
hei e e yday li es in he con ex o hei weekly schedules and he social dynamics o
hei amilies. Ins ead o fixed on a specific ime o place ou side he amily li e (c .
ocus g oup in e iew acili ies), EGI goes whe e e he key in o man s migh go and
hus expands he bounda ies o adi ional g oup in e iew.
U ilizing key in o man s as in e iewe s and obse e s added a s ong collabo a i e
elemen o he me hod as key in o man s wo ked side by side wi h esea che s while ga h-
e ing he esea ch ma e ial. In nume ous e hnog aphic s udies (Lassi e , 2005; Lassi e &
Campbell, 2010; Powde make , 1967; Rappapo , 2008), he equali y be ween he
esea che and he in o man has consis en ly been epo ed as a posi i e elemen in
he con ex o fieldwo k. Equali y enhances he quali y o he esea ch da a by gi ing
he in o man , o in his case, he amily uni , an oppo uni y o b ing o wa d hei
‘own oice’in e ms o ICT and amily solida i y.
In addi ion o he in e p e a i e dis ance (Gee z, 1973) cha ac e is ic o quali a i e
esea ch in gene al, he e is he elemen o physical dis ance o be accoun ed o in his
esea ch. Many o he amily membe s pa icipa ing in his s udy li ed a significan dis-
ance, some imes se e al hund ed kilome es away om he key in o man s who ha e
ga he ed he esea ch da a. In his ligh , using EGI and obse a ion has enabled he key
in o man s o adjus he da a ga he ing acco ding o hei amily si ua ion and o
employ he mos con enien me hod o communica ion in o de o each hei amily
membe s. In compa ison wi h e.g. adi ional g oup in e iew conduc ed by a esea che ,
EGI has also a conside able amoun o eflexi e capaci y o i . EGI i gi es oom o he key
in o man s o con empla e on he ICT use o hei amilies du ing bo h obse a ion and
he ac ual in e iews in collabo a ion wi h hei amily membe s bu also la e on when
hey w i e hei epo s.
The epo s depic nume ous occasions on which he amily membe s disag eed wi h
one ano he , indica ing ha he en i onmen in which he in e iews ook place was con-
side ed sa e enough o e e yone o exp ess hei opinions ega dless o gende o age. The
key in o man s also demons a ed he necessa y sensi i i y owa ds hei in o man s’
opinions: e en con adic o y iews on ICT use in amilies we e ca e ully documen ed in
he epo s.
The ac ha key in o man s ga he ed esea ch da a om hei own amilies aises some
me hodological issues. While s udying one’s own amily in many ways p o ides aluable
access o in o ma ion on amily membe s, exis ing p econcep ions can ollow key in o -
man s h ough hei fieldwo k and find hei way in o he epo s. Howe e , in e hno-
g aphic e ms he p ocess o in e p e a ion is by necessi y always in es ed wi h a ious
biases, as human pe cep ion in gene al is subjec i e by na u e (Cliffo d, 1986; Gee z,
1973; Ma cus, 1998). The epo s made by he key in o man s do no p oduce ‘objec i e
ac s’bu a he impa ial u h, which a e u he in e p e ed by he esea che s du ing
he analysis in o de o de ec and make isible po en ial biases (Hänninen, 2012).
The esea ch ma e ial was analyzed by using hema ic analysis o coded esea ch da a
(Boya zis, 1998; B aun & Cla ke, 2006), a commonly applied me hod in e hnog aphy. A
he fi s s age o examining he epo s we ocused on he ques ion o how exac ly ICT has
affec ed amily ela ions in Finland and disco e ed ha he s udied amilies conside hese
6R. HÄNNINEN ET AL.
effec s mos ly posi i e. A he second s age o ou hema ic analysis, we ook a close look
a he cen al hemes o he ela ionship be ween ICT and amily solida i y. We concluded
ha he e a e se e al ways in which ICT enhances amily solida i y and ha despi e o he
posi i e effec s associa ed wi h a ious ICTs, almos all o hem included one o mo e
coun e -p oduc i e elemen s as well.
As ega ds esea ch e hics, his s udy ope a es on in o med consen (Mille & Bell,
2002; Seidman, 2013). All o he s uden s and hei amily membe s we e awa e o he
na u e o he esea ch and i s aspi a ions. They also ga e hei pe mission o use he
epo s based on obse a ion and in e iews as esea ch ma e ial. In o de o ensu e he
p i acy o he key in o man s and in e iewees, all names appea ing in his s udy ha e
been changed o pseudonyms.
Enhanced solida i y wi hin Finnish amilies h ough ICTs
In e iewees pa icipa ing in his s udy ag eed on ha ICTs, especially sma phones,
ha e inc eased communica ion wi hin hei amily. Al hough new echnologies ha e
pa ially eplaced adi ional ways o communica ion wi hin he s udied Finnish
amilies, in e iewees also epo ed ha hei in e ac ion wi h o he membe s o hei
amilies had become mo e di e se. ICTs p o ide mul iple ools and modali ies o com-
munica ion ( oice, ex , pho o, ideo e c.) o connec wi h one ano he , which has made
i easie o find mo e con enien modes o communica ion ha ca e o he a ious
needs o people in diffe en li e-si ua ions and wi hin diffe en amily s uc u es. Conse-
quen ly, i can be a gued ha ICTs ha e he po en ial o imp o e in a- amily ela ions
and amily solida i y in Finland.
Acco ding o Lau a, a key in o man , he main eason people a e willing o y ou
a ious new echnologies and applica ions is ha hey p o ide amily membe s oppo u-
ni ies o be a ailable and o pa icipa e in amily ma e s. New echnologies a e also
app ecia ed because hey make communica ion as , easy and o en ee o cha ge and
because o hey p o ed use ulness in e e yday li e.
I can be a gued ha especially he younge in e iewees ha e a endency o choose he
app op ia e mode o communica ion acco ding o he ICTs ha hey know hei amily
membe s use equen ly. Pa en s u ilize Facebook and ex messages while communica ing
o hei child en and o he younge membe s o he amily, and make phone calls o he
olde gene a ions such as hei pa en s o g andpa en s. Young people ypically use Wha -
sApp and ex messages (see also, Racz, Johnson, B adshaw, & Cheng, 2017) o con ac
hei amily membe s in Facebook. I hey wan o be in ouch wi h hei g andpa en s,
hey oo choose a phone call (Oksman, 2006).
The e a e also se e al examples a ailable in he esea ch da a sugges ing ha in some
amilies, ins an messenge s such as Wha sApp and Vine ep esen an impo an pa o
in a- amily communica ion be ween child en and hei pa en s on a daily basis. In hese
amilies, almos e e y hing om discussions ega ding weekly schedules o sending unny
pic u es and asking how amily membe s a e doing is conduc ed h ough hese appli-
ca ions. As Emilia desc ibes he amily’s ecen ly es ablished Wha sApp g oup:
I is a con enien way o each he whole amily when he e is some hing ha needs o be
discussed wi h e e ybody. […] Nowadays all my amily membe s a e in Ins ag am oo.
We like each o he ’s pic u es he e and some imes e en lea e commen s. […] I was only
JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES 7
o he pha ic communica ion among amilies is he ac hey a e no ime-consuming p ac-
ices and ha hey can be used o keep in ouch and o c ea e a sense amily solida i y
ega dless o place o geog aphical dis ance (see also Cao, 2013).
No e
1. Pha ic communica ion is an es ablished exp ession in he field o communica ion s udies.
Howe e , o iginally Malinowski (1924/1994) used he e m pha ic communion o desc ibe
ha he impo ance o seemingly meaningless and pu poseless alk o social bonding.
Unlike communica ion, pha ic communion does no p ima ily aim o he exchange o
in o ma ion.
Acknowledgmen s
We wish o hank P o esso Lau a S a k om he Depa men o His o y and E hnology a he Uni-
e si y o Jy äskylä o he in aluable commen s and insigh ega ding ou esea ch.
Disclosu e s a emen
No po en ial conflic o in e es was epo ed by he au ho s.
Funding
This wo k was suppo ed by he Academy o Finland unde g an numbe 265986 and he Academy
o Finland’s Cen e o Excellence in Resea ch on Ageing and Ca e (CoEAgeCa e) unde g an
numbe 312367.
ORCID
Saka i Taipale h p://o cid.o g/0000-0001-8962-6226
Re e ences
Baka djie a, M. (2005). In e ne socie y: The in e ne in e e yday li e. London: SAGE.
Baldassa , L., Nedelcu, M., Me la, L., & Wilding, R. (2016). ICT-based co-p esence in ansna ional
amilies and communi ies: Challenging he p emise o ace- o- ace p oximi y in sus aining
ela ionships. Global Ne wo ks,16(2), 133–144.
Beng son, V. L., & Robe s, R. E. (1991). In e gene a ional solida i y in aging amilies: An example o
o mal heo y cons uc ion. Jou nal o Ma iage and he Family,53,856–870. doi:10.2307/352993
Boya zis, R. E. (1998). T ans o ming quali a i e in o ma ion: Thema ic analysis and code de elop-
men . London: SAGE.
Boyd, D. (2014). I ’s complica ed: The social li es o ne wo ked eens. New Ha en: The Yale
Uni e si y P ess.
B aun, V., & Cla ke, V. (2006). Using hema ic analysis in psychology. Quali a i e Resea ch in
Psychology,3,77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Cabalquin o, E. C. (2017a). Home on he mo e: Nego ia ing diffe en ial domes ici y in amily li e a a
dis ance. Media, Cul u e & Socie y. Ad ance online publica ion. doi:10.1177/0163443717737611
Cabalquin o, E. C. (2017b). “We’ e no only he e bu we’ e he e in spi i ”: Asymme ical mobile
in imacy and he ansna ional Filipino amily. Mobile Media and Communica ion. Ad ance
online publica ion. doi:10.1177/2050157917722055
14 R. HÄNNINEN ET AL.

Cao, X. (2013). Connec ing amilies ac oss ime zones. In C. Neus aed e , S. Ha ison, & A. Sellen
(Eds.), Connec ing amilies: The impac o new communica ion (pp. 127–139). London: Sp inge .
Cas ells, M. (2009). Communica ion powe . Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
Ch is ensen, T. H. (2009). ‘Connec ed p esence’in dis ibu ed amily li e. New Media & Socie y,11,
433–451. doi:10.1177/1461444808101620
Cla k, L. S. (2013). The pa en app: Unde s anding amilies in he digi al age. Ox o d: Ox o d
Uni e si y P ess.
Cliffo d, J. (1986). Pa ial u hs. In oduc ion. In J. Cliffo d & G. E. Ma cus (Eds.), The poe ics and
poli ics o e hnog aphy: A school o Ame ican esea ch ad anced semina (pp. 1–24). Be keley:
Uni e si y o Cali o nia P ess.
Daa land, S. O., & He lo son, K. (2003). ‘Los solida i y’o ‘changed solida i y’: A compa a i e
Eu opean iew o no ma i e amily solida i y. Ageing and Socie y,23, 537–560. doi:10.1017/
S0144686X03001272
Dolniča , V., H as , M. F., Veho a , V., & Pe o čič,A.(2013). Digi al inequali y and in e gene a-
ional solida i y: The ole o social suppo in p oxy in e ne use. Selec ed Pape s o In e ne
Resea ch 3. Re ie ed om h p://h p://spi .aoi .o g/index.php/spi /a icle/ iew/734
E an i, V. & Lonkila, M. (2015). The social significance o he Facebook Like bu on. Fi s Monday,
20. Re ie ed om h p://fi s monday.o g/ojs/index.php/ m/a icle/ iew/5505
Finch, J., & Mason, J. (1993). Nego ia ing amily esponsibili ies. London: Rou ledge.
Fo una i, L., Vincen , J., Gebha d , J., Pe o cic, A., & Ve shinskaya, O. (Eds.). (2010). In e ac ing
wi h b oadband socie y.F ank u am Main: Pe e Lang.
Gee z, C. (1973). The in e p e a ion o cul u es. Selec ed essays by Cliffo d Gee z. New Yo k: Basic Books.
Ge gen, K. J. (2002). The challenge o absen p esence. In J. E. Ka z & M. Aakhus (Eds.), Pe pe ual
con ac (pp. 227–241). Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Hamp on, K. N., Sessions, L. F., & He , E. J. (2011). Co e ne wo ks, social isola ion, and new media:
How in e ne and mobile phone use is ela ed o ne wo k size and di e si y. In o ma ion,
Communica ion & Socie y,14, 130–155. doi:10.1080/1369118x.2010.513417
Hanifi,R.(2015). Yksin oleminen on lisään yny . In A. H. An ila, T. An ila, M. Liikkanen, & H.
Pääkkönen (Eds.), Ajassa kiinni ja i allaan: yh eisöllise y mi 2000-lu un Suomessa (pp. 123–
134). Helsinki: Tilas okeskus.
Hänninen, R. (2012). Puu e ilumen lumo: u kimus lumilau ailukul uu is a (Jy äskylä S udies in
Humani ies 191). Jy äskylä: Uni e si y o Jy äskylä.
Hu me, H., Wes e back, S., & Quad ello, T. (2010). T adi ional and new o ms o con ac be ween
g andpa en s and g andchild en. Jou nal o In e gene a ional Rela ionships,8(3), 264–280.
doi:10.1080/15350770.2010.498739
Kennedy, T. L., & Wellman, B. (2007). The ne wo ked household. In o ma ion, Communica ion &
Socie y,10, 645–670. doi:10.1080/13691180701658012
Kiesle , S., Siegel, J., & McGui e, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspec s o compu e -media ed
communica ion. Ame ican Psychologis ,39, 1123–1134.
Ki inen, O., Hedman, J., & Kaipainen, P. (2012). Koulu usmahdollisuuksien yhden e aisuus
Suomessa. E ia oisuuden uude ja anha muo Yh eiskun apol iikka,77(5), 559–566.
Lam, S. S. (2013). ICT’s impac on amily solida i y and upwa d mobili y in anslocal China. Asian
Jou nal o Communica ion,23, 322–340. doi:10.1080/01292986.2012.739186
Lassi e , L. E. (2005). The Chicago guide o collabo a i e e hnog aphy. Chicago: The Uni e si y o
Chicago P ess.
Lassi e , L. E., & Campbell, E. (2010). Wha will we ha e e hnog aphy do? Quali a i e Inqui y,16,
757–767. doi:10.1177/1077800410374444
Lee, S.-J. (2013). Pa en al es ic i e media ion o child en’s in e ne use: Effec i e o wha and o
whom? New Media & Socie y,15, 466–481. doi:10.1177/1461444812452412
Lei a, A. (2002). Wo king pa en s and he wel a e s a e: Family change and policy e o m in
Scandina ia. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Licoppe, C. (2004). ‘Connec ed’p esence: The eme gence o a new epe oi e o managing social
ela ionships in a changing communica ion echnoscape. En i onmen and Planning D: Socie y
and Space,22, 135–156.
JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES 15
Licoppe, C., & Smo eda, Z. (2005). A e social ne wo ks echnologically embedded? How ne wo ks
a e changing oday wi h changes in communica ion echnology. Social Ne wo ks,27, 317–335.
doi:10.1016/j.socne .2004.11.001
Ling, R., & Lai, C. H. (2016). Mic ocoo dina ion 2.0: Social coo dina ion in he age o sma phones
and messaging apps. Jou nal o Communica ion,66, 834–856. doi:10.1111/jcom.12251
Ling, R., & Y i, B. (2002). Hype -coo dina ion ia mobile phones in No way. In J. Ka z & M.
Aakhus (Eds.), Pe pe ual con ac : Mobile communica ion, p i a e alk, public pe o mance (pp.
139–169). Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Li ings one, S., Masche oni, G., D eie , M., Chaud on, S., & Lagae, K. (2015). How pa en s o young
child en manage digi al de ices a home: The ole o income, educa ion and pa en al s yle.
London: EU Kids Online, LSE. Re ie ed om h p://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/ esea ch/
EUKidsOnline/EUKidsIV/PDF/Pa en almedia ion.pd
Madianou, M. (2016). Ambien co-p esence: T ansna ional amily p ac ices in polymedia en i on-
men s. Global Ne wo ks,16, 183–201. doi:10.1111/glob.12105
Malinowski, B. (1923/1994). The p oblem o meaning in p imi i e languages. In C. K. Ogden & I. A.
Richa ds (Eds.), The meaning o meaning (pp. 435–496). London: Rou ledge.
Ma cus, G. (1998). E hnog aphy h ough hick & hin. P ince on, NJ: P ince on Uni e si y P ess.
McPhe son, M., Smi h-Lo in, L., & B ashea s, M. E. (2006). Social isola ion in Ame ica: Changes in
co e discussion ne wo ks o e wo decades. Ame ican Sociological Re iew,71, 353–375. doi:10.
1177/000312240607100301
Mesch, G. S. (2006). Family ela ions and he in e ne : Explo ing a amily bounda ies app oach.
Jou nal o Family Communica ion,6, 119–138. doi:10.1207/s15327698j c0602_2
Mesch, G. S. (2009). Pa en al media ion, online ac i i ies, and cybe bullying. Cybe Psychology &
Beha io ,12, 387–393. doi:10.1089/cpb.2009.0068
Madianou, M., & Mille , D. (2012). Mig a ion and new media, ansna ional amilies and polyme-
dia.New Yo k: Rou ledge.
Mille , T., & Bell, L. (2002). Consen ing o wha ? Issues o access, ga e-keeping and ‘in o med’
consen . In M. Mau hne , M. Bi ch, J. Jessop, & T. Mille (Eds.), E hics in quali a i e esea ch
(pp. 54–70). London: SAGE.
Nedelcu, M., & Wyss, M. (2016). ‘Doing amily’ h ough ICT-media ed o dina y co-p esence:
T ansna ional communica ion p ac ices o Romanian mig an s in Swi ze land. Global
Ne wo ks,16(2), 202–218.
Neus aed e , C., Ha ison, S., & Sellen, A. (Eds.) (2013). Connec ing amilies: The impac o new
communica ion. London: Sp inge .
Nie, N. H. (2001). Sociabili y, in e pe sonal ela ions, and he In e ne : Reconciling conflic ing
findings. Ame ican Beha io al Scien is , 3, 420–435.
Nie, N. H., & Hillygus, D. S. (2002). The impac o In e ne use on sociabili y: Time-dia y findings.
IT&Socie y,1,1–20.
O’Ha a, K., Massimi, M., Ha pe , R., Rubens, S., & Mo is, J. (2014). E e yday dwelling wi h
Wha sApp. In P oceedings o he 17 h ACM con e ence on compu e suppo ed coope a i e
wo k & social compu ing (pp. 1131–1143). New Yo k: ACM.
Oksman, V. (2006). Young people and senio s in Finnish ‘mobile in o ma ion socie y’.Jou nal o
In e ac i e Media in Educa ion,2005(2), 24. Re ie ed om h p://www-jime.open.ac.uk/a icles/
10.5334/2006-3/
Powde make , H. (1967). S ange and iend: The way o an an h opologis . New Yo k: W.W.
No on & Company.
Punamäki, R. L., Wallenius, M., Höl ö, H., Nygå d, C. H., & Rimpelä, A. (2009). The associa ions
be ween in o ma ion and communica ion echnology (ICT) and pee and pa en ela ions in
ea ly adolescence. In e na ional Jou nal o Beha io al De elopmen ,33, 556–564. doi:10.1177/
0165025409343828
Racz, S. J., Johnson, S. L., B adshaw, C. P., & Cheng, T. L. (2017). Pa en ing in he digi al age: U ban
black you h’spe cep ions abou echnology-based communica ion wi h pa en s. Jou nal o
Family S udies,23, 198–214.
16 R. HÄNNINEN ET AL.
Rappapo , J. (2008). Beyond pa icipan obse a ion: Collabo a i e e hnog aphy as heo e ical
inno a ion. Collabo a i e An h opologies,1,1–31. doi:10.1353/cla.0.0014
Reczek, C. (2014). Conduc ing a mul i amily membe in e iew s udy. Family P ocess,53, 318–335.
doi:10.1111/ amp.12060
Repo, K., & Nä i, J. (2015). Tele isio ja ie okone las en ja nuo en ajankäy ön y mi äjinä. In A. H.
An ila, T. An ila, M. Liikkanen, & H. Pääkkönen (Eds.), Ajassa kiinni ja i allaan: yh eisöllise
y mi 2000-lu un Suomessa (pp. 135–152). Helsinki: Tilas okeskus.
Seidman, I. (2013). In e iewing as quali a i e esea ch: A guide o esea che s in educa ion and he
social sciences (4 h ed.). New Yo k: Teache s College P ess.
Sha e, M., Williams, C., & Ke ins, L. (2017). Displaying and pe o ming: Polish ansna ional
amilies in I eland Skyping g andpa en s in Poland. New Media & Socie y. Ad ance online pub-
lica ion. doi:1461444817739272
Shephe d, C., A nold, M., & Gibbs, M. (2006). Pa en ing in he connec ed home. Jou nal o Family
S udies,12, 203–222. doi:10.5172/j s.327.12.2.203
S a is ics Finland. (2015). Families: Annual e iew. Re ie ed om h p://www.s a .fi/ il/pe h/2014/
02/pe h_2014_02_2015-11-27_en.pd
JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES 17