Re-domestication of Internet Technologies: Digital Exclusion or Digital Choice?
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
Re-domestication of Internet Technologies:
Digital Exclusion or Digital Choice?
1,2,
Darja Groselj
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/26/6/422/6376010 by guest on 21 November 2021
1
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Ljubljana, Slovenia
2
Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Internet access is now characterized by multi-device, mobile, and ubiquitous access. We explore
the changing nature of internet access by focusing on social practices that shape the position and
role of internet technologies in everyday internet use. Drawing on the domestication framework,
the study uses data from qualitative interviews with UK internet users to explore how technolo-
gies are re-domesticated. Three practices encompassing how internet users develop and maintain
internet access were identified: spotlighting, distributing, and making do. In addition, orientation,
understanding, play, and communication internet dependencies were examined to determine
how individuals relate to internet technologies. The practices of re-domestication reflect differen-
ces in the role that internet technologies play in individuals’ daily lives, and differences in the
availability of offline resources. The study contributes to our understanding of the mechanisms
underlying the development and maintenance of internet access, depending on whether access
arrangements are shaped by digital exclusion or choice.
Lay Summary
As internet access becomes more complex, it is important to understand how people interact with
the various internet technologies they use. Theoretically, the concept of re-domestication suggests
that the meanings, roles, and uses of old technologies can shift as new technologies are adopted.
The concept of internet centrality, which includes orientation, understanding, play, and commu-
nication dependencies, illustrates the role of internet technologies in individuals’ daily lives. The
study draws on 29 qualitative interviews with UK internet users. Three distinct practices of re-
domestication were identified: “spotlighting,” where one device becomes the predominant way
people go online; “distributing,” which involves access where different devices are used and the
choice of a particular device depends on the contextual factors of internet use; and “making do,”
where users struggle to maintain internet access, resulting in access being restricted. In addition,
the analysis of internet centrality showed that different re-domestication practices also reflect dif-
ferences in what role internet technologies play in individuals’ daily lives: Users who engaged in
Corresponding author: Darja Groselj; e-mail: darja.groselj@fdv.uni-lj.si
Associate Editor: Lee Humphreys; Received: 20 November 2020; Revisions received: 22 July 2021; Accepted: 31 August
2021; Published: 27 September 2021
422 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 26 (2021) 422–440 V C The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press
on behalf of International Communication Association.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.D. Groselj Re-domestication of Internet Technologies
spotlighting or making do practices were more inclined to value the internet for relaxation and
pastime (play dependency), whereas those who engaged in distributing practices were more in-
clined to value the internet for meaning making (understanding dependency).
Keywords: Digital inequalities, Digital exclusion, Digital choice, Domestication, Re-domestication,
Internet centrality, Media system dependency
doi:10.1093/jcmc/zmab017
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/26/6/422/6376010 by guest on 21 November 2021
From 2011 to 2019, the percentage of the population of Great Britain using the internet has increased
moderately from 73% to 82% but the ways people go online have been considerably transformed. The
number of users who go online on their mobile phones and own at least two other internet-enabled
devices grew significantly from 32% of British adults in 2011 to 71% in 2019 (Blank et al., 2020).
Concurrently, in 2018, 29% of British adults only used a device other than a PC to go online (a stark
increase from 2% in 2010) and 11% went online only through a smartphone (Rossiter-Base, 2019).
Similarly, a trend of smartphone dependency was identified in the United States, where the percentage
of adults who do not use broadband at home but own smartphones increased from 8% in 2013 to
15% in 2021 (Pew Research Center, 2021). Since the ways people access the internet have become di-
verse, this study starts from the premise that studying internet access should address dynamic and
complex nature of access. The study considers an ecological perspective (Humphreys et al., 2013;
Jung, 2008) of internet access and aims at providing a more comprehensive picture of how internet
users develop, maintain, and engage with internet access.
Allowing that access is dynamic and manifests itself in different forms raises questions about the
processes underlying these developments, such as why, when, and how people adopt new devices,
how new devices reconfigure relationships with old devices, and how the availability of multiple devi-
ces affects online engagement. It is also important to ask what technological developments mean for
internet users who cannot or will not keep up with them. For example, are people who cannot get on-
line across multiple devices and locations at a disadvantage, or are they simply exercising an empow-
ered digital choice? Understanding such nuances requires a holistic and contextual approach to the
study of internet access.
As information and communication technologies (ICTs) become more central to participation in
society, individuals’ technological “careers” should also be considered, emphasizing people’s changing
relationship with technology (Murdock, 2002, p. 27; Selwyn, 2005). In doing so, the study draws on do-
mestication (Haddon, 2011) and media system dependency (MSD) theory (Ball-Rokeach, 1985) to
guide the analysis of how people develop and relate to internet access and the role it plays in their ev-
eryday lives. Based on semi-structured interviews with UK internet users, this study explores practices
of re-domestication through changes in individual internet access and differences in internet centrality.
Background
Digital Divide and Dynamics of Internet Access
Since the 1990s, there has been an ongoing concern that unequal access to and use of ICTs exacer-
bates existing inequalities, commonly referred to as digital inequalities encompassing inequalities
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 26 (2021) 422–440 423Re-domestication of Internet Technologies D. Groselj
between those with formal access to ICTs (DiMaggio & Hargittai, 2001). Research established differ-
ences in internet access as the first-level digital divide, followed by the second-level divides in internet
skills and uses (e.g. Hargittai, 2002; van Deursen & van Dijk, 2014), leading to the third-level digital
divide in outcomes of internet use (van Deursen & Helsper, 2015). Considering internet access as a
first-level digital divide led to individuals with some kind of access being considered to be on the
“right” side of the divide and their internet access was no longer questioned (Davison & Cotten,
2009).
However, technological advances in ICTs, such as internet-enabled mobile devices, have reconfig-
ured the spatial, temporal, and contextual dimensions of internet use. For example, mobile internet
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/26/6/422/6376010 by guest on 21 November 2021
access provides greater flexibility and access on the go (Humphreys et al., 2013), access to information
“just in time” (White, 2011), or enhances ongoing conversations in social settings (Cui & Roto, 2008).
Given the ongoing technological developments, some researchers examined how different types of ac-
cess (e.g., mobile-only, PC-only, and combined (Correa, Pavez, & Contreras, 2020; Pearce & Rice,
2013; van Deursen & van Dijk, 2019)) relate to different socio-demographics and lead to differential
use of online resources. The findings of these studies suggest that the first-level digital divide persists
and shapes inequalities in skills, uses, and outcomes (van Deursen & van Dijk, 2019). However, these
studies do not capture the dynamic nature of access at the individual level.
A dynamic approach to studying internet access should consider not only the specific material
devices, but also people’s perceptions and ideas about technologies that shape how they are placed
into their everyday lives. This is essentially linked to the domestication approach (Haddon, 2011) to
understanding access dynamics. Loges and Jung (2001, p. 538) stress that the digital divide involves
not only access to technologies but also “how central the internet is or could be in achieving various
essential goals in individuals’ everyday lives”, while Helsper (2012, p. 412) suggests that the “centrality
or importance individuals attach to ICTs” can shape their use of technologies. Discerning what roles
technologies play, we can better understand the choices people make about these technologies (Jung
et al., 2001). Therefore, we propose to extend the idea of centrality of ICTs (Haddon, 2011; Jung et al.,
2001) by drawing on MSD theory (Ball-Rokeach, 1985).
Re-domestication
Domestication research is concerned with how individuals place technologies in the context of their
everyday lives by exploring what they mean to people, how they are experienced and what roles they
play in people’s daily lives (Haddon, 2006; Silverstone et al., 1992). The domestication framework has
five main features: (a) the emphasis is on consumption rather than adoption of technologies, focusing
on how technologies are experienced; (b) adoption itself is viewed as a process rather than an event;
(c) it refers to a process of appropriation in which “taming of the wild” refers to users adapting tech-
nologies to everyday routines; (d) individual consumption needs are placed in a larger context; (e) do-
mestication is both shaped and shaping, which occurs through the active consumption of media and
technology in everyday life contexts (Green & Haddon, 2009; Haddon, 2006). Domestication research
goes beyond the processes related to the initial steps of technology adoption and explores the later
careers of ICTs by examining how people’s relationships with them change over time (Haddon,
2011). Domestication is an ongoing process concerning an individual’s entire technology repertoire.
As new technologies are added, the role of existing technologies may change, become more special-
ized, or become obsolete. In addition, changes in individual circumstances, social networks, or
broader societal changes may also influence choices within the technology repertoire (Haddon, 2005).
Developments, both technological and social, can spur the processes of re-domestication, where the
424 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 26 (2021) 422–440D. Groselj Re-domestication of Internet Technologies
roles and meanings of technologies change. Re-domestication encompasses adjustments in people’s
relationship with and use of old technologies when new innovations enter the existing repertoires of
ICTs (Bertel & Ling, 2014; Green & Haddon, 2009; Haddon, 2011).
Internet Centrality
Centrality has been discussed in both domestication and digital inclusion studies. Haddon (2011)
states that domestication research could address the issue of centrality as the changing centrality of
ICTs relates to their long-term dynamics. Several factors shape the degree of centrality: The range
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/26/6/422/6376010 by guest on 21 November 2021
of things technologies enable, their adoption and use by our social networks and the degree to
which we become locked into using particular technologies because our lives are organized around
them (Haddon, 2011). Sparks (2013) argues that the most important future issues in digital divide
research relate to the increasing centrality of internet technologies to many aspects of social life. To
further develop the notion of internet centrality, we turn to its origins in MSD theory (Ball-
Rokeach & DeFleur, 1976).
MSD theory posits that individuals develop dependency relations with the media (dependency is
defined as a relationship in which “the attainment of goals by one party is contingent upon the
resources of another party”; Ball-Rokeach & DeFleur, 1976, p. 6). The concept of dependency
describes how central the media is to individuals’ everyday goal attainment. Motivation for media use
stems from the goals of understanding, orientation, and play. All types of personal goals are equally
important for an individual’s well-being (Ball-Rokeach, 1985) and are shaped by individual differen-
ces, personal, and interpersonal environments. Goals of understanding involve a cognitive dimension
and refer to actions of making sense of our social environment and to self-actualization through
work, hobbies, and personal relations. Goals of orientation guide our actions (e.g., consumption of
goods and services, voting behaviour, daily coping behaviour) or interactions (e.g., orientation in so-
cial situations). Goals of play aim to reduce stress and positively enjoy leisure activities, either alone
or with family and friends (Ball-Rokeach et al., 1984).
The original schema, which focuses on the dependencies individuals formed with mass media in
the 1980s, does not include interpersonal communication, which is a prominent use of ICTs. In fact,
researchers using communication theories (e.g., uses and gratifications) to study online engagement
argue that existing theories need to be extended to include concepts such as interactivity, demassifica-
tion, hypertextuality, and asynchroneity (Ruggiero, 2000). Thus, we propose to extend the MSD
schema to include dependencies related to interpersonal communication and refer to these as goals of
communication. While interaction orientation dependency is about “appropriate behavior when
interacting with others in various social situations and understanding the thoughts and behaviors of
others” (Kim & Jung, 2016, p. 1463), we propose that communication dependency is about actual
two-way interactions that focus on the exchange of information, ideas, and feelings.
Research Questions
We propose that the processes underlying the development and maintenance of internet access can
be better understood through the lens of re-domestication, while drawing on the concept of internet
centrality and the typology of media-related goals from MSD theory to expand our understanding of
the role of technologies in people’s daily lives. Although domestication and MSD theories come from
different disciplinary orientations (domestication from the qualitative strand of UK communication
studies focusing on individual appropriation and use of technologies, and MSD theory from the quan-
titative strand of U.S. communication studies focusing on broadcast media use), both take a holistic
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 26 (2021) 422–440 425Re-domestication of Internet Technologies D. Groselj
approach to understanding the development and use of systems, that considers both material and so-
cial dimensions. While domestication revolves around roles that technologies play in everyday life,
domestication research has not produced a general typology of the roles of ICTs. Here, MSD theory is
used to extend and operationalize the concept of internet centrality.
In particular, domestication can help us better understand the processes underlying the develop-
ment and maintenance of internet access by answering the question (RQ1): What re-domestication pro-
cesses underlie gaining, maintaining, and developing internet access? Furthermore, the premise that
individuals establish different dependencies on media will be used to expand our understanding of roles
internet technologies play in everyday life. The typology of media goals is used to operationalize internet
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/26/6/422/6376010 by guest on 21 November 2021
centrality, which is defined as the importance of internet technologies in attaining various goals. We ex-
amine internet centrality as a motivational factor that shapes engagement with internet access and ask
(RQ2): How is internet centrality reflected in an individual’s relationship with internet access?
Method
Qualitative semi-structured interviews were used to elicit in-depth information about how people de-
velop, manage, and perceive internet access. The study was informed by narrative research as an ap-
proach to qualitative inquiry, which concerns “the experiences as expressed in lived and told stories
of individuals” (Creswell, 2007, p. 54). The principles of episodic interviewing (Flick, 2000), developed
in the study of social representation of technological change, were followed. Flick (2000) posits that
technological change affects different aspects of people’s daily lives and that such change occurs in
concrete situational contexts, with small (technological) changes adding up over time and leading to a
more general change in some aspects of daily life (e.g., in interpersonal communication or buying
behaviour).
The first part of the interview served to elicit the technology biography of the interviewees, from
the beginnings of internet use to changes in internet access. Participants were asked when, why, and
how new devices were adopted, what factors influenced this process, and whether new devices affected
their relationships with existing infrastructure in any way. Specific usage practices were also discussed,
with a focus on how these changed over time as internet access changed. The second part of the inter-
view focused on the importance of the internet in interviewees’ daily lives, the joys, and frustrations
of going online and the concerns associated with it. More general topics, such as the role of the inter-
net and technology in our society, were also discussed.
Interviews were conducted between November 2014 and January 2015 in two major cities in
Scotland and England,1 United Kingdom. A total of 29 interviews were conducted. The target popula-
tion was UK internet users aged 18 or older, regardless of their experience of the internet.
Respondents were selected through purposive sampling (Miles & Huberman, 1994), using a variety of
recruitment strategies to achieve diversity in the sample: Approaching random people on the street,
in cafes and public libraries, distributing flyers in libraries and other public places, placing classified
ad online, using second- and third-degree personal connections and snowballing. All interviews were
conducted by the author face-to-face in public places after written informed consent was obtained
from the interviewees. Interviews lasted 25–60 minutes, depending on differences in internet access,
use, and perceptions. There was £10 cash as an incentive to participate in the study. The socio-
demographic profiles of the respondents are described in Table 1. As with other qualitative work, the
respondents are not representative of any population. Rather, they are examples of how people
426 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 26 (2021) 422–440D. Groselj Re-domestication of Internet Technologies
Table 1 Socio-demographic Characteristics and Most Pronounced Re-domestication Practice
Interviewee Age Household income Educationa Life stage Internet access
(gender)
Spotlighting practice (main device in italics)
Luke (M) 19 £20,000–£30,000 Secondary Employed Laptop, smartphone
Eva (F) 30 £20,000–£30,000 Higher Employed Laptop, smartphone,
tablet
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/26/6/422/6376010 by guest on 21 November 2021
Jane (F) 32 £30,000 Further Unemployed Laptop, smartphone,
tablet
Emily (F) 38 £30,000 Higher Employed Desktop, netbook,
smartphone
Victoria (F) 44 £30,000 Further Employed Laptop, smartphone
Anne (F) 44 £12,500 Further Unemployed Laptop, smartphone,
tablet
Omar (M) 45 £12,500 Further Employed Laptop, smartphone,
tablet
Grace (F) 49 £12,500 No Disabled Laptop, tablet
qualification
Mary (F) 53 £12,500 Secondary Unemployed Laptop, smartphone,
tablet
Thomas 58 £30,000 Higher Employed Laptop, netbook,
(M) smartphone
Rose (F) 62 £12,500–£20,000 Secondary Employed part- Laptop, smartphone,
time tablet
Distributing practice
Alex (M) 21 £12,500 Secondary Unemployed Laptop, smartphone,
tablet
Jacob (M) 26 £30,000 Higher Student Desktop, smartphone
Leo (M) 26 £12,500 Further Self-employed Laptop, smartphone
Ethan (M) 27 £12,500–£20,000 Higher Student Laptop, smartphone
Aiden (M) 28 Refused Higher Employed Laptop, tablet
Rebecca (F) 30 £30,000 Higher Self-employed Laptop, smartphone,
tablet
Alfie (M) 31 £30,000 Secondary Employed Laptop, smartphone,
tablet
Sam (M) 34 £12,500 Further Self-employed Laptop, smartphone,
tablet
Sophie (F) 36 £30,000 Higher Employed part- Laptop, smartphone,
time 2 tablets
Laura (F) 44 £30,000 Secondary Employed part- Laptop, tablet
time
Harry (M) 48 Refused Higher Employed Laptop, smartphone
(Continued)
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 26 (2021) 422–440 427Re-domestication of Internet Technologies D. Groselj
Table 1 (continued)
Interviewee Age Household income Educationa Life stage Internet access
(gender)
Making do practice
Max (M) 19 £12,500 Secondary Unemployed Smartphone
Oliver (M) 28 £20,000–£30,000 Secondary Employed Smartphone,
PlayStation
Liz (F) 38 £12,500 Secondary Unemployed Smartphone
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/26/6/422/6376010 by guest on 21 November 2021
James (M) 41 £12,500–£20,000 Don’t know Unemployed Smartphone
Barbara (F) 48 £12,500 No Unemployed Smartphone
qualification
Helen (F) 53 £12,500 No Unemployed Tablet
qualification
Olivia (F) 53 £12,500 Further Unemployed Laptop
Notes:
a
No educational qualification: left school without taking or passing the matriculation examination;
Secondary education: has passed the school-leaving examination at the end of secondary school;
Further education: has post-secondary education but not a university degree (e.g., vocational train-
ing); Higher education: has a university degree (BA or higher).
interact with ICTs. Later interviews tended to be repetitive and yielded few new insights, suggesting
that theoretical saturation had been reached (Creswell, 2007).
Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded using NVivo software. All names were changed
to protect participant privacy. A single analyst (author) conducted the coding. Coding as an analytic
process, was iterative and consisted of identifying themes in the interview responses and creating
codes for them. The research questions provided the main “analytical objective” that guided the initial
development of the codes, but the analysis within this analytical objective remained inductive, consis-
tent with the exploratory approach of the study (Guest et al., 2012). Themes were analyzed at a se-
mantic or explicit level (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 84) and identified using patterns, such as repetition,
metaphors, analogies, similarities, and differences between interviews (Ryan & Bernard, 2003). To en-
sure the credibility of the analytical process multivocality was aimed for by including the interviewees’
multiple and varied perspectives on the findings (Tracy, 2010).
Results
Re-domestication
Spotlighting
Spotlighting, as a process of re-domestication, refers to the focus on a single device that becomes the pri-
mary mode of internet use. Spotlighting occurs when a new device fundamentally changes the relation-
ship with and use of existing devices. Most often, the reasons for such a change are the better quality of
the new device, more convenient access, and the perception that one mode of going online “fits all.” As
a result, the older devices take over very specific roles and are rarely or never used. Combined with the
428 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 26 (2021) 422–440D. Groselj Re-domestication of Internet Technologies
strong focus on a single access mode, users who engage in spotlighting express a very positive perception
of the new device and attach less positive importance to the alternative modes.
Spotlighting was observed among interviewees whose first home internet experience had involved
either a desktop or a laptop computer, but over time and in line with technological developments,
their internet access focussed on either a smartphone or a tablet, despite possessing, or having house-
hold access to various internet-enabled devices. For Thomas, who worked in a telecommunications
company, the transformation happened with an iPhone, when most of his internet use transferred to
a smartphone:
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/26/6/422/6376010 by guest on 21 November 2021
Thomas: What changed things is when I got the iPhone because it is specifically designed for
internet use. The iPhone brings together lots of devices and applications into one thing really.
It’s a good internet experience and there’s a lot of mobile sites which are optimised. I very
rarely use a computer at home now. I probably use it once every two months. . . . I will use a
laptop for banking because I don’t like to see financial transactions on a phone because it’s
not a fixed connection.
Interviewer: And the small netbook?
Thomas: I haven’t used that for a year probably. I don’t use that at all. It’s become obsolete be-
cause the iPhone gives me all the functionality I need really.
Similarly, when Rose got a tablet computer, she stopped going online on her laptop. She perceived
a tablet as a very powerful device that she could use to do anything she wanted to do online. Rose
exhibited spotlighting practice towards a tablet and used a smartphone as a supportive device for on-
the-go access and phone calls.
Interviewer: Can you remember when you started using the internet?
Rose: About 10 years ago, when I knew nothing about computers. I went for a computer class
for the frightened, and then I got myself a laptop. I still have the laptop, but I never use it. I
use my iPad all the time! I use my iPad, because I can do what I want on my iPad. The laptop
just sits in the bedroom, doesn’t get used.
Interviewer: And when you got the smartphone, did your use of the iPad changed?
Rose: No, I kept using my iPad. I don’t use my phone once I get in the house, I go on my iPad.
When tablets were the spotlighted device, smartphones were used more for calls and texts than
for going online. Anne mostly used a smartphone for going online until she got a tablet:
I did have a lot more [apps on the smartphone] but since I got the tablet everything’s trans-
ferred through the phone onto the tablet. Now the phone’s used basically for calls, texts,
which is what a phone is for, originally. (Anne)
Although spotlighting involved a strong focus on a single device, the availability of other devices
was still important as they allowed users to perform certain activities. This can be related to the per-
ceptions of privacy and security (e.g., banking for Thomas) or the fact that some things such as print-
ing, writing, and using specific software are easier to do or only available on a PC (e.g., Emily using
her netbook for Skype conversations; Victoria using her laptop for Excel spreadsheets), but this was
not always perceived as a matter of choice:
Since I have the iPad, my use of the laptop has completely changed. I use it if I’m typing docu-
ments. It’s not because I would rather use it, it’s because I have no choice. You can’t sit and
type documents on an iPad, so that’s why I turn to the laptop. (Eva)
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 26 (2021) 422–440 429Re-domestication of Internet Technologies D. Groselj
Distributing
Distributing is a practice of using different internet-enabled devices, but there is no single preferred
way to go online, as each part of internet access is important in its own right. Respondents explained
how they do certain things on one device and others on another, or that they do more or less similar
things on different devices, with the choice of device depending on a particular context of use. For
users engaged in distributing, it is important that all elements of their internet access are of sufficient
quality and “work properly.” If a device performed poorly, they wanted to replace it.
It was observed that respondents who engaged in distributing did not transfer all their internet
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/26/6/422/6376010 by guest on 21 November 2021
usage to the new device when they received a new device, but set up specific roles for each device.
Respondents had a clear idea of what each device was for and specific roles and meanings were
assigned to certain devices—typically, the laptop became a work device and the smartphone became a
device focused on communication and leisure:
Interviewer: Did the smartphone change how you use your computer?
Ethan: Yes, definitely. I became a lot less dependent on using either my computer or com-
puter in the office. I found that I was going on [the internet] there less and less to contact peo-
ple and to organise social events because I could just do it from my phone.
Similarly, although Jacob had gotten a smartphone as a “hand-me-down” from his mother and
not because he wanted it, once he got it, he proceeded to do the following:
Swap the roles around – the phone replaced the sort of more casual internet use, like, I’m
checking Facebook, I’m talking to my friends, I do that all on the phone now, and all the
work-related and study-related stuff became primary on the computer. (Jacob)
Distributing was underpinned by the idea that a PC is for “important” uses that require a greater
investment of time, attention, or money (e.g., banking, shopping, Skype), while smartphones are for
communication, convenience, and instant internet checking. Mobile devices are not perceived as su-
perior devices that are easier to use and provide all the desired features. Instead, they are added to the
access repertoire as a complement to the PC:
Interviewer: Did the smartphone change how you use the computer?
Alfie: It did. I must admit the usage on the laptop kind of dropped, because there’s so much
you can do on your phone. Because a phone is just a small computer, so the usage on the lap-
top did stop. Um, it didn’t stop but it came down, just the amount of time I’m on it. For ex-
ample shopping and that type of thing; I do a lot of online banking as well. So, I do all that
through the laptop. And with regards to Facebook, checking sports results and that type of
thing, that would be on my smartphone.
Leo: Um, so my laptop is important for making informed decisions, doing work-based and
more important things. . .also useful for entertainment. . . Whereas my phone is for conve-
nience and to keep me up to date, up to the minute with emergencies, important things.
These use practices suggest that distribution processes are strongly shaped by the contexts of use
(e.g., home vs. on the go) and the purpose of internet use (e.g., doing important things vs. checking
something). Thus, unlike spotlighting, distributing is shaped by the daily use of different devices, and
it is therefore important to keep them up to date:
At the moment I’ve got a laptop, an iPad and a smartphone. So, [I use] all of them in one way
or another. Mostly I use the iPad at the moment because the laptop it’s, like, eight years old
430 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 26 (2021) 422–440D. Groselj Re-domestication of Internet Technologies
and it’s already been resurrected once, so it’s sort of; it doesn’t really like doing very much
[laughter]. So I mostly use the iPad, and if I’m out and about I look up a map on the smart-
phone or check email or something like that. The iPad is great, but what you can do with a
laptop or a desktop is a lot more varied. (Sam)
Making do
Making do re-domestication practice emerges when individuals use the internet without all the
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/26/6/422/6376010 by guest on 21 November 2021
resources one would ideally like to have. It refers to difficulties in maintaining access due to a lack of
various offline resources and to episodes in which technologies become obsolete, broken, or taken
away. We argue that users in such situations also re-domesticate roles and uses of technology, and
that these practices reflect the circumstances of internet use with inadequate resources. Particular life
circumstances and the lack of various offline resources2 meant that people had to make do with infe-
rior internet access, which greatly affected online engagement. James went online on an old
BlackBerry smartphone, but his household used to have a computer, tablet, and a broadband
connection:
James: Well, there were some tablets but they [children] broke them. They got them last year
for Christmas, but they broke them within a couple of weeks.
Interviewer: Do you have WiFi at home?
James: My neighbour has WiFi. She let’s us use her WiFi. ’Cause we can pick it up in our
house. She just gave us her password and that.
Interviewer: Have you ever had your own internet connection in the house?
James: Aye. Sky, I had that with Sky. Bills were too high. And as I said, we weren’t really using
it for much. Just e-Bay and games; just surfing through the internet, on YouTube and that. It
wasn’t really getting used that much. So, I really didn’t see a point in paying an extra bill,
when we didn’t really need that.
Similarly, Liz went online on a Blackberry smartphone, but she used to have a laptop and internet
connection at home:
Liz: Oh, it was in my house [the internet], my kids wanted the internet for stuff. I went to put
it through the laptop and then I discovered that you could use it through your phone. Then I
got rid of the internet that I had in the house, ‘cause it was just an extra bill, when I could do
the exact same, as much on my phone as I can do on a laptop.
Interviewer: Do you still have that laptop?
Liz: No, the weans [children] broke it and I thought, “Too expensive to keep replacing it, so
you can just use the internet so on your phones”. They’ve got the iPhone, so they don’t really
need a laptop ‘cause that’s more or less just, does the same thing, I think.
Making do with unreliable internet connectivity and devices with limited capabilities, coupled
with low personal resources (e.g., low literacy, self-efficacy, self-esteem) resulted in slow internet skills
development and limited internet use:
Liz: Like in my phone, I can go and look and see what job vacancies there is but see, when it
comes to applying for them it wouldn’t let me attach my CV, so a lot of times I’d send the ap-
plication form away. But there’s no anything attached to it because I’ve just assumed that it
would work the same as the other phones, but it’s not.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 26 (2021) 422–440 431Re-domestication of Internet Technologies D. Groselj
James: I don’t know how to set up an account on it [eBay] yet. Anything I want to buy on it,
my partner’s brother does it.
Helen: I usually do a wee job search on it [a tablet], I do job searches in here (on a PC at the
community centre) because my tablet is only 7 inches. I’m not great on them [computers],
I’m getting there. I am a bit daft when it comes to computers [laughter].
However, making do also involved finding ways around limited access. For instance, Olivia had
problems going online because her laptop was of poor quality and infected with viruses, which she
had little understanding of. Since she was not able to afford an expensive repair or a new laptop, she
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/26/6/422/6376010 by guest on 21 November 2021
enrolled in a digital skills workshop (scheduled after the interview was held) that provided attendees
with free tablets:
Well, I’m actually going to a course with Argos, and you do this course for 90 minutes, and
you pay £20 and they show you how to do things online. I mean, I know how to do it all, but
to get a tablet for £20 – you get a free tablet at the end [laughs]! (Olivia)
Similarly, Oliver owned a BlackBerry smartphone and a PlayStation video game console. His in-
ternet use was very much focused on communication and entertainment but he acknowledged that
having a “proper” computer would enable him to do much more online:
When I have a bit more money, I would like to build a proper tower. I believe a proper built
tower that can handle multiple screens would be more suitable for me. Like buying and selling
through eBay or different websites, I like to do many searches, I can have my game on one
screen, I can do my work on another screen. (Oliver)
Internet Centrality
This section focuses on internet centrality, which was examined through orientation, play, under-
standing, and communication dependencies. We explore whether users who exhibit different re-
domestication practices assign different roles to the internet in their daily lives. We identified each
interviewee’s main re-domestication practice (see Table 1) and examined their internet dependencies
using interview data. The socio-demographic characteristics of the interviewees in Table 1 show that
the interviewees who engaged in spotlighting and distributing practices had diverse backgrounds,
while most of the interviewees who engaged in making do practice were unemployed, had low educa-
tion levels and low incomes.
Orientation Dependency
Throughout the interviews, all participants demonstrated some sort of orientation internet depen-
dency, with the internet ascribed a functional role that helped participants orient their daily actions
and interactions. There was a consensus across all groups that the internet was an important source
of information:
Thomas (spotlighting): What would I miss most if I couldn’t connect for a week? Probably
looking at the share prices and currency prices because I check that quite a lot all the time.
Olivia (making do): Obviously, the medical stuff, going to look at and see if anything new
came on about my condition.
432 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 26 (2021) 422–440D. Groselj Re-domestication of Internet Technologies
Laura (distributing), who was otherwise rather reluctant to use internet technologies, stated that
going online for information was important:
I could do most, I think, all things without internet access. It’s more for information, isn’t it?
For gaining information, yeah. (Laura)
Likewise, interviewees explained how performing certain day-to-day activities online is just easier
and saves time. Most positioned the internet in their daily lives as a tool that can save time and make
life easier. They rely on ubiquitous access to information that can help guide actions such as purchas-
ing behaviour, navigation, or leisure activities:
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/26/6/422/6376010 by guest on 21 November 2021
Alfie (distributing): For example, the car insurance and stuff. You do it online, it makes it so
much easier. It’s very convenient and it saves a lot of time.
Max (making do): Because when it’s raining or when there is no buses I can still go on the in-
ternet and either get a taxi number on the internet or even look for a job.
Emily (spotlighting): I mean even if you use it to a very simple degree it can just make things
easy because you can Google search something.
Play Dependency
Play dependencies were expressed through illustrations of use leading to positive enjoyment, relaxa-
tion, and recreation. Respondents engaged in spotlighting and making do practices often associated
the internet with pleasure, relaxation, and pastime:
Anne (spotlighting): I play a game to relax or whatever, which is very good.
Jane (spotlighting): Just looking at Twitter, just to pass time.
James (making do): Just go and watch the funny things, videos and all that. I just surf through
it and see what’s on it.
In contrast, especially those engaged in distributing practice had strong opinions about going on-
line in leisure time being a waste of time. Sophie, for example, thought spending time with her family
was more important than spending it online for leisure:
Interviewer: Do you go online just to pass time and relax?
Sophie (distributing): I probably, yeah, waste time. It does feel like a waste. I don’t really like
endlessly be on the computer when the kids are there because, again, I’d rather focus on them
than, I don’t know, a picture of a cat on a hoover.
Similarly, Aiden (distributing) asserted that gaming and social media are a “glorified waste of
time,” while Leo (distributing) thought it is “easy to procrastinate and get distracted” online. The rea-
son why the respondents who exhibited distributing practice had such contrasting opinions could be
that engaging with the internet for pleasure did not fit their life aspirations. They did not see the inter-
net as important for entertainment or pastime, but as a distraction from more important things in
life, such as their careers, education, or time spent with family and friends. Interestingly, these
respondents also often perceived their engagement with the internet as different from that of other
people:
Jacob (distributing): I think the music changes how I look at this because music is a thing that
you don’t just go to work from 9 to 5. I think my friends don’t mind coming home and play-
ing computer games for six hours and checking their Facebook and complaining about their
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 26 (2021) 422–440 433Re-domestication of Internet Technologies D. Groselj
day at work and posting pictures of themselves because I don’t think they have the same urge
to be doing something else. So I don’t think they see it as a waste of time, they see it as passing
time or leisure time. But I don’t feel it as leisure time, I feel it as stress time when I’m not do-
ing what I want to be doing. So I think it’s a completely different relationship they have with
technology.
Harry (distributing): I’d say 90% business and 10% personal, because I don’t really use inter-
net enough for a lot of personal stuff. Come 6 o’clock, I finish work and I shut the laptop
down and I hate having to open it back up again. . . I’ve got enough happening in my own life
without having to find what everybody else is up to.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/26/6/422/6376010 by guest on 21 November 2021
Understanding Dependency
Understanding dependency relates to the use of media to make sense of the social environment and
for self-actualization through work, hobbies, and personal relations. Understanding dependency was
often expressed as “keeping up to date with the world” (Alfie, distributing) by following the news or
engaging in discussions online:
Emily (spotlighting): Twitter, I really use it as part of my news gathering, engaging with the
world sort of. . . I find it fantastic for keeping in touch with things that I wouldn’t be able to
keep in touch via mainstream news in the UK.
Jacob (distributing), on his habit of repeatedly visiting the BBC website, explained his urge to
keep up to date with the latest news:
Now if you don’t check a website every day you feel like you’re missing stuff because, you
know, you could’ve seen something that you really liked. So then, you get the sensation that
you got to keep up all the time. (Jacob)
Understanding dependencies also relate to fulfilling one’s interests through work, hobbies, and
personal relationships. Examples include going online to research topics that interest one:
Olivia (making do): I like to go online and look at crafts and things like that and see different
things. I’m a foodie, I love going on and looking at different food things.
Harry (distributing): I think YouTube’s amazing. I was reading the Ernest Hemingway book
with bull-fighting. Honestly, I don’t agree with bull-fighting, but I was reading a book about
that and then, you know, you could go on YouTube and see footage of a 1930 Spanish bull-
fighting, which was in the book.
Leo (distributing): Just following musicians, bands, management companies, see what they
have to say. We have to kind of get into gossip with music and if you think something is going
to happen you then have to inquire about it.
Understanding dependencies were described by various respondents, but they seem to be some-
what more pronounced by those distributing and spotlighting. They also seem to be more strongly
expressed by respondents with higher levels of education, probably due to their specific interests and
lifestyles.
Communication Dependency
Most respondents valued the internet for achieving communication goals, but the extent to which
they relied on the internet to do so vary depending on their life situation and their perceptions of
434 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 26 (2021) 422–440D. Groselj Re-domestication of Internet Technologies
computer-mediated communication. For example, all who engaged in spotlighting and making do
practices used Facebook to some extent, but there were five respondents engaged in distributing prac-
tice who were not on Facebook. They had strong opinions about the disadvantages of using social
media:
Aiden (distributing): It seems like a waste of time, seems like you have to become an individ-
ual celebrity in your own right these days with Facebook and YouTube.
Laura (distributing): It’s like there’s 20 different ways of connecting with people, but nobody
does it face-to-face very much. So it creates miscommunication, I think.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/26/6/422/6376010 by guest on 21 November 2021
Sophie (distributing): I’ve seen some friends who. . . It’s almost like you can’t communicate in
person anymore ‘cause they’re so used to communicating through online media, and in per-
son act quite strange.
Most interviewees, however, did not share such concerns and provided examples how the internet
enables them to keep in touch with people. Anne (spotlighting), for instance, thought not being able to go
online would make her miss Facebook because “that’s where everybody keeps in contact with each other,”
Alfie (distributing) described how it enables him to communicate with family from afar “So I’ve got family
in Australia, so we keep in contact through Facebook,” and Max (making do) explained “I’m probably one
of those Facebook addicts, yeah, I can’t live without seeing what is going on with my friends.”
While respondents who adopt different re-domestication practices show a communication inter-
net dependency, those who adopt a distributing practice seem to be more critical of computer-
mediated communication and therefore consciously distance themselves from excessive use of
internet-based communication.
Discussion
This study departed from the premise that internet access has to be understood and studied as a dy-
namic phenomenon. The social practices shaping the development, maintenance, and use of access
were examined using the concepts of re-domestication and internet centrality. Focusing on episodes
of change in internet access and relationships between different technologies, three re-domestication
practices were identified: spotlighting, distributing, and making do. The three practices reflect the dis-
parate ways in which internet access is engaged with. Furthermore, the analysis of internet centrality
suggests that access arrangements also reflect differences in the roles internet plays in people’s every-
day lives. Taken together, the presented typologies of re-domestication practices and internet depen-
dencies provide a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying internet access.
The three identified re-domestication processes demonstrate that not everyone experiences access
in the same way and that the reasons spurring re-domestication processes are not uniform. We argue
that different mechanisms underlie the development, maintenance, and engagement with access
depending on whether internet access is shaped by digital exclusion or choice. The complexity of the
relationship between digital choice and exclusion was previously deliberated by Eynon and Helsper
(2011), who hypothesize that people who have internet access at home but do not use it “are arguably
more likely not to use the internet based on an informed ‘choice’; that is, a decision not based on so-
cioeconomic disadvantage but on personal preferences and needs” (p. 536). However, they conclude
that “both social exclusion and choice play a part in understanding non-use of the internet, but the
significance of these factors may differ for different segments of the population” (Eynon & Helsper,
2011, p. 546). Based on the empirical findings of this study, we argue that making do
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 26 (2021) 422–440 435Re-domestication of Internet Technologies D. Groselj
re-domestication practice is, to a greater extent, shaped by social/digital exclusion, while spotlighting
and distributing practices are shaped to a greater extent by social/digital choice.
Making do re-domestication practice was influenced most significantly by individuals’ life situa-
tions, characterized by limited access to various offline resources. Thus, changes in access arrangements
or their inertia often resulted from broken devices, inability to sustain access to certain technologies, or
a lack of confidence in using technologies. Making do re-domestication practice illustrates how different
forms of social exclusion translate to access inequalities and limited online engagement. This is in line
with the work of Gonzales (2016), who developed a technology maintenance theory: “As the poor in-
creasingly have initial in-home and public access to technology, the digital divide will begin to centre on
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/26/6/422/6376010 by guest on 21 November 2021
differences in the ability to maintain that access” (Gonzales, 2016, p. 235). Using qualitative interviews
with low-income Americans Gonzales demonstrates that unstable internet access results from a lack of
financial resources to cover technology maintenance costs. This study provides further support for tech-
nology maintenance theory among UK internet users, although we did not specifically target low-
income individuals. However, Gonzales also found that some users rationalise that they do not want or
need access due to difficulties in maintaining technology. This orientation was not found in a small sam-
ple of respondents in the present study, where users who were making do with limited internet access
expressed various internet dependencies. Thus, their access was seen as shaped more significantly by
digital exclusion rather than choice. However, the complex relationship between internet access, offline
resources, and motivation deserves more research attention.
In contrast, spotlighting and distributing practices appear to be largely shaped by an empowered
choice about internet access development. Although spotlighting and distributing respondents
showed some differences in terms of their offline resources, more significant differences were ob-
served in terms of how the internet is integrated into their daily lives. While users who practised
spotlighting or distributing had similar combinations of devices to get online, their perceptions of in-
ternet technologies and their role in daily life were somewhat different. Both spotlighting and distrib-
uting practices were associated with orientation dependency, but subtle differences were observed
regarding other dependencies. Respondents who engaged in distributing practice showed a greater
understanding dependency and a lesser play and communication dependencies. In general, they were
more critical of internet technologies and questioned some of the trends they observed regarding so-
cial media and ubiquitous access. These tendencies, as well as the practice of distributing itself, i.e.,
establishing specific roles for specific devices, may be related to the notion of “digital detox” in which
individuals seek strategies to reduce involvement in digital media and place a high value on balancing
offline and online lives (Syvertsen & Enli, 2020).
Spotlighting and distributing practices reflected the role the internet played in respondents’ daily
lives and differences in their lifestyles. Although the respondents who engaged in spotlighting had
somewhat lower income levels, most of them would be able to afford a new laptop if they felt they
needed one. Being predominantly mobile users was a digital choice rather than an exclusion based on
how the internet fitted into their lifestyle, with a strong reliance on the internet for leisure and play.
Similarly, respondents engaged in distributing practice made choices about internet technologies
based on perceptions and goals of internet use. Entire internet access was maintained because each
part supported a particular aspect of their daily internet use.
Digital inclusion can be understood as a “‘smart’ use of ICTs,” where people engage with technol-
ogies when appropriate and desired (Selwyn & Facer, 2007, p. 14). As follows from the discussion
above, spotlighting and distributing practices were associated with such empowered digital choices.
Thus, while gradations in access inclusion are strongly related to the availability of offline resources,
specific access arrangements are also shaped by individuals’ perceptions and life-fit of internet
436 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 26 (2021) 422–440D. Groselj Re-domestication of Internet Technologies
technologies. The ability to make empowered digital choices regarding technology use is a privilege.
In this way, the work presented here differs from the previous work where authors argue that issues
related to life-fit are not necessarily empowered choices (Gonzales, 2016; Reisdorf, 2011; Selwyn,
2006). A crucial difference, however, is that interviewees who exhibited empowered digital choices in
the present study had relatively advanced internet access. Their decisions were not about how to get
online in the first place, but about what specific devices they used and in what situations.
Theoretically, the contribution of this study is twofold. First, it contributes to domestication re-
search by applying the concept of re-domestication to the study of internet technologies. To the
best of our knowledge this has not been done before. While early domestication studies focused on
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/26/6/422/6376010 by guest on 21 November 2021
relations between new media (e.g., mobile phones, PCs) and old media (e.g., television, radio), the
present study focused on the relations between different internet technologies. As a result, three
specific re-domestication practices shaping internet access were identified. Such a typology is useful
not only in hypothesizing about the future developments of individuals’ internet access but also in
connecting the qualitative domestication approach with quantitative approaches to studying digital
inclusion.
The second theoretical contribution concerns the schema of media dependencies. Apart from ori-
entation, play and understanding internet dependencies, which are part of MSD theory, communica-
tion internet dependency was also identified. Communication dependency represents a very
important part of the motivations for online engagement. As such, the typology of internet dependen-
cies complements the domestication approach to understanding media use. This line of research
would benefit from further work that could also draw on polymedia theory, which focuses on
“understanding of new media as an environment of affordances” rather than a discrete technology
(Madianou & Miller, 2013, p. 170).
Limitations and Conclusion
While in-depth interviews provide important insights into the mechanisms underlying the develop-
ment of internet access, they are not generalizable. Nationally representative data are needed to draw
more reliable comparisons among internet users who engage in different re-domestication practices.
Another limitation of this study is the sample size and timing of data collection. Although these data
represent two different locations within the United Kingdom, future research should examine the
same phenomena in other countries. More current data would help determine the stability of the
identified re-domestication practices. Given that smartphone dependency among users from disad-
vantaged socioeconomic backgrounds (i.e., making do practice) has already been documented with
nationally representative data, we believe that the present study provides a detailed, fine-grained un-
derstanding of how users engage with internet access that is still relevant. The fact that MSD theory
was only applied in the analysis phase and not in the data collection phase is another limitation.
Future research should more directly examine internet dependencies and their relationship to re-
domestication. Future studies should also overcome some of the methodological limitations of the
present study, such as sample size and a single analyst.
Overall, this study sheds light on the differences in the mechanisms underlying maintenance and
development of internet access. It also demonstrates the continuing importance of internet access in
digital inclusion and makes a strong case for placing the study of access inequalities at the forefront of
digital inclusion research. Together with evolving technologies, the issues of access inequalities are
reoccurring as well as expanding. It is crucial not only for individual users to keep up with
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 26 (2021) 422–440 437You can also read
