June 17, 2005
Families and Technology
Back Burner, List #1, Item #2 
(Background, from my online CV. Also, you can read about Item #5, Engaged Scholarship, from my first list here. As always, I welcome comments, suggestions, critiques: Post a comment here, drop me an email, or stop me in the hall!)
Some thoughts and questions about my research interests in families and technology:
1. Promoting the topic as one worthy of study
As a lowly gradstudent, how can I do this?
I co-authored a paper on the topic, which I presented at TCRM to much positive response. I am a member of the fam-tech focus group in NCFR, and have greatly enjoyed our discussions at the annual conferences. I have even served as a manuscript reviewer because of my "expertise" in this area (translation, because of my willingness to read manuscripts in this area...)
But I will have to, if I am serious about this area, think of other ways to promote "family and technology studies" as a viable topic of research.
2. Further defining the topic as one worthy of study
The research model I think fam-tech would fall under involves exploring the interface between one huge system and the family system. The idea is that we have one complex interacting social system; we have another complex, interacting social system; then when we overlay these two systems Venn diagram like we get a marquise shaped slice that is a new complex interacting system...
An existing research area that typifies this model is the interdisciplinary area of "work and family." (See resources here and here.) This is an incredibly fruitful and active research area in my discipline.
But. It's unfortunate, I think, that the work-family area starts--literally, at least in a nominal sense--with "work." This naming may be a piddling technicality, one that does not impact the actual research theoretically, methodologically, or application-wise. But I am a strong believer in the power of labels to subconsciously exert influence, so I am wary of the type of influence that may be currently exerted because work is stated first. This naming may reinscribe the notion that folks' family lives should be positive, but only insofar as it helps them become/remain productive workers--a notion that many work-family researchers likely would not agree with.
If I were queen of the researchworld, I would do everything in my power to ensure that such does not become the case with the fam-tech area.
Anyway. Key in my mind is to develop strong family THEORY in this area. It may be that this interface can be best understood in the context of existing models, but my hunch is that the unique and encompassing nature of technological innovations means we have to develop new, or at least adapted, models for exploring their bidirectional influences with family life.
3. Problem of the "moving target"
One of my favorite paragraphs from our TCRM paper:
Meszaros (2002) has called on family and consumer science professionals to “analyze carefully each type of technology we envision using, and answer for our families, our communities, and ourselves, exactly why this technology is being employed and the impacts and consequences of use and non-use (p. 14).” But despite this call for a forward-looking perspective on families and technology, this area of research has lagged behind trends in the fast-paced world of technological innovations. For example, large-scale US introduction of the now-familiar technology of television occurred in the early 1950s. Yet, four decades later—when almost all US homes had at least one television set—only 22 articles related to television and families had appeared in the pages of the journals published by the National Council on Family Relations (NCFR) (Fabes, Wilson, & Christopher, 1989), and few of them had a theory base.
(See below* for references.)
4. Should biotech and other "artifact-less" technologies be included in the families and technology area?
An issue that has come up repeatedly in my casual conversations with folks about families and technology, as well as in our NCFR fam-tech focus group, involves deciding which technologies should be included as potential topics of family research. It seems when many people think "technology" they think "computers." I don't knoow where this technology=computers link came from, but I have so frequently encountered surprise when I talk about, say, genetic testing as being part of fam-tech that I am thinking this linkage is a widespread one.
I think a challenge for me will be that in general folks think of things as necessarily having physical presence to be technologies. So, a computer is technology, but the Internet may not be thought of as a technology separate from computers...HD televisions may be thought of as technology, but not the electricity that runs them...Some futuristic shiny silver robotic child would be viewed as technology, but not lab techniques for bringing sperm and egg together to create a regular old child...
So one thing I need to think about is the extent to which I want to continue to advocate for my particular research interests (e.g., genetics, assisted reproductive technology) being a part of this area--
OR. Whether or not it would be better to try to advocate for a separate family-focussed interest in reprogentics and other medical technologies.
OR...I may have to accept that if I want to do research in this area I may have to try to migrate to a research discipline that is already doing work on the technologies I am interested in. And in this case I would likely have to be a constant advocate for a family view of this research.
(Listen to me complain...like I wouldn't happily snatch up just about any job that might be offered me post PHD...)
5. Areas of overlap
Another thing I may need to do is find ways to exploit the areas of overlap between this research interest and other topics I'm interested in. For example: What are the implications of email use for contact arrangements between adoptive and birth families? How can academic departments use blogs with open comment capabillities to engage with families in the communities they serve? How are topics within bioethics (e.g., regarding reproductive rights, self-hood, informed consent) made more challenging by technologies (e.g., genetic screening for Huntington's) and considerations of families (as opposed to individuals)?
.
.
.
For now, a lot of other things on my plate. But these and other things are simmering, simmering on the back burner of my mind...
*References:
Fabes, R. A., Wilson, P. M., & Cristopher, F. S. (1989). A time to reexamine the role of television in family life. Family Relations, 38, 337-341.
Meszaros, P. S. (2002). The appropriate uses of technology: Our commitment to families and communities. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 94(2), 13-15.
Perry, Y. V., & Doherty, W. J. (2003, November). Developing theory about families and technology: The case of cell phones. Paper presented at the 33rd annual meeting of the Theory Construction and Research Methodology Workshop, pre-conference of the 65th annual meeting of the National Council on Family Relations, Vancouver, British Columbia, CA.
Posted by perry032 at June 17, 2005 01:31 AM | TrackBack| Printer-friendly version