Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This qualitative study employed the theoretical lens of the social and cultural concept of childhood, exploring the notion of being and becoming in relation to children’s social media use in their digital space. The research took place in four schools in South Wales, UK, where 40 children, aged between 10 and 11 years of age, participated with focus groups using social media-related activities. Following this, 16 children created a collage to exemplify how they felt about social media, accompanied by an unstructured interview. Through this research, the experiences portrayed can be seen as a space for being and becoming where their own cultural and social practices are enacted.

Keywords

social media childhood digital space being becoming

Introduction

The research in this paper focuses on children aged 10 and 11 years old and is pertinent to its contextualisation as according to Goodyear and Armour (2019), social media is embedded in young people’s lives, and despite the terms of service for social media platforms being 13 years of age, children as young as eight may have their own social media accounts (OfCom, 2023). In the context of this study, social media may be defined as an online platform that allows users to create a profile, connect with others through likes and comments, and exchange and share content (boyd, 2014). There are various forms of social media, however, specifically commented on in this paper are Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and WhatsApp, as well as gaming platforms such as Minecraft and the video platform YouTube. Using boyd’s (2014) description of ‘imagined communities’ also helps to conceptualise the notion of social media in this paper and depicts the challenging digital space that children may encounter in terms of the rules of use being tacit and engagement ill defined.

Being and becoming

According to Prout (2011), childhood is not a universal nor natural feature of humanity, it is a social construction that typifies a cultural and structural component of many societies and provides an interpretative frame for contextualising the early years of human life. James and James (2004) largely reject the relationship between biology and culture and suggest that childhood is characterised by a set of cultural values. Furthermore, they argue that childhood cannot be separated from other factors such as class, gender, and ethnicity. This paper focuses on the notion of being and becoming in relation to how children experience social media use as an aspect of their childhood. Discourse surrounding the nature of childhood is changing due to the ubiquitous access the Internet has afforded and the wider influences of a digital space and communication via social media that are available to children (Brough et al., 2020). There is a pluralism in children’s voices, and not all children have the same view, nor a subjective experience of a digital childhood (Murray, 2019). The sociology of childhood is therefore a useful theoretical paradigm to underpin this notion and can help us better understand children’s social media use. In contrast to developmental psychology and its fixed stages of intellectual and social and emotional growth, the sociology of childhood perceives children as active agents with their own interests which are independent of adults (Björktomta and Hansen, 2018). Consequently, the way childhood is conceptualised is culturally located and therefore children are not passive subjects of social structures (Waters- Davies et al., 2024).

Traditionally, the concept of being and becoming has been regarded as a polarity, with ‘being’ described as viewing children actively constructing ‘childhood,’ valued in their present state, who have views and experiences about being a child (Uprichard, 2008). Whereas a state of ‘becoming’ (James and James, 2004) may be defined as striving towards a maturity of adulthood (Prout, 2011) or as an ‘adult in the making’ (Brady et al., 2015). This, Qvortrup (2004) defines as children’s destiny to be ‘waiting’ for adulthood whilst experiencing a joyful childhood. This perception of being and becoming helps to contextualise digital spaces from the child’s perspective and to ascertain how communication via social media is an integral component of the experience of childhood (Björktomta and Hansen, 2018). Increasingly, we can look beyond the essence of childhood and instead consider “children’s relational encounters with the world” (Spyrou et al., 2019: 7). Thus, viewing children as both being and becoming can enable an exploration of children’s interactions through their agency and participation (Cassidy and Mohr Lane, 2020).

Thinking of the digital landscape as a type of ‘third space’ (Bhabha, 1994) beyond real life and virtual binaries, acknowledges that the cultural and societal norms go beyond geographical boundaries and highlights the blurring between the division of ‘being’ and ‘becoming’. This Uprichard (2008) suggests is important because perceiving the child as a human ‘being’ or human ‘becoming’ tends to involve conflicting approaches to what it means to be a child. Looking beyond the future of ‘being’ should not be ignored though, as this is an important part of shaping the future of ‘becoming’ for children (Uprichard, 2008). Norozi and Moen (2016) further emphasise that the new notion of children and childhood focuses on the collective actions of children with adults and with each other. Accordingly, childhood may be constructed for children but is also constructed by children and they do not merely replicate the social processes that they are subjected to but actively make sense of these processes through challenge and continuous negotiation (Leonard, 2016; O’Reilly et al., 2018). Situating children as competent social actors capable of agency (James and James, 2004) and establishing the way children are positioned in society in relation to being and becoming within digital spaces, is a key concept within the theoretical framework of this study. For the children in this study, reported in this article, the way they negotiate their digital spaces is explored and analysed in relation to their everyday experiences which makes contributions to explain how they make meaning of their lives in a period of rapid technological change (Moran et al., 2021). Murray (2019) also highlights the pluralism of children’s voices, and it is important to note that not all children have the same view. Within this article, both collective views are portrayed within the analysis in relation to the focus groups, but also individual perspectives are also interpreted within the creative participatory method of collaging.

Being and becoming within digital spaces

Undeniably, social media is shaping children’s childhoods within digital spaces and affecting their subjective experience of this (Ackermann, 2011; Bryman, 2016; Hanson, 2017; Thomson et al., 2018). This is due to the advanced communication afforded by digital technologies and social media platforms which is more complex than ever and facilitates users to enact a type of curatorship of their identity (Potter and McDougall, 2017). This curatorship may be described as an active version of meaning-making and digital artefacts, in the case of social media, profiles, status updates, videos and photographs which help to create a self-representational space that elicits a response from an audience (Potter, 2012). Children are heavy adopters of social media in the global north, despite the terms of service being 13 years of age (Ofcom, 2023), and it is therefore important to contextualise the multi-faceted nature of the digital spaces that they occupy (Marsh, 2013). Furthermore, digital spaces need to be contextualised from the child’s perspective and that social media is viewed as a component of how children experience childhood (Björktomta and Hansen, 2018; Charoensukmongkol, 2018). Marsh (2013) acknowledges that the notion of childhood has no singular containment and that subsequently children live in multi-faceted, complex worlds, which again, have been further complicated by digital spaces. Granic et al. (2020) go so far as saying that children are living in a hybrid reality that links digital spaces to offline contexts.

Viewing a digital childhood beyond a being and becoming binary

From a social constructionist point of view, through which the ontological assumptions of this research are based, childhood is not a finite construction (McDonald, 2009) but is based on a cultural context where meanings attached are dependent on the context (Jenks, 2005). In respect to this research, how children experience the world and make meaning of their subjectivity is particularly important when considering the changes to childhood that digital spaces implicate. Quennerstedt and Quennerstedt (2013) caution against oversimplifying the binary between “being” and “becoming.” While this distinction is important in childhood studies, there is also recognition that children are individuals whose views can influence social change (Wyness, 2012). Identity formation begins in childhood and within a social space, children begin to negotiate their own and others’ identities (James and James, 2004). This takes on new meaning within the micro-level of social media, which facilitates everyday actions through likes, comments and social interactions depicting photographs, posts, and statuses (Throuvala et al., 2019; Vermeulen et al., 2018). Close friendships can be validated and strengthened through online interactions (Nesi, 2020; Uhls et al., 2017) though the rules about posting can be ill-defined in these ‘imagined communities’ (boyd, 2014). Being and becoming in the context of this research is referring to the past and present notions of self, situated within social media. This ‘self’ may be viewed as an evolving social artefact (Gulatee et al., 2021) that through active communication and interaction shapes identity and meaning making in the social world. Bernstein (2016) defines the state of becoming as an ongoing process of identity formation, rather than a temporary state before reaching adulthood and maturity. Similarly, Uprichard (2008) highlights that looking forward to what a child becomes, is arguably an important part of being a child and that looking to the future should not be ignored. In a digital space, children have a digital footprint in a way that was not apparent before the prevalence of social media (Lupton, 2013). This can incorporate both a ‘sharenting’ aspect, where their parents document their lives (MacBlain et al., 2017) and a record of their childhood through their own self-curatorship, which has a type of permanence through photographs and status that was previously not possible (Butkowski et al., 2020). This further exacerbates the issue of viewing the notion of self through a being/becoming binary, as arguably the concept of identity is portrayed on social media as both being in terms of present posting and becoming from past posts.

Co-constructing of the digital space

Furthermore, aligning with post-structuralist thought regarding children as competent commentators of their own experience (Moran et al., 2021), this study challenges dominant discourses about children’s passivity and the notion of becoming (James and James, 2012; Quennerstedt and Quennerstedt, 2013). Instead, this research takes the standpoint that children actively engage in co-constructing their worlds in which they exist, whilst acknowledging that this may be influenced by participation and interaction with social media, which has become part of the fabric of their reality. The portal that social media offers allows individuals to express themselves in a multimodal way, far from being neutral though, these self-expressions can have cultural connotations as well as influence from dominant discourses (Brandtzaeg and Chaparro-Domίnguez, 2020; Jones, 2015; Omrod, 2014). Symbolic interaction that is reflected by these verbal and non-verbal behaviours can influence the way individuals think about themselves (Zhao, 2005). Furthermore, subcultures can emerge that rely on specific language and codes as a way of confirming a group consensus (boyd, 2014; Davis, 2012; Throuvala et al., 2019).

Children’s engagement with social media and within digital spaces is a nuanced picture, sometimes active and sometimes passive (Goodyear and Armour, 2019). However, the overarching goal of this research, was not to view children’s experience in digital spaces as being good/bad (Baccarella et al., 2018), nor being or becoming or online/offline (Goodyear and Armour, 2019) but rather look beyond the obvious and explore more closely their everyday interactions and subjectivities in relation to being a child within a digital age. Childhood has arguably blurred into youth in contemporary society, and as social media offers new affordances, this invariably has an impact on their cultural practices (Bucher and Helmond, 2018; Tsaliki, 2022). Whilst there are risks associated with children using social media, the bias of these warnings from a determinist discourse and magnification of these issues denies that children’s agency can shape their behaviour within their digital spaces and that they may have more discernment than they are given credit for (D’Lima and Higgins, 2021; Oswell, 2016). By viewing children’s social media use in digital spaces through both a being and becoming lens allows for a situatedness of their own experience and a commitment to viewing their own lives and the social world they inhabit. This perspective challenges the discourse about a universal childhood and instead suggests that children are actively engaged in their understanding of the world, which is being influenced by the digital spaces that they encounter (Moran et al., 2021). It is evident that the contemporary child now possesses different knowledge and skills that differ from those of previous generations. Children as young as three for example, are now using Internet-enabled devices, it is therefore an area that has never been more relevant to discussions about childhood (Palaiologou, 2012). Socio-cultural views propose to create a shared semiotic for thinking and modes of communication and therefore actions within digital spaces are socially and culturally embedded (Kumpulainen et al., 2020).

Research aim

This qualitative study explored the notion of being and becoming through children’s perceptions of their social media use in relation to their digital childhood. Situating children at the heart of this research was held as a central tenet and testament to the way they were viewed as competent social actors, capable of agency and as experts in their own lives (James and James, 2004). This was deemed particularly important as much that is known about children’s social media use is documented by adults, often through a discourse of risk and harm (Phippen and Street, 2022) that adds to moral panics about their usage (Hogan, 2021; Huk, 2016). Specifically, this study explored:

(1) How children of 10 and 11 years old perceived their social media use.

(2) How these experiences of social media exemplified the notions of being and becoming within their childhood.

Methodology

The study reported in this article employed two methods of qualitative data generation, to hear both collective and individual narratives about children’s social media use within digital spaces. Focus groups with activities were conducted, followed by the creative participatory method of collaging with an unstructured interview. This approach enabled an investigation into how children make meaning of their social media experience and how they interpret the digital spaces that they occupy.

Recruitment

Four primary schools in the South Wales area (UK) with varying socio-economic bias were recruited for this research. Forty self-nominated children in Year 6 (the final year of primary school) and between 10 and 11 years old, (tweens¹) participated in the focus groups with activities. The six focus groups consisted of five participants in each, selected by the class teacher to ensure a range of personalities, not necessarily friendship groups. Sixteen of these children then took part in collaging with an unstructured interview. This age group was specifically chosen because this age group is under-researched (Huk, 2016) and because this is the age when children often get their first mobile phone and engage with social media (Ofcom, 2023). Furthermore, this age is a pivotal time for identity formation and the subsequent development of social networks with friends that influence peer culture (Cirucci, 2013; Pea et al., 2012).

Method 1 – Focus groups with activities

Focus groups with activities were conducted as a means of gaining a broad overview of children’s perceptions of social media with the discussion focused on their understanding and meaning making of their digital spaces. Wilson (2017) highlights that focus groups are useful for revealing attitudes, collective experiences, beliefs, and feelings of participants. Whereas Gibbs (2017) ascertains that focus groups can co-construct new knowledge by gauging opinion and interpreting culture. The use of stimulus in focus groups (in the form of pictures, videos, and activities) can help participants move past simply answering questions (Newby, 2014) and consequently, seven activities were utilised during the focus groups, to elicit rich discussion. The first activity was designed as a warm-up to ascertain children’s understanding of what social media is and consisted of sorting varying logos into those that were social media logos and those that were not (such as Nike, Starbucks). A range of other activities were employed, including sorting emojis and discussing their use, looking at Snapchat filters, discussing examples of social media postings and questions around likes and comments. Advertisements from social media were also shown and discussed, as well as screenshots from profiles. The final activity, unlike the previous activities (which were interactive and designed to elicit a group response), warranted an individual response that was intended as an opportunity to reflect in a more individualised way. The reasons for this were twofold: firstly, to ensure that more reticent members of the group had an opportunity to give their opinion (Gibson, 2012) and secondly, to take the pressure off an immediate response and the chance to slow down and think about what they might say (Gibbs, 2017). The participants were given a prepopulated piece of paper that had a happy emoji and a sad emoji on it. They were invited to advise other children about using social media and asked to comment on how issues could be improved. Due to the interactive nature of the activities and the visual stimulus that they provided (Newby, 2014), rich discussions took place in the focus groups. However, there were limitations to this method, specific children sometimes dominated conversations, and it was sometimes difficult to ascertain the differences between individual perceptions and group conformity. Though the researcher’s background as a primary teacher helped to facilitate and manage the focus group dynamic. The focus groups were facilitated before the creative participatory method and not all children who participated in the focus group took part in the subsequent collaging activity.

Method 2 – Collaging with an unstructured interview

Utilising creative methods is an expanding area within social media research and is closely associated with children having a more active presence in research about their own lives (McLaughlin and Coleman-Fountain, 2019). Creative methods also situate children as social actors within the embodiment of childhood research and facilitate a visceral response (Eldén, 2013) that allows participants to engage with their deeper consciousness (Mannay, 2016) which aligns well with the theoretical framework of the study. The children were presented with a variety of collaging materials such as pompoms, coloured paper, lollipop sticks, Scrabble letters, emojis, buttons etc., and invited to create a mixed media artefact that involved cutting, arranging, and sticking materials onto a piece of coloured card (Dutton et al., 2019). The accompanying interview took an unstructured approach to encourage reflexivity and allow the children to direct their own lens to allow them to feel as empowered as possible (Yin, 2016). As well as opening dialogue in an organic and non-threatening manner (Gerstenblatt, 2013), it also facilitated a combination of the visual and verbal to give a richness and nuance to the meaning-making self-directed narrative (Mackworth–Young et al., 2020). Also, more abstract ideas, metaphors and subtle nuances can be explored (Mannay et al., 2017). Furthermore, this creative method facilitated a more individualised approach, which was important to complement the collectiveness of the focus group data generation. Although most children engaged cooperatively with the collaging activity, notably two children did find the task more uncomfortable and checked several times about the remit of the expectations and were keen to finish quickly. This was respected by the researcher, and their dissent noted as a sign to not pursue lines of enquiry.

Ethics

Ethical considerations pervaded the entire study and were not viewed as an imagined endpoint to be reached (Alderson and Morrow, 2011). Ethical approval from the university institution was granted and parental consent was gained once the children had expressed an interest in the study. Age-appropriate information sheets were also provided to the children and questions were encouraged, with assent taken verbally. Notably, though, this was not deemed a definitive agreement, and signs of dissent both behaviourally and emotionally, were closely monitored through the whole data generation process (Alderson and Morrow, 2011).

Data analysis

Data generated in this study was robustly analysed using many layers and the ‘messiness’ of the interpretation embraced (Kara et al., 2021). Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis model (2006) was employed with the focus group data and in the initial stages of the collaging with interview analysis, using NVivo software. Mixed method analysis was then employed with the collages with interview data using analytical questions derived from Rose (2016) and Grbich (2012), which allowed for a deeper understanding. This was followed by Brown and Collins (2021) analytical visuo-textual framework, which combined and contextualised the data further and allowed both the visual and linguistic elements. This discursive approach (Yates, 2010) allowed the data to be viewed through more than one lens. Despite the ‘messiness’ (Lather, 2014) of the data, a systematic and meticulous approach was adopted to interpret the data (Kara et al., 2021). In this article, the theme of being and becoming in the digital space is reported upon.

Findings and discussion

The analysis of this study situates the participants within the social and cultural practices of being and becoming in the digital space and how this is experienced within their childhood. The layers of analysis that combined both the visual and the verbal served to demonstrate a nuanced picture of this through three themes presented in this article: (1) ‘A quicker way to get your feelings known’: social media as a communicative space. (2) ‘Some types of emojis might be like swearing or rude’: negative aspects of social media as communication and (3) ‘Because it is funny’: entertainment in the digital space. All the themes serve to demonstrate through the theoretical framework of being and becoming in the digital space that children’s digital practices are part of the wider experience of childhood itself.

‘A quicker way to get your feelings known’: Social media as a communicative space

As already highlighted, moral panics about children’s social media use are often perpetuated in dominant discourse, with children being portrayed as having little agency, with a passivity in relation to how they interact and communicate within digital spaces (Thomson et al., 2018). However, in this research, participants emphasised some positive experiences of communication and interaction within their social media use. For example, the sharing element of social media, which could affect feelings in a positive way was highlighted in the following dialogue from a focus group:

Child K: And sharing their happy days.

Child O: To share like their happy moments with other people when they feel something good, they share with other people.

Nesi (2020) similarly suggests that social media offers a portal for communication where individuals can express themselves through imagery as well as verbally in a way that was not possible before the advent of such platforms. This also emphasises the ‘being’ nature that social media use affords children by allowing good aspects of their lives that are relevant to them now to be shared (James and James, 2004). When discussing the use of emojis, participants highlighted that you could demonstrate how you are feeling without seeing other people, for example, Child X said “when you say laugh, laugh, laugh, you can send those emojis. It just shows your mood”. This was useful as Child AE pointed out, if you found it difficult to express your emotions “if you can’t really say it or explain it in words,” and as Child D suggested, “it’s a quicker way to get your feelings known”. This symbolic interaction, which in this case is reflected in non-verbal behaviours, can be influential in terms of communication particularly when body language and gestures are not seen (Zhao, 2005). This shared language and way of communicating can be seen as an integral part of being within the digital space and highlights a sense of belonging in another arena (Björktomta and Hansen, 2018). Similarly, Davies (2014) suggests that the digital spaces that children occupy are emergent and experimental places and as seen in this research, through a shared language and use of emojis can perpetuate this. Consequently, collective actions for children can be viewed as an important part of becoming for children (Norozi and Moen, 2016).

Narrative and images related to emojis were also prevalent in many of the collages and may suggest positive communication via social media. In Figure 1 below, Millie included six smiley face emojis, which she explained were to “show that most people are happy on social media”.

Figure 1.

Millie’s collage excerpt of emojis.

Ian, in his image (Figure 2), similarly chose to use emojis, however, he stuck his close together to represent his friends and the positive communication that social media facilitates. He accompanied his image with the following narrative: “I’m going to do a smiley face for friends because they make me happy…”

Figure 2.

Ian’s collage excerpt showing emojis.

This may demonstrate the close friendships he experiences (Nesi, 2020) and represent the type of peer culture that such interaction affords (Mascheroni et al., 2015). Both examples also demonstrate the importance of communication on social media and how it is a facet of self-expression for children (Brandtzaeg and Chaparro-Domίnguez, 2020). Arguably, this is an integral part of ‘being’ on social media, with emojis facilitating a particular way of communicating that allows the articulation of expression that goes beyond the verbal. Lloyd emphasised that communication on social media can be affirming, particularly in relation to following other football fans and celebrities. In his narrative, he expressed the communal feeling of camaraderie that he experiences by saying, “their anthem and the people, it makes you feel part of something, you can share comments with other fans”. This was also illustrated by the following excerpt from his collage (Figure 3), where he has made a goal post out of lollipop sticks and used a pompom to depict a football.

Figure 3.

Lloyd’s excerpt from his collage showing a goal post.

His narrative and accompanying image demonstrate that intimacy and sharing of interests can improve and strengthen the quality of online relationships (Uhls et al., 2017) and can also be an important facet of being with others within the digital space. It is clear from the examples that communication on social media may be viewed as an extension of real life and existing relationships can be strengthened with chatting online (Nesi, 2020). These positive affirmations are concurrent with research by Tatangelo and Ricciardelli (2017), who also depict social media as a connective experience. Therefore, this sense of belonging could be seen as a depiction of children’s agency and sense of being within the digital space.

‘Some types of emojis might be like swearing or rude’: Negative aspects of social media as communication

Not all communication on social media was viewed positively though and some participants indicated how it could sometimes be negative. Many children commented on the ambiguity of social media and how much information should be posted on social media when the ‘unwritten’ rules are not very clear (boyd, 2014). This also aligns with the work of Bucher and Helmond (2018), who explore how affordances are relational between the platform and the user and may be multilayered. Child AJ (FG8) highlighted that perhaps how we are feeling should not be information that everyone is privy to, saying, “if you were on Instagram and you didn’t know the emojis you put, loads of people can see how you are feeling, and this is perhaps something you shouldn’t make public…”. She later reiterated that you could be “sharing too much about yourself and revealing too much”, which renders you exposed in a vulnerable way. Other prevalent comments from the data generated suggested that emojis could be used to conceal how you were feeling, or they could be misconstrued. Child E noted that:

Sometimes, I have seen people like on social media and stuff and like saying, ha-ha, crying with laughter face, but they are not actually laughing out loud, they are just sat there, this will make other people happy because I am laughing.

Seemingly, without other cues such as facial expressions, tone of voice and body language (Zhao, 2005), this way of communicating can be conflicted. There can be ambiguity as emojis may have emotional or symbolic meanings and affordances that may not convey mood or intention (Bucher and Helmond, 2018). Similarly, this was emphasised by Child AJ, who said, “and sometimes you don’t know what the emojis mean and you don’t know if they are good things or bad things really.” Zhao (2005) emphasises that there is an opaqueness to online interaction, which is disembodied in emphasis due to the lack of nonverbal cues evident and this can be problematic in terms of a subjectively experienced digital space. As demonstrated in these cases, children may get confused by the lack of transparency in these types of communications. The most negative aspect of using emojis, which was mentioned numerous times, was the way they could be used in a rude way to represent sexual or phallic symbols. Child AJ said, “…sometimes people use rude emojis and this can be inappropriate”. The following dialogue from a focus group exemplifies this:

Child L: And the one like the egg plant, people think that is rude.

Interviewer: So, the aubergine?

Child L: Yes, they use it as a rude symbol.

Child M: And the peach.

Interviewer: They have taken on different meanings?

Child M and Child L: Yes.

The use of this ‘in the know’ communication is described by boyd (2014) as a ‘social steganography’ and links with the emergence of groups and subcultures to retain privacy within communications. Throuvala et al. (2019) coined the expression ‘congruent conversation’ where an ‘inner circle’ of communication can be bonding and affirming. It is clear from this data though, that unlike boyd’s (2014) and Throuvala et al.’s (2019) positive depictions, emojis used in this way may not be a harmless way of communicating and can be misconstrued, misinterpreted and used to convey explicit messages that may not be appropriate for the age and maturity of the child using them. Consequently, a dichotomy could exist with the child ‘being’ within a digital space that is more suitable for the adult that they will ‘become’ (Hanson, 2017). Though this is by no means a binary depiction, but does demonstrate the type of ‘being’ within digital spaces that social media may afford.

‘Because it is funny’: Entertainment in the digital space

Despite the apparent challenges that children sometimes face within digital spaces, as previously mentioned, social media use can also be a positive experience. Social media can be a source of ludic and entertainment, a distraction from everyday life that can make children feel happy. Johansen (2018) documents how activities through digital tools can support embodied play and can form part of identity-building, social engagement and everyday fun. There was, however, a clear gender divide illustrated when documenting fun experiences, with the males in the group using this terminology more prevalently, particularly in their engagement with Snapchat filters. This is illustrated by Child B, who said, “this is my favourite filter [animal ears] it is fun and entertains people”, which was reiterated by Child A when describing using these digital overlays, “because it is funny, for a laugh” and Child M “I use the funny ones.” Similarly, Child Z echoed this by saying, “there is this funny filter on Instagram, it can turn you into animal faces and it is so funny, like a warthog.” This highlights Johansen’s (2018) notion of creative play and group interaction and children as being active creators. In David’s collage, this was also emphasised because he suggested that using filters was a fun experience. He explained through his imagery and accompanying narrative how he deliberately altered his appearance for other people’s entertainment, which was seen as different from his real-life self that he documented on the left-hand side of the image. Far from being a passive act, this can be seen as a playful practice among children (Johansen, 2018) and represents a sense of ‘being’ within the digital space. In an excerpt from his collage in Figure 4, he depicts himself in his collage on social media with an exaggerated mouth and drawn-on eyes.

Figure 4.

David’s excerpt from his collage showing himself on social media.

His narrative also emphasised how he used filters, “this is a filter from Snapchat…do you know the one with like the eyes, like the funny one. I like to make people laugh.” This gendered trend concurs with research by Tatangelo and Ricciardelli (2017), who conducted focus groups and interviews with 8–10-year-olds and similarly noted that negative connotations relating to social media comparison were overt with girls and a more inspiring and entertaining association for boys. More recently, Steinbekk et al. (2021) interviewed children at 10, 12 and 14 years of age in a longitudinal study, and emphasised this gender divide, suggesting that boys are less likely to use filters for enhancing their physical appearance. Similarly, Rettberg (2014) suggests that digital self-representation can be a vernacular form of storytelling and that males are judged less harshly within digital spaces. Whereas (Tiidenberg, 2018) also highlights the gender specific expression in digital spaces as depicted by the examples in this research.

The word ‘fun’ was also utilised in relation to posts made on social media and how this could reflect active meaning-making (Potter, 2012). For example, this was commented on by Child P who said “… updates on them and sometimes fun things that they have been doing…” Aspects of using the social media platform TikTok were also conveyed as a fun experience by many children, though in this case, they were mostly female. Emily exemplified this point by saying, “it can be fun because I can talk to my friends, and I like making videos on TikTok and sharing dance moves.” She further reiterated this with the word ‘fun’ made form Scrabble letters on her collage, seen in Figure 5, though it does need noting that this word was placed near a drawn image of a sad face. This could depict the conflict of emotions that children may experience when using social media and how their feelings of belonging to peer culture may be a challenging experience (boyd, 2014; Omrod, 2014).

Figure 5.

An excerpt from Emily’s collage showing the word fun and the sad face.

These comments serve to demonstrate a part of peer culture and the very essence of ‘being’ within the digital space that children experience. Children also described actively using social media to uplift their mood and to make them laugh. This was commented on by Ian, who said:

I liked to watch famous YouTubers who did Science experiments on there, like they would make things explode, not like fire but like something pop, like slime. I like watching that because it is funny, I find, and they do it for people to watch.

Throuvala et al. (2019) also emphasised that interaction with others on social media could be an enriching experience that would consolidate friendships, encourage mood regulation, and facilitate entertainment. Vermeulen et al. (2018), through their in-depth interviews, also indicate that young people often use social media to enhance their current mood which affects their subjective experience explicitly. Rather than the negative playground that social media spaces are often documented on by adults (Thomson et al., 2018), instead, here, a more nuanced picture is denoted with active meaning-making, digital self-representation (Rettberg, 2014) and digital play (Johansen, 2018) taking a positive trajectory and the experience of ‘being’ representative of actions and activities that may also be part of face-to-face interaction.

Conclusion

As little is known of tweens’ experiences using social media (Huk, 2016), it helps to situate their experience as a type of ‘third space’ that is reliant on cultural and societal norms rather than geographical boundaries (Bhabha, 1994). The binary concept of ‘being’ and ‘becoming’ has been disputed and children’s experience is situated as more of a nuanced depiction that encompasses elements of both, which facilitates a wider societal lens. This perspective also challenges the discourse about a universal experience of childhood and instead suggests that children are actively engaged in their understanding of the world, which can be influenced by interaction and participation (Moran et al., 2021). The contours of childhood are seemingly structured by wider influences, which is especially apparent due to the increase of digital technology and social media use within this age group (Wyness, 2012). Focusing on children’s own cultural practices in relation to their social media use has enabled a contribution of knowledge in this field. Children are seen to have agency, and their experience of childhood is evolving due to the affordances of social media (Bucher and Helmond, 2018), which situates them both in ‘being’ within the digital space and ‘becoming’ in terms of experimentation with identity and social engagement (Johansen, 2018). Furthermore, utilising creative participatory methods has provided depth and nuance to the data (Kara et al., 2021) whilst also giving children a collective and individual voice (Eldén, 2013).

It is clear from the data presented that there are subtle influences of gender that are permeating children’s social media experience. Boys in the study were documenting a more positive and uplifting interaction with social media. They discussed and provided imagery to support the notion that they felt connected online, and that social media often reinforced and strengthened existing relationships (Nesi, 2020). Whereas, the girls often portrayed a more mixed or negative experience, where they were seemingly more affected by other people’s responses and a judgemental element that social media facilitates (Jones, 2015). It was evident that most boys view using Snapchat filters for fun and entertainment purposes and not for appearance concerns. This concurs with research by Tatangelo and Ricciardelli (2017), who also acknowledged this distinct difference in gender in response to filters. Seemingly, these gender stereotypes are perpetuated by the peer culture in which the children inhabit and arguably their willingness to fit into these societal norms for social acceptance (Steinbekk et al., 2021). The final difference in gendered experience of social media use was documented by the boys in the research who often discussed how they followed like-minded individuals (both known and unknown), particularly related to hobbies such as football. This facilitated a sense of belonging and extended and strengthened existing relationships as well as making them feel part of a community (Uhls et al., 2017). They could improve their skills by watching other footballers, for example, and then share these experiences with their friends. Girls documented a more disparate experience, though some did cite the fun element that dancing on TikTok and duetting with others could endorse.

To conclude, children’s encounters with social media in this article document both positive and negative communication experiences, feelings of belonging, as well as the possibilities of interaction. Also, the impact of relationships has been explored and how these can affect their subjective experience of digital spaces. Finally, the sense of ludic and fun that social media can engender is also highlighted with reference to the entertainment purposes it can facilitate. Far from being the detrimental experience permeating childhood documented by Turkle (2011), with children passively occupying the digital space, their experiences may help to strengthen existing relationships (Ismail, 2020) and help to develop their sense of self. Therefore, children are seen to be both being and becoming within the digital space, with a sense of agency where their own cultural and social practices are enacted.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Claire Kathryn Pescott

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval was gained from the USW Ethics Committee.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note

References

Ackermann

(2011) Minds in Motion, Media in Transition Growing Up in a Digital World – Areas of Change. Available at. https://www.childresearch.net/papers/digital/2011_01.html

Alderson

Morrow

(2011) The Ethics of Research with Children and Young People. A Practical Handbook. Sage.

Baccarella

Wagner

Kietzmann

, et al. (2018) Social media? It’s serious! understanding the dark side of social media. European Management Journal 36(4): 431–438.

Bernstein

(2016) Post-structuralist potentialities for studies of subjectivity and second language learning in early childhood. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 17(2): 174–191.

Bhabha

(1994) The Location of Culture. Routledge.

Björktomta

S-B

Hansen

(2018) Child welfare services and social media: childhood being and becoming in a digital society. Croatian Medical Journal 59(2): 90–92.

boyd

(2014) It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. Yale University Press.

Brady

Lowe

Lauritzen

(2015) Connecting a sociology of childhood perspective with the study of health, illness and well-being. Sociology of Health & Illness 37(2): 173–183.

Brandtzaeg

Chaparro-Domínguez

MÁ

(2020) From youthful experimentation to professional identity: understanding identity transitions in social media. YOUNG 28(2): 157–174.

10.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

11.

Brough

Literat

Ikin

(2020) Good social media? In: Underrepresented Youth Perspectives on the Ethical and Equitable Design of Social Media Platforms. Social Media + Society.

12.

Brown

Collins

(2021) Systematic visuo -textual analysis: a framework for analysing visual and textual data. Qualitative Report 26(4): 1275–1290.

13.

Bryman

(2016) Social Research Methods. 5th edition. Oxford University Press.

14.

Bucher

Helmond

(2018) The affordances of social media platforms. In: Burgess

Marwick

Poell

(eds) The Sage Handbook of Social Media. Sage, pp. 233–253.

15.

Butkowski

Dixon

Weeks

, et al. (2020) Quantifying the feminine self(ie): Gender display and social media feedback in young women’s Instagram selfies. New Media & Society 22(5): 817–837.

16.

Cassidy

Mohr Lane

(2020) Thinking about childhood: being and becoming in the world. Analytic Teaching and Philosophical Praxis 40(1): 16–26.

17.

Charoensukmongkol

(2018) The impact of social media on social comparison and envy in teenagers: the moderating role of the parent comparing children and in-group competition among friends. Journal of Child and Family Studies 27: 69–79.

18.

Cirucci

(2013) First person paparazzi: why social media should be studied more like video games. Telematics and Informatics 30(1): 47–59.

19.

Davies

(2014) Listening to Children: Being and Becoming. Routledge.

20.

Davis

(2012) Tensions of identity in a networked era: young people’s perspectives on the risks and rewards of online self-expression. New Media & Society 14(4): 634–651.

21.

Dutton

Davison

Malla

, et al. (2019) Biographical collage as a tool in Inuit community-based participatory research and capacity development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 18(18): 1609406919877307.

22.

D’ Lima

Higgins

(2021) Social media engagement and Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) in primary school children. Educational Psychology in Practice 37(3): 320–338.

23.

Eldén

(2013) Inviting the messy: drawing methods and ‘children’s voices. Childhood 20(1): 66–81.

24.

Gerstenblatt

(2013) Collage portraits as a method of analysis in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 12: 294–309.

25.

Gibbs

(2017) Focus group and group interviews. In: Coe

Waring

Hedges

, et al. (eds) Research Methods and Methodologies in Education. 2nd edition. Sage, 190–196.

26.

Gibson

(2012) Interviews and focus groups with children: methods that match children’s developing competencies. Journal of Family Theory & Review 4(2): 148–159.

27.

Goodyear

Armour

(eds) (2019) Young People, Social Media and Health. Routledge.

28.

Granic

Morita

Scholten

(2020) Beyond screen time: identity development in the digital age. Psychological Inquiry 31(3): 195–223.

29.

Grbich

(2012) Qualitative Data Analysis. An Introduction. 2nd edition. Sage.

30.

Gulatee

Combes

Yoosabai

(2021) Social media among Thai students: narcissism, self-identity or empowerment. Higher Education Studies 11(1): 79–93.

31.

Hanson

(2017) Embracing the past: ‘been, ‘being’ and ‘becoming’ children. Childhood 24(3): 281–285.

32.

Hogan

(2021) Social media for children and teens. Good or bad? In: Strasburger

(ed) Kids and Today’s Media: A Careful Analysis and Scrutiny of the Problems. Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 21–32.

33.

Huk

(2016) Use of Facebook by children aged 10 - 12. Presence in social media despite the prohibition. The New Educational Review 46(4): 17–28.

34.

Ismail

(2020) Youth’s usage of new media: exploring learning and identity formation. The Qualitative Report 25(10): 3733–3748.

35.

James

(2004) Constructing Childhood. Theory, Policy and Social Practice. Palgrave MacMillan.

36.

James

(2012) Key Concepts in Childhood Studies. 2nd edition. Sage.

37.

Jenks

(2005) Childhood. 2nd edition. Routledge.

38.

Johansen

(2018) Everyday media play. Children’s playful media practices. Conjunctions: Transdisciplinary Journal of Cultural Participation 4(1): 1–10.

39.

Jones

(2015) The looking glass lens: Self-concept changes due to social media practices. The Journal of Social Media and Society 4(1): 100–125.

40.

Kara

Lemon

Mannay

, et al. (2021) Creative Research Methods in Education. Policy Press.

41.

Kumpulainen

Sairanen

Nordström

(2020) Young children’s digital literacy practices in the sociocultural contexts of their homes. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 20(3): 472–499.

42.

Lather

(2014) To give good science: doing qualitative research in the afterward. Education Policy Analysis Archives 22(10): 10–14.

43.

Leonard

(2016) The Sociology of Children, Childhood and Generation. Sage.

44.

Lupton

(2013) The Social Worlds of the Unborn. Palgrave Macmillan.

45.

MacBlain

Dunn

Luke

(2017) Contemporary Childhood. Sage.

46.

Mackworth-Young

Wringe

Clay

, et al. (2020) Critical reflections on individual collages as a research method with young women living with HIV in Zambia. Emerging Adulthood 10(5): 1161–1172.

47.

Mannay

(2016) Visual, Narrative and Creative Research Methods. Application, Reflection, and Ethics. Routledge.

48.

Mannay

Staples

Edwards

(2017) Visual methodologies, sand and psychoanalysis: employing creative participatory techniques to explore the educational experiences of mature students and children in care. Visual Studies 32(4): 345–358.

49.

Marsh

(2013) Researching young children’s literacy practices in online virtual worlds: cyber-ethnography and multi-method approaches. In: Albers

Holbrook

Flint

(eds) New Research Methods of Literacy Research. Routledge, pp. 196–209.

50.

Mascheroni

Vincent

Jimenez

(2015) Girls are addicted to likes so they post semi-naked selfies: peer mediation, normativity and the construction of identity online. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace 9(1): 30–44.

51.

McDonald

(2009) The importance of identity in policy: the case for and of children. Children & Society 23(4): 241–251.

52.

McLaughlin

Coleman-Fountain

(2019) Visual methods and voice in disabled childhoods research: troubling narrative authenticity. Qualitative Research 19(4): 363–381.

53.

Moran

Reily

Brady

(eds) (2021) Narrating Childhood with Children and Young People. Diverse Contexts, Methods and Stories of Everyday Life. Palgrave MacMillan.

54.

Murray

(2019) Hearing young children’s voices. International Journal of Early Years Education 27(1): 1–5.

55.

Nesi

(2020) The impact of social media on youth mental health: challenges and opportunities. North Carolina Medical Journal 81(2): 116–121.

56.

Newby

(2014) Research Methods for Education. 2nd edition. Routledge.

57.

Norozi

Moen

(2016) Childhood as a social construction. Journal of Educational and Social Research 6(2): 75–80.

58.

Ofcom (2023) Children and parents: media use and attitudes report 2023. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/media-literacy-research/childrens/children-and-parents-media-use-and-attitudes-report-2023

59.

Omrod

(2014) Educational Psychology: Developing Learners. 8th edition. Pearson.

60.

Oswell

(2016) Re - aligning children’s agency and re - socialising children in childhood studies. In: Esser

Baadar

Bertz

, et al. (eds) Reconceptualising Agency and Childhood: New Perspectives in Childhood Studies. Routledge, pp. 32–34.

61.

O’Reilly

Dogra

Whiteman

, et al. (2018) Is social media bad for mental health and well-being? Exploring the perspectives of adolescents. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry 23(4): 601–613.

62.

Palaiologou

(2012) Ethical Practice in Early Childhood. Sage.

63.

Pea

Nass

Meheula

, et al. (2012) Media use, face-to-face communication, media multitasking, and social well-being among 8- to 12-year-old girls, Developmental Psychology 48(2): 327–336.

64.

Phippen

Street

(2022) Online Resilience and well-being in Young People. Palgrave Macmillan.

65.

Potter

(2012) Digital Media and Learner Identity: The New Curatorship. Palgrave MacMillan.

66.

Potter

McDougall

(2017) Digital Media, Culture and Education: Theorising Third Space Literacies. Palgrave MacMillan.

67.

Prout

(2011) Taking a step away from modernity: reconsidering the new sociology of childhood. Global Studies of Childhood 1(1): 4–14.

68.

Quennerstedt

(2013) Researching children’s rights in education: sociology of childhood encountering educational theory. British Journal of Sociology of Education 35(1): 115–132.

69.

Qvortrup

(2004) Editorial: the waiting child. Childhood 11(3): 267–273.

70.

Rettberg

(2014) Seeing Ourselves Through Technology. How We Use Selfies, Blogs and Wearable Devices to See and Shape Ourselves. Palgrave MacMillan.

71.

Rose

(2016) Visual Methodologies. an Introduction to Researching with Visual Methods. 4th edition. Sage.

72.

Spyrou

Rosen

Cook

(eds) (2019) Reimagining Childhood Studies. Bloomsbury.

73.

Steinbekk

Wichstrøm

Stenseng

, et al. (2021) The impact of social media use on appearance self-esteem from childhood to adolescence – a 3-wave community stud. Computers in Human Behavior 114: 1–7.

74.

Tatangelo

Ricciardelli

(2017) Children’s body image and social comparisons with peers and the media. Journal of Health Psychology 22(6): 776–787.

75.

Thomson

Berriman

Bragg

(2018) Researching Everyday Childhoods: Time, Technology and Documentation in a Digital Age. Bloomsbury.

76.

Throuvala

Griffiths

Rennoldson

, et al. (2019) Motivational processes and dysfunctional mechanisms of social media use among adolescents: a qualitative focus group study. Computers in Human Behavior 93: 164–175.

77.

Tiidenberg

(2018) What are selfies? What are selfies? Selfies: Why We Love (And Hate) Them. Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 17–46.

78.

Tsaliki

(2022) Constructing young selves in a digital media ecology: youth cultures, practices and identity. Information, Communication & Society 25(4): 477–484.

79.

Turkle (2011) Alone together. Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.

80.

Uhls

Ellison

Subrahmanyam

(2017) Benefits and costs of social media in adolescence. Pediatrics 140(Supplement 2): S67–S70.

81.

Uprichard

(2008) Children as ‘being and becomings’: children, childhood and temporality. Children & Society 22: 303–313.

82.

Vermeulen

Vandebosch

Heirman

(2018) #Smiling, #venting, or both? Adolescents’ social sharing of emotions on social media. Computers in Human Behavior 84: 211–219.

83.

Waters – Davies

Murphy

Chicken

, et al. (2024) Constructing child participation in early years classrooms: an exploration of Wales. Children & Society 00: 1–18.

84.

Wilson

(ed) (2017) School-Based Research. A Guide for Educational Students. 3rd edition. Sage.

85.

Wyness

(2012) Childhood and Society. 2nd edition. Palgrave MacMillan.

86.

Yates

(2010) The story they want to tell and the visual story as evidence: young people, research authority and research purposes in the education and health domains. Visual Studies 25(3): 280–291.

87.

Yin

(2016) Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. 2nd edition. The Guildford Press.

88.

Zhao

(2005) The digital self: through the looking glass of telecopresent others. Symbolic Interaction 28(3): 387–405.

Being and becoming in children’s digital spaces: A portal into their social media use

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Being and becoming

Being and becoming within digital spaces

Viewing a digital childhood beyond a being and becoming binary

Co-constructing of the digital space

Research aim

Methodology

Recruitment

Method 1 – Focus groups with activities

Method 2 – Collaging with an unstructured interview

Ethics

Data analysis

Findings and discussion

‘A quicker way to get your feelings known’: Social media as a communicative space

‘Some types of emojis might be like swearing or rude’: Negative aspects of social media as communication

‘Because it is funny’: Entertainment in the digital space

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Ethical considerations

Funding

Declaration of conflicting interests

Note

References