Online social support, with its novel opportunities for coping, is especially important for those experiencing isolation. Daughters-in-law in Azerbaijan are isolated and have inadequate support due to patriarchal and patrilocal norms, amplified when they experience infertility. This study considers an online community where supportive communication and resources are exchanged to mitigate infertility isolation. Using virtual ethnography and thematic analysis, three research questions related to different types of isolation are explored. We find support exchanges in this community can likely help women more efficiently and effectively cope with, and have more control over, the immediate stressor of infertility and associated uncertainty, which is profound given the lack of supportive resources they would otherwise have.
AlbrechtTLAdelmanMB (1987) Communicating social support: a theoretical perspective. In: AlbrechtTLAdelmanMB (eds) Communicating Social Support. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, pp. 18–40.
2.
AnvarM (2015) Women and religious practices in Uzbekistan: transformation and changes in the capital of Uzbekistan in the light of the post-Soviet period. Brighton, UK: University of Sussex.
BachmannIProustV (2020) Old concerns, renewed focus and novel problems: feminist communication theory and the Global South. Annals of the International Communication Association44(1): 67–80.
5.
BaştuğSŞHortaçsuN (2000) The price of value: kinship, marriage and metanarratives of gender in Turkmenistan. In: AcarFGüneş-AyataA (eds) Gender and Identity Construction: Women of Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Turkey. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, pp. 117–140.
6.
BillettP (2019a) Finding support in the online world. In: BillettPSawyerA-M (eds) Infertility and Intimacy in an Online Community. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 63–83.
7.
BillettP (2019b) Partnering the infertile: the impact of infertility on women’s spousal relationships. In: BillettPSawyerA-M (eds) Infertility and Intimacy in an Online Community. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 145–165.
Caucasus Research Resource Center (2012b) How often do you spend your free time with your friends by respondent’s gender. In: Social Capital, Media and Gender Survey in Azerbaijan. Available at: http://caucasusbarometer.org/en/si2012az/SPFRTFR-by-RESSEX/
12.
CostaE (2016) Social Media in Southeast Turkey: Love, Kinship and Politics. London, UK: UCL Press.
13.
CostaE (2021) Digitizing desires: immobile mobility and social media in southeast Turkey. In: HillAHartmannMAnderssonM (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Mobile Socialities. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 133–144.
14.
CutronaCESuhrJA (1992) Controllability of stressful events and satisfaction with spouse support behaviors. Communication Research19(2): 154–174.
15.
DemircioğluM (2015) Achieving Procreation: Childlessness and IVF in Turkey. New York, NY: Berghahn Books.
16.
GoldsmithDJAlbrechtTL (2011) Social support, social networks, and health: a guiding framework. In: ThompsonTLParrottRNussbaumJ (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Health Communication. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 335–348.
17.
GreilALMcQuillanJSlauson-BlevinsK (2011) The social construction of infertility. Sociology Compass5(8): 736–746.
18.
GreilALSlauson-BlevinsKMcQuillanJ (2010) The experience of infertility: a review of recent literature. Sociology of Health & Illness32(1): 140–162.
19.
Gürtin-BroadbentZB (2016) Patriarchal pronatalism: Islam, secularism and the conjugal confines of Turkey’s IVF boom. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online2: 39–46.
20.
HabibovNBarrettBJChernyakE (2017) Understanding women’s empowerment and its determinants in Post-communist countries: results of Azerbaijan national survey. Women’s Studies International Forum62: 125–135.
21.
HarrisC (2004) Control and Subversion: Gender Relations in Tajikistan. London: Pluto Press.
22.
HarrisC (2011) State business: gender, sex and marriage in Tajikistan. Central Asian Survey30(1): 97–111.
23.
HeyatF (2002) Azeri Women in Transition. London, UK: Routledge.
24.
HighACSteuberKR (2014) An examination of support (in)adequacy: types, sources, and consequences of social support among infertile women. Communication Monographs81(2): 157–178.
25.
HineC (2011) Virtual ethnography: modes, varieties, affordances. In: FieldingNLeeRMBlankG (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Online Research Methods. London, UK: SAGE, pp. 257–270.
26.
HortaçsuNBaştuğSŞ (2000) Women in marriage in Ashkabad, Baku and Ankara. In: AcarFGüneş-AyataA (eds) Gender and Identity Construction: Women of Central Asia, the Caucasus and Turkey. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, pp. 77–100.
27.
HouseJS (1981) Work Stress and Social Support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
28.
InhornMC (1995) Infertility and Patriarchy: The Cultural Politics of Gender and Family Life in Egypt. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
29.
IsmailbekovaA (2014) Migration and patrilineal descent: the role of women in Kyrgyzstan. Central Asian Survey33(3): 375–389.
30.
JansenNASaint OngeJM (2015) An internet forum analysis of stigma power perceptions among women seeking fertility treatment in the United States. Social Science & Medicine147: 184–189.
31.
JohnsonBLQuinlanMPopeN (2020) “Sticky baby dust” and emoji: social support on Instagram during in vitro fertilization. Rhetoric of Health & Medicine3(3): 320–349.
32.
KandiyotiD (1988) Bargaining with patriarchy. Gender & Society2(3): 274–290.
33.
KikutaH (2019) Mobile phones and self-determination among Muslim youth in Uzbekistan. Central Asian Survey38(2): 181–196.
34.
KudaibergenovaDT (2018) Project kelin: marriage, women, and re-traditionalization in post-soviet Kazakhstan. In: NajafizadehMLindseyL (eds) Women of Asia: Globalization, Development, and Gender Equity. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 379–390.
35.
MacGeorgeELFengBBurlesonBR (2011) Supportive communication. In: KnappMLDalyJA (eds) Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 317–354.
36.
MalikSHCoulsonNS (2008) Computer-mediated infertility support groups: an exploratory study of online experiences. Patient Education and Counseling73(1): 105–113.
37.
MalikSHCoulsonNS (2010) Coping with infertility online: an examination of self-help mechanisms in an online infertility support group. Patient Education and Counseling81(2): 315–318.
38.
MengJChungMCoxJ (2016) Linking network structure to support messages: effects of brokerage and closure on received social support. Journal of Communication66(6): 982–1006.
39.
MengJRainsSAAnZ (2021) How cancer patients benefit from support networks offline and online: extending the model of structural-to-functional support. Health Communication36(2): 198–206.
40.
Mohd JanJPungWC (2014) Women’s online strategies in giving advice. In: GaolFLKadrySTaylorM, et al. (eds) Recent Trends in Social and Behaviour Sciences—Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress on Interdisciplinary Behavior and Social Sciences 2013, ICIBSoS 2013. London, UK: CRC Press, pp. 141–144.
41.
MolchanovaEHorneSKimE, et al. (2018) Hybridized indigenous healing in the Kyrgyz Republic: helping survivors of violence. Women and Therapy41(1–2): 69–82.
42.
NaharP (2022) Childlessness in Bangladesh: Intersectionality, Suffering and Resilience. New York, NY: Routledge.
43.
NamkoongKShahDVGustafsonDH (2017) Offline social relationships and online cancer communication: effects of social and family support on online social network building. Health Communication32(11): 1422–1429.
44.
NazikEApaySÖzdemirF, et al. (2015) Traditional practices of Turkish infertile women: an example from a rural county. Collegium Antropologicum39(1): 21–215.
PearceKEVitakJ (2016) Performing honor online: the affordances of social media for surveillance and impression management in an honor culture. New Media & Society18(11): 2595–2612.
47.
Penkala-GawęckaD (2017) The role of women in health-seeking strategies and practices in Post-Soviet Kyrgyzstan. In: RocheS (ed.) The Family in Central Asia. New Perspectives. Berlin, Germany: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, pp. 137–159.
48.
PerelmutterR (2014) Resisting folklore: folk belief and motherhood in Russian-language forums for women. Western Folklore73(2–3): 257–279.
RainsSAMengJ (2022) Social enhancement and compensation in online social support among cancer patients: the role of social network properties. Health Communication37(4): 490–497.
51.
RainsSAWrightKB (2016) Social support and computer-mediated communication: a state-of-the-art review and agenda for future research. Annals of the International Communication Association40(1): 175–211.
52.
RocheS (2017) The family in Central Asia: new research perspectives. In: RocheS (ed.) The Family in Central Asia: New Research Perspectives. Berlin, Germany: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, pp. 7–38.
53.
SattarovR (2006) Between the supernatural and the natural: aspects of religious beliefs among the Azerbaijani Turks. In: Kellner-HeinkeleBHeuerBBoykovaEV (eds) Man and Nature in the Altaic World. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter, pp. 299–312.
54.
SattarovR (2012) The “rites of passage” among the Azerbaijani Turks: traditional beliefs and rituals linked to the birth of a child. In: HeuerBKellner-HeinkeleBSchönigC (eds) Die Wunder Der Schöpfung. Baden, Germany: Ergon Verlag, pp. 301–312.
55.
SavolainenR (2016) Approaches to socio-cultural barriers to information seeking. Library & Information Science Research38(1): 52–59.
56.
SawyerA-M (2019) Relationships in a fertile world: negotiating alliances and the “pregnant other.” In: BillettPSawyerA-M (eds) Infertility and Intimacy in an Online Community. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 121–144.
StetsJE (1991) Cohabiting and marital aggression: the role of social isolation. Journal of Marriage and the Family53(3): 669–680.
59.
ThoitsPA (1995) Stress, coping, and social support processes: where are we? What next?Journal of Health and Social Behavior35: 53–79.
60.
TohidiN (1997) The intersection of gender, ethnicity and Islam in Soviet and Post-Soviet Azerbaijan. Nationalities Papers25(1): 147–167.
61.
TuraevaR (2017) Kelin in Central Asia. In: RocheS (ed.) The Family in Central Asia. New Perspectives. Berlin, Germany: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, pp. 171–183.
62.
UnnithanM (2010a) Infertility and Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ARTs) in a globalising India: ethics, medicalisation and agency. Asian Bioethics Review2(1): 3–18.
63.
UnnithanM (2010b) Learning from infertility: gender, health inequities and faith healers in women’s experiences of disrupted reproduction in Rajasthan. South Asian History and Culture1(2): 315–327.
64.
UnnithanM (2019) Fertility, Health and Reproductive Politics: Re-Imagining Rights in India. London, UK: Routledge.
65.
Unnithan-KumarM (2001) Emotion, agency and access to healthcare: women’s experiences of reproduction in Jaipur. In: TremayneS (ed.) Managing Reproductive Life: Cross-Cultural Themes in Sexuality and Fertility. Oxford, UK: Berghahn Books, pp. 27–51.
66.
van IngenEWrightKB (2016) Predictors of mobilizing online coping versus offline coping resources after negative life events. Computers in Human Behavior59: 431–439.
67.
WallisCJ (2013) Technomobility in China: Young Migrant Women and Mobile Phones. New York, NY: NYU Press.
68.
WeissRS (1973) Loneliness: The Experience of Emotional and Social Isolation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
69.
WrightKB (2016) Communication in health-related online social support groups/communities: a review of research on predictors of participation, applications of social support theory, and health outcomes. Review of Communication Research4: 65–87.
70.
Yeshua-KatzD (2019) Blame or shame: the search for online support and stigma origin among Israeli childless women. Mass Communication and Society22(1): 117–138.
71.
YounasFNaseemMMustafaM (2020) Patriarchy and social media: women only Facebook groups as safe spaces for support seeking in Pakistan. In: Proceedings of the 2020 international conference on information and communication technologies and development, Guayaquil, Ecuador, 17–20 June, pp. 1–11. New York: ACM.
ZhaoXBasnyatI (2018) Online social support for “Danqin Mama”: a case study of parenting discussion forum for unwed single mothers in China. Computers in Human Behavior80: 12–21.
74.
ZhussipbekGNagayevaZ (2021) Human rights of daughters-in-law (kelins) in Central Asia: harmful traditional practices and structural oppression. Central Asian Survey40(2): 222–241.
