Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

There are growing concerns that mothers’ use of smartphones and digital practices interfere with and disrupt social interaction, harming mother-infant relationships. Their digital practices, however, particularly the creation and sharing of “shareables” (photos, videos, voice notes), play an important role in maintaining family relationships and fulfilling relational obligations. This article presents a fine-grained analysis of two mothers’ self-recorded interactions with their infants at home as they engage in digital media making. By drawing on the methodologies of Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis (EMCA), we show how infants are co-participants in the production of shareable content. This approach highlights the interactional features of shareables as socially accomplished and situated practices. Findings challenge assumptions that smartphone use is inherently disruptive, to instead reveal how digital media making is a joint activity. The complex contextual factors that shape mothers’ use of digital technologies offer insights and nuanced understandings of digital mothering practices within digitally mediated interactional spaces.

Keywords

conversation analysis digital media making ethnomethodology family relationships mediated communication mother-infant interaction participation frameworks shareables smartphones

Introduction

Mothers have been documenting and sharing family memories and mundane everyday details of infant life with others for decades. The relatively recent uptake of smartphones, though, and the popularity of social media and messaging applications have shifted many of the mothers’ memory making and sharing practices into online and digitally mediated spaces. For mothers, digital sharing practices often fulfil relational obligations in maintaining and sustaining relationships with extended family and friends and perform mothering work that display outfacing versions of “good” mothering (Lazard, 2022). And yet, at the same time, mothers’ digital practices are frequently problematised. A mounting concern is how distractions or disruptions posed by smartphones and mediated communication may negatively affect interactive moments with infants and very young children (McDaniel and Radesky, 2018). In other words, mothers’ digital practices are frequently problematised even while there is the social expectation that mothers are expected to maintain family relationships.

Mothers’ practices in digital media making include the creation and sharing of digital media featuring their infants and children. This activity occurs within a backdrop that continues to problematise digital mothering practices and often ignores the complex contextual factors that shape how, why and when mothers are using digital technologies around their children. For mothers, smartphones can be important and valued tools for connecting and communicating with friends and family through the mediated sharing of news, photos and videos of their children (Mackenzie, 2023; Odasso and Geoffrion, 2023). Smartphone features, such as inbuilt cameras with photographing and recording abilities, text messaging, and smartphone applications including instant messaging apps, social media and social networking platforms, afford mothers an easily accessible medium of social interaction. These features make possible mediated communication with others across distances, time and space (Housley and Smith, 2017; Odasso and Geoffrion, 2023).

Digital media practices, from personal photography that shapes communication and identity (van Dijck, 2008), to the online creation and sharing of everyday images and videos on social media platforms (Georgakopoulou, 2021, 2022), have been widely explored. Yet, we know far less about how such content is socially accomplished as situated practice. While attention has been given to the activity of mothers sharing and posting digital media content about their children online (Blum-Ross and Livingstone, 2017; Ruiz-Gomez et al, 2024), less is known about how shareable content is produced and socially accomplished by mothers alongside their infants.

This paper uses interactional video-data of two first-time mother-infant dyads to examine mothers engaging in the processes of making a “shareable” with their infant. We define “shareables” as the product resulting from the creation of digitally mediated information and content (e.g., photos, videos, voice notes) that may be shared with others. While smartphones encompass a broad range of functionalities for social activity, the focus here is directed towards not sharing the content with others, or the final product, but rather the social actions of the mother and infant during the activity of making a shareable, and how the smartphone becomes a conduit for such social practices. In this way, we look in fine detail at how this activity of making a shareable begins and unfolds. The findings show how the creation of shareables can be a social, joint activity that also fulfils relational obligations and expectations associated with mothering.

Digital sharing practices

Many family members maintain family relationships and communicate through internet-connected devices. These include smartphones and tablets that enable access to social media and networking platforms such as WhatsApp, Facebook and Instagram (Baldassar et al., 2016; Nedelcu, 2017). The domestication of these digital technologies have been widely examined in relation to “doing family” (Odasso and Geoffrion, 2023: 389). Digital domestication refers to the process by which digital technologies are integrated into everyday home life, adapted to family routines, and given social meaning through ongoing negotiation and use (Kennedy et al., 2020; Odasso and Geoffrion, 2023).

Digital technologies enable families to maintain social interaction across geographical distances. Families’ digitally mediated forms of communication have been examined in relation to sharing digital media online (Archer, 2019; Ruiz-Gomez et al, 2024), and the roles of digital communication for maintaining family bonds and intergenerational relationships across geographical distances (Busch, 2018a, 2018b; Gan et al., 2020; Guo, 2025). As Guo (2025) found, video calls, shared photos, and messaging apps can support emotional closeness between left-behind children and their Chinese migrant parents.

While these technologies provide the means for connection, the quality and structure of the interaction itself play an equally important role in fostering intimacy and sustaining family relationships. For example, the opening sequences in video calls between young left-behind children and their parents are crucial for enacting family bonding and sustaining social relationships across distances (Gan et al., 2020). A further illustration is Busch’s (2018b) detailed examination of a mother managing the progression of her child’s interaction with their grandfather on a Skype call. These studies highlights that connection depends not only on technology but also on the interactional practices that sustain family bonds across distance.

Beyond video calls, smartphone messaging apps make it possible to share photos, videos and voice notes instantly. Smartphone users often integrate and use their phones with and around others. For instance, adults have been observed to engage in “dynamic switching” in face-to-face encounters that involved smartphones, selectively attending to a mobile text summons (i.e., a notification sound) and remaining engaged with physically present others (DiDomenico et al., 2020: 693; Robles et al., 2023). Similarly, Amery et al. (2025) showed how a mother used verbal and embodied strategies to engage and re-engage her infant during smartphone use. The various positions of using a smartphone, such as holding the phone or placing it on the table or floor, can have sequential relevance in the unfolding talk and interaction (Amery et al., 2025; Mantere, 2022). Rather than illustrating a binary of engagement/disengagement with the phone or other participants present, the smartphone was an interactive resource that influenced engagement in various, nuanced ways.

Smartphone technologies have radically changed how mothers document and share details about their children and family (Archer, 2019; Lazard, 2022; Mackenzie, 2023). One major shift is the digitalisation of sharing practices, such as a physical photo album, to social networking sites (i.e., Facebook) and social media platforms (i.e., TikTok and Instagram). These online practices blur the boundaries between public and private family life (Odasso and Geoffrion, 2023). For instance, smartphone cameras fundamentally alter how social actions and activities are turned into shareable media as it makes the process more immediate and interactive (Jones, 2009). At the same time, this capacity to reproduce and share digital media raises important questions about the social and ethical implications of mothers’ digital media making practices for children’s and families’ privacy and children’s digital rights (Archer, 2019; Ruiz-Gomez et al., 2024; Siibak and Mascheroni, 2021). As Ruiz-Gomez et al. (2024) point out, practices such where families share content of their children can raise questions about the loss of child privacy and children’s consent.

The study

The data corpus is from an ethnographic observational study of three first-time mothers and their everyday digital practices. The three first-time mother-infant dyads were recruited while the mothers were pregnant. Recruitment materials included printed posters and flyers displayed in locations where pregnant women may frequent such as private midwifery clinics, antenatal classes and pregnancy exercise classes, and also circulated on social media platforms. Inclusion criteria included participants as first-time mothers; speaking English; and residing within a major city in Southeast Queensland, Australia. Ethical approval was granted by the (Amery et al., 2025) University (approval number Amery et al., 2025). Participants gave written informed consent prior to participation for themselves and their infants, including the use of their images for publication purposes. Photo-editing effects have been used to de-identify participants in any images used in this paper. Ongoing “ethics in practice” principles were applied throughout the data collection process, ensuring regular check-ins with participants to seek verbal consent at the beginning and conclusion of each data collection phase, while remaining responsive and flexible to the mothers’ and infants’ needs and wellbeing (Guillemin and Gillam, 2004: 262).

The participant mothers were provided a video-camera and invited to self-record their interactions at home, if and/or when digital technologies were used over a 1-week period at three time-points: 3-months postpartum, 6-months post-partum and 9-months postpartum (see Table 1 below, all name pseudonyms). The mothers were encouraged to go about their everyday activities and routines as if the camera was not there. In total, 86 videos were recorded, with approximately 35.5 hours of raw video footage collected into total. The decision to self-record was both ethical and pragmatic. Mothers’ self-recordings can provide rich observational insights into mothers’ homelife not otherwise possible (Given et al., 2016). They had flexibility and autonomy of when, where and what they recorded, and could negotiate and adjust their recordings according to their infant’s routines and needs.

Table 1.

Participants and video-observational data.

Participants	Time points (over a 1-week period)	Number of recordings	Total hours of raw video data
Ella (motherAudrey (infant)	• 3-months postpartum• 6-months postpartum• 9-months postpartum	23 video-recordings	15 hours, 24 minutes
Mai (mother)Sarah (infant)	• 3-months postpartum• 6-months postpartum• 9-months postpartum	37 video-recordings	13 hours, 32 minutes
Jess (mother)Poppy (infant)	• 3-months postpartum(Withdrew from study after 3-months timepoint)	26 video-recordings	6 hours, 36 minutes
Total hours of video footage			35 hours 32 minutes

For this article, a sub-corpus of data was built of mothers using their smartphones to film or photograph their infant. A total of nine instances of mother-infant interaction where mothers engaged in digital media making were identified. Fragments were transcribed using Jefferson’s (2004) and Mondada’s (2022) notation to represent talk and embodied actions (see Appendix). Our analysis in the following section examines three fragments of mothers’ producing shareable content with their infants.

Methodological approach

An ethnomethodological lens guides this study, shaping both data collection and analysis, to uncover the nuances of mother-infant interaction and smartphone use. Ethnomethodology is the study of how members (e.g., mothers and infants) conduct everyday life, focussing on the organisation of everyday social actions as displayed by members (Garfinkel, 1967). Building on Garfinkel’s early work, Sacks (1995) closely examined members sequential use of language and actions in everyday conversations to reveal the implicit rules and features of everyday talk. Through observing everyday conversations, Sacks (1995) and Sacks et al. (1974) developed analytical tools to explore how cultural norms, values, beliefs and social structures are enacted, negotiated and maintained. Analysis focusses on the sequentially unfolding features and patterns of conversation and social action, including spoken utterances and embodied actions such as gaze, gestures, touch and body positioning.

A participation framework that recognises the mutual engagement of participants in joint activities, frames the analysis (Bateman, 2022; Goodwin, 2006; Goodwin and Harness Goodwin, 2004; Hutchby, 2001a, 2001b; Rączaszek-Leonardi et al., 2013). Participation frameworks are dynamic and fluid, shaping and shaped by the actions and utterances of those present, objects engaged with (i.e., a smartphone) or activities underway, and the environment in which they are located. Mothers and infants coordinate their talk and actions to co-produce interactional spaces (Rączaszek-Leonardi et al., 2013). The organisation and co-creation of interactional spaces between mothers, infants and smartphones, can be explored through participation frameworks.

Analysed using the tools of Conversation Analysis through a participation framework lens, the nine video-recorded fragments in the sub-corpus data showed similar patterns in how shareable moments were digitally captured and produced as a social activity. Producing shareables is an interactional project with clear transition processes between each project component, and each project component comprising a unit of social organisation (summarised in Table 2 below).

Table 2.

Observable actions for producing a shareable.

No.	Project components	Description	Observable actions
1	Pre-sequence	Setting up the environment and projecting the upcoming activity to participants	Announcements, gaze shift to phone
2	Preparation	Preparing smartphone and infant for the upcoming activity	Picking up and manipulating phone
3	Production	Commencing and undertaking filming or photographing	Aiming phone camera at infant, double recipiency in the talk design (for infant and overhearing audience), continuous gaze shift from phone to infant
4	Closing	Closing the project, cessation of filming or photographing	Recording ceases, putting phone down, re-engaging infant through talk, gaze and touch.

Similar to other studies, for instance, of musical masterclasses that showed how instruction and performance are interrelated activities (Reed, 2019; Szczepek Reed et al., 2013), this corpus of mothers’ instruction showed how they moved from directive, instructional actions toward performative, production-oriented ones, through spoken and embodied, sequential adjustments. In the creation of a shareable, mothers and infants collaboratively navigated transitions between preparatory and instructional work and the production of the final artefact. Of particular relevance is the idea of “action pivot” points that signal the transitions between project components (Reed, 2019: 305). By situating these action transitions within participation frameworks, we identify the practical methods employed by mothers.

Data analysis

This section examines three fragments of mother-infant interaction. Fragments 1–3 identify each phase of the mother’s project of producing a recorded sharable moment.

Fragment 1 – Tasting a vegemite sandwich

Baby Audrey (6-months old, pseudonym) sits at the kitchen table in her highchair having breakfast while mum moves in and out of the kitchen preparing food, cleaning up, sitting with Audrey and feeding her. This fragment picks up about 35 minutes into the recording and was selected because Mum prepared a vegemite™ sandwich and, before giving it to Audrey, gets her phone ready. Vegemite™ is an iconic Australian food spread made from brewer’s yeast extract that is thick, dark and salty.

Project component 1: Pre-sequence actions

The pre-sequence begins with Mum walking over from the kitchen with a vegemite sandwich in her hand. The infant’s hand is extended out to Mum, when Mum announces, “here” (line 1). Mum’s announcement establishes that the vegemite sandwich is for Audrey, although she does not immediately give Audrey the sandwich, despite her outstretched hand. Instead, we see mum stand in front of Audrey with the sandwich held out in front and just out of reach, as she shifts her gaze to her phone sitting on the table to Audrey’s left. Mum’s delay in passing Audrey the sandwich, and her gaze shift to her phone indicate that she is getting ready to record Audrey trying the vegemite sandwich for the first time.

Project component 2: Preparation actions

The pivot to preparation actions is confirmed when Mum picks up her phone and holds the sandwich in position (line 3). Shifting her gaze between Audrey and her phone, she poses the question, “what’s Mumma got?” (line 4). She continues to shift her gaze from Audrey and her phone (lines 5–7) and next aims the phone camera at Audrey in preparation for filming (line 7). Audrey has indicated from the beginning, with her outstretched hand and beckoning gesture (line 4), that she is requesting her food. It is evident from Mum’s gaze shifts between her phone and Audrey that she is delaying orienting to Audrey’s food requests to prepare her phone to video record Audrey eating the sandwich (lines 3–7). Mum’s actions make visible her intended project of making a shareable (Figure 1(a)–(e)).

Figure 1.

(a) Mum picks up phone. (b) Offering sandwich. (c) Tasting sandwich. (d) Infant leaning towards sandwich. (e) Tasting sandwich again. (f) Screws up face.

Project component 3: Production actions

The production action begins when Mum starts video recording (line 8) and, holding the vegemite sandwich towards Audrey, says with a rising prosody, “vegemite?” (line 9). This introduces and re-offers the food to Audrey and, second, makes explicit the topic of the shareable for any potential recipients (Figure 1(b)). Mum’s talk is designed for both Audrey and any possible overhearing audiences (Heritage, 1985), including the possible recipient of the video recording later. Mum continues to flick her gaze between Audrey and her phone (lines 8–32), displaying her ongoing orientation to both her project of filming whilst simultaneously attending to the co-present interaction with Audrey (Figure 1(c) – 1(f)).

In line 26 Mum utters, “are you a vegemite kid?”. She follows up with “What’s nanna going to say?” (line 28). These two utterances, while constructed for the infant, also narrate the activity for any potential overhearing audience.

Project component 4: Closing actions

Audrey turns her head to the right, gazing away from Mum (line 33). Mum, possibly orienting to Audrey’s gaze and head shift as an indication that she is finished, gazes back at her phone, stops the recording and places the phone down on the table (line 33). Stopping the recording and putting down the phone indicates that the project is finished. Mum re-engages Audrey in further talk about the vegemite sandwich.

Fragment 1 showed how the mother established an interactional space to organise the environment and infant for the activity of filming. The transitions between each project component were made visible by the mothers’ handling and orientation to her smartphone, her infant’s requests and responses to trying the sandwich, and the possible overhearing audience of the recorded moment. The infant, in her embodied actions of gazing and turning away from the sandwich, displayed her agency as a co-participant in the production of the shareable, possibly bringing the shareable moment to a close.

In this way, the production of making this shareable was negotiated by the active participants (mother and infant) but also mediated by the smartphone and the possible “connected presence” of physically absent family and friends who may view and respond to the shareable later (Licoppe, 2004: 135). The four project components of pre-, preparing, production, and closing actions discussed above, were found to be a regular occurrence across the data sets.

Next, two further examples show how shareables follow similar sequential organisational patterns. These fragments below illustrate how the infants are positioned by the mother as co-participants in the creation of the “shareable”, are social activities, and afford opportunities to facilitate and maintain a social relationship with physically absent others. Fragment 2 focuses on saying thank you, and Fragment 3 focusses on sharing a news update. One demonstrates high engagement with the infant, and the other shows low engagement, but both demonstrate a digitally mediated “doing” of family.

Fragment 2 – Saying thanks

Fragment 2 illustrates the social action of saying thank you for a received gift. Saying or expressing thanks is recognisable as a social action that is morally organised by reciprocal social obligations and expectations that shape when and how saying thanks is done, such as in response to receiving a gift (Haugh, 2013). Reciprocity is a fundamental aspect of sustaining and maintaining social relationships as it often relies on “tacit understandings of people’s rights and duties” (Floyd et al., 2018: 2), with members being held accountable for saying or not saying thanks. Below, as the mother performs the action of saying thanks, she recruits her infant into this activity.

Below, Mum stands in the living room holding Poppy chest to chest. Poppy is wearing a new outfit gifted to her from Sally. Mum, announcing that they will show Sally Poppy’s new outfit, has Poppy lying on the floor (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Getting ready.

Pre-sequence actions (line 1)

The pre-sequence first-pair part, “you ready?”, works as a projection of, and invitation into, the forthcoming activity (Stivers, 2013). Mum continues, describing the activity – taking a photo of Poppy to say thanks. She completes her turn with “okay?”, ending with a slightly rising inflection to indicate a questioning tone. The “okay?” completes the invitation, treating the infant as an active participant and potential collaborator, and performs an agreement eliciting token by creating a sequential slot for the infant to respond. Second, it signals a transitional juncture and activity shift to the activity of photo taking.

Preparation actions (lines 2–7)

As mum gazes towards her phone, the infant takes up and responds to the invitation with an utterance in line 5 in second position. Mum responds with an aligning “yeah” while reaching for her phone. In line 8, Mum picks up the phone and then continues in line 10 with an “mmmkay you ready?”. The physical manipulation of picking up the smartphone and mum’s utterance “mmmkay” marks a shift from talking about taking the photo to the activity of taking the photo (Filipi and Wales, 2003). The “you ready” treats the infant as an active participant and steers the focus of the interaction towards the co-accomplishment of making a shareable.

Production actions (lines 7–21)

At the end of line 10, mum positions the smartphone camera above the infant, gazing at her through the phone. There is a significant time lapse of 8.6 seconds where Mum’s gaze and hands are oriented to the smartphone and positioning it for photographing. At the end of the 8.6 seconds the infant raises her arms up towards mum. Mum shifts her gaze to the infant and making an exaggerated surprised expression on her face (line 12). She proffers a directive with high prosody common in infant directed speech, “Say thanks for the outfit!” (line 14). Mum is simultaneously engaging the infant and prompting a response, while also dynamically switching towards her project of taking a photo. The infant responds with verbal and embodied actions in overlap with mum (line 13–14) and then utters “Erh”. Mum provides an assessment, “mmm=yea:h good girl+” (line 16) and shifts her gaze back to her phone (lines 17–19). Mum repeats the directive again (line 20), with the infant vocally responding “wuah” (line 21). The infant responds with another “wuh” with mum then latching on an assessment “super cute” ] (line 22). Mum, treating the infant as an active participant in the making of the shareable, then shifts her gaze back to the phone, which is a pivot point that signals the production of the shareable is coming to an end.

Closing actions (lines 21–23)

After a 1.4 second pause (line 22), mum transfers her device to her left hand. She provides another assessment “Good girl” and thanks the infant for her participation and collaboration in making the shareable.

This fragment shows how, in addition to fulfilling the social action of saying thanks, the mother displayed practical methods to scaffold and facilitate conversation and social interaction with the infant during the production of the shareable. This fragment highlights the infant’s display of agency, as her vocalizations and gestures shaped the mother’s scaffolding strategies and influenced the trajectory of the interaction. Fragment 3, below, shows the project components of producing a shareable occasioned by the mother noticing the action of her infant rolling to the side.

Fragment 3 – News update

Fragment 3 illustrates the social action of sharing a news update with a physically absent parent. Typical news delivery sequences in conversation follow the turn-taking format (e.g. news deliverer/news recipient) “announcement, announcement response, elaboration, and assessment” (Maynard, 1997: 97). In the absence of co-present conversation, news sequences in text-based messages are produced as news “packages” that consist of multiple units e.g., the news announcement, the news itself and a closing (Sliedrecht et al., 2024). Below, 3-months-old baby Audrey lies on her bedroom floor on her back with a baby toy (Figure 3). She rolls to her right side. Mum, observing the infant displaying a new developmental skill, video-records a news update of Audrey rolling to share with Dad. When Mum stops recording, she can be seen sending the video note to Dad in their private message chat.

Figure 3.

Have you seen her do this?

Pre-sequence actions (line 1–2)

The pre-sequence actions of making a shareable are minimal. Mum gazes at Audrey rolled to her side, noticing and orienting to Audrey’s embodied actions. Mum reaches for her phone, voicing her effort with a non-lexical vocalisation, “uhhh”. When examined sequentially, these actions display mum transitioning into preparing her device for filming.

Preparation actions (lines 2–4)

By reaching for her smartphone (line 2) Mum’s action marks a pivot to a new participation framework. She shifts her gaze to the phone (line 3), orienting to the device as she opens an application and preparing for recording (line 4). Once ready, she aims the camera at Audrey.

Production actions (lines 5–13)

Mum initiates the recording (line 5), and begins her video note to Audrey’s dad with a question “have you seen her do this?” (line 6). In typical co-present conversational sequences, a question is the first pair part of an adjacency pair – a sequence of interaction involving two sequential turns, with another participant expected to respond in second place (Schegloff, 2007). Mum’s use of a question works to include dad and makes a response from him expected and conditionally relevant, even from a distance. It also achieves a news pre-announcement, signalling that news is forthcoming (Terasaki, 2004). Mum continues with her update, packaging multiple turns into her message. She announces, while recording Audrey, her observation that “She’s just started rolling herself to the side” (line 6). After a 3.1 second pause, she provides an assessment, “crazy” (line 8), indexing her stance towards Audrey’s actions as novel and newsworthy. Mum next gives a directive, uttering “>↑Look↑ at uh<” (line 10) spoken quickly and with high prosody, further indexing her stance towards Audrey’s rolling as surprising and worthy of noting. She expands on and closes the news update, explaining she had “noticed it earlier” (line 12).

Closing actions (line 13)

Mum continues to record for a further 3.6 seconds before ending the video-note. She can be seen tapping the screen once, possibly posting the video into the private chat that she has going with her husband (line 13).

In the production of making a shareable, Mum had to act quickly to capture Audrey displaying a newsworthy physical skill to share with Dad. The infant’s action demonstrates her role as an agentic co-participant in the interaction, influencing the mother’s decisions and contributing to the unfolding process of making the shareable.

Discussion

By examining mothers’ digital media making through an ethnomethodological lens, this study revealed the intricate social organisation and practical methods employed by the mothers in their production of a “shareable”. We showed how shareables can build and maintain family relationships by sharing significant experiences (Fragment 1), serve as a resource for expressing gratitude for a gift received (Fragment 2) or function as communicative device that bridges physical distances and maintains a sense of closeness and engagement with an absent parent (Fragment 3). These key insights are discussed through two framings: (1) Shareables as interactional projects; and (2) Shareables (re)producing family culture.

Shareables as interactional projects

Critiques of mothers’ smartphone use around infants suggest that mothers engaging with smartphones disrupt and detract away from opportunities for social interaction. During the production of shareables, however, we observed the mothers using practical methods to orient to the infant as a co-participant in the making of shareable content. In so doing, the mothers created interactional spaces that enabled their infants to participate and display agency in these digitally mediated interactions. The infants actively shaped the trajectory of the unfolding interaction through their utterances, gaze and embodied actions. In Fragment 1, the infant’s embodied actions of looking and turning her body away from the sandwich were actions oriented to by the mother and occasioned the filming to stop. In Fragment 2, the mother used gaze, bodily positioning, touch and narration to maintain an active participation framework with the infant while simultaneously producing the shareable. The mother created sequential slots for the infant to respond, and attributed meaning and intentionality to the infant’s utterances, treating them as agentic participants in the unfolding project.

The collaborative nature of shareable production was shown in how mothers and infants co-created digital content. The mothers treated infants as co-participants in the production of shareables. With the smartphone or the shareable being an object that affords participation and social activity, a claim could be made that this example shows how infants are socialised into everyday digital experiences. This collaborative process facilitates early socialisation and also plays an important role in (re)producing culture, as explored in the following section.

Shareables (re)producing family culture

The occasioning and production of shareables serve as descriptive apparatuses of cultural knowledge, practices and actions. For instance, in Fragment 2 the mother creates a shareable to say thanks for a gifted outfit. Within this activity, cultural awareness is embedded within the social action of expressing gratitude. Politeness and expressing gratitude for gifts received are recognisable social actions tied to expectations and obligations of social reciprocity, and not expressing gratitude in certain social situations may be sanctionable (Floyd et al., 2018). The mother displayed her cultural knowledge-in-use (Baker, 2000; Hester and Eglin, 1997) by making visible and reinforcing the social expectation of expressing gratitude for a gift received in the routine activity of making a shareable. While tangible expressions of gratitude are not new (i.e. letters, cards, phone calls), the smartphone affords a digitally mediated avenue for accomplishing this social practice.

Shareables, as well as fulfilling social obligations, can also achieve social rewards through accomplishing a connected presence with others (Licoppe, 2004). The mothers bridged physical distances with friends and relatives by creating opportunities for others to witness or experience infants’ activities and experiences in digitally mediated ways. The shareables provided opportunities for the mothers to capture their infants’ competencies and their mothering activities. This work of mothers curating and sharing instances of infant achievement is social, moral and cultural work that maintains social relationships. For example, Fragment 3 shows Mum orienting to her infant’s activities as “shareable”, which prompts her to update Dad about their infant’s newly displayed skill. These practices highlight how shareables serve as a tool for mothers to navigate and fulfil the multifaceted demands of motherhood, blending social, moral, and cultural dimensions into their everyday interactions and (re)producing mothering culture.

Conclusion

This study highlights the transformative role of smartphones in documenting and sharing everyday family life, particularly among mothers. The specific attention on how mothers position their infants as co-participants in the creation of a “shareable”, highlights the intricate social, moral, and cultural practices of everyday family life. We uncovered the practical methods employed by mothers in their production of a shareable, contributing to understandings of digital motherhood and how technology mediates and shapes family interactions and cultural (re)production in contemporary society.

Smartphones are fundamentally transforming the ways that mothers document and share everyday family life, offering new avenues for maintaining social connections and cultural practices. This transformation is reshaping family interactions and making visible the evolving nature of motherhood in a digital age. The data makes visible the “seen but unnoticed, expected background features of everyday scenes” such as the local social and moral order or actions that possibly occasion and shape the construction of shareables (Garfinkel, 1967: 36). Each mother reported sharing these images or videos of their infant to either a family member or friend. It is not known whether the mothers actually shared these images or not. The consideration here is the ethical layer around consent and privacy of the infant. The reality is that, as infants cannot give consent or choose how their image is used, the mother also takes on the moral work of becoming the custodian of what gets shared. In this way, the integration of smartphones into family life is re-shaping maternal practices and raises profound questions about agency, ethics, and societal expectations associated with mothering in an increasingly digital world.

Footnotes

Appendix: Transcription Symbols and Conventions

The transcripts in this article use the Gail Jefferson transcription symbol system for vocal utterances (Jefferson, 2004), and the Lorenza Mondada (Mondada, 2022) transcription symbol system for multimodal and embodied actions (e.g., gesture and gaze).

Acknowledgements

We thank the Australian Research Council and the ARC Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child (Project CE200100022) for their support. We are deeply appreciative of all the families who participated in this research. Our sincere thanks go to the mothers and their babies for their generous and invaluable contributions. This study would not have been possible without their time, effort, and dedication.

ORCID iD

Philippa Amery

Ethical considerations

This research project was approved by the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Human Research Ethics Committee (UHREC). QUT Ethics Approval Number: 4407.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was fully funded by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child, Australia and the Queensland University Postgraduate Research Award (QUTPRA).

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Data availability statement

The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Permission to reproduce material from other sources

There is no material from other sources.

Author biographies

Philippa Amery is a Research Fellow with the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child at the Queensland University of Technology. She received her PhD titled Mothering Infants in a Digital Age: Digital Dilemmas and Social Interaction from the Queensland University of Technology in 2026. Her research interests include mother-infant, family, and classroom interactions, digital childhoods, motherhood studies and early childhood education.

Susan Danby is Distinguished Professor and Director of the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child and Distinguished Professor of Education at the Queensland University of Technology. She received her PhD titled Interaction and Social Order in Preschool from the University of Queensland in 1998. Her research interests include early years language and social interaction, childhood studies, and young children’s engagement with digital technologies.

Maryanne Theobald is an Associate Professor of Education at the Queensland University of Technology. She received her PhD titled Participation and Social Order in the Playground from the Queensland University of Technology in 2009. Her research interests include early childhood education, children’s talk-in-interaction in disputes and friendships in the home, school, playground, with digital technologies and in multilingual contexts.

References

Archer

(2019) How influencer ‘mumpreneur’ bloggers and ‘everyday’ mums frame presenting their children online. Media International Australia 170(1): 47–56.

Baker

(2000) Locating culture in action: Membership categorisation in texts and talk. In: Lee

Poynton

(eds) Cuture and Text: Discourse and Methodology in Social Research and Cultural Studies. Allen & Unwin, pp. 99–113.

Baldassar

Nedelcu

Merla

, et al. (2016) ICT-based co-presence in transnational families and communities: Challenging the premise of face-to-face proximity in sustaining relationships. Global Networks 16(2): 133–144.

Bateman

(2022) Participation. In: Church

Bateman

(eds) Talking with Children: A Handbook of Interaction in Early Childhood Education. Cambridge University Press, 55–77.

Blum-Ross

Livingstone

(2017) “Sharenting,” parent blogging, and the boundaries of the digital self. Popular Communication 15(2): 110–125.

Busch

(2018a) How families use video communication technologies during intergenerational skype sessions. In: Danby

Fleer

Davidson

, et al. (eds) Digital Childhoods. Springer Singapore, pp.17–32.

Busch

(2018b) Happy birthday Grandpa. Research on Children and Social Interaction 2(1): 74–97.

DiDomenico

Raclaw

Robles

(2020) Attending to the mobile text summons: Managing multiple communicative activities across physically copresent and technologically mediated interpersonal interactions. Communication Research 47(5): 669–700.

Filipi

Wales

(2003) Differential uses of okay, right, and alright, and their function in signaling perspective shift or maintenance in a map task. Semiotica 1(147): 429–455.

10.

Floyd

Rossi

Baranova

, et al. (2018) Universals and cultural diversity in the expression of gratitude. Royal Society Open Science 5(5): 180391.

11.

Gan

Greiffenhagen

Licoppe

(2020) Orchestrated openings in video calls: Getting young left-behind children to greet their migrant parents. Journal of Pragmatics 170: 364–380.

12.

Garfinkel

(1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Hoboken, NJ: Englewood Cliffs.

13.

Georgakopoulou

(2021) Small stories as curated formats on social media: The intersection of affordances, values & practices. System 102: 102620.

14.

Georgakopoulou

(2022) Co-opting small stories on social media: A narrative analysis of the directive of authenticity. Poetics Today 43(2): 265–286.

15.

Given

Cantrell Winkler

Willson

, et al. (2016) Parents as Coresearchers at Home. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 15(1): 1–9.

16.

Goodwin

Harness Goodwin

(2004) Participation. In: Duranti

(ed.) A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Basil Blackwell, pp.222–244.

17.

Goodwin

(2006) Participation, affect, and trajectory in family directive/response sequences. Text & Talk 26(4–5): 515–543.

18.

Guillemin

Gillam

(2004) Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative Inquiry 10(2): 261–280.

19.

Guo

(2025) Parenting across distances: Negotiation, cooperation and resistance among Chinese liushou (留守) families. Children & Society. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1111/chso.12984.

20.

Haugh

(2013) Im/politeness, social practice and the participation order. Journal of Pragmatics 58: 52–72.

21.

Heritage

(1985) Analyzing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. In: van Dijk

(ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vol. 3. Academic Press, pp.95–117.

22.

Hester

Eglin

(1997) Culture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis, vol. 4. International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America, pp. 1–24.

23.

Housley

Smith

(2017) Interactionism and digital society. Qualitative Research 17(2): 187–201.

24.

Hutchby

(2001a) Conversation and Technology: From the Telephone to the Internet. Polity Press, pp. 13–33.

25.

Hutchby

(2001b) Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology 35(2): 441–456.

26.

Jefferson

(2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In: Lerner

(ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.13–31.

27.

Jones

(2009) Dancing, skating and sex: Action and text in the digital age. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice 6(3): 283–302.

28.

Kennedy

Arnold

Gibbs

, et al. (2020) Digital domesticity: Media, materiality, and home life. Oxford University Press, pp. 13–24.

29.

Lazard

(2022) Digital mothering: Sharenting, family selfies and online affective-discursive practices. Feminism & Psychology 32(4): 540–558.

30.

Licoppe

(2004) ‘Connected’ presence: The emergence of a new repertoire for managing social relationships in a changing communication technoscape. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 22(1): 135–156.

31.

Mackenzie

(2023) Connected Parenting: Digital Discourse and Diverse Family Practices. Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 65–84.

32.

Mantere

(2022) Smartphone moves: How changes in embodied configuration with one’s smartphone adjust conversational engagement. Social Sciences 11(5): 219.

33.

Maynard

(1997) The news delivery sequence: Bad news and good news in conversational interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 30(2): 93–130.

34.

McDaniel

Radesky

(2018) Technoference: Parent distraction with technology and associations with child behavior problems. Child Development 89(1): 100–109.

35.

Mondada

(2022) Conventions for multimodal transcription. Available at: https://www.lorenzamondada.net/multimodal-transcription (accessed December 2022).

36.

Nedelcu

(2017) Transnational grandparenting in the digital age: Mediated co-presence and childcare in the case of Romanian migrants in Switzerland and Canada. European Journal of Ageing 14(4): 375–383.

37.

Odasso

Geoffrion

(2023) Doing family online: (In)formal knowledge circulation, information-seeking practices, and support communities. Family Relations 72(2): 389–405.

38.

Rączaszek-Leonardi

Nomikou

Rohlfing

(2013) Young children’s dialogical actions: The beginnings of purposeful intersubjectivity. IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development 5(3): 210–221.

39.

Reed

(2019) Assessments in transition: Coordinating participation framework transitions in institutional settings. In: Reber

Gerhardt

(eds) Embodied Activities in Face-to-Face and Mediated Settings: Social Encounters in Time and Space. Palgrave Macmillan, pp.299–326.

40.

Robles

DiDomenico

Raclaw

, et al. (2023) Reporting mobile device-mediated text to manage action and agency in co-present conversation. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality 6(1): 137382.

41.

Ruiz-Gomez

Marôpo

Jorge

(2024) Between advocacy and commodification on Instagram: A case study of sharenting a child with disabilities. Children & Society. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1111/chso.12916.

42.

Sacks

(1995) Lectures on Conversation Volumes I & II. Blackwell Publishing.

43.

Sacks

Schegloff

Jefferson

(1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50: 696–735.

44.

Schegloff

(2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge University Press.

45.

Siibak

Mascheroni

(2021) Children’s Data and Privacy in the Digital Age (CO:RE Short Report Series on Key Topics, Issue). CO:RE Children Online: Research and Evidence.

46.

Sliedrecht

Stommel

Schep

(2024) “Shared care” through instant messaging updates in youth care; an interaction analysis. Qualitative Social Work 23(2): 314–329.

47.

Stivers

(2013) Sequence organization. In: Sidnell

Stivers

(eds) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, pp.191–209.

48.

Szczepek Reed

Reed

Haddon

(2013) NOW or NOT NOW: Coordinating restarts in the pursuit of learnables in vocal master classes. Research on Language and Social Interaction 46(1): 22–46.

49.

Terasaki

(2004) Pre-announcement sequences in conversation. In: Lerner

(ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. John Benjamins Publishing, pp.171–224. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.11ter?locatt=mode:legacy (accesssed 9 October 2025).

50.

van Dijck

(2008) Digital photography: Communication, identity, memory. Visual Communication 7(1): 57–76.

Producing shareables: Mothers’ digital media making with infants

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Digital sharing practices

The study

Methodological approach

Data analysis

Fragment 1 – Tasting a vegemite sandwich

Project component 1: Pre-sequence actions

Project component 2: Preparation actions

Project component 3: Production actions

Project component 4: Closing actions

Fragment 2 – Saying thanks

Pre-sequence actions (line 1)

Preparation actions (lines 2–7)

Production actions (lines 7–21)

Closing actions (lines 21–23)

Fragment 3 – News update

Pre-sequence actions (line 1–2)

Preparation actions (lines 2–4)

Production actions (lines 5–13)

Closing actions (line 13)

Discussion

Shareables as interactional projects

Shareables (re)producing family culture

Conclusion

Footnotes

Appendix: Transcription Symbols and Conventions

Acknowledgements

ORCID iD

Ethical considerations

Funding

Declaration of conflicting interests

Data availability statement

Permission to reproduce material from other sources

Author biographies

References