DigilitEY conference 2019

1. The Domestication of
Smart Toys:
Perceptions and
Practices of Young
Children and Their
Parents
INTERNET OF TOYS PRECONFERENCE
Reconceptualising Early Childhood Literacies: An International Conference
COST Action IS1410 DigiLitEY - The digital literacy and multimodal practices of young children
March 7th and 8th, Manchester
Patrícia Dias, CECC/CRC-W, Universidade Católica Portuguesa
Rita Brito, CRC-W, Universidade Católica Portuguesa; Escola de Educação, ISEC Lisboa

2. Theoretical framework
• Conceptualization of smart toys and Internet of Toys (broader
approach) (Mascheroni & Holloway, 2017);
• Domestication Theory as relevant theoretical framework to
explore the adoption of smart toys by families (Holloway &
Green, 2017;
• Appropriation, objectification, incorporation and conversion as
domestication stages (Berker, Hartmann, Punie, & Ward, 2006;
Haddon, 2011) applicable to smart toys.
• The importance of parental mediation (Connell, Lauricella, &
Wartella, 2015; Kucirnova & Sakr, 2015; Brito, Francisco, Dias, &
Chaudron, 2017; Livingstone et al., 2017).

3. Research Questions
Q1 - Who, in the home, decides on the adoption (purchase)
of smart toys and why? (appropriation);
Q2 - How are smart toys perceived by parents and children?
(appropriation and objectification);
Q3 - How are smart toys used in the home, and how are that
affecting family life and the play practices of young children?
(objectification and incorporation); and
Q4 - Is it possible to identify emergent patterns and trends
concerning the domestication of smart toys? (conversion).

4. Methodology
• Exploratory qualitative study, with a purposive sample aimed at
being representative of the themes being studied, instead of
the population it refers to (Charmaz, 2004; Ray, 2012). Thus,
we looked for families with young children (under 8) who
owned smart toys and searched for variety in the following
criteria:
• Gender of the child(ren);
• Diversity of family composition (including divorced
parents, older and younger siblings, no siblings);
• Geographical diversity;
• Income and education of the parents;
• Penetration of digital media in the home.

5. Methodology
• We adapted the research protocol from the project “Young
Children (0–8) and Digital Technologies” (Chaudron et al.,
2015), thus com- bining interviews, activities and participant
observation (Denscombe, 2007).
• Introduction and presentation of the study;
• Ice-breaker activities (parents and children independently);
• Semi-structured interviews (parents and children
independently);
• Finalizing.

6. Sample
• The sample includes 21 families, 11 from the Lisbon
metropolitan area and 10 from the Oporto metropolitan
area, in Portugal.

8. Findings and Discussion
Q1 - Who, in the home, decides on the adoption (purchase) of
smart toys and why? (appropriation)
Parents, influenced by “pester power” and “nag
factor” (Lawlor & Prothero, 2011; Mitskavets)
2015)

9. Findings and Discussion
Q2 - How are smart toys perceived by parents and children?
(appropriation and objectification);
Parents have mixed perceptions (positive aspects are
educational value and satisfying children; negative
aspects are isolating the children, contact with
inappropriate content, bad relationship price/quality).
Children are informed about smart toys and eager to
try them and own them; they value human-like or pet-
like interaction suggested in advertising.

10. Findings and Discussion
Camila (F20, mother): I think that the most
technologically advanced toys deprive children of their
creativity and of contact with other children. Back in
our day, we played outdoors with our neighbours, and
we had to be creative!
Luciana (F21, mother): Lara has asked for a smart
watch. This type of toy is very expensive and I am not
very sure about how useful they are. So I will wait to
see if she asks for it for a long time, or if it is just on the
spur of the moment. The other day, she played with a
smart watch at a friend’s house, and after two hours
she was tired of it. I am not going to spend that much
for her to play for just two hours.

11. Findings and Discussion
I: Do you know any of these? [interviewer shows
toys as cardboard images] André (F10, age 8): This
connects to the tablet, doesn’t it?
I: Yes, do you know it?
André (F10, age 8): I know it but I have never
played with it.
[The child recognizes all the smart toys presented
on cardboard] I: Ah! You know them all. And do you
have any of these?
Fátima (F15, age 8): No, no, no, no, no and no.
I: Would you like to? Fatima (F15, age 8): I would
love to have one.

12. Findings and Discussion
Q3 - How are smart toys used in the home, and how are that
affecting family life and the play practices of young children?
(objectification and incorporation)
Only 4 of the families own smart toys.
First, the smart toys had a “novelty status” and children
reported some lack of intuitivity.
Now, or they were abandoned because children find them
difficult to use or boring, or they are integrated in children’s
routines.

13. Findings and Discussion

14. Findings and Discussion
Alice (F13, age 6): When I get up, I wake up my
Hatchimal and I feed her. I take her with me to the
bathroom when I am getting ready for school and I
talk to her. Now she repeats what I say. I am
teaching her, and then she will talk to me. When I
get home, she is hungry, so I feed her again. I can
only play with Mimi after finishing my homework.
Sometimes she gets bored of waiting and falls
asleep and then I have to wake her up to play.
Armanda (F4, age 8): I use Emilio to record my
favourite video clips, I play them on YouTube on my
tablet. Then, I carry Emilio around and I can play the
songs that I like, and dance.

15. Findings and Discussion
Q4 - Is it possible to identify emergent patterns and trends
concerning the domestication of smart toys? (conversion).
For children, the affordances of smart toys appeal to affective
meanings, and they describe them as “friend” (Paulo, F12,
age 4), “pet” (Alice, F13, age 6), “best friend” (Teresa, F9,
age 6) and “buddy” (Bernardo, F7, age 5), and they expect
active play from smart toys.

16. References
Berker, T., Hartmann, M., Punie, Y., & Ward, K. (2006). Domestication of media and technology. London: Open University Press.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, London, and New Delhi: Sage.
Brito, R., Francisco, R., Dias, P., & Chaudron, S. (2017). Family dynamics in digital homes: The role played by parental mediation in young chil- dren’s digital practices around 14 European
countries. Contemporary Family Therapy, 39(4), 271–280.
Chambers, D. (2016). Changing media, homes and households: Cultures, technol- ogies and meanings. London: Routledge.
Charmaz, K. (2004). Grounded theory. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research (pp. 496–521). New York: Oxford University Press.
Chaudron, S., Beutel, M. E., Černikova, M., Donoso, V., Dreier, M., ... & Wölfling, K. (2015). Young children (0–8) and digital technology: A qualita- tive exploratory study across seven countries.
JRC 93239/EUR 27052.
Chaudron, S., Di Gioia, R., Gemo, M., Holloway, D., Marsh, J., Mascheroni, G., ... Yamada-Rice, D. (2017). Kaleidoscope on the internet of toys—Safety, security, privacy and societal insights.
Retrieved from https://goo.gl/TtuntC.
Chen, Z. H., Liao, C., Chien, T. C., & Chan, T. W. (2011). Animal com- panions: Fostering children’s effort-making by nurturing virtual pets. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(1), 166–
180.
Connell, S. L., Lauricella, A. R., & Wartella, E. (2015). Parental co-use of media technology with their young children in the USA. Journal of Children and Media, 9, 5–21.
Denscombe, M. (2007). The good research guide: For small-scale social research projects. Maidenhead, England and New York: Open University Press.
Dias, P., & Brito, R. (2016). Crianças (0 a 8 anos) e Tecnologias Digitais. Lisboa: Universidade Católica Portuguesa. Retrieved from http://hdl.han- dle.net/10400.14/19160.
Dias, P., & Brito, R. (2017). Crianças (0 a 8 anos) e Tecnologias Digitais: Que mudanças num ano? Lisboa: Universidade Católica Portuguesa. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10400.14/22498.
Dias, P., Brito, R., Ribbens, W., Daniela, L., Rubene, Z., Dreier, M., ... Chaudron, S. (2016). The role of parents in the engagement of young children with digital technologies: Exploring tensions
between rights of
access and protection, from ‘gatekeepers’ to ‘scaffolders’. Global Studies of Childhood, 6(4), 414–427.
Drotner, K. (1999). Dangerous media? Panic discourses and dilemmas of Modernity. International Journal of the History of Education, 35(3), 593–619.
Haddon, L. (2006). The contribution of domestication research to in-home computing and media consumption. The Information Society, 22, 195–203. Haddon, L. (2011). Domestication analysis,
objects of study, and the central- ity of technologies in everyday life. Canadian Journal of Communication, 36(2), 311–313.
Hepp, A., & Krotz, F. (Eds.). (2014). Mediatized worlds: Culture and society in a media age. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Holloway, D., & Green, L. (2016). The internet of toys. Communication Research and Practice, 2(4), 506–519.
Holloway, D., & Green, L. (2017). Mediated memory making: The virtual family photograph album. Communications, 44(3), 351–368.
Holloway, D. J., Green, L., & Stevenson, K. (2015, August). Digitods: Toddlers, touch screens and Australian family life. M/C Journal, 18(5). ISSN 14412616. (Special Issue). Available at
http://www.journal.media-cul- ture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/1024. Accessed 21 December 2018.
Katz, J., & Aakhus, M. (2002). Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kotler, P., Kartajaya, H., & Setiawan, I. (2017). Marketing 4.0: Moving from traditional to digital. London: Wiley.
Kucirnova, N., & Sakr, M. (2015). Child-father creative text-making at home with crayons, iPad collage and PC. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 17, 59–63.
Lawlor, M. A., & Prothero, A. (2011). Pester power: A battle of wills between children and their parents. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(5), 551–561.
Ling, R. (2004). The mobile connection: The cell phone’s impact on society. New York: Morgan Kaufmann.
Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G., Dreier, M., Chaudron, S., & Lagae, K. (2015). How parents of young children manage digital devices at home: The role of income, education and parental style. EU
Kids online. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/6rvdhe.
Livingstone, S., Ólafsson, K., Helsper, E., Lupiáñez-Villanueva, F., Veltri, G., & Folkvord, F. (2017). Maximizing opportunities and minimizing risks for children online: The role of digital skills in
emerging strategies of parental mediation. Journal of Communication, 67(1), 82–105.
Livingstone, S., & Third, A. (2017). Children and young people’s rights in the digital age: An emerging agenda. New Media & Society, 19(5), 657–670.
Llorente & Cuenca. (2017). Consumer engagement trends for 2017: The phygital era. Retrieved from http://www.desarrollando-ideas.com.
Marsh, J. (Ed.). (2005). Popular culture, new media and digital literacy in early childhood. London: Psychology Press.
Marsh, J. (2017). The internet of toys: A posthuman and multimodal analy- sis of connected play. Teachers College Record, 119. Retrieved from http://
eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/113557/14/38_22073.pdf.
Mascheroni, G., & Holloway, D. (Eds.). (2017). The internet of toys: A report on media and social discourses around young children and IoToys. DigiLitEY. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/2C1VsR.
Mitskavets, I. (2015). Children and teens as influencers. London: Mintel. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/C9Mkcf.
Mukherji, P., & Albon, D. (2010). Research methods in early childhood: An introductory guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nikken, P., & Jansz, J. (2014). Developing scales to measure parental media- tion of young children’s internet use. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(2), 250–266.
Ofcom. (2017). Children and parents: Media use and attitudes report. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/BrmPF2.
Plowman, L., McPake, J., & Stephen, C. (2008). Just picking it up? Young children learning with technology at home. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38, 303–319.
Ray, A. (2012). The methodology of sampling and purposive sampling. Berlin: Grin Publishing.
Reuver, M., Nikou, S., & Bouwman, H. (2016). Domestication of smart- phones and mobile applications: A quantitative mixed-method study. Mobile Media & Communication, 4(3), 347–370.
Rosin, H. (2013). The touch-screen generation. The Atlantic, 20.
Silverstone, R., & Haddon, L. (1996). Design and the domestication of infor- mation and communication technologies: Technical change in everyday life. In R. Silverstone & R. Mansell (Eds.),
Communication by design: The politics of information and communication technologies (pp. 44–74). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Silverstone, R., & Hirsch, E. (Eds.). (1992). Consuming technologies: Media and information in domestic spaces. London: Routledge.
Valcke, M., Bonte, S., Wener, B., & Rots, I. (2010). Internet parenting styles and the impact on internet use of primary school children. Computers & Education, 55(2), 454–464.
Valkenburg, P. (2002). Beeldschermkinderen: Theorieën over kind en media [Screen-kids: Theories about children and media]. Amsterdam: Boom.
Vincent, J. (2006). Emotional attachment and mobile phones. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 19(1), 39–44.
Wang, W., Kuo, V., King, C., & Chang, C. (2010). Internet of toys: An e-Pet overview and proposed innovative social toy service platform. Computer Symposium (ICS). Tainan, 16–18 December.
Retrieved from https://goo.gl/ aR4b89.

17. Thank you!
pdias@ucp.pt
rita.brito@iseclisboa.pt