skip to main content
research-article

Into Scandinavia: When Online Fatherhood Reflects Societal Infrastructures

Published:05 December 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Denmark is a generous welfare state which provides resources and legal means for fathers to take their parental role seriously and engage with their children. In this paper, we explore the relation between Danish fathers' interaction online and the societal, legal, and economic infrastructures in which they are situated. By focusing on how fathers living in Denmark make use of the Internet and social media sites to facilitate their role as parents, we are able to explore how online engagement is shaped by the different societal 'norms' of parenting. Our research outlines the ways in which societal infrastructures influence how fathers perceive, and subsequently make use of social media in relation to child-caring. We find that fathers discuss their experiences of legal inequities and stereotypical discrimination on social network sites like Facebook. We also study fathers' online reviews of a Danish parenting App, FAR, designed specifically to support fathers. By analyzing social media discussions around fatherhood in Denmark, we found connections to the ways in which the current political climate shapes and influences fatherhood in Denmark, as they reflect the societal infrastructures which situate fathers in contemporary Denmark. Further, we found a strong political interest for collective action to transform the societal infrastructures to support legal equality for child caretaking across genders. This strong political motivation is distinct from existing studies exploring how fatherhood is displayed on social media in other countries such as the USA. On this basis, we argue that research exploring social media use in institutions which are strongly shaped by societal norms, must explicitly consider the role which society takes in shaping such institutions, and include these aspects into the analysis. Our data show that fathers use social media sites as platforms to produce a fatherhood more in line with their lived experience of parenting, and that they advocate for collective political action to strengthen fathers' legal rights.

References

  1. Ammari, T. et al. 2015. Managing Children's Online Identities: How Parents Decide what to Disclose about their Children Online. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '15 (Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2015), 1895--1904.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Ammari, T. et al. 2018. Pseudonymous Parents: Comparing Parenting Roles and Identities on the Mommit and Daddit Subreddits. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '18 (Montreal QC, Canada, 2018), 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Ammari, T. et al. 2017. The Crafting of DIY Fatherhood. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (New York, NY, USA, 2017), 1109--1122.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Ammari, T. and Schoenebeck, S. 2015. Networked Empowerment on Facebook Groups for Parents of Children with Special Needs. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '15 (Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2015), 2805--2814.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Ammari, T. and Schoenebeck, S. 2016. "Thanks for your interest in our Facebook group, but it's only for dads:" Social Roles of Stay-at-Home Dads. Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing - CSCW '16 (San Francisco, California, USA, 2016), 1361--1373.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Ammari, T. and Schoenebeck, S. 2015. Understanding and Supporting Fathers and Fatherhood on Social Media Sites. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '15 (Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2015), 1905--1914.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Åsenhed, L. et al. 2014. Becoming a father is an emotional roller coaster - an analysis of first-time fathers? blogs. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 23, 9--10 (May 2014), 1309--1317. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12355.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Bach, A.S. and Aarseth, H. 2016. Adaptation, equality, and fairness. Towards a sociological understanding of 'the supportive husband.' Norma. 11, 3 (2016), 174--189.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Ball, J.A. and LaRossa, R. 1987. Reactions to Motherhood: The Role of Post-Natal Care. CUP Archive.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Bjørn, P. et al. 2019. Translocality in Global Software Development: the Dark Side of Global Agile. Human--Computer Interaction. 34, 2 (Mar. 2019), 174--203. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2017.1398092.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Bjørn, P. and Boulus-Rødje, N. 2018. Infrastructural Inaccessibility: Tech Entrepreneurs in Occupied Palestine. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction. 25, 5 (Oct. 2018), 1--31. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3219777.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Blackwell, L. et al. 2016. LGBT Parents and Social Media: Advocacy, Privacy, and Disclosure during Shifting Social Movements. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '16 (Santa Clara, California, USA, 2016), 610--622.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Bonke, J. 2009. Forældres brug af tid og penge på deres børn. Rockwool Fondens Forskningsenhed Syddansk Universitetsforlag.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Bonke, J. and Bent, J. 2017. Har vi tid til velfærd?: --om danskernes brug af deres tid ude og hjemme. Gyldendal A/S.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Crouch, J. and Beaulieu, R. 2006. No-Fault Divorce Laws and Divorce Rates in the United States and Europe: Variations and Correlations. Praeger Publishing. (2006), 16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Egholm Andersen, F. 2018. Slå nu til, din tøsedreng, essays om fædre og sønner og deres bryderier. Her&Nu.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Eriksson, H. and Salzmann-Erikson, M. 2013. Supporting a caring fatherhood in cyberspace -- an analysis of communication about caring within an online forum for fathers. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences. 27, 1 (Mar. 2013), 63--69. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471--6712.2012.01001.x.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. FAR: https://www.appannie.com/apps/ios/app/far-2/details/. Accessed: 2018-09--20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Fletcher, R. and StGeorge, J. 2011. Heading Into Fatherhood-Nervously: Support for Fathering From Online Dads. Qualitative Health Research. 21, 8 (Aug. 2011), 1101--1114. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732311404903.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Gibson, L. and Hanson, V.L. 2013. Digital Motherhood: How Does Technology Help New Mothers? Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA, 2013), 313--322.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Gregory, A. and Milner, S. 2011. What is "New" about Fatherhood?: The Social Construction of Fatherhood in France and the UK. Men and Masculinities. 14, 5 (Dec. 2011), 588--606. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X11412940.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Guest, G. et al. 2012. Applied Thematic Analysis.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Haagesen, K.M. 2013. Nordic statistical yearbook 2013. Nordisk Ministerråd. 1st Edition (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Haas, L. and Rostgaard, T. 2011. Fathers' rights to paid parental leave in the Nordic countries: consequences for the gendered division of leave. Community, Work & Family. 14, 2 (May 2011), 177--195. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2011.571398.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Hall, E.O. 1995. From fun and excitement to joy and trouble--an explorative study of three Danish fathers' experiences around birth. Scandinavian journal of caring sciences. 9, 3 (1995), 171--179. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471--6712.1995.tb00408.x.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Hogan, B. 2010. The Presentation of Self in the Age of Social Media: Distinguishing Performances and Exhibitions Online. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 30, (Dec. 2010), 377--386. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467610385893.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Johansson, T. and Hammarén, N. 2014. "Imagine, just 16 years old and already a dad!' The construction of young fatherhood on the Internet. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth. 19, 3 (Jul. 2014), 366--381. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2012.747972.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Jordan, A. 2018. Masculinizing Care? Gender, Ethics of Care, and Fathers' Rights Groups. Men and Masculinities. (2018), 1097184X18776364.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Kristian, D. and Lars, P. 2009. Parenthood, information and support on the internet. A literature review of research on parents and professionals online. BMC Family Practice. 10, 1 (May 2009), 34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Kumar, P. and Schoenebeck, S. 2015. The Modern Day Baby Book: Enacting Good Mothering and Stewarding Privacy on Facebook. Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (New York, NY, USA, 2015), 1302--1312.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. LaRossa, R. 2012. The historical study of fatherhood: theoretical and methodological considerations. Barbara Budrich Publishers. (2012), 22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Le Moignan, E. et al. 2017. Has Instagram Fundamentally Altered the "Family Snapshot"? (2017), 4935--4947.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Madsen, S. and Munck, H. 2001. Fathers' presence at deliveries in Denmark. Santé mentale au Québec. xxvi, 1 (2001), 27--38.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Matthiesen, S. and Bjørn, P. 2016. Let's Look Outside the Office: Analytical Lens Unpacking Collaborative Relationships in Global Work. COOP 2016: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems, 23--27 May 2016, Trento, Italy (2016), 107--122.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Miles, M.B. et al. 2014. Qualitative data analysis, a methods sourcebook. Sage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Morris, M.R. 2014. Social Networking Site Use by Mothers of Young Children. Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (New York, NY, USA, 2014), 1272--1282.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Noergaard, B. et al. 2017. Fathers' Needs and Masculinity Dilemmas in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit in Denmark. Advances in Neonatal Care: Official Journal of the National Association of Neonatal Nurses. 17, 4 (Aug. 2017), E13--E22. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1097/ANC.0000000000000395.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Obar, J.A. et al. 2012. Advocacy 2.0: An Analysis of How Advocacy Groups in the United States Perceive and Use Social Media as Tools for Facilitating Civic Engagement and Collective Action. Journal of Information Policy; University Park. 2, (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Om Far: https://foreningenfar.dk/om-foreningen-far. Accessed: 2019-02--26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Petronio, S. 2010. Communication Privacy Management Theory: What Do We Know About Family Privacy Regulation? Journal of Family Theory & Review. 2, 3 (2010), 175--196. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756--2589.2010.00052.x.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Petronio, S. and Altman, I. 2002. Boundaries of Privacy: Dialectics of Disclosure. State University of New York Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Pina, L.R. et al. 2018. How Latino Children in the U.S. Engage in Collaborative Online Information Problem Solving with Their Families. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2, CSCW (Nov. 2018), 140:1--140:26. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3274409.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Rosner, D.K. and Fox, S.E. 2016. Legacies of craft and the centrality of failure in a mother-operated hackerspace. New Media & Society. 18, 4 (Apr. 2016), 558--580. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816629468.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Rostgaard, T. 2002. Setting time aside for the father: Father's leave in Scandinavia. Community, Work & Family. 5, 3 (Dec. 2002), 343--364. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/1366880022000041810.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Salzmann-Erikson, M. and Eriksson, H. 2013. Fathers sharing about early parental support in health-care - virtual discussions on an Internet forum. Health & Social Care in the Community. 21, 4 (Jul. 2013), 381--390. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12028.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Sarkadi, A. and Bremberg, S. 2005. Socially unbiased parenting support on the Internet: a cross-sectional study of users of a large Swedish parenting website. Child: Care, Health and Development. 31, 1 (Jan. 2005), 43--52. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365--2214.2005.00475.x.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Schoenebeck, S.Y. 2013. The Secret Life of Online Moms: Anonymity and Disinhibition on Youbemom.Com. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, ICWSM 2013. (Jan. 2013), 555--562.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Shwalb, B.J. et al. Fathers in Cultural Context?: Barbara J. Shwalb, David W. Shwalb, Michael E. Lamb.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Sommer, D.B. 1984. Når far er hjemme, om faderrollen, fædre og spædbørn. Dansk Psykologisk Forlag.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Tan, L. et al. 2013. Analyzing the Impact of Social Media on Social Movements: A Computational Study on Twitter and the Occupy Wall Street Movement. Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (New York, NY, USA, 2013), 1259--1266.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. The Danish Fathers Association: https://foreningenfar.dk/english. Accessed: 2019-02--19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Toombs, A.L. et al. 2018. Supporting the Complex Social Lives of New Parents. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA, 2018), 420:1--420:13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Vitak, J. and Kim, J. 2014. "You Can'T Block People Offline": Examining How Facebook's Affordances Shape the Disclosure Process. Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (New York, NY, USA, 2014), 461--474.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Westerling, A. 2015. Reflexive fatherhood in everyday life: the case of Denmark. Families, Relationships and Societies; Bristol. 4, 2 (Jul. 2015), 209--223. DOI:http://dx.doi.org.ep.fjernadgang.kb.dk/10.1332/204674315X14347065836218.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Wulf, V. et al. 2013. Fighting against the wall: social media use by political activists in a Palestinian village. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '13 (Paris, France, 2013), 1979.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Yarosh, S. et al. 2016. "Best of Both Worlds": Opportunities for Technology in Cross-Cultural Parenting. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA, 2016), 635--647.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Into Scandinavia: When Online Fatherhood Reflects Societal Infrastructures

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!