Everyday Constraints on Technology Use
*Originally submitted February, 2025 for the Media, Technology, and Everyday Life course in fulfillment of the MSc Media and Communications program at the London School of Economics.
Question: Why does the argument that information and communication technologies can be used anytime or anywhere fail to account for the social factors that constrain their use?
Introduction
Major technology corporations continue to boast the ever-advancing accessibility and portability of mobile devices, entertainment technologies, and personal computers, frequently touting the “anytime, anywhere” nature of ICT use. However, it is important to recognize the social factors that prompt individuals to negotiate how, where, and when they are using, or not using, such technologies. The domestication framework, pioneered in the United Kingdom in the 1990s, allows researchers to examine the broader social, cultural, economic, and political contexts that shape how information and communication technologies (ICTs) integrate into daily life (Haddon, 2011). Early approaches looked at the domestication of ICTs in relation to the home, but the field has since expanded to public, educational, professional, and national contexts (Haddon, 2011). The framework, based in anthropology and consumption studies, looks at how people gain access to and negotiate the use of ICTs across time and space, and how individuals talk about and present their relationship to specific ICTs (Haddon, 2011; Haddon, 2017). In this paper, I will apply the domestication framework to examine case studies of the social constraints on mobile phone use as they relate to financial, spatial, and temporal concerns.
Domestication, ICTs, and Social Constraints
To present examples of social constraints on ICTs, it is important to first further understand the processes of domestication and the domestication framework, as well as what is meant by social constraints. The domestication approach examines four processes as they relate to ICTs: appropriation (how people start using ICTs), incorporation (placement of ICTs in routine and time structures), objectification (symbolic and physical locations of ICTs), and conversion (how ICTs relate to personal identity, outward presentation) (Haddon, 2011; Huang & Miao, 2021). Social constraints on ICTs refers to understanding what motivates people to use certain ICTs and how, as well as the ways in which their use is being negotiated or limited as a result of sociocultural factors (Haddon, 2011). The factors that limit people’s uses of ICTs can be financial, temporal, or spatial, and come about due to more concrete factors such as work or household schedules, or simply reflect a person’s attitude and values regarding ICTs (Haddon, 2017). Further, even if users and ICTs remain the same, our social contexts and media interactions are constantly changing, causing us to re-evaluate how specific media fit into our lives, if at all (Huang & Miao, 2021, p. 180). The domestication framework has expanded to include processes of re-domestication and dis-domestication, seeking to understand how and why people may pause use of and later reintegrate ICTs, or discontinue use of them altogether (Haddon, 2011; Huang & Miao, 2021).
Financial Constraints
Perhaps more tangible than issues of space and time, many individuals experience financial constraints on mobile phone use, whether it relates to the acquisition of the device, cellular plans, unreliable internet access, and anxieties around phones being damaged or stolen. On a national level, economic factors impact access to the internet and mobile phones. A 2024 Pew Research study found that higher household income was positively related to higher internet use–internet use here definitionally includes having a mobile phone (Poushter et al., 2024). In South Korea, 99% of adults reported using the internet, as well as 96% of adults in the Netherlands and 95% in the U.S. (Poushter et al., 2024). Comparatively, 66% of adults in Kenya, 57% in Nigeria, and 56% in India report using the internet (Poushter et al., 2024). Smartphone ownership was found to be highest among wealthy nations such as Singapore, the Netherlands, the U.S. and Sweden, compared to countries with lower GDPs such as Kenya, India, and Nigeria (Poushter et al., 2024). It is also important to consider that while a “weaker” economy may mean a less developed infrastructure for internet and mobile devices, certain cultures may place less value on ICTs and find them less central to everyday life, constraining their use (Haddon, 2011).
On a more micro level, Haddon’s 2001 study regarding children and ICT use found that both children and parents had anxieties surrounding the cost of not just acquiring a mobile device, but continued use of the device and costs related to downloading content and the cost of use. There was additional fear of damaging or losing the device, which constrains where and when devices are used, for example using a mobile phone less on public transport in the U.K. for fear of theft (Haddon, 2001). These factors cause children and parents to manage where, when, and how mobile devices are used, constantly negotiating internet access and usage, what apps are used, and understanding data usage and functionality to keep costs low (Haddon, 2001).
Spatial Constraints
As mobile devices have become smaller, more portable, and more affordable, they have integrated into almost all aspects of modern life, some of these spaces being more accepting of the presence of mobile devices than others. Social and cultural norms place frequent constraints on the use of mobile devices, especially outside of the home. As mentioned in the previous section, children’s anxieties around mobile device theft and damage limit the use of the device in certain public spaces; Haddon (2017) additionally found that for children, there is often regulation regarding what spaces are appropriate for mobile phone use, such as limiting use in classrooms and on school campuses. More broadly, there are a multitude of public spaces that restrict or attempt to manage the use and presence of mobile devices such as public transportation, restaurants, and the theatre.
In a 2010 study, Baron & af Segerstad compared cultural differences in relation to the presence of mobile phones (including both voice calls and texting) in public spaces among university students in Sweden, Japan, and America. The authors take time to note that this data was collected in 2008, when mobile devices were still in the process of domestication in the U.S. and therefore American texting practices may not have caught up with Swedish and Japanese practices yet. The study found that, due to cultural attitudes around the “private use of public space,” Japanese university students were much less likely to find talking on the phone in public spaces to be acceptable behavior (Baron & af Segerstad, 2010, p. 21). When asked about talking on the phone on public transit, 89.5% of Swedish students reported this as acceptable, followed by 67.1% of American students, and only 4% of Japanese students (Baron & af Segerstad, 2010). In Japan, it is widely understood that talking on the phone on public transport is unacceptable, while in America, underground transport like subways typically do not have reliable cellular service, potentially leading to decreased use and more dropped calls (Baron & af Segerstad, 2010). Here it is clear that social norms around the presence of mobile phones, and the way mobile phones are used in public, vary from culture to culture.
Temporal Constraints
In Kingma & Boersma’s (2002) review of Erikson’s (2001) work on time in the information age, they discuss how the rise of ICTs and the World Wide Web (WWW) have led to multiple activities taking place at the same time, and enabling users to “be” in multiple places at once–Erikson (2001) referred to this as “timeless time.” Researchers have found time pressures created by ICTs, as well as a speeding up of the pace of life, work, consumption, and entertainment (Kingma & Boersma, 2002). A plenitude of research focuses on the time pressures that ICTs may create for certain individuals or populations, but it is also important to consider the various ways in which ICTs can alleviate time pressure. For example, on-demand streaming content allows users to watch television on their own terms, rather than being beholden to specific air times when one would need to be in front of the television set.
Looking specifically at the use of mobile phones in the workplace, Stephens (2020) discovered “temporal mismatches” wherein workers have different work schedules from friends and family, creating the need to identify and negotiate “reachability windows” where both parties are able to communicate with each other. These “temporal mismatches” and “reachability windows” differ in time and predictability across worker types, with shift workers and customer-facing employees having limited access to mobile devices during the day, but more concrete, identifiable breaks to access mobile devices (Stephens, 2020). Mobile workers such as nurses may have many, smaller, less predictable windows throughout the day, while knowledge workers tend to report being reachable all day while at work (Stephens, 2020). These communication windows require frequent negotiation with the other party involved, especially with older relatives who may not understand or abide by the window (Stephens, 2020). Through this example is it clear that not only is our ICT use constrained by our personal and professional lives, but also the personal and professional lives of others.
Conclusion
Through the above case studies, I have sought to illustrate how financial, spatial, and temporal factors place social constraints on mobile device and internet use within the domestication framework. It is important to understand the affordances of the domestication approach, as well as social constraints on ICTs, to combat messaging promising the “anytime, anywhere” use of ICTs that is so popular today. ICTs need to be considered within the context of an individual’s lifeworld or within a specific cultural context so that we do not fall prey to a technologically deterministic view of ICTs as having disproportionate control over us. By examining how, where, when, and why people use or do not use specific ICTs, we are able to develop a deeper appreciation for the variety of ways ICTs are used and related to, and even how this evolves over time.
References
Avgerou, C., Hayes, N., & La Rovere, R. L. (2016). Growth in ICT Uptake in Developing Countries: New Users, New Uses, New Challenges. Journal of Information Technology, 31(4), 329–333. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41265-016-0022-6
Baron, N. S., & af Segerstad, Y. H. (2010). Cross-cultural patterns in mobile-phone use: Public space and reachability in Sweden, the USA and Japan. New Media & Society, 12(1), 13–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809355111
Bertel, T. F. (2016). ‘Why would you want to know?’: The reluctant use of location sharing via check-ins on Facebook among Danish youth. Convergence, 22(2), 162–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856514543250
Bhattacharya, S. (1966). Cultural and Social Constraints on Technological Innovation and Economic Development: Some Case Studies. The Indian Economic & Social History Review, 3(3), 240–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/001946466600300302
de Reuver, M., Nikou, S., & Bouwman, H. (2016). Domestication of smartphones and mobile applications: A quantitative mixed-method study. Mobile Media & Communication, 4(3), 347–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157916649989
Gillespie, M., Osseiran, S., & Cheesman, M. (2018). Syrian Refugees and the Digital Passage to Europe: Smartphone Infrastructures and Affordances. Social Media + Society, 4(1), 2056305118764440. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118764440
Haddon, L. (2011). Domestication Analysis, Objects of Study, and the Centrality of Technologies in Everyday Life. Canadian Journal of Communication, 36(2), 311–323. https://doi.org/10.22230/cjc.2011v36n2a2322
Haddon, L. (2017). Domestication and social constraints on ICT use: Children’s engagement with smartphones. In Smartphone Cultures. Routledge.
Huang, Y., & Miao, W. (2021). Re-domesticating social media when it becomes disruptive: Evidence from China’s “super app” WeChat. Mobile Media & Communication, 9(2), 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157920940765
Jaddou, L., & Williams, J. (1984). Media, technology and daily life HERMANN BAUSINGER. Media, Culture & Society, 6(4), 343–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/016344378400600403
Kingma, S., & Boersma, K. (2002). No Time to Spare?: Time and technology. Time & Society, 11(2–3), 353–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X02011002010
Ling, R. (2016). Soft coercion: Reciprocal expectations of availability in the use of mobile communication. First Monday. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v21i9.6814
Lythreatis, S., Singh, S. K., & El-Kassar, A.-N. (2022). The digital divide: A review and future research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 175, 121359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121359
Poushter, J., Gubbala, S., & Austin, S. (2024, February 5). 8 charts on technology use around the world. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/05/8-charts-on-technology-use-around-the-world/
Shuter, R., & Chattopadhyay, S. (2014). A cross-national study of cultural values and contextual norms of mobile phone activity. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 9(1), 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2013.859262
Srite, M., & Karahanna, E. (2006). The Role of Espoused National Cultural Values in Technology Acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 679–704. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148745
Stephens, K. K. (2020). The Complexities of Using Mobiles at Work. In R. Ling, L. Fortunati, G. Goggin, S. S. Lim, & Y. Li (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Mobile Communication and Society (pp. 338–352). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190864385.013.23
Tse, T., Tiong, J., & Kangaslahti, V. (2004). The Effect of Cultural Norms on the Uptake of Information and Communication Technologies in Europe: A Conceptual Analysis. International Journal of Management, 21(3), 382–392.
Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age. Penguin Publishing Group. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/londonschoolecons/detail.action?docID=5338013