Siibak, A., & Vittadini, N. (2012). Editorial: Introducing four empirical examples of the “generationing” process. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 6(2), article 1. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5817/CP2012-2-1
 Editorial: Introducing four empirical examples of the “generationing” process

Editorial: Introducing four empirical examples of the “generationing” process

Andra Siibak1, Nicoletta Vittadini2
1 Institute of Journalism and Communication, University of Tartu, Estonia
2 Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy

Introduction

Scholars have been contemplating the “problem of generations” for decades and have left behind a huge legacy of works and theories. Furthermore, considering the fact that the concept of “generation” is commonly used in various subject areas such as cultural and political sociology, family and youth studies, social inequality, etc., and that it has been implied in various theoretical approaches, authors (cf. Aroldi & Colombo, 2007; Buckingham, 2006; Corsten, 1999, etc.) have emphasised the fact that the process of defining a concept such as “generation” is a complicated matter. The aim of this special issue is not to give an exact account of the different theoretical approaches to the concept, but to provide an overview of various empirical studies in different European countries (Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, Italy, Israel, Portugal) which deal with the concept of generations from different angles and in different cultural contexts.

The papers selected to be published in this special issue of “Generations and mediated relations” result from the work of the members of working groups on “The role of media and ICT use for evolving social relationships” and “Audience transformations and social integration” of the COST Action IS0906 “Transforming Audiences, Transforming Societies”.

The editorial for this special issue consists of three parts. First of all, we shall provide a short overview of the key concepts and ideas which are found in social scientists’ debates regarding the so called “problem of generations”. The second part of the editorial will introduce the main dimensions of these debates which have been used as the basis of the papers published in this special issue. In the third part of the editorial, we shall provide short descriptions of each paper for the special issue.

Generationing and generation labels

According to Buckingham (2006, p.3), “generations are naturally occurring phenomena, which emerge simply as a result of the passing of time; but generations also produce themselves, as their members (and, presumably, non-members too) define the meanings of generational membership“. In contrast to Mannheim, who argued that generational identity formation involves direct experience, later scholars have proposed that mediated experience also has an important role “both as formative of a generation and also in terms of retention and reproduction of a generation to others” (Eyerman, 2002, p. 62). For instance, not all the Baby Boomers participated in the Vietnam War, but due to the fact that they were able to witness the events of the war on television, these detailed visuals from the war were etched in the collective memory of the entire generation. In other words, by offering an inventory of both symbolic resources and spaces where people can share their collective experiences, media serves as a powerful element in producing and reinforcing generational identity and forming the collective memory for social generations (Edmunds, 2005). These (mediated) narrative and collective rituals, however, celebrate the social history of generation building, the so-called “we sense”, i.e. "they begin to share a picture of `their time` or a script of the drama of their collective development in the course of `their` historical phase” (Corsten, 1999, p. 252). Some authors argue that, in this respect, we can draw parallels with “doing gender” and “doing generation”. For instance, according to McDaniel (2007, p. 4) "generation is a process in a similar way to gender as process, where generation is done by performance, in social relation to others“.

Hence, as also noted by Buckingham (2006, p.2), the process of defining a generation is a cultural issue, as “it is a matter of how the potential members of a generation constitute themselves as having a shared identity“. For instance, although a variety of labels such as “digital generation” (Papert, 1996), “Net generation” (Tapscott, 1998), “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001), “electronic generation” (Buckingham, 2002), “Generation C” (Bruns, 2006) “the Google generation” (Rowlands et al., 2008) etc. are used to signify the preferences and supposed common characteristics of present-day young people and children, recent empirical studies suggest that in their self-reports, young people take quite a critical stand against such labelling (Siibak, 2010). In fact, Hartmann (2003, p.10) suggests that these definitions should be treated as part of a “web generation discourse” that “has been rather dominant in the new media debate and […] defines young users in very specific ways, but rarely through their own forms of use”. According to Hartmann, the web generation discourse, emphasises homogeneous and innovative behaviours of youth as a distinctive trait of their generation. Jason Sternberg’s (1998) studies of the young people in Australia indicate similar almost appalled reactions among the supposed members of Generation X towards the concept. In fact, Sternberg (1998, p. 123) cautiously notes that “discussions which claim to account for an entire generation’s media use should be treated with a high degree of scepticism“.

It is also important to consider such a statement in the light of Mannheim’s (1952) theory, which suggests that not all individuals belonging to the generation are interested in experiencing and engaging in the potential practices offered by the historical, social, cultural, etc. conditions of the period. Therefore, Mannheim (1952, p. 302) has proposed the concept “generation as actuality,” whereby the members of the generation are viewed as active agents who share a common response to changes in the social and cultural context. For instance, as the members of the digital generation grew up in a time of rapid technological changes in Western societies, it has been anonymously claimed that the members of this new generation have an intimate relationship with ICTs. Furthermore, Buckingham (2008, p. 13) has noted that the advocates of this concept regard technology as a liberating force for young people, which helps to create a generation that is more open, democratic, creative and innovative than any other generation before them. At the same time, in addition to the fact that “most children are not growing up digital” (Tapscott, 1998, p. 12), the findings of empirical studies report that internet use among young people is heterogeneous and dependent upon several very powerful social and cultural factors such as religion, ethnicity, social class and gender, as well as individual differences, and thus does not fully support the speculations on the emergence of the “digital generation”. For instance, although young people have often been regarded as having introduced user-led content creation to various online environments, different empirical studies (Zichur, 2010; Kalmus et al., 2009; Kennedy et al., 2007) report that there is still great “disparity between the proposed and the actual use” (Kennedy et al., 2007, p. 523) of the collaborative and self-publishing technologies of the web 2.0 among young people.

At the same time, it appears that some agents may realise and actualise the opportunities offered by the social and cultural context in different ways, and hence, Mannheim (1952, p. 302) has claimed that there could be subgroups or “generation units” formed within the actual generation. According to Corsten (1999, p. 259) “such people, while not sharing a concrete life experience, are similar because they are familiar with certain interpretive and formative principles relating to their biographical and historical horizon”. For instance, present-day young people have also been referred to as Generation C, whereby the letter C stands for both “content creation” and, more generally, for “creativity” (TrendwatchIng.com, 2004-2005). It is suggested that members of Generation C are no longer just passive consumers, readers or users of online content, but also “occupy a hybrid, user-and-producer” position, due to which “a strict producer/consumer dichotomy” does not apply in collaborative online environments (Bruns, 2007, p. 4). Empirical studies, however, reveal that despite the general hype about young people’s active content creation practices, the number of young people actually contributing content in online environments is rather marginal (Kalmus et al., 2009, Kennedy et al., 2007). In fact, the latest findings of the Pew Internet survey Generations demonstrate for instance that there has been a drastic decline in blogging activities among internet users under age 34, whereas the activity has become more and more popular among the older generations (Zichur, 2010).

In fact, studies report that older adults not only highly appreciate the chance to learn more about the lives of young people by reading their posts or browsing through their images (Gonzalez, Jomhari & Kurniawan 2012), but also to start eagerly engaging eagerly in online content creation (Harley & Fitzpatrick, 2009; Harwood, 2004) so as to share their own stories and knowledge with young people. For instance, members of the older generations have been found to be active in talking about family matters and relationships – in particular about their grandchildren – on their personal websites (Harwood, 2004), or in sharing their opinions and knowledge of the world with young people through personal YouTube videos (Harley & Fitzpatrick, 2009).

Nevertheless, it is important to remark that different generational labels have not been accepted unanimously among academics. Various scholars have attempted to problematise the use and accuracy of such labels. For instance, Susan Herring (2008) has criticised various concepts labelling the internet generation and has argued that all of these labels tend to reflect the interpretation of a demographic group that did not grow up with digital media, and hence do not take into account the interpretation of today’s youth themselves, who take digital media for granted. In fact, she proposes that journalists and media producers together with academics are mainly responsible for creating the hype around these supposedly new generations (Herring, 2008). Furthermore, Herring also criticises the severe discrepancy in the adult constructions of the internet generation. On the one hand, she suggests that mainstream media messages often create moral panic regarding the possible dangers and risks in online environments. On the other hand, the majority of new media research, as well as advertising campaigns of new media production companies, describe the new internet generation as novel, powerful and transformative.

The internet generation has not been the only generation whose public image and generational consciousness have been shaped if not victims to media and commercial trends. Generationalism, which is considered “a key regulatory category around which Western culture is organised” (Lundby, 2001, p. 227), has also surrounded the public debate about Baby Boomers and Generation X. The former were even labelled the Pepsi Generation due to an advertising campaign by Pepsi, which was one of the first examples of a phenomenon now known as lifestyle advertising. The portrayal of the representatives of Generation X in media and pop culture as “slackers” and “whiners” (Ortner, 1998), however, has been considered to be one of the main triggers behind “lifestyle panic” (Sternberg, 1997). In fact, Australian cultural theorist McKenzie Wark (1999, p. 219 cited in Lumby, 2001, p. 228) has claimed that "the whole idea of generationalism, the idea that there are common experiences that define an age cohort, is a media artefact“. Hence, due to global mass media and the internet, people all over the world make use of the same images and stories to describe historical events and thus, as argued by Wark (1999, p. 21, cited in Lumby, 2001, p. 228), “what a generation shares is not the same experiences, but rather different experiences read via the same image“.

In fact, he has proposed that due to worldwide media accessible via the internet and television, we may also speak of the formation of a global generation. In comparison to nationally defined generations such as post-war Germans or the American Depression generation, Edmunds (2005) suggests that the events of 9/11, which were broadcast extensively all over the world, could be viewed as the formative experience for the 9/11 cohort, leading to the birth of the global generation that shares the global generational consciousness. The findings of a recent empirical study carried out in nine different countries also refer to the fact that “media and the increasing global news flow has in fact created very similar generational experiences” (Volkmer, 2006, p.6). At the same time, the results suggest that “the assumed colonization of lifeworlds by media has shaped generational-specific world views and very particular notions of the global public space across the decades involved” (Volkmer, 2006, p.6).

Furthermore, various studies have found that generations still differ in terms of their media consumption habits (Aroldi & Colombo, 2007; Volkmer, 2006). These differences in media repertoires (Hasebrink, 2006) are often explained by the fact that even though the members of different generations make use of the same media, they tend to prioritise them according to the media system they domesticated during their adolescence. For instance, empirical studies all across the globe (Kohut et al., 2008; Kalmus, 2008; Sternberg , 1998) suggest that there is an accelerating decline in news consumption by young people. All of these studies indicate the same phenomena: young people read newspapers, watch television news and listen to news on the radio at much lower rates than the members of older generations. In fact, the findings also refer to major generational differences in the use of traditional and digital media due to technological convergence (Aroldi & Colombo, 2007; Volkmer, 2006); the internet has become the biggest source for entertainment and news among young people (Zickhur, 2010). The latter trend, however, has resulted in the fact that, compared with the experiences of older generations whose “media memories were specific to a technology”, present-day youth are “more awash in media product” (Volkmer, 2006, p. 207).

Generation as a process

Based on the previous discussion about the generation debate, it is possible to bring out some crucial dimensions that are the basis of the papers included in this special issue.

The first dimension is that the notion of generation is the result of a process which begins in the formative years and continues during the other stages of life.

On the one hand, the formative years are the crucial stage of life which define the historical, social and biographical experiences that are the basis of the process of generation building (hereafter called generationing, according to Alanen) (Alanen, 2001). The first impressions and experiences of youth form a specific common generational world view (Volkmer, 2006).

On the other hand, what Corsten (1999) calls the generational picture of "their time" and the script of the drama of their collective experiences or the retention and reproduction of collective memories (Eyerman, 2002), are processes that start after the formative years and continues into adulthood.

The second dimension is that this process of generationing is the result of the interaction between contextual and fixed traits (such as historical, cultural and social events and experiences) and a cultural process of identity formation developed over time (including narratives, performances and rituals).

In particular, the process of generationing is based on: a “structure of opportunity” (Mannheim, 1952) founded on historical events and the socio-techno-cultural milieu experienced in the formative years, as well as the development of the narrative of collective memories and frames of interpretation of "times"; and rituals and habits developed during the following stages of life.

The experiences of historical events and social milieu can also be mediated and shared with other generations, while the development of shared narratives and memories are different for different generations. This means that the same historical period (a decade, for example) can produce different shared memories according to the generational belonging.

The third dimension is that this process produces a generational identity integrating self definitions and hetero definitions, i.e. the emphasis on common traits and the emphasis on differences with other generations. Beginning with Mannheim's theorisation (1952) and until the recent debate on generation (Eyerman, 2002; Edmunds & Turner, 2007; Buckingham, 2006), the term "generational identity" recurs, thus indicating that generation is the result of a process of collective identity building. For example, generation is defined as “an age cohort that comes to have social significance by virtue of constituting itself as cultural identity” (Edmunds & Turner, 2002, p. 7).

This similarity implies that generationing includes a process of self-definition (of the group) that can be called individuation (of common traits of the members) and a process of differentiation from other groups (members of other generations) (Giddens 1994; Castells 1996). The process of differentiation includes both the self-definition as a different group and the fact that identity “is never altogether separable from claims to be known in specific ways by others” (Calhoun, 1994, pp. 9-10). This implies also a differentiation and some possible conflicts among generations, as Bourdieu says (1993, p. 100) “generations are socially constructed in conflict over available resources” (1993, p.100). As Eyerman and Turner argue, generationing also implies “a strategic access to collective resources ‘excluding’ other generational cohorts from access to cultural capital and material resources” (1998, p. 93).

Generationing also implies a sort of shared "reinvention" of the past. In a similar way to what Hobsbawn says regarding traditions (1983), the past is reinvented as a tool to establish or symbolise the belonging to a group. Generational identity building is also a process of representation of historical events and social/biographical experiences in narratives, rituals and performances. This representation corresponds to the selection of significant traits and their recombination in coherent and shared representations. As Castells states, “the construction of identities uses building materials from history, from geography, […] from collective memory […] But individuals, social groups and societies process all these materials, and rearrange their meaning” (1996, p. 7).

The process of "generational identity building" is also aimed at consolidating the so-called "generational glues" (Aroldi & Ponte in this issue), different shared attitudes that can be identified as:

  • The generational semantic: a collection of themes, interpretative models, evaluation principles and linguistic devices through which shared experience is transformed in a "generational discourse".

  • A generational "we sense": a reflexive attitude contributing to the making of a generation, as generation members “not only have something in common, they have also a (common) sense for the fact that they have something in common” (Corsten, 1999, p. 258).

  • A “habitus” (Bourdieu, 1979), i.e. a system of durable dispositions to act and to choose, not strictly prescribed by formal rules; a sort of “collection of practices through which generational experiences are manifest” (Edmunds & Turner, 2002, p. 16).

  • A set of choices that more likely depends on a generational belonging than on simple socio-demographic attributes, and marks the “distinction” (Bourdieu, 1979) between different generations.

Papers included in this issue provide different insights useful for describing and clarifying how the process of generationing is carried out, based on empirical research.

The first paper in this special issue by Kristi Vinter deals with what we would call a preliminary phase of generationing. The paper is based on empirical research about pre-school children’s preference formation regarding technology use. While this stage of life is preliminary to the formation phase, when generationing starts this focus is important for describing certain processes that constitute the basis of the future generation identity development. The paper points up how the tecological techno-subsystem (Johnson, 2010a) and peer cultures are relevant in the process of preference formation and how values attributed to technologies are part of the gen_erational identity.

Starting from the ecological systems theory of Urie Bronfenbrenner (1979), Vinter describes how the ecological techno-subsystem (Johnson, 2010a) can be relevant in influencing preference formation in pre-school children. “The ecological techno-subsystem includes child interaction with both living (e.g. peers) and nonliving (e.g. hardware) elements of communication, information and recreation technologies in immediate or direct environments (Johnson 2010b, p. 176).

In addition to the media and technology system, peer culture is therefore relevant in defining “their overall attitudes and interests regarding computers within groups” and values and opinions about new media usage (Siibak & Vinter 2010, p. 11). In these peer cultures, children integrate media resources and content (Hadley & Nenga, 2004).

Next to social relations among peers (often mediated by school) the paper highlights how “parents’ own experiences of using technology also influence the opportunities that they extend to their children (Plowman, McPake & Stephen, 2010; Livingstone, 2007a)” constituting an exosystem that “may indirectly affect children’s home internet access” (Johnson 2010a, p. 34).

The paper therefore offers a description of how the technological attitude of new generations (as already mentioned, a part of the future generational identity) starts its development at the crossroads of technological affordances, peer cultures and a relationship with other generations (represented in the stage of life analysed by parents). The same crossroads that those pre-school children will face in their formation phase should be taken into account when studying it.

The process of generationing also underlies the paper by Piermarco Aroldi and Cristina Ponte. The paper focus is, as the authors say, “how far the media technologies, contents and habits experienced in the years of youth contribute to the shaping of collective identities, which are shared by all the members of a generation” and also the influence of the so-called “structure of opportunity” (Mannheim, 1952) experienced during the formation phase.

In particular, the paper is based on two empirical studies carried out in Italy and Portugal which aim to compare, as the authors say, “self accounts and media memories of two generations of audiences living their youth in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s”. Hence, the focus of this paper is the process of generationing in its consolidation phase after the formation stage of life. Starting from a multi-dimensional conceptualisation of the notion of generation as “an age cohort that comes to have social significance by virtue of constituting itself as cultural identity” (Edmunds & Turner, 2002, p. 7), the authors offer significant insight on how different generations elaborate specific collective memories and on which elements are based the collective tails that constitute these memories. In particular, they describe how the memories of the past are stratified and how these remembrances affect the present collective identity. The authors describe how the memories of formative years depend on the general "climate" (historical events or economic, social and cultural trends); single historical events or cultural celebrities and occurrences; the memories of everyday practices, customs and social rituals; and the consumer products associated with the formative years. The authors also describe how these elements are selected and re-organised in collective narratives and descriptions.

Furthermore, the authors highlight how the collective memories of the same period are different among the two generations analysed. The same historical events and especially the same social changes and “climate” are, in fact, described differently by the members of the two generations analysed.

In other words, Aroldi and Ponte’s paper offers a model for further analysis of generationing observed in its mature phase, when the generational identity is built and is continuously consolidated, also providing a description of the structure of collective memories.

Collective memories are also the main topic of the paper by Miri Gal-Ezer. According to the author, her analysis is based “on a case study of the Israeli 14th Tank Brigade veterans, who were involved in horrific battles during the 1973 Yom Kippur War against the Egyptians in the Sinai Desert”. Similar to the paper by Aroldi and Ponte, the generationing process in this case is observed in its mature phase, and in Gal-Ezer's words “this traumatised community succeeded in constructing a commemorative and historical website” which is the result of a multi-dimensional process, also including “face-to-face commemoration rituals on remembrance days, conversations, group discussions, sports, travel trips, etc.”.

Thus, Miri Gal-Ezer's paper offers an insight into the generationing process starting from the characteristic of the so-called "Silent generation" in Israel. In this case, the focus is on how the collective memory of a generation is developed based on a shared traumatic experience characterising the formative years (Wyatt, 1993).

The theoretical framework of this paper therefore integrates theories of generations and the role of media in the process of generationing, with the specific historical event of the Yom Kippur War and its consequences on Israeli society, and theories on war and trauma, and war and remembrance.

The paper offers relevant insight into the development of mediated narratives, progressively defining a common memory of a historical phase on which part of the process of building a generational identity is based. Starting from books, poems and novels, the author comes to describe the role of a shared space (the website) aimed at collecting pieces of memories produced bottom up (i.e. by people and not by writers or artists) and at composing a collaborative memory puzzle.

This repository of collective memory also evidences the processual nature of the generationing process. As a matter of fact this website hosting collective memories is constantly updated and enriched.

The author also emphasises the inter-generational nature of this collective mediated memory saying that “this 'Silent Generation' began to feel an urgent drive to write their trauma and transform it into history, when they were about 50 years old, wanting to provide their heritage to their 'Inheritors', their children" (Gal-Ezer, 2008; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1979). As Gal-Ezer concludes, “by building their site and nurturing their remembrance community, this generational unit of the Silent Generation is empowering itself and gaining back its silenced leadership”.

New media use by elderly people belonging to the age cohort of “late adulthood” (age 65–74) (Kendall, 2010, p. 45) is the main topic of Irena Reifová and Sylvie Fiąerová’s paper. The process of generationing is the underlying framework of this paper, offering insight into the mature phase of consolidation of the generational identity. This process is analysed in the paper in relation to two other focal points: the relationship of elderly people to the risk society and the use of new media as a (possible) resource to manage the new risks (Beck, 1992).

As the authors say, the older generations experience certain historical processes together with young generations, but make different meanings out of them due to the “different stratification of their lives” (Mannheim, 1952, p. 298). Older adults tend to perceive the world as it used to be when they were young and compare the contemporary world to the time past.

The people in late adulthood considered in this paper with respect to new media are then in a specific position, which allows another aspect of generationing to be highlighted. According to the authors, generations also exercise “a strategic access to collective resources” together with the exclusion of “other generational cohorts from access to cultural capital and material resources generally” (Eyerman & Turner, 1998, p. 93). Provided that some generations practice exclusion, other generations must be the object of it, and elderly people are characterised by an impaired access to new media in comparison with those who are less disadvantaged by age.

The paper hence offers interesting insight into the debate about generations as regards how elderly people include (or do not include) new media in their everyday life practices and how the inter-generational relationship acts as a motivating element of incorporation of new media by people in their late adulthood, as well as a model of interpretation of the relationships among different generations as a dynamic of inclusion and exclusion from access to media and material resources.

To sum up, the papers included in this special issue share a common focal point, i.e. the process of generational identity building or generationing.

These papers offer some insight regarding all of the phases of generationing, starting from early childhood as an embryonic generation, to different generations (in some cases local generations) in the mature phase when they are able to share and recognise their generational “glues”, to generations in the latter phase of generational awareness and comparison with younger generations.

Overall, the papers offer a description of generationing, emphasising certain aspects (while basing its definition on the previous sociological debate).

Firstly, generationing is a process that mobilises a network of relations with other generations (especially for the very young and the elderly) and with peers belonging to the same generation.

Secondly, generationing as a concrete process (the concrete forms of the narratives, rituals and collective memories) is strictly linked to the “structure of opportunity” offered by the media system in the formation phase of different generations.

Thirdly, despite the emphasis on global generations (Edmunds & Turner, 2005) based on the diffusion of media in contemporary societies and the opportunity for people living in different parts of the world to share the same global events, the papers emphasise the fact that the process of generational identity building is also influenced by the local social and historical context as well as by direct social and biographical experiences, and that local narratives can therefore be different.

Finally, the papers illustrate some relevant intersections with other sociological topics including peer culture, media and new media use, war studies and relationships with risk society.

Acknowledgments

This special issue is resulting from the work of the Working Groups on “The role of media and ICT use for evolving social relationships” and “Audience transformations and social integration” of the COST Action IS0906 “Transforming Audiences, Transforming Societies”. The special issue is published with the additional support by the Facultés universitaires Saint-Louis (FUSL) in Brussels. Andra Siibak is also grateful for the support of the target financed project SF0180017s07 and research grant no. 8527 by the Estonian Science Foundation.

fig fig Published with the additional support of

fig

http://www.cost.eu http://www.cost-transforming-audiences.eu

Issue content

Editorial: Introducing four empirical examples of the “generationing” process
Andra Siibak and Nicoletta Vittadini
doi: 10.5817/CP2012-2-1

The formation of new media preferences among pre-school children in the context of peer culture and home interaction: A pedagogical perspective
Kristi Vinter
doi: 10.5817/CP2012-2-2

Adolescents of the 1960s and 1970s: An Italian-Portuguese comparison between two generations of audiences
Piermarco Aroldi and Cristina Ponte
doi: 10.5817/CP2012-2-3

From "silent generation" to cyber-psy-site, story and history: The 14th Tank Brigade battles on public collective memory and official recognition
Miri Gal-Ezer
doi: 10.5817/CP2012-2-4

Ageing on-line in risk society: Elderly people managing the new risks via new media in the context of decreasing ontological security
Irena Carpentier Reifova and Sylvie Fišerová
doi: 10.5817/CP2012-2-5

About journal

The 'Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace' is a web-based, peer-reviewed scholarly journal. The first peer-reviewed issue was published in September 2007. The journal is focussed on social science research about cyberspace. It brings psychosocial reflections of the impact of the Internet on people and society. The journal is interdisciplinary, publishing works written by scholars of psychology, media studies, sociology, political science, nursing, and also other disciplines. The journal accepts original research articles, as well as theoretical studies and research meta-analyses. Proposals for special issues are also welcomed.

The journal is indexed with EBSCO Academic Search Complete, the Directory of Open Access Journals, SCOPUS and the Czech Database of Scientific Journals.

Editor:

Assoc. Prof. David Smahel, M.Sc. et Ph.D., Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk University, Czech Republic
E-mail: smahel(at)fss.muni.cz

Associate editor:

Assoc. Prof. Kristian Daneback, Ph.D., University of Gothenburg, Sweden
E-mail: kristian.daneback(at)socwork.gu.se

Guest editors of Special issue "Generations and mediated relations":

Andra Siibak, Ph.D., Institute of Journalism and Communication, University of Tartu, Estonia
E-mail: andra.siibak(at)ut.ee

Nicoletta Vittadini, Sociology of Culture and Communication, Catholic University of Milan, Italy
E-mail: nicoletta.vittadini(at)unicatt.it

Editor assistants:

Vera Kontrikova, M.A., Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk University, Czech Republic
E-mail: kontriko(at)fss.muni.cz

Lenka Dedkova, M.A., Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk University, Czech Republic
E-mail: ldedkova(at)fss.muni.cz

Editorial board:

Prof. Kaveri Subrahmanyam, Ph.D., California State University, Los Angeles, USA
Prof. Herbert Hrachovec, Ph.D., University of Vienna, Austria
Prof. Dr. Micheline Frenette, Universite de Montreal, Canada
Prof. Alexander E. Voiskounsky, Ph.D., Moscow State University, Russia
Prof. Michael W. Ross, Ph.D., DrMedSc, MPH, MPHEd, University of Texas, Houston, USA
Prof. Petr Macek, CSc., Masaryk University, Czech Republic
Prof. Olle Findahl, World Internet Institute, Uppsala University, Sweden
Prof. Jochen Peter, Ph.D., University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Prof. Veronika Kalmus, Ph.D., University of Tartu, Estonia
Assoc. Prof. Joshua Fogel, Ph.D., Brooklyn College of the City University of New York, USA
Assoc. Prof. Gustavo S. Mesch, Ph.D., University of Haifa, Israel
Václav Štětka, Ph.D., University of Oxford, UK
Andra Siibak, Ph.D., University of Tartu, Estonia
Birgit U. Stetina, Ph.D., University of Vienna, Austria
Lukas Blinka, M.A., Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk University, Czech Republic

Advisory board:

Prof. Bente Traen, Ph.D., University of Tromso, Norway
Prof. Charles Ess, Ph.D., Drury University, USA
Prof. Dr. Ilse Kryspin-Exner, University of Vienna, Austria
Prof. PhDr. Jan Jirák, Ph.D., Charles University, Czech Republic
Prof. Vasja Vehovar, Ph.D., University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
Prof. Dr. Larry D. Rosen, California State University, USA
Prof. Patricia M. Greenfield, Ph.D., University of California, USA
Prof. Peter K Smith, University of London, England
Prof. Nicola Döring, Ilmenau University of Technology, Germany
Prof. Kimberly Young, Center for Internet Addiction Recovery
Prof. Jos de Haan, Ph.D., Erasmus University, Netherlands
Prof. Zbyněk Vybíral, Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk University, Czech Republic
Prof. Monica Whitty, Ph.D., Nottingham Trent University, UK
Assoc. Prof. Alfred Choi, Ph.D., Wee Kim School of Communication and Information, Singapore
Assoc. Prof. T. Ramayah, Technology Management Lab, School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia
Assoc. Prof. Neil Coulson, Ph.D., The University of Nottingham, UK
Assoc. Prof. Kenneth C. C. Yang, Ph.D., University of Texas at El Paso, USA
Assoc. Prof. Sun Sun Lim, Ph.D., National University of Singapore, Singapore
Assoc. Prof. Sameer Hinduja, Ph.D., Florida Atlantic University, USA
Assoc. Prof. Jana Horáková, Ph.D., Faculty of Arts, Masaryk University, Czech Republic
Assist. Prof. Alexander Schouten, Ph.D., Tilburg University, Netherlands
Assist. Prof. Ewa S. Callahan, Ph.D., School of Communications, Quinnipiac University, USA
Assist. Prof. Regina van den Eijnden, Ph.D., Utrecht University, Netherlands
PhDr. Ing. Petr Soukup, Ph.D., Faculty of Social Studies, Charles University, Czech Republic
Alistair Duff, Ph.D., Napier University, Scotland
Janis Wolak, Ph.D., University of New Hampshire, USA
Francesca Romana Seganti, Ph.D., American University of Rome, Italy
Jeffrey Gavin, Ph.D., University of Bath, UK
Pille Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, Ph.D., University of Tartu, Estonia
PhDr. Radim Polčák, Ph.D., Faculty of Law, Masaryk University, Czech Republic
Michael Fenichel, Ph.D., New York, USA
Leslie Haddon, Ph.D., London School of Economics, UK
Monica Barbovschi, Ph.D., Babes-Bolyai University, Romania
Jan Sirucek, Ph.D., Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk University, Czech Republic

Publisher

Masaryk University, Faculty of Social Studies
Jostova 10, 60200 Brno
Czech Republic

Publication schedule

Twice per year (July and December) plus special issues

References

Alanen, L. (2001). Childhood as generational condition: Children’s daily lives in central Finland town. In L. Alanen & B. Mayal (Eds.), Conceptualizing child-adult relations (pp. 129–143). London: Routledge.

Aroldi, P., & Colombo, F. (2007). Generational belonging in mediascape in Europe. Journal of Social Science Education, 6, 34-44.

Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.

Bourdieu, P. (1979). La distinction. Paris: Editions de Minuit.

Bourdieu, P. (1993). Sociology in question. London: Sage.

Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1979). The inheritors: French students and their relation to culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruns, A. (2006). Towards produsage: Futures for user-led content production. In F. Sudweeks, H. Hrachovec & C. Ess (Eds.), Cultural attitudes towards technology and communication 2006 (pp. 275–284). Murdoch: Murdoch University.

Bruns, A. (2007). Beyond difference: Reconfiguring education for the user-led age. In Proceedings ICE 3: Ideas, cyberspace, education, Ross Priory, Loch Lomond, Scotland. Retrieved from: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/6622/1/6622.pdf

Buckingham, D. (2002). The electronic generation? Children and new media. In S. Livingstone & L. A. Lievrouw (Eds.), Handbook of new media: Social shaping and consequences of ICTs (pp. 77- 89). London: Sage.

Buckingham, D. (2006). Is there a digital generation? In D. Buckingham & R. Willett (Eds.), Digital generations. Children, young people, and new media (pp.1-13). NY, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Buckingham, D. (2008). Introducing identity. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, identity, and digital media (pp. 1-24). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Corsten, M. (1999). The time of generations. Time and Society, 8, 249-272.

Castells, M. (1997). The power of identity (1st ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

Gal-Ezer, M. (2008). Habitus, texts, rituals: acceptance, presence and continuity in the Israeli art canon (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem.

Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Gonzalez, V. M., Jomhari, N., & Kurniawan, S. H. (2012). Photo-based narratives as communication mediators between grandparents and their children and grandchildren living abroad. Universal Access in the Information Society, 11, 67-84. doi: 10.1007/s10209-011-0234-z

Edmunds, J. (2005). Generations. Retrieved from: http://mediaresearch.files.wordpress.com/...edmunds.pdf

Edmunds, J., & Turner, B. (2002). Generations, culture and society. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Edmunds, J., & Turner, B. (2005). Global generations: Social change in the twentieth century. The British Journal of Sociology, 56, 559-577.

Eyerman, R. (2002). Intellectuals and the construction of an African American identity: outline of a generational approach. In J. Edmunds & B. S. Turner (Eds.), Generational consciousness, narrative and politics (pp. 51-74). Lauham, Boulder, New York, and Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

Eyerman, R., & Turner, B. S. (1998). Outline of a theory of generations. European Journal of Social Theory, 1, 91-106.

Hadley, K. G., & Nenga, S. K. (2004). From Snow White to Digimon: Using popular culture to confront Confucian values in Taiwanese peer cultures. Childhood, 11, 515-536.

Harley, D., & Fitzpatrick, G. (2009). Creating a conversational context through video blogging. A case study of Geriatric1927. Journal of Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 679-689.

Hartmann, M. (2003). The web generation: the (de)construction of users, morals and consumption. Brussels: EMTEL. Retrieved from: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/.../hartmann_2003_emtel.pdf

Harwood, J. (2004): Relational, role, and social identity as expressed in grandparents’ personal web sites. Communication Studies, 55, 300-318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510970409388621

Hasebrink, U., & Popp, J. (2006). Media repertoires as a result of selective media use. A conceptual approach to the analysis of patterns of exposure, Communication, 31, 369-387.

Herring, S. C. (2008). Questioning the generational divide: Technological exoticism and adult construction of online youth identity. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, identity, and digital media (pp. 71-94). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved from: http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/macarthur.pdf

Hobsbawm, E., & Ranger, T. (Eds.). (1983). The invention of tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, G. M. (2010a). Internet use and child development: The techno-microsystem. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 10, 32-43.

Johnson, G. M. (2010b). Internet use and child development: Validation of the ecological techno-subsystem. Educational Technology & Society, 13, 176–185.

Kalmus, V. (2008). Riskialtid tiigrikutsud: Eesti lapsed kui (uue) meedia kasutajad. In: L. Ots (Ed.), Uued ajad – uued lapsed: Teadusartiklite kogumik (pp. 35-62). Tallinn: Tallinna Ülikooli Kirjastus.

Kalmus, V., Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, P., Runnel, P., & Siibak, A. (2009). Mapping the terrain of “Generation C”: Places and practices of online content creation among Estonian teenagers. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 1257-1282.

Kendall, D. (2010). Sociology of our times. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Kennedy, G. et al. (2007). The net generation are not big users of web 2.0 technologies: Preliminary findings. Retrieved from: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/kennedy.pdf

Kohut, A., Doherty, C., Dimock, M., & Keeter, S. (2008). Key news audiences now blend online and traditional sources. Retrieved from: http://people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/444.pdf

Livingstone, S. (2007). Strategies of parental regulation in the media-rich home. Computers in human behavior, 23, 920-941.

Lumby, C. (2001). Generation panics: age, knowledge and cultural power in a new media era. In T. Bennet & D. Cartern (Eds.), Culture in Australia. Policies, publics and programs (pp. 217-232). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mannheim, K. (1952). The problem of generations. In P. Kecskemeti (Ed.), Essays on the sociology of knowledge (pp. 276–323). London, UK: Routledge & Kegan.

McDaniel, S. A. (2007). Why generation(s) matter(s) to policy. Retrieved from: http://cdm6gs.lib.utah.edu/.../id/46/filename/40.pdf

Papert, S. (1996). The connected family: Bridging the digital generation gap. Atlanta, GA: Longstreet Press.

Plowman, L., McPake, J., & Stephen, C. (2010). The technologisation of childhood? Young children and technology in the home. Children & Society, 24, 63-74.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9, 1–6.

Ortner, S. B. (1998). Generation X: Anthropology in a media-saturated world. Cultural Anthropology, 13, 414-440. Retrieved from: http://pzacad.pitzer.edu/~dsegal/.../documents/ortnerongenx.pdf

Siibak, A. (2009). Self-presentation of the “digital generation” in Estonia. Tartu: Tartu University Press.

Siibak, A. (2010). The new media and peer culture. In M. Lauristin (Ed.), Estonian Human Development Report 2009 (pp. 127-131). Tallinn: AS Eesti Ajalehed.

Siibak, A., & Vinter, K. (2010). Making sense of the virtual world for young children: Estonian pre-school teachers’ experiences and perceptions. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research. Virtual Worlds for Kids, 3, 3-27.

Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital. The rise of the net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sternberg, J. (1997). Generating X: Lifestyle panics and the new generation gap. Media International Australia, 85, 79-90.

Sternberg, J. (1998). Rating youth: statistical review of young Australians’ new media use. Australian Studies in Journalism, 7, 84-136.

Volkmer, I. (2006). Preface. In I. Volkmer (Ed.), News in public memory: An international study of media memories across generations (pp. 1-10). New York: Peter Lang.

Wyatt, D. (1993). Out of sixties: Storytelling and the Vietnam generation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zickuhr, K. (2010). Generations 2010. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from: http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media/.../PIP_Generations_and_Tech10_final.pdf




Correspondence to:
Andra Siibak
Institute of Journalism and Communication
University of Tartu
Lossi 36
Tartu
Estonia
Email: andra.siibak(at)ut.ee