digital divide: a gap in interpersonal · pdf filecommunication amongst nigerian family...

DIGITAL DIVIDE: A GAP IN INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION AMONGST NIGERIAN

FAMILY RELATIONSHIP

Abstract— The study Digital Divide: A Gap In Interpersonal Communication Amongst Family Relationships seeks to find out how technology has affected the willingness of family members to engage in interpersonal communication in the family. The survey research design was adopted for the research and the structured questionnaire was employed as instrument of data collection. The study found that technology has created a gap in interpersonal communication amongst family relationships and that people lose interest in communicating interpersonally with family members due to constant engagement in Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). The study recommends that families should make concerted effort at adopting and integrating ICTs that will help enhance interpersonal communication in family relationships rather than engage with ICTS that will erode interpersonal communication amongst family relationships. Also, family centered activities that provide opportunities for family members to communicate interpersonally without the interruption or interference of any technology should be encouraged.

Keywords- Digital Divide, Family, Interpersonal Communication, Gap, Family Relationship

I. INTRODUCTION Communication is essential to peaceful co-existence

amongst people. It is the primary lubricant of smooth and cordial relationships. It is believed that people who communicate regularly especially on a face-to-face basis experience less challenges in their relationships. Communication fosters togetherness and is a means of satisfying the need for company and companionship especially among family members (1 & 2). Communication is important to the human race in that it serves as a fulcrum for maintaining the balance and mutuality in all human interactions and endeavors. Reference (3) underscores the importance of communication thus:

Communication is at the heart of all social intercourse. It maintains and animates life. It is the motor and expression of social activity and civilization. It leads people from instinct to inspiration through variegated processes and systems of inquiry, command and controls; it creates a common pool of ideas, strengthens the feelings of togetherness through exchanges of messages and translates thought into action, reflecting every emotion and need from the humblest task of human survival to supreme manifestations of creativity or destruction.

The above summation portends that the survival of any human entity/endeavor hinges on how well the tool of communication is employed. Thus communication as a process by which we exchange ideas, feelings, information, opinions, messages, etc through a channel either on an interpersonal, group, organizational or mass level, becomes the instrument by which we establish, build and maintain relationships. It is equally the tool by which we unmake and cause relationships to disintegrate (4, 5, 3 & 1).

Advancements in Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) as well as digital media is redefining

communication and how we communicate particularly interpersonally. The computer, Internet, mobile phones and other forms of ICTs are changing the communication terrain on a global, national, societal and individual level with an obvious imbalance/inequality in terms of access, use of and knowledge of information and communication technologies (ICTs) (6).

This imbalance/inequality is referred to as the digital divide. According to reference (7) “digital divide refers to the gap between demographics and regions that have access to modern information and communication technology and those that don’t or have restricted access.” She noted that:

“The digital divide typically exists between those in cities and those in rural areas; between the educated and the uneducated; between socioeconomic groups; and globally, between the more and less industrially developed nations. Even among populations with some access to technology, the digital divide can be evident in the form of lower performance computers, lower speed wireless connections, lower-priced connections such as dial-up and limited access to subscription-based content”.

In describing the digital divide, reference (8) noted that, the digital divide in many ways can be seen as a practical embodiment of the wider theme of social inclusion. The main thrust of concern centers on the participation of individuals in the information based society with the Internet and mobile phones as the key drivers in communication encounters.

Communication is essential to the human race as oxygen is to all creatures; without communication, humanity would be extinct; it is the bane of our existence because it is the means by which we pass across thoughts, emotions and deeds in a language/manner that is meant to be understood from one person to another. Reference (9) opines that communication is a systemic process in which people interact with and through the use of symbols to create and interpret meaning. He further opines that communication comprises two levels of meaning namely: Content level and Relationship level.

The content level consists of the literal message. For example, if one says “shut up”, the content level of the message is to shut up. However when it comes to the relationship level of meaning, it refers to the relationship between the communicators involved. So using the aforementioned, if two friends or siblings are talking and one says “shut up” while smiling, it is interpreted by the friend or sibling as a friendly overture whereas that would not be the case between two strangers (9).

Consequently, it is this relationship level that we are concerned with which is where inter-personal communication comes in. Inter-personal communication is the process by which people exchange information, feelings and meaning through verbal and non-verbal messages; it is largely a face-to-face type of communication.

GSTF Journal on Media & Communications (JMC)DOI: 10.5176/2335-6618_3.1.44Print ISSN: 2335-6618, E-periodical: 2335-6626 ; Volume 3, Issue 1; 2016 pp 16 - 22 © The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access by the GSTF.

16 | GSTF Journal on Media & Communications (JMC) Vol.3 No.1, August 2016

Ogaba-Egba Regina Graduate, Mass Communication

Benue State University Makurdi, Nigeria

Achakpa-Ikyo Patience Ngunan Lecturer, Department of Mass Communication

Benue State University Makurdi, Nigeria

DOI 10.7603/s40874-016-0003-y

With a plethora of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) accessible to people today, it is believed that interpersonal communication is reducing in the family. Thus, the researcher seeks to investigate how technological divide between family members has affected interpersonal communication in family relationship. Particularly, this paper seeks to find out how the digital divide has affected the willingness by family members to engage in interpersonal communication. This can achieved by determining the challenges to interpersonal communication in family relationship in the face of the technological divide amongst family members. And establish possible ways to bridge the digital divide in interpersonal communication amongst family members.

The Importance of Interpersonal Communication Communication is vital to the existence of the family. How, when, where, what and why family members communicate and must communicate is important. It is said that most families fail because of a break in or poor communication skills (10, 11, 12 & 1). Most communication in the family is interpersonal in nature which is the fulcrum for interpersonal relationship in the society and at any level of human interaction, the family inclusive. Interpersonal communication is primarily understood to be face-to-face communication but it transcends the face-to-face interaction to mean the communication encounters/interaction between two people (dyad) be it verbal or non-verbal using various media of communication to communicate meaning (13).

According to (13) in recent years most of the communication that occurs face-to-face has moved to computer-mediated communication. The context of the interaction can range from face-to-face, to telephone, to text messaging, to email. Lenhart, et al in (13) opines that although email is known as the most popular form of computer-mediated communication, social networking, text messaging and instant messaging are all methods that family, friends, acquaintances, or unfamiliar persons can all use to communicate. Interpersonal communication can also occur within a group setting. It is one form of communication that is found in almost all human institutions the family inclusive. Reference (12) opines that: “Communication is the primary way we figure out who we are and who we can be. We gain our first sense of self from others who communicate how they see us. Parents and other family members tell children they are pretty or plain, smart or slow, good or bad, helpful or difficult. As family members communicate their perceptions, children begin to form images of themselves”.

Most of the communication encounters in the family are interpersonal in nature. Family members have several opportunities to engage in interpersonal communication during family gatherings such as weddings, funeral service, dinner time, holidays, camps, crisis time, etc. (11). Communication within the family is extremely important because it enables members to express their needs, wants and concerns to each other (4). It is not only about what we say or suggest, but also about how we say it and the strategies we use to send our messages (1). It is through communication that family members are able to resolve the unavoidable problems that arise in all families (14). Thus the importance of interpersonal

communication to family relationship cannot be overemphasized. If a family has good communication skills they are more likely to be close and be able to work out problems when they arise (15 & 16).

The level of interpersonal communication in the family is reducing (17 & 11). Technology is changing the way we communicate. Nearly 80% of all 14 – 16-year-olds have cell phones, and 90% of teenagers use their phones more for texting than for talking (18 & 19). The proliferation of social networking sites is transforming interpersonal communication and redefining relationships. People who use social networking sites, such as Facebook, WhatsApp MySpace, etc. spend an average of about 20 minutes a day on the site and may have between 150 and 200 friends listed on their profile; two-thirds of users log in at least once a day (20).

There tends to be a socio-digital divide amongst family members. The engagement with technology and ICTs seems to be blurring the lines of family relationships and creating an ever-widening gap amongst family members (16). Reference (21) found that traditional family relations have been strained by the adoption of newer ICTs, as a result, inter-generational communication is hampered and older members of the household find themselves increasingly alienated. Reference (13) observes that, “different generations use the Internet in different ways and because of this difference generation gaps have become more apparent.” B. Digital Divide in the Families

The discourse on the digital divide most often tends to lean toward the issue of access (22, 23 & 24) but have tend to neglect the existence of the socio-digital divide within the most fundamental unit of the society - the family. The existence of this divide may be attributed to the significant disparities between the different generations with respect to their skills and knowledge of using ICTs (21).

Reference (25) identified three levels of divide: global divide between industrialized and less developed countries; social divide which points to inequalities of access among the population within one nation; and a democratic divide which separates those who do and do not use digital technologies to participate in public life. Reference (26) categorized digital divide into three levels: information access, information utilization and information receptiveness. In a similar vein, (27) listed five dimensions of digital divide: technical means, autonomy of use, use patterns, social support networks and skill. Reference (28) conceptualized digital divide in terms of access, content and utility/awareness while (29) noted differences in technical access and social access.

Several studies have focused on how the possession (or lack thereof) of Internet related skills contribute to the digital divide. Reference (30) refers to people who are unable to gain access to online information as having a ‘cyberlag’ which creates two distinct classes of people, namely the ‘information rich’ and the ‘information poor’ and results in a group of people who will be largely technologically impaired and in effect, lose out economically, technologically, culturally and civically. Similarly, (31) proposed a ‘second-level digital divide’ that occurs as a result of the differences in people’s online skills. Other studies have sought to identify demographic trends associated with the digital divide. With regard to Internet


Achakpa-Ikyo Patience Ngunan and Ogaba-Egba Regina

use and access in particular, a positive correlation was established between educational levels and Internet use (30), Income, race, gender and education were identified as factors that predict whether one intends to get Internet access (22, 24 & 25). Age was also, found to be strongly associated with resistance to obtaining Internet access (22). Other key factors that were identified include economic power and social status (26). But none of these studies have focused on the divide in families or how Internet access affects interpersonal relationships among family members.

There is no doubt that technology is affecting family relationships on a day-to-day basis. Children are doing instant messaging constantly, checking their social media, listening to music, surfing their favourite web sites, and watching television or movies. Because of the emergence of mobile technology, these practices are no longer limited to the home, but rather can occur in cars, at restaurants, anywhere there is a mobile phone signal. Parents on the other hand are wrapped in their own technology, talking on their mobile phones, checking email, or watching TV, when they could be talking to, playing with, or generally connecting with their children. Though, Taylor notes that parents are counteracting the growing divide by joining their children on social media particularly friend their children on Facebook in which some children don’t find comfortable.

Reference (11) opines that families today are busy and as such find less time to get together and communicate. Reference (32) found that families use a fluid combination of communication technologies to coordinate their busy lives, including text, emails, and instant messages. Phone calls seem to be increasingly used as a last resort.

Truly, technology has altered the way people communicate and it is redefining how people establish and maintain relationships. There is an emerging possibility of technology altering the interpersonal communication in the family. It is this possible alteration, especially the willingness of people to engage in interpersonal communication amongst family relationships that is the thrust of this study.

METHODOLOGY The study was conducted using a quantitative research

method employing the survey research design with the questionnaire as the instrument of data collection. The survey method of research was employed for the study because it provides the best approach and flexibility needed in the data gathering. It provides the researchers the opportunity to use the most appropriate research instrument for data collection and analysis.

Reference (33) opines that surveys represent one of the most common types of quantitative, social science research. In the survey research design, the researcher selects a sample of respondents from a population and administers a standardized questionnaire to them.

The researchers employed the purposive sampling technique in order to elicit data from the population members with a fair knowledge of the topic under study given its uniqueness to the area of study. Purpose or judgmental sampling was considered best for the study because it gives the researchers the opportunity to determine population members to participate in the survey thus controlling a form of imbalance or disparity in data collected which in turn will make it difficult to analyze.

Thus, a Twelve (12) item questionnaire was issued to selected respondents within Makurdi the Benue State capital which is the study area. Makurdi is made of Ten (10) council wards, thus, in each council ward ten respondents were administered the research instrument which gives a total of 100.

This work is anchored on two theories; the Diffusion of Innovation theory and Technological Determinism theory.

The core concern of the Diffusion of Innovation theory is that new innovations are not adopted at the same rate or at the same time by members of the society rather the adoption is in stages. Technological Determinism theory holds that, media technology shapes how we as individuals in a society think, feel, act and how society operates as we move from one technological age to another (i.e tribal-literate-print-electronic). According to (34) McLuhan “considered every new form of media innovationto be an extension of some human faculty.” Thus; the book is anextension of the eye. The wheel is an extension of the foot.Clothing is an extension of the skin. Electronic is an extensionof the central nervous system. Thus, the theory provides thebasis to understand the use of information and communicationtechnologies amongst family members and how such adoptionhas affected their interpersonal communication with the familyand how it has impacted on their relationship with familymembers.DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

Interpersonal communication is one form of communication that enhances relationships especially in the family. The evolution and advancement in Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) has seen to the emergency of various forms of communication media that are redefining communication and relationships amongst people – the family inclusive.

Fig. 1 shows that a significant majority of total respondents 44 (46%) use Facebook as a social mobile platform while 18 (20%) use Black Berry Messenger and 16 (17%) are on WhatsApp. Data also reveals that only 9 (9%) of total respondent and 8 (8%) of total respondent use 2go and Twitter respectively. This implies that Facebook remains the most popular social media platform available to people. This findings revealed that Facebook remains the most popular social media site in Nigeria as data from Fig. 4 revealed that 44 (46%) of total respondents asserted they use Facebook more frequently than other social media networks they belong to. Another evidence that, people spend more time on social media than interpersonal communication. Data implies that all the respondent use the Internet irrespective of the length of time spent online and much more they can tell if such usage interfered with their interpersonal communication encounter in the family.

Fig. 1 Percentage usage of social media



Whatsapp

17%

Facebook

46%

2go9%

Twitter8%

BBM20%PERCENTAGE USAGE OF

SOCIAL MEDIA …

Fig. 2. Time spent online. Data from Fig. 2 implies that all the respondent do use the Internet irrespective of the length of time spent online and much more they can tell if such usage interfered with their interpersonal communication encounter in the family. Fig.2 where data revealed that 40 (42%) spend at least 30 minutes online on a daily basis. Children in the family especially teenagers are getting more and more disconnected from family members because of their constant presence on social media sites. In other to check this and get closer to their children parents have taken to befriend their children on Facebook which most children consider “not cool” (17). Thus though people are communicating more but they are not building stronger ties and deepening relationships among family members. Social media sites like Facebook have become so popular and people spend a lot of time chatting and updating status amongst a plethora of other communication possibilities these sites offer. This finding is upheld by (20) who opines that people who use social networking sites, such as Facebook, WhatsApp and MySpace, spend an average of about 20 minutes a day on the site and may have between 150 and 200 friends listed on their profile; two-thirds of users log in at least once a day.

Fig. 3, it can be seen that portable ICTs are instrumental in widening the digital divide especially amongst family members and low income earners who can’t afford high-speed broadband connections. That is, there is a possibility of dissatisfaction in relationships. Reference (35) says that “when we communicate through social media, we tend to trust the people on the other end of the communication, so our messages tend to be more open…our social connections are not strengthened as much through social media as they are face-to-face, so we don’t tend to deepen our relationships and/or family ties.

Fig. 3. Percentage spread of online access gadget

Fig. 4. Technology has created a gap in interpersonal communication in the family.

According to (12) the challenge with online communication is that “misunderstandings often arise in e-mail and online communication because feedback tends to be delayed” and “the inability to convey inflection and nonverbal behaviors, such as winks, that tell another person we are joking.” Because silence communication, delayed feedback could be taken for/assumed to be a no answer to message especially when soliciting for help or trying to resolve a lingering family problem etc. Data from fig. 3 implies that there is a possible link between constant ICTs use and the unwillingness to engage in interpersonal communication with family members. It also implies that the effect of constant ICTs use on interpersonal communication in family relationship could be either positive or negative depending on the individual.

Findings from the study revealed that technology has created a gap in interpersonal communication in family relationships. Data from Fig. 4 shows that 40 (42%) total respondents strongly agreed to this assertion and is upheld by a significant majority of 44 (46%) who merely agreed. The implication of this find is that, communication, particularly interpersonal communication is reducing in the family as people are constantly absorbed and engaged with various ICTs on a daily basis which makes them unavailable for communication with family members (17, 11). This means that technology is blurring the lines of interpersonal relationships amongst family members, because relationships are maintained via communication especially interpersonal communication and if people are not communicating regularly there is a possibility of relationship breakdown.

Relationships disintegrations, especially divorce in marriage, has been attributed to lack of effective communication in family relationships (94, 11, 12 & 1).

Fig. 5 Percentage of respondents on Loss of interest in communicating with family members because of constant use of Information and communication Technologies (ICTs).



020406080

100

resp

onde

nts (

%)

Time

42

46

11

1

0 20 40 60

STRONGLY AGREE

AGREE

DISAGREE

STRONGLY DISAGREE

Percentage of respondents %

4% 11%

82%

3%

Home Computer

Office computer

MobilePhone/iPads/NotebooksCybercafé

42

29

16

13

0 10 20 30 40 50

STRONGLY AGREE

AGREE

DISAGREE

STRONGLY DISAGREE

Percentage %

Fig. 7 Challenges affecting family communication Further findings revealed that there are a plethora of challenges to interpersonal communication in family relationships but chiefly is constant chatting with online friends which was asserted to by 42 (44%) of total respondents and the proliferation of social media sites as 36 (38%) of respondents attested to it as shown on Fig. 7.

Further on this, findings also revealed that technology has affected the willingness of people to engage in interpersonal communication with family members. Data from Fig. 5 revealed that 40 (42%) of total respondents strongly agreed that they lost interest in communicating with family members because of their constant use of ICTs. This implies that people are satisfying their communication needs online rather than with family members. The challenge with communicating online is that apart from the possibility of sharing personal information with total strangers which could be destructive, online communication lacks the features that characterize interpersonal communication in its full experience such as gestures, facial expressions, tone of voice, etc. that enhances the meaning of what is said. One potential negative consequence of social media is a lack of privacy. Reference (35) opines that, “because interpersonal communication is changing, we’re finding ourselves more apt to share on social media the sort of information we might have previously shared privately face-to-face.”

Thus, constant online presence carries with it the possibilities of eroding the privacy that exist in interpersonal relationships. Constant use of ICTs amounts to living in a virtual world which invariably translates into possible disconnection from the real world and eventually experience relationship breakdown because of erosion of interpersonal communication in the family.

Fig. 8. Factors Responsible for Low/Unequal Access to ICTs use Among Family Members.

Fig. 6. Lack of constant face-to-face communication among family members as a result of their constant involvement with ICTs affects their relationship negatively.

This finding is in tandem with (36) who found that internet use was significantly correlated with decreases in face-to-face communication with family and decreases in desire for face-to-face communication with family. The more time teenagers spend online, the less time they spend with family. Reference (37) notes new domestic technologies have permitted the dispersal of family members to different rooms or different activities within the same space which is capable of affecting family relationships.

Also, the result revealed that the impact of the lack of constant face-to-face communication amongst family members as a result of constant engagement with information and communication technologies on their relationships is negative. Fig. 6 revealed that 30 (32%) strongly agreed while 35 (37%) of total respondents agreed that lack of constant face-to-face communication negatively affects family relationships. This implies that engagement with ICTs on a constant basis is time consuming and is capable of negatively impacting time spent in interpersonal communication amongst family relationships.

Reference (36) found that internet use displaces not only the time the teens spent with family, but also their desire for spending time with family. The lack of constant face-to-face communication and cause relationship fraction with people losing their interpersonal skills and habits overtime thus eroding the quality of relationship they could have with family. Engagement with ICTs during communication with family members could be distractive as people’s attention is glued to the television, computer or mobile phones while a family member is in need of their attention because they are not listening to what the family member is saying, meaning will be lost in the communication encounter.

When we don’t communicate we create an atmosphere for conflict and misunderstanding, when conflicts arise communication is still required to resolve it. Constant engagement with ICTs could amount to unresolved conflicts amongst family members, which can lead to a deterioration of their relationships (38).

When asked why family members cannot engage in communication and interact with the family members who spend much time online. From Table 8 data reveal that poor knowledge of modern communication device is responsible for the low/unequal access to ICTs use among family members as a significant majority of 49 (52%) of total responsible asserted as shown in Fig. 8.



38

15

44

3

0 10 20 30 40 50

Proliferation of Social Media

Online Gaming and Video Game

Constant Chatting with Online Friends

Deliberate refusal to communicatewith family members

Percentage %0 10 20 30 40

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Percentage %

0 20 40 60

Poor Knowledge of ModernCommunication Devices

Low Income/earnings

Lack of Interest in ICTs

Religious and CulturalBeliefs/Orientations

52

23

17

8

Percentage %

Fig. 9 Percentage of respondents agreeing to ways of reducing the divide. The possibility of bridging the digital divide in

amongst family relationships resides in a plethora of family activities. There is a need for family members to consciously create time to interact interpersonally with one another. Data from Fig. 9 revealed that the 38 (40%) and 34 (36%) of total respondents are of the opinion that having family centered activities such as picnics, camping and retreats could help bridge the digital divide. It is imperative for families to have more time together without the interruption of ICTs as 39 (41%) and 20 (21%) of total respondents asserted that setting specific time for family members to spend quality time without interruption of mobile phones gadgets could help bridge the digital divide. Reference (11) opines that families have become very busy and they have less time to communicate which is having negative effect on family relationships because interpersonal communication is reducing. The less family members communicate the more far apart they get. Thus, there should be a conscious effort at creating an atmosphere for family communication. During this interaction time, it is important to regulate the use of ICTs by setting specific rules. This is also found in Fig. 9 as data revealed that 38 (40%) of total respondents asserted so. It will be distracting and disrespectful for one to be answering phone calls, chatting online or is busying with one device or the other during family gatherings. It signifies a lack of interest in communicating with family members around.

Further findings revealed that if family members can share at least a meal together daily, the digital divide in interpersonal communication in family relationships could be bridge. 38 (40%) of total respondents asserted so. Sharing meals is a fast eroding family practice. It does not only foster togetherness amongst family members but provides the opportunity for interpersonal communication and oil the wheels that enhances family relationship.

This finding is upheld by (11) she states that family member should at least share a meal together daily so as to counteract since there is lack of time for communication due to the increasing busy schedule of family members.

Lastly, findings revealed that mobile phones and other portable ICTs can help in bridging the access gap in created by the digital divide. Data revealed that a majority of respondents access the Internet via their mobile phones, iPads and notebooks which are all mobile devices (Fig. 3). The prevailing issue in the digital divide that as attracted more attention in the discourse of the concept is the issue of access, with proliferation mobile phones, this gap can be bridged especially in the developing countries.

CONCLUSION This study was set out to evaluate the digital divide;

the possible gap in interpersonal communication amongst family relationships with particular emphasis on finding out how technology has affected the willingness of people to engage in interpersonal communication among family members. It was found that the adoption of various Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) is impacting negatively on interpersonal communication in family relationships. Technology has affected the willingness of family members to engage in interpersonal communication in that they lost interest in communicating with family members as a result of constant use of ICTs.

ICTs have their potential benefits toward enhancing interpersonal communication in family relationships but the poor knowledge of these communication devices is creating a dysfunction in family relationships as people tend to be absorbed in their excessive use. This disconnects them from the real world of human contact and poses a challenge to building a strong family relationship. The study concludes that technology has negatively affected the willingness of people to engage in interpersonal communication amongst family relationships because of their constant engagement with ICTs which makes them loss interest in communicating with family members.

References

[1] Brotherson, S. (2001) Understanding and Strengthening FamilyCommunication. North Dakota State University: NDSU ExtensionService.

[2] Bharat, M.; Cecelia, M. & Ann, B. P. (2004). “The Internet forEmpowerment of Minority and Marginalized Users” in New Media andSociety 6

[3] Daramola I. (2001) Introduction to Mass Communication. Ibadan; Rothan Printers.

[4] Green, S. (2000) “Keys to Effective Father-Child Communication” inTexas A&M AgriLife Extension: Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas

[5] Ijwo, A. (2014). Health Communication for Healthy People and Nation3rd edition. Abuja, Lagos, Makurdi: SAP Publishing House.

[6] Madianou, M. and Miller, D. (2014) Polymedia: Towards a New Theoryof Digital Media in Interpersonal Communication. University CollegeLondon: London.http://www.ucl.ac.uk/anthropology/people/academic_staff/d_miller/mil-23

[7] Rouse, M. (2014). “Digital Divide.” WhatIs.com. retrieved 12th October,2014.

[8] Selwyn, N. (2004). “Reconsidering Political and Popular Understandingof the Digital Divide” in New Media and Society. SAGE Publishers.http://nms.sagepub.com/content/6/3/341.

[9] Wood, J. T. (2006). Communication in Our Lives, 4th Edition. NewJersey; Thomson, Wadsworth.



0 50 100

HAVING FAMILY-CENTERED ACTIVITIES SUCH AS PICNICS,

CAMPING AND RETREATS

SETTING A SPECIFIC TIME FOR FAMILY MEMBERS TO SPEND

QUALITY TIME WITHOUT …

SETTING SPECIFIC RULES FOR THE USE OF ICTS DURING

FAMILY GATHERINGS

ENSURING THAT FAMILY MEMBERS SHARE AT LEAST A

MEAL TOGETHER DAILY

76

62

60

49

Percentage that agree/strongly agree

[10] Hall, L. D. (1994) Communication Strategies for Adult Couples.Extension Services, Oregon State University.

[11] Bailey, S. J. (2009). “Positive Family Communication.” Motana: MSUExtension. www.msuextension.org/publications.asp

[12] Wood, J. T. (2010). Interpersonal Communication: Everyday Encounters, Sixth Edition. Boston, USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

[13] Turnbull, C. F. (2010) “Mom Just Facebooked Me and Dad Knows Howto Text: The Influence of Computer-Mediated Communication on Interpersonal Communication and Differences Through Generations” inThe Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications, Vol. 1, No. 1, Winter 2010, pp 5-16.

[14] Peterson, R, and Green, S. (2009). Families First: Keys to successfulFamily Functioning Communication. Virginia Tech: Virginia Tech StateUniversity.

[15] Olson D. H. and DeFrain, J. (2000) Marriage and the Family: Diversityand Strengths. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

[16] Kuo, E. C. Y. and Lee, W. (2002). “Internet and Displacement Effect: Children's Media Use and Activities in Singapore.” Journal of ComputerMediated Communication 7(2).

[17] Taylor, J. (2013). “Is Technology Creating a Family Divide?” Psychology Today.http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-power-prime/201303/is-technology-creating-family-divide.

[18] Haig, M. (2002) Mobile Marketing: The Message Revolution. London:Kogan Page Ltd.

[19] Akhlaq, A. Malik, N. and Khan, N. (2013) “Family Communication andFamily System as the Predicators of Family Satisfaction in Adolescents.” In Science Journal of Psychology, Vol. 3. Science Journal Publication,International Open Access Publishers. Retrieved 08/09/2014 available athttp://www.sjpub.org/sjpsych.html.

[20] Ellison, Steinfield and Lampe (2007) “The Benefits of Facebook“Friends” Social Capital and College Students Use of Online SocialNetwork Sites” in Journal of Computer Mediated CommunicationVolume 12, Issue 4, pp 1143-1168. From http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.Retrieved 12th October, 2014.

[21] Segatto, B. and Dal, B. A. (2013) “The family digital divide: self-taught adolescents and difficulties in parental control” in Italian Journal ofSociology of Education, 5 (1), 2013. Italy: University of Padua.

[22] Lenhart, A. (2000). Who's not online: 57% of those without Internetaccess say they do not plan to log on, Pew Internet and American LifeProject. 2002.

[23] Winter, G. (2000) “A Comparative Discussion of the Notion of Validityin Qualitative and Quantitative Research.” The Qualitative Report,4(3&4). Retrieved November 29, 2014 fromhttp://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4-3/winter.htm/

[24] Cullen, R. (2001). “Addressing the Digital Divide” in Online Information Review 25: 311- 320.

[25] Noris, P. (2001). Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information, Poverty and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[26] Kim, M. and Kim, J. (2001). “Digital Divide: Conceptual Discussions and Prospects.” The Human Society and the Internet: Internet-related socio-economic issues, First International Conference Human.Society@Internet 2001, New York, Springer-Verlag.

[27] DiMaggio, P. and Hargittai, E. (2001). From the 'digital divide' to 'digital inequality': Studying Internet use as penetration increases. Princeton,Princeton University Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies

[28] Baker, P. M. A. (2001). “Policy Bridges of the Digital Divide: Assessingthe Landscape and Gauging the Dimensions.” First Monday 6(5).

[29] Kling, R. (1998). Technological and Social Access on Computing,Information and Communication Technologies, White Paper for

Presidential Advisory Committee on High-Performance Computing and Communications, Information Technology, and the Next Generation Internet. 2003.

[30] Foster, P. (2000). “The Digital Divide: Some Reflections” in International Information & Library Review 32: 437-451.

[31] Hargittai, E. (2002). “Second-Level Digital Divide: Differences inPeople's Online Skills” in First Monday7(4).

[32] Mutula, S. (2008). “Digital Divide in Africa: Its Causes and Amelioration Strategies” in Information and knowledge management in the DigitalAge: Concepts, Technologies and African Perspective. Ibadan: ThirdWorld Information Services Ltd.

[33] Forret, L. and Galapago, J. (2001) Selected Aspects of Social ScienceResearch. Makurdi: Vast Publishers

[34] Griffin, E. M. (1994). A First Look at Communication Theory (2nd Ed).New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.

[35] Keller, M. (2013) “Social Media and Interpersonal Communication” inSocial Work Today Vol. 13 No. 3 P. 10 May/June 2013, Issue. SpringCity: Great Valley Publishing Co., Inc. fromhttp://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/051313p10.shtml. retrieved12th October, 2014.

[36] Shim, Y. S. (2007) “The Impact of the Internet on Teenagers Face-to-Face Communication” in Global Media Journal Volume 6, Issue 10. CaShorter, A. (1998). African Culture. An Overview. Nairobi: Paulines Publications.

[37] Livingstone, S. M. (1992). “The meaning of domestic technologies - A personal construct analysis of familial gender relations.” ConsumingTechnologies: Media and information in domestic spaces. Silverstone, R. and Hirsch, E. London: Routledge. 113-130.

[38] Hughes, R., Jr. and Hans, J. D. (2001). “Computers, the Internet, andFamilies: A Review of the Role New Technology Plays in Family Life.”Journal of Family Issues 22: 776-790.

Patience Achakpa-Ikyo is a lecturer in the Department of Mass Communication, Benue State University Makurdi, Nigeria where she did her Bachelors (B.Sc). Patience holds a MA in Media and Communication from London Metropolitan University. She has interest in digital Media and has vast experience in web publishing. Her previous research focused on audience review. She has authored two novel books and produced a documentary that has been aired on national TV. Currently, she is undergoing a Ph.D. programme in Mass Communication. She was born in 1981 and is married with three children.

Regina Ogaba-Egba is a graduate of Mass Communication from Benue State University Makurdi, Nigeria. She has interest in digital media, she is looking forward to grow in this area and teach in future.



AUTHORS' PROFILE

digital divide: a gap in interpersonal · pdf filecommunication amongst nigerian family...

Documents