“All is Being Light Like the Moon in the Dark, Not Like the Sun”: Mothers’ Evaluations Regarding Motherhood Advices in Digital Environment*

Yıl 2021, , 260 - 285, 08.03.2021

Derya Gül Ünlü

https://doi.org/10.18691/kulturveiletisim.716776

Öz

The increase of online content related to motherhood has allowed mothers to access information and advice they seek for their daily practices easily. Today, mothers and expectant mothers can easily have access to content related to many different subjects through digital media and obtain various advice related to their daily practices from both experts on the subjects and also other mothers who are experiencing the same process. On the other hand, to understand the functionality of digital content in question, it is also important to determine the extent to which information and advice accessed through digital media is adopted in daily motherhood practices. Based on this focus, the study aims to determine how women make use of digital media in the process of seeking motherhood advice, how they evaluate the digital advice they obtain, from whom they primarily seek the digital advice, to what extent they adopt them to their daily practices, to understand how motherhood content provided by digital media is perceived by women. Following with this goal, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 mothers who have children between the ages of 0-3, and it was concluded that women perceive the advice they obtain through the online and offline environment as complementary content.

Anahtar Kelimeler

digital motherhood, digital advice, digital communication, digital communication environment

“Hepsi Bir Işık Oluyor Ama Karanlıktaki Ay Gibi, Güneş Gibi Değil”: Annelerin Dijital Ortamdaki Annelik Tavsiyesine İlişkin Değerlendirmeleri

Öz

Anneliğe dair çevrimiçi içeriğin artması, annelerin dijital ortamı günlük pratikleri hakkında bilgi ve tavsiye aramak için kullanmaya başlamalarını da beraberinde getirmiştir. Önceleri sadece kişisel ilişkilerinin bulunduğu kadınlardan ya da geleneksel medya araçlarından tavsiyeler edinen kadınların annelik pratikleri için dijital iletişim ortamlarından yararlanmaları, anneliğe dair çok daha fazla görüş ve öneriye erişebilmelerini de olanaklı kılmıştır. Günümüzde anneler ve anne adayları, dijital ortam üzerinden, çok sayıda farklı konuyla ilgili içeriğe rahatlıkla ulaşabilmekte ve günlük pratiklerine dair çeşitli tavsiyeleri hem konunun uzmanlarından hem de kendileriyle aynı süreci deneyimleyen diğer annelerden alabilmektedirler. Bu bağlamda, dijital ortam üzerinden erişilen bilgi ve tavsiyelerin kadınlar tarafından günlük annelik pratiklerine ne derece adapte edildiğinin belirlenmesinin de söz konusu dijital içeriğin işlevselliğinin anlaşılabilmesi açısından oldukça önem taşıdığını söylenebilir. Buradan hareketle gerçekleştirilen araştırma, kadınların annelik tavsiyesini arama sürecinde dijital ortamdan nasıl yararlandıklarını, eriştikleri dijital tavsiyeleri nasıl değerlendirdiklerini, dijital tavsiyeyi öncelikli olarak nerelerden/kimlerden aradıklarını ve günlük pratiklerine nasıl adapte ettiklerini ortaya koyma amacını taşımakta, böylelikle dijital ortamın kullanıcıya sunduğu annelik içeriğinin kadınlar tarafından nasıl değerlendirildiğinin belirlenmesini hedeflemektedir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda, çalışma kapsamında, 0-3 yaş aralığında çocuk sahibi olan 12 anne ile yarı yapılandırılmış yüz yüze görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiş ve kadınların hem çevrimiçi hem de çevrimdışı ortamda ulaştıkları bilgi ve tavsiyeleri birbirini tamamlayıcı içerikler olarak değerlendirdikleri sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

dijital annelik, dijital tavsiye, dijital iletişim, dijital iletişim ortamı

Kaynakça

• Abetz, Jenna ve Julia Moore (2018). “Welcome to the Mommy Wars, Ladies”: Making Sense of the Ideology of Combative Mothering in Mommy Blogs.” Communication, Culture & Critique, 11(2): 265-281.
• Ammari, Tawfiq, Sarita Schoenebeck ve Meredith Morris (2014). “Accessing Social Support and Overcoming Judgement on Social Media among Parents of Children with Special Needs.” Proceedings of AAAI International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, 22-31.
• Antheusnis, Marjolijn, Kiek Tates ve Theodoor Nieboer (2013). “Patients’ and Health Professionals’ Use of Social Media in Health Care: Motives, Barriers and Expectations.” Patient Education and Counseling, 92(3): 426-431.
• Appleton, Jessica, Cathrine Fowler ve Nicola Brown (2014). “Friend or Foe? An Exploratory Study of Australia Parent’s Use of Asynchronous Discussion Boards in Childhood Obesity.” Collegian, 21(2): 151-158.
• Badinter, Elisabeth (1981). Mother Love: Myth and Reality, Motherhood in Modern History. New York: Macmillan.
• Barkhuus, Louise, Elizabeth Bales ve Lisa Cowan (2017). “Internet Ecologies of New Mothers: Trust, Variety and Strategies for Managing Diverse Information Sources.” Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 2283-2292.
• Bartholomew, Mitchell, vd. (2012). “‘New Parents’ Facebook Use at the Transition to Parenthood.” Family Relations, 61(3): 455-469.
• Balaam, Madeline, vd. (2015). “FeedFinder: A Location-mapping Mobile Application for Breastfeeding Women.” Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1709-1718.
• Bouche, Gauthier ve Virginie Migeot (2008). “Parental Use of the Interrnet to Seek Health Information and Primary Care Utilisation for Their Child: A Cross-sectional Study.” BMC Public Health, 8(1): 300.
• Bernhardt, Jay ve Elizabeth Felter (2004). “Online Pediatric Information Seeking among Mothers of Young Children: Results from a Qualitative Study Using Focus Groups.” Journal of Medical Internet Research, 6(1): e7.
• Chae, Jiygung (2015). “Am I a Better Mother than You?: Media and 21st-century Motherhood in the Context of the Social Comparison Theory.” Communication Research, 42(4): 503-525.
• Fleischmann, Amos (2004). “Narratives Published on the Internet by Parents of Children with Autism: What Do They Reveal and Why is Important?” Focus on Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 19(1): 35-43.
• Fleming, Susan, Roxanne Vandermause ve Michelle Shaw (2014). “First-time Mothers Preparing for Birthing in an Electronic World: Internet and Mobile Technology.” Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 32(3): 240-253.
• Gibson, Lorna ve Vicki Hanson (2013). “Digital Motherhood: How Does Technology Help New Mothers?” Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press, 313-322.
• Gül-Ünlü, Derya (2019). “Evaluation of Digital Media Usage of Women through Motherhood Models as a cultural Ideology.” Galatasaray İletişim Dergisi, 31(2): 137-167.
• Gül-Ünlü, Derya (2020). “Dijital Ebeveynlik ve Mobil Uygulamalar: Dijital Ebeveynlerin Mobil Uygulama Kullanım Pratiklerinin İncelenmesi.” İletişim Kuram ve Araştırma Dergisi, 50: 56-73.
• Harsha, Jamie Dale (2016) Discouraging Discourse: Mommy War Rhetoric in the Digital Age. Graduate Thesis and Dissertations. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/15012
• Hearn, Lydia, Margaret Miller ve Leanne Lester (2014). “Reaching Perinatal Online: The Healty You, Healty Baby Website and App.” Journal of Obesity, [Online]: shorturl.at/enER7
• Holt, Amanda (2011). “‘The Terrorist in My Home’: Teenagers’ Violence towards Parents-constructions of Parent Experiences in Public Online Message Boards.” Child & Family Social Work, 16(4): 454-463.
• Jacks, Rebecca, vd. (2019). “Parental Digital Health Information Seeking Behavior in Switzeland: A Cross-sectional Study.” BMC Public Health, 19: 225-235.
• Johnson, Sophia (2014). “Maternal Devices, Social Media and The Self-management of Pregnancy, Mothering and Child Health.” Societies, 4(2): 330-350.
• Johnson, Sophia (2015). “Intimate Mothering Publics: Comparing Face-to-face Support Groups and Internet Use for Women Seeking Information and Advice in the Transition to First-time Motherhood.” Culture, Health, & Sexuality, 17(2): 237-251.
• Keelan, Jennifer, vd. (2007). “Youtube as a Source Information on Immunization: A Content Analysis.” JAMA, 298(21): 2482-2484.
• Kind, Terry, vd. (2005). “Internet and Computer Access and Use for Health Information in an Undeserved Community.” Ambulatory Pediatrics, 5(2): 117-121.
• Longhurst, Robyn (2016). “Mothering, Digital Media and Emotional Geographies in Hamilton, Aotearoa New Zealand.” Social & Cultural Geography, 17(1): 120-139.
• Lowe, Pam, vd. (2009). “Making It All Normal: The Role of the Internet in Problematic Pregnancy.” Qualitative Health Research, 19(10): 1476-1484.
• Lupton, Deborah (2014). “‘It’s a Terrible Thing When Your Children are Sick’: Motherhood and Home Healthcare Work.” Health Sociology Review, 22(3): 234-242.
• Lupton, Deborah (2016). “The Use and Value of Digital Media for Information about Pregnancy and Early Motherhood: A Focus Group Study.” BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 16(1): 171.
• Lupton, Deborah (2017). “It Just Gives Me a Peace of Mind: Australian Women’s Use of Digital Media for Pregnancy and Early Motherhood: A Focus Group Study.” BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 16(1): 1-13.
• Lupton, Deborah ve Sarah Maslen (2019). “How Women Use Digital Technologies for Health: Qualitative Interview and Focus Group Study.” Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(1): 1-11.
• Lupton, Deborah, ve Sarah Pedersen (2016). “An Australian Survey of Women’s Use of Pregnancy and Parenting Apps.” Women and Birth, 29(4): 368-375.
• Lupton, Deborah, Sarah Pedersen ve Gareth Thomas (2016). “Parenting and Digital Media: From the Early Web to Contemporary Digital Society.” Sociology Compass, 10(8): 730-743.
• Madge, Clare ve Henrietta O’Connor (2004). “My Mum’s Thirty Years Out of Date.” Community, Work & Family, 7(3): 351-369.
• Madge, Clare ve Henrietta O’Connor (2005). “Mothers in the Making? Exploring Liminality in Cyber/Space.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 30(1): 83-97.
• Madge, Clare ve Henrietta O’Connor (2006). “Parenting Gone Wired: Empowerment of New Mothers on the Internet?” Social & Cultural Geography, 7(2): 199-220.
• McDaniel, Brandon, Sarah Coyne ve Erin Holmes (2012). “New Mothers and Media Use: Associations Between Blogging, Social Networking, and Maternal Well-being.” Matern Child Heath, 16(7): 1509-1517.
• Moravec, Michelle (2011). Motherhood Online. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
• Morris, Meredith (2014). “Social Networking Site Use by Mothers of Young Children.” Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, New York: ACM Press, 1272-1282.
• Morrison, Aimee (2010). “Autobiography in Real Time: A Genre Analysis of Personal Mommy Bloging.” Cyberpsychology, 4(2): 1-14.
• Marshall, Harriette (1991). “The Social Construction of Motherhood: An Analysis of Childcare and Parenting Manuals.” Gender and Psychology, Motherhood: Meanings, Practices and Ideologies. Ann Phoenix, Anne Woollett ve Eva Llyod (der.) içinde. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 66-85.
• Nevski, Elyna ve Andra Siibak (2016). “The Role of Parents and Parental Mediation on 0-3 Years Olds’ Digital Play with Smart Devices: Estonian Parents Attitudes and Practices.” Early years, 36(3): 227-241.
• O'Higgins, Amy, vd. (2015). “The Use of Digital Media by Women Using the Maternity Services in a Developed Country.” Irish Medical Journal, 108(10): 313-315.
• Pedersen, Sarah ve Deborah Lupton (2016). “What are You Feeling Right Now? Communities of Maternal Feeling on Mumsnet.” Emotion, Space, and Society, 26: 57-63.
• Pedersen, Sarah ve Janet Smithson (2013). “Mothers with Attitude- How the Mumsnet Parenting Forum Offers Space for New Forms of Feminity to Emerge Online.” Women’s Studies International Forum, 38: 97-106.
• Phoenix, Ann ve Anne Woollett (1991). “Motherhood: Social Construction, Politics and Psychology.” Gender and Pschology, Motherhood: Meanings, Practices and Ideologies. Ann Phoenix, Anne Woollett ve Eva Llyod (der.) içinde. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 13-27.
• Philips, Nichola ve Anne Broderick (2014). “Has Mumsnet Changed Me? SNS Influence on Identity Adaptation and Consumption.” Journal of Marketing Management, 30(9-10): 1039- 1057.
• Plantin, Lars ve Kristian Danebeck (2009). “Parenthood, Information and Support on the Internet: A Literature Review of Research on Parents and Proffessionals Online.” BMC Family Practice, 10(1): 34.
• Rodger, Dianne, vd. (2013). “Pregnant Women’s Use of Information and Communications Technologies to Access Pregnancy-related Health Information in South Australia.” Australia Journal of Primary Health, 19(4): 308-312.
• Sarkadi, Anna ve Sven Bremberg (2005). “Socially Unbiased Parenting Support on the Internet – A Cross-sectional Study of Users of a Large Swedish Parenting Website.” Child: Care, Health and Development, 31(1): 43-52.
• Schoenebeck, Sarita (2013). “The Secret Life of Online Moms: Anonymity and Disinhibition on Youbemom.” Paper presented at the 7th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM’13), Boston.
• Skranes, Lars, vd. (2014). “Internet Use among Mothers of Young Children in Norway – A Survey of Internet Habits and Perceived Parental Competence when Caring for a Sick Child.” Journal of Public Health, 22(5): 423-431.
• Tardy, Rebecca (2000). “But I am a Good Mom” The Social Construction of Motherhood through Health-care Conversations.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 29(4): 433-473.
• Tiidenberg, Katrin (2015). “Odes to Heteronormativity: Presentations of Feminity in Russian-speaking Pregnant Women’s Instagram Accounts.” International Journal of Communication, 9(13): 1746-1758.
• Tiidenberg, Katrin ve Nancy Baym (2017). “Learn It, Buy It, Work It: Intensive Pregnancy on Instagram.” Social Media Sociology, 3(1). Doi: 10.1177/2056305116685108.
• van der Gugten, Anne, vd. (2016). “E-health and Health Care Behavior of Parents of Young Children: A Qualitative Study.” Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care, 34(2): 135-142.
• Wainstein, Brynn, vd. (2006). “Use of the Internet by Parents of Pediatric Patients.” Paediatr Child Health, 42(9): 528-532.
• Zhu, Chengyan, Zeng, vd. (2019). “Pregnancy-related Information Seeking and Sharing in the Social Media Era among Expectant Mothers: Qualitative Study.” Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(12): 1-11.