Within the focus groups and interviews some parents were really keen that their children should have a mobile phone with them for reasons of safety. One boy noted the following about the mobile phone. R: When I get the bus for school
my mum will want me to take it for emergencies [Boys' fgp, 9 / 10 years].
Generally, children were in support of this; they agreed that safety was an important reason for having a mobile. However, the kudos of actually having a really cool device was important to them too. They were proud of their mobiles, as evidenced from discussion in the previous chapter (section 5.3).
Some families were very safety aware, to such an extent that they put in place a system for emergencies, using the mobile as a resource for contact.
Jack: Say you are in trouble. My dad said, say when you get a phone, on my contacts list I will have my mum and my dad, it will say ICE. ICE means in case of emergencies. So if I get injured someone could look at the phone, they know that ICE means in case of emergency, so they would know
[Boys' fgp, 9 / 10 years].
Here, there is evidence of family policy in relation to emergency situations. A recent article highlights the growing significance of the term ICE, in just these circumstances. In an accident a paramedic will use a patient's mobile to
of the patient's mobile, next of kin will be identified and contacted (Brotchie, 2013). It appears that the use of ICE as a term is growing in significance as part of family policy on safety with children and mobile phones. Maintaining contact with family is important, particularly if a child finds themselves in difficulties away from home. The mobile can be crucial, especially in emergencies.
The following describes in detail how the mobile also becomes rather similar to a leash in its function within the relationship between children and their parents, in an effort by parents to keep children safe. The term metaphorical leash actually arose from a discussion with a mother in one of the interviews. She referred to the mobile as a leash for monitoring her son's behaviour. She then went on to discuss its role as a monitoring device.
I: You seem to use it more like a safety device? Mother: Not even an emergency but a safety device. As a, as a metaphorical, for me it is a metaphorical leash that I can use at a given moment [Int: 2, 11 years].
The following describes in detail how the leash was used.
Mother: So I will just pop him a call – where are you? I will do a check. And I think Greig knows that without me being able to pop him a call he would not get that leash stretched so long. So he gets a longer leash with having the phone. That phone is in his pocket, answering it when it rings. There is no way he could go down to the skate park unless I could phone and say, are you okay Greig [Int: 2, 11 years]?
The mobile was not a real leash, but as described a metaphorical one; it acted as a leash. The term leash is commonly used in relation to walking a dog (Collins Dictionary, 2012). A leash allows the dog some freedom, but in a controlled way; helping to monitor the dog's behaviour. Freedoms are given but in a restricted way; control is almost always present. The term leash has previously been used in relation to parents monitoring young people’s behaviour via mobile / internet devices (Ling, 1999; Haddon & Vincent, 2014).
The mobile certainly seemed to resemble a leash in its function, not in a physical way, but in a psychological way. As long as the child answered the mobile when mother called, all was well. Mother was reassured and the child could continue to have his freedoms. The mobile phone, as a leash, was there to monitor the child's freedoms by keeping his behaviours in check. Children's freedoms seemed to depend on the mobile phone acting in this way. A further example is presented from one of the focus groups.
Mother: For me the most important thing is safety. We have just bought a mobile phone for David. For me the reason was safety, because he has just started to meet his friends in the park and to bike in the village. For safety – if he needs anything he can phone. Wherever he is I can go and get him. Then I know that he is safe. The mobile phone is enabling him to do more. It is allowing him to have more freedom, to stretch his legs. He is now 10 years old, so he is wanting to go. […] If I rang him and he did not answer, I would be off down the road looking for him. Immediately [Ypfgp1, 14 - 16 years, including a 10 year old].
The mobile was allowing some children interviewed, particularly boys, to be doing much more; to enjoy the freedom of being out with their friends. By having the mobile parents could be reassured that their children were safe. Importantly, parents needed to have the ability to contact their children when away from them. The notion of close connection emerges here too; being able to contact and make that connection. As one mother describes it in one
interview; Mother: To feel that you are still connected to him, but you are not
with him [Int: 3, 11 years]. The mobile was importantly providing this reassurance
for parents.
Children felt that it was necessary to have this close connection too, as 12 year old Janie describes in her interview.
Janie: […] Like if I am in town, and I have missed a bus or something, or got lost. Then I need mum to come and pick me up. I just ring my mum up and she will just come and get me [Int: 1, 12 years].
Here, Janie knows that the connection with her mother is always in place. If she calls, her mother will respond. Looking at young people's views similar evidence was found about maintaining this close connection. Young people felt it was important, to such an extent that they would not go out without their mobile, as one young person describes.
R: Mmm I like the fact that when I go out I have got my phone and know that if anything was wrong I would be able to contact home or friends [Ypfgp 1, 14 - 16 years].
However, for young people it was not really a leash; parents did not monitor in the same way as they did with middle years children; there were differences. Young people had more responsibility for themselves and it was not just parents they could contact for help, it was friends too.
Within the literature young people's relationship with the mobile phone and their parents has been explained through the umbilical cord metaphor (Ling, 2004).
Themobile phone is constructed as a functional umbilical cord, which connects parents and young people, helping to keep them safe (Ling, 2007). Presumably, it loosens and eventually falls off as with normal healthy psychological separation between parents and young people.
Ribak (2009) has looked at this metaphor further, and she describes a process whereby young people have the possibility of calling parents, if a need arises. They are linked as an umbilical cord would suggest, but it is more about having the potential to contact, rather than actually contacting. The umbilical cord metaphor does not seem to be a process of monitoring, as it is with children, parents and the metaphorical leash. The leash carries notions of control to prevent inappropriate behaviour and to keep the child safe. There are differences between the two metaphors which describe children's / young people's use of the mobile phone, and their relationship or attachment to
parents. As children start to use the mobile phone at a much younger age than young people first did, it is used in a different way, certainly in the beginning.
During middle childhood the mobile phone operates as a leash, because parents need the connection to check and monitor children's behaviour. Therefore the metaphorical leash metaphor is appropriate at this stage of childhood.
However with young people, the umbilical cord metaphor seems more appropriate, as the following illustrates. With young people the possibility of contact is there if needed. The connection is not always needed and sometimes there may be no connection at all. Eventually, as with an umbilical cord, the young person psychologically separates from their parents; there is no longer the need to connect with parents in the same way as before, as the young person has reached young adulthood. This close connection may now be taken over by friends, or more frequently the young person's partner. The attachment with parents is not so strong, as the young person becomes older, more independent, and forms different attachments.
An alternative view of young people and the mobile phone is also presented by Ribak (2009). She describes it as a transitional object for young people;
transitional as it helps to facilitate independence into adulthood. Winnicott (1971) first used the transitional object concept in relation to children's use of a teddy bear or other toy. Use of the object creates a comforting environment in which children can negotiate separations with some security. The same could be said about the mobile phone for children too; it is comforting and helps to negotiate separations from parents. However, unlike an object the mobile has two-way communication; allowing children and parents to maintain that important connection between them.
For children, as for young people, the mobile phone can be a transitional object used to help negotiate separations. Further, as children become young people themselves the role of the mobile phone changes. It no longer operates as a
metaphorical leash as suggested here, but as Ling (2004), and Ribak (2009)
is much more control associated with the leash metaphor compared to the umbilical cord metaphor, which is a distinction between the two metaphors.
Parents were happy to provide children with freedom as long as they could be reassured that they were safe and behaving appropriately. The mobile phone provided that important connection, allowing parents to be reassured. Children felt that it was really important too for their own safety. However, the leash had to work; children had to use it appropriately. Parents were concerned when the leash failed as the following example demonstrates. There were times when the leash did not quite work, which caused parental concern.
Mother: We did have one incident, which I found particularly scary. Greig was playing with a little boy in the village. They were just having fun. I called to find out where Greig was. He did not answer for a few moments. I had not seen him for two hours. Then he did not answer again and again. Then I thought he is probably at the park with a few people. I have quite good judgement. Then someone came on the phone and it was a really silly voice. Then I said, right that is enough. I came off the phone and rang it again. It rang for a few moments. I was scared at that point
because I thought Greig's phone had been stolen and I did not know where Greig was. I was in pieces for a few moments. And then I found out, but his friend did not mean to. […] His friend had just been doing a silly voice.
Greig: I was at the toilet.
Mother: Yeah, but his friend did not realise what affect that would have on a parent. As suddenly, my leash, as I referred to it, my leash had gone wrong. I did not know where Greig
was. I did not know if Greig had got his phone. And I did not know who this boy was. I did not recognise the voice. So that …
they were apologetic. I explained why and it was just the safety thing. So we have had that safety incident. So for me it's all about the leash thing and losing it. With trial and error, we have had an error, and an error learnt. It is this […] I don’t think they realised what affect it had on me. It's scary
when you think about it. I need it for Greig but I need it as well
The mobile phone as a metaphorical leash if used inappropriately, as in this example, could cause considerable concern; parents might fear that something harmful has happened to their child. As the parent was not able to connect to her child she felt concerned. Palen and Hughes (2007), in relation to young people and mobile phones, found that parents liked to be in control of their concern; the type of concern that arises from parental responsibility, which the mobile phone can help ease. This appears similar for parents and children, but more so because children are younger and usually less responsible compared to young people.
If the leash is used inappropriately, as in this example, children might fail to understand the significance it could have on their parents. Naturally, parents would worry. Parents needed to be able to trust their children. As Haddon and Vincent (2014, 2015) found, parents do not feel that they can always trust their children, as in this example. In contrast, Ribak (2009) found that the young people she interviewed did anticipate parents' concerns, could be trusted, and liaised with parents when needed.
But sometimes it was not only children who used the leash inappropriately; parents got it wrong too. In this interview one father, who was also a teacher, comments about the way mobile phones were sometimes used in school by parents.
Father: Phones ought to be banned from school because they don’t really need it. They have got the office, if people need to get in touch, they can get in touch that way.
We get parents ringing them up [children] in the middle of lessons. Why, why is it that important? […] They can't separate, bizarre [Int: 3, 11 years].
He suggests that some parents actually find it difficult to separate from their children. They needed not only the close connection discussed, but constant contact too. The purpose of the mobile phone is to provide children with freedom and independence away from the family, but here the mobile simply becomes another way for parents to control children when they are not with
them. This concept will be explored more fully within chapter 7. Once a child is provided with a mobile phone, a balance needs to be maintained with its use, so that children can have some freedom and parents are able to monitor that freedom, but not excessively. Children need to be able to gain confidence away from the family, without constant contact from parents. Parents must take care not to over-monitor their children or the very notion of freedom may simply evaporate. So it would seem that the mobile phone as a metaphorical leash has to be used appropriately by both children and their parents. Children need to recognise their role in responding to parents' calls appropriately. Parents need to take care and not over-monitor their children.
In other European countries where there is evidence that mobile phone use by middle years children started in advance of children here in the UK, researchers found that the connection between parents and children was important too. Parents and children very much needed the connection to keep in contact with when apart (Oksman & Turtiainen, 2004; Ling, 2007). In Norway Ling (2007) found the connection was primarily for reasons of child safety. In Finland however, Oksman and Turtiainen (2004) found the connection was a necessary part of family co-ordination, when mothers were working away from home. It was essential for co-ordination between children and their mothers. By contrast within this thesis, the connection seems to be primarily about children developing freedom. A concept which may absorb both Ling's notion (2007) of safety, as discussed here with children’s outdoor play, and Oksman’s and Turtiainen's
(2004) notion of family co-ordination, which will be discussed in the next chapter.