Communication Technology and Postdivorce Coparenting

Abstract

Divorced individuals who share parenting responsibilities have to figure out ways to work together to raise their children. The purpose of this qualitative study of 49 divorced coparents was to examine how they used technology (e.g., cell phones, computers) to communicate. For parents in effective coparenting relationships, communication technologies made it easier for them to plan and make conjoint decisions about their children while living apart. Communication technology, however, did not necessarily make coparenting easier if parents were contentious. Contentious parents used communication technologies as tools to (a) reduce conflicts, (b) withhold information, (c) limit the ability of the coparent to have input into childrearing decisions, and (d) try to influence the behavior of the coparent.

Communication Among Parents Who Share Physical Custody After Divorce or Separation

“…Participants with informal custody arrangements use a particular method because it is comfortable for them, it is convenient, and it is their former partner's preferred method of communicating. Similar to the findings of Ganong et al (2012), coparents with formal custody arrangements use communication technologies to get things in writing and to avoid talking to the ex. Additionally for many informal custody arrangement coparents in this study, the method of communication differs depending on the topic or the urgency with which the participant needs to reach the former partner.…”

Family functioning and information and communication technologies: How do they relate? A literature review

“…However, the results are inconsistent. Mostly, researches focus on different ICTs (e.g., cell phone, videoconference) emphasizing partial variables of family functioning (e.g., cohesion, conflict) and are limited to specific stages of the family life cycle, such as couples (e.g., Bartholomew et al, 2012;Ganong et al, 2012;Schneider et al, 2012), families with children in school (e.g., Chesley & Fox, 2012;Lee & Chae, 2007) and families with adolescent children (e.g., Bacigalupe & Camara, 2011;Devitt & Roker, 2009;Mesch, 2003). In addition, besides to the five domains identified in this review another dimension transversal to these domains can be underlined: the stage of the family life cycle.…”

Digital methodologies and practices in children's geographies

“…For instance, Freier and Kahn's (2009) collection of papers addressed how technological environments can be designed to foster rather than harm children's development. More recently, writers have shown that children can maintain relationships with friends and family members located in different cities or overseas (Longhurst 2013;Sime and Fox 2014), explore virtual landscapes with children from different backgrounds around the world (Ash and Gallacher 2011;Dezuanni, O'Mara, and Beavis 2015;Marsh 2010), or positively change learning and communication experiences for children with disabilities or absent and present caregivers (Ganong et al 2012;Holloway and Valentine 2003;Kagohara et al 2013). Freeman and colleagues in their paper (this collection) draw on notions of digital literacy to gain insights into children's use of nature in their neighbourhood via a child-operated Geographical Information System (GIS).…”