Ecological perspectives and children’s use of the Internet: exploring micro to macro level analysis


  • Brian O’Neill



children and Internet, media ecology, online risks, Bronfenbrenner, EU Kids Online


Age-old debates on children’s encounters with media technologies reveal a long, fractured and contentious tradition within communication and media studies. Despite the fact there have been studies of effects of media use by children since the earliest days of broadcasting, the subject remains under-theorised, poorly represented in the literature and not widely understood in media policy debates. Old debates have intensified in relation to the study of children and the internet. Pitted between alarmist accounts of risks, excessive use and harmful effects on the one hand and the many accounts about "digital natives" and the transformational power of technology is the empirical project – represented by EU Kids Online among others – of building an evidence base for understanding the evolving environment for youth online engagement. In this paper, I situate that body of work in an ecological context, both in the sense of the Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological model that has been so important in the new sociology of childhood, as well as in the more loosely defined theoretical approach of media ecology. The latter tradition, associated primarily with McLuhan and later Postman, frames the media environment as a complex interplay between technology and society in which modes of communication and mediated interaction fundamentally shape human behaviour and social life. These strands offer the basis for framing some of the issues of evidence-based policymaking relating to internet governance, regulation and youth protection online.


Download data is not yet available.


American Academy of Pediatrics (2013). Children, adolescents, and the media. Pediatrics, 132(5), 958–961. Retrieved from doi:

Atkin, D. J. (2001). Home ecology and children’s television viewing in the new media environment. In J. Bryant & J. A. Bryant (Eds.), Television and the American family (2nd ed., pp. 49–74). London: Routledge.

Atkin, D. J., Greenberg, B. S., & Baldwin, T. F. (1991). The home ecology of children’s televison viewing: Parental mediation and the new video environment. Journal of Communication, 41(3), 40–52. doi:

Bates, T. (1984). Broadcasting in education: An evaluation. London: Constable.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1975). Influences on human development (2nd Rev. ed.). Hinsdale, IL: Holt McDougal.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Growing chaos in the lives of children, youth, and families: How can we turn it around? In U. Bronfenbrenner (Ed.), Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development (pp. 185–197). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bio-ecological model. Psychological Review, 101(4), 568– 586. doi:

Byron, T. (2008). Safer children in a digital world: The report of the Byron Review. London: DCSF. Retrieved from

Cantril, H., & Allport, G. W. (1935). The psychology of radio. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.

Carey, J. W. (1981). McLuhan and Mumford: The roots of modern media analysis. Journal of Communication, 31(3), 162–178. doi:

Downes, P. (2014). Conceptual framework and agenda: Beyond Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1995) to interrogation of blocked systems via structural indicators. In Access to education in Europe (pp. 29–48). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:

Gillespie, A. (2008). Child exploitation and communication technologies. Lyme Regis, Dorset: Russell House Publishing.

Glucksmann, A., & Bennett, S. (1971). Violence on the screen: A report on research into the effects on young people of scenes of violence in films and television. London: British Film Institute (Education Department).

Grosswiler, P. (2006). The transformation of Carey on McLuhan: Admiration, rejection and redemption. Explorations in Media Ecology, 5(2), 137–148. doi:

Halpern, R., & Figueiras, A. C. M. (2004). Environmental influences on child mental health. Jornal de Pediatria, 80(2), 104–110. doi:

Hasebrink, U., Görzig, A., Haddon, L., Kalmus, V., & Livingstone, S. (2011). Patterns of risk and safety online. In-depth analyses from the EU Kids Online survey of 9- to 16-year-olds and their parents in 25 countries. LSE, London: EU Kids Online. Retrieved from

Hasebrink, U., Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., & Ólafsson, K. (2009). Comparing children’s online opportunities and risks across Europe: Cross-national comparisons for EU Kids Online. LSE, London: EU Kids Online. Retrieved from

Heins, M. (2008). Not in front of the children: "Indecency," censorship, and the innocence of youth (2nd Rev. ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Helsper, E. J., Kalmus, V., Hasebrink, U., Ságvári, B., & Haan, J. D. (2013). Country classification: Opportunities, risks, harm and parental mediation. LSE, London: EU Kids Online. Retrieved from

Idate, & Technopolis (2014). Benchmarking of safer internet policies in member states and policy indicators: Final report. Retrieved from

Internet Safety Technical Task Force (2008). Enhancing child safety and online technologies: Final report of the Internet Safety Technical Task Force to the multi-state working group on social networking of state attorneys general of the United States. Boston, MA: Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University.

Johnson, G. M., & Puplampu, K. P. (2008). Internet use during childhood and the ecological techno-subsystem. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology / La Revue Canadienne de L’apprentissage et de La Technologie, 34(1). Retrieved from

Jordan, A. (2004). The role of media in children’s development: An ecological perspective. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 25(3), 196–206. doi:

Jowett, G. S., Jarvie, I. C., & Fuller, K. H. (1996). Children and the movies: Media influence and the Payne Fund controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Livingstone, S. (2013). "Knowledge enhancement": The risks and opportunities of evidence- based policy. In B. O’Neill, E. Staksrud, & S. Mclaughlin (Eds.), Towards a better Internet for children? Policy pillars, players and paradoxes. Goteborg: Nordicom. Retrieved from

Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. (2009). EU Kids Online: Final report 2009. LSE, London: EU Kids Online. Retrieved from

Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., & Görzig, A. (2012). Children, risk and safety on the Internet: Research and policy challenges in comparative perspective. Bristol: Policy Press. doi:

Lobe, B., Livingstone, S., Ó lafsson, K., & Vodeb, H. (2011). Cross-national comparison of risks and safety on the Internet: Initial analysis from the EU Kids Online survey of European children. LSE, London: EU Kids Online. Retrieved from

Moody, K. (1999). The children of Telstar: Early experiments in school television production. New York, NY: Vantage Press.

O’Neill, B. (2014). Policy influences and country clusters: A comparative analysis of Internet safety policy implementation. LSE, London: EU Kids Online. Retrieved from

Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2010). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Postman, N. (2000). The humanism of media ecology. Proceedings of the Media Ecology Association 1, 10–16. Retrieved from

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5). Retrieved from 20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf. doi:

Resnick, P., & Miller, J. (1996). PICS: Internet access controls without censorship. Communications of the ACM, 39(10), 87–93. doi:

Ross, S. M. (2009). Postman, media ecology, and education: From Teaching as a Subversive Activity through Amusing Ourselves to Death to Technopoly. Review of Communication, 9(2), 146–156. doi:

Schramm, W., Lyle, J., & Parker, E. B. (1961). Television in the lives of our children. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Smahel, D., & Wright, M. F. (2014). The meaning of online problematic situations for children. Results of qualitative cross-cultural investigation in nine European countries. LSE, London: EU Kids Online. Retrieved from

Spitzer, M. (2012). Digital dementia: How we and our children are doing to our minds. Munich: Droemer.

Strate, L. (2004). A media ecology review. Communication Research Trends, 23(2), 3.

Surgeon General’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior. (1972). Television and growing up: The impact of televised violence. Report to the Surgeon General, United States Public Health Service. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Mental Health.




How to Cite

O’Neill, B. (2015). Ecological perspectives and children’s use of the Internet: exploring micro to macro level analysis. Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri. Estonian Journal of Education, 3(2), 32–53.