“Google is not fun”: an investigation of how Swedish teenagers frame online searching
| Pages | 1244-1260 |
| Date | 09 October 2017 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-03-2017-0048 |
| Published date | 09 October 2017 |
| Author | Cecilia Andersson |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Records management & preservation,Document management,Classification & cataloguing,Information behaviour & retrieval,Collection building & management,Scholarly communications/publishing,Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information management,Information & communications technology,Internet |
“Google is not fun”:an
investigation of how Swedish
teenagers frame online searching
Cecilia Andersson
Department of Arts and Cultural Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to investigate the role of Google in everyday online searching
activities of Swedish teenagers in different contexts.
Design/methodology/approach –The study is qualitative and material has been produced through
interviews and observations in two different schools with participants aged 15-16. Goffman’s frame analysis
provides the analytical lens for studying how activities are assigned meaning.
Findings –Three different framings in relation to using Google and googling are identified in the material:
Google and fact-finding, Google as a neutral infrastructure, and Google as an authority. There is an interplay
between activity, context, and interaction in defining the role of Google. In relation to school, the fact-finding
framing is more pronounced whereas the infrastructure framing comes forth more in their free time activities.
The authority framing cuts across both framings and underpins their trust in the search engine.
Originality/value –The study addresses the way that Google is embedded in online activities and how
the search engine is viewed in various contexts, as well as how it is made invisible in some contexts.
Previous research has not addressed Google’s role in specific in relation to various everyday uses.
Keywords Search engines, Google, Goffman, Searching, Teenagers, Schools, Youth, Everyday life
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
This paper addresses the role of Google in the daily life of Swedish teenagers. The use of
Google is nowadays an everyday occurrence for many people, Swedish teenagers being no
exception. This is evident not least by how googling has become a verb that is synonymous
with looking up information about something. In many cases, Google is the entry point for
accessing the internet and in reference to the search engine’s dominance the term
Googlization has been coined (Vaidhyanathan, 2011), and the phenomenon identified and
problematized in recent research (Sundin et al., 2017). Internet statistics on Swedish youth
(Alexandersson and Davidsson, 2016) indicate that they have good access to the internet
(100 percent coverage) as well as to various forms of technology. In fact, almost all teenagers
have their own smart phone (99 percent) and a majority of them have their own computers
as well as more than half of them owning a tablet. Using the internet is a taken-for-granted
activity in the age group 11-19-year olds to the point where it is difficult to distinguish
between being online and not, particularly with the use of smart phones. Given this scenario,
in combination with Google’s dominant position on the Swedish market (Statista, 2016),
it can be assumed that the use of Google (and thus also Googlization) influences Swedish
teenagers’online activities. This opens up for questions regarding what this development
means for how young people go about their daily online activities.
The paper thus focuses on various aspects of online searching pertaining to the use of
Google. In line with previous research (Sundin et al., 2017), online searching is here defined
as the use of general purpose search engines and it is viewed as a mundane activity that is
integrated in a variety of social practices. Previous research (Savolainen, 1995) has paved
the way for investigations of information seeking outside the work or school context within
information science through the exploration of everyday life information seeking (ELIS).
Yet here everyday life is approached slightly differently. Rather than viewing it as that
Journal of Documentation
Vol. 73 No. 6, 2017
pp. 1244-1260
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0022-0418
DOI 10.1108/JD-03-2017-0048
Received 31 March 2017
Revised 10 June 2017
Accepted 12 June 2017
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0022-0418.htm
1244
JD
73,6
which is outside the scope of work or school, school is viewed as a part of everyday life.
Thus viewing everyday life as spanning across work and leisure with its signifying feature
being that it is familiar, routine, and unremarkable (Scott, 2009).
The aim of this study is to explore the various ways that Google is both used and framed
by Swedish teenagers. The concept of frames draws upon Goffman’s (1974) frame analysis
where framing is viewed as the way that people identify and make sense of situations and
activities. The research questions guiding the study are:
RQ1. Which framings can be identified when teenagers describe their use of Google?
RQ2. What do these framings reveal about Google’s role in their online activities?
By investigating these questions, the role of context in relation to online searching and
online activities is also addressed. A recent study (Lundh, 2016) highlighted the need for
studies shifting focus from trying to explain the way that children are, and therefore behave
with information, toward more nuanced accounts of information practices that involve
young people. The present study approaches the topic in line with that argumentation and
thereby seeks to contribute to the research field concerned with young peoples’information
practices (Sundin and Carlsson, 2016; Lloyd and Wilkinson, 2016; Schreiber, 2014;
Alexandersson and Limberg, 2012; Francke et al., 2011; Lundh, 2011; Rantala, 2010).
Previous research on search engines and young people
Previous researchhas highlighted how search enginesin general and Google in particularhas
come to be a crucial part of much online activity (Sundin et al., 2017; Haider, 2016;
Huvila, 2016; Hi llis et al., 2013; Rowlands et al., 2008). Exploring the information behavior of
the researcher of the future, which they refer to as the Google generation (defined as those
born after 1993), Rowlands et al. (2008) note that beyondmerely the young we are all now the
Google generation and that there has been a profound shift in the way that people seek
information.Further, using search engines and carryingout searches has become an essential
part of everydaylife for many people to the pointwhere it is possible to argue fornot only the
presence of Googlization but furthermore a search-ification of everyday life and mundane-
ification ofsearch, as put forth by Sundin et al. (2017).For this reason, among others, carrying
out research with the help of Google’s data can give insights on current societal issues and
how they are approached (Haider, 2016). The fact that the search engine is not a neutral tool
has also been established and problematizedin previous research (Schroeder, 2015; Halavais,
2013; Lewandowski, 2012; Vaidhyanathan, 2011). Halavais (2013) explains search engines in
terms of technologies of attentionand argues that they warp the information environmentby
letting us see information structuredin a certain way. The way that the search engine shows
results blind us to the fact that a query usually generates an abundance of results while
pointing us to the top results and thereby assuring us that those are the most applicable.
In line with this, Huvila(2016) notes that people have been fast in internalizing the idea thatit
is not supposed to be difficultto search for and make use of information. Furthermore, Huvila
notes that the complexity involved in searching is concealed.
Marchionini (2006)proposes that there are various forms of searches with varying degree
of complexity;ranging from more simple look-upsearches to more investigativesearching for
learning purpose. Look-ups respond to questions of who, when, and where rather than to
questions of what, how, and why. Learning searches on the other hand, require cognitive
processingand interpretation. Look-upsearching also includes known-itemsearching as often
referred to in libraries (Marchionini, 2006; Ha Lee et al., 2006). Due to the type of search,
look-ups are often understood as factual (Marchionini, 2006). Rieh et al. (2016), while
connecting searching to learning, argue that search engines “are optimizedfor only a certain
kind of learning –acquiring factual knowledge –but are less successful at facilitating other
1245
Google is
not fun
To continue reading
Request your trial