Search

Description: Conceptual paper which establishes a framework to define different types of sharenting (active, passive, invisible), develops an ecosystem view of key stakeholders impacting information being sharented, and provides a research agenda for policymakers and consumer welfare researchers. Sharenting (using social media to share content about one's child) is a progressively common phenomenon enabled by society's increased connection to digital technology. Although it can facilitate positive connections among internet users, it also leads to concerns related to children's online privacy and well-being. This paper establishes boundaries and terminology related to sharenting in an evolving digital world. First, while much of the prior sharenting research focuses on the parent-child dyad, we apply consumer vulnerability theory to conceptualize a modern sharenting ecosystem involving key stakeholders (parents, children, community, commercial institutions, and policymakers). This expanded ecosystem extends the sharenting literature to better define the complex dynamism inherent in sharenting as part of our increasingly virtual society. Next, we expand the characterization of sharenting by introducing a spectrum of awareness that categorizes types of sharenting (active, passive, and invisible). These definitions help researchers explore how and why personally identifiable information (PII) may be (un)intentionally shared in different contexts. Finally, using the conceptual structures developed in this paper, we provide a research agenda for policymakers and consumer welfare researchers. Research Question Digital technology's pervasiveness in everyday life is increasingly changing childhood, raising concerns about children's digital privacy from global organizations such as the United Nations and UNICEF. This already accelerating trend was put into sharp relief during the pandemic, where children saw their daily educational and social routines moved online, increasing children's vulnerability as their digital footprint expanded. Parents are legally considered the owners of their children's information, authorizing access and co-ownership of their child's data. Many parents choose to sharent, or share information about their children on social media, which may result in unintended audience(s) gaining access to their child's personally identifiable information (PII). While sharenting often comes from the desires of a parent, it can also be encouraged by an ecosystem of stakeholders who may encourage sharenting for personal, commercial, or public gain. Similarly, with the development of increasingly complex digital platforms, a tech-burdened parent may be unaware of who the end consumers of sharented content might be. This research seeks to define the sharenting ecosystem in an evolving digital world and establish a framework of sharenting awareness to provide a structure for researchers, parents, and policymakers. Method and Data Our conceptual development of sharenting in today's digital landscape is based on an extensive, interdisciplinary literature review, including: marketing, law, communications, and privacy. While the sharenting literature often focuses on the parent/child dyad, we argue that a richer conceptualization of the context, developed within an increasingly connected and complex digital world, will aid understanding of how stakeholders make decisions and encourage information sharing. These stakeholders are not isolated entities, but instead interact and share data in a complex set of connections that can make accountability difficult. Our conceptual framework reflects a theoretical synthesis using a multi-disciplinary lens. Summary of Findings We identify an ecosystem of sharenting stakeholders that interact to create, disseminate, and encourage sharented content. The sharenting ecosystem includes parents, children, audience/community, commercial interests, and policymakers. These categories provide a clear framework for researchers, parents, and policymakers to analyze specific sharenting situations. While it is commonly parents who authorize and become co-owners of their child's information, there is a larger network of parties who may be involved in sharenting. We develop a spectrum of sharenting awareness that categorizes three types of sharenting: active, passive, and invisible. First, active sharenting is intentional, where parents are aware of their posting, however they may or may not understand its implications. Thus, parents who believe they are sharing information may actually be surrendering it, increasing their vulnerability. Second, passive sharenting occurs as a feeling of resignation, in that sharenting may be perceived as unavoidable in modern society. Finally, invisible sharenting occurs when parents do not recognize their sharenting. This additional, covert layer of sharenting occurs after a parent shares information; it is often initiated by commercial interests and may be a byproduct of a company taking advantage of a parents' lack of digital literacy. Key Contributions Major changes in online communication have occurred since the pandemic began, broadening a digital landscape ripe for vulnerability and sharenting. Sharenting continues to evolve in the dynamic interaction of technology and culture. While parents and children have thus far been the most frequently researched stakeholders due to their common vulnerabilities, a systems view delivers the necessary structure to incorporate other marketplace actors into our understanding. Our road map for evaluating the five key stakeholders (parents, children, community, policymakers, and commercial institutions) and three different types of sharenting (active, passive, and invisible) highlight the importance of understanding the scope of sharenting in an ever-increasing digital world. Finally, this framework facilitates an integrated approach for expanding sharenting research and related public policy. We propose a research agenda by each of the five stakeholders, including suggestions for translating research into guidance that can be used by parents, identify areas of need for research to explore the depth of understanding of key issues, and to develop useful partnerships and policies that may impact current privacy practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We look at the concept of intersectionality, that different social categories can create overlapping and interlocking systems of disadvantage or discrimination, in an exploratory quantitative manner in order to empirically quantify intersectional impacts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The main purpose of our research is to achieve a deeper theoretical understanding of grief-related consumer vulnerability and the loss of decision-making ability due to the added stress experienced while planning a funeral for a loved one. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research Question What are the key drivers of the financial performance of microfinanced, socially embedded microentrepreneurs in a BoP market? Method and Data An enumerator-administered survey was the primary means of measurement for the relevant theoretical, demographic, and network variables, and this was used in conjunction with administrative loan data provided by the microfinance institution. We collected baseline survey data beginning in summer 2013 through a field survey conducted in rural and periurban coastal Kenya with a team of local enumerators, obtaining financial, psychological, and relational information from approximately 400 microfinance clients. The enumerators were fluent in both Kiswahili and English, and most of them were also fluent in local dialects such as Kigiriama. In addition, due to the high reported illiteracy levels of the subjects, the survey used measurement techniques altered for this context to best capture data and reduce bias in data recording (Gau, Jae, and Viswanathan 2012). Along with the individual-level survey data, we also collected ego networks from each of the surveyed individuals through a series of interaction prompts. Names generated through this exercise were matched with a database of MFI clients and a network adjacency matrix was generated, representing the social and economic connections of a MFI client within the MFI's client network. Network analysis was completed using the UCINET 6 and R 3.1.1 software packages. Key Contributions We expect this research to yield new insights related to effectively and efficiently structuring and managing microfinanced social-network based market channels in BoP settings. MFIs can potentially use our findings to demarcate the types of microentrepreneurs they bring on board and design the social networks they help those microentrepreneurs embed themselves in. Large financial organizations and philanthropic organizations can potentially use our findings to better identify effective MFIs to invest in, evaluate the MFIs currently receiving the competitive funds they award, and even design their own MFIs. Finally, from a public policy perspective, our findings can potentially help inform microfinance regulations and consumer protection laws aimed at BoP markets. Summary of Findings We look at the impact of entrepreneurial orientation, human capital, social commitment and organizational commitment on an individual microentrepreneur's financial success, using both OLS and social network analysis methods. This research identifies the key drivers of the financial performance of microfinanced, socially-embedded microentrepreneurs in a BoP market. We explore the separate impacts of the microentrepreneurs' commitment to their MFI organization and their commitments to their social network. We further investigate the interplay of the two concepts by examining how specific aspects of the microentrepreneurs' network connections with peers within the MFI's client roster interact with their commitment to the MFI and other personal and business variables to drive financial performance. We expect that this analysis will (a) help MFIs and other organizations identify and develop traits that characterize successful microentrepreneurs, (b) structure and manage the social network in a way that maximizes the likelihood of financial success, and (c) develop educational and social interventions that make the microentrepreneur client network work more effectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]