Access To Technology In Canada

Access to technology over the last decade has been increasing, and even our children now have access to complex devices such as computers, smartphones and tablets. According to the 2012 Canadian Internet Use Survey: “In 2012, 83% of Canadian households had access to the Internet at home, compared with 79% in 2010” (Statistics Canada). This demonstrates that technology is a fundamental aspect of Canadian’s lives, with the majority of Canadians having access to internet at home. This is a privilege which previous generations did not have, and one has to wonder how this will impact future generations. Access to technology during ages of development must have some sort of effect on children, altering the ways in which they communicate, develop,

The data collected from ethnographic research is mostly qualitative data, so the absence of quantitative data is a limitation to this method. Although ethnography does not produce quantitative data, it is an insightful method which helps understand the experience of the individuals observed. As Dominick and Wimmer (2014) explain: “Data analysis in ethnographic research follows the same patterns as other forms of qualitative research. The researcher searches for patterns and general themes in the data” (p. 149). Other mixed methods research will help strengthen some of the limitations of qualitative

How and will new technology alter the growth and development of our youth? “Children 's Use of the Internet: Reflections on the Emerging Research Agenda” by Sonia Livingstone (2003) examines the research conducted on children and young people concerning their use of the Internet. Livingstone suggests that the public’s concern regarding children and their use of the Internet influences the research conducted in this area. Livingstone critically examines the strengths and weaknesses of this research, and one of her conclusions is this: “ First, are children a special group? As already noted, most research on the social uses and impacts of the internet neglects children, too easily presuming them included in discussions of ‘the population’ or unproblematically ‘spoken for’ in surveys of parents” (p. 158). This criticism of research in this field can be rectified by the following