Keywords

Over the past couple of decades, there has been a significant rise in the use of digital technology in leisure activities among children and young people. Although the amount of time spent online varies across European countries, with Sweden averaging 4.5 hours and Albania averaging 3 hours per day,Footnote 1 it is apparent that most children and young people across Europe dedicate several hours to digital activities during their free time.

Children and young people’s use of digital technology is controversial for many reasons. In particular, when it comes to leisure activities linked with digital devices, a commonly debated issue is screen time and concerns about content and contact risks. Digital activities are usually discussed and negotiated through the lens of safety, health, and well-being as defined by parents and adults (Mackey, 2016; Marsh et al., 2022; Savci et al., 2022). The same parental concerns extend to children’s use of social media and digital entertainment platforms (Domoff et al., 2019). In the case of the latter, digital games have been considered an especially controversial leisure-time activity among children and young people. Both parents and researchers have traditionally concentrated on digital games’ potential negative effects on physical and mental health, aggression, cognition, and social development (Hellström et al., 2012; Markey & Ferguson, 2017; Mustola et al., 2018). Notably, despite the increasing number of adults engaging in digital games in recent years (ESA, 2022), the focus on children and young people’s digital gaming activities remains a prominent subject of concern. It is only within the past decade that the potential advantages of digital games have been more comprehensively explored (Granic et al., 2014).

However, while research and societal discussions tend to focus on the perceived risks and concerns regarding children’s use of digital technology (Livingstone et al., 2017; Markey & Ferguson, 2017), children and young people today are exploring and learning about the world, growing up, and trying to be independent, using digital technology as a means to connect with others, making friends, having fun, and expressing themselves (Ito et al., 2019; Livingstone & Sefton-Green, 2016). Consequently, an issue may be raised as to whether studies of children and young people’s digital leisure activities need to place a greater emphasis on actively listening to the voices of children and young people themselves to bridge the gap between the predominant focus on risks and concerns and the lived realities and aspirations of children in the digital age.

This chapter explores the meanings children and young people attribute to their digital leisure activities in Austria, Greece, Norway, Romania, and the United Kingdom, from their perspective. In this chapter, we raise the following question:

What meanings do children and young people attribute to their leisure-time use of digital technology, and how is this understood from their perspective?

This also involves investigating children and young people’s perspectives on how digital leisure activities, such as gaming and activities on social media, are negotiated within families to explore children’s agency in engaging with digital devices and media. The latter extends beyond merely negotiating screen time and content, encompassing children’s perception of their parents’ perspectives on their digital leisure activities.

Digital Childhood

For most of the twentieth century, the field of childhood studies was dominated by the accounts of developmental psychology, where the child’s development was defined through a set of fixed, universal stages that served as a set of benchmarks to determine a normal childhood. Environmental influences, such as family or school, were taken into account only in the sense of their positive or negative impact on facilitating or interrupting normal development (Leonard, 2016). This perspective, inspired by functionalist approaches, was also dominant in sociology and was seriously challenged by the new sociology of childhood, which gained space and legitimacy from the 1980s onwards. Much of this turn had to do with abandoning an approach to children as passive subjects who meet or do not meet what society imposes as criteria for a normal childhood, where childhood is a journey towards the endpoint, which is adulthood and being a full member of society (James, 2009). As Corsaro (2005) puts it, ‘children are active, creative social agents who produce their own unique children’s cultures while simultaneously contributing to the production of adult societies’ (p. 3). From this perspective, agency can be understood as the right to make one’s own autonomous choices. A growing volume of literature has demonstrated children’s agency as essential to their competence and knowledge (Corsaro, 2005; MacNaughton et al., 2007; Markström & Halldén, 2008; Smith, 2008). In this vein, Valentine (2011) pointed out that ‘childhood studies argue that children display their agency through competence, strategy, and awareness and that their agency entitles them to greater participation and more rights’ (p. 347). Valentine (2011) further argued that it is important to recognise the complexity of children’s agency and its multidimensional nature.

However, acknowledging that children are active agents who can and do intentionally shape their trajectories through childhood does not imply the absence of structural parameters or constraints. Following Corsaro’s (2005) reasoning,

childhood—that socially constructed period in which children live their lives—is a structural form. For the children themselves, childhood is a temporary period. For society, on the other hand, childhood is a permanent structural form or category that never disappears even though its members change continuously, and its nature and conception vary historically. (p. 3)

In this sense, childhood as a structural form is interrelated with other structural categories, such as social class, gender, and age (Qvortrup, 1994). Children’s agency can be viewed in terms of empowering children to make decisions and face their consequences—strengthening their awareness and knowledge. The contemporary perspective on children and childhood, which emphasises their agency and recognises them as individuals with their own rights, somewhat contrasts with the portrayal of children as passive and vulnerable, in need of protection, as often described in ongoing debates surrounding their use of digital media (cf. Livingstone et al., 2017).

With regard to concerns about children’s media use, James (2009) points out that ‘for many adults, that children might be regarded as having agency may raise questions about what kind of agency that might be and how much freedom children might be permitted to have in the exercise of it’ (p. 43). This is especially true when adults view the current so-called digital generation of children and young people as being more tech-savvy than themselves, resulting in what James describes as a ‘moral panic’ about ‘the nature of childhood itself’ (p. 43). Chaudron et al. (2018) underline that children and young people’s social participation is dependent on digital technologies. However, as households are becoming increasingly populated by digital devices, at least for the countries in this study (cf. Ayllón et al., 2023), a deciding factor determining children and young people’s agency in utilising digital devices and media in their leisure time is their parents/guardians. Yet, in the corpus of literature on parental mediation strategies regarding the use of digital devices and media, few studies consider the perspectives of children and young people themselves. Livingstone et al. (2017), emphasise that understanding children’s perspectives on parental mediation is vital when addressing the use of digital devices, as this can provide insights into a strategy that bypasses the parental dilemma between enhancing opportunities while increasing risk or reducing risk at the expense of opportunities. Previous research suggests that children’s perspectives can reveal their perceived agency, as children often tend to view their parents as being more restrictive than the parents themselves (Kalmus et al., 2022).

Currently, there is no agreed-upon single parental strategy that maximises opportunities while minimising risks (Kalmus et al., 2022; Livingstone et al., 2017; Domoff et al., 2019). However, research underscores the importance of incorporating the child’s perspective and proposes that a strategy balancing maximised opportunities and reduced risks, without undermining children’s autonomy and agency, may prove more advantageous (Kalmus et al., 2022; Livingstone et al., 2017). Nevertheless, according to Livingstone et al. (2017), parents’ mediation strategies are not primarily focused on recognising children’s agency. Instead, these strategies tend to be influenced by factors such as gender, nationality, or the parents’ level of digital proficiency (Livingstone et al., 2017).

In this chapter, we adopt an approach that acknowledges children and young people’s agency, following the new paradigm of the new sociology of childhood where children and young people are not just shaped by the world (of adults) around them but actively produce this world. In interactions with their peers, parents, and teachers, as well as within given cultural, institutional, and structural settings, children and young people create and share meanings about their lives with others. As digital technologies are a significant part of children and young people’s lives (Smahel et al., 2020), our focus is situated on the production of meanings around digital leisure. In this sense, this chapter contributes to the discussions around the establishment of childhood as a temporary condition for children and as a structural form.

Digital Leisure Activities Among Children and Young People

Several studies within the past decade have highlighted the integral role that digital devices and activities have in children and young people’s everyday lives and contemporary culture (de Almeida et al., 2015; Livingstone & Sefton-Green, 2016; Norwegian Media Authorities, 2020; Mustola et al., 2018; Smahel et al., 2020; Willett, 2017). However, Mukherjee (2020) points out there is a ‘conspicuous absence in leisure theories of child-centred lenses’ (p. 221), highlighting the need for investigating the spaces where children create values, understandings, and practices.

Digital devices have, according to Livingstone and Sefton-Green (2016), become so common in children’s leisure-time activities and households that using digital devices is viewed by children and young people as an integral part of feeling ‘at home’ (p. 244). Due to the domestication of digital devices (Willett, 2017), what is considered at home can also be perceived as subtly shifted, as family members engage in different activities using personalised digital media, such as computers, smartphones, and gaming consoles (Domoff et al., 2019; Livingstone & Sefton-Green, 2016). According to Livingstone and Sefton-Green (2016), this individual use of digital devices within families can be seen as living together separately, as even though they are engaged in different digital activities on separate devices, they still feel connected to one another. However, the co-use of digital devices is also present. Shared family time in many households commonly revolves around watching television together (Domoff et al., 2019; Livingstone et al., 2017; Livingstone & Sefton-Green, 2016), while some families occasionally use other digital media, such as playing digital games together (Ito et al., 2019; Livingstone & Sefton-Green, 2016).

In their leisure-time use of digital devices and media, online interactions have become a significant part of most children’s social lives as they use online platforms to play, socialise, gossip, flirt, and express themselves (de Almeida et al., 2015; Ito et al., 2019; Livingstone & Sefton-Green, 2016). While the Internet offers the opportunity to connect with people all around the world, research findings suggest that children and young people mostly use it to communicate with peers they already know from real life (de Almeida et al., 2015; Ito et al., 2019; Livingstone & Sefton-Green, 2016; Pereira et al., 2020). Research findings from de Almeida et al. (2015) revealed that children tended to limit access to their virtual networks to individuals who belong to their offline networks, resulting in digital social networks that mirror their offline social circles. This observation is supported by Livingstone and Sefton-Green (2016), who claimed that children’s ‘online communication seemed to reinforce (rather than undermine) the importance of relationships with family and local friends built primarily through face-to-face communication’ (p. 84). Furthermore, studies on children’s use of digital communication platforms indicate that children’s everyday communication with peers, friends, and classmates seamlessly shifts between face-to-face interactions and digital communication, with digital communication often serving as an extension of face-to-face communication (de Almeida et al., 2015; Livingstone & Sefton-Green, 2016). Additionally, the findings of Livingstone and Sefton-Green (2016) indicate that although going online to connect with peers and friends through social platforms can be seen as replacing traditional socialising activities, face-to-face conversations are still considered a valued means of communication by children and young people. This has been reported to be particularly true for intimate talks, as children consider face-to-face communication to provide a sense of privacy (Livingstone & Sefton-Green, 2016).

Digital platforms and devices are also significant sources of entertainment for children and young people today, both as individual activities and when engaging with others (de Almeida et al., 2015; Livingstone & Sefton-Green, 2016; Norwegian Media Authorities, 2020; Mustola et al., 2018; Smahel et al., 2020). Previous research indicates that digital devices and media have a meaningful role in children exploring their interests, discovering new ones, and learning more about self-chosen topics, as well as further exploring their offline interests, such as playing the piano or football, and digital interests, such as digital games or creating digital content (de Almeida et al., 2015; Ito et al., 2019; Livingstone & Sefton-Green, 2016). However, in this vast array of possible creative interests to pursue and discover through online content, previous research indicates that children tend to mainly consume content rather than produce it themselves (Livingstone & Sefton-Green, 2016; Pereira et al., 2020). Nevertheless, in their 2018 study on digital games, Mustola and colleagues argue that children and young people’s consumption of digital media cannot be regarded as a passive activity, at least not in the negative sense traditionally associated with the term in Western societies. According to their findings, children’s use of digital media rarely falls into a strict either/or categorisation, as it, in most situations, typically encompasses both active and passive elements.

Another form of digital entertainment that many children and young people find intriguing and spend a lot of time on is digital games (de Almeida et al., 2015; Ito et al., 2019; Livingstone et al., 2017; Livingstone & Sefton-Green, 2016; Norwegian Media Authority, 2020; Mustola et al., 2018; Smahel et al., 2020). Their stated motivation for digital gaming varies, such as competing and winning, becoming better at a game, completing or mastering games, make-believe, for fun, or just simply for killing time and avoiding boredom (Ito et al., 2019; Nguyen, 2019; Yee, 2006). Nguyen (2019) further underscores the agentic dimension of games and the possibilities of manipulating different aspects of agency.

Although digital gaming historically has been considered a solitary activity (Ito et al., 2019), research findings suggest that the social aspect of gaming is particularly important for digital gaming among children and young people (Ito et al., 2019; Norwegian Media Authority, 2020; Smahel et al., 2020). Children and young people spend time together playing digital games both online and co-located, and for some, the social aspect might be just as important as the actual in-game action that occurs (Ito et al., 2019). A recent survey in Norway (Norwegian Media Authority, 2023) indicates that children primarily play digital games for social reasons, and children specifically emphasised how it helped them stay in touch with their friends.

Overall, research indicates that digital devices and media have become an integral part of children and young people’s lives, both in terms of family life, socialisation, and entertainment (de Almeida et al., 2015; Ito et al., 2019; Livingstone & Sefton-Green, 2016; Mustola et al., 2018). Nevertheless, it should be noted that, in research as in everyday discourse, online and offline activities are often seen as distinct activities undertaken in different spaces. However, previous studies indicate that this distinction is not necessarily as significant from the perspectives of children and young people (de Almeida et al., 2015; Ito et al., 2019; Livingstone & Sefton-Green, 2016; Pereira et al., 2020). Thus, children and young people themselves do not necessarily view offline and online realms as different domains but rather as part of the same whole. Studies demonstrate how the boundaries between real and virtual territories are becoming blurred through the various activities they participate in online, such as online activities being intricately connected to offline interests, online social networks being the same as offline networks, and interactions online often serving as an extension of offline interactions (de Almeida et al., 2015; Ito et al., 2019; Livingstone & Sefton-Green, 2016; Pereira et al., 2020). In this vein, for example, de Almeida et al. (2015) suggest that online communication and gameplay can be seen as a continuation of everyday interaction and play. On the same topic, Livingstone and Sefton-Green (2016) state that children’s ‘account of peer communication suggests that young people neither sharply distinguish online from offline nor find this distinction irrelevant’ (p. 105). Instead, they assert that children and young people are aware of the social situations they encounter, both online and offline. Their findings indicate that children and young people desire both the ability to connect and disconnect, appreciating not only the ability to connect with others but also the ability to choose not to, such as by keeping some aspects and arenas of their lives separate (Livingstone & Sefton-Green, 2016).

Against this backdrop, the primary objective of this study is to expand on existing research, focusing on children’s perspectives of meaningful digital leisure-time activities. In recognising children and young people as active participants in their social worlds, we aim to move beyond conventional dichotomies (cf. Mustola et al., 2018) and beliefs surrounding children’s leisure-time use of digital devices and media, instead focusing on exploring the reasons behind why children themselves find these digital activities meaningful.

Data and Methods

The research reported in this chapter is based on data collected in five countries (Austria, Greece, Norway, Romania, and the United Kingdom). We draw on empirical data from interviews and digital diaries. The participants were recruited through different purposeful sampling techniques, namely, a combination of typical case sampling, stratified purposeful sampling, and snowball sampling (Patton, 1990). The research participants were recruited using different sampling strategies by contacting different groups and organisations, including gaming groups, high schools, vocational training institutions, and individual parents.

The digital diaries aimed to enable a multimodal approach and combine different sets of data, as well as to involve children and young people as active participants in our research. The participants filled in the diaries through a smartphone application developed as part of the overall project that this chapter is based on.Footnote 2 Children and young people were asked to report on their digital lives through the app every day for about ten days. The children chose what to upload in the app, thereby giving the children the opportunity to actively be engaged as co-researchers (see also chapter “Investigating Patterns of Digital Socialisation During Leisure Through Multimodal Social Research”). The daily reports included brief survey questions and the opportunity to upload images or screenshots containing examples of their digital activities. Digital diaries from 50 children and young people, between the ages of 9 and 17 years old, from Austria, Norway, and the United Kingdom were collected.Footnote 3 The researchers recruited 29 in the United Kingdom, 13 in Norway, and 8 in Austria. The sample included data from a total of 23 girls and 27 boys (see Table 1).

Table 1 Overview of participants
Full size table

All the interviews were conducted online through video conference platforms. In most interviews, one or two researchers were present. The participants’ ages ranged between 8 and 16, and some of the younger children opted to have a parent/guardian present during interviews. All researchers developed semi-structured interview guides, and all interviews were conducted in the countries’ national languages. Interviews were started by explaining what we meant by digital devices. A total of 84 interviews were conducted: 20 in Austria and the United Kingdom, 19 in Greece, 12 in Norway, and 13 in Romania. There were 47 boys and 37 girls in total.

The interviews were then transcribed using a common transcription key and then translated into English by the interviewers and authors. A category system template was jointly developed using thematic coding. Codes were developed from the interviews’ overall thematic fields and diaries (a deductive approach) and allowed for inductive coding. Inductively developed codes were discussed within the research-project group, ensuring inter-coder reliability. Researchers were then asked to identify excerpts that were both typical/illustrative of the themes and atypical. In the case of the digital diaries the analysis was thematic following the topics included in the questionnaire.

Informed consent was obtained from both the participants and their parents. Measures were taken to protect their personal data in both the interviews and digital diaries. For example, in the presentation of data, to protect their identity, children and young people were given pseudonyms, which indicate country, gender, and age.

Limitations

One of the difficulties encountered in conducting online interviews with children was the relatively short (yes or no) answers, particularly from the youngest ones. It may have been that questions were sometimes straightforward and did not encourage developed answers, but it may also have something to do with interviews being conducted online. The children might have perceived the online environment as lacking in context and personal connection, which could have contributed to a lack of flexibility and willingness to express themselves. We also encountered some practical difficulties in implementing the research with digital diaries. Initially, the app was difficult to locate because of its complicated spelling. Furthermore, we experienced a lack of motivation to fill in the diaries on the part of the children and there was no direct way of communicating with the participants through the app. To circumvent this issue, general email reminders were sent to all parents/guardians who had consented on behalf of their children.

This study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. On the one hand, the restrictions across different countries and lockdown periods could have impacted both the recruitment processes and the data, particularly in terms of the time individuals were permitted to spend in front of a screen and the meaning attached to digital leisure activities. On the other hand, these specific circumstances rendered this research particularly relevant. Furthermore, participants could also describe their own fresh experiences regarding the use of digital technology and leisure activities rather than general perceptions and theoretical assumptions.

Defining Children and Young People’s Meaningful Leisure Activities in the Digital Era

In the following section, we explore the meanings that children and young people attribute to digital leisure-time activities by analysing digital diaries and interviews. In addition, we investigate how leisure-time activities are negotiated within families.

In the digital diaries, participants received daily prompts asking them to select their reasons for using digital technology each day based on a multiple-choice question. As shown in Fig. 1, the participants stated various reasons for using digital devices in their leisure time, the main categories being communication, digital gaming, watching movies/TV series, homework, and listening to music.

Fig. 1
A pie chart of the distribution of 7 daily digital leisure activities. Communication, to play a game, watch a movie or T V series, listen to music, homework, other, and news with 204%, 181%, 136%, 118%, 116%, 24%, and 23%, in order.

Overview of daily digital leisure activities

Full size image

The main categories reported by the participants in the digital diaries (Fig. 1) are substantiated by interview data. Subsequently findings on children’s meanings attributed to digital leisure-time activities are presented under the headings Communication Entertainment and Gaming. Furthermore, we will present findings from both the interview and digital diary data on children’s perceptions of rules and negotiations as well as their views on their parents’ insight and understanding into their digital leisure-time activities under the headings Rules and Negotiations and Parental Insight and Understanding, respectively

Communication

According to participants from all countries involved in the study, digital communication with peers is an important aspect of leisure activities and everyday life. Data from the digital diaries indicate that children communicate with their friends through chatting or calling using a variety of apps, such as Snapchat, Messenger, WhatsApp, FaceTime, Skype, Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Apple Music, Amazon Prime, TikTok, Tellonym (Austria only), Discord, Pinterest, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit. In general, children and young people express a preference for chat-based communication over voice or video calls.

Data from the digital diaries indicate that the children and young people in our study communicate not only with classmates and friends on digital devices (‘chatting [online] with friends’) but also with family, that is, parents, siblings, grandparents, and teachers.

In the interview data, most participants reported that daily communication with friends often occurred online through social media. For example, one of the children pointed out: ‘I talk to my classmates on Instagram, even to the teacher, we have a group with the school’ (Romania, girl, 12). Other participants reported that there were different purposes for communicating, including practical reasons, such as exchanging information about the school, doing homework together, or organising meetings (‘to arrange meetings with friends, but also about school’—Austria, male, 15) and social reasons (‘it’s just with friends, like almost always online’—United Kingdom, girl, 13). For example, a boy from Austria (age 10) indicated that he communicates online with friends for the following reasons: ‘In my case, for example, if I don’t know the homework, I can ask about it. It is also useful when we have questions. Sometimes, we just chat for fun’.

Some participants also mentioned their reasons for choosing a particular online platform to communicate on, as one Romanian 15-year-old boy illustrated, ‘Well, I usually use Discord because we can enter more there, we can talk more, that is we can enter eight-ten people on the server. I still talk to my girlfriend on Instagram but that’s all’. However, homework and other commitments can constrain leisure-time communication during weekdays, as in the case of some of the participants from Greece: ‘I used to communicate online, but now, I don’t have time because I have a lot of homework and I play tennis’ (Greece, boy, 11).

The above examples demonstrate the significance of online communication for children and young people, especially for maintaining their social connections with friends, peers, and classmates. Furthermore, our participants highlight that they use online communication for various purposes, both social and practical. This includes activities that traditionally occur face-to-face, such as schoolwork or hanging out. In addition, in choosing which platforms to utilise, they actively make informed choices, depending on whom they communicate with and the means of communication. However, they also recognise that there are certain limitations on their online communication, suggesting that their online communication is constrained due to external responsibilities and time constraints.

In our study, children and young people who had access to social media platforms such as TikTok and Instagram reported various experiences regarding posting and self-presentation. Some children reported actively using social media for self-expression and presentation. As illustrated by a 13-year-old girl from Austria, ‘[I post] on Instagram, when I do my makeup, I put up the finished look, so to speak. […] And on TikTok, I post 15-second clips with my best friend. When we dance or do something similar’. In response to whether she was concerned about anyone being able to see her posts, she clarified, ‘I just think, when I’m in the city or something, then people see me. So, it doesn’t matter if they see me on the Internet or in public’. The above quotes illustrate how some children navigate the digital realm by seamlessly integrating their real-life experiences and activities into their online presence. By showcasing her daily activities and interests on online platforms, this 13-year-old girl can be perceived as merging her offline experiences with her online persona. Furthermore, her seeming lack of concern over others seeing her posts reveals an interesting perspective on privacy and visibility, suggesting that the visibility she experiences in public spaces is not fundamentally different from being visible online. In her view, the boundaries between the online and the offline seem blurred, as being seen by others is seen as an inherent aspect of both realms.

However, other participants reported pressure from peers in terms of what to post and mentioned that not posting regularly and seeking validation through likes and followers could potentially result in bullying. As one participant put it, ‘[…] most of them ask why I don’t have it, TikTok, too. […] she laughed at me because I do not have TikTok, she wanted likes and followers, and forced us to like her and follow her’ (Austria, girl, 12). This 12-year-old girl highlights some of the negative experiences children and young people reported in their social media use, such as bullying stemming from their lack of access to certain platforms. Moreover, it also reveals the motivations of some participants for engaging in digital leisure-time activities. Some children perceive digital activities as a means of social acceptance, while others seek validation and recognition through likes and followers or show caution regarding the potential negative consequences of not conforming to social expectations.

Participants also reported receiving friend requests from strangers and had clear strategies for dealing with these; as one 12-year-old Norwegian girl said, ‘I X [reject] them […] I look at their profile image and name and if they do not have an image I recognise, I do not answer’. Some children reported that they primarily consume friends’ or other people’s content, rather than posting much themselves, ‘I just look at what my friends have posted’ (Austria, boy, 12). One reason for their reluctance to present themselves on social media online, as by some of the participants, is scepticism of social media and subsequent exposure on such platforms. As a 15-year-old boy from Austria explains, ‘then you’d post something that you might regret afterwards, and a lot of people saw that […] So I don’t actually post because of that’. In addition, some of the children we interviewed explain what strategies they employ to limit their exposure to social media, especially regarding setting their accounts to private mode. As one girl put it, ‘I post in a private group’ (Norway, girl, 14). As illustrated above, our findings also indicate that some children employ strategies while using social media, including employing measures to restrict their exposure to people they don’t know, exercising caution in their posting behaviour, and refraining from posting altogether to avoid the risk of regretting what they share. Such strategies indicate that some children and young people are aware of what can be described as digital responsibility (see chapter “Talking About Digital Responsibility: Children’s and Young People’s Voices”). Behaving responsibly online can be viewed as an important element in developing agency, where competency regarding the consequences of, for example, incautious online activities is crucial. An example of this is controlling who sees what information in online public spaces and controlling online (public) images. Our findings indicate that the children use their agency to compartmentalise their online audience, effectively filtering who sees what, controlling personal information flow, and creating boundaries of what is acceptable to share online in what is typically a public online space.

Nonetheless, some of the children and young people reported not being interested in social media, stating that ‘nothing can be found [in social media], so I’m not very social when I’m at home’ (United Kingdom, boy, 10). Another interesting insight on this topic was shared by a 15-year-old girl from Austria: ‘So, with those who are exactly these stereotypes, they are on TikTok and put on makeup or something’ (Austria, girl, 15), implying that she associated her identity and self-perception with her resistance against engaging in stereotypical behaviour on social media.

Entertainment

Regarding the consumption of professionally made mainstream movies and TV series, participants in our study mentioned utilising various streaming services for this purpose, such as Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Disney+. Several participants mentioned watching streaming services with others, particularly their family members. This can be exemplified by a statement from a 12-year-old Norwegian girl who shared, ‘During weekends, in the evening, we watch, like, The Voice and Company Lauritzen [Norwegian TV-shows] with the whole family’, or by an 11-year-old girl from Austria who responded, ‘Most of the time, actually’, when asked about watching streaming services together as a family. Our data suggest that children and young people consider streaming platforms for watching professionally made mainstream content a popular leisure-time activity, which also appears to provide an opportunity for families to come together and engage in shared digital leisure activities. As watching TV series and movies is an activity that stems from the parents’ own childhood, it, therefore, appears to be viewed as a legitimate shared leisure-time activity, which underlines the different values attributed to different digital leisure pursuits.

Additionally, many children also reported watching streaming services alone. A 13-year-old Austrian boy explained, ‘I like to sit in front of the TV with my parents every now and then. But if, for example, they watch a crime thriller on Friday, that doesn’t really interest me at all, I’d rather watch a series or a film on Netflix’. A 13-year-old Austrian girl provided additional insight into why children sometimes preferred watching TV series alone by stating, ‘Alone because my family thinks that anime is stupid. And my friend is also not that interested in it, but I like to watch anime. So, I watch it alone’. As the above quotes illustrate, the preference for specific content often influenced the participants’ decision to watch something alone. This suggests that children actively engage with digital media on their terms, highlighting their autonomy in selecting content that resonates with them individually.

Nevertheless, when it comes to consuming online videos, the platform most frequently cited by the participants in our study was YouTube, a platform that primarily features user-generated content. Several participants reported watching user-generated videos related to their offline hobbies and interests, and for many, this was often to gather information and to learn more about a specific subject. A 14-year-old boy from Norway, who aspires to become a piano player, mentioned using YouTube to ‘find out how things are played on the piano’, while a 14-year-old boy from Norway focused on learning particular gaming skills, ‘I use YouTube to observe and gather information on enhancing my skills [in Minecraft]. I turn to it [YouTube] whenever I am curious or in need of specific information’ (Norway, boy, 14). Similarly, a 15-year-old boy from Austria expressed his interest in politics, stating, ‘on YouTube, I like to watch videos about politics or just about current events, so live streams of speeches or things like that’. While some participants primarily watched user-generated videos for educational or informational purposes, others reported watching them primarily for entertainment. For instance, a 14-year-old girl from Norway emphasised that her reason for watching user-generated videos online is simply ‘entertainment’. Additionally, some children expressed a preference for following specific content creators who specialise in particular topics, either to gather information, enhance their learning, or because they feel a personal connection to the creator. Our findings indicate many children engage with user-generated content online for several reasons, as exemplified by a 15-year-old girl from Austria who responded to the question of what she likes to watch online, ‘gaming, for example, so, somebody playing certain games. And I listen to music or videos where people react to videos. For example, “Ungespielt” [German content creator] is a YouTuber that I like to watch’. When asked why she watches while others play games or react to videos, she answers that,

I like the person and it is entertaining. When they play something, it is funny because they create it in a well-designed way. And if you play the game yourself, you can learn something and become better. Or it is really just for entertainment. […] Or, in general, simply the person.

User-generated content, especially videos, seemingly plays a central role in our participants’ consumption of digital content. As the above quotes highlight, our participants stated a multitude of reasons for their engagement with user-generated videos on YouTube and similar platforms. Several participants mentioned consuming user-generated content online solely for entertainment purposes, with some emphasising their fondness for specific content creators, and expressing their enjoyment in watching their content. Additionally, several children reported perceiving user-generated videos as a valuable resource supporting their pursuits in both offline and online hobbies, stating that they use such content to acquire information and improve their skills. Our findings indicate that platforms such as YouTube are not only used for entertainment but can be exploited by children to support their learning, and the possibility to pursue their interests gives the children agency in seeking knowledge driven by interest rather than mandated knowledge. Consequently, what adults might consider as wasteful time or just entertainment is more complex and can be viewed as spaces where children expand their agency.

Gaming

Most of the children and young people in the five countries participating in this study reported playing digital games. Minecraft was the most commonly mentioned game among the participants in our study. Other games like Among Us, Fortnite, Roblox, and Brawl Stars were also popular choices. These games were played on various devices, including mobile phones, gaming consoles, computers, and tablets.

Across all countries in our study, the cost associated with digital games was a common concern. Some children also mentioned playing free games out of necessity. For example, in Greece, some participants opted to play Craftsman instead of Minecraft. When asked about playing Minecraft, a 12-year-old boy from Greece expressed that he couldn’t play Minecraft as ‘it requires money to play’. However, when asked if he wanted to play Minecraft, he responded by saying, ‘Yes, and it drives me crazy because there are so many things you can do while playing’. Children rarely reported having the option to buy games themselves. Instead, they relied on their parents to make game purchases on their behalf, as illustrated by the response given by a 10-year-old Norwegian boy when asked how he goes about purchasing games online, replying ‘Um, most of the time, it’s just … Well, it’s mostly my mom who gives me the money then’. However, restrictions on to buying games were also self-imposed by some of the children, as a 13-year-old boy from Austria explained:

When it comes to buying digital games, I impose restrictions on myself. My dad is not so strict about it, but I am. In the decision-making process, I am very strict with myself, and I frequently rely on YouTube to stay informed about video games, and there have been numerous instances where I’ve firmly stated, ‘No, I won’t purchase this game’, due to a specific factor that deters me from buying it.

The above quote indicates that some children exercise decision-making activities regarding game purchases, actively informing themselves about games before deciding to buy a game or not, suggesting a level of agency and critical thinking among some participants. These children actively evaluate the factors that deter them from purchasing specific games. Furthermore, the cost associated with digital games restricts digital game purchases and subsequent gaming activities for some of our participants, as several children and young people expressed limitations in accessing certain games due to financial constraints. Most of these participants reported relying on their parents to buy games, highlighting children and young people’s dependency on parental support and financial resources to pursue their digital leisure-time activities.

Several children reported preferring to play digital games in multiplayer mode, which offers the opportunity to play games with other people. As one boy explains: ‘[Roblox’s] main appeal for me is the ability to play alongside my friends. When selecting a game, we primarily strive to find something that we can all enjoy playing as a group’ (Norwegian, boy, 10). Children’s preference for playing online games over other activities is furthermore exemplified by an Austrian boy who stated that given the choice of playing Memory or Jenga with his parents or Roblox online with friends, he would play ‘Roblox with my friends’ (Austria, boy, 11). Several children described gaming platforms as drop-in sites for seeing who is online, as explained by one boy ‘we don’t have a predetermined schedule for when to play; I simply check to see which of my friends are online’ (Norwegian, boy, 10). The above quote indicates that some children perceive gaming platforms as a sort of ‘digital playground’, a meeting place where they see who is available to play. Our findings demonstrate that for some children, the importance of the social aspects of games is real and this can provide opportunities to collaborate, talk online, and share experiences. This indicates that gaming can be a unique social activity and challenges the notion that it is solely a passive form of consumption, as some adults may perceive it.

Several of the participants in all five countries reported playing mainly with their friends and siblings, as illustrated by a 13-year-old girl from the United Kingdom ‘I play [Minecraft and Roblox] with my friends and sometimes my brother’. Furthermore, some participants also reported playing digital games together as a family activity. For instance, an 11-year-old Austrian girl mentioned that she, along with her sister and parents, sometimes engages in playing Nintendo Switch during the evenings. As she explained, ‘the four of us divide into two teams, two and two, and we compete against each other in that way’. This suggests that children and young people mainly play digital games with their real-life friends, but at times also participate in the co-use of digital games with their family, primarily their siblings.

While gaming online with their friends, several children report engaging in conversations that extend beyond in-game activities or actions, discussing various topics related to their daily lives. When asked if he video-called his friends, a 15-year-old Austrian boy stated that he and a friend had tried Facetime but found it ‘boring’, explaining that ‘it is somehow just another feeling, when you only talk and when you do something with your friends, but you also talk to them’. According to him, Fortnite serves as a means of bridging this gap because ‘on the one hand, we talk to each other besides our gaming experience. On the other hand […], what these characters do when you play, is actually remarkable’. The children highlighted that multiplayer games provided a solution for the awkwardness that often accompanies video calls by allowing them to engage in a conversation ‘on the side’ while playing together.

Our findings indicate that children and young people find the social aspect of digital gaming meaningful, particularly playing with their real-life friends and siblings, which seems to greatly appeal to many of the children and young people in our study. Several children described playing online games with their friends as an integrated part of their social life, as online gaming provided a way for children to connect and engage with their friends beyond predetermined schedules. Notably, some participants reported that they found gaming to be an activity that allowed for more natural and engaging interactions with their friends. They expressed that gaming allowed for conversations to extend beyond in-game activities, enabling them to talk about and discuss various topics related to their everyday lives.

An issue that was brought up with the children and young people was that of playing online with strangers. While the participants reported that playing online games with strangers is experienced as different from playing with friends, the children reported different views on this. Some children reported not playing with strangers at all, ‘playing with friends is the best’ (Norway, boy, 10). Others who played with strangers reported restricting communication to being non-personal, indicating a lack of interest in becoming better acquainted with the online ‘strangers’, but rather focusing on the game itself, as one participant pointed out: ‘[…] you play there with other people. You simply write a few things about the game while playing the game. But it never occurs that people exchange any private information or something like that’ (Austria, boy, 16). As the above quotes demonstrate, several children reported having a cautious approach to online interactions with strangers in digital games and reported employing specific strategies to maintain boundaries, suggesting that they inherently have a certain level of digital responsibility. However, a few of the children reported forming friendships online through digital games, such as this 12-year-old Romanian girl stating that ‘[I meet people …] while gaming. This one girl, I became friends with in-game’. This statement suggests that some children have a more open attitude towards online interactions than others, and that, for some, online gaming platforms can serve as a social space where children have the opportunity to connect with others and build meaningful relationships.

Participants in this study also reported playing on their own, sometimes because some games were more enjoyable as single-player activities, as a 12-year-old Norwegian girl stated: ‘I often play games on my own’. When asked which games she prefers, ‘I play Minecraft. Even though you can play with others, I prefer playing it by myself. SIMS is also a single-player game I enjoy, and I also sometimes play Stardew Valley’. Several children reported playing alone and with others, but similarly, they often preferred playing specific game titles by themselves. Furthermore, some participants reported a form of what can be described as parallel gaming, ‘I play alone, but Kristian [brother] and I are in the same room. […] I do not sit alone, […] we have a dividing board between the screens]’ (Norway, boy, 8). The above quotes indicate that playing digital games ‘alone’ can have different meanings: either as gaming literally ‘alone’ or solo; or ‘alone’ next to a friend or family in ‘parallel’, but not gaming together.

The participants expressed different reasons that motivated them to either play online or specific games. One aspect is the multiple possibilities that some games offer. Certain games encompass unlimited worlds to explore and challenges requiring tactical and strategic thinking to overcome obstacles or defeat enemies, while other games might just offer a diverse array of vehicles for players to utilise.

What I find so fascinating about GTA [Grand Theft Auto] and Red Dead [Redemption] are the many possibilities that one has in the game. It is not just about shooting people or something. For example, in Red Dead, one can become a gatherer. Also, one can become a bounty hunter or someone who distils rum. It is about the possibilities that one has. And this is what I find cool about these games. And in GTA, there are submarines, cars, planes, helicopters, there is—it is a bit like in real life. With quotation marks, of course. And this is what I find so interesting about these two games (Austria, boy, 13).

The agentic possibilities that digital games offer are illustrated in the above quote, where the Austrian boy highlights the endless in-game possibilities to do things that are not possible in real life, but something that can also be motivating and perhaps in some cases possible real life as well as in make-believe. Some of the actions possible in GTA and Red Dead Redemption are not possible in real life, such as becoming a bounty hunter in the wild west, while others might be possible and similar to real life in a few years, such as driving a car. Through these games, make-believe play is foregrounded, allowing the players to cultivate agency in different spaces.

Some children seem to specifically enjoy the thrill of getting rewards, either in the form of (currency to buy) new items or points, explaining that ‘you can buy stuff […] You need to earn money to buy stuff’ (Norway, girl, 12). One rather important motivation, mentioned by several children in different countries, revolves around the challenge presented in certain games. The desire to complete or finish a game (accomplishment) or improve at it appears to be a crucial factor attracting children to play, including children who explicitly stated winning as their primary motivation. However, this might be discouraging for some, so they might not like games that are too challenging.

Some of the participants reported that they no longer played digital games, stating boredom as the reason for why they stopped gaming. As one girl put it, ‘I had games, but they became boring. I don’t like games; I am not a Fortnite fan. Games like Brawl Stars, Among Us—I don’t like them. They are a waste of time’ (Austria, girl, 11). As this girl argues, she does not view games as a meaningful activity any longer and even considers them a ‘waste of time’. This highlights the notion that meaningful leisure activities are not static but evolve, both regarding the type of activity and with whom.

Rules and Negotiations

In describing their leisure-time engagement with digital devices and media, a common topic among the participants in our study was how their parents were regulating their leisure-time use of digital devices and media. To explore the children’s perception of their agency in using digital devices and media during leisure time, participants were asked, through the digital diary prompts, to report on the restrictions imposed by their parents on their digital leisure activities. Specifically, the participants were asked to report on two types of restrictions in the diaries: time restrictions and content restrictions. In the digital diaries, about half of the participants in the younger age group (9–12) reported parental restrictions regarding both time and content. In the older age group (13–17), about one-third of the children reported time constraints, and about one in four reported restrictions regarding gaming content.

The interview data further provides insights into how the participants perceive the restrictions set by their parents regarding their digital activities, both in terms of screen time and content. Regarding screen time restrictions, most children reported having some form of a daily time limit, as one 10-year-old girl in the United Kingdom illustrates, ‘And yes, on the computer we get two hours to play, I think is two hours every day’. In addition to specific rules regarding the amount of time spent in front of a screen, several participants also cited rules on when they were allowed to use digital devices, such as no cell phones before bedtime or right after waking up, and different rules on the amount of screen time depending on the day of the week (school days or weekends). For instance, a 15-year-old boy from Austria stated that he was not allowed to ‘play infinitely and also only until half past seven’. Furthermore, some participants reported having no explicit screen time rules but mentioned that their parents restricted their usage based on other criteria. A 10-year-old Norwegian boy explained, ‘I don’t have any set screen time rules, per se’, but confirmed that this varied depending on the situation. Regarding screen time, one child also expressed a sense of entitlement to it, stating that children:

Children should be allowed to play [digital games] if they deserve to play […] If they’ve been effective with homework, they’ve done what they need to do quickly to have more time to play and have fun. Then, they should be allowed to. (Norway, boy, 14)

Children also reported restrictions imposed by their parents on digital content in the interview data. Many children mentioned that their parents followed age limits set by external regulators for digital platforms and media to determine whether they could engage with them, such as age limits set by Pan European Game Information (PEGI) on digital games or complying with the terms of service on social media by the companies themselves. As a 15-year-old boy from Austria pointed out, he had to follow ‘the age restrictions for games, as written on the package’. Some children also stated that their parents set restrictions based on their own evaluations of the content, deciding what they considered appropriate for their child. For example, a boy from Greece mentioned that ‘in video games, my mom is a little overprotective in some games. […] The most violent game I play is GTA’ (Greece, boy, 13).

Our findings indicate that parental restrictions play a significant role in shaping the digital leisure activities of children and young people, as most children in our study report having various restrictions imposed by their parents on these activities, especially in the younger age group. While some restrictions seem to be made based on parents’ evaluation of suitable activities, appropriate content, or time spent on certain activities, our findings suggest that restrictions are also imposed based on what can be described as outsourced parental control: reasons for children not being allowed to have a specific game or app are grounded in the app or games’ age (PEGI) restrictions.

Participants also reported other forms of parental control over the content, such as installing monitoring software to track their digital activities. A girl from Greece described how her mobile phone was monitored through a family link app, which ‘will be there until I’m 15 years old’ (Greece, girl, 14). Another form of outsourcing parental control included the use of monitoring software. To a certain extent, this can be viewed both as an invasion of children’s privacy and as limiting children’s agency, where their digital activities are tracked and monitored.

In the interviews, many children reported adhering to the rules set by their parents and even expressed agreement or partial agreement with the restrictions imposed by their parents regarding the use of digital devices. For example, one boy stated:

They sometimes say, ‘it’s time to stop playing [digital games]. You’ve played a lot’, and usually, I agree. However, sometimes, [they say] I need to do my homework or something else like that, and I’ve only played for half an hour or so’. (United Kingdom, boy, 12)

Several children also expressed a desire for more screen time, but this was also subject to negotiations, as illustrated by this quote by a 12-year-old Norwegian girl: ‘If I feel a need […] to have more screen time, I tell them, “Can I have more screen time?” you know. […]We sometimes discuss it, and sometimes I get a little more’ (Norway, girl, 12).

However, it should be noted that the participants’ attempts to negotiate with their parents in terms of rules set on either screen time or content were not always successful. As one participant highlighted, she wanted to download Snapchat, but her parents told her that she ‘does not need it’ (Greece, girl, 14). There were also examples where the breaking of rules by children, and consequent discovery, led to negotiations. For instance, one of the Greek participants, a boy aged 13, reported that he had created a Facebook account without telling his parents because he wanted Messenger. After negotiating with his parents, he stated ‘I was allowed to keep only Messenger’ (Greece, male, age 13). In the above quotes, the desire for more screen time demonstrates a certain level of agency as children express their needs and wishes concerning digital leisure-time activities. Moreover, our findings indicate that some children possess a certain level of agency in their leisure-time use of digital devices, as they report engaging in discussions and compromising with their parents to potentially obtain more screen time or obtain certain content. Nonetheless, our findings suggest that most children perceive themselves as being limited by parental rules and restrictions through parental control over access.

Parental Insight and Understanding

Children and young people were asked to reflect on their parents’ awareness of their digital leisure-time activities. Furthermore, the children were also asked to elaborate on how they thought their parents perceived their digital leisure-time pursuits. When asked whether parents knew what their children and young people did online, data from the digital diaries indicates that most of our participants believe their parents have some insights into their daily digital lives, including their gaming and social media use: 25 out of 28 participants aged 9–12 years reported that their parents know something or almost everything about their digital lives, while 16 out of 20 for those aged 13–17 reported the same.

Most participants in the interview data also reported that they thought their parents were mostly aware of their digital activity, as expressed by this boy when asked if he thought his parents knew about his online activities, ‘Yes, mostly. Yes’ (Norway, boy, 16). However, despite parents seemingly being aware of their children’s digital leisure-time activities, many participants reported that their parents would prefer to see them engaged in other activities. For example, a 13-year-old Greek boy mentioned that ‘[My parents tell me] not to spend so much time online’, while a 10-year-old Greek boy said his parents encouraged him to ‘see my friends outdoors and don’t use the desktop so much’. Like the previous quote, many children reported that their parents indicated or expressed that they should pursue other, offline activities instead of spending their free time using digital devices. As explained by this 12-year-old Romanian girl: ‘My parents think I should spend more time outside and less on the phone and the Internet when I don’t have school or homework’. This can further be exemplified by the insights shared by a 12-year-old British boy, stating that ‘[to get me to stop spending so much time online] I think my mom encourages me to do reading [and] I think my dad really encouraged me to do [things] like running or squash’. Some parents also appeared to enrol their children in extracurricular activities as a measure to limit screen time, as mentioned by a 14-year-old Romanian girl who noted ‘they send me to music [classes]’. Our findings indicate that even though most parents seemingly know what digital devices and content their children engage in during their leisure time, it does not necessarily mean that they understand why they engage in these activities. This suggests that children and young people may perceive what is meaningful in their leisure time differently than their parents. This is apparent as, throughout our interview data, children regularly stated that their parents wished they would engage in other, offline activities rather than pursuing digital leisure-time activities, which many children and young people might find meaningful themselves.

Several participants also expressed that their parents did not seem to share their interest in digital activities. One participant from Austria illustrated this by stating:

Well, my parents don’t care about computers. Although funnily enough, my father has two tablets, an Apple Watch, an iPhone, and AirPods. My mother will look at things on the tablet if anything catches her attention. […] However, they definitely don’t play. Well, they don’t do that. They don’t care. (Austria, male, age 13)

Similarly, a 10-year-old Norwegian boy mentioned:

Dad only watches TV all day, so I don’t think he could care less [about digital games]. Mom’s okay with it. She just doesn’t get it, but she understands why I like it. But she doesn’t want to know why. Or she understands why, but she’s okay with it. Unless it’s something very bloody or something.

As illustrated in the above quotes, a certain distance and lack of insight can be perceived between the children’s interests and their parents, especially regarding digital games; parents are seemingly more concerned with the content their children might be exposed to, rather than making an effort to fully understand the phenomena in question. Our findings suggest that even though parents have access to digital devices, they do not actively engage in the same digital leisure-time activities as their children and consequently lack understanding and familiarity with these activities. This indicates that the notion of meaningful leisure activities can be challenged through what can be described as a generational gap between what parents value as meaningful and the value that children and young people attribute to digital activities.

Discussion

Previous research has highlighted the need to understand how children and young people define meaningful digital leisure-time activities and the need for more research focusing on children’s perspectives on the use of digital technology in their everyday lives (Ito et al., 2019; Livingstone & Sefton-Green, 2016; Mukherjee, 2020). In this chapter, we posed the question: What meanings do children and young people attribute to their leisure-time use of digital technology, and how is this understood from their perspective? Approaching this issue from an agency perspective enabled us to investigate the dichotomised perspectives of children’s digital leisure-time activities, from recognising the digital as a space for cultivating agency to viewing digital spaces as demons to be controlled.

Our study suggests that for most children and young people, digital devices and media are an integrated part of their social lives. Our results echo previous findings highlighting the significance of digital technology in children and young people’s everyday social lives (de Almeida et al., 2015; Ito et al., 2019; Livingstone & Sefton-Green, 2016). Our analysis showed that several children and young people frequently reflected on how they communicated and socialised with friends, peers, classmates, and siblings through various digital media. Moreover, our study aligns with Ito et al.’s (2019) findings, indicating that many children consider digital gaming a valuable means to play and socialise with their friends.

Furthermore, our study reveals that children and young people’s digital communication, be it through communication platforms, social media, or multiplayer gaming, is mainly with their classmates and friends from their real life. Moreover, their conversations often function as extensions of their everyday, face-to-face conversations and play, whether doing schoolwork or just hanging out. To a certain extent, the above findings challenge the notion of what constitutes real life, as we find a strong interconnection between children and young people’s online and offline socialisation and play, supporting previous findings that online communication often reinforces already existing relationships (de Almeida et al., 2015; Ito et al., 2019; Livingstone & Sefton-Green, 2016).

Interestingly, while several children mentioned having accounts on social platforms like TikTok and Instagram, there was a general reluctance among the participants to post on such platforms publicly, and only a few used them actively for self-presentation. Our findings challenge the common belief that most children are eager to share and present themselves on such platforms. Furthermore, this reluctance to share personal information and engage with people they did not know also extended to their multiplayer gaming activities with strangers. These findings suggest that many children are aware of the different social situations that they encounter online and value the ability to disconnect and maintain certain parts of their lives separately, as previous research has also pointed out (Livingstone & Sefton-Green, 2016).

In analysing the data, digital content consumption is highlighted as a leisure-time activity that several participants engaged in. The children reported several reasons for consuming digital content. Interestingly, while entertainment was reported as one of the main reasons, it was not the only reason. User-generated content, particularly on YouTube, was viewed as a valuable resource that supported the children’s offline and online hobbies, often used to acquire information or improve their skills, and can therefore be considered a source for supporting their learning. In this context, consuming content was not a passive activity, as children also actively sought out specific content by selecting, searching, and curating material, and used it to acquire new knowledge and skills, demonstrating their agency in searching to expand their knowledge. In this regard, our study highlights some of the different participation levels between children and young people’s content consumption and production, challenging common dichotomies that are often associated with children and young people’s leisure-time use of digital technology. In this sense, we agree with the claims made by Mustola and colleagues (2018) that the term passive should be thoroughly contextualised when used about children and young people’s use of digital media. Furthermore, the active-passive dichotomy is one that James (2009) highlights as a key parental concern when it comes to children’s digital media activities and one which, she argues, has resulted in a moral panic. Our analysis shows that the conflict between parents and children when it comes to digital leisure-time activities, pivots around the perception of children as passive consumers of digital content for entertainment purposes.

Our analysis shows that through actively engaging in digital spaces, shaping and navigating their leisure-time use of digital devices and media, children can expand their agency through several measures. Firstly, in actively deciding whom to engage with and what to engage in, children shape their own digital spaces and assert their agency. Secondly, in actively choosing which information to share, where, and with whom, children display an awareness of social contexts encountered online and expand their agency.

However, what we see from our data is that parental rules and restrictions play a significant role in shaping the digital activities of children and young people. In our study, most participants reported various restrictions on their digital leisure activities, which aligns with current research (Domoff et al., 2019; Kalmus et al., 2022; Livingstone et al., 2017). Through our analysis, we discovered that these restrictions mainly come in the form of (1) screen time, for example the amount of time children are allowed to spend in front of a screen, as well as specific rules about when they are allowed to use digital devices, or (2) content, for example what platforms and media they are allowed to engage with and how they are allowed to engage with it.

However, while rules and restrictions might be necessary in terms of mitigating online risks, from an agency perspective, monitoring and controlling content can also limit children and young people’s agency, where they do not learn to be digitally responsible (see more on digital responsibility in chapter “Talking About Digital Responsibility: Children’s and Young People’s Voices”), and to a certain extent, infantilise them. Furthermore, monitoring and controlling content can also raise concerns about children and young people’s right to privacy, as this can be viewed as an invasion of their privacy. In the context of digital leisure-time activities, a concern can be raised about the degree of freedom a child can have and the balance between giving the children enough rope without reining them in completely. Total control limits children’s agency rather than empowering them. Negotiations regarding both screen time and content restrictions can be viewed as a form of children trying to expand digital space and their agency.

Notably, participants in the five countries in our study reported that their parents expressed a preference for and encouraged them to engage in other, non-digital, activities. This suggests that parents value and prioritise leisure-time activities that do not involve digital devices and indicate that parents have a different perspective on what they consider meaningful leisure-time activities compared to the digital activities preferred by their children. This suggests that there appears to be a discrepancy between what children view as meaningful and what parents view as meaningful. In our study, this appears to be particularly true for digital games, as several participants mention that parents lack a general interest in this type of content. Our study suggests that the difference in value and interest between children and their parents can be due to a generational gap. One possible reason might be that parents lack the digital skills to keep up with their children’s activities. Previous studies have indicated that parents’ perception of their digital skills plays a role in facilitating opportunities for enabling children’s agency in digital leisure activities (Livingstone et al., 2017).

However, while children in our study mostly perceived their parents as reluctant to take an interest in or share their interest in their digital leisure-time gaming pursuits, TV and streaming services appear to provide an opportunity for families to come together and engage in shared digital leisure-time activities. Many children reported what is referred to as co-use (Livingstone et al., 2017) of digital devices as families gathered to watch their favourite TV-shows and movies together. Although several children reported co-use of digital games with their siblings, few reported gaming with their parents. A likely explanation for this is parents’ familiarity with the TV media, as many likely grew up watching this type of content on TV themselves.

Our study observed that many children and young people consider digital devices and media a meaningful part of their leisure-time activities. The significance that many children assign to their digital leisure-time activities in our study aligns well with previous research about the importance of digital devices and media in the everyday lives of children and young people today (de Almeida et al., 2015; Granic et al., 2014; Ito et al., 2019; Livingstone & Sefton-Green, 2016).

Our findings underline the importance of approaching this topic from a child-centric perspective rather than an adult-centric one. This approach enables us to gain insight into the reasons why children and young people engage in digital activities during their leisure time, rather than simply reporting on what devices and platforms they use. As our study highlights, various digital devices, platforms, and digital leisure-time activities can hold multiple different meanings to children; some children appreciate user-generated content as a source of entertainment, while others consider it a source of information and knowledge where they can learn about their topic of interest; some see digital games as a place of endless possibilities, while others find them to be meaningful social spaces or a waste of time. A child-centric perspective on digital leisure considers the uniqueness of children’s culture, which is not static but constantly evolving. As highlighted in our study, the meaning that children and young people attribute to digital activities in their leisure time is manifold, varies, and evolves. This perspective provides insights into the lives of the digital generation that might have been previously overlooked.

However, as our findings show, there were also instances where children and young people reported experiencing peer pressure, bullying, and other negative behaviour alongside their accounts of meaningful experiences on digital platforms. In this chapter, we do not intend to undermine the significance of these negative experiences. Instead, considering the growing body of research addressing risks and concerns associated with the use of digital technology by children and young people, we aim to provide a more balanced perspective.

Conclusion

From the children and young people’s accounts, our findings indicate that negotiations between children and parents often focus on the time spent online and the content of activities. This distinction is often seen as a sign of the intergenerational gap in understanding and evaluating activities pursued in non-traditional ways and spaces. Time and/or content restrictions are usually mutually accepted as a demon or necessary evil. Imposing rigid restrictions can be viewed as limiting children’s agency, thus limiting their competence, awareness, and ability to develop competent decision-making strategies.

Following this, a question can be raised: ‘What meanings do children and young people attribute to their leisure-time use of digital technology, and how is this understood from their perspective?’ Our findings demonstrate the need for a deeper and better understanding of whether and how the distinction between meaningful and meaningless and beneficial and harmful interplays within negotiations on time spent and content used in leisure activities, also across generations.

This brings us to the question of how children and young people understand digital and physical spaces, as well as the children’s perception of how their parents view their engagement in these realms. For children and young people, digital spaces are not artificial spaces lacking sociability and genuine interaction; they are not even substitutes for social spaces when meeting/interacting physically is not possible. Digital spaces are perceived as social spaces on their own. They are structured and articulated with specific rules and regulations, of which children and young people seem to be fully aware. They are spaces where leisure incorporates strong elements of fun, sharing, and learning, as well as boredom, negativity, and frustration. Dealing with the use of digital devices and media only in terms of how useful or harmful it can conceal the existing dynamics unfolded by children and young people’s agency.

If we consider the perspectives of children and young people based on our research, we can better contextualise the role that leisure-time activities play in children and young people’s lives. It is not a question of considering the potential positive effect of digital technology use in everyday life but a question of overcoming a fundamental barrier and/or discomfort when it comes to the evaluation of digital technology use for leisure: that of communication/negotiation between children/young people and their parents.