Abstract
The study of digital disconnection – the voluntary non-use of digital media – is a growing research domain characterized by increasingly pluralistic approaches. To map this diverse terrain, we offer an analytical heuristic: a continuum of approaches to digital disconnection. This tool proposes one primary dimension – viewing digital disconnection as individually functional to socially meaningful (ontology) – and two secondary, concomitant dimensions – holding post-positive to interpretivist perspectives on knowledge generation (epistemology) as well as applying quantitative to qualitative methods (methodology). We offer examples of scholarship along the continuum and advocate for the complementarity of different approaches. Although the continuum is not a universal framework, it provides a tool for scholars to review the domain and for digital disconnection researchers specifically to locate themselves on and build bridges across the continuum. We hope that this continuum supports and expands the pluralistic nature of digital disconnection scholarship into the future.
Keywords
As the study of digital disconnection has established itself as a distinctive research domain, debates over its ontological, epistemological, and methodological directions have followed. Much of this discussion has been hosted by the Crosscurrents section of Media, Culture & Society, with standalone articles (Figueiras and Brites, 2022; Kuntsman and Miyake, 2019), special issues (Bucher, 2020; Lim, 2020; Natale and Treré, 2020; Treré et al., 2020), and responses (Rohman and Ang, 2021) addressing opportunities presented by, and challenges faced in, digital disconnection research. These debates have been spurred in part by the increasingly pluralistic nature of this scholarship. Digital disconnection has become a core topic across a variety of disciplines (Bagger, 2022; Nassen et al., 2023), among them design and user experience studies (e.g. Verhulsdonck et al., 2019), digital anthropology (e.g. Kuntsman and Miyake, 2022), information systems (e.g. Lyngs, 2018), labor studies (e.g. Pansu, 2018), mobile communication (e.g. Rosenberg and Vogelman-Natan, 2022), psychology (e.g. Vally and D’Souza, 2019), sociology (e.g. Brubaker et al., 2016), and tourism studies (e.g. Pawłowska-Legwand and Matoga, 2021). Considering the interdisciplinary nature of digital disconnection as a domain, it is important to shed light on the assumptions that have shaped different approaches to understanding the underlying phenomena. Making these assumptions visible is necessary to stimulate dialog among scholars, solidify the intellectual trajectory of the digital disconnection domain, and, ultimately, enable the accumulation of knowledge. In this paper, we offer an analytical heuristic for this purpose: a pluralistic continuum of digital disconnection scholarship. With this continuum, we aim to strengthen this growing and diversifying domain and create building blocks on which community and collaboration can rest and flourish.
Scoping digital disconnection
Before presenting the continuum, we wish to clarify our scope of analysis. In this paper, we consider digital disconnection to be the voluntary non-use of digital media (see Nassen et al., 2023). Non-use is central to this definition, representing a spectrum from the ephemeral (e.g. not checking one’s phone for a moment) to the permanent (e.g. throwing one’s phone into the ocean). Our focus on voluntary non-use of digital media stems from a catalyst of digital disconnection scholarship: the ubiquity of (mobile) digital media that can accompany people anytime and anyplace. In such an environment, digital disconnection is considered to be the result of deliberate tactics rather than of involuntary conditions – conditions which nonetheless remain the case for many people around the world (Nguyen and Hargittai, 2023) and can be hard to distinguish from voluntary choices (Chib et al., 2021). Furthermore, digital disconnection is centered on digital media – despite similarities between abstaining from digital communication and abstaining from face-to-face communication (Campbell and Ross, 2022). Thus, although the continuum may hold value for related bodies of work (e.g. digital divide and solitude), we present it with voluntary non-use of digital media in mind.
A pluralistic continuum of digital disconnection scholarship
Scholarship on digital disconnection is characterized by a vibrant, diverse range of approaches (Nassen et al., 2023). We propose that these approaches can be positioned along a continuum characterized by one primary dimension – ontology – and two secondary dimensions – epistemology and methodology (see Figure 1). These are three fundamental, yet often underdiscussed, dimensions to knowledge-making that underlie what is defined as reality and what are accepted ways of producing knowledge about it. Ontology is the primary dimension of the continuum because it is central to how digital disconnection is conceptualized and crucially influences researchers’ positions on the other dimensions of epistemology and methodology. In what follows, we aim to demonstrate how differences in these dimensions have shaped digital disconnection studies in particular ways, with a range of illustrative examples. Rather than eliminating difference, our continuum shall invite awareness and sustain a pluralistic view of digital disconnection scholarship.
Continuum of digital disconnection scholarship.
Ontology: Digital disconnection, from individually functional to socially meaningful
Ontologically, scholarship has ranged from viewing digital disconnection as individually functional to socially meaningful. On the one hand, the individually functional view tends to see digital disconnection as a behavior directed by an isolated, agentic, and responsible individual, whose decision-making toward digital disconnection can help reap instrumental and intrinsic benefits like productivity and well-being (e.g. Hunt et al., 2018). On the other hand, the socially meaningful view frequently examines digital disconnection as a symbolic act that emerges from, and takes place within, forces of social imbrication, power, marginalization, technological affordances, and resistance (e.g. Light and Cassidy, 2014; Mejias, 2013).
The individually functional lens highlights both the ubiquity and potential consequences of digital media in the lives of individuals who voice frustration with digital connectedness and limit their usage of devices (Baym et al., 2020; Nguyen, 2023; Nguyen et al., 2022). In contrast, the socially meaningful lens highlights the flaws of addressing societal issues with individualistic perspectives. This critique is levelled both within academia, particularly toward researchers who adopt a neoliberal, largely individually functional approach (e.g. Docherty, 2021), and outside academia, particularly toward technology companies that externalize responsibility to users (e.g. Enli and Fast, 2023; Jorge et al., 2022; Syvertsen, 2020).
Making these ontologies visible encourages digital disconnection approaches that integrate both types of conceptualizations. Digital disconnection scholars could consider the interrelatedness of individual and societal levels of digital disconnection to develop multilevel theories (Schmälzle and Huskey, 2023; Syvertsen, 2023), for example, of how public discourse translates into individual attitudes about (negative) media effects and how this, in turn, modulates actual well-being effects of those media (Ernala et al., 2022; Lanette et al., 2018). Although a multilevel approach likely sacrifices the depth of single-level approaches, it may increase explanatory power by aligning the ontology of digital disconnection with how it manifests in the real world.
Epistemology: Post-positivist to interpretivist approaches to digital disconnection
Beyond differences in how digital disconnection is defined, the continuum also portrays differences in how knowledge-making about digital disconnection is enacted. Epistemologically, research on digital disconnection ranges from post-positivist to interpretivist approaches. From a post-positivist perspective, this research has built and tested theories through observations and interventions (Bergman, 2016; Nassen et al., 2023; Vanden Abeele et al., 2022). Although knowledge is presumed to be generated by adopting similar protocols across studies, research has tended to lack the conceptual clarity required for reliable and comparable assessment (see Nassen et al., 2023; Radtke et al., 2022). For example, many studies assess disconnection from digital media in general, whereas others use the same term but investigate disconnection from specific branded applications, features, or interaction types. Intervention studies in particular frequently target one specific form of digital disconnection, such as social media abstinence, thereby neglecting the variety of concurrent strategies that individuals use to disconnect (Baym et al., 2020; Nguyen, 2021). Reviews thus call for a more systematic definition and operationalization of digital disconnection (e.g. along the hierarchical computer-mediated communication taxonomy; Meier and Reinecke, 2021).
Conversely, from the interpretivist end of the continuum, digital disconnection is approached from the perspective of experiences embedded within social, cultural, and political contexts (Syvertsen, 2020). This involves understanding the power dynamics and inequalities entwined in digital disconnection that go beyond the individual level (Kuntsman and Miyake, 2022; Van Bruyssel et al., 2023). From the material (Adams and Jansson, 2023; Bozan and Treré, 2023) to the cultural (Darling-Wolf, 2021; Fast, 2021), these structural dimensions are seen as overlooked from post-positivist perspectives, and thus call for interpretivist lenses to examine their meaning and effects on society. Yet, since interpretivism implies a dialog between the meanings produced by the actors under study and the meanings produced by the researcher (Benzecry, 2017; Reed, 2011), and because of the inherent distance (or lack of it) between them (Corbin Dwyer and Buckle, 2009), it relies on critical self-reflexivity and positionality during data collection and analysis – limiting the generalizability goals that post-positivist approaches aim for when seeking to understand what explains digital disconnection.
Making epistemologies visible reveals the strengths and limitations of different approaches to digital disconnection. When complementing each other, both perspectives could help develop richer and more diverse knowledge claims to understand the complexity of digital disconnection.
Methodology: Quantitative to qualitative approaches to digital disconnection
Methodologically, digital disconnection research covers the full spectrum of quantitative and qualitative techniques. On the one hand, quantitative scholars have often employed experiments to study “digital detox” (see Radtke et al., 2022), but survey and passive sensing methods are increasingly applied as well (e.g. Grüning et al., 2023). These experimental manipulations and quantitative measures have focused on a broad range of digital disconnection phenomena, from disconnecting from a particular person on a particular platform to disconnecting from the digital media ecosystem at large (Nassen et al., 2023). An important advantage is their ability to pinpoint particular facets of digital disconnection and to examine their association with key variables. At the same time, they tend to face validity concerns: “digital detox” manipulations can suffer from low ecological validity – people do not often completely disconnect in daily life – and self-report measures have been criticized for their low correlations with sensing data (Ellison et al., 2020; Parry et al., 2021; Radtke et al., 2022). The issue of validity is compounded by the lack of widely used measures (see Elson et al., 2023); indeed, authors of quantitative articles on digital disconnection have used unique measurements in every study thus far (Nassen et al., 2023). More broadly, digital disconnection entails the absence of digital media use, which is harder to quantify than digital media use itself – especially when using digital media to measure disconnection (e.g. using mobile experience sampling methods). Ultimately, explaining digital disconnection phenomena remains a challenge with precise but narrow quantitative approaches.
On the other hand, qualitative scholars make use of various methods, such as interviews and ethnographies centering on understanding life-worlds, both of participants (e.g. Enli and Fast, 2023; Ytre-Arne, 2023; Gangneux, 2021) and of scholars themselves (e.g. Ghita and Thorén, 2021; Lucero, 2018), as well as discourse analysis of digital disconnection public discourses and materials (e.g. Jorge et al., 2022; Portwood-Stacer, 2013; Syvertsen and Enli, 2020; Van Bruyssel et al., 2023). These qualitative methods can develop insights into personal experiences and culturally specific nuances of digital disconnection phenomena. For example, Matassi et al. (2019) showed the entrenchment of WhatsApp in Argentinian culture – with people discussing its non-use as implying social exclusion from family members, friends, and work opportunities (see also Baulch et al., 2020). Overall, though, the depth afforded by these techniques may come at the expense of breadth (i.e. generalizability). In the realm of digital disconnection, this tradeoff could become apparent for work that examines cases of, say, total digital disconnection (Syvertsen, 2022), which are relatively rare. Since qualitative methods tend to focus on the particularities of each case and its context to retrieve meaning-making and local practices, their detail-oriented view might not facilitate the formulation of parsimonious theoretical models that explain processes of digital disconnection.
Making methodologies visible can demonstrate their complementarity. Insights from one methodological approach can serve as a starting point for the investigations of another. Mixed-methods approaches, specifically, aim to leverage the upsides of multiple types of methods (Snelson, 2016). Although typically requiring more resources, they can balance generalizability and specificity in their explanations of digital disconnection.
Toward a continuum
The dimensions of the continuum are often concomitant with each other: certain ontologies usually come with certain epistemologies and methodological toolkits. On one end of the continuum, researchers view digital disconnection as individually functional and study it by applying a post-positivist lens with quantitative methods (e.g. Hall et al., 2021; Radtke et al., 2022; Schmitt et al., 2021; Schmuck, 2020; Slot and Opree, 2021; Van Wezel et al., 2021). A primary interest of this cluster of research lies in questions of cause and effect, for example, whether digital disconnection affects well-being. A considerable number of studies have investigated the effectiveness of “digital detox” interventions (see Radtke et al., 2022 for a review). Others have observed (vs. manipulated) disconnection behaviors and quantified how they are experienced in daily life, approaching insights into causality through time-dependent analyses (Klingelhoefer et al., 2023; Nassen et al., 2023; Ross et al., 2023; Verlinden et al., 2022).
On the other end of the continuum, researchers who view digital disconnection as socially meaningful frequently apply an interpretivist lens and use qualitative methods (e.g. Figueiras and Brites, 2022; Gangneux, 2021; Kaun, 2021; Light and Cassidy, 2014; Pennington, 2021; Plaut, 2023; Syvertsen, 2023). In this cluster of digital disconnection research, studies often aim to contextualize, for example, through situating digital disconnection in social, political, and cultural contexts (Matassi, 2022; Van Bruyssel et al., 2023). The in-depth analysis of users’ lived experiences or of public discourse surrounding digital disconnection explicates how it acquires meaning through dialog between individuals, publics, and societal structures.
Importantly, both ends of the continuum function as Weberian ideal types, with research often situating itself between them. Acknowledging the social meaning of digital disconnection phenomena, for instance, quantitative studies increasingly strive to reflect aspects of power and marginalization (e.g. Lindell and Mikkelsen Båge, 2022; Nguyen and Hargittai, 2023). Methodologically, digital disconnection research continues to bring forward mixed-method approaches, such as combining large-scale surveys with in-depth interviews, to investigate why people disconnect from digital media by trying to discern motivations for disconnection, organizing them into categories and identifying their frequency (e.g. Dickinson et al., 2016; Kim, 2022; Nguyen et al., 2022; Parry et al., 2023).
Moving forward: Strengths and limitations
The proposed continuum offers several benefits to the emerging domain of digital disconnection research. First, by making ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions visible, it helps gain awareness of one’s own position in the digital disconnection space, and in turn attend to digital disconnection research at other points. As a result, scholars can review literature and pose research questions informed by the broader domain of digital disconnection scholarship and ultimately provide better interpretations of phenomena.
Second, the continuum supports interdisciplinary connections by building bridges. It invites dialog across perspectives on digital disconnection, enabling researchers to turn the limits of their approaches into opportunities and join forces for cumulative knowledge generation. Questions around political responsibility to disconnect from digital media serve as a good example (Enli and Fast, 2023). Individual approaches to digital disconnection implicitly assume that responsibility lies at the level of the individual, neglecting structural contexts. In turn, the social approach is well positioned to reveal entanglements between micro-practices and macro-structures, informing psychological accounts of digital disconnection (e.g. Vanden Abeele et al., 2022). Similarly, the social approach may lose sight of individual-level traits, such as self-esteem or anxiety, that might foster the conditions for digital disconnection. Here, individual approaches can serve as a useful tool to identify which people are grappling with digital disconnection. Importantly, we are not advocating for every point of the continuum to “regress towards the mean.” Rather, we encourage scholars across the continuum to leverage their expertise with an awareness of other perspectives, enabling the accumulation of knowledge.
Finally, we do not present the continuum as a universal framework. Future iterations could highlight how cultural context shapes digital disconnection research (which has tended to focus on populations in WEIRD countries) and capture the meanings of digital disconnection across diverse contexts (Bozan and Treré, 2023) – although the socially meaningful approach would certainly help for that purpose. Instead, the continuum constitutes a living tool made by and for researchers studying digital disconnection, with new dimensions added as needed – as indicated by Figure 1’s ellipses.
Conclusion
Digital disconnection is increasingly discussed as a response to the perceived digital saturation of everyday life. As digital disconnection scholarship evolves and solidifies, its inclusive, pluralistic character should be embraced and encouraged rather than ignored or suppressed. Ontological, epistemological, and methodological differences in approaches to digital disconnection could otherwise result in a fragmented research domain that targets different phenomena across different levels of analysis with the help of unconnected theories in siloed publication outlets without mutual acknowledgement. A consideration of various, complementary perspectives along the continuum can strengthen the field through cumulative knowledge generation and allow for a more holistic understanding of digital disconnection phenomena. Ultimately, we hope that the continuum creates a living space for dialog as we continue to build a cohesive yet inclusive field.
Footnotes
Author contributions
Conceptualiztion: MQR, AG, JK, MM, LMN, SVB, and AV. Writing – Original Draft: MQR, AG, and JK. Writing – Review & Editing: all authors. Project Administration: MQR. Authors with the same contributions were listed alphabetically.
Funding
The remaining author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: SVB received financial support from the following project: H2020 European Research Council; CODE 950635.
