CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 418Media and Digital CommunicationGender, Feminism, and MediaChild Development and Digital Technology

“Sharenting,” parent blogging, and the boundaries of the digital self

Open access
Blum-Ross, Alicia, Livingstone, Sonia·2017·Popular Communication
DOI 10.1080/15405702.2016.1223300
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This article asks whether “sharenting” (sharing representations of one’s parenting or children online) is a form of digital self-representation. Drawing on interviews with 17 parent bloggers, we explore how parents define the borders of their digital selves and justify what is their “story to tell.” We find that bloggers grapple with profound ethical dilemmas, as representing their identities as parents inevitably makes public aspects of their children’s lives, introducing risks that they are, paradoxically, responsible for safeguarding against. Parents thus evaluate what to share by juggling multiple obligations—to themselves, their children in the present and imagined into the future, and to their physical and virtual communities. The digital practices of representing the relational self are impeded more than eased by the individualistic notion of identity instantiated by digital platforms, thereby intensifying the ambivalence of both parents and the wider society in judging emerging genres of blogging the self.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/15405702.2016.1223300

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Kidfluencer's caregivers are often torn between their roles as entrepreneurial business owners and as parents.

    “Kidfluencer's caregivers are often torn between their roles as entrepreneurial business owners and as parents (Blum-Ross & Livingstone, 2017), given that ethical and commercial considerations regarding their children's involvement in the venture may be more aligned with one role than the other.”

    From The Child Labor in Social Media: Kidfluencers, Ethics of Care, and Exploitation (2025) · cites this paper as Blum-Ross & Livingstone, 2017

    In “The business of blogging,” the paper describes income-earning parent bloggers struggling to balance blogging with their children’s needs. The conclusions also say that economic and parental obligations can conflict. The study concerns parent bloggers, however, and does not establish how often caregivers of kidfluencers who run businesses face this tension. Page numbers were not supplied with the passages. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Bauman, Z. (2002). Forward. In U. Beck & E. Beck-Gernsheim (Eds.), Individualization (pp. xiv-xix). London: Sage.
  2. Bauman, Z., & Lyon, D. (2013). Liquid surveillance. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  3. boyd, d., & Marwick, A. (2011). Social steganography: Privacy in networked publics. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Annual Conference, Boston, USA.
  4. Brighenti, A. (2007) Visibility: a category for the social sciences. Current Sociology, 55(3), 323-342.
  5. Webb, L.M., & Lee, B.S. (2011). Mommy blogs: The centrality of community in the performance of online maternity. In M. Moravec (Ed.), Motherhood online (pp. 244-257). Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Blum-Ross, A., & Livingstone, S.
Affiliations
London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
ORCID
Livingstone, Sonia
Venue
Popular Communication
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2017-04-03
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
110-125
ISSN
  • 1540-5702 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-5710
DOI
10.1080/15405702.2016.1223300
OpenAlex
W2510086554
Cited by
418
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 55 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 7
FWCI
19.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Locations
  • Popular Communication (publishedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (acceptedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Theses Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Funders
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (13-105643-000-USP)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Feminism, and Media
  • Social Sciences › Education › Child Development and Digital Technology
Keywords
sharenting, online self-representation, digital self, parenting, children's online privacy, ethical dilemmas, relational self, online communities, self-presentation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review