Volume 27, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238



Digital technologies are likely to be appropriated by the homeless just as they are by other segments of society. However, these appropriations will reflect the particularities of their circumstances. What are these appropriations? Are they beneficial or effective? Can Skype, as a case in point, assuage the social disconnection that must be, for many, the experience of being homeless? This paper analyses some evidence about these questions and, in particular, the ways communications media are selected, oriented to and accounted for by the homeless young. Using data from a small corpus of interviews, it examines the specific ways in which choice of communication (face-to-face, social media, or video, etc.), are described by these individuals as elected for tactical and strategic reasons having to do with managing their family relations. These relations are massively important both in terms of how communications media are deployed, and in terms of being one of the sources of the homeless state the young find themselves in. The paper examines some of the methodical ways these issues are articulated and the type of ‘causal facticity’ thereby constituted in interview talk. The paper also remarks on the paradoxical problem that technologies like Skype provide: at once allowing people in the general to communicate but in ways that the homeless young want to resist in the particular. The consequences of this for the shaping of communications technology in the future are remarked upon.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Anderson, N.
    1923The Hobo: The Sociology of the Homeless Man. Chicago: Chicago Council of Social Agencies.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aronsson, K., and A. Cekaite
    2011 “Activity Contracts and Directives in Everyday Family Politics.” Discourse and Society22 (2): 137–54. doi: 10.1177/0957926510392124
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926510392124 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bourgois, P.
    1998a “Just Another Night in a Shooting Gallery.” Theory, Culture and Society15 (2): 37–66. doi: 10.1177/026327698015002002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026327698015002002 [Google Scholar]
  4. 1998b “The Moral Economies of Homeless Heroin Addicts: Confronting Ethnography, H.I.V. Risk and Everyday Violence in San Francisco Shooting Encampments.” Substance Use and Misuse33 (11): 2323–51. doi: 10.3109/10826089809056260
    https://doi.org/10.3109/10826089809056260 [Google Scholar]
  5. Castells, M.
    1996The Rise of the Networked Society: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture Vol. I. Cambridge, MA; Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 1997The Power of Identity, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture Vol. II. Cambridge, MA/Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 1998End of Millennium, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture Vol. III. Cambridge, MA/Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Duranti, A., and C. Goodwin
    1992 “Editors’ Introduction”, Rethinking Context, ed. byA. Duranti, and C. Goodwin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Fitzgerald, R., and W. Housley
    2015Advances in Membership Categorisation Analysis. London: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781473917873
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473917873 [Google Scholar]
  10. Garfinkel, H.
    1967Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Garfinkel, H., G. Girton, E. Livingston, and H. Sacks
    . No date. Studies of Kids’ Culture and Kids’ Talk. Manuscript.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Garfinkel, H., and H. Sacks
    1970 “On Formal Structures of Practical Actions.” InTheoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Developments, ed. byJ. C. McKinney, and E. A. Tiryakian, 337–366. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Goffman, E.
    1979 “Footing.” Semiotica25 (1–2): 1–29. doi: 10.1515/semi.1979.25.1‑2.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1979.25.1-2.1 [Google Scholar]
  14. Goodwin, C.
    1981Conversational Organization: Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Harper, R.
    2011Texture: Human Expression in the Age of Communication Overload. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Horst, H. A., and D. Miller
    2006The Cell Phone: An Anthropology of Communication. Oxford/New York: Berg.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Ingold, T.
    2011Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Jackson, E.
    2012 “Fixed in Mobility-Young Homeless People and the City.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research36 (4): 725–41. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑2427.2012.01124.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01124.x [Google Scholar]
  19. Katz, J., and M. Aakhus
    2002Perpetual Contact: Mobile communication, Private Talk, Public Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511489471
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489471 [Google Scholar]
  20. Latour, B.
    2013An Inquiry into Modes of Existence. (TransC. Porter). Harvard: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Liberman, K.
    2013More Studies in Ethnomethodology. Albany: State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Maynard, D. W.
    1988 “Language, Interaction, and Social Problems.” Social Problems35: 311–334. doi: 10.2307/800590
    https://doi.org/10.2307/800590 [Google Scholar]
  23. Miller, D., and J. Sinina
    2014Webcam. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Rose, E.
    1960 “The English Record of a Natural Sociology.” American Sociological Review25: 193–208. doi: 10.2307/2092625
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2092625 [Google Scholar]
  25. Sacks, H.
    1972a “On the Usability of Conversational Data for Doing Sociology.” InStudies in Social Interaction, ed. byD. Sudnow. New York: The Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 1972b “On the Analyzability of Stories by Children.” InDirections in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, ed. byJohn J. Gumperz, and Dell Hymes. New York: Holt, Rinehart.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 1987 “On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation.” InTalk and Social Organisation, ed. byG. R. Button, and J. R. E. Lee, 54–69. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 1992Lectures on Conversation. VolumesI & II. Malden: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Sacks, H., E. Schegloff, and G. Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language50 (4): 696–735. doi: 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  30. Sacks, H., and E. Schegloff
    1979 “Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Persons in Conversation and Their Interaction.” InEveryday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. byG. Psathas, 15–21. New York: Irvington Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Schegloff, E.
    1969 “Sequencing in Conversational Openings.” American Anthropologist70: 1075–95. doi: 10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030 [Google Scholar]
  32. 1972 “Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place.” InStudies in social interaction, ed. byD. Sudnow, 75–119. New York: Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 1995 “Discourse as an Interactional Achievement III: The Omni-relevance of Action.” Research on Language and Social Interaction28 (3): 185–213. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2803_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2803_2 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2005 “On Complainability.” Social Problems52: 449–476. doi: 10.1525/sp.2005.52.4.449
    https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2005.52.4.449 [Google Scholar]
  35. Schegloff, E. A., and H. Sacks
    1973 “Opening up Closings.” Semiotica8: 280–327. doi: 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  36. Speier, M.
    1971 “The Everyday World of the Child.” InUnderstanding everyday life, ed. byJ. Douglas, 188–217. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Spradley, J. P.
    1970You Owe Yourself a Drunk: An Ethnography of Urban Nomads. Boston: Little, Brown.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Watson, R.
    2015 “De-Reifying Categories.” InAdvances in membership categorization analysis, ed. byR. Fitzgerald, and W. Housely, 23–49. Los Angeles: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781473917873.n2
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473917873.n2 [Google Scholar]
  39. Woelfer, J., and D. Hendry
    2010 “Homeless Young People’s Experiences with Information Systems: Life and Work in a Community Technology Center.” Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI2010, pp.1291–1300.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 2011 “Homeless Young People and Living with Personal Digital Artifacts.” Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI2011, ACM Press, pp.1697–1706.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Yoo, D., A. Huldtgren, J. Woelfer, F. Hendry, and B. Friedman
    2013 “A value Sensitive Action-Reflection Model: Evolving a Co-Design Space with Stakeholder and Designer Prompts” Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI 2013, ACM Press, pp.419–428. doi: 10.1145/2470654.2470715
    https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470715 [Google Scholar]
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error