Discussion of findings in relation to Uses & Gratifications theory

My first research question asked about the ‗Uses and Gratifications‘ of social media use in the everyday lives of my participants. U&G theory seeks to understand how and why individuals seek out particular media to satisfy specific needs. Findings showed that my participants chose the social media platforms that they used according to what they

understood to be their unique functions and usefulness, or ―special thing‖ (Hassan), either for themselves or others that they interacted with. They were generally well informed about these functions. Other empirical studies have shown similar results, including a study of young refugees and digital spaces which found that participants actively evaluated a range of devices and formats to determine which ones were ‗fit for purpose‘. The authors suggested that this showed ―a level of awareness, discernment and flexibility about the appropriateness of the tool or source‖ (Lloyd & Wilkinson, 2015, p. 4). I would argue that such awareness

69 also applied to my participants. Some expressed reluctance to add any more social media accounts to those that they already used, and talked of deleting those they did not find useful, suggesting that there was a limit to how many platforms they were prepared to adopt as well as ongoing evaluation of those that they used in their daily lives.

Of particular interest in my findings were the main U&G ‗factors‘, or motivations, that participants themselves identified for using social media, especially when compared with other studies which have looked at U&G factors for online media (illustrated by Table 1, Section 2.1, p. 12). An unexpected motive that emerged in this study was that ‗learning‘ was a strong U&G factor for my participants (although, with the exception of language learning, they often did not explicitly identify, or even acknowledge, their social media activity as

‗learning‘). Among other studies reviewed, only Papacharissi and Mendelson (2011), in their research into university students using Facebook, identified ―professional advancement‖ as a U&G motive which might relate to learning. (However, it was not clear what ‗professional advancement‘ in this case entailed – whether it meant networking or educational

achievement. The term was also provided to participants in the study by researchers as a motive category, rather than one that emerged from participants themselves.) In a study of the role of digital technology with settled refugee migrants in regional Australia, Alam and Imran (2015), found that the Internet was perceived as essential for educational activities by

participants. However, most of those participating in the study were in education, the cohort was older (almost 40% were age 35 and over), and the focus was on digital technologies rather than social media specifically. No other U&G studies that I reviewed referred to finding learning a U&G motive in participants‘ use of online media, and in this respect the finding was unusual. It must be pointed out that all the participants in my study were also either in education in Norway (one was currently at university and all the others except one were at college or studying Norwegian) and most were planning to apply to university, and this likely had an influence on their motivations. However, in other studies participants are usually university students, themselves in education, so the comparison remains interesting.

Other strong U&G motives identified in my findings were ‗communication‘ and

‗information‘. Information-seeking and sharing are found in existing literature as common factors for online media use, and it is not surprising that newly settled refugees use social media for accessing information about their home countries and for locating necessary local information, as well as for sharing information with others. In respect to accessing

70 information about their home countries, my participants agreed with a study of young

refugees in Australia which revealed that they considered online news services, particularly those from their home countries, a better information source than local ones (Lloyd &

Wilkinson, 2015). Using social media for ‗communication‘, mostly with family and friends, seemed more important to participants in my study than in others reviewed (likely because most of them were separated from their families), although the factors of ‗companionship‘

and ‗social interaction‘ found in other studies seem to be closely related motives

(Papacharissi & Mendelson, 2011; Parker & Plank, 2000; Whiting & Williams, 2013). This leads to one of the issues with using Uses and Gratifications theory, which is that the range of terms and classifications used by researchers to refer to ‗gratifications‘, make it difficult to compare them, and even sometimes to understand what they involve. As Quan-Hasse and Young (2014, p. 280) observe: ―Across studies a wide range of gratifications have been proposed, with distinct and diffuse typologies. This disparity in the literature makes it difficult for scholars to compare research findings and to develop internally coherent theoretical frameworks‖.

Finally, ‗entertainment‘ and ‗passing time‘, which have been consistently found in research as strong U&G factors, were much less, or not at all, important to the participants in my study. Although using social media for entertainment was a motive for a couple of participants, it occurred much less than expected, and several spoke of preferring to be entertained in ‗real life‘ and of a longing for offline contact and entertainment. In contrast to findings in existing literature, passing time or escapism were only mentioned in relation to certain particular times when participants accessed social media - to alleviate boredom on public transport - but not explicitly reported as a motive for using it.

The findings reveal that for the young refugees in this study, social media was a vital tool for communication, accessing information, and accessing opportunities to learn. They were not motivated to use it for entertainment, relaxing, or passing time as much as evidence from other studies would suggest. Although they still often ended up ―wasting time‖ on it (Farah), this was often due to the circumstances of having little to do or few friends in Norway, rather than an active motivation for use. However, the participants on my study differed from those in other studies in the fact that they were refugees. Whilst the participants in most U&G studies of online media are usually young people, they are not typically refugees. What empirical research there is with refugees focuses more on technology use during refugee

71 journeys or in crisis situations, such as during time in transit camps (Kondova, 2016;

Gillespie, Osseiran & Cheesman, 2018). There seems to be little U&G literature which relates to technology use and settled refugees – those who have been granted refugee status – or which focuses on social media specifically.

Gratifications „sought‟ and „obtained‟

My second research question was intended to explore the difference, if any, between the gratifications that my participants ‗sought‘ and the gratifications that they ‗obtained‘ from their use of social media, which has become a recent focus of U&G research. However, the main method that I had planned to use to explore this difference - an online survey/diary - failed because my participants did not complete it. I attribute this largely to the fact that I could not send the online survey link to participants electronically (in order to ensure their anonymity and comply with NSD requirements), as several participants asked me to do.

Instead I had to provide the survey link on a piece of paper, which was likely lost or forgotten. Since the survey was designed to be completed after the individual interviews, I did not specifically ask participants at the interview stage about the outcomes - or

‗gratifications obtained‘ - from their social media use in relation to their motives for using it.

I did ask them to talk about what social media enabled them to achieve that was of value to them, (functionings), which is related; however, the survey was intended to be the main method of gathering information on gratifications obtained. I therefore do not have data to answer this research question or to add to existing knowledge on the distinction between sought and obtained gratifications in relation to social media. I am, though, able to offer findings to add to existing U&G motives for my participants, as discussed above.