1. Ajdukiewicz, Kazimierz. 1965. Logika pragmatyczna. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
2. Anon. 2021. „FastText”. Facebook Research. Pobrano 17 marzec 2021 (https://research.fb.com/downloads/fasttext/).
3. Bai, Qiyu, Qi Dan, Zhe Mu, Maokun Yang. 2019. A Systematic Review of Emoji: Current Research and Future Perspectives. Frontiers in Psychology. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02221.
4. Bail, Christopher A. 2014. The Cultural Environment: Measuring Culture with Big data. Theory and Society, 43, 3: 465–82. DOI: 10.1007/s11186-014-9216-5.
5. Bakliwal, Akshat, Jennifer Foster, Jennifer van der Puil, Ron O’Brien, Lamia Tounsi, Mark Hughes. 2013. Sentiment Analysis of Political Tweets: Towards an Accurate Classifier. In: Proceedings of the NAACL Workshop on Language Analysis in Social Media. Atlanta, GA.: Association for Computational Linguistics.
6. Barberá, Pablo, Amber E. Boydstun, Suzanna Linn, Ryan McMahon, Jonathan Nagler. 2021. Automated Text Classification of News Articles: A Practical Guide. Political Analysis, 29, 1:19–42. DOI: 10.1017/pan.2020.8.
7. Batorski, Dominik, Marta Olcoń-Kubicka. 2006. Prowadzenie badań przez internet – podstawowe zagadnienia metodologiczne. Studia Socjologiczne, 182, 3: 99–132.
8. Batorski, Dominik, Krzysztof Olechnicki. 2007. Wprowadzenie do socjologii internetu. Studia Socjologiczne, 186, 3: 5–14.
9. Boudon, Raymond. 1997. The Art of Self-Persuasion: The Social Explanation of False Beliefs. Cambridge, England; Malden, Mass.: Polity.
10. Brants, Wesley, Bonita Sharif, Alexander Serebrenik. 2019. Assessing the Meaning of Emojis for Emotional Awareness – A Pilot Study. s. 419–23. In: Companion Proceedings of The 2019 World Wide Web Conference, WWW ’19. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery.
11. Cha, Meeyoung, Hamed Haddadi, Fabrício Benevenuto, Krishna P. Gummadi. 2010. Measuring user influence in Twitter: The million follower fallacy. In: ICWSM ’10: Proceedings of international AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social.
12. Chen, Yukun, Subramani Mani, Hua Xu. 2012. Applying Active Learning to Assertion Classification of Concepts in Clinical Text. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 45, 2: 265–72. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2011.11.003.
13. Denny, Matthew J., Arthur Spirling. 2018. Text Preprocessing For Unsupervised Learning: Why It Matters, When It Misleads, And What To Do About It. Political Analysis, 26, 2: 168–89. DOI: 10.1017/pan.2017.44.
14. Di Franco, Giovanni, Michele Santurro. 2020. Machine Learning, Artificial Neural Networks and Social Research. Quality & Quantity. DOI: 10.1007/s11135-02001037-y.
15. DiMaggio, Paul. 2015. Adapting Computational Text Analysis to Social Science (and Vice Versa). Big Data & Society, 2, 2. DOI: 10.1177/2053951715602908.
16. Drus, Zulfadzli, Haliyana Khalid. 2019. Sentiment Analysis in Social Media and Its Application: Systematic Literature Review. Procedia Computer Science, 161: 707–14. DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2019.11.174.
17. Goldenstein, Jan, Philipp Poschmann. 2019. A Quest for Transparent and Reproducible Text-Mining Methodologies in Computational Social Science. Sociological Methodology, 49, 1: 144–51. DOI: 10.1177/0081175019867855.
18. Grimmer, Justin, Brandon M. Stewart. 2013. Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts. Political Analysis, 21, 3: 267–97. DOI: 10.1093/pan/mps028.
19. HaCohen-Kerner, Yaakov, Daniel Miller, Yair Yigal. 2020. The Influence of Preprocessing on Text Classification Using a Bag-of-Words Representation. PLOS ONE, 15, 5: e0232525. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232525.
20. Haddi, Emma, Xiaohui Liu, Yong Shi. 2013. The Role of Text Pre-Processing in Sentiment Analysis. Procedia Computer Science, 17: 26–32. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2013.05.005.
21. Hand, David J. 2006. Classifier Technology and the Illusion of Progress. Statistical Science, 21, 1: 1–14. DOI: 10.1214/088342306000000060.
22. He, Zhoushanyue, Matthias Schonlau. 2020a. Automatic Coding of Open-Ended Questions into Multiple Classes: Whether and How to Use Double Coded Data. Survey Research Methods, 14, 3: 267–87. DOI: 10.18148/srm/2020.v14i3.7639.
23. He, Zhoushanyue, Matthias Schonlau. 2020b. Automatic Coding of Text Answers to Open-Ended Questions: Should You Double Code the Training Data? Social Science Computer Review, 38, 6: 754–65. DOI: 10.1177/0894439319846622.
24. Hopkins, Daniel J., Gary King. 2010. A Method of Automated Nonparametric Content Analysis for Social Science. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 1: 229–47. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00428.x.
25. Ignatow, Gabe. 2016. Theoretical Foundations for Digital Text Analysis. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 46, 1: 104–20. DOI: 10.1111/jtsb.12086.
26. Jemielniak, Dariusz. 2018. Socjologia 2.0: o potrzebie łączenia Big Data z etnografią cyfrową, wyzwaniach jakościowej socjologii cyfrowej i systematyzacji pojęć. Studia Socjologiczne, 242, 2: 7–29. DOI: 10.24425/122461.
27. Jemielniak, Dariusz. 2019. Socjologia internetu. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.
28. Jordan, Michael, Tom Mitchell. 2015. Machine Learning: Trends, Perspectives, and Prospects. Science, 349, 6245: 255–60. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa8415.
29. Joseph, Kenneth, Sarah Shugars, Ryan Gallagher, Jon Green, Alexi Quintana Mathé, Zijian An, David Lazer. 2021. (Mis)alignment Between Stance Expressed in Social Media Data and Public Opinion Surveys. arXiv:2109.01762 [cs].
30. Joulin, Armand, Edouard Grave, Piotr Bojanowski, Tomas Mikolov. 2016. Bag of Tricks for Efficient Text Classification. arXiv:1607.01759 [cs].
31. Krippendorff, Klaus H. 2003. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, Inc.
32. Lazer, David, Alex (Sandy) Pentland, Lada Adamic, Sinan Aral, Albert Laszlo Barabasi, Devon Brewer, Nicholas Christakis, Noshir Contractor, James Fowler, Myron Gutmann, Tony Jebara, Gary King, Michael Macy, Deb Roy, Marshall Van Alstyne. 2009. Life in the network: the coming age of computational social science. Science, 323, 5915: 721–23. DOI: 10.1126/science.1167742.
33. Lin, Chenghua, Yulan He. 2009. Joint sentiment/topic model for sentiment analysis. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Information and knowledge management, CIKM ’09. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 375–384.
34. Marciszewski, Witold. 1972. Podstawy logicznej teorii przekonań. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
35. Miller, Blake, Fridolin Linder, Walter R. Mebane. 2020. Active Learning Approaches for Labeling Text: Review and Assessment of the Performance of Active Learning Approaches. Political Analysis, 28, 4: 532–51. DOI: 10.1017/pan.2020.4.
36. Mohammad, Saif M., Parinaz Sobhani, Svetlana Kiritchenko. 2016. Stance and Sentiment in Tweets. arXiv:1605.01655 [cs].
37. Monroe, Burt L. 2019. The Meanings of “Meaning in Social Scientific Text Analysis. Sociological Methodology, 49, 1: 132–39. DOI: 10.1177/0081175019865231.
38. Mozetič, Igor, Miha Grčar, Jasmina Smailović. 2016. Multilingual Twitter Sentiment Classification: The Role of Human Annotators. PLOS ONE 11, 5:e0155036. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155036.
39. Murthy, Dhiraj, Sawyer A. Bowman. 2014. Big Data Solutions on a Small Scale: Evaluating Accessible High-Performance Computing for Social Research: Big Data & Society. DOI: 10.1177/2053951714559105.
40. Nelson, Laura K. 2019. To Measure Meaning in Big Data, Don’t Give Me a Map, Give Me Transparency and Reproducibility. Sociological Methodology, 49, 1: 139–43. DOI: 10.1177/0081175019863783.
41. Rodak, Olga. 2017. Twitter jako przedmiot badań socjologicznych i źródło danych społecznych: perspektywa konstruktywistyczna. Studia Socjologiczne, 226, 3: 209–36.
42. Salganik, Matthew J. 2017. Bit by Bit: Social Research in the Digital Age. Illustrated edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
43. Sobhani, Parinaz, Diana Inkpen, Xiaodan Zhu. 2019. Exploring Deep Neural Networks for Multitarget Stance Detection. Computational Intelligence, 35, 1: 82–97. DOI: 10.1111/coin.12189.
44. Subedi, Nishan. 2018. FastText: Under the Hood. Medium. Pobrano 3 grudzień 2021 (https://towardsdatascience.com/fasttext-under-the-hood-11efc57b2b3).
45. Tharwat, Alaa. 2020. Classification assessment methods. Applied Computing and Informatics ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). DOI: 10.1016/j.aci.2018.08.003.
46. Tomanek, Krzysztof. 2017. Metodyka dla analizy treści w projektach stosujących techniki text mining i rozwiązania CAQDAS piątej generacji. Przegląd Socjologii Jakościowej, 13, 2: 128–43.
47. Turner, Anna, Marcin W. Zieliński, Kazimierz M. Słomczyński. 2018. Google Big Data: charakterystyka i zastosowanie w naukach społecznych. Studia Socjologiczne, 231, 4: 49–71. DOI: 10.24425/122482.
48. Watts, Duncan J., Peter Sheridan Dodds. 2007. Influentials, Networks, and Public Opinion Formation. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 4: 441–58. DOI: 10.1086/518527.
49. Wiedemann, Gregor. 2019. Proportional Classification Revisited: Automatic Content Analysis of Political Manifestos Using Active Learning. Social Science Computer Review, 37, 2: 135–59. DOI: 10.1177/0894439318758389.
50. Ziółkowski, Marek. 1989. Wiedza, jednostka, społeczeństwo: zarys koncepcji socjologii wiedzy. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
51. Żulicki, Remigiusz. 2017. Potencjał Big Data w badaniach społecznych. Studia Socjologiczne, 226, 3: 175–207.

1. Almack, Kathryn. 2011. Display Work: Lesbian Parent Couples and Their Families of Origin Negotiating New Kin Relationships. In: J. Seymour, E. Dermott, eds. Displaying families: a new concept for the sociology of family life. Basingstole: Palgrave Macmillan, 102–118.
2. Barnwell, Ashley, Barbara Barbosa Neves, Signe Ravn. 2021. Capured and Captioned. Representing Family life on Instagram. New Media & Society, 00, 0: 1–22. DOI: 10.1177/14614448211012791.
3. Barve, Gargi. 2016. Social Media and its Effects on Society. International Journal of School and Cognitive Psychology, 3, 1: 1–5. DOI: 10.4172/2469-9837.1000166.
4. Biehal, Nina. 2014. A Sense of Belonging: Meanings of Family and Home in Long-Term Foster Care. British Journal of Social Work, 44: 955–971. DOI: 10.1093/bjsw/bcs177.
5. Boccagni, Paolo. 2012. Practising Motherhood at a Distance: Retention and Loss in Ecuadorian Transnational Families. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38, 2: 261–277. DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2012.646421.
6. Buler, Marta, Paula Pustułka. 2020. Dwa pokolenia Polek o praktykach rodzinnych. Między ciągłością a zmianą. Przegląd Socjologiczny, 69, 2: 33–53. DOI: 10.26485/PS/2020/69.2/2.
7. Cabalquinto, Earvin C. 2019. They could picture me, or I could picture them: Displaying of family life beyond borders through mobile photography. Information, Communication & Society, 23, 11: 1608–1624. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2019.1602663.
8. Cammu, Nola. 2021. “We Are Three Parents but Legally Two”: Absent Legality, Present Display. Journal of Family Issues, 42, 5: 1007–1028. DOI: 10.1177/01925I3X20983379.
9. Chambers, Deborah. 2012. ‘We play as a family’: the rise in family-centered video gaming. Leisure Studies, 31, 1: 69–82. DOI: 10.1080/02614367.2011.568065.
10. Dermott, Esther, Julie Seymour, eds. 2011. Displaying Families. A New Concept for the Sociology of Family Life. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
11. Dermott, Esther, Marco Pomati. 2016. ‘Good’ Parenting Practices: How Important are Poverty, Education and Time Pressure? Sociology, 50, 1: 125–142. DOI: 10.1177/0038038514560260.
12. Doucet, Andrea. 2011. It’s Just Not Good For a Man to be Interested in Other People’s Children: Fathers, Public Displays of Care and Relevant Others. In: J. Seymour, E. Dermott, eds. Displaying families: a new concept for the sociology of family life. Basingstole: Palgrave Macmillan, 81–101.
13. Evans, David. 2012. Beyond the Throwaway Society: Ordinary Domestic Practice and a Sociological Approach to Household Food Waste. Sociology, 46, 1: 41–56. DOI: 0.1177/0038038511416150.
14. Featherstone, Brid, Susan White, Kate Morris. 2014. Re-imagining Child Protection: Towards Humane Social Work with Families. Clifton, Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
15. Finch, Janet. 2007. Displaying Families. Sociology, 41, I: 65–81. DOI: 10.1177/0038038507072284.
16. Finch, Janet. 2011. Exploring the Concept of Display in Family Relationships. In: J. Seymour, E. Dermott, eds. Displaying families: a new concept for the sociology of family life. Basingstole: Palgrave Macmillan, 197–205.
17. Gabb, Jacqui. 2008. Research Intimacy in Families. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
18. Gabb, Jacqui. 2012. Embodying Risk: Managing Father-Child Intimacy and the Display of Nudityin Families. Sociology, 47, 4: 639–654. DOI: 10.1177/0038038512448558.
19. Gawrońska, Małgorzata. 2021. Zastosowanie koncepcji displaying families do analizy wizualnych reprezentacji macierzyństwa na portal Instagram. Fabrica Societatis, 4: 46–62. DOI: 10.34616/142703.
20. Goulden, Murray. 2021. ‘Delete the family’: platform families and the colonisation of the smart home. Information, Communication & Society, 24, 7: 903–920. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2019.1668454.
21. Harding, Lindsey. 2016. Motherhood Reimag(in)ed: A study of domestic photography in the digital age. Photographies, 9, 1: 109–125. DOI: 10.1080/175/40763.2016.1146628.
22. Harman, Vicki, Benedetta Cappellini. 2015. Mothers on Display: Lunchboxes, Social Class and Moral Accountability. Sociology, 49, 4: 764–781. DOI: 10.1177/0038038514559322.
23. Harrington, Maureen. 2015. Practices and meaning of purposive family leisure among working- and middle-class families. Leisure Studies, 34, 4: 471–486. DOI: 10.1080/02614367.2014.938767.
24. Haynes, Jo, Esther Dermott. 2011. Displaying Mixedness: Differences and Family Relationships. In: J. Seymour, E. Dermott, eds. Displaying families: a new concept for the sociology of family life. Basingstole: Palgrave Macmillan, 145–159.
25. Heaphy, Brian. 2011. Critical relational displays. In: J. Seymour, E. Dermott, eds. Displaying families: a new concept for the sociology of family life. Basingstole: Palgrave Macmillan, 19–37.
26. Henze-Pedersen, Sofie, Margaretha Jarvinen. 2021. Displaying family at women’s refuge. Sociological Review, 69, 6: 1229–1243. DOI: 10.1177/00380261211034670.
27. James, Allison, Penny Curtis. 2010. Family Displays and Personal Lives. Sociology, 44, 6: 1163–1180. DOI: 10.1177/0038038510381612.
28. Jones, Chris, Simon Hackett. 2011. The Role of ‘Family Practices’ and ‘Displays of Family’ in the Creation of Adoptive Kinship. British Journal of Social Work, 41: 40–56. DOI: 10.1093/bjsw/bcs177.
29. Kehily, Mary J., Rachel Thomson. 2011. Displaying Motherhood: Representations, Visual Methods and the Materiality of Maternal Practice. In: J. Seymour, E. Dermott, eds. Displaying families: a new concept for the sociology of family life. Basingstole: Palgrave Macmillan, 61–80.
30. Kędra, Joanna. 2021. Virtual proximity and transnational familyhood: a case study of the digital communication practices of Poles living in Finland. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 42, 5: 462–474. DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2020.1839084.
31. Khamis, Susie, Lawrence Ang, Raymond Welling. 2017. Self-branding, micro-celebrity and the rise of Social Media Influencers. Celebrity Studies, 8, 2: 191–208. DOI: 10.1080/19392397.2016.121892.
32. Lahad, Kinnereth, Vanessa May. 2021. Holding back and hidden family displays: Reflections on aunthood as a morally charged category. Current Sociology, 00, 0: 1–16. DOI: 10.1177/0011392121992829.
33. Lahad, Kinnereth, Galia Sabar, Naama Sabar Ben-Yehoshua. 2018. Doing and Displaying Gendered Boundary Work among Blended Families in Israel. Sociology, 52, 1: 95–110. DOI: 10.1177/0038038516677220.
34. Lind, Judith, Cecilia Lindgren. 2017. Displays of parent suitability in adoption assessment reports. Child and Family Social Work, 22: 53–63. DOI: 10.1111/cfs.12305.
35. Mamali, Elizabeth, Lorna Stevens. 2020. When Same-Sex Couples Say ‘I Do’: Display Work and the (Re)Production of the Wedding Rite. Sociology, 54, 5: 987–1003. DOI: 10.1177/0038038520922523.
36. Mizielińska, Joanna, Agata Stasińska. 2014. Prywatne jest polityczne: strategie emancypacyjne rodzin z wyboru w Polsce. Studium wybranych przypadków. Studia Socjologiczne, 4, 215: 111–140.
37. Mizielińska Joanna, Marta Abramowicz, Agata Stasińska. 2014. Rodziny z wyboru w Polsce. Życie rodzinne osób nieheteroseksualnych. Warszawa: Instytut Psychologii PAN.
38. Morgan, David H.J. 1996. Family Connections. An Introduction to Family Studies. Cambridge: Polity Press.
39. Morgan, David H.J. 2011a. Locating „Family Practices”. Sociological Research Online, 16, 4, 14: 1–9. https://www.socresonline.org.uk/16/4/14.html [dostęp: 22.08.2021].
40. Morgan, David H.J. 2011b. Rethinking Family Practices. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
41. Morris, Kate. 2013. Troubled families: vulnerable families’ experiences of multiple service use. Child&Family Social Work, 18, 2: 198–206. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365- 2206.2011.00822.x.
42. May, Vanessa, Matt Dawson. 2018. Families and Relationships e-Special Issue Introduction. Sociology, 52, 4: 865–874. DOI: 10.1177/0038038518760427.
43. Nicolini, Davide. 2012. Practice Theory, Work, and Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44. Nordqvist, Petra. 2012. ‘I don’t want us to stand out more than we already do’: Lesbian couples negotiating family connections in donor conception. Sexualities, 15, 5/6: 644–661. DOI: 10.1177/1363460712446271.
45. Olcoń-Kubicka, Marta. 2009. Rola Internetu w powstawaniu nowego modelu macierzyństwa. W: M. Sikorska, red. Być rodzicem we współczesnej Polsce. Nowe wzory konfrontacji z rzeczywistością. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 34–61.
46. Parsons, Talcott, Robert Freed Bales. 1955. Family Socialization and Interaction Process. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press.
47. Pilcher, Jane, Zara Hooley, Amanda Coffey. 2020. Names and naming in adoption: Birth heritage and family-making. Child & Family Social Work, 25, 3: 568–575. DOI: 1111/cfs.12728.
48. Power, Emma. 2008. Furry families: making a human–dog family through home. Social & Cultural Geography, 9, 5: 535–555. DOI: 10.1080/14649360802217790.
49. Pugh, Allison J. 2005. Selling Compromise: Toys, Motherhood, and the Cultural Deal. Gender and Society, 19, 6: 729–749. DOI: 10.1177/0891243205279286.
50. Pustułka, Paula, Magdalena Ślusarczyk. 2016. Cultivation, compensation and indulgence: Transnational short-term returns to Poland across three family generations. TransnationalSocialReview,6,1–2:78–92.DOI:10.1080/21931674.2016.1182312.
51. Reckwitz, Andreas 2002. Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5, 2: 243–263.
52. Rose, Gillian. 2010. Doing Family Photography. The Domestic, The Public and The Politics of Sentiment. Surrey: Asghate Publishing Limited.
53. Rose, Gillian. 2014. How Digital Technologies Do Family Snaps, Only Better. In: J. Larsen, M. Sandbye, eds. Digital Snaps: The New Face of Photography. London: Routledge, 67–86.
54. Schatzki, Theodore. 2001. Introduction: Practice theory. In: T. Schatzki, K.K. Cetina, E. von Savigny, eds. The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge, 10–23.
55. Schatzki, Theodore. 2012. A primer on practices: Theory and research. In: J. Higgs, R. Barnett, S. Billett, M. Hutchings, F. Trede, eds. Practice-Based Education. Perspectives and Strategies. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 13–26.
56. Schmidt, Filip, Joanna Mizielińska, Agata Stasińska, Marta Olcoń-Kubicka, Magdalena Żadkowska, Joanna Jasińska, Mateusz Halawa. 2018. W stronę socjologii pary: propozycja paradygmatu teoretyczno-badawczego. Studia Socjologiczne, 3, 230: 11–39. DOI: 10.24425/122471.
57. Seymour, Julie. 2015. More than putting on a performance in commercial homes: merging family practices and critical hospitality studies. Annals of Leisure Research, 18, 3: 414–430. DOI: 10.1080/11745398.2015.1078247.
58. Seymour, Julie, Julie Walsch. 2013. Displaying Families, Migrant Families and Community Connectedness: The Application of an Emerging Concept in Family Life. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 44, 6: 689–698. DOI: 10.3138/ jcfs.44.6.689.
59. Shannon, Charlene S. 2019. #Family: Exploring the Display of Family and Family Leisure on Facebook and Instagram. Leisure Sciences (online). DOI: 10.1080/01490400.2019.1597792.
60. Shannon, Charlene S. 2021. Constructing “family”. Leisure as a context for “doing” and “displaying” family. In: D. Trussell, E, R. Jeanes, eds. Families, Sport, Leisure and Social Justice. London: Routledge, 18–29.
61. Share, Michelle, Cayla Williams, Liz Kerrins. 2018. Displaying and performing: Polish transnational families in Ireland Skyping grandparents in Poland. New Media & Society, 20, 8: 3011–3028. DOI: 10.1177/1461444817739272.
62. Shove, Elizabeth, Mika Pantzar, Matt Watson. 2012. The Dynamics of Social Practices. London: Sage Publications.
63. Sikorska, Małgorzata. 2018. Teorie praktyk jako alternatywa dla badań nad rodziną prowadzonych w Polsce. Studia Socjologiczne, 2, 229: 31–63. DOI: 10.24425/122463.
64. Sikorska, Małgorzata. 2019. Praktyki rodzinne i rodzicielskie we współczesnej Polsce – rekonstrukcja codzienności. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.
65. Smart, Carol. 2008. “Can I Be Bridesmaid?” Combining the Personal and Political in Same-SexWeddings. Sexualities,11,6:761–776.DOI:10.1177/1363460708096917.
66. Taranowicz, Iwona. 2016. Jemy wspólnie niedzielne obiady, więc jesteśmy rodziną – o znaczeniu demonstrowania praktyk rodzinnych w tworzeniu rodziny. Societas Communitas, 1, 21: 251–256.
67. Tarrant, Anna. 2012. Grandfathering: the construction of new identities and masculinities. In: S. Arber, V. Timonen, eds. Contemporary grandparenting: Changing family relationships in global contexts. Bristol: Policy Press, 181–202.
68. Underwood, Carrie R., Rachel D. Robnett. 2021. “I Would Like Us to Share a Name so That We Can Be Recognized in Society.” Marital Surname Preferences in Same-Sex Relationships. Journal of Homosexuality, 68, 2: 290–310. DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2019.1651110.
69. Ursin, Marit, Siv Oltedal, Carolina Munoz. 2016. Recognizing the ‘big things’ and the ‘little things’ in child protection cases. Child & Family Social Work, 22: 932–941. DOI: 10.1111/cfs.12313.
70. Walsh, Julie C. 2018. Migrant family display: a strategy for achieving recognition and validation in the host country. Sociological Research Online, 23, 1: 67–83. DOI: 10.1177/1360780417747286.
71. Watson, Ash, Deborah Lupton, Mike Michael. 2021. Enacting intimacy and sociality at a distance in the COVID-19 crisis: the sociomaterialities of home-based communication technologies. Media International Australia, 178, 1: 136–150. DOI: 10.1177/1329878X20961568.
72. White, James M., David M. Klein. 2008. Family Theories. London: Sage Publications.
73. Van Driel, Loes, Delia Dumitrica. 2020. Selling brands while staying “Authentic”: The professionalisation of Instagram influencers. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, XX, X: 1–19. DOI: 10.1177/1354856520902136.
74. Zadeh, Sophie, Susan Imrie, Susan Golombok. 2021. Storiesof Samenessand Difference: The Views and Experiences of Children and Adolescents with a trans*Parent. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 17, 1: 1–17. DOI: 10.1080/1550428X.2019.1683785.
75. Żadkowska, Magdalena, Marta Olcoń-Kubicka, Jacek Gądecki, Joanna Mizielińska, Agata Stasińska, Filip Schmidt, Mateusz Halawa. 2018. Metodologiczne aspekty jakościowych badań par – synteza doświadczeń terenowych. Studia Socjologiczne, 3, 230: 41–69. DOI: 10.24425/122472.