Digital Divide, Social Exclusion, and inclusion policy and new harms
Download as PPTX, PDF4 likes120 views
Provide basic access and skills Subsidise access Basic digital literacy Community access points Activist: Address systemic exclusion Design for inclusion Address socio-economic factors Challenge corporate and state power Digital welfare rights Critique: Whose interests do different policies serve? What are the limits of market and technology? What is the role of the state? So policy depends on analysis and values Digital Inclusion Policy UK: - Broadband rollout - Community access points - Digital inclusion strategies - Digital skills partnerships
Digital Divide, Social Exclusion, and inclusion policy and new harms
- 1. Use of the Internet Digital Divide and Social Exclusion, and Digital Inclusion Policy Internet and Society Autumn 2018 James Stewart, University of Edinburgh
- 2. The story so far Community, and society supposedly under threat from: Electronic media Breakdown of Social Bonds Privatisation of social networks and community Networked Individualism Shifting to a Knowledge Economy: need workers and consumers What is impact of move to a ‘information society’ on individuals and ‘problematic’ communities Can we have a safe open internet for everyone? Welfare policy in the 21st century
- 3. Digital Exclusion, Policy and New Risks Some Concepts in adoption and diffusion Bell curve and S-curve Appropriation and Domestication Measurement and Statistics Where to find them What they tell us Three ages of understanding Criticism Policy responses Digital Competency Digital Native Social Exclusion Multidimensional process The 'Digital' in Exclusion Why are they collected Shane Horgan
- 4. Individuals Families Companies that provides services NGOs Government Who should the government be responsible for? Digital welfare Why should tax payer money be spent on this? What things are better done collectively? When and where are individuals, organisations and policy makers failing? Who’s responsibility is the ‘digital citizen’?
- 5. Who do you know who does not use the internet? Who always asks for your help when they struggle?
- 6. UK NATIONAL STATISTICS 2018 (Labour Force SURVEY) 90% of adults in the UK (45.9 million) had recently (in the last 3 months) used the internet,(86.2% in 2015). 8.4% (4.8 million) had never used the internet (11.4% in 2015). Almost all (99.2%), adults aged 16 to 24 years were recent internet users in contrast with 44% (38.7% 2015) of adults aged 75 years and over. 91% of men (23.2 million) and 89% of women (23.5 million) were recent internet users, (87.9% , 84.6% 2015). Women aged 75 and over, had seen the largest rise in recent internet use, up 300% from 2011; however, still less than a third (35%) were recent users in 2017. (32.6% 2016) 22.0% of disabled adults had never used the internet in 2017, (27.4% in 2015). 97% for 16-24 yos.
- 7. Use of Internet 2016-2018 USA 89% of adults (Pew 2018) (37m non-users) UK 90% of adults in the UK (45.9 million) had recently (in the last 3 months) 10.2% never used (Ofcom+NATSTATS 2017) NL 96% (2016, Eurostat) EU28 - 85 % of European households had home access 2016 (83% broadband) Eurostat Korea 92.1% (ITU 2016) China: 53.1% (731m, CNNIC, dec 2015 71% phone access)
- 8. Van Deursen & van Dijk, (2013). The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New Media & Society, Robinson, L., et al (2015). Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), Helsper, E.J.,&Van Deursen, A.J.A.M. (2017). The collateral benefits of Internet Use. New Media&Society. ‘Digital Inclusion: An Analysis of Social Disadvantage and the Information Society’, Department for Communities and Local Government 2008: Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E., 2007. ‘Gradations in Digital Inclusion: Children, Young People and the Digital Divide.’ New Media & Society, 9(4), 671-696. The Potential of Digital Games for Empowerment and Social Inclusion of Groups at Risk of Social and Economic Exclusion: Evidence and Opportunity for Policy. James Stewart, et al
- 10. Digital Competency Rate yourself Information and data literacy Communication and collaboration Digital content creation Safety Problem solving
- 11. What can you learn from doing this What questions are being asked and why? Are some out of date Are some topics missing? Are some topics surprising? Why is it important o know how a search engine works? How do you doe a with anti-social behaviour online? How would you teach these? Where and when? How would you know what ‘level’ you are at? How might you measure the level someone is at? What if someone is only scores 50% ? How might they be disadvantaged? How might they be at risk?
- 12. Folk Theory: Digital Natives Discuss The term digital native describes a person that grows up in the digital age, rather than acquiring familiarity with digital systems as an adult, as a digital immigrant.
- 14. Social Appropriation Approach Stewart 2002, 2005 – Qualitative study of processes and relationships, drawing on domestication theory. Massive collective effort to adopt, learn to use, and support each other. Forced adoption drives struggle to adopt Many people do not understand how the information ‘society’ works Limited scope for either policy or business to facilitate the speed of change Societal coping strategies Identity and networks crucial in shaping attitudes, resources and behaviour Local economies of advice, expertise, hardware and software Local experts (Stewart) or warm experts (Wyatt) play key role Shift to use of Online resources
- 15. Adoption and Appropriation How and why we adopt and use new innovations, products, services make them part of our lives Consumer studies, technology studies, media studies, gender studies, Motivations and resources Context Processes Voluntary or obliged adoption Some dimensions shaping adoption behaviour Functional: they do something practical Experiential: they provide sensual pleasure Identity: products provide expression of self identity (e.g. Sorenson, Silverstone) But Social context crucial Network effects
- 16. Appropriation and Domestication in ICTs E.g Sørenson, Silverstone, Stewart etc How technologies come into local settings and how we make them ‘at home’ Collective processes Learning Formal, informal, learning by doing, community learning Social processes Local experts, domestic and local economy, local power Think of the rules and fights over technology and media you had a home growing up Proxy use Forced and Reluctant Use User innovation Work arounds Coping Configurations Pathways to use Self Limiting use, Giving up use.
- 17. Non-use of Technology, inc. ICT Why people don’t adopt “Not relevant”, ”no use” “Too complicated”, “too fiddly” Practical, experiential, identity factors Physical / Cognitive barriers Subjective reactions No resources No motivation No community Constrained agency Resistors, Delayers and Rejectors, Ex- users Need triggers to use These come from other changes in life
- 18. Proxy Use (OXIS 2007) Have some to ask
- 20. Statistical Sources on Internet adoption and diffusion
- 21. Statistical Sources on Internet adoption and diffusion - sources Sources OII report/World Internet report Ofcom National Statistics Scottish Statistics Pew Eurescom MORI etc Eurostat Who uses the internet? What people are using it for? How this is changing? What should policy be doing, and is it working
- 25. Everett Rogers Diffusion of ‘Innovations’ Bell curve S-curve Demand-side: Multiple reasons to adopt or not. Network effects Supply side: Supply diversity Innovation Economies of scale S-curve limit - maximum uptake is not entire population Time -> Uptake of a ‘innovation’ Cumulative Rate of adoption
- 26. Internet Adopter groups Many studies suggest different groups of adopters according to time of adoption of a particular innovation. E.g. Enthusiasts - innovators Pragmatists Reluctant Rejecters Not a Binary division into users and non-users These numbers hide wide diversities of use and usage E.g. Helsper and Van Dijk surveys etc What factors underline these types of categories?
- 27. Level 1 digital divide – access and use
- 28. EU Homeinternet access 2016
- 30. Internet Use and Non-use by Sex
- 32. How we use, what we use?
- 34. Obsessed Ofcom’s research shows that, on average, Android users taking part in the research had a total of 81 screen-on or app sessions per day during the Q4 2017 measurement period. If panellists slept for eight hours a day, this suggests that they checked or used their smartphone on average every 12 minutes while they were awake.
- 36. UK Use
- 37. Internet users who bought or ordered goods or services for private use over the internet in the previous 12 months, 2012 and 2016 (% of internet users) Eurostat 2016 EU-28 = 59 % EU-28 = 66 % 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% UK DK DE SE* LU NL FR FI IE AT SK BE EE* MT CZ PL LV* ES SI HU EL HR LT PT IT CY BG RO 2012 2016
- 38. “Airbnb” Individuals who used any website or app to arrange accommodation from another individual in the 12 months prior to the survey, 2017 (% of individuals aged 16 to 74) Eurostat
- 42. Usage of differtn services Ofcom 2016
- 43. From Objective to Subjective
- 46. Ofcom Digital Harm survey 2018
- 48. “Fifteen million UK internet users have undertaken a ‘digital detox’ in a bid to strike a healthier balance between technology and life beyond the screen.” Ofcom’s Communications Market Report 2016
- 49. Reasoning from descriptive statistics Explain the differences in mobile phone uptake in 2006. In general, always ask what lies behind the numbers
- 50. ESSAYS: KEY MESSAGE Internet use and usage and the cultural and economic embeddedness, as well as the actual things we use is constantly changing, this means that studies can go out of date quickly. Always reflect and comment on the age of studies, and check the data to see if this can help you assess whether it still may be valid today and in the futures
- 51. Differentiating types of users, and correlations with socio-economic status
- 52. Identifying Use/Adoption Factors Use Correlates with: Income Age and Lifestage Region/nation Urban/Rural Professional activity Education Ethnic groups (BAME) Gender Ability/Disability Capital/Wealth Family with children These factors shape: Access to Tech and Service Patterns of use Time spend using Types of services used Willingness to adopt new service Ability to maintain tech Online safety. ?
- 53. Pew 2016
- 54. Scotland2016
- 58. Regional differences in EU
- 59. Disability
- 60. Non-use of the internet just another factor associated with being poor, disabled, uneducated etc
- 61. More detailed breakdown by socio-economic factors
- 63. From Binary division to Cluster of types of use
- 66. Why are we paying to collect this information? It might have made sense 15 years ago, but why are headline numbers still ‘access’
- 67. Digital exclusion and the Digital Divide
- 68. Are differences in access and use a policy problem? 1990s Information society vision empowerment Technical fix for economy and society New routes to employment, education, health “Information Society policy” “Information Superhighway” Critique; Some people not “joining in” the “New Economy” People will be ‘left behind’ Will not be workers or consumer in Digital economy Will not be able to access public services online Will be ‘ left behind’ “Digital Divide”
- 69. Group exclusion: Women and the IT labour market Women are minority in many ‘IT’ jobs Very low participation of women in engineering and IT professions, especially in ‘West’ Girls do not engage with ‘IT’ as much as boys – lack interest and basic skills => Exclusion from best jobs Not part of the ‘Creation of the Internet’ But High in Far East Media starts to dominate, and female dominated professions Women in the network society question
- 70. Problem: Why are individuals not ‘going digital’?
- 71. Problems: Why are individuals not ‘going digital’ 2? No physical Access Low Resources (time, money, experience, social network for support, and community) No relevant Content and Services Poor Literacy and Skills Basic literacy Information age literacy Low Personal Motivation Social and individual issues Life-stage e.g. identity Local exclusion Early Academic analysis: Individual gap model Primarily needs to be addressed at individual level Some identification of community for provision of services to close gaps. Taken for granted that being online is important
- 72. Three levels/ages of ‘Digital Divide’ analysis Level 1: binary of Internet access/non- access - explained by economic resources, local connectivity. Level 2: included skills and engagement, attitude, relevant content Level 3 Focuses on inequalities in outcomes from internet skills, access, platforms, services etc
- 73. Inclusion and Exclusion via ICTs: Outcomes or So What Can’t adopt, won’t adopt No money, no skills, no interest, no trust Result-> ‘Digital’ exclusion Poor Jobs Limited Gov services Limited Information Few Consumer benefits (internet prices etc) Isolation from new culture New excluded groups - older men Excluded by design
- 76. It’s not the fault of the individual: EXCLUDED OR INCLUDED BY DESIGN Excluded by product/service design Feminist studies of technology design Human Computer Interaction research Hardware design and User interface Software and system design Algorithmic models User understanding of the interaction and system logic User understand of how how other people and organisations are using the systems Excluded by Policy/ socio-technical system design E,g, 2010s Exclusion by Data and Algorithm welfare system design
- 77. Responses “Design for all” User-centred design Keyboard, GUI, touch screen, metaphors, ‘PRIVACY BY DESIGN” Digital Inclusion Policies Access, Skills and Accessibility Policy “Algorithm Activism”
- 78. Policy Response
- 79. How might these different interpretations lead to different policy interventions? Passive: Rely on ‘S-curve’ Market will supply New easier cheap tech will be developed Mobile brings everyone internet Young people will get older, non-using old people will die Young people will help old people Etc There are so many problems, people don’t have enough food, crime is up, Brexit etc,why should government spend money on this? BUT Not just about cost of access Business does not address social excluded/poor – no money Need to ensure network infrastructure is built People need to learn skills, and change attitudes, not just get access. People need local or warm expert support Lots of bad stuff is happening that it is hard for individuals to cope with Problem: a policy area without a home
- 80. Active Policy approaches Policy levers Awareness, Coordination, Regulation,, Leadership, Subsidy, Tax, Standards, R&D Ensure affordable and accessible internet and computers Ensure Training and Skills development Build confidence in the Internet Support content and services Partnerships for implementation NGOs (e.g. Telecentres) Schools(Curricula) Support national and Local experts - change agents (Digital Champions) Government-industry partnerships
- 81. What should and can policy do? Who’s responsibility is the ‘digital citizen’? Individuals Families Companies that provides services NGOs Government Who should the government be responsible for? Digital welfare What things are better done collectively? When are individuals, organisations and policy makers failing?
- 83. Access – public and private initiatives Devices - computers 1 laptop per child programme and similar Computer towns projects Devices - Phones Phones for the homeless Public access Libraries, Telecottages, internet centres, internet cafes, internet pubs and hairdressing salons, Home Internet access ‘free dialup internet’ services Universal Service Competition policy Subsidy to rural areas Mobile access Competition policy R&D funding
- 85. Skills Approaches Basic skills School education Teach your granny to use a computer Library and local training courses Women-only courses Workplace basic skills Public media Retailer training NHS “Widening Digital Participation programme. “ Employment skills Employability training European Computer Driving Licence “Learn to Code” projects (2010+) 1 million IT jobs unfilled responses Safety Public Media Schools, colleges Private sector training
- 86. Skills, Competence and Use ‘Core skills’ Attitude and Motivations ”Digital Literacy” Digital Competences for Social “Digital health skills”, Digital Public Services, e-commerce skills, “online safety” skills Diversity of skills and usage “useful”, “empowering” “destructive” Data Literacy Aicken et a 2016“Use of the Internet for Sexual Health Among Sexually Experienced Persons Aged 16 to 44 Years: Evidence from a Nationally Representative Survey of the British Population” “Digital Competence can be broadly defined as the confident, critical and creative use of ICT to achieve goals related to work, employability, learning, leisure, inclusion and/or participation in society. IPTS, JRC
- 87. Critique “Most of this focuses on absolute deprivation, with fixed levels of connection speed, skill, or engagement as an indicator of digital inclusion. ” Helsper 2017 “overcoming digital divides is a rather complex challenge that goes beyond improving access or Internet skills “ Van Deursen and Van Dijk 2014 “A clear distinction needs to be made between the possession of Internet skills, undertaking different kinds of activities online, and the tangible outcomes in different spheres of everyday life that result from this engagement, Van Deursen and Heslper. 2017
- 88. There is not a linear scale of ‘digital competency’ and a linear relationship to positive outcomes.
- 89. “there is little empirical evidence showing how skills and use translate into specific outcomes. In addition, the implicit assumption is made that using the Internet for a particular activity automatically means that potential benefits associated with that activity are achieved (Helsper 2017) However, despite all the policy activity to get everyone ’digitally included’:
- 90. Important Policy Question Should governments adopt a ‘digital’ only or a ‘digital first’ public service model, even related to services to the most at risk? E.g. Universal Credit How might this be mitigated? How is it happening in practice. (Week 8 and 9) Are new sorts of exclusion being created through ‘datafication’ of bureaucratic records. Policy can remove barriers, and create opportunties, but cannot create individual motivations Unless you oblige people to use online services
- 92. Break
- 96. Hypothesis: Digital exclusion leads to, or reinforces Social Exclusion
- 97. Levitas et al Social exclusion is a complex and multi-dimensional process. It involves the lack or denial of resources, rights, goods and services, and the inability to participate in the normal relationships and activities, available to the majority of people in a society, whether in economic, social, cultural or political arenas. It affects both the quality of life of individuals and the equity and cohesion of society as a whole.
- 98. Social Exclusion We are Unequal but free agents with opportunity. Dimensions No access to work/labour market (economics) Consumer (participation and culture) Identity (culture) Community (social) Citizenship (politics) Issues (e.g. Atkinson 1996) Relative in Society Role of Personal Agency Dynamic and fluid Individual, family or community Excluded groups Disabled, Ethic minorities, immigrants, religious groups, ‘Women’, Homeless Not just ‘the poor’ or ‘working class’ High economic and political cost to society
- 100. Bristol social exclusion matrix Resources: Material/economic resources Access to public and private services Social resources Participation: Economic participation Social participation Culture, education and skills Political and civic participation Quality of life: Health and well-being Living environment Crime, harm and criminalisation Social Exclusion: 3 factors; At Risk: 1 or more Identify ways that internet use and non- use may exacerbate social exclusion in each category
- 101. Resources: Material/economic resources Income from work, access to free/cheap stuff Access to public and private services Online only services, discovery, booking, management Social resources Support, community, Participation: Economic participation Access to work – finding work, skills for work; higher prices, personal pricing Social participation Exclusion from Social networks, communities, social sorting and filtering, connection to family Culture, education and skills Education, cyberculture Political and civic participation Community, social networks, media, issue groups campaigning Quality of life: Health and well-being Health information, wellness tools, community support Living environment …social sorting and filtering Crime, harm and criminalisation New forms of crime and victimisation, bullying - identify theft, phishing, phone theft, sex crime (revenge porn etc)
- 104. Shane
- 105. Individual -> sociological accounts of digital exclusion Social exclusion: dynamic, relative (Atkinson 1996) “processes that drive adoption of ICTs by individuals within households are often without clear theorization of how individuals influence each other, or how others, who are not part of the household unit, influence individuals within the household (Haddon, 2011; Katz & Hampton, 2016).” Ellen Helsper Except of course authors such as Stewart 2002, 2005 and Helsper herself.
- 106. Helsper critique “digital inequalities research ignores social inequalities theory and research which shows that an individual's ability and drive to overcome disadvantage is subjective rather than objective, dependent on immediate social contexts and, thus, variable within the individual and over time.” (2017)
- 107. Readings: Ellen Helsper Current work: “From Digital Skills to Tangible Outcomes””; “The Impact of marketing through social media, online games and mobile applications on children's behaviour” and "EU Kids Online project”. These inform the development of an index for digital inclusion for the UK’s Government Digital Services and Go On UK campaign. Maximizing opportunities and minimizing risks for children online: the role of digital skills in emerging strategies of parental mediation The emergence of a "digital underclass" in Great Britain and Sweden: changing reasons for digital exclusion Family dynamics and internet use in Britain: what role do children play in adults' engagement with the internet? A corresponding fields model for the links between social and digital exclusion The emergence of a digital underclass: digital policies in the UK and evidence for inclusion
- 108. Policy Domains Social and Employment Policy Unemployment Social cohesion Immigration Industrial Policy Skilled workforce Consumer market New industrial sector growth Education Policy Cultural Policy Health Policy ICT or Internet Policy?
- 109. Important Policy Question Should governments adopt aa ‘digital’ only or a ‘digital first’ public service model, even related to services to the most at risk E.g. Universal Credit
- 110. New generation policy: ICT for Social Inclusion Online volunteering systems ICT tools for social workers and educators Games and Digital Play Digital “Games” for: Health Training Anti-radicalisation Anti-bullying Reaching excluded populations More engaging More familiar/accessible
- 111. Digital-inclusion=Social inclusion? Claire Buré paper. Subcultural appropriation Can act as a bridge but Can reinforce subcultural and excluded life.
- 112. “Fifteen million UK internet users have undertaken a ‘digital detox’ in a bid to strike a healthier balance between technology and life beyond the screen.” Ofcom’s Communications Market Report 2016
- 113. Questions Is the digital divide really an important factor in social exclusion? Does technology adoption really lead to social inclusion?
- 114. Next Week: Videos