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

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.

13. Some conceptual
tools :
Appropriation
and
Domestication

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

22. Scotland
ScottishHouseholdSurveyto2015
82% in 2016

23. Internet Penetration

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

29. NATIONALstatistics2018

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

39. Social Media adoption

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

62. Device differences

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

93. Social exclusion and
inclusion

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)

103. Scotland internet security

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