The project topics: Digital identity and digital inclusion

Digital Inclusion

Defining digital inclusion is challenging as research and debates are often embedded in specific contexts. Most definitions converge around the idea that all members of society are able to access the affordances that technology offers (Seale, 2009, Selwyn and Facer, 2007).

Political and economic influences

There are strong political and economic influences throughout many of the debates on digital inclusion. The UK Government defines digital inclusion as ‘having the right access, skills, motivation and trust to confidently go online’ (Cabinet Office, 2014). However, the government’s motivations appear to be focused on creating economic opportunities, with commissioned work addressing access, through infrastructure projects with telecommunications companies, and skills, for example, the projects commissioned by Go ON UK (www.go-on.co.uk ). Projects addressing the motivation and trust barriers appear more limited. The government view of motivation supports the premise that going online makes it easier to find a job, improve household income, and get more benefits from public services. These motivations are predominantly economical and financial, rather than social and cultural.

Meaningfulness and digital choice

Further debates about the motivational barriers emerge mainly from the educational field, where educators are looking at how to utilise ‘technology-enhanced’ learning. Seale (2009) notes that a lack of skills is not the only influence on technology use. It must have some meaningful use in people’s lives and afford contextual uses; in other words, it needs to have ‘life-fit’. Online initiatives often forget that a person’s motivation and attitude towards the use of technology, may be as important as the access quality and location. Individuals develop positive and negative attitudes about technology, which, alongside other cultural barriers, need to be tackled. Understanding the ‘digital choices’ (Helsper, 2008) people make is a necessary factor when considering inclusion.

Scouting values and digital inclusion

Inclusion is therefore about opportunities and practices and not just the deficits and barriers. An individual’s values will be influential in determining the meaningfulness of using technology. Seale (2009) reminds us that people bring their own set of motivations, skills and resourcefulness to the online world. So could the existing motivations and skills of volunteers, founded upon shared values, motivate and encourage meaningfulness in digital participation?

Identity

The ‘identity’ topic emerged from research about the trust barriers to inclusion and the relevance of identity in the digital landscape. From a practitioner perspective, digital identity is at the forefront of discussions about online safety. A conscious comprehensive understanding of the nature of digital identity and how to manage it however, has yet to be developed (de Kerckhove and Almedia, 2013; Ollier-Malaterre and Rothbard, 2013).

Understanding identity

‘Identity’, put simply, is the perception and expression we have of ourselves. Influenced by cultural contexts and social interactions (Suke, 2009), it is generally agreed that identity is perceived differently in different contexts (Besley, 2011; Cullen, 2009). Accordingly, online identity is about how we present ourselves to others online, and how we perceive ourselves through our online interactions (Gradinaru, 2013).

Digital identity

Early debates about digital identity concentrated on anonymity and the multitude of opportunities the internet afforded. Technology has developed and is now embedded in everyday lives, a process Gradinaru (2013) called ‘technological domestication’. The internet is no longer a playground with which to construct different identities (although we still use the internet to explore different facets of identity), but has become a way of ‘customising’ our identities, more clearly linking back to the ‘real’. This means that individuals participating online need have an understanding of the structure of digital spaces, and how they influence and shape identity (Kimmons, 2014). For example, less face to face contact encourages more self-disclosure, which is the main affordance of social networking (Belk, 2013).

The challenges

Online spaces offer opportunities and challenges. The challenges converge around mis-understanding information. Digital identity is easier to misinterpret because the original context and meaning of digital presentations can be lost, as they are not necessarily linked to specific contexts, particular relationships or situations. Self-disclosure can lead to boundary dilemmas (Lannin and Scott, 2013), which is why most advice talks about the benefits of developing separate personal and professional digital identities. However, as Lannin and Scott (2013) note in their paper about how psychologists navigate the online world, it would be naïve to think that our private lives will never intersect with the professional.

Scouting values and managing identity

Individuals have to make their own decisions about digital identity, but educators can help empower them. They need a heightened awareness of the risks and rewards afforded by online participation in order to take responsibility and make choices about their own digital identity. By integrating Scouting values with messages about digital identity, could volunteers consider how to participate in ways that are meaningful and truthful for them, within a framework they already observe? 

References

Belk, R. W. (2013). Extended self in a digital world. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 477-500. [online] Available at: http://www.dies.uniud.it/tl_files/utenti/crisci/Belk%202013a.pdf (Accessed 2 January 2015)

Besley, T. (2011). Digitized Youth: Constructing identities in the creative knowledge economy. Annals Of Spiru Haret University, Journalism Studies, 12(1), 9-22.

 de Kerckhove, D., & de Almeida, C. M. (2013). What is a digital persona?. Technoetic Arts: A Journal of Speculative Research, 11(3), 277-287 

Cabinet Office (2014) Government Digital Inclusion Strategy, 13 April 2014 [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-digital-inclusion-strategy (Accessed 2 January 2015) 

Cullen (2009) Culture, identity and information privacy in the age of digital government.  Online Information Review, 33(3), 405-421. 

Gradinaru, C. (2013). From Multitude to Convergence: Contemporary Trends in the Study of Online Identity. Argumentum: Journal the Seminar Of Discursive Logic, Argumentation Theory & Rhetoric, 11(2), 95-108. 

Helsper, Ellen (2008) Digital inclusion: an analysis of social disadvantage and the information society. Department for Communities and Local Government, London, UK. [online] Available at: http://www.esd.org.uk/esdtoolkit/communities/DigitalInclusion/tools%5COXiS%20Report.pdf (Accessed 2 January 2015)

Kimmons, R. (2014). Social Networking Sites, Literacy, and the Authentic Identity Problem. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 58(2), 93-98.

Lannin, D. G., & Scott, N. A. (2013). Social networking ethics: Developing best practices for the new small world. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 44(3), 135-141.

Ollier - Malaterre, A., Rothbard, N. P., & BERG, J. M. (2013). When worlds collide in cyberspace:How Boundary work in online social networks impacts professional relationships. Academy Of Management Review, 38(4), 645-669. 

Seale, J. (2009). Digital Inclusion. A research briefing by the technology enhanced learning phase of the teaching and learning research programme. [online] Available at: http://www.tlrp.org/docs/DigitalInclusion.pdf (Accessed 2 January 2015)

 Selwyn, N., & Facer, K. (2007). Beyond the digital divide. Opening Education Reports. Bristol: Futurelab. [online]. Available at: http://www2.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/opening_education/Digital_Divide.pdf (Accessed 2 January 2015) 

Suke, C. (2009). College Male Students' Cultural Value Identity in the New Media World. China Media Research, 5(4), 41-46.

Digital inclusion - what does it mean?

For the first part of my project I have been exploring digital inclusion and what it really means. Like most ‘concepts’, there is a lack of clarity around definition. This puts it in danger of becoming another meaningless concept that is bandied about. So what have I found?

Economic and political motivations

The UK Government defines digital inclusion as ‘having the right access, skills, motivation and trust to confidently go online’ (Cabinet Office, 2014). They want us to be digitally capable of going online and using it to improve our lives. However the government’s motivations stem from creating opportunities and ensuring that we have the competencies needed to develop the economy. This is evident from that fact that many of the projects that have arisen from the Digital Strategy have focused on access and skills ( see Go ON UK ). While large companies are working alongside the government to ensure we have the infrastructure to deliver platforms and services, Go-ON UK are working with partners to make sure that adults have the basic digital skills needed. And there are some fantastic projects being delivered, many of which are focusing on those who are deemed to be excluded (socio-economic areas of older demographics).

 In fact even Europe has a digital strategy to ‘help digital technologies, including the internet, deliver sustainable economic growth’. Once again this focuses on access and skills, although there is also mention of cyber-security. However this focus on access and skills, has a hint of technological determinism (technology will make the world a better place) about it. It divides people into the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’, focusing on access and skills. Skills and access are not the only things that influence decision about whether people find using technology appropriate or meaningful in their lives.

Motivation to go online

The government strategy highlights ‘motivation’ and ‘trust’ as elements of their digital strategy, and say that overcoming the barriers is about all of them, but there seems to be little in depth discussion around the motivation and trust barriers. The motivation seems to be that being able to go online will make it easier to find a job, to improve household income, to get more benefits from public services and entertainment. But I wonder whether these motivations are too ‘capitalist’ in their approach. In other words, they are appealing to people economically and financially, rather than socially and culturally. Motivation is about the relevance to the individual, and the triggers will be different for different people. There cannot be a one size fits all approach.

Digital Inclusion (Seale, 2009)

Seale’s (2009) report is an update about the research being conducted around digital inclusion, and what wider discussions can bring to the development of technology enhanced learning. She highlights in the opening that definitions of digital inclusion

 ‘tend to embed within them an expectation or imperative that digital inclusion happens when all members of society are able to access the affordances offered by technology use ‘(page 3)

The report focuses on four aspects: Access, Use, Participation and Empowerment. Access, as is seen by the Government’s digital strategy links to technologies and services (direct access is seen as being able to access technology and indirect access is about accessing online services). Use, is highlighted as mainly being about the skills that individuals have to use technology. However, Seale notes that it is not just a lack of skills that influences technology use. Technology must have some meaningful use in people’s lives and afford contextual uses; in other words, does it have a ‘life-fit’. Seale also asks us whether non-use of technology is problematic. This is an important question, which later papers will explore.

Traditionally, ‘inclusion’ is focused on helping people to participate in society. Therefore digital inclusion is about helping to reduce the disadvantaged, and encourage participation for the marginalised. (see the Helsper paper on my next blog post for the link between social and digital exclusion).  Seale draws our attention to Cook and Light (2006) who explore participation and see it as a fluid process and make a distinction between active (we influence the way technology is used) and passive  (recipients of the service) participation. This leads on to the final aspect, empowerment. You see power comes up a lot in discussions about the online world, but also in discussions about inclusion. Seale highlights that the government see technology as a vehicle for empowerment, and link this to the idea of independence. Seale issues some sensible warnings about linking empowerment to independence and self-sufficiency, as it leads us to link digital inclusion with skills deficits, forgetting that people have a whole host of other ‘strengths, motivations and resourcefulness’ to bring with them. Personally I would rather use the term self-efficacy, that is, an individual believes in their own ability, which is what I think empowerment is all about rather than independence.

The key point that Seale is making is that digital inclusion is multi-faceted. It is a social, cultural and cognitive concepts, and so we must define and redefine for our own contexts while recognising the wider discussions that are going on. If we think about inclusion in terms of access, then we consider how equality of opportunity can benefit. If we think about inclusion in terms of use and empowerment, then we are prompted to think about the equality of the outcomes not just the opportunities.

For my next blog post I will be exploring the concept of digital inclusion some more, and looking at how this links to social disadvantage, participation, and whether we need to change how we look at this, and consider whether digital choice is a good thing.

Cabinet Office (2014) Government Digital Inclusion Strategy, 13 April 2014 [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-digital-inclusion-strategy

Cook, J & Light, A. (2006) New patterns of power and participation? Designing ICT for Informal and Personalised Flexible Community Learning. E-Learning, 3, 1, 51-61.

Seale, J. (2009). Digital Inclusion. A research briefing by the technology enhanced learning phase of the teaching and learning research programme. [online] Available at: http://www.tlrp.org/docs/DigitalInclusion.pdf

Deck the halls - Creating a multi-media poster.

Merry Christmas one and all, and although the last month has flown by, some of us are back in the swing of things and studying hard (after all there is an assignment deadline waiting in the wings). 

December has been about creating a multimedia poster in H818, in order to 'advertise' our presentation at the online conference which will be happening in February. So we have all been experimenting with different media and trying to figure out which one to use. (My next post will include my beta version!).

Challenge 1: what is a poster?
This was the first hurdle for many of us, as when you think 'poster', the concept of a physical, graphical presentation spring to mind (like the ones that you stuck all over your wall as teenager, only more educational). any of the tools tried out helped to present this more one dimensional approach. However, the guidance we were given was that it had to be 'multi-media. which means it needs to be raised from one dimensional, to at least two!

Challenge 2: Multimedia tools
Thus began the trek into the forbidden kingdom and an exploration of the tools and variety of format that one could choose to make a poster out of. For many of the tools, the companies like to suck you in with freebies, but if you want to make them available to others then you need pay up. The other thing is that you can spend 'HOURS' online creating new things, so you have to start getting selective.

One of the first things I tried was Toon doo, which wasn't really a multi-media tool, but I loved the cartoon strip that you could create. Hours of fun! You can even produce your own comic, and the graphics looks great.

By samsantics | View this Toon at ToonDoo | Create your own Toon

I will be using this tool again in the future, and possibly using some of it for my final artifact. 

My poster

Following on from this I found Glogster. This is an amazing (american) site, where the tools can be used by students to create their own educational posters. There are hundreds of them to look at. I do wonder if anyone really using them as content or whether the emphasis is on the creation. This is a great way to get kids to be creative, and I wish I had this when I was doing my homework 30 years ago!  Anyway, this was a tool that had a great poster layout allowing for embedding video and audio content. I created a really rough draft to decide whether this would be the approach that I might use. The great thing about Glogster is that it also works on mobile devices. I ended up signing up to the service, as I will be using this tool in the future as a great way to get information together in one place.

So far this was the contender for the poster......

...then I came back to animation. I don't know why, by I like animation and so it was great to explore some different formats.

Firstly there was Moovly. I like the tool because it was a bit like the video and audio editors you get, although the characters and pictures were a little limited (I expect like most tools, you get more if you pay). This was very addictive! It allowed you to create a more classic version of the animated films you see a lot nowadays. I really liked it and could see some potential for creating both the poster and the artifact.

 

Then there was animoto. I am afraid this was the approach that I fell in love with! I have used some similar slideshow animations before, and I like the combination of text, images and music. I can't tell you why, but I think it's to do with the richness and also the emotive nature of the medium. 



So I asked what people preferred... I was still potentially leaning towards the moovly animation, but after talking to volunteers, a number of them preferred the immediacy of the animoto animation. Animoto however is REALLY expensive if you want to remove the watermark and get the video. And it's a great tool so I can see why it would be.

Challenge 3: Accessibility
As several people pointed out, the challenge with a full on multimedia approach is that it is not very accessible for those with impaired sight. We also talked about how some people like this multimedia approach and other's didn't. So my challenge was to consider whether to use the tool that I really wanted, and create accessible alternatives, or whether to use a different tool. 

Because I had created my storyboard using a slide show, I decided to explore other tools that I could use. Also, by using a slideshow, I could potentially create an accessible alternative that people could click through themselves and a transcript. I like this idea, as I have never tried writing audio descripton's before, so it seemed a good time to try!

Final tool - Wondershare slideshow creator
Not a free tool, but as it's Christmas I decided to treat myself.
The first version for review is below, but jump to the next blog post to see the second version which expands on this.