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.

The project drivers

Project overview

A bit of background into the three main areas areas of the project. Firstly the value-based approach, and why for me it is important to use this as a core in work. Then the importance of digital inclusion and identity (we will explore this more in the next blog post). and finally how I am trying to be a role-model, learning by doing and participating online.

A values-based context

As a practitioner working in the field of children’s safeguarding, educational work is grounded in the values of the organisation. This involves explicitly linking Scouting values (integrity, respect, care, belief, co-operation) to key messages and using the Scouting method (learning by doing, taking part in activities, taking responsibility and making choices, undertaking new and challenging activities and having fun) when designing learning activities. This values-based approach was adopted in order to make safeguarding more accessible for volunteers and simplify the core messages. The approach concentrates on enabling people rather than restricting them. This approach has resulted in volunteers being more readily engage in discussions; with a better understanding, acceptance and recognition of the key messages given to them. I believe this remains a powerful and productive way to approach work and educational messages.

Exploring digital inclusion and identity

Existing research and advice about going ‘online’ often centres on the practicalities of ‘how to’ go online rather than addressing the ‘why’ go online or the ‘how to be’ online.  While the practical aspects are important, addressing the social and psychological barriers that adults may have to overcome is an essential and less commonplace discussion. Consequently, the project wanted to explore whether the adoption of a value-based approach to inclusion and identity, could offer a simple, but effective framework to help engage volunteers in discussions about digital participation.

Participation and networked practice

After identifying that education and development involves participation, and because the project was a result of an Open University module focused on networked practice, it was important that the project reflected this in its design and approach. For this reason, the underpinning objective of the project was to ‘learn by doing’ in order to develop knowledge and skills as a ‘networked’ practitioner. This included undertaking new activities online and adopting a participatory approach in achieving the project’s aims.

In the run up to the conference...

The Open University conference is here and yesterday the first students presented their projects. It was an amazing array of different projects, topics and professions. That's the great thing about the Open University, fellow students are so diverse, so you get a richness of learning about different contexts and through different eyes. Although the conference was for Open University students and alumni, you can see some of the content here in Cloudworks.

I feel like I cheated a bit, but by exploring a topic that I am already passionate about and that I work on in 'real-life' (let's face it, I am a boundary defying practitioner), I have managed to create something that may be useful in the future. 

I am going to share my last assignment with you through the next few bog posts, so you can understand a little more about the 'stuff' that I have been thinking about. I will also post a recorded version of my presentation, once the 'real' one is done!

Conference Abstract

Volunteers in Scouting do amazing things with young people every day, and whether they are climbing a mountain or using social media they should use the values and methods of scouting to guide them. 

For The Scout Association, education is about helping young people build confidence and life-long skills. This participatory approach to education means the ‘digital-inclusion’ of adult volunteers is less about accessibility of content and more about participation in online practices and engaging with young people in the online world. Consequently, the ‘Being Prepared’ project wanted to explore whether the adoption of a ‘values-based approach’ to digital inclusion, could offer a simple, but effective framework to help engage volunteers in discussions about digital participation. 

Digital inclusion is a multi-faceted concept, and the barriers to inclusion are embedded in social, cultural, economic and technological contexts. Existing research and advice often centres on the practicalities of ‘how to’ go online. While this is important, addressing the social and psychological barriers that adults may have to overcome are essential and less commonplace conversations. Therefore digital inclusion should also examine the ‘why’ go online and the ‘how to be’ online.

The ‘why’ go online looks at how motivation and attitudes towards technology use will affect the choices made. Individuals may think the technical aspects too challenging or feel participation is irrelevant. For this reason discussions about digital inclusion should consider the ‘meaningfulness’ of digital participation in people’s lives. Digital identity, the ‘how to be’ online, is about the presentation of self to others online, and the perception of self, developed through online interactions. From a practitioner perspective, digital identity is at the forefront of discussions about online safety, as individuals learn to navigate the online world. Exploring identity highlights the risks, fears and feelings connected to the sense of self and exposes individual vulnerabilities in an unknown environment. Digital inclusion needs to help individuals to take responsibility and make informed choices about their own digital identity, so they can take advantage of the opportunities as well as understanding the risks afforded by digital participation.

This presentation tells the story of the ‘Being Prepared’ project. In order to understand the context, it introduces Scouting and outlines the debates about digital inclusion and digital identity in more detail. The project takes a socio-cultural view of inclusion and identity, and proposes that digital inclusion, like education and development is constructed and defined through our interactions with others and the world around us. Therefore the existing motivations and skills of Scouting volunteers, established upon shared values, can encourage meaningful and truthful digital participation, within a framework already observed. 

The presentation will conclude by presenting the project artefact; an open educational resource, which takes the form of a website. The purpose of the artefact is not to provide volunteers with the answers, but to engage them in the conversation, and to help them to take responsibility for making their own choices. Choices that are founded upon Scouting values and methods. 

Part two: exploring concept of digital inclusion

Social and Digital disadvantage (Helsper, 2008)

Helsper’s (2008) study explored the relationship between social and digital disadvantage using available empirical data. It is a comprehensive look at the links between digital and social engagement and focuses on the debates around socio-economic links to digital inclusion. The study picks up on the question about use – and asks does it matter that many households don’t use the internet?

Key findings

The report found that those in socially deprived areas were also least likely to have access to digital resources, and the analysis suggested that this had not been improving. However it points out that there are clear exceptions from the norm. These included the ‘unexpectedly engaged’, who tended to be younger, single, socially disadvantaged and certain ethnic groups. It also included the ‘unexpectedly disengaged’, who were those in more rural areas, older and unemployed.  The analysis highlighted that educational achievement, employment and rural access could affect engagement, but this was not necessarily because of access or skill. There were links found with the level at which people accessed technology and social isolation and economic disadvantage. Those who suffer specific social disadvantages were least likely to benefit from technology that could potentially help them (for example, those with poor education faced barriers to access education, the elderly faced a reduction in the likelihood of using social application).

Digital choice

Helsper introduces the idea of ‘digital choice’. This concept, I think, encapsulates the idea that just because you can go online, you do. Online initiatives that focus purely on access and digital services, forget about the support factors that are needed for social inclusion, which may help with engagement with technology. Attitude to technology are just as important as access quality and the access location.

This picks up on some of the categories that the Tinder foundation have highlighted:

Digitally Excluded – perceive they have no access

Digitally Dismissive – choose not to use, but have access and skills

Digitally Included – have the desire, access and skills

Digitally Determined – have the access but it is not readily available

Digital choice is driven by cultural factors and social context. This means that individuals may have positive and negative attitudes and we need to tackle these attitudes and cultural barriers. This report in particular highlights that despite discussions around inclusion, the potential for the internet to address social isolation and economic disadvantage are largely untapped, because the focus has been on the barriers and have not included the enablers. There is a need to address ‘digital choice’ as well as ‘digital divides’. Digital disengagement is a complex problem and there are social, cultural and attitudinal factors that inform digital choice.

Beyond the digital divide (Selwyn and Facer, 2007)

This report from Future lab, brings us back into the sphere of education, and focuses on the more traditional approach to ‘digital divides’ and the uptake of digital technology. This puts inclusion back in to the realms of ability; “All members of society are able to access the affordances created and offered by technology use”; and focuses on the debates around digital literacies, which is the area of the report that is of most interest here. However it’s worth noting that the authors remind us that access is not just a bout broadband, but also about wireless and satellite connectivity.

The report states that skills are not limited to basic physical actions like keyboard skills but also to those which have technical and social qualities.  We need both a basic literacy, that is the ability to read and write; and a ‘functional’ literacy, the ability to put our skills in to use.  The report develops three core areas of literacy:

•  Information literacy – to be able to discern the quality of content
• Adaptive literacy – to be able to develop new skills whilst using ICT 
• Occupational literacy – to apply skills in a business, education or domestic environment.

  

Definitions of digital inclusion

INCLUSION – DIVIDE – CHOICES - PARTICIPATION

So where does that take us on our analysis and development of the concept of digital inclusion? Clearly inclusion is a complex area, and, going back to what we said at the start, it is not just about access or about skills. People need to decide whether using technology is meaningful in their lives, but we also need to remember that inclusion is not just about deficits and barriers but also about opportunities, outcomes and practices. These reports highlight the conversations that continue to take place at a government and education level. There are barriers, access is important, people need the skills and there are technology and social issues to address.

We need to localise these conversations, so that we truly understand the cultural and social enablers.  I have already written my thoughts on inclusion with my own context and that of the project, linking back to the ideas of openness. For me it’s about participation, and empowering people (giving them the motivation and belief in themselves), to participate online. It’s not about the financial or economic benefits to the individual, but about the wider societal impact of participating in the world with others. This takes me back to how I think that self-efficacy links to empowerment. 

Seale (2009) reminded us that people bring their own set of motivations, skills and resourcefulness to the online world, and my hope is that by highlighting the skills and resourcefulness, as well as the values that people share in my context, we can encourage participation and inclusion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

Selwyn, N., & Facer, K. (2007). Beyond the digital divide. Opening Education Reports. Bristol: Futurelab. Retrieved October, 24, 2007. [online]. Available at: http://www2.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/opening_education/Digital_Divide.pdf

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

Digital inclusion - why participation is important

Much of the debate around open education has focused on formal education, but education is not limited to formal approaches. For many youth organisations and charities, education is about helping young people build confidence and life-long skills. This participatory approach to education means the ‘digital-inclusion’ of adults is less about accessibility of educational content and more about participation in online practices and engaging with young people in the online world. 

This post is an edited version of my paper written to explore the principles of digital openness, how these could align to organisational approaches. The debates here form the backdrop to my project for H818, and outline my beliefs about inclusion in the open landscape. It asks why barriers exist and whether inclusion really matters in our context.

Cameron Gray 'The Journey Begins' http://parablevisions.com/?page_id=2338

************

Defining education

The Scout Association defines education as ‘a life-long process which enables the continuous development of a person’s capacities both as an individual and as a member of society’ (World Scout Bureau, 1998, page 7). We are a non-formal educational movement where young people and adults work in partnership, learning by doing through a structured framework of activities and experiences. 

The pedagogical approach is comparable, in my opinion, to social constructivism, in which individuals learn through their interaction with others and the world around them (Palinscar, 1998, Vygotsky 1978).  It also reminds me of John Seely Brown’s notion of ‘social learning’ , as it suggests that we define ourselves by the societies we belong to (Brown and Adler, 2008). Learning is about participation (with others and the world) and therefore we ‘learn to be’ as well as learn about ‘things’. Consequently ‘how’ we learn is just as important as ‘what’ we learn as we are constructing our identity through our community interactions (Hager andHodkinson, 2009). This is important when considering the digital openness of non-formal education, as the barriers are not just ‘what’ can be accessed, but also ‘how’ to participate in the online world.

So ‘education’ from a Scouting perspective is essentially about personal development and ‘learning to be’, within a values-based community, supported by adults working alongside young people. Therefore it is not just about subject matter expertise or specific skills and knowledge, but about life-long personal skills, developing confidence and engaging with the world in a positive way. ‘Education’ is non-formal, and manifests as an approach to life realised through participation.

Digital openness and open education

Open education is loosely defined by the Open Education Working Group (2014) as ‘any practices and activities that have openness and education at their core’ (page 8). Veletsianos (2010) notes that educators can shape or be shaped by openness. But openness means different things to different people. Defining openness, within a digital context, is important if we are to be shaped by it. The Oxford English Dictionary (2004) defines ‘open’ as not being closed, or as accessible or available. Thus digital openness could means making things available using digital technologies. The debates around open education mainly focus on formal education, and they converge around discussions about availability and talk about open access, open content and open resources (McAndrew, 2010).

Our definition of education however, is grounded in participation, and Weller (2011) reminds us that openness is not just about what technology can do for us, but also about our practices as scholars or educators. Networked participation is one of the three formats of open practices described by Veletsianosand Kimmons (2012) who highlight the importance of having and maintaining a digital presence. Developments in ‘social’ technology, tools like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, have also created a new emphasis on participation (Jenkinset al, 2005). 

Accordingly, if the definition of education is ‘learning to be’ and personal development happens through participation, then open education is surely about finding the opportunities to do this within the online world. 

So digital openness in this context, refers to exploring and being open to new, participative experiences in the online world. As a result, open education is not just about making educational content freely available to all (although there is plenty of educational content available to adults and young people) but about digital participation. At a very basic level this means that adults supporting young people in Scouting should be participating and interacting with young people online.

Barriers to online participation and digital inclusion

The UK Government defines digital inclusion as ‘having the right access, skills, motivation and trust to confidently go online’ (Cabinet Office, 2014). Discussions about the barriers to inclusion can fall neatly into the three categories of availability, accessibility and acceptability (Lane, 2009). 

Availability looks at the physical access to the online world, and considers economics (whether people can afford technology) and connectivity (the infrastructure, like broadband, that allows people to access the internet). Accessibility concentrates on usability barriers, that is the skills and the ease by which people can use the internet. Debates about digital literacy dominate this area, as well as discussion about accessibility of content or software for those who have disabilities or alternative needs. 

A lack of digital skills and the means to access the online world are not necessarily the only, or the biggest barrier that people face. The third category of digital inclusion barriers come under ‘acceptability’ and this relates to social empowerment, or having the motivation and confidence to go online. The Cabinet Office’s (2014) research found that 62% of people said that the most important reason for not being online was that they were ‘not interested’. Their lack of interest may be the result of many different factors. Some people see the online world as irrelevant for them, and thus it needs to be made relevant if they are to be motivated to participate. Others are dissuaded from participation because of their fears of the online world. This could be a fear of crime, attack, or a fear of venturing into the unknown and exposing themselves or their identities. Participation means vulnerability, and individuals need to be given the confidence to overcome this. 

Digital exclusion may arise through a combination of factors and each digitally excluded person will have their own reasons and set of circumstances (Lane, 2009). Digital inclusion is about overcoming all of these challenges (access, skills, motivation, and trust) and not just one. But does digital inclusion matter for adults in The Scout Association?

Does inclusion matter?

The simple answer is yes. If education is a life-long process of development as an individual and as a part of society then adults as well as young people should be participating and interacting online. However there are challenges to overcome in assisting online participation. 

Adults and young people within the organisation can help to remove the skills barrier, sharing and developing the digital literacies others need for online participation, just as they would when developing skills like hillwalking or archery. The purpose and method of Scouting are about engaging with the world in a positive way. The online world is a part of the world and therefore it has to be relevant for adults to participate within it. If adults are to be role-models and support young people where they are, then the values of Scouting should override any motivational barriers to digital inclusion, although adults in Scouting may need to be reminded of this. 

The largest barrier to overcome is trust. This will need both education and a focus on values. There are practical ways of overcoming security and privacy fears, but adults also need to address concerns about identity and openness. This must include practical ways of talking about how values should guide online identity and activities. It also includes understanding that openness is not an ‘all or nothing’ approach and so that volunteers can explore the online world with confidence and develop their own openness. It is also about helping adults to take the skills they already have, for example: identifying and mitigating risk, planning tasks and activities and developing codes of behaviour; and apply them in the online context.

Open practices, or digital openness, is really about seeking out new experiences and participating in new ways through the online world. Just as in the 'offline' world, there can be tensions between the principals and the practicalities (Lane, 2009) which we need to help adults explore and manage. 

Adults in Scouting do amazing things with young people every day, and whether they are climbing a mountain or using social media they should use the values and methods of scouting to understand that the online world is just another ‘undiscovered’ world of opportunity. Thus they can be part of the ‘open landscape’, exhibiting their values, being appropriate role-models and effective 'digital' citizens working in partnership with young people.

*********************************

Brown, J.S. & Adler, R.P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and Learning 2.0. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(1), pp.16-32
Cabinet Office (2014) Government Digital Inclusion Strategy, 13 April 2014
Hager, P. and Hodkinson, P. (2009) ‘Moving beyond the metaphor of transfer of learning’, British Educational Research Journal, 35 (4), pp.619–38
Jenkins, H., et al. (2005) Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century, MacArthur Foundation.
Lane, Andy (2009). The impact of openness on bridging educational digital divides. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(5), pp. 1–12.
McAndrew, Patrick (2010). Defining openness: updating the concept of “open” for a connected world. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2010(10), pp.1–13.
Oxford English Dictionary (2004) ‘Open’, Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press
Palincsar, A.S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, pp.345–375.
Veletsianos, G. (2010). A definition of emerging technologies for education. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.),Emerging technologies in distance education (pp. 3-22). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.
Veletsianos, G. and Kimmons, R. (2012) Assumptions and challenges of open scholarship. The International Review Of Research In Open And Distance Learning, 13 (4) pp.166–189  
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. London: Harvard University Press.
Weller, M. (2011). The digital scholar: How technology is transforming scholarly practice. A&C Black.
Open Education Working Group (2014) The Open Education Handbook.
World Scout Bureau (1998) Scouting: An Educational System. World Scout Bureau. Switzerland. 

Digital Inclusion and a different lens for my project

As you can see, it's been two weeks since my last confession! Work means that sometimes I purge on study over a few days. A bit like watching a good tv show...honest!

In the meantime, I have tweaked my project and found some key resources to link in to it.






Government Digital Inclusion strategy

It's not often that I come across something from the government and think...ohhh....this will be useful. However the inclusion strategy, which I had already heard about, was.

The UK Government defines digital inclusion as ‘having the right access, skills, motivation and trust to confidently go online’ (Cabinet Office, 2014). 

The strategy sets out how the government and partners from the public, private and voluntary sectors will increase digital inclusion. This means helping people become capable of using and benefiting from the internet. Now there are many discussions one can have around this strategy but in the context of my project it does two things. Firstly, it shows that there is a political context for inclusion (and my next task is to do a Political, Economic, Social, Technological - aka PEST analysis). Secondly it breaks down the barriers into a nice four piece set:

There are 4 main kinds of challenge people face:

• access - the ability to actually go online and connect to the internet
• skills - to be able to use the internet
• motivation - knowing the reasons why using the internet is a good thing
• trust - the risk of crime, or not knowing where to start to go online

Looking at each in more detail, we can see that digital exclusion involves some significant and wide ranging challenges. When someone has the access, skills, motivation and trust to go online to do things that benefit them day to day, they are digitally capable.

Tinder, Digital inclusion

My project’s aim is to explore barriers in relation to making the online world accessible to volunteers, focusing on motivational and trust barriers. 

Firstly, the ‘access’ barriers relate to connectivity and availability, over which the organisation has less influence. Secondly there already exists a wealth of debate about the ‘skills’ barrier, and it is assumed adults will need to learn new skills. My theory is, that when I do my PEST analysis, many of these will come up, as access and skills are top of the 'things we can probably do something about'.

Motivation an trust

The ‘motivation’ and ‘trust’ barriers are social and psychological, as well as practical barriers to digital inclusion. These barriers require people to explore their fears about safety and identity, and be able to translate their ‘offline’ selves to the ‘online’ world. 

My project activities will look at existing research and practices to identify the issues surrounding these barriers, in order to educate volunteers and provide a sound basis for taking an approach that links back to the values and methods of Scouting. For me these barriers are all about social empowerment.

Does inclusion matter?

The simple answer is yes. If education is a life-long process of development as an individual and as a part of society then adults as well as young people should be participating and interacting online. However there are challenges to overcome in assisting online participation.