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.

Exploring online identity - convergence of self

From Multitude to Convergence: Contemporary Trends in the Study of online Identity (Gradinaru, 2013)

This paper attempts to explore the changes in our understanding of identity, and how ‘technological domestication’ (the fact that the internet is a functional part of our everyday lives), has meant a convergence in the online/offline identity. Today our online identities are similar to our offline, as people want to be honest and direct, and because it would be incredibly difficult to manage multi-personalities now that it is easier for us to find ways of verifying people’s identities and that we have less control, sometimes, as a user. The information about us needs to fit together.

I remember reading a number of articles when I first started my Masters in Online and Distance Education about anonymity and identity and how the internet is changing behaviour. So this article, despite it being a difficult read, really spoke about the ways that technology use has changed and that for most people, honesty and ‘realistic’ portrayals of self are more important, especially in a networked age. Gradinaru takes us back to the early internet of the 1990s and how the multitude of possibilities and anonymity spoke to us of the freedom and liberty that the internet affords, and links in with postmodern ideas and multiple personalities.  ‘Self’ could be distributed and so we could have a portfolio of personalities and play different roles at the same time. Being able to explore numerous aspects of ourselves potentially led to tensions between our online and offline identities.

However the way we use the internet and technology itself has changed, especially with the advent of social media tools and platforms, meaning that the difficulty is now knowing which identity to us in which context (Rodogno, 2011). Or in fact knowing what context we are in. Rodogno introduces the idea of ‘content collapse’ in sense that the complexity of the platforms and services available to us make it difficult for us to determine which identity we are in, and so multiple audiences are suddenly in the same context.  Therefore as users it’s not surprising that we have started adopting a ‘imagined audience’ and lean towards shaping our online identity to that of our offline. Otherwise we have a great deal of work to do in ‘archiving’ and protecting our different personalities.

Online identity then, is about how we present ourselves to others, but also about how we perceive ourselves through our interaction with others. This the way we present ourselves online becomes a process of managing and constructing impressions, so that we can control how other perceives us. Therefore 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), it becomes a way of ‘customising’ our identities, with symbolic markers that link back to the ‘real’.

How is this relevant to my project?

Many of our volunteers will be of a generation who lived through these debates in the 1990s, and may see the internet still as this ‘other’ place where people go to play and be someone or something they are not. The article reminds us that the way we use technology has changed. The more embedded it has become, the more people use it as a part of their everyday lives, and so their online identities will mirror the offline. That’s not to say that there aren’t people who create completing anonymous identities, and we know that some of the fears about safety come from the fear of not knowing who you are talking to. But it has become easier to verify identity. Because people are being ‘real’.

Thus if we want to help our volunteers with their trust issues, we can once again draw on our values. The way we behave and act offline should be the same as the way we behave online. The way we interact with strangers, should be the same. Just as we might be wary of the stranger on the bus, we should also be wary of the stranger wanting to be our friend on Facebook. Being ‘real’ about our identity makes it easier to manage our identity.

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.

Rodogno, R. (2011). “Personal Identity Online”. Philosophy and Technology 25 (3): 309-328.

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

working on a project title....Be Prepared

My job (hence my context)
I work for The Scout Association at Headquarters. My job is National Development Officer

(Safeguarding). Basically a large part of what I do is develop resources and training for volunteers to help them understand their roles and responsibilities within Scouting in regards to Safeguarding (Child protection, anti-bullying, safer recruitment). So I spend a lot of my time out and about meeting and working with volunteers and training trainers who will go on to deliver safeguarding training to volunteers across the country. It truly is an amazing organisation which can't really be paid justice to in a few words. Having worked for the organisation for nearly 7 years I am proud to be a Scout and share the values of the organisation.

My project
My project will be based on work that I already do around empowering adult volunteers in Scouting to use social media in a safe and fun way. For me safeguarding is about enabling people to do things, rather than stopping them - empowering rather than scaring.

You wouldn't climb a mountain...... without being prepared, and so you shouldn't use social media without doing the same!
Currently I offer guidance on a weekly basis about how to use social media safely, and so for my project I want to explore this, and link in research as well as create a multimedia artifact that can be used in work. 


Open education in an open landscape
Looking through the lens of 'inclusion', my project is focused on why adults don't want to use social media or why they feel social media doesn't include them. There are of course some physical barriers like internet access and personal knowledge and skills. However I think that the psychological barriers are the main thing that is making volunteers feel powerless or afraid to use social media. The media today is constantly telling us what a dangerous place the internet is, and e-safety messages for young people are about the risks and the harm that may befall them. For adults working with young people this makes the internet a scary place, especially as for some it's not their natural environment. So we need to help them understand that it doesn't have to be scary, and they can prepare for it in the same way as they would prepare for other 'scary' scouting activities (like climbing).

If we want them to use social media then we need to empower them by addressing their fears and giving them the skills. This will involve looking at the risks and helping them to see both the good and the bad of openness, and helping them to manage their own identities.

Psychological barriers = confidence (power), safety, identity. 
Self-efficacy= make them believe they can do it by adopting a scouting approach (values, preparation, risk assessment and openness)

Key messages:

• Social media doesn't have to be scary
• Use the skills and processes already have to undertake the activity
• Values-driven approach
• Take ownership of identity
• Stay safe by mitigating risk, behaving appropriately

Outcome - Volunteers do amazing things with young people everyday, and we help them overcome their fear of the online world and help them to be part of the open landscape, exhibiting their values and being appropriate roles models and effective 'digital' citizens.