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.

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

Students’ approaches to learning and teachers’ approaches to teaching

'In practice, particular approaches in educational research are often evaluated, not by whether they are ‘true’, but by whether they have interesting or useful applications.' (Richardson , 2012)

In fact Richardson is issuing us we a great challenge this week - to take some of his research papers and critically evaluate them. (A great form of alternative peer assessment maybe?!). I am sure we know that every author will chose the devices needed to convince an audience of their point of view, and I think that in the subject of 'debates', it's important for us to start thinking about the finer details of papers we may read.

(NB - definition of terms will be randomly dotted around!)

 

Definition 1: Paradigm-driven disciplines

A 'paradigm' is a philosophical or theoretic framework. Theories, laws, generalisations and experiments support them. Hence the sciences can be seen as paradigm -driven as ..'there is usually a broad consensus about what the problems are that need to be solved, what methods are appropriate for trying to solve them, and how the results of research should be interpreted. Shifting to a new paradigm happens only rarely, usually resulting from the work of an exceptional individual.' (Richardson, 2012)

Definition 2:Disciplines without paradigms

Basically, disciplines where there is less agreement or consensus - like social sciences and education. Here is the domain where the best argument wins (a broad overstatement I know.) 'Researchers get their work published by making a convincing case that they have formulated an interesting problem, chosen an appropriate method for investigating it, and provided a plausible interpretation of the results. So rhetoric – the art of effective speaking and writing – is important. ' (Richardson, 2012) And thus the debates begin. Sounds quite exciting really - if you like debating!

So this week is about thinking critically about the arguments we are presented with.

eeerrr...technology!!!!

Apologies if anyone is following my blog. I seem to be having technical difficulties with blogger.
Sorry for the constant changes in patterns/background etc.

I think it's because I keep cut and pasting from documents.
Oh well.....

Technology and Pedagogy in other countries

The second part of our activities this week introduced us to a couple of papers about the adoption of technology in other countries. Robin Mason, the resource author asks us " if the only resource is the teacher, a teacher centric pedagogy is quite understandable".  Actually there is more than just a lack of resource behind this statement. This is about lack of resource for teacher development and understanding as well as lack of physical resource like books and technology.

The papers explore universities in Nepal and Bhutan, with similarities and differences. Here the teacher is the 'revered' expert and learning is about knowledge transmission (going back to our Cartesian viewpoint). One Bhutanese man talks about the different ways of teaching that he experienced while studying in the UK, but then on his return to Bhutan, having to adopt the old ways. This made me think about a recent experience of mine. Having been asked to provide some training workshop, I got my brief. It stated that the style of the workshop was not to be too interactive - as participants had expressed that they wanted more from the 'expert' at the front, rather than activities where they share their own knowledge. Oh dear - this goes against JSB discussions from last week.

I did a lot of further reading around this subject as I found it immensely interesting. Views of education across the world vary, and it's interesting that often discussions are focused on the western idea that education has to fit with the pressures of economic development. Basically the world economy is changing, technology drives this, and therefore we have to stay up to date and educated to keep up with it. I guess this becomes much harder in a global world. One of the studies I looked at, Weismann, Why do students in some countries do better, there is a suggestion that it is the difference in educational institutions that play a bigger role than the differences in resources devoted to education. More money doesn't mean better education.

The crux of the article was that by improving the institutional environment, ensuring that all those in it felt involved, then they would have the incentive to make it better. Weisman talked about some key components that were important:

·         centralised exams

·         distribution of decision making

·         level of teacher influence

·         government involvement in decisions

·         private sector competition.

But wait a minute - aren't these some of the things that we have issue with in this country?

In ICT or I see tea, Shield (2011) discussed the use of ICT in developing countries and picks up some of the previous discussions about education. She talks about how the 'reasons ' behind needing ICT has changed over the years. This includes

·         human capital and economic growth- path to modernisation and global competitiveness

·         inclusivity - getting equity, social inclusion and access to basic education and thus expanding educational access and quality

Currently:

"Its proponents arguing that ICT improves educational quality, develops critical thinking skills, expands access, increases economic competitiveness and facilitates inclusion in a rapidly expanding global information society." (Shields, 2011)

"..they further claim that ICT supports project-based, collaborative approaches to learning, instilling critical thinking and problem-solving skills that will prepare students to compete in the global knowledge economy." (Shields, 2011)

In Shields view, often the arguments for ICT are based on no evidence.

"....elaborates at length the benefits of ICT in education; concentrating on the presupposed potential or theoretical benefits of ICT rather than presenting evidence that supports its claims. This lack of empirical justification is common in work on ICT in education; "(Shields, 2011)

" extensive study of technology in Californian schools, Cuban (2001, 133) found ‘no clear and substantial evidence of students increasing their academic achievement as a result of using information technologies’, and his ultimate conclusion that ‘the investment of billions of dollars over the last decade has yet to produce worthy outcomes’ (197) should serve as a poignant warning for future work. "(Shields, 2011)

There is an interesting point about NGO's and private schools - both of which  are funded based externally, and are often based on performance. Therefore the introduction of the latest technology is a good selling point - although what they actually do with the technology can be very little.

"While government policies on education consistently stress the need for ICT, there is an inconsistency and incoherence in their rationales for doing so. Instead of an authentic, self-identified justification, ideas such as economic competitiveness, ‘computer literacy’ and social equity are borrowed from the continually changing global discourse on ICT and development."(Shields, 2011)

So what does this mean for us? Should we think about resources and pedagogy when considering the approach to take? For me it is interesting that some of the arguments and discussions being had about the use of technology in developing countries, are still the arguments and discussions we currently have. Are we truly student-centred in our approach in the west yet? What is the role of learning? Pursuit of knowledge? Self Development? Career training? Should pedagogy be culturally sensitive, as much as it might be age sensitive?

The development of distributed learning techniques in Bhutan and Nepal

Shields, R. (2011) ‘ICT or I see tea? Modernity, technology and education in Nepal’, Globalisation, Societies and Education, vol. 9, no. 1, pp.85–97; also available online at http://web.ebscohost.com.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/ ehost/ detail?vid=3&hid=10&sid=c763fe6d-a484-4a34-b84b-bf47a1748f97%40sessionmgr4&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=a9h&AN=57749333 (last accessed 16th February 2012).

Citizen science and citizen journalism.

Bit of a whirlwind of a week 2, exploring some new and old concepts.

In JSB's lecture last week, we heard about some examples of technology or scientists opening things up for others to explore and add to research. Citizen science and journalism is just that. That any of us can have a role in this. The activity introduced us to the Evolution Megalab. This project looks at banded snails and encourages us to go out hunting and record our findings. Having grown up as a somewhat nature freak, this is actually quite exciting - to think that I can add to the research being done.  So basically citizen science is about getting the public involved in science research - is this social learning or just a way for scientists to get others to do their work?! Citizen journalism works much the same way, but with journalism. We are probably more familiar with this, with mobile recordings now being regularly used by news programmes.

JSB said that we start to defines ourselves by the society we belong to - that we contribute to. Contribution helps us to build our identity and feel valued. So these are good examples of how traditional communities of practice are opening up to the rest of the world. For me the things to think about though are the quality  of the research or journalism; the motivations of those taking part and the actual sources. These make the 'sourcing' of evidence particularly hard, when you have no control over the content. It's a brave step to open up like this - or is the step just a response to lack of resources and having to think creatively in order to get the research done?

We Participate therefore we are

Learning and Participation

The start of this week's study, engaged us with John Seely Brown (JSB).  During the Open Learn conference in 2007. Here he talks about learning as a social construct - we learn through our interaction with others and the world. I have come back to Seely Brown after my other studies this week, to try and put him in some kind of perspective.

Some key points in his address include:

·         rejection learning as knowledge transfer

·         if knowledge is a substance then the pedagogy will be about how best to maximise the transfer

·         not about 'knowledge' but about 'understanding'

·         we learn through our interaction with one another and the world

·         the art of 'tinkering' as 'tacit understanding'

The crux for me of this speech, is the view that we need to shift our view of learning from the transfer of knowledge/content, into the development of understanding through activities and human interaction.

In JSBs speak he talks about the best indicator of success being that students participate in study groups. This statement troubled me until I did some further reading around, and found that JSB was talking about some research conducted by Richard Light at the Harvard Grad School. In this he had found that students who participated in study groups  were more engaged and successful in their study outcomes. The research is focused on what the students themselves said about their experiences and makes for some interesting reading. So study groups are important because they help students to clarify areas of uncertainty or take on the role of 'teacher' to help others

The 'Cartesian ' view, is something that I have seen in several of the articles and papers I have read this week. Basically going back to the idea of knowledge as a substance that can be transferred - 'I think therefore I am.'  It echoes back to the traditional master student relationships where the student must master all the knowledge before they are allowed to put this into practice. The argument is that this need to be reversed if we want students to 'understand' rather than attain knowledge.

The image for Tacit knowledge was also interesting to me, as I have seen this before in another version, when talking about peoples understanding of diversity. In the version that I have seen it shows how our identity is not just made up of the outwards signs, but of the internal sociological, psychological and historical aspects of our lives. We are because of all the influences that we experience, not just the obvious ones.

Like any good speaker/inspirational leader...the basis of the opening speak can be found her e in the Minds on Fire article.

The method itself? This raises an interesting point on my own understanding journey. Although I picked up some of the information from listening to the address, much of my further study and understanding of what JSB has said has come through the text that I have read. In fact, when I read the transcript, there were a number of elements I couldn't remember. So maybe the audio/visual lectures cannot be the only form of learning that I might use on a subject, as it didn't 'penetrate' my mind enough. Or maybe I was too distracted to pay attention properly?

Informal Learning

This topic of what 'learning' actually is will probably be up for debate throughout our studies. A someone who deals with a non educational form of learning, which is structured none the less, I particular found the paper by Livingstone interesting.

Livingstone's paper discusses some research done in character, and also notes in conclusion that identifying informal learning is difficult, as people's perception of it changes. However he highlights that learning can take many forms, from the "dominant teacher control, through other forms that involve teachers/trainers/mentors, to dominant learner control." (Livingstone 2001)

Here are the definitions he outlines:

Education -"..characterised by the presence of a teacher, someone presumed to have greater knowledge, and a learner or learners presumed to have lesser knowledge and expected to be instructed or led by said teacher." (Livingstone 2001)

Non - Formal Education/ Further Education - " When learners opt to acquire further knowledge or skill by studying voluntarily with a teacher who assists their self-determined interests by using an organized curriculum, as is the case in many adult education courses and workshops, the form of learning is non-formal." (Livingstone 2001)

Informal education/Informal Training - "When teachers or mentors take responsibility for instructing others without sustained reference to  an intentionally-organised body of knowledge in more incidental and spontaneous learning situations, such as guiding them in acquiring job skills or in community development activities, the form of learning is informal education or informal training."  (Livingstone 2001)

Informal Learning - "Informal learning is any activity involving the pursuit of understanding, knowledge or skill which occurs without the presence of externally imposed curricular criteria." (Livingstone 2001)

There is some interesting discourse here, and eslewhere about where informal learning starts, and that many elements of formal learning often contain informal elements.

A good discussion and further comments can be found on Infed. Here there is discussion about the history and classification of informal learning and other's viewpoints of it. The paper talks about informal learning often being defined by what it is not, carrying assumptions based on when and why the theory is developed.

It will be interesting to come back to this after further discussion, as I believe that everyone sees education and learning is very different ways depending on their experience and status at the time.

Livingstone, D.W. (2001) ‘Adults’ Informal Learning: Definitions, findings, gaps and future research’ [online], NALL Working Paper #21-2001, Research Centre on New Approaches to Lifelong Learning, University of Toronto, https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/ bitstream/ 1807/ 2735/ 2/ 21adultsinformallearning.pdf (last accessed 6th February 2012).