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.
No comments:
Post a Comment