Designing for Civil Society

Digital Challenge programme seen as £14.5bn testbed

The UK government is certainly talking up the Digital Challenge initiative as a testbed for the way funds will be spent in future on tech-supported public services. In a press release carried by egov monitor - Corporate giants join Government to help bridge digital divide - the story last week was:

Some of the UK’s biggest companies are today meeting 10 local councils to compete for a role in pilot projects aimed at delivering council services through digital technology. The success of the schemes will ultimately determine the way in which £14.5bn of government ICT money is spent over the next few years.

The event was a get-together between the ten competing-collaborating finalists and technology companies so they could try and broker partnerships for proposals that must be submitted in January. I was there because Drew Mackie and I are developing a game to help with the planning and bidding process. More about that here, where you can now see some of the prototype materials we have developed. I didn't know it at the time, but somewhere Angela Smith MP, Minister for e-government, said:

“This summit proves that it’s no longer just ICT companies keen to partner with local authorities and widen access to digital services. Increasingly businesses in sectors like construction and retail are looking to help us tackle digital exclusion, and make services open and available to everyone, regardless of location, mobility or language. We are also seeking to encourage innovation amongst smaller businesses to ensure that the entire range of industry is engaged in this project to maintain democratically healthy, inclusive communities.

“The schemes being piloted in the Digital Challenge competition will have a transformational effect on local government and ensure that in future, across England, council services are built around the needs of the citizen – allowing them to choose how, when and where they use these services.”

I held off blogging the event because I understood it was private, but one of the good things about the Digital Challenge is that a couple of finalists are running their own blogs and offering informal observations about the process. Stephen Hilton from Bristol starts off:

It was a globally warmed and unnaturally sunny morning when we arrived at Paddington Station last Thursday. I had forgotten my sunglasses so couldn’t see a thing, nothing-new there.

... before giving us the essence of the presentation he made with Tim Anderson from Norfolk:

In a nutshell, our message was - authorities need to recognise content generation is as significant an opportunity as content consumption. We need to work to ensure that all communities have the skills to produce and share their own high quality content. At the same time, we need to transform the way we organise and deliver services in order to fully harness this opportunity. As for the business model – I cheekily suggested that you only need type essay for sale into Google to recognise that where there is a timely and compelling need for content – the business model will follow!

Adding:

The key message I took from the day is that there has to be a strong underlying business model for industry investment to be made. No one is going to give us anything entirely for free! At the same time, the industry people we spoke with displayed a massive appetite for finding new ways to engage with authorities and citizens. If nothing else,industry will help bring a ‘sense of urgency’ to our programme – which is no bad thing.

Dave Carter at One-Manchester is also keeping us up to date with developments from his perspective.

There's no great disclosures about the programme in either blog, but it does seem to me enormously encouraging that local government officers feel they can give some windows into these processes for their local constituency, and anyone else interested. It means that they are prepared to chat as well as Powerpoint and Press Release.

The Digital Challenge team has just appointed new advisers, Mantra-PR, who I'm sure will be looking for good stories from the finalists as well as the Minister. The aim of the Digital Challenge is to tackle digital exclusion - as well as improve general public service delivery. As Bristol and others are emphasising, that means helping local people tell their own stories - so I'm hoping we will see more encouragement for the type of content development Stephen is talking about, locally-authored then featured on the expanding Digital Challenge and Inclusion Network site, so ably developed by my friends at Clicks and Links.

An outrageous thought occurs to me. Couldn't Angela Smith, as Minister for e-government, try blogging too? The site has that facility. Even if the blog were in part drafted by the PR advisers, or officials, it would demonstrate a willingness to have a go. As the Minister said in announcing the current ten finalists, when talking about access to services, life chances and opportunities:

As we move forward into a new digital age it is clear that some people will find this far more difficult to cope with. However we cannot allow them to become excluded. Instead we must enable them to take advantage of what new technologies can offer.

Quite right. I see that David Miliband's ministerial blog features in the Hansard Society's Digital Dialogues programme to "support central government’s communication and consultation activity". I think the e-government Minister should be digitally included too.

E-typing dices up the Digital Divide

A new method of classifying the UK population into 23 "e-types", linked to where people live, could influence how public money is spent in addressing a more sophisticated version of the Digital Divide.

As the BBC reports the e-types developed by a research team include mobile explorers, the e-committed and the rational utilitarians. Others are cable suffices, technology as fantasy, and e-bookers and communicators. More here on the study funded by the Economic and Social Research Council as part of their e-society programme, and the groups in detail.
Analysis of consumer lifestyle surveys and public domain databases has been used to construct the 23 groups, and these have then been mapped onto neighbourhoods.
Under the heading "Ever wondered how technologically enabled your neighbours are?" the researchers invite you to feed your postcode into their site, and see if you agree with the way that you have been classified.
A background research paper - download link here -  sets out the methodology and explains that the purpose of the research is:

creation of a quantitative model whereby any  adult in Great Britain could be evaluated according to their likely level and manner of  engagement with electronic technologies.

The paper later explains how the classification could be used in policy development and funding:

The maps shown in Figure 4 were produced for work for the London Borough  of Camden, which used them as evidence to support a bid for central government funding  in support of small business start ups. As such they illustrate how detailed understanding  of localities can be used to inform initiatives designed to improve local e-engagement,  and the maps are consistent with other studies of the fragmented social structure of the Borough.

... though the maps were missing in the paper I downloaded.
I certainly feel that the simple idea of the Digital Divide ceased to be useful some time ago because it encouraged us to focus on who was connected to the Internet, and pay too little attention to people's skills, confidence, needs and use of different types of technologies. Is a heavy mobile talker and texter more or less a digital have or have-not than an occasional dial-up online shopper? Is a business user - but leave-it-in-the-office - more or less connected than a bedroom online gamer?
As the researchers from University College, London, indicate, it is important to understand the different usages if we are concerned about the links between digital inclusion and social inclusion, the role of e-participation in democracy - and also, of course, if we are interested in who is likely to buy what.
A better model is certainly needed ... I'm just not sure if this is it. Part of the problem is that there is a big gap between the academic  language of the research report, and the press release and stories that it is generating. The e-society site offers an email newsletter, but no scope that I can see for any discussion. Not very engaging.
I think further discussion of the model is important because it could be terrifically useful, for example, for local authorities competing in the UK Government's Digital Challenge competition (disclaimer: I'm doing some work on how the engagement game may be used in the process.)
Competitors in the challenge, and for other programmes,  could use the datasets and maps - as Camden already has - to support their bids for funding to promote digital inclusion. Look, they'll say, we have lots of "Elderly marginalised" ( or "Mobile explorers" or whatever) in this neighbourhood, and what they clearly need is a strong dose of (add project idea from the growing Digital Challenge network toolkit.)
That's more sophisticated than the earlier Wired Up Communities initiatives, that focussed on giving people hardware. However, I am rather concerned that it could be rather formulaic unless there's an opportunity to move beyond postcode branding of groups towards individual requirements.
Though on reflection, it could be rather a good way to get some lively discussion going with the neighbours. "Did you know that this survey has us down as 'Too old to be bothered' and 'Technology as fantasy'? I'm not standing for that ... why don't we start a digital petition..."

Tackling exclusion deserves an engaging approach

The UK Government's recent report Inclusion through Innovation has been generally well received, not least because it contains interesting examples of the social uses of technology, is the result of extensive research, and makes some bold claims. It deserves widespread discussion as well as recognition, but unfortunately the authors aren't offering us the chance to engage with them. I think that's particularly important in such a complex area.

Government Minister Jim Fitzpatrick says in his foreword that the report sets out to show "how ICT can be an enormously powerful tool for transforming not just the lives of the mainstream, but also of those who are on the margins of society." It's a claim we've heard a few times over the past decade, and hopefully we have learned from what actually happens that transformation isn't a technical fix.
While the report itself does say that "personal development and active inclusion in employment, social groups, and community participation can all be helped by technology" the action plan is mainly about ways in which local councils can extend e-government. It's generally about how government can get wider take-up of online services rather than how technology may, as it claims, transform people's lives. What it says about e-government services may be excellent - but it is only half the story. I think there's insufficient recognition that technology alone won't deliver transformation unless systems are designed with closer regard for those we aim to benefit, and the organisational changes necessary to bring changes into effect. It's pretty difficult to get that mix right through the research, consultation, analysis and presentation exercise indicated in the diagram, however well done. It needs working through with those trying to get it right on the ground. It needs continuing conversations as well as targets and tick boxes.
A few years back a report like this would have been discussed online by practitioners in forums like conet, once run by Communities Online. That forum has now disappeared - perhaps because one-time evangelists for community technology are now working within charities or as circuit riders grappling with the day-to-day problems of making the technology work. A good thing that is too.
In their place has arisen Citizens Online, which has been very successful in working with the technology industry and government in producing reports, running awards programmes, and developing projects like EverybodyOnline. I really admire what they are doing and their aim "to explore the social and cultural impact of the Internet on society". However in this case they appear to take the Government's rather narrow focus, and simply offer a ringing endorsement. John Fisher, chief executive, is quoted in the press release:

We very much welcome the Inclusion through Innovation report. It is an incisive document and there has been novel research, along with a useful capturing of in-depth issues and effective projects. We are pleased to see that Government has recognised the importance of the digital inclusion agenda. It must now grasp the opportunities presented in this report to ensure that the crucial joined-up work happens to make this a reality.

Both the report and the way it is being promoted feel a bit top-down and rather at odds with the subject matter. There's clearly room for debate here. I may have missed some crucial nuances in the report, misinterpreted the action plan - and misunderstood the whole thing. John may well be saying "good report - but we'll be watching to see if you can really deliver the social benefits". Unfortunately neither the SEU nor Citizens Online run a blog or forum where we - or any online citizens - can engage with them. It's presented as a done deal - now let's move on.
There is a proposal in the report for a new independent digital inclusion organisation "providing and stimulating leadership on delivery of good practice, and stimulating communities of users and leaders to promote discussion and understanding." Why not start that discussion now?
Disclosure: I was involved in starting Communities Online a decade or so back, so could be suffering from a touch of the 'good old days'. I'm about to start some work with Government departments on how civil servants can better engage with the public, so feeling more than usually evangelical on that front. I hope I can continue writing about public engagement while working with public servants, and encourage them to do the same. If Robert Scoble can blog across the boundary in Microsoft, it should be possible in the Whitehall village.
Comments welcome below, of course.

New interactive digital divide website launched

Hats off to Andy Carvin and colleagues who have just launched an impressive new website for the Digital Divide Network.

DDN now boasts a wide array of interactive tools, encouraging activists to share resources, publish articles, host virtual discussions, establish online communities, and publish their own commercial-free Web journals, popularly known as "blogs." These resources can be used for communication and collaboration between the diverse groups who have a common cause to eliminate the digital divide.

The site is a major technical and networking achievement... and I'm not just saying that because it takes a feed from this blog. It's great when those talking about inclusion issues really use the social technology tools that they rightly say should be widely available. The network and site also helps those of us promoting the virtues of social software to show potential clients and collaborators what is possible. At a price in time and effort, of course.

Techno-optimists launch another 'digital divide' initiative

Just when I thought digital inclusion was waning as a policy idea - previous thoughts here - in comes an invitation to join the Alliance for Digital Inclusion.

This industry body aims to:
* Create an industry-led umbrella initiative that will encourage collaboration
* Provide targeted, scalable and sustainable solutions
* Encourage new players to become involved
* Engage with and influence Government on key policy issues

The URL www.alliancefordigitalinclusion.org.uk redirects to Citizens Online, who have been doing good work with sympathetic corporates for some years, so I guess it is really a consolidation of their activities.

Another e-disappointment

In a press release "E-learning attracts the 'usual suspects" the UK Economic and Social Research Council reports that new technology hasn't so far changed the way that adults learn ... or tempted more people to become 'learners'.
Despite Government efforts to promote 'lifelong learning' and a more equitable and inclusive 'learning society' there is little special or new about adult learning in the digital age, according to research at Cardiff University.

The Adult Learning@Home project, which was funded by ESRC, concluded that ICT has not increased participation and achievement rates in adult education. Instead, e-learning tends to be associated with the same factors that determine school-leaving age, such as sex and socio-economic background. "It would seem that patterns of participation in adult education are not being changed for the better by changes in education policy," says Dr Neil Selwyn.

Proxicommunication - or technology at local level revisited

I sensed two models below the surface of discussion at last night's London launch of Proxicommunication - ICT and the Local Public Realm. One harked back to the US Freenets and community networks of the 1980s and 1990s, when pioneering enthusiasts promoted bulletin boards and later the Internet to help rebuild local community, provide services, promote debate, offer new learning opportunities. The essential components of that model were some planned provision, support and management of content and interactions.
The other model - or perspective - was of the growing use of personal multimedia and social networking online, and a fairly unstructured development of services offered by public agencies and a host of nonprofit intermediaries.
It seemed to me that the report's author Will Davies was looking for some clearer local governance and planning in his analogy of the public park as a way of thinking about the online commons. He was also arguing for a new breed of technology professionals equivalent to the architects, urban designers and civil engineers who have shaped our physical infrastructure.

Community tech isn't reaching those who need it (if they do)

A major literature review of community informatics projects - using technology to bring social and economic benefits to the disadvantaged - paints a pretty gloomy view of the effectiveness of 'official' programmes linked to schools, libraries, colleges and public sector venues. And while there is evidence of increased civic participation rising from community informatics projects, this is limited, mainly involving existing political activists, concludes the review carried out for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
I have been rather sniffy about some community informatics academics missing current realities, but in this review two of the UK's leading researchers in the field, Brian Loader and Leigh Keeble, have cut to the heart of the issues facing community technology centres, local online networks and other initiatives.
On my reading, they offer strong evidence to challenge the current government moves to push the £400 million UK online centres programme- now facing an end to funding - to focus almost entirely on just the type of formal course activities least likely to appeal to people who are not attracted by schools and colleges. As usual, it is the articulate, confident middle-class who benefit most. They flag up the problems of sustaining projects that do target those in greatest need.

Does it matter if people don't want to use the Net?

Today's seminar at the the University of Dundee went really well, and I think my 10 conversation starters proved a useful contribution. One that certainly produced some discussion was "Many people don't want to use the Internet. Why should they?". I was following Kevin Harris, who said he feared that the UK Government had "given up" on the last 20 percent of people, and that this had serious implications for social inclusion policy. Not least, as others pointed out, because Government is committed to all public services being online by 2005, and non-users are among those most in need of accessing information, services and other benefits.

Who's "Information Society"? - a review of WSIS

Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director of the Association for Progressive Communications, looks back on the World Summit on the Information Society and concludes that while the general verdict was a thumbs-down "from the perspective of many civil society organisations that participated actively, the WSIS has created a new opportunity for solidarity across ideological, sectoral and geographical divides." Academics and activists are now preparing for the second phase to be held in Tunis in 2005.
While official outcomes were limited " At the informal level the outcomes are more significant. I believe that the WSIS has been a watershed in the process of public participation in ICT policies. It has facilitated a shift from the world of obscure ICT policy jargon, engaged by a select group of NGOs, consultants, donor agencies, and governments, to a new context in which ICT policy has become firmly located in broader debates on development and society"