Dr. Helen Thornham| Prof. Caroline Bassett| Prof. Marielena Nikolopoulou | Prof. Claire Wallace| Dr. Edgar Gómez Cruz
Digital Economy
Image Credit: Edgar Gómez Cruz https://www.flickr.com/photos/patadeperro/4758219412/in/album-72157601197086781/
Recommendations
These overall recommendations are taken from 9 funded projects
that all speak to the ‘Digital by Default’ policy initiatives:
1. The assisted digital programme needs to be maintained on
a long-term basis and in a wider capacity. It needs to be
sensitive and flexible in order to to actually respond to
barriers;
2. To be effective, Government digital services need to be co-
designed by those using them as opposed to replicating
design models from the commercial world;
3. Government online services need to be built with the
aim of providing clarity, rather than intuitive design;
4. Non-digital ways of interaction remain an integral part of
communication with (mostly local) government and need to
be maintained for the disadvantaged and enfranchised, for
the digitally literate and illiterate;
5. Existing digital services need to be available as civic right.
Homes, technologies and access should be a civic, not
consumer issue. This also requires increased funding to all
sectors for digital skills provision.
6. The metrics for ‘successful’ take up need to be reconfigured
to account for longterm use and investment. These metrics
need to more accurately reflect the uneven ways
organisations are funded and supported across the UK.
References 1. Gomez Cruz, E., and Thornham, H (2014) ‘[In]Visible and un/fixed Communities: Living with the Welfare Reforms’. RCUK DE Communities
and Culture Network+ Prpject Report
2. Government Digital Strategy (2013), http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-digital-strategy/government-digital-strategy
3. Yates, S.J, Kirby, J, and Lockley E. (2015). ‘Digital-by-default’: Reinforcing Exclusion through Technology’.www.social-policy.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/.../39_yates-et-al.pdf
Contact information • School of Media and Communication, University of Leeds. Leeds LS2 9JT.
• Email: [email protected]| www.communitiesandculture.org
Key Policies around ‘Digital by Default’ & Digital Literacy 1. To move all public service delivery online to create a single
government digital services in order to improve user convenience andexperience;
2. To increase efficiency by cutting costs incurred through face-to-face,telephone and paper-based interactions with government. Thegovernment estimates that moving services online could help save upto £1.8 billion annually;
3. To encourage the existing population who do not use the internet regularly (over 20%) to interact with government online;
4. To provide support to individuals with no access to the internet to beable to use government online services through an assisted digitalprogramme;
5. To enable the public to exploit the ‘opportunities’ offered by digitaltechnology as measurable through the capability to use, understandand create media and communications in a range of settings.
Findings/Responses
1. The ‘Digital by Default’ approach:
q takes responsibility away from the government and transfers it to
the individual benefit claimant;
q is based on a commercial model unsuited to the context of public
service provision/delivery;
2. Given that basic levels of (digital) access are not being met, achieving
wider usability is proving elusive, expensive and time-consuming;
3. Systems and interfaces of government online services are unfamiliar
and difficult to use especially for less digitally confident users or those
requiring mobile access;
4. Reliance on the use of digital technology reinforces many structural
inequities and power (i.e., users needing ‘digital’ services are likely to be
the most socially and digitally excluded);
5. Overemphasising the use of digital technology in anticipation that it
provides ‘magic solutions’ negates a real engagement with the limits and
barriers of its use;
6. Digital literacy neither translates directly into participation,
engagement or empowerment, nor engenders the realisation of potential
on its own.
Communities and Culture Network + ‘Digital by Default’
This is not just about benefits; this is about people’s lives.
I want to wake up looking forward to the day. I just want to have more control over my own life
Up at the DSS [job centre] they just think we’re skiving all the time
Report commissioned in 2015 on behalf of Communities and Culture Network+.Critical Summary of reports authored by Dr. Daniel Mutibwa
1
RCUK DE Communities and Culture Network +‘Digital by Default’ Strand 2016 Report
Brief Context:
The ‘Digital by Default’ approach (DbD)1 aims to move all public service delivery online to
create a single portal for government digital services – GOV.UK. The objective is to achieve
efficiency and cost-effectiveness in the delivery of public services in the digital age and to initiate
a new mode of interaction and communication with the public. For members of the public using
government services that are unable to use digital services independently or have access to the
Internet, assisted digital support in the form of internet access and digital skills training is
reportedly being provided.
Key successes noted by the government since 2012 relate to increased efficiency and
convenience for users; uptake2 and speed of response; and budgetary savings of around £1.7
million3. Overall, the government is using a number of illustrative examples to make a case that
(i) the movement of public service delivery online responds to the needs of users in a much
simpler, quicker and cost-effective way than before and, (ii) this move enables users to take more
responsibility for their wellbeing in alignment with the ‘Big Society’ vision of the last coalition
government.4
These successes notwithstanding, our research raises the following concerns with the strategy.
1) Perceptions that the government is exonerating itself from some of its civicresponsibilities;
2) Ambiguity around how the estimated savings were calculated5;3) Perceived underachievement of set targets;
1 Cabinet Office (2012) ‘Government Digital Strategy’https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/296336/Government_Digital_Stratetegy_-_November_2012.pdf2 Cabinet Office (2010) ‘Building the Big Society’https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78979/building-big-society_0.pdf3 See Government Digital Service (2015) ‘How Digital and Technology Transformation Saved £1.7bn Last Year’https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2015/10/23/how-digital-and-technology-transformation-saved-1-7bn-last-year/4 Cabinet Office (2010) ‘Building the Big Society’https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78979/building-big-society_0.pdf5 See https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2015/10/23/how-digital-and-technology-transformation-saved-1-7bn-last-year/ and associated blog comments
4) Overreliance of digital technologies as a corrective to long-standing structuralinequalities;
5) The rendering of public services as inhumane through digital automation6.
* * * * *
Key Findings
1. Transferring responsibility away from government to service users
Our findings suggest that the movement of public services online is motivated primarily by what
the government sees as the urgency to reduce the UK’s deficit which is predicted to have been
cut by £202 billion by 2020 if the course is maintained (Hodkinson et al. 2015: 6).
To
the
resp
citi
of a
Go
tha
imp
gov
to r
6 In aof whttp:
The wider digital by default initiative has had significant rollout particularly whencombined with the austerity measures that have led to rationalisations of services andan economic imperative to move online (Gómez Cruz & Thornham 2015: 4)
this end and in
case that suc
onsibility for
zens, communi
ddressing food
odings 2015), t
t the shift of r
lications. Mor
ernment is abs
eplace the welf
n ‘exclusive’ piece pubhat he claims to be ‘ch//www.theregister.co.
The government has encouraged a discourse that frameswelfare spending – in particular housing benefit – as being‘out of control’ across the UK and unsustainable to thepublic purse (Hodkinson et al. 2015: 8)
Report commissioned in 2015 on behalf of Communities and Culture Network+.Critical Summary of reports authored by Dr. Daniel Mutibwa
2
alignment with the ‘Big Society’ rhetoric, the government has repeatedly made
cess depends on members of the public and service users assuming more
their own affairs. Although our findings highlight exemplary projects where
ties and charitable organisations have taken control of their wellbeing in terms
poverty (Surman et al. 2015; Perry et al. 2015) and on mental health (Tucker &
here is major concern from local organisations and the third and public sector
esponsibility from the government to the public will have serious long term
e than this, our findings suggest a deep perception and suspicion that the
olving itself of some of its key responsibilities by leaving community initiatives
are state (Lambie-Mumford & Snell 2015: 31).
lished on 18th February 2015 in The Register, Andrew Orlowski draws on various sources to provide a detailed reportaos’ behind the scenes in the design and administration of GOV.UKuk/2015/02/18/the_inside_story_of_govuk/?page=1
Report commissioned in 2015 on behaCritical Summary o
3
Basic levels of (digital) access are not being met
Digital technologies have significant limits
The evidence collated through our research demonstra
acknowledgement of the key role that digital technologies play i
technologies should be complementing rather than replacin
physical proximity. Findings were critical of the use of digital tec
digital by default approach) particularly where it was seen to ‘pr
were adhered to without (human) consideration for the consequ
individuals and their circumstances (Surman et al. 2015: 13).
A number of workshop participantshad very limited access to mobilephones or the Internet due tofinancial and other reasons (Surmanet al. 2015: 16)
‘I don’t own a computer, I hatecomputers, and the last four yearslooking for work has been anightmare, because I don’tunderstand computers and I neverwill.’ (Hodkinson et al. 2015: 19)
[On Arran] they can only get verypatchy dial-up connections. It’s hardenough for them to do necessarytasks such as filling in DEFRA’sonline forms. I doubt whether theyhave the time or patience foranything else online (cf. Harte 2015:7)
Our research found that there is an elision between lack
of digital access and more substantial disability or
disadvantage that suggests the provision of digital access
is not enough. Many individuals who do not have digital
access are also socially, physically and/or mentally,
educationally, financially or geographically disadvantaged
or impaired (Harte 2015; Lambie-Mumford & Snell 2015;
Surman et al. 2015; Tucker & Goodings 2015).
Understanding disability or impairment was also complex:
we found that disabled people (for example) earn less and
need extra services and equipment (e.g., screen readers) to
be able to engage with the digital (cf. Harte 2015: 7). In
geographical terms, findings indicate that ‘patchy dial up
connections’ in rural areas in stark contrast to the
superfast fibre broadband in (given) urban areas appear to
aggravate the urban-rural divide (ibid. 13). These factors
are hampering wider usability of the digital and
exacerbating the gap between the disadvantaged and the
enfranchised, between the digitally literate and illiterate
lf of Communities and Culture Network+.f reports authored by Dr. Daniel Mutibwa
tes that although there is
n various spheres of life, digital
g face-to-face interaction and
hnology (as is the case with the
ocess people’: where protocols
ences such procedures had for
The importance of locality and humaninteraction was a strong theme, given therelationship between food, culture andsocial relationships. A strong differencebetween the technologists and [residents,academics and food poverty stakeholders]was the extent to which faith was placed inthe potential of digital technologies inproviding ‘magic solutions’ (Perry et al.2015: 19)
Robots have very high data-intelligence –recall of information and logical speed –but have little, if any, capacity foremotional intelligence. [They] can carryout a task with ruthless focus but with noability to consider or act on humanconsequence [something that] is anuncomfortable fit with the messiness ofactual civic life (cf. Harte 2015: 5)
Report c
References
Gómez Cruz, E. & Thornham, H. (2015the Welfare Reforms. Final RepNetwork+ Vol. 6 Oct. 2015 pp.1-http://2plqyp1e0nbi44cllfr7pbocommunities-final-report-optim
Gulyás, A. (2015). Social Media and Comthe Community and Cultures Networhttp://2plqyp1e0nbi44cllfr7pbomedia-and-community-voluntee
Digital technology was frequently seen byparticipants to be in opposition to thehuman. It was seen as a threat tocommunities, serving the needs of thepowerful in society, reinforcing rather thanchallenging existing power relations(Surman et al. 2015: 15/4)
In addition, shifting services online creates a far
more inflexible regime where emergent errors elicit
computer-automated sanctions and decision-
making processes are taken outside of human
control. At the same time, our research found that
technology was used to explicitly reinforce power
relations within human interactions to the benefit
of the service provider so that those in need of
help and support were doubly disabled – through
the technology and through the human
(Hodkinson et al. 2015: 18; Gómez Cruz and
Thornham 2015: 9).
Our findings also indicate that digital technologies
may not be as cost-effective to develop and run as
the government claims. There are practical
limitations associated with their complexity, the
cost of maintenance and support, and the time
required to manage a digital presence (Edwards
2015: 26). There is also a significant challenge to
voluntary organisations who play an increasingly
pivotal role in service provision not only in terms
of resources, but also in terms of the expectations
around investment in digital infrastructure to
operate digitally in the first instance (Hodkinson et
al. 2015: 17-20).
ommissioned in 2015 on behalf of Communities and Culture Network+.Critical Summary of reports authored by Dr. Daniel Mutibwa
4
). [In]Visible and un/fixed Communities: Living withort. Working Papers of the Community and Cultures23 accessed at:r.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2013/01/Invisible-ized.pdf
munity Volunteering. Final Report. Working Papers ofk+ Vol. 5 Apr. 2015 pp.1-16 accessed at:r.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2014/08/Social-ring-Final-report.pdf
Report commissioned in 2015 on behalf of Communities and Culture Network+.Critical Summary of reports authored by Dr. Daniel Mutibwa
5
Edwards, L. (2015). Interrogating the complexities of digital communication for young peopleengaged in social action. Final Report. Working Papers of the Community and CulturesNetwork+ Vol. 6 Oct. 2015 pp.1-44 accessed at:http://2plqyp1e0nbi44cllfr7pbor.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2014/12/Interrogating-Complexities-Report.pdf
Harte, D. (ed.) 2015. A Manifesto for Digital Messiness. Working Papers of the Community andCultures Network+ Vol. 6 Oct. 2015 pp.1-20 accessed at:http://2plqyp1e0nbi44cllfr7pbor.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2013/01/Final-report-A-Manifesto-for-Digital-Messiness.pdf
Lambie-Mumford, H. & Snell, C. (2015). Heat or Eat: Food and Austerity in Rural England.Final Report. Working Papers of the Community and Cultures Network+ Vol. 6 Oct. 2015pp.1-36 accessed at: http://2plqyp1e0nbi44cllfr7pbor.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2013/01/Heat-or-Eat-with-Annexes.pdf
McLaverty, P., Baxter, G., MacLeod, I., Tait, E., Goeker, A. and Heron, M. (2015). DigitalPolitical Engagement in Post-Referendum Scotland. Final Report. Working Papers of theCommunity and Cultures Network+ Vol. 6 Oct. 2015 pp.1-31 accessedat: http://2plqyp1e0nbi44cllfr7pbor.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2013/01/New-Radicals-Final-Report.pdf
Perry, B., Walsh, V. & Silver, D. (2015). Putting Food Banks Out of Business: Final Report.Working Papers of the Community and Cultures Network+ Vol. 6 Oct. 2015 pp.1-40 accessedat: http://2plqyp1e0nbi44cllfr7pbor.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2014/08/Perry_et_al_FinalReport_310815.pdf
Surman, E., Kelemen, M. & Moffat, S. (2015). Beyond the food bank: using digital technologyto escape food poverty.’ Final Report. Working Papers of the Community and CulturesNetwork+ Vol. 6 Oct. 2015 pp.1-19 accessed at:http://2plqyp1e0nbi44cllfr7pbor.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2013/01/optimized-CCN-Beyond-the-food-bank_Report_FINAL.pdf
Tucker, I. & Goodings, L. (2015). Social Media and Austerity: Online Peer Support in MentalHealth Communities. Follow on Project Final Report. Working Papers of the Communityand Cultures Network+ Vol. 6 Oct. 2015 pp.1-16 accessed at:http://2plqyp1e0nbi44cllfr7pbor.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2013/01/Social-media-and-austerity-follow-on-Final-report.pdf