Beyond Bridging Divides: Examining the Goals of Digital Inclusion Practice in Post-Digital Societies

Research Background and Issues

• What problems or challenges did the authors identify?
  This paper explores the complexity of digital services in post-digital society and their impact on social participation, particularly in the context of digital exclusion. The authors found that while digital services can bring efficiency and convenience, they simultaneously exacerbate the marginalization of groups unable to access digital technologies. Especially during periods of economic austerity, under neoliberal policies, and in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, a technology-driven "digital-by-default" society may lead to social exclusion.
  The study also identified diversity and contradictions in digital inclusion practices, such as how to address groups that reject digital technologies and the tension faced by practitioners between respecting individual choices and promoting digital participation.

• Why is this issue important?
  The digitization of social services not only transforms the way citizens interact with governments but also intensifies socioeconomic inequalities and social exclusion. This so-called "digital poverty" crisis is affecting numerous vulnerable groups, such as older adults, low-income individuals, migrants, refugees, and people with disabilities, hindering their access to critical resources and services. Therefore, it is essential to delve into the theoretical and practical aspects of the goals of digital inclusion and the ethical issues in its implementation, particularly in the context of a post-digital society.

• Research Motivation and Related Work
  This study is inspired by the critical analysis of digital inclusion interventions in the Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) field, especially the limitations of the "digital divide" framework. Furthermore, HCI research has shifted towards examining the impact of socioeconomic contexts on technology access, but there remains a lack of focus on the perspectives of practitioners, particularly at the grassroots and community levels, in addressing the multifaceted issues of digital inclusion.

Solutions

• What methods or solutions did the authors propose?
  The authors adopted an asset-based design approach and conducted collaborative research with digital inclusion practitioners from the Northeast of England. This approach aims to uncover practitioners' values, existing resources, and needs, treating them as materials for designing interventions. The framework emphasizes not only technological access but also interpersonal relationships and social support.

• What is innovative about this solution?
  The innovation lies in redefining the goals of digital inclusion practices: shifting from the traditional single objective of "bridging the digital divide" to care-based practices that emphasize respecting user choices, addressing diverse needs, and creating "post-digital" participation opportunities for vulnerable groups. This framework challenges the neoliberal orientation of existing digital inclusion efforts and the common assumption that "digital life equals ideal life."

• What are the implementation steps and key technologies used?

  1. Collaborative Practitioner Research: The study convened a series of workshops with digital inclusion practitioners to discuss their values, needs, and resources, and to brainstorm strategies.
  2. Asset-Based Design: Evaluating the current state of digital inclusion practices and generating lists of values, resources, and needs as design materials.
  3. Thematic Analysis: Conducting reflective thematic analysis of workshop data to uncover the complexities and contradictions faced by practitioners.
  4. Intervention Strategy Design: Collaboratively generating ideas for future intervention strategies, focusing on overcoming barriers in resource flow and multi-stakeholder collaboration.

Research Outcomes

• What specific outcomes were achieved?
  The study revealed the complexities within digital inclusion practices, including the contradictions between the "digital-by-default" logic and care-driven goals. The authors proposed a new framework that views digital inclusion practices as care work, rather than merely focusing on technological access and skill development. Additionally, the workshops generated a series of practical intervention suggestions, such as establishing shared resource repositories, improving cross-organizational coordination mechanisms, and advocating for the complexities of digital inclusion to policymakers and funders.

• How does it compare to existing solutions?
  Compared to existing digital inclusion strategies based on the "digital divide" framework, this approach better supports social diversity:

  1. It places greater emphasis on addressing the needs and preferences of vulnerable groups.
  2. It reconsiders the "universality" of digital technologies, advocating for diverse participation through principles of care.
  3. It highlights collaboration with technology developers, policymakers, and funders to drive systemic change.

• What were the experimental or evaluation results?
  Workshop participants generated novel intervention suggestions and expressed alignment with care-based practices. These suggestions included establishing community centers as hubs for digital services, creating data banks to address data poverty, and collaboratively mapping digital services to support coordination. However, the study identified major barriers to implementing these solutions, such as privacy regulations, inflexible funding mechanisms, and centralized power structures.

• Limitations and Future Directions
  Limitations: The study's participants were limited to practitioners in the Northeast of England, lacking a global perspective, particularly regarding digital inclusion practitioners in the Global South. Additionally, the study primarily focused on practitioners, leaving the perspectives of beneficiary groups underexplored.
  Future Research Directions:

  1. Increase research on beneficiary groups' agency and empowerment.
  2. Explore digital inclusion practices in more regions, including cross-cultural comparisons.
  3. Design technologies and platforms to support knowledge sharing among practitioners, such as community-based dynamic resource repositories.
  4. Conduct advocacy and educational activities targeting policymakers and technology developers to promote care-oriented systemic reform.