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: h.thornham@leeds.ac.uk| 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