Digital inclusion and social inclusion: a tale of two

1

Digital inclusion and social inclusion: a tale of two cities Kieran Mervyn, Anoush Simon & David Allen

Introduction The provision of technology to access government information and information services is increasingly seen as an integral element of government policy that aims to address social exclusion and economic deprivation. In this paper we explore this phenomenon, identifying barriers to the uptake of such technologies by underserved (disadvantaged) individuals. The paper draws upon data resulting from a project investigating the implementation of Mobile Information and Communication Technologies (MICT) to address social exclusion in two socially deprived urban areas in the UK. It is argued that, although significant interventions in the form of new technologies may be aimed at less advantaged sections of the community, the existence of a range of barriers to information access and use prevent the full realisation and ultimate success of these initiatives. These include issues with literacy and information literacy including IT literacy; the socio-emotional context of the socially excluded individual and the complexity of information and service needs faced by the individual.

Background to the research Equality of access to information is a critical principle in the global information economy (Gebremichael and Jackson 2006). Recent research has pointed to “a high degree of correlation between social inclusion/exclusion and digital inclusion/exclusion” (Tapia et al., 2011, p.217) and also indicates that digital inclusion programs are critical to bridging the digital divide in local communities (Powell 2011, Servon and Nelson 2001, Abdelaal 2009,

2

Sandvig 2004). This perspective has been implemented in policy and practice, with a significant number of initiatives to provide wireless technologies to support the socially excluded, commonly using a direct access model (where direct access to information through technology is seen as an efficient and cost effective way of addressing social inclusion). Research, however, has identified instances of the failure or impotency of such municipal wireless broadband initiatives (Hudson 2008, Tapia and Ortiz 2010, Kvasny 2002, Kvasny & Keil 2006; Tapia et al. 2011). In this paper, we focus on two case studies of UK local government authorities (local councils) deploying wireless technology to support social inclusion. In the first of the two cases (Mobile City) the council attempted to address socioeconomic problems through a pro-active and centrally planned approach to service provision (Project NOMAD 2005b). In contrast, Aug City’s Wireless City initiative focused primarily on achieving the provision of physical access to the Internet and web-based technologies for excluded groups (Project NOMAD 2005c). A primary driver for both projects was the belief that mobile wireless technology would help the organisations address social exclusion, by improving access to support services and citizenship information through deployment of ICT.

The following section presents a review of relevant literature, covering the concept of social exclusion, discussing the relationship between social exclusion and the digital divide, and the role of government in addressing these issues through e-government. It is argued that a market driven strand can be identified to government approaches to social exclusion, which promotes a ‘laissez-faire’ approach to bridging the digital divide (Tapia et al. 2011). We then describe our use of an Activity Theory-driven case based research methodology. This is followed by an overview of the data and discussion focusing on the following themes arising from the data and evident across both case studies: 

Information needs

3



Literacy and IT literacy



Social and emotional barriers to information

We conclude by arguing that in order for Mobile Information and Communication Technologies (MICT) interventions to be genuinely impactful, the information needs – and barriers to addressing these needs - of the intended beneficiaries (in this case, underserved people needing to access state services and support), must be understood and addressed in tandem with such interventions.

Literature Review Social exclusion as a policy concept evolved through an emerging European emphasis on social policy that was concerned with addressing complex forms of disadvantage (Levitas 1996; Selwyn 2002). It gained conceptual prominence across Europe during the 1980s and 1990s, in response to critical social divisions emanating from an evolving labour market. The European Union’s Lisbon Summit in 2000 positioned poverty and social exclusion at the heart of European social policy. A year later, in Nice, each member state was required to construct a biennial national social inclusion action plan where objectives included a priority to address marginalised groups at particular risk of exclusion (European Commission 2000).

The concept of exclusion can be difficult to define, and some commentators link a failure to address exclusion-related social problems with a lack of clarity and consensus over its definition. It operates in and is shaped by a variety of contexts – national and local, legal and cultural (Silver 2006, p. 22). It is also possible to investigate and understand it both in terms of structural factors and individual life experiences. Research in this area is multidimensional, exploring complex and inter-related issues that transcend single-factor

4

dimensions including poverty, deprivation, deficient housing, disability, restricted social rights, education barriers, social participation and social networks (Robila 2006). The debate has evolved from a focus on poverty alone (Levitas et al. 2007), towards new understandings of the causes and consequences of social disadvantage. Discussion has moved away from established concepts of ‘poverty’ and ‘unemployment’, to perhaps less clear-cut themes around the idea of an ‘underclass’, a ‘new poverty’ and social exclusion (Silver 1994, p.531).

The research outlined in this paper was undertaken under the previous UK administration (the Labour Government, 1997-2010) which developed an exclusion strategy that sought to target those who lacked access to various services and facilities, and society’s decision-making and power structures (Levitas 2005). A specialised Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) was established under this administration (Social Exclusion Unit 2001). It focused on the creation of opportunities to flee poverty as opposed to eliminating poverty per se (Levitas 2004), seen as a shift in focus from structural problems to “a behavioural model where those who are socially excluded carry some of the responsibility for not doing more to belong” (Selwyn 2002, p.17).

In the information age, discussions of exclusion inevitably intersect with discourses around ICT. One of the key areas of concern here is the idea of a ‘digital divide’ and associated debates about information poverty and information needs that may remain unaddressed despite rapid advances in ICT, and an increasing number of routes to accessing information. Selwyn (2002) has noted that social exclusion and the idea of a digital divide were conflated in the policy declarations of European governments through the 1990s,

and that little

attention was paid to how governments actually use ICT (Selwyn 2002). This research gap

5

has been addressed considerably in the last ten years, and there is a body of work that investigates the relationship between government, welfare, ICT and social exclusion from a range of perspectives including the convergence of multi-agency welfare related information (Pleace 2007), older people, welfare and digital services (Hardy & Loader 2009, Loader et al. 2008), the role of IT consultancy in the narrative and development of e-government (Horrocks 2009), and the impact of local government on the role and meaning of community informatics in the UK (Goodwin 2007). There remains a need for more insight into the impact of ICT implementations on users at a local level. It is this last area of research to which this paper aims to contribute.

Developments in ICT, and networked technology in particular, it has been argued, drive 21st century global development; its social impact therefore will have widespread consequences, and therefore must be “...directed by rational and considered policy. choices” (Dutch and Muddiman 2001, n.p). Impacts may be particularly important for those who are socially excluded or face other forms of deprivation (Fountain 2001, p.16). Many people are unable to influence or participate in the new technological infrastructure being developed and supported by government to provide services and resources. This digital exclusion has been described as “...one of the most damaging forms of exclusion in our economy and in our culture” (Castells 2001, p.3), and in some cases in may also reinforce or even deepen existing disadvantage. Mbarika, Payton et al.(2007), Van Dijk & Hacker (2003) and Maldonado, Pogrebnyakov & van Gorp (2006) also argue that new technological developments may reinforce patterns of exclusion, because social advancement is inextricably linked with educational attainment and/or technical skill sets.

6

Selwyn (2004) refers to the digital divide as a ‘practical embodiment of the wider theme of social inclusion’, and ICT interventions, and how they are delivered have a wider role to play in increasing or decreasing this divide. Digital inequality refers to more than mere levels of access to technology, but to the impact that the ongoing problems that the underserved may experience have on ICT diffusion, use and uptake – and hence the value of ICT in individuals’ lives (Kvasny 2006). It remains important to consider information needs as one significant element of a broader integrated process of exclusion (Phipps 2000), as is evident in the data discussed in this paper.

It can be argued that basic ICT competence is a prerequisite for participation in productive online activity, and thus a greater understanding of the contexts of inequality, beyond single factor issues such as access or diffusion is imperative (Kvasny & Keil 2006; Warschauer 2003 in Hargittai and Hinnant 2008). Warschauer (2003) notes the clear differentiation between ICT access and actual use; and whilst much is known about statistical gains in terms of ICT access far less is known about the end user reaction of marginalised groups (Kvasny & Keil 2006). Thus, there is a need for more empirical studies into the intricacies of digital inequality, a key issue and manifestation of exclusion (Hsieh et al., 2008).

Hsieh et al. (2008) report that social-economic status, as exemplified through income and educational levels, directly differentiates ICT users from non-users and levels of educational attainment strongly correlate with online activities. Hargitti & Hinnant (2008) note that experienced internet users are likely to use the web in a more complex, sophisticated way and for a variety of purposes, and that recreation-orientated use of the web (which may attract new or less skilled users) may have less capital-enhancing effects than other activities such as

7

job hunting, or banking online – and those that undertake these type of activities are more likely to be highly educated in the first place, and skilled computer users (Hargittai & Hinnant 2008). They say that "simply being connected will not necessarily solve all potential sources of inequality” (p. 618). Tolbert et al. (2002), emphasize the failure of a high-profile media campaign targeting the uptake of public-access points for delivering e-government services, and argue that e-politics will significantly reinforce the prevailing participation gap. New ICTs are more likely to be exploited by elites and the better educated rather than those at the lower end of the spectrum and may reinforce patterns of inequality and nonparticipation (Tolbert et al, 2002).

In this respect, the disintermediated (direct service) option in e-government provision may naturally benefit those already equipped with the means, skill and motivation to access the desired services. This of course raises questions around the take up and impact of these services by less privileged sections of society – those who are often the key targets of such services. Research conducted in Portugal, for example, demonstrated a distinct lack of strategic, local e-participation initiatives (Fedotova et al. 2012), and indicated a need for more collaborative environments to improve government-to-citizen relations.

Technology has been identified by government authorities as a way of addressing the social exclusion issue through three policy cycles encompassing electronic (e-) government (Cabinet Office 2000), mobile (m-) government (Misuraca 2009) and transformational (t) government, (Cabinet Office 2008, Public Service 2011). In the UK a systems rationalist (Howcroft & Wilson 2003) approach adopted by successive governments was based on the understanding of a clear link between social exclusion and digital exclusion (Helsper, 2008).

8

Policy makers inferred that digital participation would eventually address social exclusion once technology access and basic technical skills were administered to residents and citizens (Ryder, 2007). There has long been a strong belief by policy makers at both local, national and pan-national levels, that policy around ICT has a key role to play in solving exclusionrelated problems, both economic/political and social (Van Winden 2001), facilitating, for example, civil engagement (Cegarra-Navarro, Pachon, & Cegarra 2012).

In England the government claimed to have e-enabled all local public services in December 2005 as stipulated by the Cabinet Office (Cabinet Office 2000). Allied with the view that both issues noted above - access and skills - can be resolved through the deployment of egovernment it has been argued that the information needs of under-served people and groups may be best viewed as a market-based opportunity rather than from a ‘victim’ perspective. Prahalad, for example, argues that underserved people should be seen as robust and ‘creative entrepreneurs and value-conscious consumers’ (2005

p.1) who can be converted into

dynamic market-based participants. This view supports a ‘laissez-faire’ or non-interventionist approach where the tools are provided for access, but both access and use are not supported by intermediaries (e.g. public service employees and volunteers). This stands in contrast to the traditional interventionist approach to bridging the digital divide through the deployment of information services and intermediaries to support the socially excluded, for instance the conventional physical benefits office or library where human intermediaries actively signposted clients and customers to the desired information or service. Godfrey & Johnson (2009) describe the UK Government’s strategy for aging, which seeks to transform the policy focus from passive beneficiaries of social care to one that promotes active engagement amongst citizens. Their study explored the information needs and information seeking abilities of aging people, and the use of informal networks of support for gathering information, advice

9

and advocacy through technically literate intermediaries. The use of local intermediaries, who often emerged from within their own elderly sub-groups, engendered feelings of trust and belonging, and helped local users to access complex and often private information that would otherwise have omitted them (Godfrey and Johnson 2009).

In conclusion social exclusion is linked to the digital divide and in its simplest form is seen as reflecting a dichotomous disparity between those with and without access to web-based technologies. While policy makers seem to have focused on internet access and diffusion levels in silo, others take a critical cultural and historical stance and acknowledge the complex intricacies of deeper social problems (Kvasny and Yapa 2005; Kvasny and Keil 2006), and question the link between digital inclusion and social exclusion (Bure 2006). EGovernment has been presented as a solution to both the digital divide and social exclusion; two examples of which are the subject of this paper. The provision of information technologies which are aimed overcoming social exclusion is also linked to a wider market based discourse which positions the socially excluded as active participants in their inclusion. Despite the potential of mobile technologies, it has been argued that we are still some way from a truly integrated and inclusive m-government environment, and indeed such new services and initiatives may increase the digital divide (Vincent & Harris 2008).

As noted above, studies have critically discussed the motivations and impact of the developing role of technology in government, i.e. e- or m-government, highlighting the complex relationship with consultants and other interested parties. There has been rather less on the ground-level impacts on the people the systems are ostensibly designed to serve, and acknowledging the ‘dimensions and complexities’ of the lives of the poor (Pleace 2007, p.

10

945). This paper hopes to contribute to this developing discussion, considering the impacts of ICT implementations on council workers (case workers), third sector workers, and the socially excluded themselves.

Methodology Two MICT-enabled approaches to service provision for socially excluded residents were explored through case study research. The case studies were chosen because of their similar missions but use of contrasting frameworks and approaches. For purposes of confidentiality, both towns have been assigned pseudonyms. They represent alternative technological approaches to try and address significant social problems, specifically, one council (Aug City) took what might be termed a ‘laissez-faire’ approach to the provision of these services, the other (Mobile City) was much more interventionist in style, as described below.

Aug City provided a wireless broadband infrastructure implementation, including computing devices and initial technical support (at point of implementation only) for third sector groups. The explicit belief behind the approach in this case was to address social exclusion and the digital divide through the use of technology. One senior council manager noted: We know as an authority, we have got inner city problems, as an authority, we work closely with our strategic partnership, the voluntary sector. We know there are areas of high poverty and deprivation. There are areas of the city that are not computer literate, that haven’t got the skills set that are needed. This is a very contrived terminology, but there is the so-called socially excluded if you like; and what we want to do is basically target those who don’t have the technology and don’t have access to the technology and get it out there and provide training and skills. (Senior Manager, 2005)

11

The Council took a ‘Darwinian’ approach to information infrastructure development: the technology was provided without on-going support for users, on the basis that those that were used would gain further resourcing while those implementations that did not gain support and advocacy would naturally wither. The application of this laissez-faire or non-interventionist model was studied in its implementation in a Woman’s Refuge, Disability Group, Gujarat Hindu Society and Muslim Forum. The Council’s idea was essentially, ‘let’s see what grows and develops without much third party intervention’. A relatively new Wireless Internet Service Provider (WISP) with a small technical team struggled to address technical problems across over one hundred and fifty access points in the city. In Mobile City, a more structured form of support was provided by a well known mobile data service provider, which worked with the Council’s IT department to ensure that the benefits service was meticulously managed.

Mobile City Council embraced a much more centrally planned and developed Dirigist-style approach for addressing significant social and economic matters, through a mobile broadband ‘revenues and benefits bus’ which exploited wireless capability to take services directly to the people through experienced front-line visiting officers. Officers from different government services visited deprived areas to support citizens with access to information services, such as welfare and benefits information. This centrally-planned approach provided intermediated eservices to excluded citizens. The focus in this case was on technology to enable service provision; as one interviewee noted: “It all comes under a strategy to make everybody within the borough not be excluded from services that [Mobile City] provide” (Senior Operational Manager, 2006). This clearly outlines the aim of improving social inclusion via more

12

effective access to citizenship information such as applying for benefits and services, through the medium of ICT.

The research commenced in 2004 and lasted until 2010. In Aug City, a total of 35 semistructured interviews, one focus group interview and two telephone interviews were conducted with a range of stakeholders including senior and operational council management, councillors, wireless network providers, third sector service providers and clients. Fourteen interviews were also conducted in Women’s Refuges. In Mobile City, 34 semi-structured and four open-ended interviews were conducted with a range of stakeholders including senior council managers, front-line officers and local residents seeking means-tested benefits, housing, debt and welfare advice, because the service was constructed around people’s information and service needs. Although some council service end-users were interviewed, the majority of respondents were those involved with the implementation, council workers and third sector workers including volunteers and those directly involved with using the technology. All transcripts were coded into themes using NVIVO software and the text was explored at different levels of analysis.

Research Framework Activity Theory was used in this research project as a conceptual and analytical framework for exploring case development over time. Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) (Bedny & Harris, 2008; Engeström 1987, 1993; Engeström, Engeström, & Vähäaho 1999; Leont'ev 1981) has been used within human computer interaction (HCI) and computersupported cooperative work (CSCW) fields (Bødker 1997; Kaptelinin, Nardi, & Macaulay 1999; Kuutti 1996; Nardi 1996) and to understand information behaviour and the use of

13

technology (Allen, Karanasios, & Slavova, 2011; Hassan Ibrahim & Allen, 2012). Activity theory consists of a set of basic principles which are deployed as a conceptual framework for enquiry, and a foundation for more specific theories (Engeström, Miettinen, & Punamäki 1999). These principles are: (1) Object oriented human activity; (2) multi-voicedness; (3) historicity; (4) contradictions; and (5) transformations (Engeström 1999a). Object-orientated, whereby human activity occurs within a broadly objective reality constituted of both things which are seen as object and socio-culturally constructed. Multi-voicedness acknowledges that a wider community of stakeholders exist within the confines of activity systems that bring to bear their own perspectives, views and culture on the system. In a similar vein to actor network theory (Latour, 1993; Yoo, Lyytinen, & Yang, 2005) multi-voicedness is seen as a source of tension and innovation, and should be addressed through active translation and negotiation (Engeström 1999a). Historicity reflects the manner in which activity systems are continually reconfigured over time. In effect, their limitations and opportunities must be understood within the context of their own local and global history. Contradictions reflect historically developing structural tensions within and between the elements of activity systems. Expansive transformations then occur after activity systems evolve as actors within the system recognise and react to the contradictions (Engeström 1999a). We applied these principles in the research design by drawing upon Wilson’s Activity Process model (Wilson 2006) in Figure 1 below.

14

Figure 1 Wilson (2006) Activity Process model This model served as a structural framework and was used to describe the work activities being analysed (i.e. supporting citizens claim benefits). Focusing on work activity as the prime unit of analysis the role of technology enabled technology to be placed within the context of being one element of the system. It informed both the development of the data collection instruments and formed the initial scaffolding for the analysis of the research data. We sought examples of context as exemplified by the community, division of labour and cultural rules and norms, and charted how these are perceived and how they developed. We also identified the motivation and goals of each initiative; the higher level objective; the tools (e.g. technology and funding); the rules and norms; the division of labour; the community of stakeholders; the expected outcomes and evaluative criteria to assess project success and the areas of tension and contradiction. These were then diagrammed for each activity area as the project progressed and the expansive transformations unfolded over time. One such diagram is provided in Figure 2.

15

Figure 2: Aug City Woman's Refuge information provision activity process model

Within the context of each of the activities we then focused on understanding the actions that were undertaken (such as giving or receiving information). This allowed a fine-grained understanding of the macro (using the activity systems) and micro (by focusing on actions) and the relationship between the two. This form of analysis highlighted particular tensions and contradictions in relation to the information needs, social and emotional needs of clients and the degree of information literacy.

Findings The main objectives of the original research were to gauge the influence of mobile information and communication technologies (MICT) on social exclusion. Two cases of local government that have endeavoured to augment electronic service provision for underserved people through a mobile and wireless infrastructure were examined. In both cases, the

16

rationale for establishing the infrastructure was to enhance organisational efficiency and effectiveness in the light of the 2002 and 2005 national e-Government agenda. This paper does not focus specifically on differences in approach and therefore outcomes on the ICT interventions, but instead seeks to focus on the cross-cutting themes of information needs and barriers, and problems related to this, which were evident across both communities – albeit manifested in different way and attested to by different types of individuals (council workers, volunteers, intended service users themselves) – depending on context.

Data analysis highlighted the extent of information needs, and the barriers to information in underserved communities. It became clear that the information needs of the target groups (underserved and socially disadvantaged individuals and groups) are multi-faceted, difficult to ascertain, and much more complex than assumed by stakeholders (council decision-makers and technology developers) at the outset of project development. The findings are presented below in the form of three themes:

1. Information needs: data analysis revealed a range of pre-existing information needs that were often beyond the comprehension of under-served people, such as during the attempted completion of complex Department for Work and Pensions forms which often cumulated in external problems such as poverty and social distress. This was correlated with literacy and IT literacy deficiencies.

2. Literacy and IT literacy: problems of literacy, including information and IT literacy were evident amongst the populations targeted by MICT interventions. Many such issues were pre-

17

existing; but it is argued that the introduction of technology may create another barrier to information access which needs to be addressed to ensure the success of the implementations.

3. Social and emotional barriers: it was evident from the data that there were complex social, emotional and psychological barriers experienced by individuals, within the disparate social spaces where public services are provided to under-served people.

Information Needs The range of information needs experienced by the individuals involved in the two case studies were profound and ranged from the relatively mundane, including ‘everyday life’ information such as travel information, information about school, crèche or medical facilities, to more complex issues pertaining to debt, mental health and emergency housing. There was a clear need for reliable, quality information in some areas, for example, in the Women’s Refuge (Aug City), victims of domestic violence needed to know about legal options, crisis intervention and the civil and criminal law process. As one respondent stated: They want to know what the legal options are with regards to getting injunctions and things like that. They want to know how they can make their home safer; how they can make their lives safer. (Aug City refuge manager 2006). Recognising the variability of people’s information needs, this respondent later noted the importance of human intervention: Quite often our service users won't quite know where to go for information about whatever it might be; getting help with debt or gas bills or looking for a dentist. We can quickly go on the website and it takes us five minutes as opposed to mulling through Yellow Pages. (Aug City refuge manager 2006).

18

Thus it was quickly evident that accessing government services and support was not the only – or even the most important – information need that could be served by the implementation of ICT in the relevant communities. A senior council respondent stated: If you look at most of the socially excluded, they still take holidays, shop in Tesco’s; do a whole raft of things that most other people do. But what is different, what could be different, is if they want to go on a holiday, or go on a train – to see their sick granny in London, so they walk up to [Aug City] station, they then want to go and say ‘give me a ticket to London and back; and they say what time do you want to travel. If you travel now, it will cost you £70. These people can’t afford 70 quid. If they booked it in advance they might have got it for £30 or £15… that’s the very thing you want them to be doing (Senior Manager, Aug City Council 2006).

There are many aspects to the potential benefits of the digital world that the socially excluded many not fully benefit from, even outside the intended sphere of government support and benefits that were the focus of the projects, due in part to various barriers to addressing information needs (as outlined below). As indicated in the extract above, achieving some kind of parity of access to the wealth of online information that is increasingly understood as an essential part of everyday life, may be as important an outcome of these MICT projects as access to government services.

Information needs can be understood as multi-dimensional. The great variety and complexity of information requests is reflected in the following quote from a refuge outreach worker: We do our housing bids on the Internet; if [clients] want anything to do with going out, such as train times and cinema tickets, things like that or if they want information about

19

[wider services] for different sorts of things. We can locate issues around child protection or anything really, that’s what they use the Internet for really (Aug City Women’s Refuge, outreach worker, 2006). Technology was seen to be a key mechanism for addressing these information needs, as one Aug City Council manager noted, but it is also clear that a lack of access to the technology is seen as increasingly disadvantageous: The technology is a gateway to information on the Internet; you’re providing people with the vehicle to access information. If they don’t have that vehicle, how can they access that information? (Operational Manager 2006).

Literacy and IT literacy Many people, including those with learning difficulties, are excluded from and/or unable to participate in directly accessing information on the web because of literacy issues (Nath & Yoxall, 2012). In Mobile City the success of the implementation was directly linked to the use of intermediaries to overcome this issue. For example it was noted that 50% of the paper forms (e.g. benefits applications) they had received in the past had been incorrect applications (Visiting Officer, Mobile City Borough Council, 2007); another respondent pointed out that while they intended the mobile bus service to be primarily taken up by the elderly, or housebound, other groups became regular users of the service including school leavers with poor reading and writing skills and single parents (Visiting Officer, Mobile City Borough Council, 2004). One respondent noted: Quite a lot of people couldn’t read or write properly, so what chance have they got of filling in an intensive, 24-page form? In the past they haven’t bothered filling them [in]

20

because they couldn’t understand them, or they couldn’t write what they wanted to say (senior manager, Mobile City Borough Council, 2006). Senior citizens from Mobile City also struggled with long and complicated benefits forms. They were the intended users of the system; however it appeared that the capability of the intermediary rather than the technology itself provided the key benefit: Some of the forms are so long; we know from experience that a number of elderly people just haven’t got a clue [how to complete them]. If there wasn’t someone from the Council or CAB [Citizen’s Advice Bureau], or wherever they are from, they would never get filled in. Or if they did get filled in, there would be so much missing that person wouldn’t get anywhere. (Senior Manager, Mobile City Council, 2006). This demonstrates a pre-existing information need (e.g. needing help in how to fill out the relevant forms), linked to both basic and IT literacy, that is not necessarily or inherently addressed by the provision of MICT; however it did in this case (through staff involvement in the mobile benefits bus) allow identification of the problem and subsequent staff intervention to help resolve it. In Aug City Muslim Forum a volunteer noted language barriers and lack of technological capability as clear barriers to direct use of the systems provided: If you look at the Net, there is so much information out there, but it’s actually accessing that information. You’ve still got to have – if English is not your first language or if you have difficulty with it. And some people have definite aversions to technology, so immediately if you come into one of those two areas, there is a certain amount of exclusion from it right away. These people just don’t know where to turn, so we try our best [to help them] (2006). The role of volunteers or council workers in helping individuals overcome literacy barriers is significant; indeed as noted above there is the risk that without help, technology may come to

21

represent an additional barrier. It became apparent during the research, therefore, that simple provision of technology was not enough. In an information-rich society like the UK, there are still many groups and individuals that face barriers to getting the best and most productive use of the internet, basic literacy as well as information or technology literacy being key issues for many people. This emphasises the importance of local intermediaries for addressing literacy and IT literacy problems in disparate social spaces (Godfrey & Johnson, 2009). The leadership abilities of intermediaries in Aug City and Mobile City were noted through their intervention in different contexts, such as during housing bids at Aug City refuge, and Mobile City Visiting Officers who used their knowledge and experience, and a range of technical tools, to determine a person’s benefits and welfare needs and apply on their behalf.

Emotional needs & psychological barriers Intertwined with issues of literacy and technological literacy were psychological barriers to the use of the technology. As will be noted below, literacy problems may lead to reluctance to tackle the often-complicated council paperwork – online or otherwise: I was amazed at the number of people who couldn’t read or write; or could read and write but filling in a large complicated application form was daunting. No wonder we weren’t getting our benefits renewal forms returned (operational manager, Mobile City Borough Council, 2007). Users may be reluctant to ask for help, or to admit needing support in applying for benefits. Another barrier described is related to a reluctance to actually claim help and to be reliant on the state in any way. This is described in the following way by a Mobile City Council manager:

22

There are many people out there who feel, rightly or wrongly, especially older people that they don’t want charity. It’s not; they are only getting what they’re actually entitled to. I wouldn’t say [there’s] a stigma attached to it. They would be thinking - I don’t want to be asking for money off somebody else (Senior Manager, Mobile City Council, 2007). There are other complex reasons why individuals may not claim benefits to which they are entitled. One Visiting Officer from Mobile City highlighted the lack of service awareness: People with mental health problems don’t want to or can’t go out because of their conditions. There are many people with mental health problems who we do benefit take-up for, as well trying to get them onto the right services. We get many referrals from the nurses and social workers and then you go out to the house because otherwise these people wouldn’t know about us (Visiting Officer, Mobile City Council, 2006). One respondent then provided a vivid example of the barriers faced by a disabled resident: A while ago, I visited a guy who was disabled, blind and in a wheel chair; wouldn’t let me in. He could hardly hear; he kept saying I’m sorry you can’t come in. I’m doing a job upstairs; he wasn’t. He’s been burgled so many times that he’s been told to let no one in the house. I was going out to fill out a community care grant form as he needs a washing machine; he’s in bad need of a washing machine. I couldn’t get in but I had to arrange to be there when a care worker was there to fill out the forms. He was lovely but I didn’t want to go back, I didn’t want to alarm him or cause him any stress; he couldn’t see and kept repeating the same thing about the job upstairs...He smokes as well; he didn’t have a smoke alarm or anything. So I contacted the fire service to go out and fit an alarm and perform a house check. They had to go there when the care worker

23

was there. You should have seen all the cigarette burns; the carpet was covered in them (Visiting Officer, Mobile City Council, 2007). The same Visiting Officer stated that, “Many people with mental health problems just aren’t bothered; they just don’t care. They’ve got so many other things going on in their lives. It’s their families really that you have to fill out the form with”.

During the focus group interview at Aug City Disability Centre (DISC) the centrality of access to information for a disabled person and the barriers were articulated: You talk about a socially excluded group and the technology has the potential to give people that access to reduce that isolation …a lot of people just go, well, I can’t afford a computer anyway, what’s the point. If you could just get the wireless boxes in the houses, but we're not seeing that. (Manager, DISC, 2006). Before becoming clients of the Women’s Refuge in Aug City, women facing domestic violence may be unable to access service information through the refuge website because of pressure from a spouse or partner: I think they may be scared to use it, or not used to using it, or are prevented from using it by their partners at some stage. So they don’t have the confidence to go on and use it (Aug City, Refuge Advocacy Worker, 2007). That is, the domestic context may impact heavily on women’s (in this case) opportunities to make use of ICT. Better known everyday barriers such as busy work/home lives and the need to negotiate use of technology within a family, move onto more extreme levels in the situation described above.

24

Discussion This research aims to add to an understanding of how people experience information poverty, in particular contexts, and with a consideration of the underlying factors that may create and reproduce information poverty over time. Policy makers strive to make digital technologies the universal method for engaging with town halls, for example Aug City’s web-based social housing website which is the now the only method of applying (bidding) for emergency property.

Perhaps the most significant finding outlined in this analysis is that this ‘laissez-faire’ approach can successfully help to address human information needs in areas where skilled support is readily available, yet simultaneously adds a further layer of complexity to people’s lives. As argued in a previous paper (Mervyn and Allen, 2012), MICT-based social exclusion initiatives are much more likely to succeed if they are part of a process of supporting existing intermediaries between the excluded and the information needed, or are used as a process of creating new intermediaries, for example volunteers in particular organisations (e.g. the Women’s Refuge) may step into to the role of intermediary to help people address their information needs through new technology, in addition to their existing support role within the organisation; thus an unplanned and unpaid role develops to ensure some success of MICT initiatives, which was not anticipated at implementation. However it was also clear that pre-existing information needs and barriers to information must be addressed to ensure that technology itself does not present a barrier to accessing timely and relevant information.

25

The policy drive to enhance disintermediation (electronic government service take-up) is therefore contrasted with the contexts of people’s inability or unwillingness to participate in online activities – government-related or otherwise, for a range of reasons as indicated above.

Under-served people are likely to require the greatest range of information and services from local government and its agencies (Phipps, 2000, Fisher et al., 2004, Caidi and Allard, 2005, Blackburn et al., 2005); however it has been argued that: People experiencing poverty are all too often stigmatised in government, political and policy-making rhetoric. They are the targets of policy interventions, yet underpinning this is a view that welfare is, in itself, problematic (Mooney, 2011: p.8). The research data demonstrates that the reality of the implementation of MICT was much more complicated than first envisaged. It has been argued that information needs are complex and cannot simply be equated to socio-economic disadvantages (Yu, 2010); however other research and commentary indicates that this is certainly a contributing factor (Selwyn, 2002, Selwyn, 2002b). It has been shown here, that within ‘socially excluded’ or poor communities, there are complicated information needs that are related to educational, socio-economic and financial disadvantages but which are clearly grounded in individuals’ experiences of social exclusion and deprivation, hence provision of technology alone will not be able to fully address these issues. Pleace (2007) notes that the Department for Work and Pensions acknowledge that ‘barriers to work’ can include issues such as low self esteem, support and healthcare needs, limited educational achievement. This is also supported by the analysis presented here.

26

Undoubtedly MICT initiatives do make an impact, but only with the help of technically literate and locally knowledgeable intermediaries (employees, volunteers or otherwise, as outlined above). It was also evident that these intermediaries also have their own barriers or digital divide to overcome especially if they are part-time staff, carers or volunteers. Various studies have demonstrated that those with greater information and service needs in relation to health, housing, employment and social care are often unable to use web-based technologies to assist them (Blackburn, Hughes & Read, 2005). Blackburn et al.’ (2005) survey of social carers, for example, found that web use was influenced by age, gender and socio-economic rank in conjunction with their caring duties. The Government’s approach to disintermediation through self-service options may therefore be questioned in respect of adult carers, many of whom remain beyond the reach of digital services and may be unable or unwilling to participate in online activities. Aug City refuge managers described how volunteers (exwomen’s refuge clients) who undertake caring duties for vulnerable women themselves often had low levels of literacy and were lacking in technical skills. In a similar vein, a carer participant in the Aug City DISC focus group described how her experience of technology was limited to observing other people social surfing: I don’t bother with the internet too much myself, but it’s nice to see how others are using it. I think it's having access to your emails as opposed to the Internet itself that is of vital importance to me; as long as there’s secure access. (DISC Carer, 2006).

This analysis of the introduction of ICT into groups and communities, and its subsequent use, highlighted existing information needs that were not identified or expected as part of the council’s initiatives. In a similar context, other research has shown that social exclusion is subsequently seen as a barrier to e-government adoption (Akman et al., 2005, Morgan, 2009, Dutton et al., 2005). The primary focus on technology that is often evident, may downplay

27

more complex interactions, and be understood as an obstruction to joined-up and fully interoperable government (Cordella and Iannacci, 2010). Akman et al. (2005) found a correlation between restricted internet access levels and low e-government take-up. It was argued earlier that the increasing expectation of access to ICT and the skills to use it has the potential to create “…a new form of exclusion as well as reinforcing existing patterns of exclusion from society.” (Selwyn 2002: p.4). This is supported in our analysis which demonstrates complicated, ground-level barriers to access and take-up of government services (as well as other potential benefits of MICT). These barriers are in part addressed by interventions from staff, volunteers and family members but this can only represent a partial solution to the issues discussed here.

Conclusion A common misconception concerns people’s ability - or inability - to ‘catch-up’ with established, experienced web users and embrace web-based services. Two distinct approaches by local government authorities sought to equalise this disparity and provide the infrastructure and services to under-served people, specifically to apply for welfare benefits, housing allocation and a variety of other services. There was limited success, in the sense that both local councils’ spotlight was focused, in different ways, on the technology artefact rather than the socio-technical system. There appeared to be a failure to understand the wider social context of services users, and the complex division-of-labour amongst information service providers.

The connection between complex information needs and social exclusion is apparent in that some people require a wider degree of service support than others. Information is integral to

28

the complicated landscape of social exclusion, key to the ability to access and make use of services and fully participate in a civic society (Phipps 2000: 62). Contrary to public policy that advocates the disintermediation of public services, service access is often problematic without the active role of intermediaries, whose role themselves is also evolving and quite complicated (Bailur and Masiero 2012). Referring to the mobile benefits services, one respondent stated that ‘One visitor to little villages gives people access to lots of information’ (Visiting Officer 2006). Mobile City Council’s visiting officers increasingly provide services beyond the remit of statutory welfare benefits by tackling problems associated with social isolation. A rather more systems rationalist outlook was provided by a manager from Aug City Council who viewed technology as a mechanism for self-service access: It’s like a vehicle out of poverty... It’s a gateway really. Here’s the car, where do you want to go? It’s up to you what you want to do with it. It’s giving people that freedom, opportunity and flexibility to do whatever they want to do (Operational manager, Aug City Council, 2006). Conversely, an IT Manager summarised the objectives of Aug City: ‘The evaluation of the project will be whether it has resolved the problems that it was brought in to solve. It’s not the financial case; it’s about reduced exclusion, access to new communication channels and access to new forms of information. It’s whether it sorts that out; that will be the test, not the financial aspect of it (IT manager, 2006).

This paper has demonstrated that the information needs of the information poor (socially excluded) are much more complex than technology developers and government presupposed at the outset of project development. It was found that, regardless of disruptive technology type across both cases, the underlying needs of these information poor often remained intact

29

and in some cases were exemplified and perpetuated by the technology. It was also evident that human intermediaries played a critical brokering role between the citizen and information in mobile environments (Mervyn and Allen 2012): without intermediaries, a layer of complexity is added to the process of accessing and exploiting public sector information and services.

Recent research by the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) (Beattie-Smith 2013: 4) indicates that levels of access to computers and the internet are lower amongst their clientele then the general population (55% of CAB clients have a computer at home; 36% of clients said they never used the internet), which raises concerns about UK government plans to move to an increasingly digital environment for the benefits applications process (gov.uk, 2013), and indicates that a fuller understanding of individuals’ IT and information skills, and the barriers they face to overcome these is needed. The introduction of Universal Credit in the UK (Gov.uk, 2013), which replaces a range of existing benefits, makes the issues highlighted in this paper ever more urgent. One of the key features of the new scheme is the aim to be ‘digital by default’, i.e., it is intended that all claimants will apply for this new benefit online. Concern has been expressed regarding people’s readiness to make use of a fully online application system, as well as issues about access to the internet and the level of skills required to make use of it for this purpose - basic literacy as well as information- and IT literacy (Beattie-Smith 2013). It is argued that the more disadvantaged people in society - the ones most likely to need to apply for welfare benefits, and indeed those who have been the focus of this paper - are also those least likely to be able to take advantage of the online world, are more likely to need help in doing so, and therefore more likely to be disadvantaged by these changes (Beattie-Smith 2013). Mobile technology is evolving at an exponential rate whilst social problems may be exacerbated because of the recent austerity measures

30

associated with the public deficit cuts, but the limited scope and robustness of empirical research in mobile Government restricts policy-makers' ability to devise and implement social strategies and activities. There may therefore be a disjunction between the e- or mgovernment strategies enacted by governments, and the empowerment and exclusion issues that are happening at a local level (Harris 2007), that needs to be highlighted in policy discussions. In this context, it seems clear that, in less advantaged communities at the very least, for a variety of complex reasons, the m-government ‘tipping point’ (Vincent & Harris 2008) has not yet been reached.

31

REFERENCES Allen, D.K, Brown, A., Karanasios, S, & Norman, A. (In press.). How should technologymediated organizational change be explained? A comparison of the contributions of critical realism and activity theory. MIS Quarterly. Allen, D, Karanasios, Stan, & Slavova, Mira. (2011). Working with activity theory: Context, technology, and information behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(4), 776-788. Abdelaal, A. (2009). The role of Community Wireless Networks in achieving digital inclusion: Collective telecommunication infrastructures. Ph.D. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Nebraska at Omaha. Akman, I., Yazici, A., Mishra, A. & Arifoglu, A. (2005). E-Government: A global view and an empirical evaluation of some attributes of citizens. Government Information Quarterly, 22, 239–257. Beattie-Smith, S. (2013). Offline and left behind: digital exclusion amongst Scotland’s CAB clients. Citizens Advice Scotland Evidence Report. Retrieved from : http://www.cas.org.uk/publications/offline-and-left-behind [Accessed 06/07/2013] Bedny, G. & Meister, D. (1999). ‘Theory of activity and situation awareness’, Int. J. Cognitive Ergonomics, Vol 3, 63-72,. Bedny, G. Z. & Harris, S. R. (2008). Working sphere/engagement and the concept of task in activity theory, Interacting with Computers 20, 251-255. Blackburn, C., Hughes, N. & Read, J. (2005). Carers and the digital divide: factors affecting Internet use among carers in the UK, Health & Social Care in the Community, 13, 201-210. Bødker, S. (1997). Computers in mediated human activity. Mind culture and Activity, Vol 4( 3), pp. 149-158. Bure, C. E. (2006). Digital Inclusion without Social Inclusion: The Consumption of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in Homeless Subculture in Central Scotland. 2006, 2. Retrieved from: http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/251. Cabinet Office. (2000). Government to speed up introduction of online services. London: Downing Street Press Notice. Cabinet Office. (2008). Transformational Government - our progress in 2007 Delivering better, more efficient services for everyone. London: HM Government. Caidi, N. & Allard, D. (2005). Social inclusion of newcomers to Canada: An information problem?, Library & Information Science Research, 27, 302–324. Castells, M. (2001). The Internet Galaxy. Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society (Hardcover), Oxford, Oxford University Press. Cegarra-Navarro, J.G., Pachon, J. R. C., & Cegarra, J. L. M. (2012). E-government and citizen's engagement with local affairs through e-websites: The case of spanish municipalities’, International Journal of Information Management, 32(5), 469-478. Cordella, A. & Iannacci, F. (2010). Information systems in the public sector: The eGovernment enactment framework, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 19, 52-66. Dutch, M. & Muddiman, D. (2001). The Public Library, Social Exclusion and the Information Society in the United Kingdom, Libri, 2001, 183-194.

32

Dutton, W., H., Gennaro, C. D. & Hargrave, A., M. (2005). Oxford Internet Survey The Internet in Britain. Oxford: Oxford Internet Institute. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research, Helsinki, Finland, Orienta-Konsultit Oy. Engeström, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a testbench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice. In: Chaiklin, S. & Laveland, J. (eds.) Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context. New York: Cambridge University Press. Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Vähäaho, T. (1999). When the Center Does Not Hold: The Importance of Knotworking In: Chailkin, S., Hedegaard, M. & Juul Jensen, U. (eds.) Activity Theory and Social Pratice: Cultural-Historical Approaches. Aarhus Aarhus University Press. Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R.L. (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. European Commission. (2000). Fight against poverty and social exclusion: Implementation of the Lisbon European Council's conclusions. Brussels.: European Union. Fisher, K., E., Durrance, J.C., & Hinton, M.B. (2004). Information grounds and the use of need-based services by immigrants in Queens, New York: A context-based, outcome evaluation approach, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (JASIST), 55, 754. Fountain, J. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change, Washington, D.C, The Brookings Institution. Gebremichael, M. D. & Jackson, J. W. (2006). Bridging the gap in Sub-Saharan Africa: A holistic look at information poverty and the region's digital divide. Government Information Quarterly, 23, 267-280. Godfrey, M. & Johnson, O. (2009). Digital circles of support: Meeting the information needs of older people. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 633-642. Goodwin, I. (2007). Community Informatics and the local state in the UK. Information, Communication and Society, 10(2), 194-218 GOV.UK. (2013). Universal Credit, https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit

a

guide

from

GOV.UK,

Retrieved

from:

Hardey, M. & Loader, B. D. (2009). The Informatization of Welfare: Older People and the Role of Digital Services. British Journal of Social Work 39, 657-660 Hargittai, E. & Hinnant, A. (2008). Digital Inequality: Differences in young adults' use of the internet. Communication Research, 35 (5), 602-621. Harris, K. (2007) Engaged democracy in the network society: exploring the gaps between egovernment and social media. British Council. Retrieved from: http://www.locallevel.org.uk/Local_Level.asp Helsper, E. (2008). Digital Inclusion: An Analysis of Social Disadvantage and the Information Society. Oxford: Oxford Internet Institute. Horrocks, I. (2009). Experts and e-government: power, influence and the capture of a policy domain in the UK. Information, Communication and Society, 12(1), 110-127 Howcroft, D. & Wilson, M. (2003). Participation: 'bounded freedom' or hidden constraints on user involvement. New Technology, Work and Employment 18 2-19.

33

Hsieh, J., Po-An, J., Rai, A. & Keil, M. (2008). Understanding digital inequality: Comparing continued use behavioural models of the socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged. MIS Quarterly 32, 97-126. Hudson, H. E. (2008). Municipal wireless broadband: Lessons from San Francisco and Silicon Valley. Telematics and Informatics, 27, 1-9. Jaeger, P. T. & Burnett, G. (2005). Information Access and Exchange among Small Worlds in a Democratic Society: The Role of Policy in Shaping Information Behavior in the Post 9/11 United States. The Library, 75. Kaptelinin, V., Nardi, BA., & Macaulay, C. (1999). The activity checklist: A tool for representing the "Space" of context. Interactions. Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and humancomputer interaction (pp. 20-43): MIT Press. Kvasny, L. (2002). Problematizing the Digital Divide: Cultural and Social Reproduction in a Community Technology Initiative. PhD, Department of Computer Information Systems, Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University. Kvasny, L. (2006). Cultural (re)production of digitial inequality in a US community technology initiative. Information, Communication & Society, 2, 160-181. Kvasny, L. & Keil, M. (2006). The challenges of redressing the digital divide: a tale of two US cities. Information Systems Journal, 16, 23-53. Kvasny, L. & Yapa, L. (2005). Rethinking Urban Poverty: The Forms of Capital and Enterprise Development. In: D. Howcroft. & Trauth., E. (eds.), Handbook of Information Systems Research: Critical Perspectives on Information Systems Design, Implementation and Use. London: Kluwer. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. New York, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Leont'ev, A. (1981). Problems of the development of mind. Moscow: Progress. Levitas, R. (1996). The concept of social exclusion and the new Durkheimian hegemony. Critical Social Policy, 16, 46. Levitas, R. (2004). Let’s Hear it for Humpty: Social Exclusion, the Third Way and Cultural Capital. Cultural Trends 13, 1-15. Levitas, R. (2005). Inclusive society? Social exclusion and New Labour, London: Palgrave. Levitas, R., Pantazis, C., Fahmy, E., Gordon, D., Lloyd, E. & Patsios, D. (2007). The Multidimensional analysis of social exclusion. Bristol: University of Bristol. Loader, B. D., Hardey, M & Keeble, L. (eds)(2008). Digital Welfare for the Third Age, London: Routledge. Maldonado, E. A., Pogrebnyakov, N. A. & Van Gorp, A. F. (2006). ICT Policies as a Means to Inhibit Social Exclusion: The South African Case. In: Trauth, E, H. D., et al., (eds.), Social Inclusion: Societal and Organizational Implications for Information Systems. Boston: Springer Mbarika, V., Payton, F., Kvasny, L. & Amadi, A. (2007). IT Education and Workforce Participation: A New Era for Women in Kenya?. The Information Society, 23, 1-18.

34

Mervyn, K. & Allen, D. (2012). Sociospatial context and information behavior: Social exclusion and the influence of mobile information technology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63, 1125-1141. Misuraca, Gianluca C. (2009). E-government 2015: Exploring m-government scenarios, between ict-driven experiments and citizen-centric implications. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 21(3), 407-424. Mooney, G. (2011). Stigmatising poverty? The ‘Broken Society’and reflections on antiwelfarism in the UK today. Open Research Online Retrieved from: http://oro.open.ac.uk/29714/2/AEF16A71.pdf [Accessed 04.05.2012]. Morgan, G. (2009). Public in the dark over e-government. Computing.co.uk, Retrieved from: http://www.computing.co.uk/computing/news/2243262/britons-dark-government [Accessed 12.07.2009 ]. Nardi, B.A. (1996). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and humancomputer interaction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Nath, C, & Yoxall, N.. (2012). ICT for disabled people London: House of Commons. Phipps, L. (2000). New communications technologies: A conduit for social exclusion. Information Communication and Society, 3, 39-68. Pleace, N. (2007). Workless people and surveillant mashups: social policy and data sharing in the UK. Information, Communication & Society, 10(6), 943-960. Powell, A. (2011). Metaphors, models and communicative spaces: designing local wireless infrastructure. Canadian journal of communication, 36. Prahalad, C. K. (2005). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: eradicating poverty through profits, Delhi, Wharton School Publishing. Project Nomad. (2005b). 'Mobile City' Council's Benefits Project [Online]. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Retrieved from: http://www.projectnomad.org.uk [Accessed 25.11 2005]. Project Nomad. (2005c). 'Aug City Council' Wireless City Project [Online]. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Retrieved from: http://www.projectnomad.org.uk [Accessed 5.9 2005]. Public Service. (2011). PM: UK a world leader in e-government, London. Retrieved from: http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=15329 [Accessed 13.1 2012]. Robila, M. (2006). Economic pressure and social exclusion in Europe. The Social Science Journal 43, 85-97. Ryder, G. (2007) Debunking the optimists: An evaluation of conventional wisdom about the digital divide and e-government in the British Isles. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 1, 112-130. Sandvig, C. (2004). An initial assessment of cooperative action in Wi–Fi networking. Telecommunications Policy, 28, 579-602. Selwyn, N. (2002). E-stablishing' an inclusive society? Technology, social exclusion and UK government policy making. Journal of Social Policy, 31, 1-20. Selwyn, N. (2002b). Defining the ‘Digital Divide’: Developing a Theoretical Understanding of Inequalities in the Information Age. Adults Learning At Home. ESRC Funded Project.

35

Selwyn, N. (2004). Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. New Media & Society, 6, 341-362. Servon, L. & Nelson, M. (2001). Community Technology Centres: Narrowing the digital divide in low-income, urban communities. Journal of Urban Affairs, 23, 279-290. Silver, H. (1994). Social Exclusion and Social Solidarity: Three Paradigms. International Labour Review, 133, 531-78. Silver, H. (2006). The Process of Social Exclusion: The Dynamics of an Evolving Concept. CPRC Conference. Chancellors Conference Centre, University of Manchester. Social Exclusion Unit. (2001). A new commitment to neighbourhood renewal: National strategy action plan. London: Cabinet Office. Spinuzzi, C. (2008). Network: Theorizing knowledge work in telecommunications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tapia, A. & Ortiz, J. (2010). Network Hopes. Social Science Computer Review, 28, 93-117. Tapia, A. H., Kvasny, L. & Ortiz, J. A. (2011). A Critical Discourse Analysis of three US municipal wireless network initiatives for enhancing social inclusion. Telematics and Informatics, 28, 215-226. Tolbert, C. J., Mossberger, K. & Mcneal, R. S. (2002). Beyond the digital divide: Exploring attitudes about Information Technology, political participation and electronic government. Annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. Boston, MA. Van Dijk, J. & Hacker, L. (2003). The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. The Information Society, 19, 315-326. Van Winden, W. (2001). The end of social exclusion? On information technology policy as a key to social inclusion in large European cities. Regional Studies 35, 861-877. Vincent, J. & Harris, L. (2008). Effective use of mobile communications in e-government: How do we reach the tipping point? Information, Communication & Society, 11(3), 395-413. Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: rethinking the digital divide, Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press. Wilson, T.D. (2006). A re-examination of information seeking behaviour in the context of activity theory. Information Research, 11 (4)(260). Yoo, Y., Lyytinen, K. & Yang, H. (2005). The role of standards in innovation and diffusion of broadband mobile services: The case of south korea. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 14(Issue 3), 323-353. Yu, L. (2006). Understanding information inequality: Making sense of the literature of the information and digital divides. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 38, 229252. Yu, L. (2010). How poor informationally are the information poor? Evidence from an empirical study of daily and regular information practices of individuals. Journal of Documentation 66, 906-933.