Author: Sue Watling

more madness….in a mad mad world….

Sue Watling / / equality and diversity, social impact of the Internet

G4S are big. They are the ‘largest secure solutions company in the UK and Ireland’* Formerly a merger between Securicor and G4 Security services, G4S are now bidding successfully for a number of government contracts which have nothing to do with security but everything to do with the  provision of social services, in particular the governments Welfare to Work Programme. This is like giving the multinational food processing industries responsibility for health. In the same way that MacDonalds, Coca Cola and Nestle have nothing to do with fresh fruit, salad and vegetables (other than to process them) G4S cannot possibly replace the small organisations like Latitude in Hull who are working at grass roots level right in the centre of communities with the highest unemployment figures. The government calls Welfare to Work supporting families with multiple problems saying it’s issues like ‘drug and alcohol dependency, debt and literacy difficulties’* which are creating barriers to employment and costing £8billion in welfare which neatly ignores the real causes of social exclusion like inadequate access to fundamental resources such as housing, education, health care, decent food and a safe place to live. Local organisations have insight into these issues in a way that no company on the stock exchange with a ‘turnover of more than £1 billion and over 40,000 employees managed from over 80 offices’* can begin to understand.

I visited Latitude to look at the role of the Internet in applying for work. Of the fifty cards on the wall, the vast majority asked for an emailed cv or gave a website address. Those with telephone numbers were all answerphones. Retail companies such as Boots, Asda and Tesco demand online application as do the council. All with tiny print and compulsory requirements like email addresses and telephone numbers, many also include online aptitude tests with pages which have to be completed sequentially. These applications go on for ever demanding high levels of computer skills and confidence. Latitude (whose services are being taken over by G4S) go out of their way to support people; filling in forms, giving guidance on cvs and letters, trying to narrow the digital divide but there are not enough of them and too many people who need help. There is no way online application measures individual ability to do a job; it just shows you can operate a keyboard and with the government moving towards digital by default services and large companies coming in to deliver government welfare programmes, it will not be long before existing marginalisation increase on an exponential scale. The worry is that in an increasingly digital society, increased social exclusion will simply become as invisible as most digital exclusion already is.

* http://www.g4swelfaretowork.com/news/default.php

I’ve been kindled…

Sue Watling / / digital divide, digital literacies, equality and diversity

My iphone looks great. I love the easy access to the Internet. But I’m not a great App user and am uncomfortable with the Apple closed shop philosophy. You could say the same about the Kindle in relation to Amazon but I bought one for similar reasons. I wanted the experience for myself; in this case the shift to electronic reading. For as long as I can remember I’ve loved books. Turning the pages, turning the corners, pencil annotations; books and their contents have always been important to me. I didn’t expect the transition from paper to screen to be easy but it was – and I love it!

The tipping point was the announcement Julian Barnes had won the Booker Prize for a Sense of an Ending. I’d only used the Kindle on Project Gutenberg but wanted to read this book before the weekend so I looked at my options.

  • Walk into town, pay the shop price, read straight away.
  • Order online and pay less but wait for delivery knowing if it doesn’t fit through my letterbox I’d have to go to the Post Office which is only open 7.00 – 1.00 and I’m away 6.30 to 6.30 most days…
  • Download onto the Kindle from where I’m sitting for half the price and read immediately – or to be accurate – within two minutes.

There’s no competition. Add the size, easy reading and portability of the Kindle and its win win all the way to the Amazon bank. The Kindle cover even makes it feel like a book. The only problem is I’m so used the iphone’s touch screen, I feel the Kindle should respond in the same way and still automatically reach for the screen rather than the keyboard. It’s an interesting example of how behaviour change quickly embeds itself into our unconsciousness.  

We are all being seduced by the reality of cut cost and instant access; whether to real world events through Twitter, the happenings of friends via Facebook, or working on content with a variety of collaborative tools, all at the time and place of our choosing. We are  either up front or at the back as digital communication and access to information carries some on and leaves others behind.  If social equality is about the means of participation then digital environments, in spite of their potential to be democratic, are becoming increasingly and alarmingly divisive.

Here, there and everywhere…

Sue Watling / / digital literacies

The phrase digital literacies is currently here, there and everywhere. 13 JISC projects  have been funded under the JISC Grant 4/11 Digital Literacies Call  and there is the further invitation from JISC to selected organisations to submit bids to support the JISC Developing Digital Literacies (DDL) Programme.  All great opportunities for successful institutions to get digital literacies on the agenda and establish a whole institution approach to engaging, enhancing and embedding those capabilities which are so essential for living and working in a digital society.

Defining digital literacies is not easy. In their Grant 4/11 Call, JISC propose a neutral definition which follows the lead of the European Union and the JISC-funded LLiDA project: ‘ digital literacy defines those capabilities which fit an individual for living, learning and working in a digital society’ JISC go on to list a range of literacies including ICT/computer/information and media literacies along with communication and collaboration, digital scholarship, learning skills and life planning –  all having relevance within higher education. Interestingly there is no explicit reference to digital  literacies as social practices.

In August I submitted a bid ‘Getting Started with OER’ under the HEA/JISC UK OER Phase 3 Programme Strand 3: Embedding OER Practice in Institutions. The bid aimed to align the strategic embedding of OER with Getting Started, the University of Lincoln’s institution-wide initiative designed to support the student transition into higher education. Using an existing project as a vehicle is viewed as a strength and there’s no doubt it offers ready made opportunities for embedding new ways of working, and promoting the behavioural shifts required for change. No surprise that my OERs would be concerned with digital literacies. The real surprise was the HEA saying too few applications had been received so they were looking at alternative ways to support the university in taking this bid forward.

I wonder how much the decision was influenced by the subject matter. So many assumptions are made about the digital confidence and competencies of both staff and students but the reality is the digital divide is increasing. As those comfortable with technologies for learning push off into the distance towards a brave new digital world,  so even those with some experience are getting left behind. As for those yet to engage, the divide is becoming a potentially unbridgeable one.

The worry is the continual  social shaping of digital technologies and the assumptions around too narrow a range of access criteria. While I’ve spoken about this within the community, in particular for users of assistive technology, I see it increasingly becoming an issue within the university. The sector focus on digital literacy is critical for both graduate attributes and teacher education – but care is needed that in this flush new world of cash for addressing digital literacies, the existing exclusive parameters of access are highlighted and challenged rather than replicated and reinforced.

Universities must rethink their approach to student digital literacy…

Sue Watling / / digital literacies, equality and diversity

Universities must rethink their approach to student digital literacy in the Guardian Higher Education Network puts digital literacy training and critical reflection together in the same sentence.  The word ‘training’ is a bit Pavlovian but applying critical thinking to Internet content and behaviours is an increasingly essential requirement.  I’ve worked in higher education since 2000 and witnessed a growing need to be more proactive in addressing the digital literacies of students and staff, for example in the development of both graduate attributes and teacher education programmes.

When the first virtual learning environments arrived, the sector focused primarily on embedding technology rather than investing in the management of the cultural shift to virtual pedagogic practices. Today, the user-generated content and file-sharing nature of Web 2.0 style technologies, has increased the broader social impact of the Internet, while higher education is currently subject to market forces creating increased interest in online learning, for example the Collaborate to Compete Report to HEFCE. Research findings have raised concerns about levels of digital competence as in the JISC/British Library CIBER Report into the Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future at and the NUS report to HEFCE Student perspectives on Technology.  Key areas are still missing like enhanced quality assurance with regard to digital learning (covered in this blog post)  and the means of ensuring the appropriate digital literacies, including awareness of the parameters of inclusion, are embedded into both the student and the staff experience.

Death is very likely the single best invention of life…

Sue Watling / / Uncategorized

Lots of free publicity for Apple this week, and divided opinions on Steve Jobs

I was more interested in the observation of how Internet traffic about your death has  become the new measurement of your life worth. It seems bringing down Twitter  has become the ultimate accolade. 

I have an iphone. It’s been an interesting experience. I wouldn’t have another. Apple is all about design, if you are into that sort of thing. They must be the only company to produce  packaging you really don’t want to throw away. The ultimate in cardboard and consumerism.

Apple’s phones, pods and pads all look special but there is an unpleasant gap between the cost of making them and the price of buying them. Whatever they offer in terms of technology, they are also about elitism and status.

If you have 15 minutes to spare. you can watch Steve Jobs deliver a speech to students at Stanford University  or if you are pushed for time you can read the full script here. Alternatively here’s the essence of his talk.

  • Everything that happens in your life is a series of dots; you can’t connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards, you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future
  • Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work, the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven’t found it yet, keep looking. Don’t settle
  • Death is very likely the single best invention of life. It is life’s change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new….. Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life…have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.

The arguments about the technology will continue but there’s no arguing the potential inspiration of these statements.  Now that’s what I call a legacy.

The art of digital fakery…

Sue Watling / / digital literacies

Sock puppets, twitterjacking and the art of digital fakery in the Guardian reinforces the need for digital literacies as social practices. The examples show the ways we operate online are mirrors – but more about aspirations than true reflections. With varying degrees of accuracy, we can be who we want to be, or even create an identity which is totally false. There is nothing new in this. People have always reinvented their past. What is different is the affordances of the Internet to persuade other people of the truth of your lies, or more worryingly, the lies you tell about others.   

I’ve long been interested in construction of human identity. My first piece of postgraduate research used the Internet for communication and information (this was 1999), when opportunities for interaction were limited to textual exchange via email and the chat rooms which derived from early MUDS and MOOS. I had a 56k dial up modem and Web 2.0 hadn’t happened. I remember debates around the freedom offered by online environments for experimentation; how you could present an identity without barriers created through attribution and stereotyping. This was seen as positive but it’s all different now.  Just this week the media has reported fraudsters posing as would-be romantic partners on internet dating sites and pedophile rings use social media for grooming. This article not only lists multiple instances of ‘digital fakery’, it assumes fake identities are reflect negative aspects of our personalities eg sadist, masochist and weirdo. Maybe ‘only bad news sells’ but the degree to which we can post content which is incorrect and edit graphics so they appear to tell a different story has never been so easy. Viktor Mayer-Schönberger says: “The digital age is difficult. We’re in a Foucauldian postmodern world where we can’t tell the truth from fakery.” The need for embedding digital literacies into graduate attributes and teacher education has never been more important.

The Internet supports what US Psychoanalyst Christopher Lasch called The Culture of Narcissism. Writing in the 1970’s, long before the digital revolution, Lasch describes a capitalist society constantly searching for new markets. As the consumerism of material goods is no longer enough, so attention is turned to exploiting the ego; achieving this through the creation of false identities and blurring the boundaries between fact and fiction. Lasch describes as resultant new illiteracies as the failure to think critically; something which lies at the heart of digital literacy in the 21st century.   

The hope lies in the ‘wisdom of the crowd’ effect; that there will be enough people online to challenge errors and mistakes and that the processes of critical reflective practice, which are integral to higher education, will be applied to all Internet encounters. Within learning technology we say it isn’t the tool. It’s what you do with it that counts. A parallel philosophy for digital literacies could be is it isn’t the message, it’s the interpretation which matters.

Only pairing ‘usability’ with ‘diversity’ will narrow digital divides

Sue Watling / / digital divide, digital literacy, equality and diversity, visual impairment

“Don’t only do accessibility testing with content; do usability testing with users with disabilities.” I picked up this Tweet via Nomensa and on the surface the link looked interesting. The principles are great. Don’t adopt an accessibility tick box approach to online content, and rely on automated code checkers, use real people; in particular those who are web users rather than web designers or developers. It’s not rocket science or rocket surgery as described by Steve Krug  author of Rocket Surgery Made Easy: The Do-It-Yourself Guide to Finding and Fixing Usability Problems.

However, on closer examination, the word disabilities is missing from the original source materials, as are assistive technologies, screen readers, impairment or sight loss. Neither the 23 minute video nor the sample chapter mention disability. I think Nomensa added the word because it is integral to their philosophies but in doing so they’ve misrepresented the core message of the book. Steve Krug’s focus is on too narrow a range of access criteria. He is assuming the user is a mouse user and can see the screen.

The concept of usability testing deserves recognition, but the concept of the user has to be broadened to include – in Nomensa’s words – users with disabilities – or in my words – users disabled by society; in particular one which doesn’t recognise a broad enough range of diversity or difference. This failure to look outside the box is the stuff of which digital divides are constructed. ‘Test User Usability’  (TUU? too? Two? the possibilities for a neat acronym are endless) should be a stock mantra for the web world. But the concept of ‘Users’ must representative and has to include everyone if the true meaning of accessibiltity is to be achieved.

Making rubbish bins more enjoyable…

Sue Watling / / nothing to do with work

Earlier this year the Guardian printed a list of organisations  across the country which are closing or losing services as part of the public spending cuts agenda.  It’s not difficult to see who will be affected or rather who won’t be affected by the loss of valuable community services. Libraries, the Arts, leisure facilities, voluntary groups, support for the homeless, those struggling with addiction, older people, young people, the sick and the unemployed are all now facing the daily realities of having their government grants either cut or taken away.

The development of talking rubbish bins which congratulate you for using them seems not only bizarre but a flagrant waste of resources. The bins are being brought to the streets by Keep Britain Tidy, who are running a Love Where You Live campaign. Keep Britain Tidy   is part-funded by the Government through Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) and they work closely with other Government departments, such as the Anti-Social Behaviour Unit in the Home Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Some of the London bins will burst into song when litter is thrown into them, with tunes including I’m Singing in the Bin and Rubbish Keeps Falling on my Head. I don’t get it. Either we are suffering an economic crisis or not. Welfare is more important than hearing Actress Amanda Holden’s recording of “Yes! Do that again!” or former cricketer Phil Tufnell calling out “Howzat!” whenever a piece of litter is deposited. “We wanted to find a way to make bins enjoyable,” says Colette Hiller, director of Sing London who are also involved in the project. I have a suggestion. Forget making bins enjoyable. How about concentrating on people instead?

Dismantling the National Programme for IT (NPfIT)

Sue Watling / / Uncategorized

Government moves to a single point of delivery of its ‘digital by default’ public services (see previous blog post) will not be followed by the NHS. After nearly a decade, the National Programme for IT has failed in plans to provide NHS patients with an individual electronic care record transferable across the UK. In a step which is either backwards or forwards, it’s difficult to tell, local hospital trusts will be able to choose their own systems. Either way, it’s back to square one. A good moment to re-publicise the System Error  report, crucial reading for anyone interested and concerned with government plans for Universal Credit due to rolled out online next year.

Also worth reading is the recent report by Ellen J Helsper (London School of Economics and Political Science) called The Emergence of a Digital Underclass: Digital Policies in the UK and Evidence for Inclusion. Highlighting links between social exclusion and the potential for digital exclusion, a key message is ‘Those who need access to services most, from where the biggest cost savings through the digitisation of services are supposed to come, are the least likely to take these up even when access is available.’  Focusing on quality of access, the report raises issues around literacy, skills and motivation. As if that weren’t enough reasons for exclusion, it fails to mention users of assistive technologies who face additional barriers of cost, support and exclusive design. But the message is clear. The move to digital by default services will inevitably damage the welfare of those who need support the most.