sue watling – Page 35 – digital soapbox

labels r not us

Sue Watling / September 1, 2010September 1, 2010 / equality and diversity

I hate labels and the label I hate the most is ‘disabled people’. I hate it because people with impairments are disabled by society’s failure to recognise categories of difference and reduce subsequent barriers to participation. This is the social model of disability. It’s society that disables individuals; you don’t disable yourself.

Today the BBC and the Guardian have reported on a poll commissioned by Scope from ComRes, where 91% of people stated they believed disabled people should have the same opportunities as everyone else (it doesn’t say what the other 9% thought). It then goes on to tell us how ‘disabled people are largely hidden’ away and socially excluded. Richard Hawkes, Chief Executive of Scope, said: “This is shocking evidence that shows that disabled people are still relatively invisible in day-to-day life. We are deeply concerned that the Government’s spending cuts will end up pushing disabled people even closer to the fringes of society.”

Note the label’ disabled people’ throughout. When problem with labels is they’re seen first and accompanied with all the stereotypical images and cultural attributions associated with them. If these are predominantly negative then the reader or listener experiences them first. Labels reinforce and reiterate. When you see the label disabled people, add socially in front of every occurrence of disabled and see how the radically the meaning changes.

Putting the C in IT

Sue Watling / August 20, 2010 / Uncategorized

Who put the C in ICT? When did the word Communication(s) slip in? According to Dyer Witherford in Cyber Marx, communication(s) could well stand for capitalism. Following in the tradition of Negri and Autonomist Marxism, DW claims technology has become the major site of class struggle and conflict in 21st century. Techno-science is portrayed as an ‘instrument of capitalist domination’ with control of communication channels in the hands of multi-national organisations. Flows of information and digital data are less easily managed which is creating space for ‘invention’ power to re-appropriate and subvert and use information for alternative purposes. It’s the tension between these contesting interests which provides society with the nucleus for revolution.

Information theorists suggest our current ‘information society’ represents a ‘third age’, one that follows the ‘agrarian’ and ‘industrial’ ones. They argue industry has been succeeded by information and techno-scientific knowledge has become the main wealth-producing resource (but wouldn’t rain forests and natural treasures like gold have valid claims?) Evidence of a knowledge economy is all around and critical to the dissemination and management of these new ways of working have been the developments in Information Technology (IT). We now generally use the acronym ICT but when did the additional letter slip in? Pondering like you do (long car journey – monotonous roads) the parallels between the Autonomist’s view of the I and the C as representing conflict between citizen and state makes a potential duality of meaning an appropriate one.

PIP2

Sue Watling / August 13, 2010August 13, 2010 / equality and diversity, inclusive design

10 quick and easy steps to inclusive practice with digital documents.

Avoid

Text in capital letters
Text in italics
Underlining text (except for hyperlinks where it’s a convention)
Right, Centre and Full Justification
Patterned backgrounds
Poor colour contrast
Text over images
Fancy fonts
Text less than 12 pt in size
PDF with no alternative version (eg Word, rtf, html etc)

Finally, Section 20 of the Single Equality Act, ‘Duty to make adjustments’ (page 24 of the act) expressly references the provision of information in accessible formats. The EQU guide to implications of this act for higher education uses the example of providing lecture hand outs only in paper format where a reasonable adjustment would be to provide lecture notes in alternative formats such as on a virtual learning environment. Students can then access them independently and, designing them with the 10 steps above in mind, should help ensure they are accessible.

PIP1

Sue Watling / August 13, 2010 / inclusive design

The Equality Challenge Unit (ECU) website have produced a document ‘Implications for Higher Education Institutions’ referring to the Single Equality Act’. They also have a useful link on their home page How can academics ensure the materials they produce are accessible for all students?

The Single Equality Act is a complex piece of legislation; there are nine areas against which it is illegal to discriminate and HEIs still have the responsibility to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ in order to ensure a disabled person is not treated less favourably than a non-disabled one. The word disabled is in itself contentious. It doesn’t make explicit that being ‘disabled’ is about society and not the individual, that being disabled is about being denied access to participation through society’s failure to recognise sufficient categories of difference. The external social environment functions at the level of the majority or the level of the individual who is operating as the provider of ‘goods, facilities, services and public functions’.

With regard to virtual learning environments this is about the MEE Model. The person creating and uploading digital content using Mouse, Eyes and Ears and assuming everyone accessing that content is doing the same – when this might not be the case. As we head towards the start of a new academic year, it’s worth revisiting the subject of promoting inclusive practice with digital data. Look out for PIP2 following shortly 🙂

Two for one…

Sue Watling / August 6, 2010 / nothing to do with work

Firstly classic government spin from last weekend’s Guardian. After decades of research into maternal attachment, and under the mantra ‘work is good benefits are bad’, a single study in the US claims to show ‘babies don’t suffer’ if mum goes back to work. Well, they wouldn’t would they? Babies are resilient. Their built in survival mechanism responds well to being warm, dry and fed – regardless of who does it. The issues are much more socially complex than this and lines like “The gains of being in employment outweigh disadvantages” could only be written by someone who’s never worked in white wellies or juggled night shifts with a growing family at home. Work is a necessity; enjoying work is a luxury.

A second Guardian report that only tells half the story. 40% of dementia cases would be avoided if we spent longer in education – oh and we need to eliminate depression and diabetes, and eat more fruit and veg too. What isn’t being mentioned is the control the processed food industry has over the cost and availability of the chemical crap it passes off as being good for us. Diabetes is linked to obesity which 99% results from messing up our bodies with high fat, high salt, high sugar food. If you eat lots of fruit and veg there’s a good chance you won’t be eating much of the synthetic stuff; not only will that reduce your chances of being obese and diabetic but you’re likely to feel better too. Aspartame messes with your brain. Remember saccharine? At a time when rising levels of obesity, and related health issues, are causing concern, note the plethora of low fat, low sugar, diet foods and drinks that are available but don’t seem to be making any difference. Why don’t they teach critical thinking at primary school?

mental illness or mental health…

Sue Watling / July 29, 2010July 29, 2010 / nothing to do with work

When do the normal ups and downs of daily life become bipolar disorder? When does eating too much chocolate because it was a bad day become binge eating? Or the regular onset of nerves before speaking in public a mixed anxiety depression? The fifth edition of the bible of all psychiatrists, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is soon to be published. Edition four introduced conditions such as Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD) which saw sales of the drug Ritalin flourish – no doubt with substantial profits for Novartis. It begs the questions ‘What will be the medication of choice for this new batch of disorders?’

A definition of mental health is required, but which one? Spot the differences.

Health Education Authority (1997) “the emotional and spiritual resilience which enables us to survive pain, disappointment and sadness. It is a fundamental belief in our own and others’ dignity and worth”.
World Health Organisation (2007) “Mental health is a state of well-being in which the individual realises his or her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully and is able to make a contribution to his or her community.”
Mind (2010) A level of emotional well-being that allows an individual to function in society or an absence of significant mental health problems.

Foucault wrote about docile bodies which were inscribed with cultural categories of dysfunction. Negative identities permitted state regulation. One particularly pernicious category for 19th century women was hysteria. The Yellow Wallpaper offers a chilling insight into how post natal depression was misconstrued according to the norms of the time. In the days of the Victorian lunatic asylum, attributions of insanity endowed the power to incarcerate and remove from society. As well as the changes in language, cultural responses have changed too, along with the ever increasing breadth of diagnostic conditions. Any new classification of mental illness serves to legitimise intervention. With categories becoming ever more closely aligned to the trials and tribulations of 21st century life, it seems likely that those set to gain the most benefit from these latest additions to the manual, are most probably the pharmaceutical companies themselves.

Race Online 2012

Sue Watling / July 26, 2010July 26, 2010 / digital exclusion 2010

‘Digital Britain’ has survived the election and the drive to get us all online by 2012 has stepped up a gear. The strap line to the Race Online 2012 website now reads ‘We’re all better off when everyone’s online’ and David Cameron’s letter Martha Lane Fox to remains Digital champion includes the following: “…the Government is committed to increasing transparency and accountability through making information systematically available online…we need to encourage more people to go online and hence be able to access public information and services.”

So far so good – so long as we have digital equity. The Labour government made an explicit link between social and digital exclusion and while it didn’t go far enough, it was a promising start. Race Online 2012 has a new manifesto. and it increasingly clear there is a new agenda. Online, the manifesto is a visual horror. The 67 page 5.56 MB PDF offers no respite. This is a prime example of style over substance. The Manifesto for achieving for 100% digital inclusion demonstrates how to be digitally exclusive right from the start.

Putting the dreadful design to one side, what is Race Online about? The message is clear. The government is replacing people run services with online services. If you can’t access them then tough. The reasons for not going online are lack of motivation, access and skills. The government is going to sort out the access, then its up to you to get motivated and virtually re-educated. Its for your own good. The benefits of being online are obviously about economics, education, employability and improved efficiency of public welfare so how can you not see the benefits?

The Manifesto is glossy, in your face and totally inadequate. It recognises 48% of disabled people are not online but on its own that figure means nothing. Words like assistive technology, accessible design and inclusive practice are absent (in both text and the sub-text of the design). There’s no recognition of the issues of the cost of assistive software or even how with all the prerequisites in place, if digital data is not designed with the needs of assistive technology in mind then access will continue to be denied. Focus is on the transformative power of the Internet to create a new networked nation with no indication of how vulnerable citizens, already disempowered by inadequate access to welfare and barriers to social participation, are going to be supported.

The move towards virtual citizenship is alarming. Divisions between those with digital competence and those without are already creating new structures of power and dependency. The computer both connects us and isolates us. It supports a digital economy where nothing is real but we all pretend that it is. In the future, anarchy won’t be virtual it will be human. Science fiction won’t be about machines, but about people. The Internet can offer unparalleled access to information and opportunities to participate in the active construction of knowledge, but it can’t substitute for care and welfare. The greatest problem is that those driving the agenda don’t care about the impossibility of digital equity while those best placed to highlight the issues are being denied a virtual voice.

Fri-day = Rant-day

Sue Watling / July 23, 2010July 23, 2010 / nothing to do with work

This expert blog post ‘Warning Social Computing could be good for your health’ led me to the speech by the Secretary of State for Public Health (who doubtless has to neither shop on a budget nor be restricted by the stock in his local Nisa). Most of the nine pages is typical government rhetoric about inherited problems and solutions that neatly bypass the source. With regard to social media, Andrew Lansley, actually says very little and the phrase ‘the power of new technologies and new media’ bypasses digital exclusion issues of which I have much to say. If you need a reminder of contemporary attitudes, here is some feedback on a funding bid to research digital exclusion and visual impairment.

“Readers said they were surprised about some of the statements about accessibility as there is special software for those with special needs and there is guidance for software developers related to meeting the needs of those with special needs.”

Ok, you could say ‘yes’ to both (ignoring for now the old medical model of disability that’s implicit here), but in the real world the industries who are responsible for each rarely talk to each other. As a result the more the Internet is used to communicate then the more people are being excluded. (If you doubt this click the digital divide/digital exclusion links under my blog categories.)

Back to public health – in a stunning display of political hyperbole, Andrew Lansley misses the point completely. Alongside education for behavioural change, policy should address the environmental issues too such as cut-price alcohol and the processed gunk that passes for ‘ready’ meals. The monopoly of giant food corporations like Coca Cola and McDonalds, and their cheap alternatives, has led to mass consumption of chemical concoctions designed to increase profit margins regardless of damage done to health. The people the government claim to want to help are the very same who are inadvertently supporting their own privileged and financially secure lifestyles. If you need more evidence try We are being ruled by a junk food government and Business Interests fight obesity

Some days there’s a lot to be said for watching the flowers grow…

Sue Watling / July 22, 2010July 22, 2010 / nothing to do with work

Some weeks are tougher than others. This week my laptop has not been helpful. I open an existing file, work, save and close. The next day I try to reopen and get this sweet little error message

Don’t be fooled because none of the above suggestions work.

The first time this happened I lost an assignment and was not happy. https://suewatling.blogs.lincoln.ac.uk/2010/02/04/read-this-and-be-warned/ A virus was suspected, the laptop ghosted and my general admin rights removed. This has not been without its frustrations but is by the by. Over the past two weeks Word documents have mysteriously started vanishing again. At first I blamed the synchronisation for behaving strangely. But it’s been a week since my laptop was plugged into the network and I’m still losing work. Never mind cigarettes and alcohol, this is not good for my health. I’ve reactivated DropBox, am emailing myself and putting backup copies on the D drive which doesn’t seem to be affected. I don’t understand. How is it possible to save and close and then the file vanishes? There are things in life we like to rely on. People can be perverse but I like to think my car will start in the morning and my laptop is reasonably faithful, that it will hold onto my work and return it to me safely. But not so. Some days there’s a lot to be said for sitting down at the allotment and just watching the flowers grow.