1 / 24

SOCIAL INCLUSION ICT

Definitions of Social Inclusion. Relatively new concept Difficult to find a universally accepted definition Degree to which individuals are able to participate fully in society and to control their own destinies with respect to economic, community and social issues ? WarschauerWider definition:

gallagher
Download Presentation

SOCIAL INCLUSION ICT

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


    1. SOCIAL INCLUSION & ICT

    2. Definitions of Social Inclusion Relatively new concept Difficult to find a universally accepted definition Degree to which individuals are able to participate fully in society and to control their own destinies with respect to economic, community and social issues – Warschauer Wider definition: “...‘bringing in’ disadvantaged individuals, groups and communities, and involving them in decision making, enabling and empowering them to develop and fulfil their potential in the full range of their social, community and work activities” – Phipps, p54 Lives of included/excluded people is far more complex than can be analysed in this way 2 Warschauer (2003) has a narrower focus than Phipps (2000) in terms of who should be examined in a discussion about social inclusion. Warschauer (2003) discusses only individuals, whilst Phipps (2000) deals with disadvantaged individuals, groups as well as communities. Warschauer (2003) also does not discuss the reasons for inclusion, which Phipps (2000) contends are the development and fulfilment of potential. Warschauer (2003) has a narrower focus than Phipps (2000) in terms of who should be examined in a discussion about social inclusion. Warschauer (2003) discusses only individuals, whilst Phipps (2000) deals with disadvantaged individuals, groups as well as communities. Warschauer (2003) also does not discuss the reasons for inclusion, which Phipps (2000) contends are the development and fulfilment of potential.

    3. Social Inclusion- political concept Social inclusion/exclusion are political concepts, and were introduced for political reasons Governments use such phrases to organise which information is known about various groups of people and how this information is made public, and then to define public policy relating to these groups Politicians make decisions based on reasonable cost/benefit (i.e. economic) calculations Not safe to assume that all socially excluded people wish to be socially included or wish to make use of universal services 3 Řyen (1997) claims that social inclusion and exclusion are political concepts, and were introduced for political reasons. Governments use phrases such as ‘social inclusion’ as an attempt to organise which information is known about various groups of people and how this information is made public knowledge, and then to define public policy relating to these groups (Atkinson, Marlier & Nolan, 2004; Foley & Alfonso, 2005; Harris & Williams, 2003; Nafsika, 2002). It is assumed that politicians make decisions based on reasonable cost/benefit (i.e. economic) calculations. Harris & Williams (2003), however, contend that there is an intuition/emotion aspect to policy making as well. Some policies, such as the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK, are socially inclusive as all citizens can benefit from them. Harris & Williams (2003) borrow from Jung (figure 2) to demonstrate that policy makers do not operate solely in the B quadrant using reason and observation, but also operate in the C quadrant using intuition (which they describe as realising what the desired outcome is without having to use any intellectual capital to come to such realisation, or as they put it realising that “that’s what it’s about”) and emotion (or moral preference, which they describe as realising that “that’s what it should be”). As an example, the desired outcome of the NHS is to provide accessible and affordable health care to all UK citizens, and is seldom observed rationally by policymakers. Moreover, it is a completely inclusive policy, and thus accords with the policy makers’ moral preferences i.e. the emotional aspect of policy making is satisfied. However, Blair (2006) warns that it is not safe to assume that all socially excluded people wish to make use of universal services, or even that they are aware of how to go about doing so. Řyen (1997) claims that social inclusion and exclusion are political concepts, and were introduced for political reasons. Governments use phrases such as ‘social inclusion’ as an attempt to organise which information is known about various groups of people and how this information is made public knowledge, and then to define public policy relating to these groups (Atkinson, Marlier & Nolan, 2004; Foley & Alfonso, 2005; Harris & Williams, 2003; Nafsika, 2002). It is assumed that politicians make decisions based on reasonable cost/benefit (i.e. economic) calculations. Harris & Williams (2003), however, contend that there is an intuition/emotion aspect to policy making as well. Some policies, such as the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK, are socially inclusive as all citizens can benefit from them. Harris & Williams (2003) borrow from Jung (figure 2) to demonstrate that policy makers do not operate solely in the B quadrant using reason and observation, but also operate in the C quadrant using intuition (which they describe as realising what the desired outcome is without having to use any intellectual capital to come to such realisation, or as they put it realising that “that’s what it’s about”) and emotion (or moral preference, which they describe as realising that “that’s what it should be”). As an example, the desired outcome of the NHS is to provide accessible and affordable health care to all UK citizens, and is seldom observed rationally by policymakers. Moreover, it is a completely inclusive policy, and thus accords with the policy makers’ moral preferences i.e. the emotional aspect of policy making is satisfied. However, Blair (2006) warns that it is not safe to assume that all socially excluded people wish to make use of universal services, or even that they are aware of how to go about doing so.

    4. Seeking partial Social Exclusion Some people, such as Banaz Mahmod, may not wish to be included in their families, and may seek social exclusion Ran away from an abusive arranged marriage (a social inclusion) Leaving the arranged marriage brought ‘dishonour’ (social exclusion) to her family and so they killed her in 2007 UK police figures show 19 confirmed so called ‘honour killings’ between 1997-2007 Some refugees in SA seem to prefer SE Use ICT to stay SI in one group & SE from another group 4 Barton and Wright (2007) reported on the case of Banaz Mahmod, a young woman who was murdered by her family in England in 2007. Some people, such as Banaz Mahmod, may not wish to be included in their families, and may instead in fact seek exclusion as she did. Mahmod had run away from an abusive marriage her father had arranged when she was a teenager. Mahmod had told police in 2005 that she was often beaten and raped by her arranged husband. However, the police refused to take action, and so finally she ran away. Leaving the arranged marriage brought ‘dishonour’ to her family and so they killed her. Police figures in the UK show 19 confirmed so called ‘honour killings’ in the past 10 years. Barton and Wright (2007) reported on the case of Banaz Mahmod, a young woman who was murdered by her family in England in 2007. Some people, such as Banaz Mahmod, may not wish to be included in their families, and may instead in fact seek exclusion as she did. Mahmod had run away from an abusive marriage her father had arranged when she was a teenager. Mahmod had told police in 2005 that she was often beaten and raped by her arranged husband. However, the police refused to take action, and so finally she ran away. Leaving the arranged marriage brought ‘dishonour’ to her family and so they killed her. Police figures in the UK show 19 confirmed so called ‘honour killings’ in the past 10 years.

    5. Measure of Social Inclusion No clearly defined accepted measure of SI Politicians attempt to calculate the benefits of SI before implementing SI policies Social planners attempt to measure or observe the benefits after implementation Benefits to whom? 5

    6. SI appeals include & exclude An additional problem is that political appeals for SI tend simultaneously to include & exclude Politicians & authors use phrases such as “democracy” “values which unite us” “respect for rule of law” Emotions such as fear, resentment and shame play an important role in these appeals for SI SI appealed for is built around shared values, so that those who do not share these values are excluded SI should strive for equal ‘opportunity & freedom for all’ -Blair unattainable goal, as people have different capabilities and resources, and less abled are automatically prejudiced Equal outcomes are impossible as people are different Equal outcomes demand unequal opportunities 6

    7. Defn. Of Social Exclusion (SE) Difficult to find a holistic, broadly accepted definition of SE Most definitions concentrate on economic aspects Unemployment is a major contributor to SE of groups Van Winden listed three dimensions of SE, economic exclusion, political exclusion, and exclusion from social networks 7

    8. Social Exclusion (SE) People in socially excluded areas sometimes have rich Social networks and therefore are only excluded from Economic & Community categories - Chigona, Mbhele, & Kabanda SE arises from problems such as unemployment, low income, poor skills, poor housing, high crime environments, poor health and the breakdown of familial structures Definitions offer no explanation as to the cause(s) or process of SE, simply describe vague problems such as low income Description is vague because there is no universally accepted amount which constitutes a ‘low income’ 8

    9. “us” and “them” Goleman says the world is divided between ‘us’ and ‘them’ Gap between us/them “builds with the silencing of empathy” Good attributes such as intelligence, civilization, honesty righteousness & success are exclusive privilege of ‘us’ while bad attributes such as evilness, stupidity, laziness, hypocrisy and failure belong to ‘them’ Division between ‘us’ and ‘them’ has divided biologically close people: Protestants & Catholics, Serbs & Croats, Greeks & Turks Categorization is a normal human cognitive function, which people depend on to give meaning and order 9

    10. Why do we exclude people? Humans tend to categorize fellow humans (into groups such as ‘Catholics’ or ‘Greeks’) and then socially exclude the categories of which they do not form a part Various societies, and groups within societies, have been excluding people since the beginning of time Prisons have long held dissidents and people whose values differ from those of mainstream society Even within prisons, people are included in certain gangs (the 26s, 27s and 28s) and excluded from others Universities are SE communities as exclude people without certain formal educational levels Universities focus on accreditation and increasing employability for ‘us’, while socially excluding ‘them’ 10

    11. SI/SE not stable dichotomy SI/SE is often portrayed as a dichotomy, but it is not so A person is normally not totally excluded or totally included A person may be excluded from one activity (employment), partly excluded from other activities (certain political rights), but included in other activities (social welfare) SI/SE is not a static phenomenon and over time people can become SI or SE (Nazis were SI in Germany until 1945, racists and homophobes were SI in South Africa until late 1990’s) 11

    12. All religions exclude atheists and non-believers, and many exclude people who hold other religious beliefs –’them’ Perhaps SE is normal as we are all socially excluded from something to some degree, at some time One’s connection to a particular country, race, religion, occupation shapes one’s identity, fears & SI A person’s identity provides a reference for what is right and good, and determines who is included in their definition of ‘us’ Fear or threats force a community to close ranks and to identify ‘them’ as the threat Identity defines the boundaries and beliefs of a community, and thus has a strong bearing on SI Identity of ‘us’ 12

    13. Who are the excluded? The excluded are ‘them’, not ‘us’ Black and minority ethnic groups Women Disabled (although most are) Sick or unwell Sexualities other than heterosexuals Offenders, ex-offenders & those at risk of offending Workplace (academic/administrator) Ethnicities Older /Younger people Rural Political or religious refugees Why are some excluded? Is it because some are deriving benefit? 13

    14. It’s the money honey Blacks and women were excluded from certain benefits such as high paying employment as it benefited a capitalist society to have a readily available source of cheap labour Companies and individuals have benefitted enormously from the economic exclusion of women and Blacks Apartheid, slavery & other forms of social exclusion collapsed when were no longer economically viable Many ethnic conflicts have their roots in the economic and political structures that allow some people to benefit and to accumulate wealth unequally Every example of social exclusion will show that a portion of the population is benefitting from such exclusion It’s the money honey (and political power) 14

    15. Government policies/units Governments seek money & power (votes), hence SI Labonte asks “how can one ‘include’ people and groups into structured systems that have systematically ‘excluded’ them in the first place?” Labonte also asks how efforts/policies/initiatives aimed at social inclusion can work unless the systems which created the exclusion are challenged Several governments have created policies and units to tackle the task of including people Social exclusion written into Maastricht Treaty of EU UK government established Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE) in UK Social inclusion targets for the EU But a quicker fix was required 15

    16. Lets find a quick fix - ICT ICT is seen as a source of social, community and economic development and a means of promoting SI Some authors caution that ICT has a lesser ability to effect social, community & economic development than assumed Problem of exclusion is extremely complex If ICT is seen as a source of social, community and economic development ICT may be seen as a simple & quick solution to social exclusion 16

    17. Use of ICT in daily life ICT can be used (or not used) in a variety of contexts, and incorporated into a range of multidimensional activities Use of ICT in daily life should be looked at holistically along with all other aspects of an individual’s life ‘virtual world’ is not a separate world, is part of ‘real world’ ICT is simply one of many ways in which people may interact with one another 17

    18. Linking Social Inclusion & ICT ICT can lead to changes in processes, structure, roles & power configurations and people being SI or SE Durieux investigated cases of what EU saw as prerequisites for digital and social inclusion, namely giving all citizens equal opportunity to use ICT (eg as employment), and the skills (training) to participate in the process Physically disabled were employed in a call-centre unemployed were given an ICT training program Cases were successful in that they gave people their first opportunity to participate in socio-economic processes However they failed to socially include them Both cases were strongly influenced by local stakeholders’ interests and needs - commercial and not SI objectives 18

    19. How ICT could contribute Van Winden expected that ICT could contribute to the three dimensions of SE (exclusion from social networks, political or community networks and economic exclusion) 19

    20. ICT contribution to SE Van Winden reviewed case studies of 3 major European cities that invested a great deal in ICT and were committed to using ICT to deal with SE No convincing evidence found of social networks being strengthened or of political participation increasing Only economic dimension was affected in that some people were included in the economic process Van Winden concluded that: ICTs contributions to SE were very low (only minimal economic) expectations of politicians & policy makers were very high, and adoption levels of ICT among the SE were also low Chigona, Mbhele & Kabanda investigated the impact of the Internet in eliminating SE in 4 communities in SA Conclusions startlingly similar to those of van Winden 20

    21. ICT & SI Social networks (such as Facebook) facilitate the generation of social capital and can increase SI Social network sites help maintain relationships, assist in supporting relationships and increase SI On the other hand, ICT can also make it easier to disconnect from others, and to become SE and alone 21

    22. 90 ICT SI initiatives 90 ICT initiatives in Social Inclusion Partnerships and Working for Communities Pathfinders in Scotland were analysed and audited. Conclusions were: people affected must be involved in the planning and development of the ICT initiatives the initiatives must target more socially excluded groups potential of ICT to include people remained largely untapped initiatives failed to share knowledge and experience initiatives failed to have connections with each other or to national ICT initiatives only one (1.1%) of the 90 ICT initiatives was reported as having been "completed successfully" 22

    23. Incentives No literature was found on incentives What is incentive to socially include (or exclude) others? What motivates people to spend time and money on ICT (or other tools) to SI (or SE) other individuals? Who is benefitting by including/excluding other people? Instead of paying for installation of ICT to promote SI, governments should pay for results (outcomes) Payment per job found or created, Payment for value of goods sold, Payment for educational qualifications obtained Payment for number of forms downloaded & submitted Similarly, what are the incentives to individuals/groups to be socially included? 23

    24. Conclusions Currently no clear definition of social inclusion or exclusion No clarity of who should be included No clarity on how it should be measured No commonly accepted way to solve the problem Policy and ICT are tools often used No widely accepted SI policy or use of ICT Gap between included & excluded is most obvious when observing difference in values of people in each group SE is natural and normal, and has always been Perhaps only way to alter peoples’ attitudes is to incentivise them with wealth or power ICT neither promotes nor demotes SI – just a tool which could assist 24

More Related