The use of ICT in education and the promotion of social inclusion: a critical perspective from the UK

Abstracts

Este artigo apresenta um panorama crítico dos esforços políticos atuais para usar as tecnologias na melhoria dos resultados educacionais e promover a inclusão social na educação. A partir do exemplo do Reino Unido, identifica duas tendências nas atuais formulações de políticas: i) políticas focalizadas na oferta educacional que buscam usar as tecnologias para promover a igualdade de oportunidades e resultados educacionais; e ii) políticas focalizadas no acesso às tecnologias que buscam usar a educação para garantir a inclusão social em termos de oportunidades e resultados tecnológicos. Ao discutir as limitações sociais, econômicas e culturais desses enfoques, este texto examina várias questões que estão no cerne de uma tecnologia e uma educação mais eficientes no futuro.

TIC; Internet; Exclusão digital; Aprendizado eletrônico; Inclusão social

ARTICLES

The use of icts in education and the promotion of social inclusion: a critical perspective from the uk^*

Neil Selwyn

Institution of Education, University of London. E-mail: [e-mail]

ABSTRACT

This paper provides a critical overview of current policy efforts to use technologies to enhance educational outcomes and promote social inclusion in education. Using the UK as an example the paper identifies two trends in current policymaking, i.e. i) educational provision focussed policies which seek to use technologies to promote equality educational opportunities and outcomes; and ii) technological access focussed policies which seek to use education to ensure social inclusion in terms of technological opportunities and outcomes. Through a discussion of the social, economic and cultural limitations of these approaches the paper considers a number of issues which lie at the heart of more effective technology and education in the future

Key words: ICT. Internet. Digital divide. E-learning. Social inclusion

INTRODUCTION

This paper - as the symposium as a whole - is rooted in the premise that there is a pressing need for policymakers to respond to ICT use in twenty-first century society. It is important to recognise from the outset that this need is social, economic, cultural and political as well as technological. We live in a fast-changing 'runaway world' where the social, economic, cultural and political foundations of society are being redefined on a continual basis (Giddens 2000). The much heralded globalisation of society is now manifested in a variety of ways, such as an apparent acceleration of time, shrinking of space and reconfiguration of social relations along international lines. Although traditional structures such as the nation-state retain a significant importance in the governance of society, their influence is increasingly being challenged by other entities such as the transnational corporation. Most commentators agree that this recasting of social relations is borne not only of economic, cultural and political changes but also of the changing technological world in which we are living. This is perhaps most clear in the rise of the information society and the attendant knowledge economy, where the production, management and consumption of information and knowledge are seen to now be at the core of economic productivity and societal development. Clearly, one of the key accelerators of these new forms of society and economy has been the rapid development of new telecommunications and computerised technologies over the past three decades. The global flows of data, services and people which characterise the global knowledge economy have been underpinned by information and communications technology (ICT). From e-commerce to e-learning, ICTs such as the internet and other global telecommunications systems are major conduits through which contemporary society is acted out.

This technology-based reconfiguration has been evident in the transformation of most, if not all, areas of society over the past decade. Employment, education, health, welfare, politics, leisure and entertainment all now take place in ways and in locations which would have been unimaginable a generation ago, often with technology at their heart. Of course, we should be wary of seeing these developments as heralding a total transformation of society. Many of these 'online' developments replicate rather than replace existing 'offline' practices and activities (Woolgar 2002). Yet one noticeable shift has been the increasingly decentred and individualised nature of life in this globalised, networked, knowledge-focused world. Free to live beyond the confines of the nation-state, local community or family, the onus is placed on the individual citizen to make their way in the world. For some commentators these changes are wholly beneficial, 'freeing' societies and their citizens from the interference of the nation-state and other regulatory bodies and allowing the (re)distribution of services and wealth along more efficient and market-driven lines (see Stromquist 2002).

Whilst the globalised nature of contemporary society can prove empowering for some individuals and groups, it also undeniably has led to increased fragmentation, marginalisation and dis-empowerment. The global opportunities of the twenty-first century such as low cost air travel and deregulation of international trade barriers belie the persistence and reinforcement of many distinctly twentieth century inequalities, limited opportunities and social problems. Whereas some individuals benefit from their new-found agency, others fare less well from being decoupled from the familiar anchors of the welfare state, nuclear family and so on. We cannot afford to see contemporary society as offering homogenous benefits for all. Individuals, groups, organisations and countries can be as connected or isolated, as advantaged or disadvantaged in the globalised technology-driven age as before. Crucially these inequalities are also being reconfigured along different lines - in particular within as well as between social groups.

NEW PRACTICES FOR NEW TIMES?

Whilst debate rages over whether society in the early twenty-first century is necessarily better or worse than before, we can be certain that we are experiencing a different form of society. In particular the changes outlined above imply a vast set of expected new practices and ways of operating within a less linear, structured and predictablelogic of society. In education individuals are expected to now learn different skills and knowledges in different ways as their situation dictates. Regardless of their age or stage of prior education, individuals are expected to cast themselves as lifelong learners, willing and able to engage with learning as and when appropriate throughout the life-course. This can involve learning through formal educational institutions, remote learning, or learning from others in non-formal and informal settings. Some educational opportunities will be personalised and tailored to the individual's needs and requirements, whilst others will take the form of mass instruction. The notion of 'finishing one's education' at the age of 16, 18 or 21 years is now a thing of the past. These educational changes mirror changes in the world of work where the expectation of a 'job for life' has long passed. An individual's employability is seen to rest on their ability to adapt to different demands and circumstances on a 'just-in-time' basis. Employees are expected to be flexible in their working practices - operating when and where required, as opposed to clocking-in from nine-to-five in the same location. Practices such as remote teleworking, video-conferencing and flexi-time are now common features of the workplace.

All of these new practices and 'ways-of-being' imply a revised set of expected competencies and abilities which are required if one is to be an 'effective' and successful member of society. In a physical sense, individuals are required to be more mobile now than ever before (Urry 2000). Alongside the basic skills of numeracy and literacy, individuals are required to develop different forms of information and technological literacies (Bawden 2001). Successfully negotiating the ever-changing opportunities and choices on offer requires the development of a capacity for constant self-evaluation and self-awareness (Beck-Gernsheim 1996). The successful individual is therefore required to be reflective and reflexive, building upon and learning from past experiences and reacting to new opportunities and circumstances. Crucially ICT is seen to be an integral element of these new ways-of-being, playing important roles in underpinning an individual's reflexive judgement and social action. The life of the reflexively modern individual is likely to be bound up with an array of technological possibilities from mobile-phone based communication to the online sharing of information. Through these technologically-facilitated channels, reflexivity is therefore "no longer about distanciated decision-making [now] there is no distance at all between knowledge and action" (Lash 2002, p.156). Of course many of the competencies seen as essential to contemporary life - such as communication, reflexivity, team-work, adaptability and so on - are underpinned by decidedly non-technological practices and contexts. Nevertheless, the fact remains that ICTs provide an integral context for these actions. Whilst ICT use is certainly not a pre-requisite to surviving in twenty-first century society, it is almost certainly an integral element of thriving in twenty-first century society. For many commentators, this is felt to nowhere to be more applicable than in the area of education and learning.

USING TECHNOLOGIES TO PROMOTE SOCIAL INCLUSION IN EDUCATION: THE UK POLICY APPROACH

The use of technologies to enhance educational outcomes and promote social inclusion in education takes two main forms. Firstly, is the use of technologies to promote social inclusion in terms of educational opportunities and outcomes.ICTs have long been promoted as a particularly apposite means of allowing citizens to play active roles in enhancing educational prospects and, crucially, offering ways in which 'previously marginalised' individuals "might better participate" in education (Schofield Clark 2003, p.98). All told, "intrinsically equitable, decentralised and democratic" forms of education (Graham 2002, p.35) are anticipated by many commentators, with individuals - especially young people - technologically re-positioned at its core rather than periphery. Secondly, though, is the use of education to ensure social inclusion in terms of technological opportunities and outcomes. IN this sense educational institutions such as schools, colleges, libraries and museums are used to provide access to ICTs, which training in technology skills and expertise are seen to provide individuals with the information literacy required to make the most of ICTs

In this UK there has been more than a decade's worth of policy attempts to address these two issues. Perhaps most prevalent has been policies seeking to use of education to ensure social inclusion in terms of technological opportunities and outcomes. Such policy drives have been usually built around the increased resourcing of public and municipal institutions such as schools, libraries and community centres, the development of formal computer education and support programmes, and even the subsidising of IT equipment purchases by those on low incomes. In terms of policies based around learners' ICT use in educational institutions, the UK has witness a sustained agenda of policymaking throughout since 1998. In practical terms, then, New Labour can claim rightly to have made an unprecedented and sustained political commitment to technology in education since 1998. This is perhaps most evident in their deployment of over £5 billion of funding towards schools ICT infrastructure alone. Most notably the schools sector was subject to the 1998 to 2002 'National Grid for Learning' initiative and associated NOF-funded teacher training programme. Post compulsory and adult education was subject to a range of initiatives from the University for Industry and associated learndirect programme. These flagship initiatives were complemented by a succession of smaller programmes and schemes - such as the provision of laptop computers to head teachers and 'PCs for Pupils'.

Similarly, in terms of policies based around individuals' ICT use in communities,UK government activity has focused on the area of widening access to ICT resources, skills and support for the socially disadvantaged, as well as the provision of public services through ICT to all citizens. These objectives have been pursued through a series of high-profile initiatives over the past ten years prompted initially by the Social Exclusion Unit's PAT15 report (SEU 2000). These initiatives have included ICT for All, UK Online, Community Grids for Learning, the People's Network, learndirect, and others. Specific digital divide pilot initiatives such as 'Wired-Up Communities' and 'Computers Within Reach' were also implemented during the first years of the 2000s. Latterly, a new wave of initiatives such as the 'Digital Challenge' community funding programme and the UK Online 'Social impact demonstrator' projects have been introduced in response to the government's recent 'Action plan on social exclusion' (Cabinet Office 2006) and 'Inclusion through innovation' report (SEU 2005). Most recently have been proposals for free internet access for under-privileged households (Ministerial Taskforce on Home Access 2008).

In terms of the use of technologies to promote social inclusion in terms of educational opportunities and outcomes the UK government has also pursued a range of policies over the past ten years. In this sense, as Laurillard (2008, p.1) notes, "there is no question that government policy [has been] ambitious". In terms of substantive change the policies were designed to address three areas alongside the previously discussed resourcing of education institutions. These have been the continued integration of ICT into the national curriculum; the continued training of teaching staff in terms of using technology in their teaching; and the stimulating and supporting of the production of software and digital content. These ambitions have been manifest in a succession of policies - from the 2002 to 2005 'ICT in Schools' drive and associated Curriculum Online and e-learning credit schemes; to the current 'Harnessing Technology' agenda underpinned by the DfES 2005 'e-learning strategy'. In particular, the DfES e-learning strategy stressed the contribution that ICTs should be making to enhancing educational flexibility, inclusion, productivity and personalization. In this sense 'ICT' was being used as an vehicle for wider ambitions for the modernisation of education regarding raising attainment, widening participation, increasing personalization, flexibility, collaboration, staff development and partnerships (DfES 2005). Whilst more autonomous in terms of IT use, the higher education sector was party to the (albeit short-lived) 'UK e-University' initiative. The government has recently proposed ideas for online 'real-time reporting' between school and parents on pupils' lessons, performance and behaviour (Ministerial Taskforce on Home Access 2008).

USING TECHNOLOGIES TO PROMOTE SOCIAL INCLUSION IN EDUCATION: EVIDENCE FOR SUCCESS

All of this policy activity is felt (by British commentators at least) to position the UK at the forefront of what Zhao et al. (2004, p.1) term "global chase after e-learning" fuelled by "the unchecked fear of missing the fast ICT train to global prominence". Indeed, the last decade has certainly seen the enhancement of "the UK's leading reputation for ICT in education" as well as reinforcing the "fact that it has better figures than most countries in terms of the technological infrastructure for education" (Laurillard 2008, p.34). That said, it is clear that the UK still faces substantial patterns of inequality in terms of education and technology use. In this section we consider the UK ICT policy drive in terms of its influence on continuing education and technology (in)equality in the UK.

Continuing educational inequalities

If we consider the legacy of this policy activity in terms of the government's own stated education objectives then most of the targets concerning the resourcing of educational institutions were met and often exceeded. Certainly in terms of the main aim of introducing ICT into the education system on a widespread basis then the UK government's policies should be seen generally as being successful. Indeed, the substantial increases in funding, resourcing and support of ICT initiated by these policies can be said to have had the outcome of dissipating barriers to ICT use in most if not all education institutions from primary schools to adult learning centres. For instance, the ratio of pupils to computers in primary education fell from 107 pupils per computer in 1985 to around 6:1 in 2007 (BESA 2007). Similarly, the ratio of pupils to computers in secondary education fell from 61 pupils per computer in 1985 to around 3.6:1 in 2007. Moreover, recent surveys suggest that school teachers are now more technically confident and more likely to make regular use of ICT in their teaching than ever before (Barker and Gardiner 2007, BESA 2007). With ICT use now an embedded cross-curricular priority in schools and colleges, concerns over lack of access and expertise are certainly felt to be less applicable than before.

Similarly, the aim of creating a sustainable demand for ICT from within the education sector also appears to have been successful. The past ten years have seen education institutions taking control of their own ICT procurement beyond the initial central government funding. Indeed, the rise in UK government funding for ICTs since 1997 has created a large capital infrastructure, which most schools and colleges are now supporting with their own funds (Mee 2007). The primary sector now spends annually £320million on ICT hardware and infrastructure alongside £76million on curriculum software and content. Similarly, the secondary sector now spends annually £281million on ICT hardware and infrastructure alongside £51million on curriculum software and content. Moreover, the 1997 to 2007 period saw the establishment of a comprehensive organisational infrastructure dedicated to enhancing ICT use across the education system. As well as official mediating agencies such as Becta and JISC, a range of academic, voluntary and private sector organisations also blossomed - from charitable organisations such as Futurelab to the education teams of companies such as Microsoft and the host of education technology 'labs' based in the university sector.

Yet whilst there is little doubt that the past ten years of policymaking has had a profound impact on the physical presence of ICT in UK education, the counter-point can nevertheless be made that the much promised technology-based 'transformation' of UK education has failed to materialise. Indeed many of the educational and technological issues that the New Labour ICT agenda purported to address can be said to remain as problematic in 2008 as they were in 1997. With regards to general equity we know that the UK education system remains a profoundly unequal, polarised system, constrained by "significant social concerns about underachievement, poverty and social exclusion" (Gamarnikow 2006). Moreover, the lack of technology-based change to the social patterns of UK education was illustrated in the recent official admissions, for example, that "only one in six schools and colleges are getting the full benefit of using technology in a truly effective way" (Crowne 2007), that initiatives such as UK Online were making little difference to social inequalities (UK Online 2007) and that the UK continues to fall behind other comparative countries in ICT skills (Leitch 2006). Thus despite government assurances that "we know from the research evidence the difference that information technology can make" (Jim Knight, in Woodward 2008, p.2) the fact remains that ICT has failed to substantially alter the nature of educational opportunities and outcomes in the UK as the government long had us assume that it would.

Continuing technological inequalities

Similarly it could be argued strongly that the raft of public and social policymaking has done little to remedy patterns (in)equalitiesof technological opportunities and outcomes - what is popularly termed 'digital inequality'. Even as a nation establishing what is considered to be 'universal' access to ICT, the UK has found that providing every citizen with the technological means and basic skills to use a computer is not a fast-track to overcoming digital inequality. Instead more enduring and less easily addressed issues persist, especially in terms of the social and cultural divides in how people articulate and act upon the meanings of ICTs. Such is the recurring importance of variables such as age, socio-economic status, education, family composition, gender and geography, that the US Pew study was led to observe that "demography is destiny when it comes to predicting who will go online" (Pew2003, p.41). This conclusion has been reinforced year on year by a variety of UK digital divide surveys and statistical analyses produced by governments, the IT industry, charitable foundations and market researchers .

Indeed, whilst there is some variation to the magnitude of difference, the social groups most likely to be characterised as being 'digitally excluded' in these data continue to be most commonly delineated in terms of gender, age, income, race, educational background, geography and disability. This nature of this patterning can be seen in the context of the UK, for example, in the latest data from the Office of National Statistics (2007). These data show that 61 percent of households in the UK could access the internet, marking a slight but steady rise from previous years [table one]. However, these baseline data were noticeably delineated by a number of factors. In terms of regional variation, for example, around half of households in Northern Ireland and the Northeast of England but only one third of households in the capital city of London was found to lack internet access [table two]. Similarly, one-third of adults who had never made use of the internet were more likely to be female, from older age groups and/or residing in lower-income households [table three], again replicating patterns evident in data from previous years.

Income/ socio-economic status Lower levels of income are consistently shown to be associated with digital divides concerning access to and use of a range of ICTs. Education Lower levels of education are also shown to be associated with digital divides concerning access to and use of a range of ICTs. Family structure Family composition, adult caring responsibilities (i.e. for an older parent) tend to be associated with less contact with ICT. Conversely, thepresence of school-age children within the household tend to increase contact with ICT. Age Increased age associated with decreased levels of access, limited modes of use and patterns of connecting. Age differences are especially pronounced in those individuals aged 60 years and over. Race Some US studies report lower levels of access and use amongst African-American and Latino populations However, many studies report that then racial differences in ICT use disappear when issues of income and education are taken into consideration. Gender Whilst gender differences were associated with digital divides during the 1990s, more recent academic research seems to indicate declining gender differences in ICT access and basic levels of engagement. Geography/ rural-urban location Levels of ICT use generally less in rural and inner-city areas, although often differences are not evident once other socio-economic variables are taken into account. Culture / Social participation Communities and individuals with higher levels of social contacts tend to make more use of ICTs.

Income/ socio-economic status	Lower levels of income are consistently shown to be associated with digital divides concerning access to and use of a range of ICTs.
Education	Lower levels of education are also shown to be associated with digital divides concerning access to and use of a range of ICTs.
Family structure	Family composition, adult caring responsibilities (i.e. for an older parent) tend to be associated with less contact with ICT. Conversely, thepresence of school-age children within the household tend to increase contact with ICT.
Age	Increased age associated with decreased levels of access, limited modes of use and patterns of connecting. Age differences are especially pronounced in those individuals aged 60 years and over.
Race	Some US studies report lower levels of access and use amongst African-American and Latino populations However, many studies report that then racial differences in ICT use disappear when issues of income and education are taken into consideration.
Gender	Whilst gender differences were associated with digital divides during the 1990s, more recent academic research seems to indicate declining gender differences in ICT access and basic levels of engagement.
Geography/ rural-urban location	Levels of ICT use generally less in rural and inner-city areas, although often differences are not evident once other socio-economic variables are taken into account.
Culture / Social participation	Communities and individuals with higher levels of social contacts tend to make more use of ICTs.

The significance of these factors is confirmed - to a greater or lesser extent - by a burgeoning body of academic literature conducted by scholars around the world. The breadth of this digital divide literature was recently illustrated in a comprehensive systematic review of 192 English-language research reports by Liangzhi Yu (2006). This analysis confirmed the following factors as emerging from the recent literature as associated with the non-use of ICTs within countries:

from Yu (2006, p.240-241) - factors are presented in order of prominence within the academic literature on the digital divide

The bearing of these inequalities between different social groups on the outcomes of ICT use continues to be significant. If individuals from underserved social groups such as older adults, the unemployed and/or carers are experiencing quantitatively and qualitatively diminished forms of ICT use then there is a danger that they will further fall behind those individuals who, in contrast, could be said to be 'super served' by ICTs. From this empirical background, we can therefore conclude that ICT use continues to be a source of significant social inequality in enduring ways. As such it is clear that the digital divide is a multi-faceted social problem, requiring a multi-faceted intervention. As Yu (2006, p.235) concludes:

"nearly all related studies agree that the fundamental solution lies beyond a mere consideration of information availability and infrastructure; they call for governments to interfere with the deep-rooted factors which have directly or indirectly caused this situation".

WEAKNESSES IN CURRENT THINKING OVER EDUCATION AND DIGITAL INCLUSION

As such it would appear that problems of inequality persist even in a country such as the UK which has witnessed a sustained education technology policy drive. As such we would argue that ICT interventions and initiatives may only be successful if accompanied by a fundamental shift in the thinking which underpin them - in particular, moving initiatives and interventions away from the idealised 'official' conceptions of how technology should be used and how individuals should participate in society. This, we contend, requires a rethinking of the relevance, utility and meaning of ICT use for individuals, as well as a reconsideration of the relevance of 'socially inclusive' practices in contemporary information societies. These themes are now explored in greater detail throughout the next section of this paper.

Like many areas of policy and technology, the current UK digital inclusion agenda suffers from a continuing mismatch between the rhetoric and the reality of technology and social inclusion. Even within ostensibly critical debates over ICTs and social inclusion, there is often a subtle and sometimes unconscious privileging of the transformatory potentials of ICT at the expense of acknowledging the rather less spectacular realities of ICT use in contemporary everyday life. Thus the current 'electronic turn' within educational policymaking remains more "an article of faith" than tried and tested strategy (Caulkin 2004, p.9). Of course, the need to resist the allure of techno-romanticism has been well-argued within the social science literature. Recently, for example, Paul Michael Garrett (2005) has reasoned that those commentators concerned with education and new technology should (at the very least) allow themselves to think both positively and negatively about ICTs. In other words there is a pressing need to acknowledge the flawed, unsatisfactory and ordinary aspects of new technologies alongside their more celebrated extraordinary features.

This romanticism is compounded by a continuing conceptualisation of digital inclusion in 'macro' societal, economic and political terms rather than from the perspective of the individual. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, the digital inclusion agenda of the UK retains an over-arching concern with decidedly macro-level issues such as educatability, employability, up-skilling and re-skilling workforces and generally coercing people to make more active and productive contributions to society - what Iske (2006) refers to as "the normative discourses of economy and politics". In this sense the notion of 'social inclusion' underpinning the digital inclusion model implicit in UK policymaking could be more accurately described as one of economic inclusion. Of course this is not a unique position in public policymaking and merely echoes the wider underlying driving rationales of the general policy turn in Western democracies towards 'social inclusion'. Yet, if we are to better understand the modest impact to date of technology and education policymaking then we need to consider the possibility that the 'socially inclusive' ends we wish individuals to use ICTs for may not be that desirable or advantageous for the individuals concerned.

With these points in mind, any attempt to address digital inequality will surely stand more chance of success if time is taken to reconsider a few of the received wisdoms currently underpinning ICTs and social inclusion. What if we imagine for a moment that universal use of ICTs like the internet and computers is not necessarily an inevitable or indeed necessary part of all people's lives - young or old? What if we accept that there could be some very practical, pragmatic and even empowered rationales for individuals to reject the forms of ICT use that are 'officially' seen as digitally desirable? What if current patterns of digital inequality derive in part from 'digital decision' rather than 'digital division'? What if we give credence to people's own capacity to reflect critically on issues of technological (non)engagement? Thus with this less presumptive perspective on ICTs and social exclusion in mid, we can now go on to outline four underpinning assumptions of the current debates around social inclusion, technology and education which merit further consideration, namely:

• that individuals - especially young people - are naturally aligned to new technologies;

• that ICT use is an inevitably empowering activity;

• that ICT can prompt new patterns and types of behaviour;

• that people who are currently deemed to be digital excluded will necessarily benefit from ICT use.

First of these areas is the widely-held notion that individuals - especially current generations of young people - are naturally aligned to new technologies. Indeed the mythologizing of the 'cyberkid', 'techno-tot' and an entire 'net generation' forms one of the cornerstones of current debate over technology and society. Presently, this trend is being vigorously perpetuated through the promotion of an up-coming 'generation M' of young people who are constantly connected to mobile technologies (Kaiser Family Foundation 2005). Or else we are told tales of young 'digital natives' ensconced in their 'digital bedrooms' and making rich and varied use of ICT (Prensky 2003). These idealised views of young technology users are hampered by a number of shortcomings. Firstly, not all young people are inclined toward using ICTs, just as not all young people are inclined towards reading, sport, pop music or other ostensibly 'youth' activity. 'Children' and 'young people' are not homogenous categories, and it is disingenuous for academics and policymakers to treat them as such. At best, our tendency to imagine that young people are inexorably drawn towards new technologies is more rooted in expectant wish-fulfilment rather than empirical experience. In this respect the metaphoric use of a technologically-willing and able cyber-youth is a rhetorical part of the on-going discursive construction of the information age rather than an accurate reflection of young people's actual capabilities. As such is provides a shaky foundation for sustained social change.

A second flawed presumption in current debates is that ICT use is an inevitably empowering and transformative activity. This trend is currently prevalent with the emerging generation of internet-mediated communication applications such as instant messaging, texting and blogging, all of which are being widely portrayed as inherently empowering practices as well as being "cheap, fast, democratic and popular" (Herring 2004, p.26). Yet in reality, people's use of these technologies is far less prevalent than such enthusiasts imagine. Indeed, although internet applications may well be deeply embedded in the social fabric of the middle-class, technologically-privileged lives of academics and their children, for many young people the internet remains a decidedly 'fragile medium', which is used (if at all) in far more limited, sporadic and often conservative ways (Livingstone 2003). Thus although maintaining a high profile in the minds and imaginations of some academics and policymakers, only a minority of people are creating and maintaining their own websites, authoring and updating their own blogs and actively contributing to virtual communities (OXiS 2007). And even when people are making use of these cutting-edge applications, the realities are often less transformatory than may be imagined. Thus in the midst of the excitement over the potential of 'web 2.0' applications such as blogs, MySpace, wiki-media, flickr and podcasting it is all too easy for technologically-adept commentators to over-estimate the intensity and quality of people's actual engagement with technology, as well as misjudge their overall enthusiasm and appetite for using ICTs in these ways.

Of concern here is the ease with which much of the ever-expectant hype surrounding technology use ignores the 'brutal' reality of contemporary ICT use (Couldry 2003), especially the crucial role of global corporate and commercial concerns in structuring technology use. Whatever the potential otherwise, issues of ICT-based empowerment, inclusion and public participation are not overriding concerns in the commercial development of the technology use most of us are subjected to, where concerns are more often centred around issues of profit, audience share and 'stickiness'. Although the technological potential for social inclusion and empowerment may well exist, commentators are often slow to accept that people's actual uses of ICTs are heavily shaped and bounded by less socially-concerned corporate, commercial constructions. For example, young person's passing use of Microsoft's Instant Messenger service with their school-friends is a world apart from emersion in a non-hierarchical and supportive virtual community. Downloading a ring tone for their cell-phone is not akin to freely accessing the entire Communist Manifesto or collected works of Shakespeare. The reality of people's commercialised and often aimless use of ICT has little in common with the public-spirited and transformatory versions of ICT currently idealised by academics and other commentators.

There is therefore a danger of imagining that ICTs can somehow prompt people to develop profoundly new patterns of behaviour and types of activity. Indeed, this logic lies at the heart of much of the current digital inclusion debate. Proponents of e-learning, for instance, continue to tout being able to learn online rather than within the confines of educational institutions as encouraging those young people who have ceased to participate in education to re-engage on their own terms. Technology-mediated contact with politicians, law enforcement agencies and other state officials is similarly portrayed as widening engagement to those people who are otherwise reluctant to engage in 'conventional' ways of contact. Yet, most empirical studies in this area find no evidence of such an extension of empowerment. In terms of voting in state and federal elections, ICTs have been found to do little to alter patterns of disenfranchisement or abstinence from voting (Mossberger et al. 2003). Similar conclusions have been reached by researchers examining the use of ICTs for employment seeking, lifelong learning and social connectivity (McQuaid et al. 2004, Gorard et al. 2003, Matei and Ball-Rokeach 2003). Thus, rather than prompting people to alter their existing behaviour there is strong evidence that whilst ICT-based interventions may be increasing levels of learning, voting and civic engagement, they tend to have little impact on widening these activities beyond those who were already doing so.

Finally, there is a need to also question the assumption that the currently digitally excluded are primarily prevented from making the rational choice of using ICTs by a distinct set of barriers. Throughout the digital divide debate, people's non-use of ICT (and especially young people's non-use) is widely assumed to result from economic, social, cultural or technological impediments to use. These factors may sometimes be exacerbated by deficiencies on the part of the individual concerned (such as deficits in terms of skill, know-how, attitude or personality). Most efforts to overcome digital inequality are therefore focused on ameliorating these barriers to use. Yet this logic precludes the possibility that young people's non-use of ICT could be based on pragmatic, practical and perhaps even empowered choices. This choosing not to use could be rooted, for example, in the perception that ICT use offers little meaningful advantage to some young people and their circumstances. Thus when a non-user offers the rationale of having 'no need' to make use of ICTs (a response which researchers usually attribute to inadequate knowledge of the true potential of ICT) it could be that they really do mean that they have no need of ICT use and, as rational actors, have decided not to engage.

If we accept this alternate scenario for a moment, then there are a few possibilities why individuals may continue to shy away from making use of ICT for what are usually seen as empowering purposes. First is the possibility that for the individuals concerned ICTs like the internet or digital television are merely 'dead space', not conducive to real empowerment and certainly not "true public space[s], alive with discussion, debate and collective action" (Couldry 2003, p.96). From this perspective, a person wishing to actively become a full member of society may reasonably conclude that they are better served by pursuing offline forms of inclusive activity. From this perspective, some people's non-use of ICT could be more a reflection of the real usefulness of technology rather than a deficit on their part. As Couldry (2003, p.92) concludes, "the vast online universe of information and entertainment cannot be assumed to be a universal good, having the same value to everyone".

This line of reasoning also questions the value and nature of the 'empowerment' that people are being offered through ICTs. As Masschelein and Quaghebeur (2005) remind us, the 'participation' and 'inclusion' which is promised through social policy interventions is often based on official supply-side' needs and assumptions. Whilst 'participation' is often presented and perceived as the increased and active involvement of people in activities and decisions which concern their lives, official notions of 'participation' can also be seen as actually constituting the establishment of a decidedly non-benign mode of governmentality based around government of the individual. In other words, the individual 'participant' is not actively self-determining (and self-empowering) but submitting themselves to be an oppressed element of a wider mode of government. One could argue that in this sense all that ICT-based policy interventions can offer people is a conservative notion of empowerment, presupposing that people strive for a middle-class way of life and all that goes with it. Faced with this prospect, many people may not want equal access to the civic world as it stands, but perhaps seek a changed society and social structures. In this sense offering technologically enhanced ways of engaging with an undesirable existing form of society may hold little allure. Choosing not to use ICTs in these ways may then be less a matter of powerless disadvantage and more an empowered tactic of resistance.

SO WHERE NOW? TOWARDS A NEW SET OF POLICY OPTIONS AND APPROACHES

So how can this critique of the current policy thinking be used in a constructive manner? Certainly if we accept that some ICT use may not be especially empowering, that not all people may necessarily want inclusion within the formal structures of society, that not all people are inherently predisposed to ICT use and that digital behaviour is most likely to follow on from offline behaviours, then we can begin to rationalise the slight impact of the technology and education agenda to date. More importantly we can use this critical analysis as a catalyst to more effective future efforts. In this spirit we are led to suggest four specific areas of thinking - i.e. that:

• social problems require social solutions;

• meaningful change in people's behaviour derives from genuinely 'bottom-up' activity;

• the state and other bodies should adopt more facilitative and supportive roles in addressing digital inclusion;

• commercial interests must play a wider role in addressing digital inclusion.

Firstly, given the inter-related nature of online and offline social exclusion it would seem logical that the best way to address patterns of digital exclusion may be to attend to the underlying social issues that they reflect. Indeed, a number of different dimensions of non-digital (dis)advantage come into play in people's relationships with the social, economic, political, cultural and technological elements of society - many of which are not even partially surmountable via digital interventions. For example, ICTs can do little to alter some people's limited resources and vulnerable circumstances. The opportunity to purchase goods and services via the internet cannot be realised without a credit card or bank account, and then also requires the requisite means with which to fund it. Similarly, the opportunity to learn online requires adequate levels of literacy, confidence and, just as importantly, a sense that the learning will be of some personal utility.

Given the over-riding inertia of social relations and structures, the most important step in engaging young people and adults alike with public, civic and societal activities would be to invest the considerable time and effort in transforming activities such as learning, voting or even just having a bank account into worthwhile, relevant and even attractive activities, rather than assuming that a technological-sheen alone will somehow make them more attractive and alluring. As Earle (2005, p.2) observes, "no amount of digital interactivity with thirteen to twenty-three year olds is likely to change the fact that the current establishment is devoid of a vision for the future that can appeal to either young or old". Social problems such as disenfranchisement, unemployment, illiteracy and innumeracy generally require social solutions rather than technical fixes. It is here that social policymakers should start.

It also follows that meaningful and sustained change in people's ICT-based behaviours will be best achieved through truly bottom-up rather than top-down means. As we have argued throughout this paper, the impetus for young people to engage in any type of digital activity will best come from the young people themselves, rather than from external coercion or direction. Thus it makes sense to encourage people to pursue, develop and extend the types of digital activities that they are already participating in, rather than attempting to redirect them towards what they 'should' be doing. This flies in the face of many current approaches towards encouraging young people's ICT use which still seek to remould and re-develop young people's "naturalised degree of digital and technical ability into transferable adult resources" (Beastall 2006, p.109, emphasis added). As Hudson (2003) argues, despite claims to the contrary, the majority of plans for the modernisation of public services remain rooted in the logic of utilising ICTs for the top-down and one-way delivery of services. Instead it could be worth adopting the strategy of following the activities that young people are already engaged in, rather than imposing the activities that one would want them pursuing.

In this way, there is a need to concentrate on the truly informal, experimental and embryonic elements of ICT use - especially where people are developing alternative non-traditional frameworks of political and social connection and engagement. In terms of political engagement, for example, some young people's political modes are noticeably diverging from those of older generations. Whereas youth voting patterns and membership of political parties may be declining, involvement in single-issue campaigns, environmental and global politics and anti-poverty issues are increasing - sometimes with an element of ICT use involved. As we have discussed, such uses of technology may only be the preserve of a minority of young ICT users with many others just using technology for more mundane purposes. But the point here is that whatever is currently taking place via ICTs is best encouraged as it may well lead onto other, more empowering uses. It is likely that much of this use will be informally learnt and informally practiced; situated in 'third places' of connections amongst acquaintances which are not easily as replicated or supported as activities pursued in formal sites such as schools or community centres. But the need to follow people's own interests and practices rather than clumsily foist an official version of 'informal' practice on to them could well be crucial to the success of future attempts to cultivate digital inclusion.

Of course, there are a number of likely 'dangers' to this rather more laissez-faire approach to digital inclusion. On the one hand people may well remain using ICTs for inconsequential or even trite issues which have little bearing outside of their immediate domains. There is also a danger that this bottom-up 'empowerment' takes on anti-establishment dimensions, with technology used to challenge and subvert established structures and situations. Another problematic issue is the uneasy place of any official involvement or intervention within these informal practices. In theory, what are essentially fluid, organic and chaotic virtual practices will be flourishing precisely because they are free from external control, restraints or official adult intervention. Any attempt by the state and other stakeholders to create, subsidise, organise or direct such spaces should be approached with caution. As soon as informal practices and procedures are party to some form of formal intervention then they lose much of the essence of what made them successful in the first place.

Thus it is essential that the role of state and other stakeholders in the digital inclusion debate is sensitively re-imagined, with official bodies altering their approach to ICTs and young people - adopting a facilitative and supportive roles rather than as a directive and managerial presence. Thus governmental and other official bodies should adopt a more aggressive but also more realistic stance towards encouraging people's engagement with both ICT and education. This would involve focusing less on establishing a rhetorical universal access for all young people but instead aiming to enable effective access for all those who want it - when and where appropriate. Effective enabling of the use of ICTs such as computers and the internet would seem to be better focussed on supporting a genuine 'fit' with patterns of people's everyday lives - concentrating on increasing the relevance of ICT and shifting the universal service debate from issues of supply to issues of demand. Crucially, 'demand' should be seen in terms of the genuine educational demands of individual young people rather than the usual policy conceptualisation of demand in terms of employers' demands for skills or governmental demand for economic competitiveness.

This thinking runs counter to much of the current policymaking in the UK. Within the knowledge economy model the provision of all education services tends to be approached by governments as collective concerns with collective solutions. However, there is still room to develop policies which are more individually focussed and less 'one-size-fits-all'. In short, governments need to extend choice on an individual basis to everyone regarding whether they participate in society and whether they use ICT to do so. All people should have a chance to make an empowered choice to use ICT learn but the over-riding concern of policymakers has to be one of facilitating the individual's opportunity to choose rather than attempting to coerce mass engagement. Thus the question of who is in control of this new technology remains a crucial one and, in this respect, it is important that control is situated in the hands of the individual citizen. Of course, in leaving control of technology use in the hands of the individual introduces an over-riding danger that their eventual 'choices' to either use or not use ICTs are not empowered ones. From this perspective, the state, families and the technology community all have roles to play in supporting and enabling all young people with the means, motivation and where-with-all to make informed, effective and empowered choices. In other words, the state can best seek to ensure that young people are not faced with the disempowering situation of 'too much choice' but instead enjoy an 'autonomy of (non)use' (c.f. DiMaggio and Hargittai 2001).

Finally, it should be the case that commercial bodies assume a more prominent role. Although important, government policies and the actions of public bodies alone do not constitute digital inclusion. The centrality of IT firms and private interests to the issue of digital inclusion is obvious but it is more often than not ignored by academic observers. It is assumed that IT firms are a neutral or even benign presence in peoples' use of ICT - quietly providing hardware and software and then slipping away. Yet the centrality of private concerns in the domestic and public uses of technology merits sustained attention, especially regarding how peoples' use of ICTs can be shaped by business and commercial interests. Indeed, in theory there are many ways in which the IT industry could alter their practices and thereby widen people's use of ICT. IT firms have a clear role in shaping peoples' initial uses of computers, from the marketing through to the bundling of free software at the initial point of purchase. On a prosaic level the large IT companies could pay more attention to the content that is supplied alongside their hardware - developing genuinely useful software for all people which can then be supplied with machines rather than endless variations on business-orientated 'Office' applications. There is also a need for people to be given more control over the production as well as consumption of software and content. Indeed, commentators have long argued that the real digital divide should be seen in terms of control over the means of production, with the assumption that only by participating in the creation of digital content can people really be empowered in their use of ICTs. Much of the onus for enabling young people's co-construction of more open-source and flexible content lies with software producers, who have the power if they so wish to devolve some of the power for determining the nature of content to the end-user.

Of course, firms respond to suggestions of such 'social responsibility' with understandable ambiguity and there is little short-term incentive for IT firms to engage in any of these socially-inclusive activities, trapped as they are in what Warschauer (2003) terms the 'innovator's dilemma' of having to chase the high-margin, high-profit upper ends of the market by adding value to existing products rather than attempting to reach untapped, low-margin mass markets. Yet there is no reason why increased involvement with socially inclusive activities could not be attractive to firms given their vested interest in encouraging ICT use. As Dyson (1998) observes, "one of the problems with [public funding] is that governments and philanthropists often feel good simply by giving it away; investors feel good when the money they invest actually produces something". In this respect firms operating from a digital inclusion starting-point are in a position to contribute to the establishment of wider markets for ICT which they ultimately stand to benefit from. Indeed, the IT industry is not adverse to such philanthropy but have thus far preferred to concentrate on schools and developing countries. In the US the domestic digital divide has proved a growing area for philanthropic activity by multi-national companies and foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, IBM and Cisco. We would suggest that this activity could easily be extended to the provision of populations in other developed countries.

CONCLUSIONS: QUESTIONS FOR POLICYMAKERS TO CONSIDER

This paper is intended to act as a starting point for action. As is often the case with such writing, it raises far more questions than answers and has highlighted many problems whilst offering few potential solutions. We hope that the issues and arguments raised in this paper can act as the catalyst for a sustained period of debate, discussion and development concerning the establishment of more equitable information societies. We can therefore conclude our discussion with a number of issues and questions for those involved in future policy actions to consider. In short these are

• Who should take a lead?

• How do we ensure ready access to hardware and software?

• How do we ensure ready access to relevant content and services?

• How do we ensure ready access to skills, social and technical support and know-how?

• How do we ensure individuals can exercise an empowered choice?

Who should take a lead?

In many developed and developing countries there is a sense that the issue of the digital divide is lacking a central advocate and co-ordinating presence within national government. Indeed, there appears to now be less 'joined-up' concern within government over the wider issues underlying the digital divide, especially for those individuals who would not be necessarily classed as disadvantaged in other aspects of their life. This lack of general profile within government contrasts with the number of public and private sector organisations working in the area of digital inclusion - from charitable organisations to private sector interests. The continuation of this de-centralised model of digital divide intervention may well be desirable. The question should nevertheless be raised as to whether responsibility needs to given to dedicated sectors of central government. Is there a need for a distinct Ministries for Digital Exclusion or else a direct remit being given to existing departments? Conversely, should central government pull further back from leading in this area? What roles can be played by media and communication regulators and other state organisations?

Another issue which merits consideration is the increased involvement of individual citizens in the digital divide debate. William Davies, in the ippr's 'Manifesto for a digital Britain', argued for the establishment of a high-profile, democratised debate over the capabilities of ICTs and the purposes of digitisation. Increased involvement of the 'citizen voice' within the digital divide debate could shape outcomes in ways which are both meaningful and relevant to the public and therefore standing more chance of success (Davies 2005). Is this politicising (with a small 'p') of the digital divide debate a desirable direction to pursue? If so, how may such a debate be stimulated, maintained and acted upon within and between EU nations? These questions of the politics of the digital divide are all issues which should be addressed as a matter of urgency.

How do we ensure ready access to hardware and software?

As we have established, ensuring that individuals have adequate access to hardware and software is a pre-requisite to tackling the digital divide. To date government strategy across Europe has largely focused on the provision of communal internet access points in public locations such as schools, libraries, museums and other community settings. Such a 'community technology centre' approach has achieved varied success in widening meaningful access to those individuals and social groups otherwise lacking internet and computer access in domestic or workplace settings (see Smith and Cook 2002, Hall Aitken Associates 2002, Selwyn et al. 2005). But are other options available, especially considering that ICT resources now span beyond desktop computers and fixed internet connectivity? For instance, can and should government provide access to personalised and mobile technologies or digital interactive television in similar ways?

There are a number of alternative options to the community technology centre approach which could also be considered. For instance, there could be a place for government intervention in areas of ICT provision where there has been 'market failure' to distribute ICT access. Such intervention may take the form of direct state provision of ICT resources to under-served populations, or else the use of tax incentives or reduced tariffs on ICT goods to stimulate the domestic, workplace and education markets for ICTs. There are other 'low-cost computing' strategies which can be revisited (James 2001), not least the redistribution of reconditioned hardware and software to underserved populations. In Europe at least this area of recycling looks set to increase in significance in light of the implementation of the EC Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) directive which provides an incentive for the re-use rather than disposal of hardware. With this mind, is there scope to build upon the philanthropic spirit of giving citizens ownership of ICTs free of charge (such as in the UK 'Computers Within Reach' and 'Wired-Up Communities' programmes) whilst being mindful of the logistical and administrative problems experienced during these pilot initiatives (Halcyon Consultants 2003)? Similarly, what viable opportunities are there for the production of ICT resources by public/private partnerships - thus drawing on the expertise of the IT industry? Whilst it remains only one aspect of the digital divide, ensuring adequate quantity and quality of access for all remains an important issue to address.

How do we ensure ready access to relevant content and services?

Digital inclusion is also predicated upon ensuring that individuals have adequate access to meaningful and relevant content and services. To date e-government strategy across Europe has largely focused on the provision of public sector services and information. Yet how can we best ensure that the production and distribution of government information and services is underpinned by social justice principles and promotes genuinely open access to information and knowledge? A key area for debate here is the relative virtues of 'top-down' provision of information and services as opposed to the 'bottom-up' creation of content. Should the official production of information and services move beyond its primary foci of education, employability and interaction with government services? Is there a role for the official provision and support of ICT uses which are based around more creative or frivolous uses of technology? In terms of internet-based information, are individual users best served by 'supersites' such as the BBC and MSN or the use of community generated local content? Should 'top-down' official content be reshaped for different social groups? For example, should digital content emanating from the middle-class mainstream society be repackaged for other sectors of society, such as the elderly or ethnic minority groups (see Hargittai 2003)? What role is there for community online networks and other forms of bespoke content production by individuals (Borgida et al. 2002)?

How do we ensure ready access to skills, social and technical support and know-how?

A further important element of digital inclusion is ensuring that the social context of ICT use allows individuals to be informed about their choices, and provides trust-worthy support when using ICTs. At present, most governmental effort in this area has been directed at the formal provision of ICT skills and support, most notably in the provision of ICTs skills training, and the training of staff in community technology centres to support users. Yet are there ways to make more extensive and imaginative use of these ICT skills training programmes? One possibility would be the cascading of skills and know-how back into deprived communities, thereby using ICT training to build the social capital of communities. Efforts could be made, for example, to encourage and support those individuals who have received ICT skills development as part of their formal education and training to return to their communities and support other individuals in their informal social networks in their ICT use (as evinced in the notion of the Scottish Executive's 'Digital Champions').

Furthermore, it is observed that people often prefer what they see as 'dis-interested' sources of advice rather than 'interested' ones, i.e. those that can offer 'impartial advice' (Introna and Nissenbaum 2000). Aside from the formal provision of skills and support is there scope for supporting the informal networks which individuals draw upon for advice and support, especially family and work networks? Could ICT retailers and suppliers and other ICT professionals be supported in playing more sustained supportive roles for individual users which are not commercially-driven? Are there ways in which the informal and sometimes non-legal neighbourhood contacts used to supply software and advice to individuals can be built upon - therefore tapping into the so-called 'greyware culture' (Sundaram 2004) which underpins much domestic ICT use?

How do we ensure individuals can exercise an empowered choice?

Underlying all these issues is the most challenging but perhaps most important area for consideration. Amidst all these suggestions for intervention it should be recognised that public-sector support for individuals' ICT use can only go so far. In light of our opening discussion concerning the individualised nature of contemporary society, any government intervention in the digital divide must start from the assumption that the successful individual is reflective and reflexive, building upon and learning from past experiences and reacting to new opportunities and circumstances. In this sense individuals must ultimately take responsibility for their ICT engagement, acting in a reflexive manner towards ICT use. Yet how can individuals be as empowered, informed and effective as possible in making these choices and engaging with ICT?

With this in mind, a new strand of the digital divide debate needs to be opened up amongst academics, policymakers, technologists and other stakeholders as to how to enable informed choices and support the actions of individuals as knowledgeable users or non-users of ICTs (see Cushman and Klecun 2006). It could be that an empowering of users would result from the democratising of the digital divide debate as suggested earlier. Such public recapturing of the discourses surrounding ICTs in society could lead to the opening up of the 'black box' of ICTs to individual users, so that ICT use becomes less of a prescribed means to prescribed ends, and more a set of tools and practices which the majority of individuals feel that they have some control over and part in shaping (see also Schofield Clark et al. 2004, Mansell 2002). Nevertheless, there is an obvious need for the development of some tangible actions and interventions in this area above all others.

AFTERWORD

In conclusion we should return to the themes outlined at the beginning of the paper regarding the fast-changing world we live in. These issues of uncertainty, fluidity and chaos are at the heart of contemporary technological and social change, and we should therefore have little compunction with them being reflected in a reordered set of priorities for education, technology and social inclusion. In the paper we have attempted to argue that previous attempts to engineer social inclusion via education and technology have suffered from pursuing an overly precise set of outcomes in what is one of the most imprecise and unpredictable areas of social policy. Yet given the increasing complexity and uncertainty of the twenty-first century techno-culture, perhaps the best that we can hope for are interventions which are uncertain, tentative and unpredictable. Thus, as Barry Schofield (2003) concludes, a stronger self-belief in ICT should be accompanied by more vague set of discourses concerning the ends of technology. To be less certain about the ends and outcomes of ICT use is a more honest and possibly more accurate stance to take concerning the open possibilities of new technologies and social inclusion. It is from this vaguer, less coercive but more realistic starting-point that future efforts at engineering digital inequality should commence.

REFERENCES

• BARKER, R.; GARDINER, J. Focus on the digital age: e-learning and e-skills. London: National Statistics, 2007. Disponible at: <www.statistics. gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/foda2007/Chapter3.pdf>
• BAWDEN, D. Information and digital literacies: a review of concepts. Journal of Documentation, v. 57, n. 2, p. 218-259, 2001.
• BECK-GERNSHEIM, E. Life as a planning project. In: LASH, S.; SZERSZYNSKI, B.; WYNNE, B. (Ed.). Risk, environment and modernity London: Sage, 1996.
• BESA. British Educational Suppliers Association. Information and communication technology in UK state schools London: BESA 2007.
• CABINET Office. Reaching out: an action plan on social exclusion. London: Cabinet Office, 2006.
• CAULKIN, S. E-binge which will cost us dear. The Observer (Business section), p. 9, 15 aug. 2004.
• COULDRY, N. Digital divide or discursive design?. Ethics and Information Technology, v. 5, n. 2, p. 89-97, 2003.
• CROWNE, S. 'Keynote speech' presented to Harnessing technology: delivering the future for learners: North East regional conference. Newcastle, 15 Mar. 2007.
• CUSHMAN, M.; KLECUN, E. I've never tried it because I don't like it: enabling technology choices. Paper presented to Information, Communication and Society Conference, York, Sept. 2006.
• DAVIES, W. Modernising with purpose: a manifesto for a digital Britain. London: Institute for Public Policy Research, 2005.
• DIMAGGIO, P.; HARGITTAI, E. From the 'digital divide' to digital inequality Centre for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Princeton University, 2001. (Working Paper #15).
• DYSON, E. Release 2.1 London: Penguin, 1998.
• EARLE, W. Searching for citizenship. Spiked Online, 5 July 2005. Disponible at: <http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000 CAC48.htm>
• GAMARNIKOW, E. Education, equality and social justice: England. Paper presented to International Public Forum and Research Symposium, London, nov. 2006.
• GARRETT, P. Social work's 'electronic turn'. Critical Social Policy, v. 25, n. 4, p. 529-553, 2005.
• GIDDENS, A. Runaway world: how globalisation is shaping our lives. London: Routledge, 2000.
• GORARD, S.; SELWYN, N.; MADDEN, L. Logged on to learning?' International Journal of Lifelong Learning, v. 22, n. 3, p. 281-296, 2003.
• GRAHAM, S. Bridging urban digital divides? Urban Studies, v. 39, n. 1, p. 33-56, 2002.
• HALCYON Consultants. Wired-up communities programme: final report to the Department for Education and Skills. York: Halcyon Consultants, 2003.
• HALL AITKEN Associates. Evaluation of CMF-funded UK Online centres DFES research report RR368, 2002.
• HERRING, S. Slouching toward the ordinary: current trends in computer-mediated communication. New Media & Society, v. 6, n. 1, p.26-36, 2004.
• HUDSON, J. E-Galitarianism? Critical Social Policy, v. 23, n. 2, p. 268-290, 2003.
• INTRONA, L.; NISSENBAUM, H. The public good vision of the internet and the politics of search engines. In: ROGERS, R. (Ed.). Preferred placement: knowledge politics on the web. Maastricht: Jan van Eyck Akademie, 2000.
• ISKE, S. Effects of young people's formal educational background on structures of use and appropriation. Paper presented to Cyberworld unlimited? Bielefeld, Germany, Feb. 2006.
• JAMES, J. Low-cost computing and related ways of overcoming the global digital divide. Journal of Information Science, v. 27, n. 6, p. 385393, 2001.
• KAISER Family Foundation. Generation M: media in the lives of 818 year-olds. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2005.
• LASH, S. Critique of information London: Sage, 2002.
• LAURILLARD, D. Digital technologies and their role in achieving our ambitions for education London: Institute of Education, 2008.
• LEITCH Review of Skills. Prosperity for all in the global economy world class skills. London: HM Treasury, 2006.
• LIVINGSTONE, S. Children's use of the internet: reflections on the emerging research agenda. New Media and Society, v. 5, n. 2, p. 147-166, 2003.
• MANSELL, R. From digital divides to digital entitlements in knowledge societies. Current Sociology, v. 50, n. 3, p. 407-426, 2002.
• MASSCHELEIN, J.; QUAGHEBEUR, K. Participation for better or for worse? Journal of Philosophy of Education, v. 39, n. 1, p. 51-65, 2005.
• MATEI, S.; BALL-ROKEACH, S. The internet in the communication infrastructure of urban residential communities: macro or mesolinkage? Journal of Communication, v. 53, n. 4, p. 642-657, 2003.
• MCQUAID, R.; LINDSAY, C.; GREIG, M. Reconnecting the unemployed. Information, Communication & Society, v. 7, n. 3, p. 364388, 2004.
• MEE, A. E-learning funding for schools: a policy paradox? British Journal of Educational Technology, v. 38, n. 1, p. 63-71, 2007.
• MINISTERIAL Taskforce on Home Access. Report from the Ministerial Taskforce on Home Access London: Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2008.
• ONS. Office for National Statistics. Internet access 2006 first release Newport: ONS, 2006,
• OXIS. Oxford Internet Survey 2007 Oxford: OXIS, 2007.
• PEW Internet & American Life Project. The ever-shifting internet population: a new look at Internet access and the digital divide. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2003. (authors: Lenhart, A.; Horrigan, J.; Rainie, L.; Allen, K.; Boyce, A.; Madden, M.; O'Grady, E.
• PRENSKY, M. Digital natives 2003. Disponible at: <www.marcprensky. com>
• SCHOFIELD CLARK, L.; DEMONT-HEINRICH, C.; WEBBER, S. Ethnographic interviews on the digital divide. New Media & Society, v. 6, n. 4, p. 529-547, 2004.
• SCHOFIELD CLARK, L. Challenges of social good in the world of Grand Theft Auto and Barbie. New Media & Society, v. 5, n. 1, p. 95-116, 2003.
• SELWYN, N.; GORARD, S.; FURLONG, J. Adult learning in the digital age. London: Routledge, 2005.
• SMITH, M.; COOK, J. Final report on study of UK Online Centres Learning Technology Research Institute, University of North London, 2002.
• SOCIAL Exclusion Unit – Policy Action Team 15 [PAT15]. Closing the digital divide: information and communication technologies in deprived area. London: Department for Trade and Industry, 2000.
• SOCIAL Exclusion Unit. Inclusion through innovation: tackling social exclusion through new technologies. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2005.
• STROMQUIST, N. Education in a globalised world: the connectivity of economic power, technology, and knowledge. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002.
• SUNDARAM, R. About the Brazilianisation of India. In: LOVINK, G. (Ed.). Uncanny networks Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004.
• UK ONLINE. Digital inclusion: a discussion of the evidence base. London: Fresh Minds, 2007.
• WARSCHAUER, M. Technology and social inclusion Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003.
• WOODWARD, W. Plan to give every child internet access at home. The Guardian, p. 2, 4 January 2008.
• WOOLGAR, S. Virtual society: technology, cyberbole reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
• YU, L. Understanding information inequality: making sense of the literature of the information and digital divides. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, v. 38, n. 4, p. 229-252, 2006.
• ZHAO, Y.; LEI, J.; CONWAY, P. A global perspective on political definitions of e-learning International Handbook of Virtual Learning Environments. Netherlands: Kluwer, 2004.

*

Palestra apresentada no simpósio "Educação, igualdade e justiça social no Brasil, na Índia, na África do Sul e no Reino Unido: o uso das tecnologias na educação e na promoção da inclusão social" (Brasília e Campo Grande, Brasil, 22 a 27 de abril de 2008. Apresentação no

Simpósio de Pesquisa: quinta-feira, 24 de abril de 2008).

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  31 Mar 2009
• Date of issue
  Oct 2008

History

• Accepted
  July 2008
• Received
  June 2008