Interconnected Society

Technology in a Cold Climate: Interconnected Society 1

1

2

John Farrington , Peter Edwards & Sarah Skerratt

1 - RCUK Rural Digital Economy Research Hub, University of Aberdeen 2 - Scottish Agricultural College

Interconnected Society – Benefits and Challenges Abstract When considering the interconnectedness of society and the roles that technologies may play, commentators and analysts largely fall into two distinct camps – those who believe firmly in the enabling powers of technology to increase our civic and civil connectedness and those who see the threats of technology leading to a dystopia of computer-driven isolated individuals. Underpinning these shifts towards technology-enabled connectedness, there is much written about, and focus upon, providing access, where access to technology (and particularly broadband) is seen as the essential component which will ensure progress towards ubiquity and thus use, and by inference social inclusion. It is argued here that there is, in addition, a need to look “beyond access” (Hellawell, 2001) to how people experience the technology, the environments in which they do (Skerratt, 2008), and the adaptations they make. Further, there is a need to differentiate access and adaptation geographically, and this paper focuses on the example of rural areas, and the potential for their interconnectedness, given the dispersed nature of the population over sometimes inhospitable (to ICTs) terrain. While some recent software advances (most notably to support social networking) have helped create vast on-line communities of connected individuals, the next generation of the Web will facilitate much greater connectedness between people and machines. Once we bring these dimensions of complexity into the analysis, we can assess more effectively the benefits of such technologies for supporting and enhancing interconnectedness in society. Introduction What are the benefits of a more interconnected society and how could connectivity help us meet the challenges we face? It is important at the outset, when addressing this question, to identify the expectations of benefits as distinct from benefits. The expectations are set out in the literature as well as in policy statements not only in the UK, but underpinned by Information Society visions from across Europe. We are living in what has variously been described as an ‘information age’ and ‘knowledge society’ (Castells, 2002; OECD, 2001; Allen & Dillman, 1994). Information provision, and networking (allowing for exchange of information and experience), are seen as critical for survival, socially, economically and environmentally (Servon, 2002). Access to information, support, individuals with expertise, and up-to-theminute news digests, are seen as important elements of ‘social justice’, and as such, should be available to all, irrespective of geographical location (Scottish Executive, 2000). The largely metropolitan trend towards “24/7 connectivity” at high speed, facilitated through a range of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and their associated infrastructures, are increasingly seen as the norm. There is, according to some commentators, an apparent ubiquity of access to alwayson, high-speed, computer-mediated communication (CMC) through broadband-enabled email, websites and portals. This, in turn, skews channels of information and service provision towards online media. As stated by the OECD (2001), “The Information Society and the New Economy, based on virtual networking and knowledge oriented activities, are rapidly becoming a reality…” (p.15). The implications of this connected, international ‘society’ are highlighted in many European documents relating to eEurope and now i2010, for example:

1

“As the knowledge-based economy advances, the exclusion from ICT becomes more and more a barrier to economic, employment and social opportunities and to using public services. Disadvantaged areas and groups are at higher risk of lagging for various reasons including low income and poverty, lack of ICT infrastructures, awareness and training opportunities, or difficulties of access because of disabilities. On the other hand, ICT can overcome barriers of distance, distribute more equally knowledge resources, and generate new services…Thus, the risks of the digital divide need to be transformed to digital opportunities by actions focused at disadvantaged groups and areas.” (European Commission, 2001, p.17). At Member State level, for example in the UK, we can see similar expectations of digital technology, not only in terms of overcoming geographical challenges, but also in terms of establishing a “digital revolution” where the UK and its constituents are centres of excellence and innovation. The following examples are illustrative. In A Smart Successful Scotland (Scottish Executive, 2001), the vision for the business sector is that: “We are living through a revolution in digital telecommunications, affecting how most Scots and most businesses work, communicate and succeed. If we are not connected we shall not compete. Embracing the Digital Age is not an option but a necessity for success. And it has already arrived. Meeting the challenges of raising productivity, encouraging entrepreneurship, raising skill levels and connecting globally, will create a self-reinforcing upward spiral of growth. We need Scottish based businesses to be more creative and better informed about global change. We want the workforce to be better skilled and have a capacity to learn and re-learn and to be better informed about job opportunities. We want those detached from the labour market to be better placed to take up economic opportunities. We want widespread digital connections to speed information flow around Scotland and back and forth between Scotland and the world.” (p.7) When considering rural areas, and the need for high-speed, high-quality digital connectivity, the Scottish Executive states its expectation that: “Information and communications technology can reduce the constraint of peripherality and enable the development of a less geographically centralised economy … there is real potential for the use of technology to make significant difference to many of the services and employment opportunities available to our rural communities.” (p.14) There is a widely-held expectation that remote and rural areas are said to benefit disproportionately from usage of digital technologies, primarily because of the distance-shrinking and social inclusion potential of such media (Cairncross, 1997) – indeed Cairncross (2001) argues that such technologies lead to, have already led to, the “death of distance”. Further, Grimes & MacLeod (2003) state that: “the Internet, and associated advanced services, have the potential to liberalise spatial barriers by way of e-commerce, and reduce the real costs of public service delivery through e-government. It can facilitate access to business networks, and reduce the transactional cost of information exchange. (pp. 2-3) The above vision is consistent with Executive expectations of ICT from 2000, where the first Scottish Strategic Framework for E-commerce (2000) stated: “The Internet is dissolving conventional boundaries. It is removing the restrictions of geography and time…[I]t is reconfiguring the economic map, opening access to a truly global economy. The business playing field is being levelled”. (cited in MacLeod & Grimes, 2003) These visions are seductive. It is the conclusion of a number of authors, however, that such visions are not being realised to the extent initially expected. If we look, for example, at the Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) sector, Grimes (2004) observes that “It is clear, however, that despite the conviction of policy makers in relation to the potential which the digital economy may present to rural enterprise, and despite the obvious considerable efforts made by development agencies to promote and operationalise these policies, the diffusion of sophisticated uses of the internet in the form of e-commerce in rural Europe is moving quite slowly for a variety of reasons” (p.1, emphasis added). Further, Cruikshank (2005) states that: “it is clear that many SMEs are not taking advantage of this apparent opportunity”, citing Drew 2003, 2

who comments “surveys in several European countries show that SMEs have been slower to adopt ecommerce than their larger counterparts” (2005, p.66). Further, Wagner et al (2003) comment that: “despite technology facilitating improved business practices in terms of developing electronic markets, electronic data interchange and Internet commerce, a number of SMEs have not taken advantage of this new mode of carrying out business” (cited in Cruikshank, 2005, p.66). Further, MacLeod and Grimes (2003) conclude that: “One of the major weaknesses of much of the research in this area to date has been the absence of solid empirical analysis of the reality of how businesses in rural areas are coming to terms with such new opportunities. Policy formulation has been based, perhaps more on theoretical assumptions which may be difficult to justify, than on a close appreciation of the reality of challenges facing businesses in rural areas to exploit whatever opportunities that might be associated with the new technologies.” (p2.) Policy Statements & Connectedness Some of the euphoria has evaporated over time, therefore, due to an increasing evidence base of barriers, divides, hot spots and not spots. Such inequalities were recognised in the ESRC’s E-Society Research 1 Programme which ran from 2003-2007 , and were also highlighted in the 2000 PAT Report on accessing 2 digital technologies in deprived communities . Most recently, in the UK policy context, two reports highlight the challenges to ensuring societal interconnectedness through digital technologies. These reports are: •

Digital Britain (Final Report, Dept of Culture, Media and Sport and Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, 2009), and

•

Mind the Gap: Digital England – A Rural Perspective (Commission for Rural Communities, 2009).

Digital Britain (2009) is focused mainly on large-scale issues of the challenges of deployment of Next Generation Broadband and its role in Britain’s relative competitiveness, and is not specific about the role of digital connectedness in society. It does, however, recognise an important aspect of the digital landscape that digital technology has yet to reach large proportions of the population. For example: “The technology revolution we have seen in the last 10 years has brought enormous benefits. Yet, today, over 15 million adults in the UK still do not use the Internet. If we are going to maximise the benefits across society, we must also ensure that we address the needs of those 15 million…. those not using the Internet [also] risk missing out on the full benefits of digitally delivered public services, which can provide greater flexibility and personalisation for the user” (p.32) Digital Britain also recognises potential economic disadvantage among those not connected: “It is already increasingly the case that those without access to the Internet suffer economic disadvantage. Their opportunities and livelihoods can be compromised by exclusion from the digital world. More fundamentally, they miss out on areas of learning for themselves and their families and increasingly, they may begin to miss out accessing the full benefits of online public services from health to financial services and employment advice. They miss out on the easy access to relevant information ….. [and] access to news is part of daily life as well as an essential ingredient for democracy”. (p.32) The particular issues of lower levels of rural broadband connection, the market challenges posed in improving this situation, and the special needs of rural areas (low population densities, and distance) are recognised in Digital Britain: “This technology is particularly critical for certain sections of society. For example, for families with school age children where the Internet is essential for educational purposes, for the unemployed 1

http://www.york.ac.uk/res/e-society/

2

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/social_exclusion_task_force/assets/publications_1997_to_2006/ pat_report_15.pdf

3

as more job search is conducted online and for the physically and socially isolated, such as the elderly, people with disabilities and those living in rural and remote areas, for whom the Internet can bring huge new opportunities for engagement and participation”. (pp. 30-31). Digital Britain is powerful in highlighting areas of life that can be impacted by connectedness or its lack: economic position, life experience, isolation, and participation in democratic processes. The second report, Mind the Gap, from the Commission for Rural Communities, is more direct in its aspirations for social connectedness through digital connection. It is also naturally focused on the rural domain, in England. It identifies the problem thus: “Lack of access to digital technology, inadequate broadband and mobile telephone coverage combined with lack of engagement with digital technology all contribute to a complex set of issues for rural communities and residents”. (p. 13). One of its basic aspirations is that it “wants everyone living in rural areas to be able to access services at the same level as their urban counterparts”. (p. 20). It The reasoning and evidence presented in one of its priority areas, “social and community cohesion”, takes us closer to a notion of a connected society: “Community cohesion lies at the centre of what makes a strong, vibrant and safe community. It is an important issue for all of us, whether we live in the heart of a big city or in a leafy village. Within rural areas it is particularly important because of the geographical factors which can lead to isolation. Community cohesion is about inclusion, and building good relations between different parts of the community. It is about a wide variety of factors including the relationships between young and old and between residents with differing interests. Community cohesion is also about the interdependency between the environment and how people live and work with and within it”. (p.20). Based on these two reports, it is possible to identify an emphasis upon building relationships between different parts of the community. In a 'connected society', digital connectedness could be a means of making information readily and universally available, a means of enabling communication between individuals and groups, and (relatedly) a means of creating conditions under which individuals, families, groups and businesses can realise their full social and economic potential either through digital connectedness or with its aid. Arguably, the need for such connectivity has never been greater, with factors such as slowing economic growth, a continuing globalised capitalistic paradigm, growing social problems arising from Britain's 'broken society', and sharp falls in public spending, combining to create an unusually challenging environment for the creation of inclusive and cohesive communities. Further, both reports argue that digital connectedness can contribute significantly to greater inclusion and combat societal trends towards ‘separation’ and ‘disengagement’. Groups who could particularly benefit from digital connectedness include people in low income households including those without employment, older people, single person households with young children, young people, people with disabilities, citizens attempting to connect with and influence the delivery of services, and rural dwellers who, in addition to these ‘disconnecting’ life experiences, might experience remoteness or isolation through distance and travel cost, or absence of close social networks. The potential benefits of the application of digital technologies to contribute to a connected society include: gains in welfare, well being and quality of life through networks of support; better tailored service delivery, e.g. in healthcare and transport; closer participation in citizenship; more direct lines of communication between governance and citizens; access to better information streams, e.g. for job seekers; and channels for the realisation of business entrepreneurship and new business models. An example of the application of digital technology in healthcare, where care is increasingly delivered by teams of health professionals and carers, ranging from hospital consultants, through GPs, pharmacists, nurses and paramedics to family carers, is the use of intelligent agent software [Bradshaw, 1997] to process patient sensor information and send information to the right health care deliverer at the right time so that the right intervention can be made. This approach can also be used in the management of chronic

4

pain in ageing populations, especially in rural areas where ‘remote delivery’ might be the only practicable means. Commentary from other sources also echoes these aspirations of connectedness through digital technologies. Barry Wellman, the Toronto-based researcher and polemicist on a digitally-enabled present and future, developed the concept of “networked individual” as a positive demonstration of progress, democracy and a functioning society (Wellman, 2002), arguing that our commitment to one another in society need no longer be constrained by our physical locale and even our identity, thus setting us free from who and where we are. He argues for this utopia, stating that it already exists and is not only of the future. Similarly, Cairncross’ view that distance and geography are no longer relevant as connections emerge and are cemented globally through the internet, and a range of Web 2.0 technologies (see technology discussion below). However, communication on its own, not excepting the new dimensions of digital connectedness (its immediacy, width, depth and potentially universal access), does not meet these goals. There are two key needs in using digital connectedness to reach these goals. One is to understand, through research, how best to enable people, communities and businesses to connect with each other and with information (using the term in its widest sense), using innovative digital technology. This involves understanding both the potential of digital technology, and the social processes involved in encouraging and enabling digital connectedness on the part of society and economy. It will also require re-thinking and at times reforming the delivery of services in public and private sectors: this has begun but there are yet more revolutions in the interaction between services and society to be realised through digital means. Shaping of technology by communities, by users, has been the core of the Community Informatics movement (e.g. Gurstein, 2007; Servon, 2002; Keeble and Loader, 2001) in both the USA and UK. Based around the argument that equity of access to information comprises a component of social justice (Castells, Foreword to Servon, 2002), a movement around harnessing technology and adapting it to causes identified by communities themselves for the outcome of social justice, has been growing over the past 15 years. Although not without its critics, what this movement shows is the emerging need by communities to shape and adapt technology to ensure “fit” and longevity. This is what Hellawell (2001) focuses on in her publication “Beyond access”, where she discusses the development of content by users. Skerratt (2003b, and then 2008) takes this further and presents a timeline (Figure 1) showing the emerging focus of inquiry and analysis, shifting on simply providing access and putting broadband and computers into communities, but working with such communities to ensure that such provision “fits”, makes sense, is appropriate to need and appropriate to the cultural setting in which it operates. This means that coconstruction (after McCown, 2002) remains essential. This orientation, by definition, then also requires that analysis of the benefits and impacts of digital technologies should include these softer, cultural components (Skerratt, 2003b, 2005 and 2006).

Access

Access, Content & Capacity (Servon)

• •

Access, Content & shared participation environments

Infrastructure Access points (public & private) • •

•

Access, Content, shared participation environments, & participatory environments

Relevant content co-development Increasing relevance of applications Training

• • •

User-friendly environments Sensitivity to place (physical & social) Embedded in relationship & peer networks

Figure 1 - Source: Skerratt (2008), p.100. 5

•

Co-construction of relevance and added value (after McCown, 2002)

Technology Futures Some recent software advances (most notably Web2.0 tools to support social networking) have had a profound effect by helping to create vast on-line communities of connected individuals; systems such as Facebook or LinkedIn demonstrate how relatively simple technologies have been embraced by users as a means to capture relationships and build connected communities. The technology landscape is however constantly shifting and it is interesting to pose the following question: What new opportunities for connectedness might emerge from the next generation of digital technologies? The Web in its current form provides a flexible and highly scalable platform for dissemination of information and knowledge across the globe. However, the representation used (statements in natural language with some formatting instructions) means that the content on the Web is inaccessible to software systems. The concept of a Semantic Web [Berners-Lee, 2001] has thus emerged, as a means to represent knowledge on the Web in a way that is accessible to both humans and machines. The ambition is to create a Web that acts as a universal medium for data, information, and knowledge exchange. Key Semantic Web technologies such as RDF (Resource Description Framework) and OWL (Web Ontology Language) are used to describe things such as people, events, or tractor parts. Berners-Lee has referred to the network of linked data resulting from use of these technologies as the Giant Global Graph, in contrast to the HTMLbased World Wide Web. Figure 2 presents a view of technology [Kelly, 2009] in which machine connectedness and human connectedness are considered as two orthogonal dimensions. Connections between people are enabled by a host of social networking/media sites, while machine to machine connections deliver the infrastructure needed to power the Internet or mobile phone networks. The white space between these two realms has been characterised by Kelly as the next (third) generation of the Web. Web3.0 will link humans and machines more tightly and massively than now. The white space in Figure 2 is exactly where most Semantic Web efforts are aimed; these technologies thus act as a bridge between the two forms of connectedness, and will be important in delivering new forms of application to support the interconnected society.

Figure 2 - Two Variants of Connectivity With a Shared White Space (Source: http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/Global AI.jpg) The Market & Policy Futures There are three portions of the digital market, as seen in the Digital Britain Report. The ‘first third’, where demand is robust, will be supplied by the market. The ‘second third’ can be dealt with by inducements and legislation. The ‘final third’ is more problematic. The proposed 50p per month landline levy could raise £1billion over 3-5 years, and would be expected to lever out another £2billion from the private sector. The total £3billion would, it is argued, be enough to provide the final third. However, this framework for investment is clearly subject to the UK’s political landscape. 6

In the absence of revenue to fund investment in the ‘final third’, there is fallout benefit across multiple places and sectors, including rural societies, poorer communities, and SMEs - so the costs of universal high speed broadband should be derived from multiple places. This view is not strongly pervasive in the UK, in contrast to Europe, and poses challenges for UK Government and industry leadership. The historical evidence is one of reluctance by government to “interfere” in the free market of provision of telecoms bodies, and this continues to result in hot spots and not spots of access and support. An outcome of this has been community-led broadband, particularly in rural areas lying beyond the reach of an enabled exchange. Examples include Cybermoor in Alston, Cumbria, originally funded under a DTI project, and since evolved into a social enterprise supporting other similar rural communities to access broadband and harness the technologies in ways which are appropriate for their communities (see www.cybermoor.org); a second example is Connected Communities in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland, where it was considered unlikely for the telecoms industry to invest in broadband connectivity due to the sparsity of population and distance from major centres (see www.connectedcommunities.co.uk), and an individual entrepreneur decided to set up a subscriber network to overcome this disadvantage. The future leaders will therefore, in all likelihood, comprise firstly continuing prioritisation and intervention at a European level, since: “Information Society policy, from European to local level, now recognises that market forces will not provide a good standard of broadband infrastructure to all geographical areas…and that the provision is only advantageous if individuals will take it up and exploit the capabilities of the new technology…” (Talbot and Gillespie, 2008, p.171) Secondly, national governments (in the devolved administrations) will lead in continuing to seek to match practice with rhetoric, in the interests of economic regeneration and social inclusion. The above reports build on work since the mid 1990s (including the 2000 PAT Report on closing the digital divide in disadvantages communities, and the ESRC E-Society research programme 2003-2007). Thirdly, alongside these will be regional and enterprise development agencies which increasingly have it within their remit to encourage use of broadband and associated technologies, particularly in the microenterprise and SME sectors. Finally, the on the ground leaders, in both rural and urban contexts, will continue to push for, and achieve, communal ICT centres for those on low income and for those with no other form of provision. These entrepreneurs will continue to form a vital part of the provision landscape which – together – seeks to harness the benefits of connectedness that can be realised from application of digital technologies. References Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J. and Lassila, O. (2001), The Semantic Web, Scientific American Magazine. Bradshaw, J. (1997), “An Introduction to Software Agents”, Software Agents, AAAI Press/The MIT Press. Cairncross, F. (2001), The Death of Distance 2.0 How the communications revolution will change our lives, New York: Texere. Gurstein, M. (2000), Community Informatics: enabling communities with Information and Communications Technologies, London: Idea Group Publishing. Hellawell, S. (2001), Beyond Access: ICT and social inclusion, London: Fabian Society. Kelly, K. (2009), Two Strands of Connectionism: http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2009/01/two_strands_of.php. Accessed January 2009. Loader, B., Hague, B., Keeble, L. and Eagle, D. (2001), Community Informatics: Shaping ComputerMediated Social Networks, London: Routledge. MacLeod and Grimes (2003), Connecting rural SMEs to the digital economy: some empirical evidence from Ireland and Scotland. Paper presented at ESRS 2003, Sligo, Ireland. McCown, R.L. (2002a), “Probing the enigma of the decision support system for farmers: Learning from experience and from theory”, Agricultural Systems, 74, pp.1-10.

7

Ritchie, B. and Brindley, C. (2005), “ICT adoption by SMEs: implications for relationships and management”, New Technology, Work and Employment 20:3 Scottish Executive (2004), Smart, Successful Scotland: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/11/20246/46555 Scottish Executive (2006), Urban Rural Classification 2005/2006. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive, Office of the Chief Statistician. Servon, L. S. (2002), Bridging the Digital Divide: Technology, Community & Public Policy, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Skerratt, S. (2006), “SME behaviour and ICTs: building culture into evaluation and intervention”, In Matilainen, A. (ed) (2006), ICTs: providing information, advice and services to rural SMEs? Helsinki: Ruralia Institute, University of Helsinki; pp. 57-73. ISBN 952-10-2575-1 Skerratt, S. (2005), “Our digital futures: policies for broadband connectivity in remote and rural communities of Ireland and Scotland”, in Scottish Affairs Journal, Issue No. 53, Autumn 2005. Skerratt, S. (May 2003b), The implications for rural and regional populations of the Irish government’s provision of broadband communications infrastructure, National Institute of Regional and Spatial Analysis, National University of Ireland. Skerratt, S. & Warren, M. (2003a), “Rural communities & broadband: local appropriation of a global technology?”, In Cunningham, P., Cunningham, M. and Fatelnig, P. (2003), Building the Knowledge Economy: Issues, Applications, Case Studies, Oxford: IOS Press, pp. 150-157. ISBN: 1 58603 379 4 Skerratt, S. and Warren, M. (2003b), “Decision-mapping and community adoption dynamics: rural broadband as the focus.” Paper presented to E-Europe, Bologna, October 2003. Skerratt, S. and Warren, M. (2003c), “Rural communities & broadband: local appropriation of a global technology?” Paper presented to the Conference for Online Communities, Amsterdam, September 2003. Talbot, H. & Gillespie, A. (2008), Policy and the Rural Information Society, IN Rusten, G. and Skerratt, S. Information and Communication Technology in Rural Society, Being Rural in a Digital Age, pp. 155-174. Routledge. Wellman, B. (2002), “Little Boxes, Glocalization, and Networked Individualism”, Web-paper, http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/publications/littleboxes/littlebox.PDF. Accessed January 2007

8