Friday, 15 June 2012

Stimulating digital conversations in low income areas

Should we be investing in the potential of online networks in low income neighbourhoods? A recent study from the Young Foundation suggests it’s hard to generate online participation, claiming that:

‘The technology makes participation easier for most, but it does not affect the underlying behaviours and values that really motivate people to get involved.’

Meanwhile we’ve seen the publication in the US of an e-democracy.org report on an ‘inclusive social media’ project in two ‘high-immigrant, low-income, racially and ethnically diverse urban neighbourhoods’ in Minneapolis-St Paul. Some of the lessons here are about how digital conversations are seeded, and the need to have someone on the ground for a few hours a week stimulating interest face-to-face and online.

But it can be hard to get sites flourishing. There are real challenges to do with understanding marginalisation. Sometimes people who experience exclusion may perceive what others might think of as ‘empowering’ opportunities, with indifference.

Hugh Flouch and I have just published a review of the reports, with thoughts on the issues, over on the Networked Neighbourhoods blog.

 

15 Jun 2012 13:32:33 | Information and communication, networked neighbourhoods, Social exclusion

1 Comment

It seems to be hard to get people who are not routine users of computers to join local networks. When I last tried I had people refuse to sign up because they thought they would be inundated with dodgy porn sites, someone else refused to give out her email address because people might send her stuff unsolicited. The idea that email and the internet generally is about communication seems hard to get across. Even now, in a relatively affluent village with its own web site there seems little interest in any sort of local network. Passive involvement is fine it seems but any hint of someone else initiating contact seems to be ruled out. Spammers have a lot to answer for...

Posted by: ian | Friday, 15 June 2012 at 14:19

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Neighbours not trusted here Last October I wrote a post around a research finding that one in five people are unhappy for any of their neighbours to receive any of their post. Royal Mail have followed up on the research by applying for all its postmen and women to be able to leave large items of mail with a neighbour if the addressee is not at home. R4’s PM programme covered it last night and I even got a few words in meself, on Radio London’s drivetime. There has been a trial in six parts of the country (results here), in which a little over six per cent of items were delivered to neighbours after first time failure, and most people seem happy with it. It seems wholly sensible so long as there is an opt-out. Back in the autumn I had naively wondered about digital technology - QR codes perhaps - being used in this situation, so that a postman or woman could quickly and discreetly check when unable to deliver a parcel, whether the recipient had agreed that a neighbour might be asked to take it in. The social as well as the economic benefits are fairly obvious. What’s more, I can envisage a degree of sophistication coming into the system after a while. You could have parcel-specific options: ‘YES for that bunting you ordered for the street party’; ‘NO for the bomb-making chemicals or the illustrated magazine of sexual contortions’. Wait, you could even have neighbour-specific options – and not just particular houses but particular residents: ‘YES to number 16 if young Eleanor answers, but not the old man if he’s been drinking’. Oh, and watch out for the dog. But no, the trial just used boring old stickers, perhaps with good reason: you don’t want to be developing some fancy software platform if the idea’s going to flop or be thrown out by the regulator: ‘Customers who wished to opt out contacted Royal Mail online or by telephone to request a sticker to place on their door. This allowed Royal Mail to record the number of requests. There is no guarantee that all stickers were used…’ There’s nothing in the report to say what happened if you weren’t in when your sticker was delivered. I’d be livid, wouldn’t you? So anyway what’s interesting is that participants in the trial could choose to place a sticker on their door which in effect declares that they don’t trust their neighbours. What fun: bring back ethnography, if there’s a job walking round neighbourhoods counting the stickers, I’ll take it. During the thirteen week trial, we are told, Royal Mail received 4,425 opt-out requests. This amounted to 0.59% of households in the trial areas. (You can almost hear them muttering ‘And we know where you live’). From the conversations I have had and heard about today, what has struck me is the apparently high proportion of people who don’t like the idea of neighbours touching their mail. The practice is already widespread of course...
PREVIOUS POST
Seven ways to disrupt your public space I distrust numbered lists of ‘rules’ or ‘laws’. In community practice and social policy we ought to have grown out of cheap commercial advertising techniques. And apart from anything else I feel patronised by the implication that I am so stupid, these ideas that someone wants to sell me have to be reduced to a list I can carry round in my wallet and check furtively while I’m in the post office queue. (You bet my lips move while I'm reading it). Somewhere I have a draft of the Five Reasons Not to Bother With Silly Lists of Rules. Having said that, ahem, yes I accept there’s often useful stuff to be gleaned, even wisdom, as in this case over on the Placemaking Blog: Identify and eliminate your place’s persistent visitor pain points Dramatically reduce complexity Cut costs 90 percent or more: think Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper Make stupid places smart Teach your stakeholders to talk Be utterly inclusive Make loyalty dramatically easier than disloyalty.

Kevin Harris

Search

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments