Category: Civic Participation

Exploring Socio-Digital Exclusion in Leeds

27/02/2024 

Background

It has proven difficult to accurately capture the lived experience of digital poverty and digital exclusion. Although distinguishing who is and who is not connected to the digital world may offer a valuable measure for tracking the progress of digital inclusion efforts, it does little to account for the complex and lived realities of digital poverty. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the conditions that exclude disadvantaged social groups from the opportunities offered by being online (Robinson et al., 2020). It has also intensified the digitalisation of everyday life to the extent that digital technologies and the internet have been described as “pervasive and unavoidable” facets of modern life, thanks to the consolidated social and digital worlds through “compulsory computing” (Allmann et al., 2020, p.2). Of particular concern are what detrimental impacts may come for those who already have low income, are unemployed, have low educational attainment, experience health impairments and disabilities, are from an ethnic minority or have English as a second language, as well as those who are older (Helsper and Reisdorf, 2017).

The Yorkshire and the Humber regions are some of the few regions in the UK to have undergone a “noticeable decline” in the proportion of adults possessing at least a basic level of digital skills (Lloyds Bank, 2021a). The region has also dropped below the nationwide average of 81 percent (falling from 84 percent to 77 percent between 2019 and 2021) and is home to the greatest proportion of its adult population experiencing “very low digital engagement” (30 percent) (Lloyds Bank, 2021b). To explore the extent of digital poverty in the city and reflect on the effort to digitally include those in the greatest need, this essay draws on key insights from a wider report by Davies (2023).

The Digital Poverty Narrative

The scholarship on digital inequalities has progressed significantly since it established the dichotomy of who does and who does not have access to the internet, at the turn of the century. Today, many aspects of social life have consolidated with digital worlds. This is well exemplified in Wessels' (2015) examination of how one’s ability to become a “digitally recognised citizen” – to be granted digital access by institutions, such as banks – may hinder one’s offline, social status. The discourse of digital inequalities now incorporates the “systematic differences between individuals from different backgrounds in the opportunities and abilities to translate digital engagement into real-world benefits and avoid the harm that might result from engagement with information and communication technologies” (Helsper, 2021, p. 44). As much as Wessels’ (2015) study exemplifies the added depth and complexity of comprehending digital inequality, it also underscores the range of attitudes in evaluating the impact of digital technologies.

It could be argued that the UK government has adopted a techno-optimist attitude, rather than a socio-pessimist attitude, in its incorporation of digital technologies into the delivery of public services. According to Yates et al. (2015a), the dynamics of a “digital-by-default” agenda have been similar to the private sector’s expansion of online-only services. To improve the ‘efficiency’ of service delivery and with the offer of saving £1.7 billion a year, the transference of public services away from face-to-face delivery risks digitally excluding already marginalised and socially excluded social groups (Cabinet Office, 2013; Yates et al., 2015b). In July 2022, the UK Government updated its Digital Strategy. As part of a wider programme of infrastructure development, digital up-skilling and online security enhancement, the strategy declared its aim for the UK to be “the best place in the world to start and grow a technology business” (DCMS, 2022). Despite the government’s intent on re-distributing the benefits of a digital economy, the need to directly address digital poverty seems to have faded away (Crouch, 2022; Micklethwaite, 2022). Recent figures estimate that 6.3 percent of adults in the UK have never used the Internet (ONS, 2021a). The number of those considered to be digitally excluded rises to around 20 percent when the foundational skills, such as those required to get online and use the Internet effectively, are accounted for (Lloyds Bank, 2021b). However, for those who remain entirely excluded from the Internet, a variety of barriers limit them from reaping its benefits.

As digital inequalities play out and developed countries move towards saturated levels of digital inclusion, lines of inquiry have turned to the varied outcomes of being online and staying online. Why is it that particular social groups may not benefit from online activities? And how can such activities reduce or exacerbate pre-existing modes of socio-economic inequality?

Conversations With Practitioners

To explore how digital inequalities play out in the everyday lives of those living in Leeds and the extent to which digital inclusion schemes support those in the city, the perspectives of practitioners were chosen to offer a nuanced perspective of how digital inequality coalesces at the local level. Participants in Davies’ (2023) study were represented by those working in financial advice groups, benefit support services, local community groups, libraries, and more. Despite a handful of insights into the experiences of practitioners on the frontline – which include valuable contributions from Mervyn et al. (2014), Breit et al. (2021) and Tummers and Roco (2015) – their experiences have received little attention in the digital inequality scholarship. From their first-hand experience of digital inequalities, the practitioners in this study mostly reflected on their capacity to facilitate digital inclusion support, as well as the difficulties they found in coping with the digitalisation of services.

Between April and July 2022, the wider study undertook eleven semi-structured interviews with twelve local practitioners in the Leeds area. The interviews allowed practitioners in the public and third sectors to discuss their first-hand encounters with supporting those who experience digital poverty and its fallout. This approach offered the study the chance to “step into the mind of another person, to see and experience worlds as they do themselves” (McCracken, 1988, p. 9). Moreover, their unique perspectives involved both their efforts to directly support the day-to-day lives of community members whilst simultaneously acting as administrators of resources, knowledge and guidance being implemented by the organisational structures of digital-by-default services (DWP, 2010; Helsper, 2021). Not only did these participants offer an alternative viewpoint on how digital inequalities play out in everyday life, but they were also offered a chance to build connections and contribute to inter-organisational thinking at a local level. This is of particular importance given that there is a “fragmented service of providers and charities in Leeds who are seeking collaborative guidance” to tackle digital inequalities (100% Digital Leeds, 2022a).

Socio-Digital Realities

Certain groups have been identified as ‘most at risk’ of digital exclusion, primarily because “those at risk of social exclusion […] are more likely to have a digital experience that does not fully exploit the possibilities that the Internet can offer” (Ragnedda et al., 2022, p. 9). These groups are more likely to be exposed to the disadvantages of both not being online and being online (see Tutin and Atherton, 2022; Vik et al., 2018). Therefore, those adults who may be digitally excluded in Leeds are more likely to be members of minority groups that are signified by; those who are unemployed (5.5 percent), those with no formal qualifications (14.7 percent), those whose first language is not English (8.1 percent), and those who are considered to have a disability (7.6 percent) (Leeds Observatory, 2021b; ONS, 2023). Given that the estimated population of Leeds in 2021 was 812,000, the table below further illustrates the size of groups at the highest risk of digital exclusion (ONS, 2023). Although measuring the size of particular social groups in Leeds may help to predict the proportion of those who are at risk of digital exclusion, such measurements only function as predictive tools for identifying exclusionary forces and offer little explanative power due to their superficial qualities (Scheerder et al., 2017). Furthermore, there remains a lack of granular-scaled data to provide substantial insight into the context-specific, nuanced real lives of people who are at risk of digital exclusion.

The scope of digital inclusion efforts in Leeds was captured in this wider study through the exercise of mapping schemes that were available to residents in Leeds throughout 2022. Of the 21 schemes selected, around two-thirds (14) of the schemes provided some form of training for people looking to improve their skills, media literacy and confidence online. This reflects the wider shift by government and policy discourse away from connectivity as the key mode of digital inclusion practice, towards upskilling and educational models for digital inclusion. The results also showed that there is an effort to introduce intermediaries to help improve the capabilities and motivations of digitally excluded people in Leeds (Mason et al., 2022). Despite this, the schemes on offer in Leeds appear to be disjointed and lack effective signposting. In a similar fashion to Abey’s (2022, p. 5) findings, there is also a “patchwork of schemes and initiatives that are too fragmented and piecemeal” across the city. Not only was the online advertisement and promotion of schemes lacking for this investigation but it could also be interpreted that those in need of support may struggle to find these schemes (CfAB, 2021). Whilst a handful of organisations have mapped some of these schemes – see 100% Digital Leeds (2022b) and Good Things Foundation (2023) – such resources are often out of reach of those in the deepest of digital exclusion and isolation. It also takes significant effort to ensure such resources are up to date, given the turnover of such schemes. This is a task that many public and third-sector organisations may struggle to afford, now that 41 percent of these organisations in the UK are reportedly in weakened financial positions since COVID-19 (King et al., 2022).

One of the key themes that have emerged from the practitioners’ insights was the contribution that traditional social inequalities played in excluding the people they supported. For one interviewee, it wasn’t just a matter of being digitally connected, as they stated that it was also “a social thing for them and they just like coming in to see friends, familiar faces and people from their community”. For another, their process of digital inclusion required almost no digital intervention at all because “that positive digital conversation isn't even picking up a device. I spent a whole hour on a digital drop-in, just talking to somebody and trying to help them over this barrier that was stopping them from wanting to do what they wanted to do”. For many practitioners, it was clear that the digital world could not be treated as separate from the social one. Equally for Goedhart et al.'s study of the delivery of ICT education sessions for single mothers, they were most effective when they were “tailored and integrated into other social services and the daily lives of the mothers involved, which in this case means the need to integrate ICT training with poverty alleviation and language skills” (Goedhart et al., 2019, p. 2362). It is key to appreciate that intervening in the life worlds of digitally marginalised and excluded social groups is not practised in isolation. The dangers of the worsening of circumstances and the transposable relationship between online and offline domains are exemplified in this discussion:

“It wasn't just a digital exclusion. There was also kind of a a cultural exclusion to being online too, you know, especially within, or outside of your family, […] video calling cousins and and brothers around the world. But it it was a little bit different when they realized that there was gonna be a camera into their house. And there could be people joining that call and there could be people in their their background […] I really, um quite vividly remember when somebody heard a man's voice in the background and you know, bearing in mind these a lot of these women were from quite strict Muslim backgrounds. They were in their own home, so they didn't have their scarves on and they were relaxed. And then to think ohh this, you know, I heard a man's voice in the background on somebody else, on somebody else's call completely through them, completely freaked them out and and shook their confidence of being online.”

This typifies the digital vulnerabilities that certain groups may be exposed to when they have access to the Internet, regardless of having the skills to utilise the Internet for their own desired use. It also highlights the exclusionary feedback loop that is often overlooked in a push for totalising inclusivity.

The development of relationships between organisations and community members, and an understanding of the value of community spaces emerged as a key topic from these interviews. This is well-captured in what Helsper (2021) terms the meso-level of social processes, which refers to the informal practices of digital inclusion, the value of community spaces, as well as fundamental feelings of trust and safety. For Helsper, the meso-level is concerned mostly with ‘socialisation’, which considers “how behaviours, norms, and values around the importance and the use of ICTs are learned and expressed in everyday interactions" (Helsper, 2021, p. 41). This was emphasised by some practitioners who found it difficult to find suitable digital inclusion resources due to the distrust found in the providers of some schemes. After all, “refugee communities have such a big fear and there’s so many things to think about” and for some refugee groups it “doesn’t feel like they can trust them [the council]” because of the negative experiences they have had with associated institutions. In short, trust and confidence in local intermediaries and organisations who are already known to digitally excluded social groups can be vital for building inclusion programmes.

The freedom, autonomy and explorative character of using both digital technology and the Internet were valuable preconditions for having positive outcomes for many participants in this study. This report also found that WhatsApp – the instant, digital messaging and calling service – offered a community-inspired method of overcoming socio-digital isolation. What was attractive about this tool to one practitioner was its affordability because “it’s like free. You’re not using data so you'll get WhatsApp calls because you get a lot of young people who have a lot of problems with their phones, like not having top-up or like just losing the phones all the time”. They found that members of their community were using it already as their main communicative method, therefore it also made it “so much easier to talk to people. It makes it so much easier to just, well, invite them to groups and yeah, just like send them videos and everything”. In much the same way that Salemink's (2016) study acknowledged the role that WhatsApp played in strengthening in-group dynamics within the Gypsy-Travelling community, Davies’ (2023) report also documents the effect that informal communication can have on distributing valuable social resources and assets. It enabled groups to mediate their limited capacity to be online with types of activity that work on their terms. It could be argued that the value of everyday, digital realities cannot be overlooked in designing comprehensive inclusion practices. Particularly when “informal learning drives the development of the kind of literacy that allows individuals to be full citizens in digital societies” and is part of a community-led approach that encapsulates the social realities of traditionally excluded groups (Helsper, 2021, p. 92).

Conclusions & Policy Recommendations

In the UK, digital technology across society has become embedded in everyday life. Although the numbers of those who are measured to be digitally disconnected from society continue to shrink in absolute terms, those who remain digitally excluded are increasingly distanced from reaping the rewards of being online. Whether they lack quality access to digital resources, struggle to develop core digital skills and literacy, are limited in how they use the Internet or are more likely to reach negative outcomes from being online, these experiences are becoming more concentrated in groups who are also excluded offline due to the forces of traditional inequality.

In exploring the available data on the determinants of social and digital exclusion and mapping the digital inclusion schemes offered to people in Leeds, the results from this report suggest that digital poverty remains a pertinent issue for vulnerable, minority groups. By drawing on the perspectives of practitioners, this report found several themes shared between their experiences. Such experiences are reflected in the policy recommendations below and are informed by the lessons of those directly involved in tackling socio-digital inequality. The findings from this report suggest that effective digital inclusion practices are community-level, person-focused and co-constructed with those who are digitally excluded. They should also be integrated into a wider framework of digital exclusion schemes, which provide a transparent and sustainable pathway through each level of digital inequalities. These schemes need to be built on historical, trusted relationships, with the support of intermediaries who can help to reproduce the environments and circumstances enjoyed by those who benefit from being online. Informed by these findings Davies’ (2023) report, the following recommendations describe how digital inclusion practices could be improved:

1.     Promote targeted inclusion schemes for the most digitally excluded groups – targeted schemes can sensitively focus on the specific socio-digital needs of excluded groups.

2.     Consider informal and more-than-measurable means of digital inclusion – rudimentary and informal techniques should be considered as part of digital inclusion packages.

3.     Determine a digital inclusion ‘pathway’ – given that digital inclusion is not a fixed state, the journey out of digital poverty should be promoted and accessible at all points of someone’s life course.

4.     Embed digital inclusion practices into social worlds – inclusion schemes have proven to be effective when they are tied up in the delivery of offline, everyday services.

5.     Give greater power to local communities – by involving those who have experienced the realities and implications of digital exclusion, digital inclusion may become more relevant for those facing similar challenges.

6.     Involve practitioners – by involving frontline services workers, managerial staff and practitioners from local organisations, schemes should aim to improve their access to equipment, skills support and funding applications. This helps to mitigate the emotional demand of workloads and digitalised services, as well as navigate the plethora of available digital inclusion schemes.

7.     Consider keeping services and support offline – some groups may hold attitudes towards the Internet that mean they stay offline or that being online is detrimental to their quality of life and standard of living. In these instances, vital services should continue to offer non-digital alternative ways to access high-quality services

References

100% Digital Leeds. (2022a). Our networks: Digital inclusion networks. [Online]. [Accessed 15 April 2022]. Available at: https://library.leeds.ac.uk/referencing-examples/9/leeds-harvard/556/website-or-webpage

100% Digital Leeds. (2022b). Leeds community digital support directory. [Online]. [Accessed 2 May 2022]. Available at: https://digitalinclusionleeds.com/support-for-individuals/leeds-community-support-directory

Abey, J. (2022). Bridging the divide: tackling digital inequality in a post-pandemic world. [Online]. London: Fabian Society. [Accessed 25 April 2022]. Available at: https://fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Bridging-the-Divide-web-file-Fabian-Society.pdf

Allmann, K. (2022). UK digital poverty evidence review. [Online]. Ascot: Digital Poverty Alliance. [Accessed 22 June 2022]. Available at: https://digitalpovertyalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/UK-Digital-Poverty-Evidence-Review-2022-v1.0-compressed.pdf

Allmann, K., Blank, G., and Wong, W. (2020). Libraries on the frontline of the digital divide: The Oxfordshire Digital Inclusion project report. [Online]. Oxford: Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, University of Oxford. [Accessed 3 March 2022]. Available from: https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-and-subject-groups/oxfordshire-digital-inclusion-project

Breit, E., Edeland, C., Løberg, I. B., and Røhnebæk, M. T. (2021). Digital coping: How frontline workers cope with digital service encounters. Social Policy & Administration, 55(5): pp. 833–847.

Cabinet Office. (2013). Government Digital Strategy: December 2013. [Online]. London: UK Government. [Accessed 3 January 2022]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-digital-strategy/government-digital-strategy

Centre for Ageing Better. (2021). COVID-19 and the digital divide: Supporting digital inclusion and skills during the pandemic and beyond. [Online]. London: Centre for Ageing Better. [Accessed 16 February 2022]. Available at: https://ageing-better.org.uk/resources/covid-19-and-digital-divide-supporting-digital-inclusion-and-skills

Crouch, E. (2022). Digital must underpin government’s Levelling Up agenda. 2  February. Digital Poverty Alliance: Challenges, News & Updates. [Online]. [Accessed 6 February 2022]. Available from: https://digitalpovertyalliance.org/news-updates/digital-underpin-governments-levelling-up-agenda/?utm_source=pocket_mylist

Davies, G. R. W. (2023). Exploring digital poverty: A study of socio-digital exclusion and digital inclusion practices in Leeds. Masters Thesis, University of Leeds. Available at: https://www.digitalinclusionuk.org/davies-report-2023

Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. (2022). UK Digital Strategy. [Online]. London: UK Government. [Accessed 20 November 2022]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uks-digital-strategy/uk-digital-strategy

Department for Work and Pensions. (2010). 21st century welfare. London: UK Government.

DiMaggio, P., and Hargittai, E., (2001). From the ‘digital divide’ to ‘digital inequality’: Studying Internet use as penetration increases. Centre for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Princeton University, 4(1).

Goedhart, N. S., Broerse, J. E. W., Kattouw, R., and Dedding, C. (2019). “Just having a computer doesn’t make sense”: The digital divide from the perspective of mothers with a low socio-economic position. New Media & Society, 21(11–12): pp. 2347–2365.

Gonzales, A. L. (2016). The contemporary US digital divide: from initial access to technology maintenance. Information, Communication & Society, 19(2): pp. 234-248.

Good Things Foundation. (2023). National digital inclusion network. [Online]. [Accessed 5 March 2023]. Available at: https://www.goodthingsfoundation.org

Helsper, E. J. (2021). The digital disconnect: The social causes and consequences of digital inequalities. London: SAGE Publications.

Helsper, E. J., and Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: where is the evidence? British Educational Research Journal, 36(3): pp. 503-520.

Helsper, E. J., and Reisdorf, B. C. (2017). The emergence of a “digital underclass” in Great Britain and Sweden: Changing reasons for digital exclusion. New Media & Society, 19(8): pp. 1253–1270.

Helsper, E. J., Eynon, R. van Dijk, J. A. G. M., and van Deursen, A. J. A. M. (2017). The compoundness and sequentiality of digital inequality. International Journal of Communication, 11(1): pp. 452–473.

King, D., Chan, O., Coule, T., Dahill, D., Mainard-Sardon, J., Martin, A., Rossiter, W., Smith, S., Stuart, J., Vahidi, G., and Ibokessien, N. (2022). Respond, recover, reset: Two years on. [Online]. Nottingham Trent University: Centre for People, Work and Organisational Practice. Available from: https://www.ntu.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0029/1673741/Respond-Recover-Reset-Two-Years-On-2022.pdf

Leeds Observatory. (2022). Leeds Poverty Factbook. [Online]. [Accessed 5 June 2022] Available at: https://observatory.leeds.gov.uk/leeds-poverty-fact-book/

Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. 30th Edition. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Livingstone, S., and Helsper, E. J. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young people and the digital divide. New Media Society, 9(1): pp. 671–696.

Lloyds Bank. (2021a). UK consumer digital index 2021. [Online]. London: Lloyds Bank Group. [Accessed 3 April 2022]. Available from: https://www.lloydsbank.com/banking-with-us/whats-happening/consumer-digital-index.html#

Lloyds Bank. (2021b). Essential digital skills report. [Online]. London: Lloyds Bank Group. [Accessed 4 April 2022]. Available from: https://www.lloydsbank.com/banking-with-us/whats-happening/consumer-digital-index.html#

Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching. 2nd Edition. London: SAGE Publications.

McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Mervyn, K., Simon, A., and Allen, D. K. (2014). Digital inclusion and social inclusion: A tale of two cities. Information, Communication & Society, 17(9): pp.1086–1104.

Micklethwaite, A. (2022). The Digital Strategy: Welcome, but a missed opportunity. 13th June. Good Things Foundation. [Online]. [Accessed 25 June 2022]. Available from: https://www.goodthingsfoundation.org/what-we-do/news/the-digital-strategy-welcome-but-a-missed-opportunity/

Office for National Statistics. (2019). Exploring the UK’s digital divide. [Online]. London: Office for National Statistics. [Accessed 7 March 2022]. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/householdcharacteristics/homeinternetandsocialmediausage/articles/exploringtheuksdigitaldivide/2019-03-04

Office for National Statistics. (2021). Internet users, UK: 2020. Office for National Statistics. [Online]. 6th April. [Accessed 22 January 2022]. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/itandinternetindustry/bulletins/internetusers/2020

Office for National Statistics. (2023). Census 2021: dataset. Office for National Statistics. [Online]. [Accessed 14 March 2023]. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/census

Ragnedda, M., Ruiu, M. L., and Addeo, F. (2022). The self-reinforcing effect of digital and social exclusion: The inequality loop. Telematics and Informatics, 72(1): p.101852.

Robinson, L. 2009. A taste for the necessary. Information, Communication & Society, 12(4): pp. 488–507.

Robinson, L., Schulz, J., Khilnani, A., Ono, H., Cotten, S. R., McClain, N., and Tolentino, N. (2020). Digital inequalities in time of pandemic: COVID-19 exposure risk profiles and new forms of vulnerability. First Monday, 25(10).

Ruiu, M. L., Ragnedda, M., Addeo, F., and Ruiu, G. (2023). Investigating how the interaction between individual and circumstantial determinants influence the emergence of digital poverty: A post-pandemic survey among families with children in England. Information, Communication & Society, 0(0): pp.1–22.

Salemink, K. (2016). Digital margins: Social and digital exclusion of Gypsy-Travelers in the Netherlands. Environment & Planning A: Economy and Space, 48(6): pp. 1170–1187.

Scheerder, A. J., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., and van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2017). Determinants of Internet skills, uses and outcomes: A systematic review of the second- and third-level digital divide. Telematics & Informatics, 34(8): pp. 1607–1624.

Tummers, L., and Rocco, P. (2015). Serving clients when the server crashes: How frontline workers cope with E-government challenges. Public Administration Review, 75(6): pp. 817–827.

Tutin, J., and Atherton, B. (2022). 100% Digital Leeds update: April 2022. [Online]. Leeds: Leeds City Council. [Accessed 15 May 2022]. Available from: https://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/documents/s231178/100%20Digital%20Leeds%20update%20report%20-%20April%202022%20-%20IIIG%20Scrutiny%20Board.pdf

van Deursen, A. J. A. M., and Helsper, E. J. (2018). Collateral benefits of Internet use: Explaining the diverse outcomes of engaging with the Internet. New Media & Society, 20(7): pp. 2333–2351.

van Deursen, A. J. A. M., and van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2019). The first-level digital divide shifts from inequalities in physical access to inequalities in material access. New Media & Society, 21(2): pp. 354–375.

Vik, P., Dayson, K., and Curtis, J. (2018). Financial Exclusion and Poverty – Historic Trends in Leeds – Full Report. [Online]. Leeds: Leeds City Council. [Accessed 5 November 2021]. Available at: https://www.leeds.gov.uk/benefits/financial-inclusion

Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: re-thinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wessels, B. (2015). Authentication, status, and power in a digitally organized society. International Journal of Communication, 9(6): pp. 2801–2818.

Yates, S. J., Kirby, J., and Lockley, E. (2015a). Digital media use: Differences and inequalities in relation to class and age. Sociological Research Online, 20(4): pp.71–91.

Yates, S. J., Kirby, J., and Lockley, E. (2015b). ‘Digital-by-default’: Reinforcing exclusion through technology. In: Foster, L., Brunton, A., Deeming, C., and Haux, T. eds. In Defence of Welfare 2. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 158–161.