A strange meeting yesterday, in which some Consultants presented their findings from an initial research exercise examining the state of Digital Inclusion in Nottingham and how it can be improved.

To begin with, they presented a context statement laying the a broad definition of Digital Inclusion / exclusion and what it could mean to the national / regional / local economy were people more engaged. Hmmm. This was all robust, if unsurprising stuff, streams of various percentages flew by causing eyebrows to raise and small amounts of breath to be inhaled sharply. Things began to get more difficult, as they usually do, when the infographics were broken out. A breathtakingly confusing diagram hurt many of us bad. Extraordinary, malformed, mis-shapen rectangles (and hexagons, stars, triangles…) circled the screen with small title text placed within them. The consultant apologised that the big arrow, which he implied would instantly decode the crazy paving of his boxes, was missing from the centre of the screen for some – probably technical – reason. I’m working really hard to understand this but it’s in vain, I’m hopelessly excluded. Writing this now, I remember that I’ve been looking for an opportunity to use the word ‘befuddled’, which Margaret used in conversation a few months ago. I’m momentarily elated to be able to do that now. I was brutally befuddled.

Having presented their feedback and observations, some of which was very supportive, some of which critical, none of which was particularly insightful – there was time for questions. My mate D, called out the lead researcher on his criticism of the social media strategies used by the Council. This rapidly escalated into a questioning of the veracity of the research itself, which the presenter roundly failed to defend. Largely it seemed, the results were coming from the ‘toolkit’. The ‘toolkit’, I believe, is some software into which the interview results were fed. The ‘toolkit’, by an undisclosed metric, then spits out its findings over which the experts ‘overlay their experience’. It’s like NHS direct but without the promise of feeling better by the end of the process.

Whilst National policy clearly drives mass-awareness of this issue and one would hope will illuminate awareness of the opportunities on a mass level, Digital Inclusion is surely a local issue, contingent on local cultures, behaviours and community groups. What was great and encouraging about the meeting was meeting lot of groups together in a room and engaged in discussing this stuff. From a festival point of view, meeting the people involved who can really help give some meaning to technology in peoples lives was incredibly helpful.

Digital Inclusion clearly and obviously makes fiscal sense from a public spend perspective, but needs to make social / cultural sense for the citizen user – some tangible translation. E-Government might be successful in reducing transaction costs for people paying their council tax, parking fines or other punitive costs – but clearly needs to amount to something richer than simply streamlining a payment process. Running up to a general election this is surely a great opportunity to engage folks – and more specifically to not just measure their engagement, but to understand and codify it – and as a result rethink what Digital Inclusion actually means. It’s not just access and education we all need to become included, it’s meaning – and through that, motivation.

Notes.

There is a toolkit somewhere.

There’s a Central Government initiative called ‘Total Place’. Liverpool is becoming one.