Professor David McGillivray conducted a rapid review of recent literature on digital skills development in the UK. The review examined the current state of digital inclusion, factors impacting inclusion, effective interventions, and benefits of inclusion. The review found that while internet access and usage is growing, barriers remain for older individuals, those in low-income households or social housing, and those with disabilities. Effective interventions are locally-focused, provide informal and repeated support, and address individual needs and motivations. Promoting meaningful digital inclusion requires addressing both technical skills and broader social inclusion issues.

2. DREAMING / BELIEVING / ACHIEVING
A 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY
Rapid Review of Evidence for Basic
Digital Skills
Professor David McGillivray
School of Media, Culture & Society
University of the West of Scotland
August 22nd 2017

3. DREAMING / BELIEVING / ACHIEVING
A 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY
Background
• Commissioned to produce a summary of recent evidence and
learning of basic digital skills development in the UK
• Conducted a ‘Rapid Review’ of academic and grey literature
written from 2012-17 addressing four research questions:
i. What is the current extent of digital inclusion in the UK?
ii. What socio-demographic factors impact on digital inclusion
and how might these barriers best be addressed?
iii. What interventions ‘work’ and which interventions ‘look
promising’ in promoting digital inclusion?
iv. What are the primary social and economic benefits associated
with digital inclusion and how are these best realised?

4. DREAMING / BELIEVING / ACHIEVING
A 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY
What is the current extent of digital inclusion in the UK?
• Indicators of progress towards digital uptake
• The ONS (2016) survey of internet access suggested that:
– 82% of adults (aged 16+) access the internet on an almost daily basis, up
from 78% in 2015
– 89% of GB households had internet access in 2016, an increase of 3% on
the previous year’s survey
– 71% of internet users now use their smartphones to access the web and
21% now connect through their TV
– 75% of adults had used the web ‘on the go’ via mobile or other smart
devices
– While almost all young adults – ages 16-24 – had accessed the web using
a mobile device only 33% of the over 65s had done so

5. DREAMING / BELIEVING / ACHIEVING
A 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY
ICT has become an indispensable part of both the workplace and our
own leisure activities’ (Hatlevik & Christopherson, 2013:240)
• Most popular online activities were sending and receiving email,
finding out about goods and services
• But significant differences in age group preference:
– People in the 16-24 age group were most likely to engage in social, leisure
and recreational activities online
– Ages 25-34 were most likely to use internet banking services and to read
newspapers
– While 63% of adults engaged in social networking activities online only
51% of 55-64 years olds did so… and only 23% of the over 65s
• Geographical disparities also evident:
– Rural peripherality issues (access and mobile ownership/connection)
Differentiated usage

6. DREAMING / BELIEVING / ACHIEVING
A 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY
What socio-demographic factors impact upon digital
inclusion and how might these barriers best be addressed?
• Clear differences in internet use across social categories have
been apparent since the mid 1990s (Bach et al, 2013:249)
• The high degree of correlation between digital inclusion/
exclusion and social inclusion/exclusion has also been
recognised (Mervyn et al, 2014:12; White 2016)
• Those who remain unconnected increasingly likely to be
vulnerable and socially isolated across social and economic
indicators
• Research has shown that lacking basic digital skills and being
offline costs an average of £744 annually (see
doteveryone.org.uk).

7. DREAMING / BELIEVING / ACHIEVING
A 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY
• CAB surveys (2013 & 2016) revealing, concluding that:
– Only slightly more than half the respondents (54%) had internet at
home
– 36% said they had never used the internet
– 11% said they hardly ever did so
– 72% said they would struggle to apply for a job or benefits online
(Beattie-Smith, 2013)
• The surveys show precipitous decline on digital confidence with
age
• The 2014 SHS showed that only 61% of those living in rented
social housing have internet access, 60% of those with incomes
of <£6k and 51% of those with incomes of £6-10k annually.
What socio-demographic factors impact upon digital
inclusion and how might these barriers best be addressed?

8. DREAMING / BELIEVING / ACHIEVING
A 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY
• MacDonald & Clayton (2013) found that the move towards online service
provision risked further disadvantaging people with disabilities already less
likely to be digitally engaged.
• 42% of disabled respondents had never used a mobile phone or computer
to access the web
• Usage disparities can mask apparent improvements:
– In Netherlands, van Derusen & van Dijk (2014) found that those with lower levels of
education and those with disabilities were spending more time online than those with
higher education attainment or employed people
– However, those in the former groups were undertaking activities less likely to result in
socio-economic benefit.
• This corresponds with other studies suggesting types of use differs across
the socio-demographic spectrum
• Mobile solutions less successful for ‘smartphone by circumstance’ users
What socio-demographic factors impact upon digital
inclusion and how might these barriers best be addressed?

9. DREAMING / BELIEVING / ACHIEVING
A 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY
• Although addressing the factors contributing to digital exclusion is
complex, there are some clear pointers:
– Focussing on ‘use’ as a metric of digital engagement is not all that
useful (especially see Helsper, 2012 & Helsper & Reisdorf, 2016)
– Instead it might be more insightful to look at ‘whether the nature of
their use [of ICT] enhances their life’ (Helsper, 2012:13)
– It can’t be assumed that once ICT use has been begun it will be
maintained unproblematically (Olphert & Damordan, 2013)
• More nuanced research is needed on how realms of digital and lived
exclusion correspond (Helsper, 2012)
• Bach et al (2013) propose a ‘digital human capital approach’ which
links the digital with local community and culture:
– Access and tools/skills to bring about change
What socio-demographic factors impact upon digital
inclusion and how might these barriers best be addressed?

10. DREAMING / BELIEVING / ACHIEVING
A 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY
What interventions ‘work’ and which interventions ‘look
promising’ in promoting digital inclusion?
• The complex interaction of factors contributing to digital
exclusion make the implementation of workable solutions
particularly challenging for policy makers (Bach et al, 2013).
• The people with the least ICT competence are also the least
likely to take advantage of training opportunities (Hogan, 2016).
• Any intervention must reflect the broader national context,
changing non-user/ex-user profile and individual experience
with the web to be successful (Helsper & Reisdorf, 2016).
• Assistance for the digitally excluded must take into account
individual and community circumstances if it is to be effective. A
‘one size fits all’ approach is unlikely to work.

11. DREAMING / BELIEVING / ACHIEVING
A 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY
• Doteveryone piloted a number of approaches to improving
digital skills on a ‘test and learn’ basis.The approaches
included:
– Digital zones: supported spaces for learning skills
– Deep dives: smaller, focussed groups addressing specific needs
– Community engagement: grassroots engagement to foster community
‘ownership’
• They found that:
– Going ‘hyper local’ is the most effective way of engaging the ‘hard to reach’
– People learn best from repeated, informal face-to-face & one-to-one support
– Understanding people’s motivation for learning something new is critical
– There is no magic formula!
What interventions ‘work’ and which interventions ‘look
promising’ in promoting digital inclusion?

12. DREAMING / BELIEVING / ACHIEVING
A 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY
• In a similar vein, Piercy (2016) suggests 3 potential avenues for
interventions to hard-to-access populations:
1. Peer support: a wide variety of approaches but tutor/mentee
relationship is common to all
2. Home access: a potential response to clear evidence that home-
based internet access improves skills and builds confidence.
3. Shared practice: focusing on cross-organizational collaboration to
foster informal environments for skills learning and exchange within
specialist service settings
• SCVO has drawn on some of these approaches in its One Digital
programme
What interventions ‘work’ and which interventions ‘look
promising’ in promoting digital inclusion?

13. DREAMING / BELIEVING / ACHIEVING
A 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY
• Digital exclusion comes with a price tag! Digital inclusion enables people to
search out the best deal.
• Employment and social opportunities are increasingly ‘digital by default’
• Investment in ‘channel shifting’ from face-to-face towards digital comes with
significant cost saving at the institutional level
• Clarity and accessibility of digital services is key; i.e. can benefits be claimed on
a smartphone which is the platform that many – as a result of their
circumstances - may be using to access the web
• Going digital brings numerous opportunities but a laissez faire approach to
inclusion based on the assumption that ‘digital participation would eventually
address social exclusion once technology access and basic technical skills were
administered to residents and citizens’ (Mervyn et al, 2014:8) is a false one.
What are the primary social and economic benefits associated with
digital inclusion and how are these best realised?

14. DREAMING / BELIEVING / ACHIEVING
A 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY
Conclusions
• Promoting digital inclusion in hard-to-reach populations
requires a multi-faceted approach
• Digital inclusion needs to be meaningful and consistent
with users’ overall needs and motivations
• Digital participation requires digital capital
• Leadership and mentorship are important
• Greater understanding of the long-term impacts of digital
inclusion is needed.

15. DREAMING / BELIEVING / ACHIEVING
A 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITY
Thank you!