The tools of Web 2.0 and its culture of open collaboration offer a number of new opportunities to individuals, communities and governments. At first glance, many of these opportunities appear to lend themselves to fostering socially inclusive practices, and the report of the Government 2.0 Taskforce in 2009 certainly claimed this. However, while there has been much discussion of social inclusion in policy terms, there has been little consideration of what it means in practice, and no evidence to link the efficacy of new media in enhancing that practice. We develop a conceptual framework to account for the practice of social inclusion, drawing on recent developments in media theory focused on the themes of hospitality and listening. This framework is used to analyse the government's Social Inclusion website and the online forum. Our analysis suggests new media may offer the potential for new opportunities for social inclusion, but there are a number of factors militating against these opportunities being taken up to good effect.
BickfordS.1996, The Dissonance of Democracy: Listening, Conflict and Citizenship, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
4.
BraggS.BuckinghamD.TurnbullS.2006, ‘Media Education: Authority, Identity and Value – An Editorial Dialogue’, Media International Australia, no. 120, pp. 76–89.
5.
BuckinghamD.2003, Media Education: Literacy, Learning and Contemporary Culture, Polity Press, Cambridge.
6.
BurgessJ.GreenJ.2009, YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture, Polity Press, Cambridge.
7.
ChadwickA.2011, ‘Explaining the Failure of an Online Citizen Engagement Initiative: The Role of Internal Institutional Variables’, Journal of Information Technology and Politics, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 21–40.
8.
ColemanS.BlumlerJ.2009, The Internet and Democratic Citizenship: Theory, Practice and Policy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
9.
CouldryN.2006, Listening Beyond the Echoes: Media, Ethics and Agency in an Uncertain World, Paradigm, Boulder, CO.
10.
CouldryN.2009, ‘Rethinking the Politics of Voice’, Continuum, no. 23, pp. 579–82.
11.
DavisA.2010, ‘New Media and Fat Democracy: The Paradox of Online Participation’, New Media and Society, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 745–61.
12.
DerridaJ.2002, On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness, trans. DooleyM.HughesM., Routledge, London.
13.
DeuzeM.2006, ‘Participation, Remediation, Bricolage: Considering Principal Components of a Digital Culture’, The Information Society, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 63–75.
14.
DeweyJ.1981, The Philosophy of John Dewey ed. McDermottJ., University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
15.
DreherT.2010, ‘Speaking Up or Being Heard? Community Media Interventions and the Politics of Listening’, Media, Culture and Society, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 85–103.
16.
EstivillJ.2003, Concepts and Strategies for Combating Social Exclusion: An Overview, International Labour Office, Portugal, www.ilo.org/step.
17.
FlewT.2008, New Media: An Introduction, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
18.
FreelonD.2010, ‘Analyzing Online Political Discussion Using Three Models of Democratic Communication’, New Media and Society, vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 1172–90.
19.
GibsonM.2009, ‘Noel Pearson and the “Cultural Left”: Between Listening and Deaf Opposition’, Continuum, vol. 23, pp. 465–76.
20.
Government 2.0 Taskforce, 2009, Engage: Getting on with Government 2.0, Australian Government Information Management Office, Canberra.
21.
GreitensT.J.StrachanJ.C.2011, ‘E-government and Citizen Engagement: An Overview of US States Government Websites’, International Journal of Public Administration, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 54–58.
22.
HayesA.GrayM.EdwardsB.2008, Social Inclusion: Origins, Concepts and Key Themes, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Canberra, www.socialinclusion.gov.au.
23.
HindessB.1993, ‘Citizenship in the Modern West’, in TurnerB. (ed.), Citizenship and Social Theory, Sage, London.
24.
HusbandC.1996, ‘The Right to be Understood: Conceiving the Multi-ethnic Public Sphere’, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 9, pp. 205–15.
25.
LevitasR.2006, ‘The Concept and Measurement of Social Exclusion’, in PantazisC.GordonD.LevitasR. (eds), Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain: The Millennium Survey, Policy Press, Bristol.
26.
LivingstoneS.2004, ‘What is Media Literacy?’Intermedia, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 18–20.
27.
MacnamaraJ.KenningG.2011, ‘E-electioneering 2010: Trends in Social Media Use in Australian Political Communication’, Media International Australia, vol. 139, in press.
28.
MitchellA.ShillingtonR.2005, ‘Poverty, Inequality and Social Inclusion’, in RichmondT.SaloojieA. (eds), Social inclusion: Canadian Perspectives, Fernwood, Winnipeg.
29.
O'DonnellP.LloydJ.DreherT.2009, ‘Listening, Pathbuilding and Continuations’, Continuum, no. 23, pp. 423–39.
30.
PenmanR.2000, Reconstructing Communicating: Looking to a Future, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
31.
PenmanR.TurnbullS.2007, Media Literacy: Concepts, Research and Regulatory Issues, report for Australian Communications and Media Authority, Canberra, www.acma.gov.au/medialiteracy.
32.
PenmanR.TurnbullS.2011, ‘From Listening … into the Dialogic Realities of Participatory Democracy’, Continuum, in press.
33.
RawlsJ.1999, A Theory of Justice, rev. ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford.
34.
ReddelT.2006, Governing the Social: Reconfiguring State and Civil Society Relations, Social Policy Working Paper No. 6, Brotherhood of St Laurence and Centre for Public Policy, Melbourne, www.bsl.org.au.
35.
SaloojeeA.2001, ‘Social Inclusion, Citizenship and Diversity’, paper presented at A New Way of Thinking? Towards a Vision of Social Inclusion Conference, Ottawa, www.ccsd.ca/subsites/inclusion/bp/as.htm.
36.
SaundersP.2008, ‘Measuring Wellbeing Using Non-monetary Indicators: Deprivation and Social Exclusion’, Family Matters, no. 78, pp. 8–17.
37.
SilverstoneR.2007, Media and Morality: On the Rise of the Mediapolis, Polity Press, Cambridge.
38.
ShotterJ.2009, ‘Listening in a Way That Recognizes/Realizes the World of “The Other”’, International Journal of Listening, no. 23, pp. 21–43.
39.
StreetS.WrightJ.2007, ‘Democracy, Deliberation and Design: The Case of Online Discussion Forums’, New Media and Society, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 849–69.
