Editor’s introduction

Background and vision

This special issue constitutes a timely and diverse collection of papers that present original insights into the digital inclusion of those who experience socio-demographic, economic, geographic, political or other vulnerabilities. This special issue aims to make a distinct contribution to the exploration of the nature and role of digital inclusion in the lives of vulnerable groups or communities while also considering the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and today’s heightened necessities for and dependencies on digital inclusion.

Over the last three decades, research has increasingly been conducted to understand the existence of multiple and complex digital inequalities that vary in breadth and depth and involve evolving nuances, assigning a multi-faceted nature to digital inclusion and flagging up a complex terrain of hurdles to overcome (Blank and Groselj, 2014; Borg and Smith, 2018; Katz and Gonzalez, 2016; Mubarak, 2015; Tsatsou, 2011, 2012; van Deursen and van Dijk, 2014). Research has also been used to acknowledge that barriers to digital inclusion are connected with social exclusion, associated social capital and social stratification trends (Clayton and McDonald, 2013) and that those who are vulnerable and at high risk of social exclusion are also those in greatest need of digital inclusion (e.g. Acharya, 2016; Alam and Imran, 2015; Chadwick et al., 2013; Fisher et al., 2014; Helsper and Eynon, 2010; Menger et al., 2016; Seale et al., 2015; Tsatsou et al., 2017).

Vulnerability, namely the ‘susceptibility to physical or emotional injury or attack’ (Ståsett, 2007: 51), is not a new concept. While we should acknowledge that all humans and populations are potentially subject to conditions of vulnerability, there are some groups that persistently face conditions of vulnerability, such as ethnic minorities, refugees, elderly, people with disabilities, homeless people, one-parent households, unemployed people, Gypsy-travellers and others. Different conditions of vulnerability are intersectional, and the literature argues about the existence of complex systems of multiple oppressions and privileges (Remedios and Snyder, 2018) and intersectional needs (Bunn, 2019). In examining the digital inclusion of socially marginalised, vulnerable populations, such as working-class mothers from ethnic minority communities in the United Kingdom, Kennedy (2005: 483) argued about ‘digital diversity’ by opposing imposed labels, technological expectations and prioritised community notions. Also, studying intersectionality as multiple layers of categorisation that ‘coexist and co-construct identity’ (Leurs and Ponzanesi, 2007: 633) in relation to the case of digital migrant youths, Leurs and Ponzanesi (2007: 640) found that ‘digital migrant youths’ identities emerge online as multi-layered individual paths navigating through and across the affordances and restrictions of digital media spaces’. Furthermore, a forthcoming edited collection (Tsatsou, forthcoming) demonstrates that unpacking the relationship between the digital and social inclusion of vulnerable people requires one to explore patterns and dimensions of intersectionality in the broader societal domain and their migration into the digital realm. In particular, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has been argued that new kinds of unequally distributed risk emerged with the COVID-19 virus, deepening key axes of social differentiation and vulnerability, as COVID-19 exposure risk profiles (CERPs) hinge on pre-existing forms of social differentiation, such as socioeconomic status and digital (dis)advantage. Thus, it has been argued that individuals who can more effectively digitise key parts of their lives enjoy better CERPs than individuals who cannot (Robinson et al., 2020).

This special issue adopts the argument of technology research that digital systems are strongly sociotechnical and culturally situated, sitting at the intersection of social, digital and data exclusion while often reproducing, strengthening or – contrastingly – resisting pre-existing power relationships and the associated social inequalities (Park and Humphry, 2019; Tsatsou, 2014, forthcoming). This special issue responds to the problematisation around the ‘relative dearth of research on intersectionality and technology’ (Noble and Tynes, 2016: 6). In this sense, it is placed in the context of foundational accounts of intersectionality that invite the exploration of the complex dynamics of identities and power systems and the nature and drivers of intersectional inequalities (May, 2015; Smith, 2016). This special issue also responds to the plea for advancing currently limited and sporadic evidence on intersectionality and patterns of intersectionality in the digital realm. It aims to shed more light on the recent argument that distinct categories of vulnerability and associated inequalities result in a series of intracategorical discrepancies in both the digital and non-digital domains (Tsatsou, 2021).

The themes

Presenting conceptually and theoretically rich as well as empirically informed studies, the papers in this special issue develop discussions and debates about vulnerable people’s digital inclusion that draw upon two main themes: the nature of digital inclusion and the role of digital inclusion. The first theme is the nature of digital inclusion. In opening this special issue, Asmar, Mariën and van Audenhove propose a digital inclusion model with eight profiles that demonstrate the dynamic interplay of different factors in the generation of mechanisms of inclusion–exclusion for vulnerable populations. Besides this rather conceptually based opening account, other papers in this special issue stress the continuing importance of access and skills parameters as key elements and drivers of the digital inclusion of vulnerable populations. Supportive of this argument is Reisdorf and DeCook’s critique of formerly incarcerated people’s (FIPs) limited digital access and the lack of tailored digital skills training along with Ramirez’s plea for access to digital forensics tools to end the legal disadvantage of poor people and people of colour who rely on public legal assistance. On the contrary, other papers in this special issue suggest that broader cultural, policy and other systemic parameters determine the nature and traits of vulnerable people’s digital inclusion, suggesting an intersectional perspective on ethno-cultural, financial, gender and other vulnerabilities. This approach is essentially critical of existing literature, arguing that although contemporary conceptualisations of digital inclusion have been broadened to consider skills, literacy and quality of usage, they still fail to account for the sophisticated and contextually specific digital strategies practised by socially marginalised groups. Supportive of this approach is Elers’ claim for a culture-centred theorising of digital inclusion; Richie’s micro-institutional perspective; Mascheroni, Cino, Mikuška and Smahel’s argument about the combined role of a range of social and personal inequalities in inequalities of vulnerable children’s digital skills; and Kaur and Saukko’s analytical lens of social access. Also supportive of this perspective is Goggin and Soldatic’s paper on intra-disability and intersectional inequalities in offline worlds and Trevisan’s account that identifies the need for cultural change within political organisations for the attainment of digital inclusivity of those vulnerable in the context of digital politics.

The second theme is the role of digital inclusion. Acknowledging that debates about the nature of vulnerable populations’ digital inclusion feed discussions about the role of digital inclusion in the lives of such populations, some papers in this special issue stress the positive role of digital inclusion and how significantly it can improve the lives and social positioning of socio-culturally vulnerable people. Supportive of this view is Reisdorf and DeCook’s positive account of the role of increased digital access and digital skills training for those formerly incarcerated, Ramirez’s claim that more access to digital forensic tools will enhance the legal representation of people of colour and poor finances who rely on public legal assistance, and Hatef’s ethnographic study of social media as a site for identity negotiation and community building among the Roma in the Czech Republic. On the contrary, some other papers in this special issue acknowledge the often negative and vulnerability-reproductive role that digital practices can play, mostly due to broader systemic marginalisation parameters that are in place. Supportive of this view is Bitman’s paper on the adverse impact of able-bodied surveillance and disciplining on ‘disability performance’ and ‘fragmented performances’ of social media users with concealable communicative disabilities along with Chib and colleagues’ paper on ‘subverted agency’ and how transfeminine sex workers’ digital strategies may reinforce normative regimes contributing to their socio-structural exclusion. Also, Kaur and Saukko’s paper argues that digital media rarely alters but often augments, ameliorates or reinforces existing areas and instances of young people with disabilities’ social exclusion and inclusion. A third stream of papers in this special issue portray the rather perplexed role of digital technologies in the social positioning of populations with one or compound vulnerabilities. On this side of the debate is Bastick and Mallet’s paper that asks the question of whether digital technologies triggered a ‘double lockdown’ during the COVID-19 pandemic for undocumented immigrants with underlying and intersectional vulnerabilities and Ritchie’s paper that focuses on the crucial role of ‘institutional entrepreneurs’ in fostering the digital inclusion of vulnerable groups in transitory and fragile refugee contexts, such as that of Somali women refugees in urban Kenya.

This rich mosaic of perspectives and positions in the context of the two core themes of this special issue has at its core the notion of intersectionality and tackles a series of vulnerable groups and populations, such as ethno-cultural minorities, migrants, refugees, people with disabilities, marginalised children, FIPs, transgender sex workers and socio-economically vulnerable people under legal prosecution. This special issue has a high representation of papers that examine Western contexts (e.g. Europe, North America, New Zealand, Australia), aiming to demonstrate that ‘inclusion and equality for all’ is still very much a visionary motto rather than a reality. At the same time, the proportionally larger focus on regions in the West demonstrates the timeliness of my argument that more research into vulnerabilities and persistent digital gaps in non-Western contexts is very much needed (Tsatsou, forthcoming).

Outline

This special issue opens with conceptually rich accounts that problematise current approaches to digital inclusion in relation to vulnerability, showcasing the complexity and multi-dimensionality of this area of research and knowledge.

First, Asmar, Mariën and van Audenhove propose a conceptual model with eight profiles of digital inequalities that range from deep exclusion to deep inclusion, which is based upon a combination of five key indicators at the social level (income, education, social participation, agency and well-being) and eight key indicators at the digital level (access, attitudes, digital skills, soft skills, media richness of the environment, autonomy of use, user practices and social support). The authors argue that the proposed model demonstrates the dynamic interplay of different factors in the generation of mechanisms of inclusion–exclusion and, while socio-demographics continue to play a role, the extent to which they lead to digital exclusion is influenced by additional factors.

This is followed by Elers, Dutta and Elers’ ethnographic study of New Zealand in the context of the COVID-19 crisis. Elers and colleagues adopt the culture-centred approach and argues for a culture-centred theorising of digital inclusion in order to situate the question of inclusion within the broader framework of structural disenfranchisement, cultural contexts and agentic negotiations. Elers and colleagues’ theoretically and empirically informed argument supports the idea that we should place digital inclusion into conversations with a wide array of programmes, resources, advocacy and activist efforts that seek to transform the neoliberal structures producing disenfranchisement.

The two first papers make conceptual propositions that pave the way for the other papers in this special issue to present empirically grounded studies of the positioning of different vulnerable populations in the digital realm.

Starting with studies of ethno-culturally marginalised populations, this special issue presents three papers. The first paper is by Hatef on the Roma in the Czech Republic. Hatef presents an ethnographic study of social media as a site for identity negotiation and community building among the Roma and argues that social media may embody both emotional and material places, manifesting as additional/alternative places to negotiate identities and belonging. The second paper about ethno-culturally marginalised populations is by Ritchie who takes a micro-institutional perspective, which focuses on norms and change, in examining the case of Somali women refugees’ adoption of mobile technology in the fragile context of urban Kenya. In her ethnographic examination, Ritchie highlights the strategic role of women’s groups and proactive group members as ‘institutional entrepreneurs’ in fostering the digital inclusion of refugee women, motivated and galvanised by cultural exchange, support and protection, and economic opportunity. At the same time, Ritchie acknowledges that in a transitory and fragile refugee context, constraints on civil society may lead to the digital exclusion of more isolated populations without formal institutional support. Finally, the third paper is by Bastick and Mallet who present interviews with undocumented Latino immigrants in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic to explore the question of whether technology and crisis can produce a double lockdown for the most vulnerable members of our society. Bastick and Mallet found that digital technologies both supported and further marginalised undocumented immigrants during the pandemic. On one hand, they call for more attention to the interaction between undocumented immigrants’ underlying and intersectional vulnerabilities. On the other hand, they also call for more attention to undocumented immigrants’ attitudes, uses and outcomes associated with technology. They note that digital inclusion can have opposing outcomes on integration and wellbeing – both positive and negative - depending on the particular configuration of vulnerabilities faced by marginalized individuals.

Moving on, the next three papers in this special issue explore populations with disabilities, as disability is not just associated ‘with a single physical difference’ (Grue, 2016: 960), but it is marked by ‘labelling, stereotyping, separation, status loss, and discrimination’ (Link and Phelan, 2001: 377), which result in a messy terrain of vulnerabilities. The three papers acknowledge this alongside the complicated patterns of intra-disability variability and how these patterns portray a complex picture of the digital inclusion of people with disabilities. Specifically, with a focus on automated decision-making in social and welfare services and the controversial 2015–2020 Australian government programme, Robodebt, Goggin and Soldatić refer to intersectional disabilities and argue that a critical understanding of digital media from the perspectives of disability and intersectionality will offer generative insights for framing the terms and agenda of digital inclusion in the next decade. Next, Bitman’s qualitative study on social media users with concealable communicative disabilities argues that disabled users’ agency-based choices in the digital realm are impacted by constant able-bodied surveillance and disciplining and that disability performances of users with concealable communicative disabilities constitute deliberate expressions of agency performing dis/ability to increase social inclusion. Bitman invites attention to disabled users’ intersectionality and to the intersection of gender and disability as leading to the creation of fragmented performances. Finally, in taking on board the intersectional perspective, Kaur and Saukko present an ethnographic study of young people with disabilities that proposes the analytical lens of social access. Kaur and Saukko contend that by focusing on how the affordances of digital technologies interweave with intra-disability and intersectional inequalities in offline worlds, one can develop an understanding of how digital media rarely alters but often augments, ameliorates or reinforces existing areas and instances of young people with disabilities’ social exclusion and inclusion.

This brings the special issue to the examination of marginalised children’s digital inclusion, which echoes to an extent previous accounts of the complex intersection of overlapping individual and social differentiation among children and young people (Alper et al., 2016; Helsper, 2017). Building on survey data collected from nationally representative samples of 10,820 children aged 12–16 in 14 European countries, the paper by Mascheroni, Cino, Mikuška and Smahel explores the effect of individual and social discrimination on inequalities in vulnerable children’s digital skills. This paper shows that perceived individual and social discrimination affects the relationships of socio-cultural resources (age, gender, preference for online social interaction) and personal resources (self-efficacy) with digital skills, demonstrating the combined role of a range of social and personal inequalities. Thus, the authors argue against linear responses to foster digital skills and suggest that more access and use may not be enough if interventions do not also empower children and help them gain confidence in their ability to use the Internet and handle digital challenges.

In a similar vein, the next paper by Chib, Ang, Zheng and Nguyen that investigates the complex practices and outcomes of digital strategies used by transfeminine sex workers in Singapore adopts the suggestion that the outcomes of digital inclusion may vary depending on the social positionality of vulnerable individuals. Through semi-structured interviews with 17 transfeminine and 17 cisfeminine sex workers, Chib and colleagues inquire about whether transfeminine sex workers’ digital strategies (e.g. online negotiation of identity) provoke new vulnerabilities and propose the concept of ‘subverted agency’ to emphasise that digital strategies may be personally empowering but might also reinforce normative regimes contributing to socio-structural exclusion. Thus, they recommend a rethink of digital inclusion by attending to contextual intersections of vulnerability and argue against the idea of simply advocating for more digital inclusion (i.e. access, use and skills) as an easy fix to vulnerabilities.

A rather different argument is then put forward in Reisdorf and DeCook’s paper that examines the digital inclusion of the population of FIPs. Reisdorf and DeCook adopt the digital rehabilitation model in a focus group study of how FIPs who experience compound vulnerabilities navigate the digital society post-incarceration. Reisdorf and DeCook emphasise the adverse role of the lack of access to digital technological tools during incarceration and recommend policies that increase Internet access during incarceration and provide comprehensive digital skills training tailored to FIPs.

This special issue closes with two papers that shed light on how politics and justice in the United States might deploy digital technologies in ways that further disadvantage socio-economically and culturally marginalised populations. In the first paper, Trevisan examines the question of ‘digital inclusivity’ in the context of democratic politics for marginalised and politically vulnerable people, such as people with disabilities. In interviews with self-advocates and election professionals with disabilities who are involved in innovative digital mobilisation efforts for progressive US political organisations and campaigns, Trevisan identifies the need for cultural change within political organisations, as biases embedded in campaign practices and organisations can arguably impede digital inclusivity, or worse, exacerbate exclusion. Thus, according to Trevisan, digital inclusivity in the context of democratic politics and civic participation of those vulnerable is deeply intertwined with and dependent on broader shifts in culture, politics and organisations. The paper that closes this special issue is Ramirez’s study of the digital divide in the US criminal justice system that examines how such a digital divide increases the vulnerability of poor people and people of colour who rely on public legal assistance. Drawing on a year-long ethnographic study of a digital forensics laboratory in a public defender office, Ramirez argues that for marginalised individuals to receive fair and balanced legal representation, the public defenders who represent them need access to digital forensics tools that have almost exclusively been reserved for law enforcement and prosecutors in the country.