Neoliberal gremlins? How a scheme to help disadvantaged young people thrive online fell short of its ambitions

Abstract

Numerous academic studies highlight the significant differences in the ways that young people access, use and engage with the Internet and the implications it has in their lives. Trying to address such inequalities is complex and the outcomes of digital inclusion schemes are rarely uniformly positive or transformative for the people involved. Therefore the hope of such schemes, that if sufficiently empowered, incentivised and aspirational the disadvantaged can use access to technology to transform or transcend what Bourdieu (1992) calls their "class of conditions" (p53), is largely misplaced. This gap between expectation and reality demands theoretical attention. Focusing on a two-year digital inclusion scheme for 30 teenagers and their families in one area of England, this qualitative study analyses why, despite the good intentions of the scheme's stakeholders, it fell short of its ambitions. Instead, our theoretical analysis explains how the neoliberalist systems of governance that are increasingly shaping the cultures and behaviours of our Internet service providers and schools cannot solve the problems they create.

The dark side of online participation: exploring non-, passive and negative participation

“…Boulianne, 2009;Davies, Eynon & Wilkin in this special issue). Proponents of the mobilization thesis hold that the Internet could have a democratizing effect by facilitating more widespread participation (Gibson, Lusoli, & Ward, 2005;Rojas & Puig-i-Abril, 2009).…”

Problematising engagement with technologies in transitions of young people identified as ‘Not in Education, Employment or Training’ (NEET) in Scotland

“…However, as Davies (2015, 119) observed, the dominance of practice tests measuring young people's digital skills has reduced them to a 'neat' category and failed to capture the impact of their social environment that 'incentivises, affords or limits certain practices on the Web and beyond'. Such dominant approaches were thus argued to derive from technological determinism and neoliberal logic, a belief that technologies and the 'proper' ways of engagement have the power to change young people's lives and help them transcend structural inequalities (Thornham and Gómez Cruz 2017;Davies, Eynon, and Wilkin 2017;Greene 2021).…”

“…Dominant debates and key digital inclusion strategies in Scotland and the rest of the UK have been long underpinned by the notions that engagement with technologies can improve young people's lives and raise their attainment and career prospects (Davies, Eynon, and Wilkin 2017). One of the groups regularly targeted with interventions for digital upskilling is that of young people described as NEET (Not in Education, Employment or Training).…”

“…Equipping disadvantaged young people with digital employability skills (such as writing CVs and personal statements, filling in job applications and searching for vacancies online) quickly became an integral part of the existing (or promoted) skills initiatives (BT Skills for Tomorrow, 2021 1 ; Bussi 2014; Matli and Ngoepe 2021). Governed by technological determinism (Selwyn 2012)the simplistic techno-solutions to complex structural issues (Greene 2021)and neoliberal logic of responsibilising youth (Thompson 2011;Davies, Eynon, and Wilkin 2017), yet another 'magic bullet' has been uncritically adopted in response to NEETness. Little attention, however, has been paid to the importance of one's habitus (rather than simply one's information habitus that depends upon the quality of the Internet exposure or one's ability to use search engines effectively; see Matli and Ngoepe 2021;Robinson 2011), whilst also ignoring the impact of multiple influences on young people's lives/transitions (Selwyn 2012;Davies 2015).…”

Assembling “Digital Literacies”: Contingent Pasts, Possible Futures

“…But with the proliferation of connective media and mobile technologies, there are times when our inherited models of digital literaciesfocused on the skills and social practices of individualsstrains to accommodate the political and economic flows that underwrite contemporary digital activities. A growing body of education research, for example, points to the imbrication of localized digital media use with the governance strategies of policymakers (Davies, Eynon, & Wilkin, 2017), the data-collection practices of corporate owners (Williamson, 2017), and the protocols established by software developers (Lynch, 2016;Scott & Nichols, 2017). While existing models can offer strategies for navigating hypertext or rich accounts of situated social practices in digital environments, they are less adept at explaining the relations between these activities and the technical and economic infrastructures that condition them.…”