The last five years have resulted in substantial scholarship and public discourse on the topic of digital inclusion. However, the concept of digital inclusion emerged in academic literature back in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Closely linked to the term “digital divide”, digital inclusion was first introduced as a way to widen the debate on an initially limited range of identified digital divides (Parsons & Hick, 2008), while also establishing a link to the more commonly used concept of “social inclusion” (Buré, 2006). The World Bank defines social inclusion as “… the process of improving the terms on which individuals and groups take part in society – improving the ability, opportunity, and dignity of those disadvantaged on the basis of their identity” (World Bank, n.d.).
That focus on participation, equality and anti-discrimination is also reflected in more recent concepts of digital inclusion. However, while participation and human-centred design to facilitate usage appear to be at the heart of both international and national definitions, the social dimension seems less prominent. That is also reflected in the definition offered by the European Commission, which characterises digital inclusion as follows:
“Digital Inclusion relates to seamless, transparent, accessible, and user-friendly digital government services. Citizens must be able to use such digital services without having legal knowledge. The members of our societies should have the opportunity to help shape the digital transformation and share their ideas and content with others unimpeded, while respecting the rights of third parties. The public sector should encourage such wider participation in policymaking by involving society in the design of public services through co-creation, experimentation and collaboration.” (European Commission, 2022h).
While stressing the participatory aspect of inclusiveness, the socially based causes of potential exclusion are not referred to explicitly in this definition. National governments have also engaged with the task of defining digital inclusion and have taken a similar approach. In 2014, the UK Government established that: “Digital inclusion, or rather, reducing digital exclusion, is about making sure that people have the capability to use the internet to do things that benefit them day to day – whether they be individuals, SMEs (ed. “Small and medium sized enterprises”) or VCSE (ed. “Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise”) organisations.”(UK Government, 2014).
It could be argued that these definitions underrepresent the wider social dimension and potential implications of digitalisation beyond the acquisition of digital skills and the ability to participate in and shape digital society. While these are two central pillars of an inclusive digital society, these definitions fail to stress the complexity of other barriers that individuals might encounter. For instance, an immigrant could be a fully trained computer scientist but might lack a national social security number enabling him/her to access fundamental digital services in the region.
In the Nordic-Baltic context, neither a shared definition nor many clear national definitions have emerged so far, as also discussed and highlighted by the pre-study. Based on a thorough review and extensive engagement with national stakeholders representing the 11 political entities in question, the pre-study hence developed its own definition of the term according to a more nuanced approach: “Digital inclusion prevails when all people, including the most disadvantaged and vulnerable groups, have access to and the ability to use ICT related to public sector services.” (Nordic Council of Ministers & Digital Europe, 2022, p. 19).
Since the publication of the pre-study, additional discussions around the topic have taken place. For example, a Finnish report from 2022 associated with the Finnish digitalisation strategy offers a new take on the Nordic definition, coming closer to the definition resulting from the pre-study: “Digital inclusiveness [means that] all members of society can participate in the operation of the digitalising society” (Kuusisto et al., 2022). It should also be mentioned that the Norwegian digitalisation strategy builds on the work of Midtgård et al. (2021), who framed the concept by noting that the risk of digital exclusion depends on four factors: (1) barriers to access, (2) digital competence, (3) bureaucratic competence and (4) health-related challenges. That framing of the concept indicates an orientation towards more nuanced discussions, perceptions and hence solutions that address digital inclusion by evaluating and approaching the topic and its potential implications from multiple perspectives. That also informed design of the evaluation chart presented in the following chapter.