socialreporters

Update: all dtlater exploration content has moved from the original wiki to this site

In summary: the dtlater exploration showed a lot of action in the field of social technology and later life, but also suggested that more could be achieved through great cooperation. As a next step we are going to experiment with some active social reporting and network building to try and show how that might be possible. It’s an adhoc initiative by the team who have now completed the first phase of work.

Update: Nominet Trust have published the final report here.

Although we have completed the initial DTlater work for Nominet Trust, exploring how we can use social technology in later life, those involved are all keen to make the most of the ideas we brought together, and help others do the same.  I think a next stage could work at several levels.

• First, Nominet Trust are reviewing how best to promote the first results of the exploration, summarised here, and we hope that will inform future developments and and anyone proposing projects.
• Secondly, there’s a lot of additional information and contacts in our background reference that could be reworked. We identified 10 key propositions from the exploration … but there are potentially many more.
• Thirdly, the exploration provided some insights into the nature of the ecosystem of organisations, entrepreneurs and investors in this field … and that’s what I want to focus on here.

In doing that, I’ll draw a line under our initial work for the Trust, and emphasise that what follows is a purely personal opinion, and a jumping off point for some further independent exploration and connecting.

A lot of action, unconnected
What struck me during the DTlater exploration was how unconnected everything is – strongly confirming the findings of Shirley Ayres, reported in this post. Shirley has been reporting on social technology in social care, and recommends a knowledge hub to promote more sharing.

I found unconnectedness on several fronts:

• Many research reports covering the same ground but with limited cross reference, and difficult to find and cite.
• Little knowledge  of the research among practitioners
• Funders developing new programmes when we don’t have well-shared knowledge of the many innovations already in the field, which are often struggling to scale up their operations.
• Those trying to help people later in life adopt social technology are left without much guidance drawn from all this work

So how could we make more of the ideas and assets that we already have, and avoid duplication in funding further research and project work?

A framework and support structures
Fortunately the social innovation agency NESTA is providing a framework for looking generally at innovation later in life, as I reported here , and developing an extremely useful Living Map of innovation projects.
I think this gives a top-level opportunity to connect many of the strands identified above … but how might that translate into something directly useful to people later in life, and those aiming to provide support? I touched on this earlier and linked it to the work fellow socialreporter John Popham has been doing with another Nominet Trust-funded project, Our Digital Planet.
John, Nick Booth and Lloyd Davies have been running ODP exhibitions in town centres, and identified the following needs

• an independent source of advice with no selling agenda for those (particularly older people) bewildered by the array of modern technology options;
• a non-judgemental introduction to IT and the internet for the digitally-excluded;
• a resource that recognises that there are multiple barriers in people’s lives which prevent them from using the internet and listens to their concerns before dispelling advice;
• a high profile hub, which demonstrates to the non-internet user that internet use is a normal part of most people’s everyday life;
• an enhancement to the local environment, and a new destination.

Developing these ideas for bottom-up support – perhaps within the framework provided by NESTA – could be a good way forward.
There are now a couple of substantial propositions for support programmes that could be the basis for further development.

• The Age Action Alliance Digital Inclusion Group has produced a Paper entitled the ‘Digital Champions Capacity Building Framework’, drafted by Emma Solomon of Digital Unite, that sets out how to build a network of professional and informal support.
• The Sus-IT project at Loughborough University, led by Professor Leela Damodaran, supported by the KT-EQUAL project, has produced proposals for Community hubs where older people could learn about technology in a social setting. Report here (pdf). There are further details here of how that might be implemented, based on discussion at a St George’sHouse event in November last year.

Moving towards co-operation 
I think the ideas from Our Digital Planet, Age Action Alliance, and Sus-IT, have much in common. They could be supplemented through connections with the many projects identified by NESTA and our exploration. They could give practical expression to many of the recommendations I’ve seen in research reports, and priorities suggested in our exploration.  But – achieving that would require greater levels of co-operation than we have seen so far.
A number of people have remarked to me that the field of digital inclusion, and social technology later in life, is marked by pretty intense competition between the many interests in the field, as everyone tries to pitch their idea and get funding to carry on their work.
As a reporter, it would be easy to highlight examples of duplication, lack of communication, and funding overlaps. But as a social reporter I’m more interested in how to help people make sense of this complex area, and to help in joining up ideas and people amongst those who are prepared to cooperate
As a first step, instead of thinking about a one-stop knowledge hub for sharing, we could take the model of a social ecology, outlined here by another of our team, Steve Dale.
In order to reinforce a people-centred approach, we could develop further the story-telling methods Drew Mackie and I have worked on, as I reported here.
And we could exchange ideas with people who are tackling the same issues in other countries, as I started here with Noman Reiss in New York.

Starting some further conversations
All members of the team are freelance, and we don’t have funding for this next stage, so it’s going to be something we develop as part of our general enthusiasm for social technology for social good. I hope we can show pro-active social reporting is valuable, and we might be able get some further funding.
I’ll do some more reporting round the major programmes that are emerging, and explore further US-UK exchanges. John will report from the frontline through the events, exhibitions and projects he is working on. To distinguish this from the first phase work, John will report on his blog and I’ll use mine, with occasional summaries back here.
We have had some useful exchanges in the DTlater group on the Social Learning Network  and will keep that going. Do join us.
However, as a new dimension I’m thinking about experimenting with a Yammer network . Yammer is a bit like private Twitter for a group, with no limit on message length. It is works very well on mobile devices, and is easier and chattier than forum exchanges.
My current thinking is that the network will be for anyone who is prepared to commit to sharing ideas and resources, and from that exploring possible new collaborations

Next steps
This rather lengthy blog post aims to sign-off work so far, and provide a rationale for our experiment. We’ll follow up shortly with more details of the first story lines we’ll develop on other blogs, and also more about the possible Yammer network. Meanwhile, any comments on these ideas most welcome.
Thanks everyone who has contributed so much so far.
Update – on personal blogs:

John Popham

• Social technology in Later Life – Let’s Have some Collaboration

Update: all dtlater exploration content has moved from the original wiki to this site
Here’s a summary and update on our exploration for Nominet Trust into how we can use digital technologies to prepare for and enjoy later life. It is prompted in part by nonprofit tech specialist Norman Reiss posting the key points, together with links to US initiatives including SeniorPlanet. Thanks Noman, and to Amy Sample Ward for the intro. I hope this opens the way to further exchanges. There’s some ideas on next steps in here as well.
The draft. The near-final draft of the report that we created, through an open process, is available here as a commentable document. I’ve copied the 10 key points below. The brief was to develop guidance on where to focus investment and project development in the field – rather than provide a hands-on guide to how to use technology and devices. That’s definitely needed too, as I explain later.
Reference. There’s a set of reference materials in Storify linked to each of the key points, themes, and the research background.
The process. During the open process – summarised here – we reviewed research, created an open document to gather first ideas, ran a workshop, set up an online space to gather and discuss more ideas, and collaborated with Gransnet on a forum.
An online learning space. You can view and join the online space at the Social Learning Network.
Online innovations and social care. During the exploration, Nominet Trust published a paper by Shirley Ayres on Can online innovations enhance social care? – to which the answer is definitely yes. There’s a wealth of examples, with a recommendation for a Community Wellbeing and Social Technology Innovation Hub which brings together all the organisations funding, researching and promoting digital technology innovations and pilots across the wider care sector.
Sharing. I explored the proposal for a hub in a blog post on How more sharing could enhance social innovation including reference to Steve Dale’s ideas for social ecologies, and the possibility of Nominet Trust, NESTA and Big Lottery Fund getting together. The scope for collaboration became more evident with NESTA’s announcement of a Living map of ageing innovators, followed by news from Cabinet Office that Big Lottery Fund would be setting up a Centre for Ageing Better.
Making innovations useful. In a post We know lots about innovation, digital tech, social care and later life. Now who will make it useful? I suggested that while the various centres, and proposals for knowledge sharing were welcome, this was conceived mostly at the level of policy and larger projects. What we also needed was work to translate findings into advice and applications directly useful later in life, and also work to bring new and existing useful tech together in guides for older people and carers. Much of it would be useful to anyone – whatever their age.
Join up innovations. This exploration, and Shirley Ayres’ paper Can online innovations enhance social care?, have brought home how important it is to develop solutions that work together within organisations, across disciplines, and that are designed for the whole person. I wrote that NESTA provides a framework for innovation towards a better later life in reviewing several pieces of work from the innovation agency: the Living map of innovation projects, mentioned earlier, an earlier report on Systemic Innovation, and Halima Khan’s report entitled Five hours a day. The five hours a day refers to the equivalent extra time added on to the end of our lives through increasing lifespans.
Mapping innovation to people’s lives. In How to organise ideas about digital tech in later life: invent some characters and tell their stories I suggest that a good way to show what technologies may be most relevant in different circumstances is to create some fictional characters, tell their stories, and then map what’s available on to these narratives. It is something we piloted in the workshop.
What’s next?
We have reached the end of our exploration contract with Nominet Trust, subject to reviewing the draft and agreeing any more formal publication. However, I hope there is scope for further development, if we can find collaborators and funders. Here’s a few ideas I’m discussing on different fronts:

• Develop an online store or market place of useful tech stuff for later in life – sites, apps, methods, guides that people and carers can use for wellbeing and amelioration. This would contribute to the wider digital inclusion policies promoted by government, and organisations like GO ON UK, UK Online Centres, and Digital Unite – who already have some guides. Maybe there’s scope here for sharing with US and other initiatives globally.
• Co-design and learn together. Run a workshop/part of a conference where people invent characters, tell their stories, and then choose from the store things that will be useful. Follow through with a hands-on learning session and develop this as a format that people can run for themselves. Described in this post
• Create a community of practice around digital tech in later life. We have made a start with the group at the Social Learning Network, and could do a lot more.
• Work with those directly in touch with older people and their groups, like Age UK, Digital Unite, and the English Forums on Ageing, on experiments and pilots.
• Focus on the use of initiatives using tablets and simplified systems that make it easy for people to share messages, photos, videos and more within a secure environment. Finerday, Mindings, and HomeTouch are among examples that we found.

What I do feel strongly is that development should focus on what’s useful to individuals, and anyone providing support: whether friends, family or care services. Both our team and Shirley Ayres found scores of research reports and initiatives that attract quite high levels of funding but appear to overlap quite substantially. We are now going to see further developments by innovation and funding agencies. There is a need to curate and make accessible the work they are doing … but one of the best ways of ensuring that it is actually useful is to take a human-centred approach as we have suggested above. Currently the ratio of research reports, and funding, to useful guides and support is weighted hugely towards the professionals and not the front line … whether on the sofa or in the care home.
Do please add your thoughts in a comment, join us in the group at the Social Learning Network, or email me directly david@socialreporter.com. I’ll update on further developments as they emerge.
Key points
Here are the provocations in our draft
1 Look at personal needs and interests as well as common motivations – one digital size won’t fit all. While there are general benefits at any time of life in using digital technology – whether for entertainment, shopping, learning, information – everyone has different priorities and these will be shaped by life experience and current circumstances. The best way to engage people is to start where they are, the particular interests they have developed, and the personal challenges they face.
2 Build on past experience with familiar technology as well as offering new devices – they may do the job. New devices can be challenging, and recent developments of familiar equipment may offer an easier route for some. Smart TVs and smartphones may provide what’s needed without learning to use a computer.
3 Consider the new life skills and access people will need as technology changes our world – using technology is ceasing to be optional. Public services are becoming digital by default, and new opportunities for employment require at least an email address. It will be important to make the use of digital technology as accessible and easy as possible – or encourage people to act as “proxies” in helping make the connection with the online world.
4 Turn the challenge of learning about technology into a new social opportunity – and make it fun. Learning how to use digital technology can challenging. It takes time, and having someone to help can be important. Loneliness and isolation are a big challenge for some later in life. By getting together so learning becomes a social experience we can achieve benefits on both fronts, and enjoy the experience as well.
5 See digital technology for later in life as a major market – co-designing with users could offer wider relevance. On the one hand people are living and remaining active longer, and on the other hand facing a wide range of health and social challenges for longer. This will provide a growing market among older people, and an opportunity to design and test technologies for relevance and usability with any users than have diverse interests and capabilities.
6 Address social isolation and other challenges through a blend of online and offline – they don’t need to be different worlds. Digital technology can enable virtual friendships that lead to meetings, support social learning, and underpin projects for new forms of sharing both on the physical world and online. The greatest benefits may come from blending face-to-face and online activities.
7 Enable carers and care services – both for direct use of technology and to act as proxies. More could be achieved by integrating digital technology into services, and supporting carers in their use of technology. This will be increasingly important as older people who are not connected may require “proxy” helpers to use online public services.
8 Use digital technologies to enhance existing connections of family and friends – and help each other learn. Free video calls, photo-sharing, email, texting and the use of social networking sites are part of day-to-day communications with family and friends for many people later in life. Family members can help each other learn about digital technologies.
9 Value the role that older people may have in acting as digital technology champions – and providing long term support. Older people know the challenges of using technology later in life, and may be best at providing the continuing support needed for its adoption. Demonstrations and short courses are seldom enough.
10 Look for ideas among those providing digital training and support – and help them realise them. Those working directly with users of digital technology will have insights into what works, and where development would be valuable. With some support they could turn ideas into projects.

Knowledge management specialist Martin Fowkes reports 
Internet use among elderly people is higher in Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands and Luxembourg than it is in the UK. Why is this and why does it matter?
I have recently been involved in the Digital Technology in Later Life project and have become aware that those who are not online are increasingly at a disadvantage. Not only are the best savings rates and discounts available online, but digital provision of public services is starting to become the default option, and alternatives will become harder to use and probably less efficient. Providers of both public and private sector services seem to assume everyone is online now – and this is not the case. It is ironic that the more
vulnerable members of society are those most likely to benefit from some of the online services, but are most likely to be offline.
There have been several projects and reports over the past few years that have looked at the issue, and
some good work has already been done. The latest report on this subject is Nudge or Compel? Can  behavioural economics tackle the digital exclusion of older people? from the International Longevity Centre – UK. This contains many useful ideas but it struck me that there was little mention of what was happening in other countries – surely this isn’t just an issue in the UK?
A bit of internet research shows that other countries do have similar issues. The report ‘Older Australians and the Internet: bridging the digital divide’ highlights many of the same barriers found in the UK and contains similar recommendations to those in UK reports. The Centre for Ageing Research and Development in Ireland (CARDI) produced a report on ‘Internet use and older people’ which focuses more on what older people use the internet for, as well as noting some of the barriers.
The statistics I’ve found on the internet need to be treated with some caution, as they are not all based on the same questions or periods. Different countries have also used different age ranges, but the broad findings are probably sound. Here are some examples of what I’ve found:

• The Eurostat survey covers internet usage in households and by individuals for EU countries,
  but frustratingly only covers people up to the age of 74.
• In the UK, 64% of people aged over 65 have no access to the internet, but in Norway only 18% of people aged between 65 and 74 don’t have access. And the corresponding figure for people aged between 75 and 79 is 40%, a reduction from 60% in 2011. Currently 74% of Norwegians aged between 65 and 74 years use a computer.
• In the Netherlands, 60% of 65 to 75-year-olds were active on the internet in 2011, nearly twice as many as in 2005. The gap between older and younger internet users is rapidly narrowing.
• Eurostat shows that 18% of 65-74 year olds used online banking across the UK in 2010. These
  levels are well below those for countries such as Norway (54%), Sweden (45%), the Netherlands (41%), or Denmark (40%).
• Internet usage among Australians aged 65 years and over has increased significantly – from 30% in 2007 to 40% in 2009

And here are a few examples of actions being taken that may increase use of the internet:

• In Finland it is the legal right of every citizen to have broadband, and 96% of the population was connected by 2010.
• In Denmark legislation has been proposed to make digital access of many public services mandatory by Nov 2014.
• Turkey and Russia have announced plans to provide all citizens with an email address – although this may be more to do with nudging people to use national services rather than foreign ones.

As I work in knowledge management, I’m always keen to see reuse of good ideas and learning from
previous experience. Far too often, people set out to solve a problem without first checking to see if anyone else has already had a go. In particular, I suspect we don’t look hard enough for solutions from other countries. In 2006 the EU produced an action plan for ‘Ageing well in the Information Society’ and the Nominet Trust report Ageing and the use of the internet refers to some European-funded projects, but I
do not know if these are related.
We should be asking why it is that elderly people in Scandinavian countries are making more use of the
internet than they are in the UK. There may be cultural or other differences that explain the gap, but there may be some solutions that we can adopt/adapt and apply within the UK. Hopefully we can benefit from looking at what has worked or not worked in Norway for example.
Although we know why this matters, I don’t believe we know the reasons why the UK lags behind some
other countries. And if we don’t ask, we won’t find out.