Digital technologies tend to be talked about as enablers of
social innovation, possessing a potential for creating disruptive and
transformative change. For me this perspective is exemplified by simplistic
arguments that social media platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, have
transformed communication and so can now be used to help solve the major
challenges faced by society (e.g. climate change and sustainability,
demographic change, social exclusion …). By viewing digital technologies solely
as enablers of social innovation we are only considering part of the picture.
Rather as a digital technology develops and is used by people a subtle
and ever changing balance of positive and negative impacts also develops. So
whilst digital technologies can help social entrepreneurs and innovators to
address pressing social needs, we also need to recognise that these same
technologies also create social needs. For example, the infrastructure of digital
devices (smartphones, tablets etc.) can indeed enable social innovation, but
only thanks to the unsustainable and often exploitive use of rare earth metals
in the manufacture of these devices (which in turn of course contributes to
other social needs).
The contradictory impacts of digital technologies are also
important considerations in the design and development of specific social
innovations. Here we can explore and talk about the balance of positive and
negative impacts on individuals and their day-to-day experiences. As an
illustrative example we can consider a social innovation that requires the more
widespread use of digital technologies within school classrooms and seeks to
improve educational outcomes. In such a case can space be created for students,
teachers and parents to influence the balance of impacts, by exploring
questions such as: how does the use of the technology help students to
mindfully engage with the learning process? How does the technology act to
increase the potential for digital distraction and information overload? How
does the technology change the posture of children within the classroom? And is
this likely to contribute to adverse health impacts? Ultimately I am suggesting
that, in some very small way, a social innovation enabled by digital technology
should prompt individuals, groups and institutions to consider a very large and
challenging question. How can we live well in a world pervaded by digital
technologies? By doing so we challenge the prevailing narrative that technologies
are a social good and that any negative impacts are just the inevitable and
necessary consequences of the onward march of technological progress.
When we talk about social innovation it is critical to recognise
that it is an inherently political process. Where innovation is orientated to
addressing a social need we challenge established interests, create conflicts,
and call for redistribution of social and economic resources. Where digital
technologies are involved in social innovations and are considered as solely as
enabling tools, we mask and overlook some of the politics involved. We look for
the positive in the technology and overlook the potential downsides, and so run
the risk of pursuing an ill-fated technological fix to a political issue.
