Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Marta Choroszewicz
(University of Eastern Finland)
Paula Saikkonen (The Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (THL))
Send message to Convenors
- Format:
- Traditional Open Panel
Short Abstract:
This panel examines how digitalising welfare states interacts with social and ecological sustainability amidst the integration of highly experimental technologies into welfare services. We aim to foster discussion on envisioning socially and ecologically just futures for a digitalised welfare state
Long Abstract:
This panel delves into the intricate interplay between the ongoing digitalisation of welfare states, the imperative of advancing sustainability, and the pivotal role of Science and Technology Studies (STS) in an era of the welfare administration increasingly embracing highly experimental technologies. Despite the growing influence of advanced technologies, comprehensive considerations of the broader ramifications of digitalisation for the environment and social justice remain scarce.
This panel addresses the urgent need for welfare states to confront environmental crises in tandem with the challenges presented by rapidly ageing and diversifying populations. We seek to spark discussions around the ongoing digitalisation of welfare states as well as envisioning futures characterised by both social justice—ensuring fairness, equity, and inclusivity for all members of society—and ecological sustainability—ensuring that technological advances do not harm the environment but ideally contribute positively to it.
Thus, in this panel we aim to examine ongoing trends and challenges of digitalisation across welfare states but also to build knowledge about the conditions for socially and ecologically just futures that would balance technological change with the imperatives of social justice and ecological resilience. We invite theoretical, methodological and empirical contributions that address the following questions and more:
- What kind of digitalisation in welfare administration may strengthen social or ecological sustainability and how?
- How social and/or ecological sustainability might be already directly or implicitly addressed in the current processes of digitalisation of welfare administration?
- How is the issue of socio-digital inequalities addressed in the ongoing digitalisation processes of welfare states? What are the differences and similarities between the countries in the digitalisation of welfare administration and how those might be connected to earlier developments of these welfare states?
- How to enhance socially and ecologically just futures for the digitalised welfare state?
Accepted papers:
Session 1Paula Saikkonen (The Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (THL)) Marta Choroszewicz (University of Eastern Finland)
Short abstract:
Examining the digitalization of Finnish welfare systems, the paper stresses assessing its eco-social impact. Analysing policy documents, it explores digitalization's pros and cons and socio-technical aspects. Advocating an integrated approach to sustainability, it challenges techno-solutionism.
Long abstract:
Digitalisation is often promoted in welfare systems with the aim of achieving economic sustainability. However, the effects of digitalisation on environmental and social sustainability have received less attention. This paper argues that environmental and social sustainability should be scrutinised together when implementing digitalisation of welfare systems. Furthermore, the highly urgent sustainability transformation cannot be realised without involving every sector of society.
This paper focuses on the digitalisation of the Finnish welfare systems. Finland represents a Nordic welfare state and stands as a forerunner in social sustainability. Finland aims to be the first carbon-neutral welfare society by 2035, making sustainability issues relevant for the ongoing social security reform prepared by the parliamentary committee (2020-2027).
The paper analyses the policy documents of social security reform to investigate the digitalisation of welfare systems. It scrutinises suggestions on digitalisation of welfare systems, how advantages or disadvantages are recognised, whether other dimensions than economic dimension is discussed, what problematic aspects of digitalization are mentioned, and if digitalisation was interpreted only as a technical change or if its socio-technical nature was acknowledged. Finally, the paper discusses what sustainable digitalisation would require, including the values that promote sustainable digitalisation.
It is important to note that technologically informed futures are often influenced by a techno-solutionist approach and therefore presented as seamless and sterile scenarios that are detached from everyday messy reality of people’s lives and needs. The paper concludes that digitalisation of welfare systems should be approached with a holistic perspective that considers all dimensions of sustainability together.
Alexander Smit (University of Groningen)
Short abstract:
This article analyzes the lived experiences of low-literate and low digital literate Dutch citizens facing governmentally-imposed digitalization in everyday life, and how these experiences challenge active citizenship ideals.
Long abstract:
One in five Dutch citizens lacks the necessary digital literacies to participate in digital society. This fosters digital inequalities where disadvantaged citizens with low digital skills are marginalized because they lack the necessary resources, skills and knowledge to access and make use of essential public services, which are progressively becoming digital-by-default. While studies acknowledge that a basic level of (digital) literacy is needed to access and make use of the digital realm, an emic understanding of what it means to be a digital (non-)citizen in a rapidly digitizing democracy without possessing such skills is lacking. Hence, we ask: how are socio-digital inequalities experienced and ‘felt’ by disadvantaged publics themselves, and how can we conceptualize digital citizenship from their perspective?
We build on longitudinal participant observations (N=54) and semi-structured interviews (N=27) with low-literate Dutch citizens in three libraries, a community center, and a school for adult education in the Netherlands, exploring the impact of digitization for civic participation, identifying how it creates novel barriers that undermine autonomy, democratic values, and a sense of belonging.
The findings indicate that our participants perceive digital citizenship not as an empowering choice, but as an imposed necessity, questioning the value and inclusivity of the digital society. This highlights essential considerations for the future trajectory of digital citizenship and digital inclusion, and answers calls to explore macro (societal) structures fostering socio-digital inequality in relation to micro (individual) drivers of inequality, while scrutinizing the relations between macro and micro dimensions of inequality in a meso (social) context.
Maud Rebergen (University of Groningen) Marcel Broersma (University of Groningen) Rik Smit
Short abstract:
This paper traces the sociotechnical imaginaries that shaped the evolution of Dutch digital identification in the past two decades. In doing so, this paper contributes valuable insights into the social construction of technology and its consequences for citizenship and inclusion in the digital age.
Long abstract:
This study analyses the landscape of DigiD, the Dutch digital identification system, examining the impact of sociotechnical imaginaries on its development over the past two decades. A novel concept, 'marginalising machines,' is introduced and explored within the context of digital inclusion and citizenship. The paper contends that technologies like DigiD, far from being neutral, wield socio-economic influence favouring the privileged while concurrently marginalising others.
Governments globally are increasingly capitalising on information and communication technologies to streamline state operations. The Dutch government, a trailblazer in this arena, has emphasised digital public services and identity verification. As the state transitions to digital-by-default, citizens face growing reliance on their digital capabilities for accessing public services. Despite the Netherlands boasting high digital literacy and internet penetration, a substantial segment, around 4.5 million individuals, encounters difficulties navigating government services, particularly DigiD, leading to social exclusion and loss of benefits.
Through a historical-diachronic critical discourse analysis of 360 policy documents spanning 2003 to 2023, the paper traces the evolution of sociotechnical imaginaries in shaping Dutch digital identification policy. Initially introduced to alleviate administrative burdens for vulnerable citizens, DigiD underwent shifts post-2011 due to several security scandals, prioritising security measures that inadvertently hindered accessibility. The 2018 Dutch childcare benefit scandal prompted renewed efforts to enhance the reliability of the digital welfare state, yet substantial barriers persist, limiting citizenship for many.
This study contributes valuable insights into the intricacies of digital policy, elucidating its impacts on citizenship and inclusion in the digital era.
Rachel Warren (University of California Irvine)
Short abstract:
Exploring the surprising benefits of American fire departments no questions- asked approach to service delivery.
Long abstract:
Public agencies, from courts and police departments [1] to tax inspection agencies [2] and city planning agencies [3, 4] are under pressure from national, state, and local leadership to adopt predictive analytics and data-driven decision making. Key motivations for data adoption commonly include cost saving and optimizing service delivery [5]. However, in the United States, fire departments, who are the primary providers of emergency medical services (EMS) to Americans living in urban areas, are an exception. Through over a year of in-person ethnographic observations of the fire service in two major American cities, I have been surprised to see the extent to fire EMS has resisted, not just information technology [6], but logics of prediction and optimization more broadly. Fire fighter paramedics are dispatched to deliver medical care to nearly every one who calls 9-1-1 and asks for help no matter how rich, poor, or genuinely in need of emergency medical services the caller is.
What I hope to discuss in this panel is how this lack of optimization and triage may help the mission of the fire service to protect and serve members of their community. We further hope to engage in some imaginative futures work, considering what it might mean to leverage better record keeping and data practices to improve the work of the fire service without introducing neoliberal logics of efficiency and optimization that might threaten the good parts of this no-questions-asked approach to delivering public services.
1. Brayne, S., & Christin, A. (2021).
2. Veale, M., Van Kleek, M., & Binns, R. (2018).
3. Mattern, S. (2021).
4.Currie, M. (2020).
5. Eubanks, V. (2018).
6. Kapalo, K. A., Bonnell, J. A., & LaViola, J. J. (2020).
Marta Choroszewicz (University of Eastern Finland) Antti Rannisto (Aalto University)
Short abstract:
AI-driven automation is expected to transform welfare benefits. Our study combines frameworks of boundary work and ‘regimes of justification’ to examine the construction of legitimacy for the GenAI tool within public administration, offering crucial insights into the sustainability of AI automation.
Long abstract:
Internationally, public administration and services are being transformed by AI-driven automation processes, promising enhanced efficiency and service quality in welfare benefits. Our study combines theories of boundary work (Gieryn 1983, 1995), insights from the sociology of professions into professional life and struggles (Abbott 1988, 1995, 2005), and a framework of ‘regimes of justification’ (Boltanski and Thévenot 2006) to identify key actors, their practices, interpretations and claims surrounding a GenAI tool conceptualised as a boundary object that brings together a multidisciplinary innovation team, service design consultants, and other intra-organisational actors. Our methodology is rooted in a comprehensive year-long ethnographic study in a Finnish public sector institution involving extensive observation and interviews. We present our empirical findings as organized into sets of legitimisation frames that emerge, stabilise and underpin the construction of the GenAI tool’s legitimacy. These frames are analyzed as related to various forms of boundary work instrumental in legitimizing such tools within the public sector while engaging in negotiations of public values. Our contributions offer critical insights into the social sustainability of AI-driven automation within the Finnish public administration landscape.