Rethinking Digital Inclusion: The Value of Process-Oriented Assessment

Digital inclusion is increasingly recognized as a fundamental component of social and economic equity in the 21st century. While significant efforts have been made to close digital divides, conventional approaches to assessing digital inclusion remain largely outcomes-based, emphasizing quantifiable success metrics such as the number of people with internet access or digital literacy test scores. However, this method fails to capture the complexities of digital participation and the diverse ways in which communities engage with and benefit from digital technologies. A shift towards process-oriented assessment—one that values the methods and pathways through which communities progress in their digital inclusion journey—offers a more comprehensive and equitable framework for measuring success.

The Limitations of Outcomes-Based Assessment

Outcomes-based assessment has been widely used to track digital inclusion efforts, often relying on standardized metrics such as broadband penetration rates, digital device distribution, and completion rates of digital literacy programs. While these measures provide valuable data, they risk oversimplifying the digital inclusion process. Warschauer (2003) argues that digital access alone does not equate to meaningful digital participation, emphasizing that literacy, social support, and content relevance play crucial roles in ensuring effective engagement with technology. Similarly, Selwyn (2004) critiques the tendency of digital inclusion policies to focus on access statistics while neglecting the broader socio-cultural dimensions of digital engagement.

This approach also overlooks the unique challenges faced by different communities. A rural village gaining stable internet access and an urban marginalized group developing digital literacy programs may both be making progress, yet their journeys are vastly different and cannot be evaluated using the same standardized benchmarks. As Unwin (2017) notes, digital inclusion efforts must be context-specific, addressing local needs rather than imposing universal definitions of success.

Furthermore, an outcomes-based approach prioritizes numerical indicators over qualitative insights into how individuals and communities navigate digital inclusion. Traditional assessments often fail to capture the iterative and adaptive processes through which digital literacy is developed. Warschauer (2002) highlights the importance of "social inclusion," emphasizing that digital participation should be evaluated in relation to broader social and economic structures rather than as an isolated outcome.

The Value of Process-Oriented Assessment

A process-oriented approach to assessing digital inclusion offers an alternative framework that prioritizes the ways in which individuals and communities engage with digital tools over time. Rather than focusing solely on whether a specific outcome has been achieved, this approach examines the strategies, adaptations, and local innovations that contribute to digital engagement. As Couldry and Powell (2014) argue, understanding digital inclusion requires an exploration of the "lived experience" of digital engagement, moving beyond mere access to examine how people integrate technology into their everyday lives.

One of the key benefits of process-oriented assessment is that it allows for a more nuanced understanding of digital inclusion as an ongoing and evolving process. Rather than presenting digital inclusion as a binary state—either included or excluded—this approach acknowledges that individuals and communities experience varying degrees of participation and may progress through different stages of digital engagement. Van Dijk (2005) describes digital inclusion as a continuum, where individuals gradually develop digital skills and literacy through continuous interaction with technology, rather than achieving a fixed state of inclusion.

Moreover, process-oriented assessment creates space for recognizing and valuing local innovation. Many communities develop grassroots digital literacy initiatives that do not conform to conventional assessment metrics but are nonetheless crucial for fostering digital inclusion. For example, research by Steyn and Johanson (2011) on digital inclusion in African contexts highlights how informal peer-to-peer training and localized digital content play a critical role in enabling meaningful engagement with technology. Such initiatives might not be captured by traditional assessments, yet they represent essential progress in the digital inclusion landscape.

Towards a Global and Inclusive Framework for Measuring Progress

A shift toward process-oriented assessment not only benefits local communities but also contributes to the development of a more globally inclusive framework for evaluating digital inclusion. This approach allows for diverse cultural, economic, and infrastructural contexts to be taken into account, rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all model of digital progress. As Heeks (2017) argues, digital inclusion strategies must be flexible and adaptable to different local realities, acknowledging that the pathways to digital engagement vary widely across regions and communities.

By focusing on the processes through which digital inclusion is achieved, assessments can also foster greater collaboration between stakeholders. Governments, non-profits, and local communities can engage in shared learning, exchanging insights on effective strategies rather than being constrained by rigid benchmarks. A process-oriented approach encourages iterative development, where policies and interventions are continually refined based on observed progress and community feedback. This aligns with Sen’s (1999) capabilities approach, which emphasizes that development should be assessed in terms of the freedoms and opportunities people have to achieve meaningful outcomes, rather than just the final results.

Sustainability is another key advantage of this model. When assessments measure progress through the strength of ongoing initiatives rather than short-term success rates, they contribute to long-term digital equity. Unwin (2019) highlights that sustainable digital inclusion requires continuous investment in skills, infrastructure, and community-led initiatives, all of which are better captured through a process-oriented framework.

The dominant outcomes-based model of assessing digital inclusion does not adequately reflect the complexity, adaptability, and contextual diversity of digital engagement. A process-oriented approach offers a more inclusive, equitable, and meaningful way to measure progress by prioritizing the pathways through which communities advance digital inclusion on their own terms. Recognizing local innovations, emphasizing iterative learning, and fostering global collaboration are key steps toward a more sustainable and just digital future. As the world moves toward greater reliance on digital technologies, it is imperative that assessment frameworks evolve accordingly, ensuring that digital inclusion is measured not just by access, but by the depth and richness of participation in the digital world.

References

• Couldry, N., & Powell, A. (2014). Big data from the bottom up. Big Data & Society, 1(2).

• Heeks, R. (2017). Information and Communication Technology for Development (ICT4D). Routledge.

• Selwyn, N. (2004). Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. New Media & Society, 6(3), 341–362.

• Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press.

• Steyn, J., & Johanson, G. (2011). ICTs and Sustainable Solutions for the Digital Divide: Theory and Perspectives. IGI Global.

• Unwin, T. (2017). Reclaiming Information and Communication Technologies for Development. Oxford Development Studies, 45(1), 42–57.

• Unwin, T. (2019). ICT4D: Information and Communication Technology for Development. Cambridge University Press.

• Van Dijk, J. (2005). The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Information Society. Sage.

• Warschauer, M. (2002). Reconceptualizing the digital divide. First Monday, 7(7).

• Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide. MIT Press.