arbiter
JournalsAccount

Digital policy narratives: addressing grand challenges or exacerbating digital inequalities?

Efpraxia D. Zamani & Sara Vannini

Information Technology for Development2025https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2025.2525348article
AJG 2ABDC A
Weight
0.44

Abstract

Like many countries, the UK has been exploring digital technologies to address grand challenges. In this paper, we study UK policy-generated narratives of the past 10 years to explore the role of digital inequalities within the UK policy rhetoric on the benefits of digital technologies. We combine topic modeling and qualitative analysis to analyse 227 policy documents. Our findings indicate that policy frames digital technologies as able to support efficiencies and innovation. Policy proposes that regional initiatives are needed to incentivise businesses, through funding, and to support citizens, primarily through digital skills training. We argue that, in this discourse, digital technologies are framed as the panacea for addressing challenges, without sufficiently recognizing that techno-centric solutions, considering digital inequalities, can instead exacerbate existing divides. In this respect, our study contributes by showcasing the need for policy framing being aligned and consistent with the prioritization of digital inequalities for constructive digital transformations.

3 citations

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2025.2525348

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{efpraxia2025,
  title        = {{Digital policy narratives: addressing grand challenges or exacerbating digital inequalities?}},
  author       = {Efpraxia D. Zamani & Sara Vannini},
  journal      = {Information Technology for Development},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2025.2525348},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Digital policy narratives: addressing grand challenges or exacerbating digital inequalities?

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.44

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.32 × 0.4 = 0.13
M · momentum0.57 × 0.15 = 0.09
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.