Russian German identity: transnationalism negotiated through culture, the hybrid and the spatial

Transnational theories of migration have come to the fore in social science research as scholars have sought to account for the effect of globalization upon the practice of migration. The formulation of transnationalism has not been uncontested and its boundaries are still subject to redefinition. The studies that have utilised transnational frameworks have primarily centred upon circuits of movement flowing through North America. Although the volume of literature countering this focus has steadily increased there are few studies of transnationalism which apply to the migrations emerging from the spaces of the Former Soviet Union. Further, within post-Soviet studies the body of literature questioning the appropriateness of applying frameworks of western derivation to post-Soviet realities has grown steadily. This study applies transnational concepts to a post-Soviet context. This thesis comprises a case study of the migratory practice of Russian German respondents interviewed in Russia and Germany. The empirical findings are employed to problematise understandings of transnationalism within a post-Soviet rubric. I argue that although Russian Germans’ participation in transnational circuits is constrained by local circumstance in both Russia and Germany, study respondents are a part of a Russian German transnational community nonetheless. Their transnationalism is understood in terms of social space, hybridity and culture

Exploring Digital Ethics through a Digital Inclusion Lens

The consequences of the digital transformations of the last two to three decades have been profound and far reaching. Their impact – magnifed by swift deployment and far-reaching societal uptake – has wrought signifcant changes upon our sense of self, relationships and interactions with others and with our wider environment (i.e. Burr et al. 2020). Furthermore, these same factors have meant that ‘our individual and social wellbeing is now intimately connected with the state of our information environment’ (Burr et al. 2020:2313). A plurality of interrelated social, cultural and technological issues arise from this state of afairs. In turn, this has meant that ‘for what was originally conceived as an open and unregulated space, the internet has become the focus of a great deal of policy, law and governance’ (Whiting & Prichard, 2017: 6). In the notional societal space created by our rapid digital development, we must navigate a range of issues that encompass data big and small, privacy, good behaviour from a variety of standpoints. As Richards and King (2014) point out, the views and interests of those occupying the foremost positions of leadership in big tech do not always echo the foremost interests of their service users. Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, for example, is not the only Silicon Valley guru to express the view that ‘we must yield our expectations of privacy’ to make way for the inevitable and get out of the way of technological innovation’ (Richards & King, 2014: 409; also, Véliz, 2021:10; Bélanger & Crossler, 2011:1030). Yet, the variety of ways in which both interaction with, and abstinence from, digital realms impact our lives means that even the acceptance of this position has multiple consequences. As Rogerson (2020) – among others – points out, the advancement of digitisation into all areas of our collective and individual lives ‘requires a greater emphasis on, what we should now call, Digital Ethics.’ Further, Rogerson cautions that the failure to address this challenge will pave the way towards a miserable and inequitable future; a ‘world of privileged digital natives and an underclass of digital outcasts, a world of danger, domination and despair’ (Rogerson, 2020). Navigating away from this dystopia requires new realisations of long settled notions. For example, Richards and King, in their lengthy consideration of Big Data Ethics, note that ‘privacy should not be thought of merely as how much is secret, but rather about what rules are in place (legal, social or otherwise) to govern the use of information as well as its disclosure’ (Richards & King, 2014: 411; Sarathy & Robertson, 2003; Poças Rascão, 2020; Whitehouse, 2010). The growing use of digital tech and social media requires us to rethink the ways in which our social relationships are constructed. As O’Reilly et al. observe, and as is perhaps particularly the case for younger people, ‘initially, scholars diferentiated ‘real’ lives from ‘virtual’ lives, but this rhetoric has shifted, with recognition that adolescents’ [and many others’] lives are blended on and ofine’ (O’Reilly et al. 2021:91)1 . Rogerson provides a useful defnition of Digital Ethics thus: ‘Digital Ethics can be defned as integrating digital technology and human values in such a way that digital technology advances human values, rather than doing damage to them’ (Rogerson, 2020). The way in which this process is carried out is also of importance. The subject of digital ethics is large in scale and continuously evolving in response to a fast-moving feld. It is useful to keep in mind Floridi’s caution that while digital governance, digital regulation and digital ethics are connected and complimentary, they are distinct areas and should not be confused (Floridi, 2018:3). While, for example, the role of legislative regulation is/ will be signifcant, the development of ethical principles and best practice on the ground is also crucial (Richards & King, 2014:397). In this report, UWS and Mhor Collective respond to SCVO’s commission to better understand how a digital ethics lens can be applied to digital inclusion settings. Specifcally, in responding to the SCVO brief, in this report we include:• A brief literature review of current understanding of how digital ethics relates to the context of digital inclusion; • A summary of learning and insights from engagement with SCVO funded organisations working on digital inclusion projects; • Conclusions and recommendations that will help SCVO develop its understanding of how community-based organisations in Scotland can understand and embed ethics in digital inclusion wor

Co-production in Arts & Culture:A Review of Evidence

This review of evidence explores the notion and potential of co-production in the art and cultural sectors. To approach this task, keyword searches were conducted using the term co-production alongside, co-production AND museum, co-production AND exhibition, co-production AND culture, co-production AND arts. This returned both academic and grey literature of relevance. These documents were reviewed and – where appropriate – the reference lists appended to these sources were scrutinised for more, relevant material. To discover practical examples of its usage in social, arts and cultural settings, the term co-production was then entered into a more generalised internet search. It soon became apparent that co-production as an idea is both poorly defined (leading to conflation or interchangeable use with other similar terms and ideas) and yet, used widely across a range of social, cultural, public service and policy areas. Furthermore, while the arts have been recognised as having great potential for increasing stakeholder engagement through co-production practices, there are significant differences in how the arts are operationalised across different contexts. As noted by MacGregor et al. (2022), co-production through the arts can be influenced by the relationship between researcher and stakeholder, ethical issues with collaboration, approaches to stakeholder engagement, the balance in the co-production of knowledge, capacity-building resources and the communication between multi-stakeholder partners (MacGregor et al., 2022:206). In this review, we explore some definitions of co-production and adjacent concepts, noting that co-production can be differently understood by different stakeholder groups (e.g. Brandsen et al. 2018; Voorberg et al. 2015) and, that the degree to which citizens or community members are enabled to participate in the production of an outcome can vary widely (e.g. Brandsen et al. 2018). Examples of co-production in the arts and cultural space that emerge from the literature are given. These underscore the variety of practices and approaches that might be considered as co-production. Brief summaries of two of the projects contributing to the Future Paisley programme of cultural regeneration follow. These projects (both ongoing at the time of writing) have aimed to foreground co-production as a key tenant of the approach taken. We hope that this review provides insight into the range of practices considered as co-production – ranging from tokenistic to citizen-led. It can be seen that awareness of co-production (and adjacent concepts such as co-creation) has increased but that terms are often conflated and used interchangeably (e.g. Voorberg et al., 2015:1347). The utility of examining some of the differences more closely lies chiefly in the ‘benefits for comparability of empirical findings’ that a more nuanced insight offers (Brandsen et al. 2018:7). Further, there are practical benefits to those stakeholder groups engaging in co-production type collaborations if all parties are clear regarding the extent of their engagement from the outset