Abstract
We are surrounded by narratives about digitalization – in media, in white papers, in policies and in academic discourse. This article aims to dissect policy narratives to unveil the dominant stories associated with digitalization and open a dialogue on their consequences. The empirical material includes policy documents on digitalization at the European Union, national and sub-national levels focusing on the Swedish context. The article argues that these documents not only produce narratives of digitalization that reveal a certain orientation towards reality but also become tangible constructs. Further, despite their neutral language, they should be considered part of the problem formulation. The analysis is carried out by identifying the dominant and taken-for-granted stories, and the results show that digitalization, often portrayed as a modern and innovative concept, is frequently narrated in line with rather traditional perceptions of industrialized modernity. The results indicate that digitalization is trapped in an unambiguous and cramped dramaturgy, and if policies are enacted in the same way in practice, we will face a rather un-resilient digital modernity.
Introduction
We live in a world where we are surrounded by narratives about digitalization – in media in general, in white papers, in policies and in academic discourse. We are told that digitalization will solve many of our perceived problems, for instance, by creating more jobs, improving efficiency, delivering welfare and supporting sustainable development, and that new and unknown improvements linked to digital technologies will improve our lives in many ways (see e.g. Digital Agenda for Europe European Parliament 2010). These narratives manifest in practical doings at different levels in our societies, sometimes almost without us noticing, where we slide into more digitally supported actions without recognizing the shift, but at other times, in very palpable ways, where we are forced to adopt digital alternatives that markedly change our circumstances. The manifestations and concrete effects are often studied to understand what is happening and who is doing what, for example, in the field of electronic government studies, where a large international conference is arranged annually: EGOV-CeDEM-ePart (see e.g.
The aim is to dissect the policy narratives to unveil stories associated with digitalization and their dramaturgical logic (see Giritli Nygren & Lindblad-Gidlund, 2012); how digitalization is expected to be made, where and by whom, and what values digitalization is expected to produce. Following this, the analysis addresses the epistemological consequences of these narratives – that is, which closures and excluded translations they produce.
The analytical framework is primarily inspired by the philosophy of technology, addressing technology’s essence and construct (Feenberg, 2000), and the relation between them, to demystify them and make empirically available the narratives of digitalization constructed at the policy level. By questioning the interpretations of digitalization and its place in the world and in the policies, we deal with the depersonalization of power in deterministic theories to some extent. The point of departure is that these policy documents produce narratives of digitalization that show a certain orientation towards reality in which certain aspects are highlighted and others are downplayed. In line with Feenberg, we argue that this is not only an orientation but also an action in the world. Thus, it becomes a construct, or as Feenberg (2000) puts it, ‘they are not fantasies, obviously, or there would be no effective1
Note: ‘Effective’ in this context means technology having an effect in reality.
The following section explains the analytical framework in detail and describes related previous research. Next, the empirical material and operationalization of the analytical framework in terms of methodological choices are accounted for. This is followed by a results and analysis section. In the conclusion and contribution section, we discuss the main conclusions and how they contribute to the field.
As mentioned in the introduction, the empirical material consists of policy documents that we use to demystify ‘the strategic standpoint of technology’ (Feenberg, 2000, p. 229). We do so with a specific question in mind: What kind of orientation towards the world unfolds when we dissect narratives of digitalization? This is in line with Feenberg’s (2000) two-fold understanding of technology, where the technical orientation towards the world, on one hand, shows a certain orientation towards reality that dominates others, but the subordinated ones, on the other hand, are seen as equally possible in different power structure settings. However, such an orientation is not only ontological (as in perceptions of what technology should lead to) but is also constructivist, since a certain orientation also results in an action in the world (e.g. when technological artefacts limit certain actions and strengthen others). The skeletal orientation takes on ‘body and weight in actual devices and systems in a specific social context’ and ‘a complete understanding of technology must show how the orientation towards reality characteristic of technology is combined with the realization of technology in the social world’ (Feenberg, 2000, pp. 232–233). The reductionist orientation (where some dominate others), as such, is mediated and value-laden. Ethically and aesthetically, it fosters a society dedicated to a specific set of values, and it is important to find ways of analysing how and when this is done.
Thus, the main argument of this analysis is that orientations towards the world quickly transform or, as Mosco (2004) puts it, attain ‘the digital sublime’ where myths and promises make us believe in questionable narratives without reflection. This is in line with critical theory of technology, an aim of which is to open up possibilities for thinking about the choices made at this level and submit them to democratic control. In this vein, stories of technology – and, in this context, the policymaking of digitalization – are subjects for scrutiny because they become frames for ways of life and we cannot unravel them from technological standpoints only. If we direct our attention only to existing technological artefacts and techniques, we will miss out on possibilities to critically examine the sedimented social history in which technology is embedded. We will also forfeit opportunities to put forward alternative translations and alter how technology is understood and made in the future. As Misa et al. (2003) highlight, we need to perform a non-divided analysis where social theories of modernity and philosophical theories of technology are not treated as opposites but, instead, perform the task of reintegrating the study of technology with broader theoretical reflections on modernity. As Sterne (2003) states in reference to Bourdieu’s unwillingness to describe ‘technology’ as a stable concept, ‘it forces us to wrestle with the messy process of constructing technology as an object of study each time we as an intellectual question’ (p. 370). In this article, we follow the same line of though, to consider how the way in which digitalization is constructed in policies affects how digitalization is made in practice, and if we are not entering the struggle of unfolding and deconstructing the narratives, the sedimentation will only be reproduced without counter-proposals.
‘Technology, then, in its relations with modernity, is not only symbol making and culture changing but also, in the infrastructure of daily life, society constituting’ (Misa et al., 2003, p. 12), or as Brey (2003) formulates it, ‘the understanding that much of this work analyses not only institutional aspects of modernity but cultural and epistemological dimensions as well’ (p. 37). Thereby, critical analyses should reveal both the narratives of modern technological culture and the epistemological consequences of closures and excluded translations. In the absence of possibilities to reflect, technology is created in contexts where important reflexive aspects are considered a threat to technology instead of the core of its epistemological practice.
Furthermore, inspired by Isin and Ruppert’s (2015) studies on imaginary or discursive components, we seek to understand the claims and normative ideals attached to stories of digitalization. Studying the effects of policies allows us to map competing and overlapping power relations in the production of digitalization. However, we focus on how policy narratives contribute to processes of normalization; the narratives create ideals of how digitalization should be understood and shed light on the ways in which digitalization should recreate our everyday world. In line with Wedel et al. (2005), we depart from the notion that policy documents are not neutral instruments. The policy itself and the actions performed in relation to it play a pervasive role in shaping society, even if this role is often indirect (Wedel et al., 2005). This is in line with earlier research on the relation between policymaking and digitalization ( Nyhlén & Gidlund, 2019 ). Digitalization is often done from the top down without taking citizens’ needs into account (see Yun & Opheim, 2010). As Helbig et al. (2009) show, there is a lack of knowledge of what it really means for citizens to be users of information and communications technology (ICT), which has led to a situation where policymakers overestimate the citizens’ ‘demands’ on digitalization. Which is also picked up by Schou and Hjelholt (2018, 2019), describing ‘citizens’ demands’ as a discursive strategy in the Danish strategy for digitalization, framing citizens as constantly struggling to become more ‘effective’ in relation to bureaucracy, and demanding ‘increased digitalization’. In the field of eldercare and healthcare, Frennert (2019) shows that the focus, induced by technological determinism, is on creating more and better
In the following analysis, the point of departure is that policy documents, despite their formal, neutral language, should not be considered neutral documents that are implemented by actors at different levels (Nyhlén, et al., 2018). On the contrary, they are a subset of a complex structure of reproduction and maintenance of the current order (i.e. sediments of technological imperatives). The policy documents are considered part of the problem formulation, not as things that address existing problems (see Bacchi, 2009). Consequently, the policy documents are considered political (in line with Bacchis [2009] post-structural approach to policy analysis), and one of the main tasks for understanding current power schemes in the doing of digitalization is to study the underlying assumptions in policy narratives (Shore & Wright, 1997). Cecez-Kecmanovic (2001) calls this ‘demystifying technological imperatives’ to expose hidden structures and reveal the interests of privileged groups and how they (mis)use the narrative constructs.
Empirical material and methodological choices
The empirical material includes policy documents on digitalization from the EU, national and sub-national levels with a focus on the Swedish context. In Sweden, like many other countries, various digitalization strategies have been produced in recent decades. Included here are long-term documents outlining strategic aims, evaluation reports assessing current trends and constructing milestones, as well as specific strategies aimed directly at, for example, the public healthcare sector. In addition, strategies have been devised at the national, municipal and local levels, stretching beyond the state and into all levels of governance. In this article, we specifically focus on large-scale strategies produced in a multi-level governance setting, ranging from the supra national (the EU) to the national and regional levels (see Table 1 above).
List of documents
List of documents
Sweden is a unitary and decentralized state with far-reaching regional and local authority. Regional and local policy decisions have a far-reaching impact, but as the municipal level relies on decisions made at the national and regional levels, we trace the stories of digitalization strategies at the different levels. Central to this study is that the ways in which national policies are implemented in local municipalities are not automatic, given responses to what the policy suggests; they are also affected by how the actors involved perceive and define the situation at hand and their assumptions about technology. The EU and national strategies are available in both Swedish and English, while the regional strategies are only available in Swedish. In this article, we quote from the Swedish versions but provide our own English translations. Since we acknowledge the importance of language and we search for linkages between the strategies, how they relate to one another and how they pick up, or not, on arguments and ideas, we choose to analyse all documents using the same language. The argument behind this is that metaphors, ways of saying things and proverbs differ between languages and contexts.
As mentioned in the previous section, the analysis is guided by unveiling dominant stories and discussing their orientations towards reality, in line with Feenberg’s (2000) notion of ‘orientation towards the world’, and how these orientations normalize certain narratives, based on Isin and Rupert’s (2015) understanding of claims and normative ideals, while excluding and concealing others or place them in opposite positions, as a way of illustrating Misa et al.’s (2003) and Brey’s (2003) comments on downplayed alternative futures. There are stories about what is considered modern and desirable but also hidden stories about what is undesirable and considered reactionary and requiring action for prevention. We approach this by asking questions relating to the documents about what is presented as the problem and what the proposed solutions are, resting on Bacchi’s (2009) What’s the Problem Represented to Be framework, and analysing these aspects from a critical perspective. In the analysis, we take into account both the written text, the words used and the symbolism. The work of tracing what is taken for granted is aimed at increasing understanding to some degree by making the dominant stories ambiguous and possible to defamiliarize, to discuss hidden social meanings and to create a deeper understanding of the ideological nature of digital policies (Author, 2012). This is intended to touch upon the complex nature of policy enactment and to offer perspective in relation to digitalization and social change ‘from within’ – that is, digital technology in the making or ‘demystifying the technological imperative’ (Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2001).
The dominant stories
In the reading of the documents the analysis reveal how certain themes are repeated in the documents, and they are intertwined in different ways – inside and sometimes between each other. Four of them stand out as more often repeated and strongly emphasized: (1) the necessity of speed, (2) the idea of never-ending economic growth, (3) the citizens and their characteristics and qualities, and (4) the urban-rural dichotomy. Other stories are also intertwined inside and between these four dominant stories, such as the idea of demands from citizens, the importance of ‘winning the race’ to become the most digitalized, the importance of newness and innovation, and the idea that there is a labour force shortage. There are also several assumptions associated with digitalization itself – namely, that there is no other choice than to digitalize, that digitalization in itself will simplify complexity, that it will enhance democracy and that if we do not choose digital tools, it is because we lack digital competence.
The necessity of speed
The narratives in the policy documents are all framed by the idea of being in a hurry. The EU, Sweden as a whole and the Swedish regions are all in a hurry to increase digitalization, to speed up the digital development and to increase digital knowledge. This feeling of being in a hurry is the most prominent notion in the documents, and it is framed in relation to what will happen if we do not increase digitalization. The argument is that if we do not act now, we will be left behind and both economic development and quality of life will decrease: ‘A high-speed internet connection is required for strong economic growth and the creation of work opportunities and wealth’ (European Parliament, 2010: 20).
We are in a hurry to digitalize society as the ‘technological development is increasing in speed’ (Government of Sweden, 2017: 14) and we need to think ‘radically new’ (ibid p. 11). The documents give a feeling that there is an alternative reality waiting around the corner. If we do not digitalize everything, according to the narrative, we will lose the possibilities that digitalization brings, and this applies to everyone – individuals, companies and the whole society (Government of Sweden, 2017: 11). An oxymoron is that the national document states that we will both lose economic growth potential and possibilities for sustainability. There is no definition of sustainability or sustainable development in this context.
The EU strategy also concludes that it is not only important to act quickly to sustain a leading position; it also a story about speed in terms of the importance of high-speed internet. It is important to strengthen digitalization to have an ultra-speed internet connection (European Parliament, 2010: 3). This idea of speed also appears in the regional documents, where digitalization is presented as the solution to problems of the welfare state, since we, as a result of acting too slowly, risk ‘losing the potential’ that digitalization brings (Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions 2019: 7). The regional document differs slightly from the national and EU documents in its framing; here, the focus is on the welfare state, and the most common discourse is the popular story about the demographic challenge of the welfare state. It becomes clear how, as the welfare state is restructured, the faith in innovation grows as a potential solution to the needs of new organizational solutions. Moreover, when it comes to providing welfare services, this becomes especially visible in relation to education and nursing (see Nählinder et al., 2012). The demographic challenge, in short, is for the welfare state to contribute with welfare in completely new and smarter ways (Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions, 2019: 3). Along with this narrative, there is a description of innovation as something we need to strive for. An underlying assumption is that Sweden’s position in this area is potentially threatened, and therefore, strategies are needed to secure Sweden’s leading position. This assumption is based on discourses of competition where innovation becomes the solution that would make Sweden successful in competition with other countries (see Bristow, 2005; Suchman & Bishop, 2000). This relates to the idea that there is a demographic challenge for the welfare state, where an increasing number of people will need financial support from a decreasing supply (Statistics Sweden, 2015; Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions 2015). The lack of workfare is the main argument as to why digitalization is needed in the document. Most of the space is devoted to discussing the need for stronger centralization, national steering, standardization, cooperation and relaxing the laws surrounding digitalization and technological development.
Economic growth
The arguments for increased digitalization promote the idea of never-ending increased economic growth. Further, these arguments are strongly connected to innovation, regional growth and societal development. The proposition is that if we do not strengthen digitalization, the positive values associated with the concepts of growth and development will be at risk of diminishing. The EU document states that the EU is ‘lagging behind’ and needs to take a ‘leap forward’ (European Parliament, 2010: 37). The national strategy also picks up on this idea about societal change and refers to it as the biggest transformation since the industrialization. These changes will affect the society as a whole and ‘we will be able to do totally new things in totally new ways’ (Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions, 2049: 38). There is a strong focus on the growth of the internal market, but there is no mention of sustainable growth in the material. Economic growth is never questioned and is an important focus in the strategies – digitalization is crucial for achieving economic growth: ‘The overall aim of the digital agenda is to reach long-term economic and social benefits from a digital internal market based on fast and ultra-fast internet connection’ (European Parliament, 2010: 3).
The narratives in the documents support their arguments for strengthening digitalization with two reasons: the first is innovation, regional growth and ‘development’; the second is that strengthening digitalization is something the citizens ‘demand’. From the EU perspective, the citizens of Europe are concerned about Europe not being able to ‘flourish’ in the knowledge economy and they feel ‘frustrated’ by an inadequate digital public service (European Parliament, 2010: 5). Moreover, the regional document states that the citizens ‘expect a smart, available and high-quality welfare’ (European Parliament, 2010: 4).
The EU strategy also employs words such as economic ‘ecosystems’ (European Parliament, 2010: 7). Using words such as ‘ecosystem’ makes the development and economic system seem as if they are given by nature and, therefore, difficult to question.
The citizens
The EU document states that ‘everyone’ should contribute to increased digital development and that we should have a ‘digital’ lifestyle (European Parliament, 2010: 5) and learn from ‘digital natives’ (European Parliament, 2010: 7).
Digitalization is presented as the solution to every problem framed in the policy documents. Increased digitalization, then, promises utopia, and risks are rarely mentioned in relation to digitalization. In addition, all other possible solutions or problem framings are engulfed by the idea of digitalization. The documents describe a society that is digitized to simplify everyday life, to create competitiveness and new jobs and to develop Sweden by utilizing the country’s strengths – ‘a well-developed infrastructure, a technology-savvy and technology-friendly people, a well-functioning public a sector that is highly trusted by the population’ (Government of Sweden, 2017: 8). Digitalization is enveloped in a dreamy shimmer, where promises of increased democracy and participation follow in its footsteps. This is partly about increased pluralism in the media, which is believed to strengthen freedom of expression (European Parliament, 2010: 32), and there is no discussion or problematization in reference to an increased spread of threats and hatred online. The second hope is linked to e-participation, and the internet is presented as something that will democratize the EU and the relationship between citizens and the Commission (European Parliament, 2010: 34). At the national level, the vision is for the ‘added value of digitalization’ to be utilized and to improve the quality of life (European Parliament, 2010: 8). Unemployment must be ‘combated, knowledge outcomes in school strengthened and climate emissions reduced’ and in this work, digitization is described as an important tool (European Parliament, 2010: 8).
All strategies for digitalization narrate a story where digitalization is inevitable. ‘We’, as in we the Europeans, ‘we’ the Swedes or ‘we’ the inhabitants of a Swedish region, are okay for now, but there is an alternative reality threatening beneath the surface. If we do not digitalize or take advantage of the possibilities that digitalization brings, we will not survive in the international competition. In this international competition, where companies and individuals compete in a labour market, it is crucial that individuals have the ‘right’ knowledge and skills, courage, innovation and new ways of thinking.
In this way, the descriptions in the documents are very similar to ways of writing innovation strategies, which are also embedded in the discourses of regional competition (Suchman & Bishop, 2000). The documents convey the feeling that there is an ongoing competition where the strongest survive, which is why we need people who are innovative, courageous, brave and radical thinkers. This is how digitalization becomes inevitable and more like a natural law of society, which echoes Darwinism. The ‘competitive turn’, where citizens must be competitive, flexible and active, is a way for the citizen to take on individual responsibility, and digitalization has a central role in reproducing forms of neoliberal citizenship (Schou & Hjelholt, 2019).
This vision also projects normative characteristics of those living in Sweden – they must be innovative and brave and must contribute to all phases of digitalization, from new ideas to their implementation. The technology-friendly people described in the national strategy document possess ‘digital maturity’, which refers not only to being able to identify and use digitalization’s new solutions but also to having ‘an ability to drive and lead development’ (Government of Sweden, 2017: 31). Turning the perspective around and pondering what this means helps us see the taken-for-granted normative assumptions about the characteristics of individuals, be critical or question digitization, which then implies immaturity and the inability to be leaders.
In the regional document, where the problem is framed as a labour shortage problem, the focus is on finding new technology to reduce the need for labour. Words such as ‘streamline’ and being ‘innovative’ in welfare carry most frequent themes in the strategy. This means that the document also includes writings on how efficiency and innovation can be promoted as well as characteristics of workers in the welfare sector that are seen as desirable. This emphasizes ‘lifelong learning’ to create and maintain ‘knowledge and ability of employees to develop and implement new working methods and solutions’ (Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions, 2019: 14). Innovative development is ‘user-driven’ and innovation requires ‘courage, collaboration, exchange of experience and room for testing and learning’ (p. 11). Specifically, the words ‘skills development’, ‘courage’ and ‘innovation’ reoccur several times in the document, and ‘culture’ in workplaces is described as central because it provides opportunities for employees to become brave and innovative, formulate new ideas and be able to implement them (p. 12). Leaders should encourage ‘new thinking and cooperation to remedy the fear of failure’ (p. 13). If we stop for a moment and reflect, the strategy document’s message means that the words linked to innovation and technology development are positively charged. To be innovative is to be brave; if your employees are innovative, you are a good leader. It also gives the impression that employees are happy to implement new solutions and methods and not question, as questioning could signal ‘fear of fear’ and cowardice. Innovation is, thus, positively charged and resistance to or questioning of innovation are the opposites of innovation.
Regarding the national strategy, a main focus is ‘competence’ and ensuring competence, which conveys the idea that there is no competence in the field of digitization or that there is a risk that there will be no competence. The strategy clarifies that enhanced competence is a strategically important area for a ‘forward-looking digitization policy’ and that ‘… everyone should be familiar with digital tools and services and be able to monitor and participate in digital development based on their abilities and circumstances’ (Government of Sweden, 2017: 12). The strategy also frames this as a ‘choice’:
[…] ‘those who are curious, interested and choose to participate in and drive change in a positive direction increase their chances and the chances of our society’ (Government of Sweden, 2017: preface).
Thus, the document frames being part of and pursuing digitization as a ‘choice’, and digitization is associated with positive development both for society and the individual. By extension, this means that if you ‘choose’ not to take part, your ‘chances’ are reduced both at a personal level and for the whole community. We should all be part of the government’s vision of a ‘sustainable digitized Sweden’ (Government of Sweden, 2017: 8; original in italics). Digital competence is important in all parts of society. It is important both to strengthen competence at ‘all levels in the public sector, to ensure access to relevant digital excellence’, and to consider digital competence when appointing new members of state-owned companies’ boards, in order for the companies to consider ‘the opportunities and challenges of digitalization’ (p. 15).
The urban-rural dichotomy
The EU strategy is colonial in its language, since the EU members need to be ‘pioneers’ and develop new markets, new services, systems and standards. From this perspective, digitalization is necessary in all parts of society, including in rural areas (European Parliament, 2010: 30). This ‘inclusion’ of rural areas evinces that rurality is an addition, something added at the end, which reveals that rurality was taken for granted but had to be discursively included at the end. The division between cities and rural areas is also evident in the national strategy, where there is a difference in the framing of development in the cities and rural areas in focus. For example, cities are described as ‘inclusive, secure, durable and sustainable’ (p. 26), while rural areas are framed as recipients of innovation. Thus, innovative solutions to societal problems will be produced in the cities and ‘spread’ throughout the country. Since Sweden is a geographically large country, it is described as important for the country to develop ‘smart cities and regions’, which are complemented by a ‘sustainable countryside’ (p. 27). This enhances the dichotomy between cities and rural areas, where the city is placed at the centre.
This in line with a tradition of interpreting technological advancements as stemming from urban places (Pante, 2014) and understanding rural places as non-modern (Eriksson, 2010), thus alienating rural areas’ interpretations of modernity, technology or, in this case, digitalization. The dominant story of digitalization as urban hinders, or at least does not encourage, local policymakers to translate digitalization on their own terms. Digitalization as such becomes a carrier for urban values, overshadowing possible rural translations and innovations for rural challenges.
Conclusions and contribution
The endeavour to digitalize struggles with existing norms and perceptions, and digitalization, often portrayed as a modern and innovative concept, is frequently narrated in line with rather industrialized perceptions of modernity, which Beck (2016) would call ‘first modernity’. As mentioned in the introduction, the main argument supporting this analysis is that orientations towards the world quickly transform constraints into taken-for-granted internal technical specifications (Feenberg, 2000) that determine and frame the institutional and individual action spaces.
The results indicate that digitalization is trapped in an unambiguous and cramped dramaturgy, and if policies are enacted in the same way in practice, we will face a rather un-resilient digital modernity. Digitalization is narrated as ‘rapid’, with little space for reflection and value judgement, where constant economic growth is an objective and the urban lifestyle is a role model and citizens are either on board or left behind. In this article, we have analysed policy texts that could be seen as expressions of institutional recognition. The analysis shows that there is a recognized story of digitalization. By provoking, making ambiguous, making strange and entering conversations, marginalization strategies are illustrated. As Beck and Lau (2005) put it, ‘the strategy of marginalization does not involve denying that phenomena which deviate from the norm exist empirically. But they are ultimately interpreted as residual and remainder forms, which sooner or later have to give way to their corresponding normality types’ (p. 537). In this way the analysis highlights the norms taken for granted associated with digitalization as well as the consequences of current digitalization trends. The approach allow us to critically analyse and the discuss the epistemological consequences of the narratives of digitalization.
This study contributes to research on how policy documents shape reality and actions. Furthermore, in this case, policymaking is caught in technological determinism. No matter which societal problem is discussed, the solution is always the same: more, faster, better digitalization. Digitalization will bring about increased democracy, improved efficiency, increased participation, increased growth, increased sustainability or [insert any positive word]. We argue that there is a need to search for the what ifs: What if digitalization does not lead to more and increased democracy at all points? What if digitalization does not depend on ‘brave’, ‘innovative’, ‘urban-based’ citizens? We argue that there is a need for a more tentative relationship to digitalization to find the spaces in between, which are uninhabited and spaces for deterministic digitalization.
The analysis shows that ideas about digitalization today lack alternative interpretations and that we lack possibilities to intervene, which calls for politicizing the technological culture (Bijker, 2010) to identify hidden political dimensions, put issues on the political agenda and open issues up for political debate. We argue that the dominant stories must be scrutinized and not be seen as fixed symbols for digitalization.