Tim Unwin's Blog

I’m delighted to announce that we will be hosting a relaxed and informal event at 6 pm on 2nd June in the Beach Bar at the Labadi Beach Hotel, Accra, to discuss some of the arguments contained within my new book Digital Inclusion in an Unequl World: An Emancipatory Manifesto, published by Routledge on April 6th. The event is the day before this year’s three-day eLearning Africa conference, and delegates participating in the conference are welcome to join us. The book contains 31 vignettes, and at least two of the authors who contrributed to the book (David Hollow from Jigsaw Education and Tom Wambeke from ITCILO) are speaking at the conference, and will also contribute to the discussions about the book.

Graphic illustrations

Many, but by no means all, of the arguments of the book can be captured in these two graphics. We need to shift the balance from

economic growth to equity, rights to responsibilities, working for (or worse still on) to working with, rhetoric to reality, enslavement to freedomme to we

We also need to rethink the meaning of inclusion and champion freedom and emancipation over its use to describe capture and enslavement.

Getting your own copy of the book

You can order the book direct from Routledge Store and Amazon, and a small number of copies will also be for sale at a 30% discount ((£25, €25, CHF25, $30) during the event in Accra.

We look forward to seeing you in Accra for the book event and at eLearning Africa.

Please use this contact form to let us know that you will be joining us

Get the final four podcasts from my new book Digital Inclusion in an Unequal World: An Emancipatory Manifesto, read by the authors of their vignettes on The ICT4D Collective‘s podcast channel on Apple Podcasts – just click on the audio links below to listen. This, the sixth tranche of episodes (21-24) is now available as follows:

Order your copy of the book direct from Routledge here

Episode 24: Tom Wambeke on “Beyond the Cable: ‘The embrace of co-designed, plural futures’”

This is the twenty-fourth episode of our podcast based on the vignettes contributed by friends and colleagues to Tim Unwin’s new book Digital Technologies in an Unequal World: An Empancipatory Manfesto. In it, Tom Wambeke argues that we need to “move beyond inclusion as mere access toward inclusion as transformation — a redefinition that gestures toward a truly radical inclusion. This vision demands co-designing for the pluriverse — a world where multiple ways of being and knowing coexist”.

The full vignette can be read here.

Episode 23: Ugo Vallauri on “The Right to Repair”

This is the twenty-third episode of our podcast based on the vignettes contributed by friends and colleagues to Tim Unwin’s new book Digital Technologies in an Unequal World: An Empancipatory Manfesto. In it, Ugo Vallauri shows how “it’s possible to give devices a second lease of life, to create abundance and digital access out of Big Tech’s deliberate attempts to make products obsolete, with extortionate pricing of spares, repair-averse design and increasingly using software as a weapon”. He shows how Restart Parties and Repair Cafés provide part of the answer to a more sustainable digitsal future, noting that “in Africa, Asia and South America repair remains vital: a necessity, not a privilege”.

The full vignette can be read here.

Episode 22: Jamie Proctor on “The Right People, Building Things They Understand, and Striving to Deliver Directly for Citizens”

This is the twenty-second episode of our podcast based on the vignettes contributed by friends and colleagues to Tim Unwin’s new book Digital Technologies in an Unequal World: An Empancipatory Manfesto. In it, Jamie Proctor argues that “to serve the needs of the world’s poorest and most marginalised it is essential to systematise … changes towards multidisciplinary teams, delivering iteratively, with a focus on citizens. Otherwise, the potential benefits of digital technology in the public sector will never be realised”.

The full vignette can be read here.

Episode 21: Ettie Unwin on “Crafting a More Equitable Framework for Global Epidemiological Research Practice: Working With Not On”

This is the twenty-first episode of our podcast based on the vignettes contributed by friends and colleagues to Tim Unwin’s new book Digital Technologies in an Unequal World: An Empancipatory Manfesto. In it, Ettie Unwin draws on her experience in using statistics and mathematical modelling of infectious diseases to argue powerfully that scientists (and by implication all of us) need to work with rather than on people living in economically poor parts of the world. As she says “Since the global burden of infectious disease is not
equitable, it’s important to help train my future colleagues around the world in methods and tools so they can model transmission themselves”.

The full vignette can be read here.

Do follow the podcast here to be the first to hear each new episode

“Idol worship hits fresh highs as new generation rises“

“Worshipping idols: Japan’s pre-teen singers whose fans are middle-aged men“

“The cult of Taylor Swift (and why we keep worshipping at her altar)“

If you attend or watch almost any music gig/event/concert/festival across the world, you will see fans “worshipping” their pop idols playing musical instruments and performing on stage. The illustrations above and their associated headlines visibly illustrate a close connection between religious language (worship, idols and altars), contemporary music and place (where these events happen).

Traditional styles of worship in Christian churches have been transformed across the world since the 1970s. In part this has been a deliberate effort to try to make services more attractive to younger people (or “audiences”), and in part because many argue that traditional psalms and hymns are elitist and too difficult for congregations to sing. However, there is little doubt that it is also because many people who have grown up in this period simply wish to worship in the style of music with which they are most familiar in their everyday lives. Yet, as indicated throughout the Christian New Testament, especially in John’s Gospel (8:23, 15:19, 17:16, 18:36) and Letters (1 John 2: 15-17), followers of Jesus are encouraged not to love the world or anything in it (1 John 2:15); Paul likewise encourages us in his Letter to the Romans (12: 2) not to “conform any longer to the pattern of this world”. I also often wonder why, if traditional forms of sung worship are so difficult to perform, people readily learnt them in the past. Might there be something in the idea that the effort of learning something challenging and glorifying God through so doing can be a fulfilling reward in itself?

This post seeks to unravel these apparent tensions, and to explore the extent to which contemporary practices and understandings of Christian worship run the risk of becoming more about worshipping the musicians than it does about worshipping God. This finds its expression particularly in a fundamental change in the “place” where musicians perform within the built fabric of churches. It focuses particularly on experiences within the Anglican tradition, with its rich heritage of choral music, but is also relevant much more widely. The post is organised around reflections on five main themes: observations on diversity and unity; reflections on worship as music or life; on the place of worship; on imagery and fabric; and on ways forward for the future.

Diversity and Unity

I have been fortunate to visit and worship in many Christian churches from different denominations (especially Anglican, Catholic, Baptist, Orthodox and Free). Examples of these very different places are illustrated below.

Holy Trinity Anglican Cathedral Accra Nekresi Monastery (Georgian Orthodox) Santuario Madonna delle Lacrime Incoronata, Ponte Nosso (Province of Bergamo, Italy)

However, I have also been privileged to visit and be a guest in Muslim Mosques, Hindu Temples, Sikh Gurdwaras, Buddhist Temples, and Chinese (Buddhist, Taoist and Confucian) temples, all places of worship from different religious traditions.

Puja at Kataragama, Sri Lanka Confucius Temple, Beijing Small mosque in rural Ghana

These experiences over the last 70 years have all built into my understanding of worship and the places where it is practised. Amongst the many challenges that these contrasting practices present is that whenever I see Muslims kneeling down in prayer I always wonder why it is that in so many Anglican churches today few people kneel to pray. Instead we sit on comfortable chairs on carpeted floors, in marked contrast to kneeling on the harsh floors we did in the not-so-distant past.

One of the great strengths of contemporary Christianity is its rich diversity not only between denominations, but also within denominations, and even between different forms of worship at the same church. Historically, such divisions have been the source of immense conflict, as in the violent suppression of heresies exemplified by the elimination of the Cathars through the Albigensian crusade of the early 13th century and the subsequent medieval inquisition of the 14th century, as well as more widely during the Reformation and rise of Protestantism in the 16th century.

Many people choose to focus on the differences between Christian denominations. I prefer to focus instead on what we share in common rather than that which divides us. After all, Jesus’ prayer recalled in John’s Gospel (17: 20-1) was “for those who will believe in me through their [his disciples’] message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you”. Likewise, Paul in his Letter to the Philippians (2: 2) emphasised unity among believers when be beseeched them to make his “joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose”. Indeed, in my own life, even though I have considered myself to be an Anglican since childhood, I have often felt more spiritually uplifted and closer to God in churches of other denominations as during a Mass in Manila Cathedral in the Philippines, praying in a small Orthodox church in Ohrid (North Macedonia), listening to vespers in the Basilica Sainte-Marie-Madeleine in Vézelay (France), or at a wedding in a small Catholic church in northern Italy, than I have in most Anglican places of worship. To be sure, there are exceptions, as in an early morning Holy Communion in Durham Cathedral, but this paradox increasingly worries me, and in part lies behind the reflections that follow.

Basilica Sainte-Marie-Madeleine in VézelayOn Christian worship: as music or as part of a holistic life?Conceptual reflection

A distinction is often made in contemporary Christian practice between those who primarily consider “worship” to be sung worship (anywhere, but often communally in a church building), and those who instead see “worship” as being the totality of how they strive to live their entire lives before God (both within and beyond the church building). For the latter, in a formal church setting, the prayers, readings and preaching all form an integral part of worship alongside the music and singing. This division is distinct from, but often conflated with the wider division between what is seen as being “traditional” (with rituals, symbolism and a liturgy) and contemporary, largely non-liturgical and less formal, worship. Many more traditional forms of worship, for example, are actually completely compatible with a view of communal worship as being inclusive of many different elements (a whole life view), but they do usually maintain some liturgical structure to them.

Interestingly, the New Testament says rather little about what worship actually is, and how it should be practised. As John Piper has commented, “almost every worship tradition we have is culturally shaped rather than biblically commanded”. My own view is that worship is not just sung worship but includes all that we do. This is well reflected in Paul’s Letter to the Romans (12: 1) where he wrote “offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God – this is your spiritual act of worship”, and in his 1st Letter to the Corinthians (10:31) “whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God”. To be sure, singing and playing music are an important part of this, as Paul also emphasised in his Letter to the Ephesians (5:19): “Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord”. However, worship is also very much more than just music and songs. John, in his gospel (4:23) thus observes that “a time is coming and has now come when true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship in spirit and truth”.

In practice

The above reflections have very practical implications. Some Anglican churches, for example distinguish between Service Leaders and Worship Leaders. This can give rise to tensions, especially when a Service Leader who believes in a whole-life definition of worship refers to the “musicians” or “music group” rather than calling them the “worship group” (as they often like to call themselves). Likewise, Worship Leaders who see their remit as being much wider than just playing the music can (possibly) inadvertently take over much of the role of a Service Leader. The resolution of such potential tensions should be relatively simple through clear acknowledgement of the different roles (if indeed they are different), and prayerfully involving the music lead, service lead and preacher together in shaping the content and style of each service. Unfortunately, for whatever reasons, this does not always happen.

One of the defining characteristics of the Anglican Church is that it has always been based on an agreed, but quite flexible, liturgy to provide a clear structure to its services and a set of agreed beliefs that are reaffirmed collectively within a service. This was enshrined in the Book of Common Prayer dating back to 1549, but which was subsequently revised and is now more familiar in its 1662 version. As the Church of England states, “A permanent feature of the Church of England’s worship and a key source for its doctrine, the Book of Common Prayer is loved for the beauty of its language and its services are widely used”. More recently, in an attempt to modernise the language and make it more accessible, especially for younger people, in the late 20th century, the Alternative Service Book (ASB) was introduced in 1980, and subsequently the General Synod of the Church of England launched Common Worship in 2000 as a series of authorised liturgical books. This liturgy provides a tried and tested framework for worship.

Liturgies, such as those in Common Worship and the Book of Common Prayer provide an agreed set of beliefs and a structure that a community of worshippers strive to adhere to. Without a liturgy, there is a danger that anything becomes possible, or even acceptable, and importantly this can again lead to significant tensions; what one person might pray as an intended communal intercession, could cause real offence to another, and thus discord within a congregation. In contrast to the Anglican tradition, there are numerous non- or less-liturgical Christian denominations, such as many Baptist, Charismatic, Pentecostal and Free churches, which focus primarily on “sung worship” and preaching. I recall being disconcerted, but also fascinated, by the lack of any prayers or liturgy in a long Christian service I attended a decade or so ago in South Africa, which consisted only of 30-40 minutes of singing (worship), a rather tedious 45 minutes sermon (more of a harangue) and 10-15 minutes of notices. The congregation seemed to love it, and it is a practice that is now becoming increasingly popular in some Anglican churches in the UK. In such contexts, it makes perfect sense for there to be only a “Worship Leader” for the singing and a Preacher for the sermon.

However, in the Anglican tradition, where the liturgy provides a structure that has evolved and withstood the ebbs and flows of 500 years of history there would definitely still appear to be a need for someone to lead the congregation through the prayers and structure of the service, as well as a preacher and someone to coordinate the music for the songs/hymns (see also comment above about the long tradition of Anglican choral music no longer being seen as worthy of inclusion, because of its difficulty for contemporary audiences to comprehend or sing).

On the place of worship Prototypical medieval church/cathedral layout (Shannon, 2015) A typical modern church plan. Note the stage at the lower left corner for the musicians and singers

Churches are the places where communal Christian worship usually takes place. They have evolved in design and function considerably over the last two millennia, and vary somewhat in layout between the main denominations. In origin, much western European church architecture was based on the Roman basilica, and by the Middle Ages had become typified in the familiar cruciform shape shown in the left image above. Typical modern, communal and multifunctional churches often take a form similar to that in the image at the right, with the focus of attention on the stage in the lower left corner.

The “choir” (or music group and singers)

Much has been written about church architecture and design, and I want here to draw out only one aspect of the contrast between these two floor plans that seems highly pertinent to the above reflections on the place of worship and music.

In traditional churches members of the human choir usually sat on one or both sides of the chancel or choir/quire (architectural feature), giving the congregation a direct view of the altar and the cross that was sometimes hung centrally from the ceiling or placed on an altar (see left diagram above). Traditionally, the members of the choir were not the central focus for the congregation. Likewise, in churches with an organ, this was usually hidden away and invisible, although very audible, to the congregation.

In more modern designs of churches and contemporary practice, the musicians and singers are instead often located on the “stage” and become the centre of attention. Indeed, in many churches there remains little symbolism left to remind worshippers that they are indeed in a Christian church. Often the cross has been removed, or is somewhere on the side, not in the direct line of vision of most of the congregation. In churches where a table has replaced an altar, because of the belief that Jesus’ death has overcome the prior need for a sacrificial altar, there is nowhere left even to place a cross.

The very real danger of this reshaping is that the singers and musicians become more than just the focus of attention. They are transformed into the idols who are worshipped on the stage, just as are the singers and musicians illustrated in the images at the beginning of this post. No longer are they there, largely hidden, to provide support for the congregation to sing, as with traditional choirs and hidden organs, but instead they themselves become the centre of worship. They are frequently clapped and applauded. Most would be horrified to think that they could be seen in this way, but then, why are they not hidden away at the side? Why do they have to be elevated on a stage, replacing the traditional symbols of Christian faith? Why are expensive sound systems, lighting, and equipment provided for them?

From an article from Worship Leaders University which begins “Developing stage presence as a singer or player on a church worship team involves a combination of self-awareness, practice, passion for worshipping God and connecting with the message of the music. Here are some tips to help you improve your stage presence…”

Another, equally controversial, aspect of the frontal positioning of singers as against a peripheral choir concerns their clothing, a dimension of “performance” that is also touched upon by the authors of the above image when they refer to “stage presence”. Traditionally, members of a choir, already partially hidden outside the direct line of sight to an altar/high table, were also made uniform by wearing identical cassocks (see choirboy above), often scarcely differentiating between how men and women looked. In contrast, singers today have a sometimes difficult choice to make as to what they wear. Do the men want to reveal their ripped bodies by wearing tight t-shirts; do the women want to wear short skirts and cropped tops? This is not necessarily to advocate a return to cassocks, but it is to encourage awareness of such complex issues associated with developing a stage presence and being “on stage”. Clergy and musicians alike need to think carefully about how their physical bodies and appearance are perceived by members of a congregation, and whether this influences their worship?

Imagery and fabric: ancient and modern

The Protestant Reformation was both spiritual and physically practical. From the 16th century onwards many monasteries and abbeys were destroyed, painted church interiors were torn down or whitewashed over, and much prior Christian statuary was likewise removed. Debates over iconoclasm (the destruction of icons and other images) go back at least to the Byzantine Iconoclasm of the 8th and 9th centuries, and views as to whether icons, statues and paintings were objects to be worshipped in themselves, or were merely aids to worship that could assist people unable to read the scriptures to gain a better understanding of Christian beliefs, have certainly changed subsequently over time. In the mid-16th century, for example, while Luther saw value in some types of Christian art, Calvinists (and subsequently the Reformed Church) strongly encouraged the destruction of such imagery, considering it to be idolatrous. In 16th century England, the infamous Putting Away of Books Act (1549) was a significant step on the path to “purifying” churches of their artistic heritage, which culminated a century later in the much more dramatic Puritan Parliamentarian destruction of church fabric in their efforts to overcome superstition and idolatry.

Against this background there is a strange paradox in much contemporary Anglican practice, that is now in large part mediated by the use of digital tech. Hymn/song books and bibles have been “put away” to be replaced by words and illustration on large screens. Likewise, instead of cherishing artwork on walls, digital images are projected in vibrant colours onto large screens that frequently dominate the visual experience of worshippers, especially in small local parish churches. The whitewashed walls are, in a sense, being replaced by a new idolatry, a new set of contemporary imagery and persuasion in digital Anglicanism. What if illustrative materials, such as the glorious paintings from hundreds of years ago still remaining in many Catholic churches in Europe, were not actually idolatrous but instead inspirational, designed to bring worshippers to a closer understanding of God?

Moreover, in many Anglican churches today the quality of the slide decks used to project words and images is often very poor, and suggests that little care and effort has been spent on their production. Likewise, those controlling the transitions between slides frequently make mistakes, either advancing the slides too early or forgetting to move them on in the appropriate order, which confuses and distracts worshippers. Neither of these is particularly edifying, and both seem to suggest little interest in crafting worship that is indeed to the glory of God.

Linking this to the above discussion of worship and service leadership, advocates of moving towards a largely digital “presentation” of a service also often serve to undermine the role of a service leader. “Control” is usually passed to a “tech savvy” person, often a young person, who merely clicks through the slides as they think appropriate (the young are often erroneously thought to be more knowledgeable about digital tech just because they are young!). They are in effect leading the service. Increasingly, there seems to be no role for anyone actually to lead the services, especially when they consist just of worship songs, a sermon and notices. For some, this might well be seen as a good thing; those who enjoy and are inspired by the diversity of forms of worship and reflection within the structure of a liturgy may well have other views.

The music itself: quality or quantity?

A final tension concerning the place of worship is evident in the emergence of a genre of music specifically called “Worship Songs”, much of it emanating from the USA – as if all Christian singing was somehow not necessarily a part of worship. Praise Charts, for example, lists the “Top 100 Worship Songs of All Time“, with the following introduction “Tried and true. Call them nostalgic, old, or classic, these songs have stood the test of time at PraiseCharts. Take a look through some of the most memorable praise & worship songs of all time. Many of these songs have piano/vocal, choir sheet, and multitrack arrangement”. The first, rather obvious, thing to note about these 100 is that they are clearly not the greatest Christian songs/hymns/music of all time, with most of them having been written only since the late 20th century. Many of them are also written by quite a small number of prominent song writers, such as Phil Wickham (USA) and Chris Tomlin (USA), and issued by collectives and organisations such as Bethel Music (USA) and Hillsong Worship (Australian). Of course people from other parts of the world do contribute to this genre of music, but it is interesting to note how much of it is dominated by the wider US individualistic culture that stands in marked contrast to the more communal European cultural traditions that have found their expression in distinct other musical practices since the foundations of Christianity. Is this nothing but another form of the US imperialism that dominated the world in the second half of the 20th century and is now teetering on collapse?

The propagation of this music, and once more the notion that music is the main form of worship, also owes much to software and licensing companies such as CCLI (Christian Copyright Licensing International; again founded in the USA) with its SongSelect platform calling itself “the definitive source of worship song resources”. Significantly, almost all the material available through this platform is also presented in USAn English rather than English English, so licensed Christian churches across the world who simply copy the music and words onto their slide decks are not so subtly again promoting a USAn view of the world. Is it surprising that young Christians in the UK are confused about “correct” spelling and grammar? An extreme development of this is when singers in the UK, often unconsciously, adopt a specific USAn accent when they perform in church! Moreover, there are increasing calls for wider recognition of the commercial pressures underlying the Christian music industry (BaptistStandard, 2021; Foust, 2023), with the crisis at CCM also being seen by some as just the tip of an iceberg of corruption revealing the deep underbelly of this genre (ChurchLeaders, 2025; Hailes, 2025; Hesse, 2025).

For many born in the last 20 to 40 years, these songs are literally “wonder-ful”, providing them with words and meaning that enable them to “worship” God in their fullest understanding thereof. However, others find them overly simplistic, undemanding, and even trite. Interestingly, for example a search on SongSelect for “la-la” generates 10,956 results (on 23rd March 2026). In contrast, a search for “Trinity” had only 1,383 results! For many this represents a dumbing down of worship, far removed from the rigour and effort of previous generations of worshippers who found reward and satisfaction in mastering more complex hymn tunes and psalmody to the glory of God.

Again, one obvious solution is to encourage Anglican church leaders to engage with a broader diversity of musical traditions in their service music and singing, not least so that these empower worshippers from culturally diverse backgrounds to participate in formats with which they are already familiar and enjoy. It also provides an opportunity for worshippers to be enriched by experiencing traditions of praise and worship with which they are not familiar. However, increasing diversity is all too often interpreted by “Worship Leaders” as meaning simply learning new songs in the same genre. Instead, combining contemporary music, for example, with songs from diverse African or Asian traditions (see WeAfrique’s 30 Best African Praise Songs), European hymns (both ancient and modern) with wonderful lasting lyrics and music, and even revitalising the chanting of psalms can enrich all of our experiences of worship. Some of my most spiritually inspiring experiences remain those enjoyed while listening to Anglican Choral Evensong or Catholic Vespers. Such suggestions nevertheless often meet resistance from “Worship Leaders” who claim that their groups of musicians and singers familiar with pianos, guitars and drums are unable or unwilling to learn the necessary new skills. In contrast, many of an older generation long for the music of their childhood; I recall one elderly friend who persisted in calling drums, “the devil’s instrument” (see also Randall Stephens, 2018).

Church drums; a joy to some, the devil’s instrument to othersRichness in diversity, humility and tolerance

Worship lies at the heart of Christian practice, and the rich diversity of such practices within the Anglican Communion has much to commend it. However, if Christianity is to continue to flourish it is important also to cherish and learn from the wealth and depth of communal worship that has been practised across the last two millennia. Music and singing have long been an important element of worship, but as the above examples have sought to illustrate it is far from the only form of worship. Moreover, an over-emphasis on them, especially when they are seen as being the only true form of worship, can be deeply problematic, not least since they detract from the importance of prayer and reflection on the word of God which are also integral aspects of communal worship. This tendency is all the more dangerous when the place of worship is shaped around a stage on which musicians and lead singers perform, and in so doing risk becoming the focus of worship themselves.

Diversity of forms of worship reflect wider human diversity. We all have differing perspectives, and it is important to cherish the gifts of humility and tolerance in discussions of religion and worship. While there are many paths to faith, Christianity nevertheless requires belief in certain key principles, often formalised into Creeds. Different Christian denominations, and varying practices within specific denominations, represent efforts to combine these tensions between individualism and communalism. The reflections above merely seek to tease out some of the challenges associated with evolving ideas and practices relating to worship in the 21st century. In particular, the Anglican Communion has long believed in the importance of a liturgy that reflects multiple dimension of worship, and if this is to be maintained in churches that lay claim to this inheritance then it is helpful to have someone leading the overall flow of a communal church service, that includes prayers and a sermon as integral elements alongside the music and singing. In such circumstances, it is at best confusing to refer to the person leading the music as the “Worship Leader”, unless, of course, it is the intention to combine the roles of music lead and service lead. At worst, the reshaping of the “place” of worship in the layout of churches, is in danger of creating new idols who may unintentionally become misplaced objects of worship. In many churches, especially smaller ones, it makes sense for the ordained minister to preach and lead services, supported by someone else who co-ordinates the music. In larger churches, with several clergy and leaders, sharing these roles more widely to include a separate service lead can enable the preacher to focus on their sermons and the music lead to concentrate on delivering high quality musical support to congregational singing. Moreover, where a service leader is identified as a separate role, it makes no sense at all to pass that role on to someone else who simply clicks through a set of slides.

This post is password protected. You must visit the website and enter the password to continue reading.

It was such a pleasure to work with these thirty-one amazing authors who each contributed a vignette to my latest book, Digital Inclusion in an Unequal World published by Routledge on 7th April 2026.

Order your copy direct from Routledge here

Read or listen to all their vignettes by clicking on the button below:

Vignettes

Get the latest podcasts from my new book Digital Inclusion in an Unequal World: An Emancipatory Manifesto, read by the authors of their vignettes on The ICT4D Collective‘s podcast channel on Apple Podcasts. This, the fifth tranche of episodes (17-20) is now available as follows:

Do follow the podcast here to be the first to hear each new episodeEpisode 20: Dato’ Mohamed Sharil Tarmizi on “It’s about what technology can do for society”

This is the twentieth episode of our podcast based on the vignettes contributed by friends and colleagues to Tim Unwin’s new book Digital Technologies in an Unequal World: An Empancipatory Manfesto. In it, Dato’ Mohamed Sharil Tarmizi draws on his experiences in Malaysia to reflect on what has changed over the last two decades in terms of how and why digital tech is being used, from the days of kedai.com which was seen as being a way to “bridge the digital divide” to the contemporary period when Malaysia is still providing free collective broadband to rural and underserved communities. He concludes that “the technology has evolved and yet inequalities still remain. In the end, it’s never about the technology but it’s about what technology can do for society. Let’s begin by agreeing on the societies we want, then apply the appropriate technologies to make them thrive”.

The full vignette can be read here.

Episode 19: Revi Sterling on “Retreads: Pushing New Rocks up New Hills”

This is the nineteenth episode of our podcast based on the vignettes contributed by friends and colleagues to Tim Unwin’s new book Digital Technologies in an Unequal World: An Empancipatory Manfesto. In it, Revi Sterling reflects on the challenges facing gender digital inclusion, and asks: “I wonder what we did wrong for the last twenty years. Were we ahead of ourselves? Were we just Cassandras warning people about restrictive social norms and technology determinism? It’s a petty bitterness I have. There’s a twinge of resentment when I look at the ‘new’ gender and digital inclusion research agendas – retreads if there ever were. No one has heard of the canon of digital divide research we built. If they have, they say ‘It’s so old!’ but if you don’t address a gaping wound, it doesn’t heal”. She concludes that “‘Development’ now is not about progress; it’s about keeping progress from slipping. Our goal is to hold the gendered rock. The goal of development work now may be maintaining a state – instead of expecting state change – until newer systems evolve to fill the vacuum. We need to be content, even dedicated, to holding the boulder on the steep hillside and not letting it slide”.

The full vignette can be read here.

Episode 18: Paul Spiesberger on “Spinning Digital Cotton to Counter Digital Colonialism”

This is the eighteenth episode of our podcast based on the vignettes contributed by friends and colleagues to Tim Unwin’s new book Digital Technologies in an Unequal World: An Empancipatory Manfesto. In it, Paul Spiesberger argues that those who can should switch to Linux OS, support initiatives such as Public Money Public Code, encrypt data, use decentralised Internet services, and dusrupt power structures by demanding policy changes.

The full vignette can be read here.

Audio read by Georg Steinfelder

Episode 17: Fernanda Scur on “Digital Tech and the Unbanked: The COVID Pandemic in Brazil” (English and Brazilian Portuguese audio)

This is the seventeenth episode of our podcast based on the vignettes contributed by friends and colleagues to Tim Unwin’s new book Digital Technologies in an Unequal World: An Empancipatory Manfesto. In it, Fernanda Scur illlustrates how “Any digital solution must … be complex and above all take into consideration both the context for which it is intended and the stakeholders that need to be involved in its implementation”. This is illustrated through the example of how “Brazil’s federal government offered financial emergency aid to informal workers and small entrepreneurs during the COVID pandemic in the early 2020s”.

The full vignette can be read here.

English audio

Brzilian Portuguese audio

Do follow the podcast here to be the first to hear each new episode

British universities have long had travel policies designed to control what staff travelling for research or on university business overseas are allowed to spend for travel, accommodation and maintenance.  In the past many of these were sensible and realistic, based on a good understanding of the real costs of conducting research-practice overseas.  The vast majority of academics acted responsibly, and few deliberately sought to exploit the system for personal gain.

However, in recent years these policies have become unnecessarily burdensome, driven in part by a claimed desire to show that universities are delivering on HMRC requirements.  In many instances these policies lead to

universities being charged substantially more for staff travel than is necessary,research grants do not cover the full travel and maintenance costs associated with research,staff usually have to pay considerable amounts out of their own pocket to undertake the research they are meant to be doing, andthere is a further breakdown of trust between university administrators and academic staff.

The net effect of this is little short of scandalous, especially when the time spent by staff in making bookings and accounting for this expenditure can also be overwhelming.

The enforced use of suppliers

Most universities now insist that staff use suppliers such as Key Travel or DGI Travel to book travel.  In part this is so that universities can claim that the rates charged are “reasonable”.  This also outsources administrative staff time in checking staff expenditure.  However, in my experience

I can always find flights and accommodation more cheaply if I book them myself.  Often, I can find rates between 25% and 33% better value, but have been explicitly told by senior management that I must use the more expensive central supplierThese suppliers mainly use digital systems so that they do not have to employ many staff to book transport and accommodation and respond to queries.  The quality of the individual service they offer when there are problems or crises (as with the cancellation of flights to and through the Arabian/Persian Gulf) is therefore very problematic, with long waiting times and an inefficient/inaccurate/rude service.The design of these digital systems is also often very poor, meaning that it takes academic staff a considerable time actually to find and book their requirements.  Among the problems often encountered are:Systems that only work on one or two common browsers (never my personal favourites!)Frequent crashes leading to lost bookingsDifficulties in identifying optimal routes or accommodation choicesResults frequently showing there are no hotels available in a particular locationFrequently need to restart an application process to get it to workLack of clarity in documentation/receipts over whether the booking are refundable or not

In short, using such suppliers takes longer and costs more for staff involved in overseas research-practice.  This is deeply frustrating when I am always trying to get the best value so that my limited research grants can be eked out for as long as possible.

Strict following of government regulation

Many university administrators seem petrified of being flexibly and instead rigidly follow their own interpretations of government regulations, even when these permit some flexibility.  I have checked four university travel policies, and they all vary, with some being much more permissive than others.  The good ones show at least some understanding of the difficulties of undertaking research in complex contexts in other parts of the world, where cash (or even barter) are the common means of exchange and receipts unknown.

Most university administrators seek to follow the HMRC’s guidance on employment income (and updates),  but even then choose to ignore parts of it. This states clearly that “Employers are not obliged to use the published rates. It is always open to an employer to pay or reimburse their employees’ actual, vouched expenses, or to negotiate a bespoke scale rate amount under the terms of an approval notice which they believe more accurately reflects their employees’ spending patterns”.Moreover, this government guidance is primarily intended for staff expenses in businesses and industry, which are in practice very different from those expenses involved in research-practice.  Universities need to negotiate a clearer and simpler scheme with government that better fits the requirement of academic enquiry.  Research funding is something very different from the possible taxable income that HMRC is focused on (see also HMRC EIM21765)

Interestingly, some funders of research actually have far more liberal and generous conditions associated with their grants than do the universities that administer them!

Inappropriate rates for travel and accommodation

One of the most problematic issues concerns that rates at which academic are allowed to claim expenses, especially for hotels and food.  Many follow the HMRC guidance on expense rates for employees travelling outside the UK, but this was published in 2020 and is hopelessly out of date.

Even if the rates are considered to have been appropriate in 2020 (which I do not), the subsequent inflation and currency exchange variations make such guidance completely inappropriate.  For example, the amount permitted for dinner in Accra, Ghana, is only Cedis 80.5 which is equivalent to £5!  Hotel rates are equally problematic especially when staying in conference hotels in major cities (in Pakistan, this list does not even include rates for the capital Islamabad).Much more realistic and regularly updated figures are available from the UN figures for daily subsistence rates provided by the International Civil Service Commission, which can be at least a third more or sometimes almost double the UK provided rates.  Yet, some (perhaps many) UK institutions do not accept the use of these rates and insist on the HMRC figures.Linking to the above, at least one supplier requires staff booking through its “services” to agree that they abide by the 2020 HMRC guidance!Trying to abide by these rates means that most academics will be personally out of pocket when doing overseas research, which is most challenging for those early in their career who do not have the larger salaries of more senior academics.It can also be noted that trying to keep costs as low as possible to fit within university requirements can give rise to serious risks, since cheaper hotels are often in more hazardous locations, and more “affordable” (i.e. very cheap) places to eat do not always have the highest quality of food hygiene.

Research staff time

Another very significant burden for academic staff is the amount of time they have to spend in booking and accounting for their research expenses, especially when frequent small payments for public transport, food or services in the field have to be accounted for.

The complexity and lack of user friendliness in booking through the required suppliers is both burdensome and frustrating.  Regardless of the increased financial cost this requires, I estimate that when I book flights or hotels myself I can do so in less than a third of the time it requires me to do so through the university’s official supplier.Many universities use the Agresso system (part of Unit4), which might be good for university administrators but is a cumbersome nightmare for most academics.  As with much software, it seems to be designed more for the central “controllers” and administrators, rather than it does the end-user!  I know many people who take a whole day just accounting for their expenses for an intense week of field research-practice in parts of Africa or Asia.

In brief, this all means that staff not only have less time available for their research and teaching, but also become very frustrated and alienated from the administrative bureaucrats who are meant to be there to serve them (although I should point out that there are indeed some excellent people at junior levels in university administration who do their best to help their academic colleagues!). I confess that I rarely include any of the small receipts in claims I make simply because the time spent in processing them is not worth the effort.

Gifts, hospitality and air miles

The offering of small gifts and providing hospitality, especially when alcohol is involved, is undoubtedly controversial.  However, I am frequently ashamed when people across the world offer me generous hospitality, and I am not permitted to reciprocate if I strictly follow our university regulations.  Of course I do try to reciprocate, but it is out of my own pocket. 

I believe strongly that when our partners overseas contribute to the success of our research practice then it is absolutely right and proper to thank them in ways appropriate to their culture.  The UK has become internationally renowned for its stinginess (combined with arrogance), and this has done immense harm to our reputation.  Anything we can do as individuals to restore and build international friendship and co-operation has to be a good thing.In many university regulations, individuals are not permitted to benefit from Air-miles or similar awards.  However, these enable recipients to have benefits ay no extra cost including additional baggage, priority check-ins, priority flight changes, and lounge access which are all incredibly helpful when conducting overseas research-practice.  Not only do they help staff travel in a less-stressed way and therefore perform their tasks better on arrival (such as when giving key note speeches), but they can also reduce the risks (such as theft and violence) associated with travel to and in certain countries.Alcohol forms an important part of culture and life in many cultures, despite the efforts of the anti-alcohol lobby to prevent its consumption.   If a guest  wishes to drink, alcohol, surely this should be permitted, providing of course it is in moderation.  Moreover, much of my research is on wine and to undertake this successful it is essential to taste it, but university regulations prohibit any expenditure on alcohol.  Moreover in some parts of the world local beer is cheaper (and safer) than soft drinks, and yet one is prohibited from purchasing it.

In conclusion, I have tried to argue here that it is high time that university administrators in the UK cease being so sanctimonious, and come up with policies that show that they actually understand the complexities and challenges facing those undertaking rigorous academic research overseas.  This may well require us all to work collaboratively to change government policy, but unless we do so the costs of undertaking it (both financially and in terms of time spent in administration) will remain much higher than they need to be, and the quality of UK research will decline yet further.  Good new policies and practices could save considerable sums of money for universities. I used to be strongly against per diems, largely because of their abuse, but adopting such a system using the widely recognised international civil service model would greatly facilitate the administration of overseas research funding and would save the inordinate amount of time and effort that research-practitioners and administrators currently devote to this.  It will also help to build trust between them, which is so often lacking.  Most academics will still choose the best value for money options and often claim less than the permitted per diems quite simply because they want to make their grants go further!

In recent years I have tried, but often failed, to use “alt text” in my work when posting images online. I have failed dismally to go back and try to annotate all of the many images I have posted in the past, and I know I fail to be consistent in doing so in the present. Both of these failings are undoubtedly because of the time that this would take me, despite many platforms now encouraging its use, and my commitment to supporting people with disabilities (see my very old site at https://disabilityict4d.wordpress.com/).

For those who are unfamiliar with alt text it is the attribute in HTML that specifies alternative text for images, and is especially valuable for people with visual impairments, because it helps screen readers convey the meaning of images for them. The World Wide Web Consortium thus recommends that every image displayed through HTML should have alt text associated with it.

However, reflecting on this in the context of the increasing use of AI, has made me very aware of the ways in which alt text can be used by AI systems to describe images without the use of data labellers. At one level, this might be seen positively, because it can reduce the need for AI companies to use what is often termed “slave labour” to do the annotation (see Ganna Pogrebna, 2024). However, this would take away the very small income that such labour can generate, and is indeed valued in many parts of the world. Moreover, it is also a way that such images (or video) can be annotated for free for teh AI companies by the person doing the posting.

Much more worryingly, though, is the potential for alt text to be used maliciously. If, with their permission, I post an image of a friend/colleague online, and label this using alt text, their name will be forever attached to that image, and be a vehicle through which AI and search engines can identify them and link to further related images of them. This could, for example, readily be used to track and surveil them when travelling. However, it would be equally possible for someone else to write something unpleasant or abusive about a person as alt text on an image, and that too would be recorded so that AI could then be used to build very erroneous profiles of them.

I am inclined to think that the potential harms of this outweigh the benefits, although for innocent law-abiding people with visual impairments it would be an immense loss. Is this primarily a new way that the Digital Barons are deliberately exploiting us? Is that why platforms are incresingly encouraging us to include alt text when we post an image (as illustrated in the image above)?

Artifical Intelligence (AI) has undoubted positive potential to be used to enable completely new kinds of research, especially in areas that require the “analysis” of very large amounts of data. This is particularly so in fields as diverse as modelling environmental change, and medical diagnostics. However, I am shocked almost every day by the scale at which it is now used overtly to cheat (and seek to get an advantage over others) and to support downright laziness in academic research.

Cartoon in exhibition along the shore of Lake Geneva, May 2024

Many univeristies have introduced AI policies for students (both undergraduates and postgraduates) that focus largely on identifying permitted and illegal aspects of the use of AI, focusing especially on penalising perceived abuse thereof. All too often these policies fail sufficiently to recognise how it can indeed be used positively and constructively. What such policies also fail to recognise is the scale at which deceit was already widely practised in universities prior to the advent of AI (see my posts in 2010 on Univeristy Students Cheating and on plagiarism and the production of knowledges, and in 2021 On PhDs). As with so many digital technologies, they serve to accentuate existing aspects of human behaviour. With the massification and grade inflation that has occurred in higher education over the last quarter of a century, it is scarcely surprising that some (perhaps most) people will use any means at their disposal to gain the highest level of certification with the least amount of effort.

What is deeply worrying is the speed at which the use of AI is transforming – and possible destroying – traditional values of academic integrity and labour. Two recent examples highlight the scale of the challenge:

Prize nominations. I have recently been on several boards reviewing nominations/applications for prizes. Increasing numbers of these appeared suspicious to me, and a quick check with a variety of AI detectors indicated high probabilities that they were indeed produced through the use of AI. Examining some of the entries for international awards ceremonies over the last couple of years, also suggests that several of the winning entries were produced through the use of AI, and that some of the evidence adduced therein was not based on physical reality. The reasons are obvious, with potential winners believing that they can gain an advantage through the use of such technologies.Research proposals. In the last couple of years, an increasing number of proposals I receive from prospective postgraduate or post-doc applicants are clearly produced using AI. This is deeply concerning, not least because it provides no evidence that an applicant is indeed able to undertake independent research, and were such applicants to be accepted there would probably be very real problems during the research process. However what has provoked me to write this short post is that one such applicant seemed to express surprise that I should actually want to receive an application written only by a human!

Some members of review panels clearly do not mind if AI has been used to enhance a proposal, but I remain very concerned for four main reasons:

Above all, extensive reliance on AI to design research (and presumably therefore also to undertake and produce it) will take away the ability of human researchers to think for themselves and create new ideas. This is already happening, but any loss of this ability is deeply problematic, not least since it increasingly limits our individual and collective ability to be resilient and solve new challenges in the future. I fundamentally disagree with arguments that suggest this does not matter because it will enable our brains to concentrate on other, higher level, functionalities.Second, though, AI is only as good as the data drawn upon by its algorithms. Such data, by definition, always comes from the past, and is biased. Hence, it cannot be truly innovative. All it does (at present) is reconfigure existing knowledge in new ways. To be sure, this can be interesting, but randomness (not least in our genetic makeup – although genetic drift is now seen as being less random that was previosuly thought) and serendipity are key elements of true innovation and creativity. These are what has enabled us to survive as a race, and if we lose them we will lose not only our souls but also our physical ability to function.Third, all too oftenpeople using AI do so because they find thinking too difficult and/or they are lazy. They want a quick solution without the effort. Yet if we do not use our brains they will atrophy; if we do not draw on our memories, we will forget how to use them. Digital dementia is already a significant problem, but it will become very much more so in the future if we do not continue to exercise our minds. We must cherish real creative and innovative research by humans. This has always been tough; excellence does not come easy. However, it is rewarding. We must do all we can to encourage and reward real and high quality human research. If not, the mediocre and trivial will increasingly come to dominate our enquiry.Fourth, it raises real problems for institutions and the management of research. Focusing on penalising cheating is a sign of failure. What we need to do is to encourage as many people as possible to think new thoughts for themselves. The mundane can indeed be left to those who enjoy trawling through the slop created by “AI pigs”. This will require much tighter processes for the selection of academic researchers (and this also surely applies to industry), along with absolute certainty and rigour over processes designed to penalise those who seek to dissemble. Put simply, all uses of AI should be declared (and on many occasions may be acceptable), and failure to do so should be accompanied by elimination.

Much more could be written (and indeed has already been writter by others) on these issues, but when people start assuming that universities and researchers welcome AI generated proposals or nominations then it is clear that the rot has already set in, and we need to quarterise it as soon as possible. We don’t have the antibiotics yet that can treat this infection!

The ICT4D Collective has recently launched a podcast channel on Apple Podcasts which contains audio versions of the vignettes in my upcoming book Digital Inclusion in an Unequal World: An Emancipatory Manifesto. The fourth tranche of episodes (11-16) is now available as follows:

Episode 16. Benita Rowe on “The Tech Will Save Her’ – False Promises in Digital Gender-Based Violence (GBV) Solutions”

This is the sixteenth episode of our podcast based on the vignettes contributed by friends and colleagues to Tim Unwin’s new book Digital Technologies in an Unequal World: An Empancipatory Manfesto. In it, Benita Rowe illustrates how “Digital interventions aimed at preventing or responding to gender-based violence (GBV) have re-emerged in recent years in cyclical form, each positioned as a world-first innovation”. Yet, she argues that “Despite differences in format, these interventions often replicate a flawed set of design assumptions that consistently fail to
account for lived realities”.

The full vignette can be read here.

All audio files relating to the book are also available on our podcast with a new episode every week.

Episode 15. Nimmi Rangaswamy on “Social, Shared and Sustainable: Whatever Happened to the Community Internet?”

This is the fifteenth episode of our podcast based on the vignettes contributed by friends and colleagues to Tim Unwin’s new book Digital Technologies in an Unequal World: An Empancipatory Manfesto. In it, Nimmi Rangaswamy concludes that “What was once imagined as a shared, empowering infrastructure has become a personalised, pay-per-use playground — curated for binge and scroll rather than community or collective good. The Internet in India today is more a screen in the palm than a shared window. It entertains more than it empowers, and connects more to content than to community”.

The full vignette can be read here.

All audio files relating to the book are also available on our podcast with a new episode every week.

Episode 14. Nnenna Nwakanma on “Working WITH, not FOR”

This is the fourteenth episode of our podcast based on the vignettes contributed by friends and colleagues to Tim Unwin’s new book Digital Technologies in an Unequal World: An Empancipatory Manfesto. In it, Nnenna Nwakanma tells the story of her experiences having asked to visit a “school that the media has touted as the ‘model’” of good use of digital tech in education in a West African country. As she notes, “I needed to see things for myself, where the rubber hits the road. I also refused any ‘official’ or ‘media-related’ accompaniment”. The vignette reports on the schocks she encountered when she visited. As she concludes “When are we going to stop working FOR stakeholders and start working WITH them?”

The full vignette can be read here.

All audio files relating to the book are also available on our podcast with a new episode every week.

Épisode 13 en français. Yuliya Morenets sur « Au-delà du rôle symbolique: repenser l’inclusion des jeunes dans les forums mondiaux »

Voici le treizième épisode de notre podcast, inspiré des témoignages d’amis et de collègues qui ont contribué au nouveau livre de Tim Unwin, «Digital Technologies in an Unequal World: An Empancipatory Manfesto». Yuliya Morenets y raconte sa rencontre dans le hall d’inscription d’un événement IGF, illustrant comment l’inclusion des jeunes privilégie souvent la familiarité à l’innovation. Elle conclut : « Si nous voulons une véritable participation, nous devons dépasser le symbolisme. Nous devons investir dans les jeunes, non seulement comme des acteurs, mais aussi comme des bâtisseurs : imparfaits, passionnés et toujours en apprentissage. L’important n’est pas de polir chaque voix, mais d’écouter celles qui n’ont pas encore été entendues ». 

Le texte intégral est disponible ici.

Audio en français

Tous les fichiers audio relatifs au livre sont également disponibles sur notre podcast, avec un nouvel épisode chaque semaine.

Episode 13 in English. Yuliya Morenets on “Beyond the Token Seat: Rethinking Youth Inclusion in Global Forums”

This is the thirteenth episode of our podcast based on the vignettes contributed by friends and colleagues to Tim Unwin’s new book Digital Technologies in an Unequal World: An Empancipatory Manfesto. In it, Yuliya Morenets tells the story of an encounter in the registration lobby of an IGF event to show how youth inclusion often rewards familiarity over innovation. She concludes that “If we want real participation, we must move beyond tokenism. We need to invest in youth not just as performers, but as builders—messy, passionate, and still learning. The point is not to polish every voice but to hear the ones that haven’t been heard”.

The full vignette can be read here.

Audio in English

All audio files relating to the book are also available on our podcast with a new episode every week.

Episode 12. David Hollow on “Evidence-driven decision-making in the use of digital technologies in education”

This is the twelfth episode of our podcast based on the vignettes contributed by friends and colleagues to Tim Unwin’s new book Digital Technologies in an Unequal World: An Empancipatory Manfesto. In it, David Hollow argues that building a cuture of evidence-driven decision making can help ensure that EdTech is used wisely to mitigate the global learning crisis. He argues that everyone can contribute to building such a culture of evidence-based decision-making in EdTech by asking the following question: will this use of technology lead to an impact on learning outcomes that is cost-effective and works at scale?

The full vignette can be read here.

All audio files relating to the book are also available on our podcast with a new episode every week.

Episode 11. Janet Longmore on “The Youth-led Imperative”

This is the eleventh episode of our podcast based on the vignettes contributed by friends and colleagues to Tim Unwin’s new book Digital Technologies in an Unequal World: An Empancipatory Manfesto. In it, Janet Longmore provides a summary of the six main learnings from the work of Digital Opportunity Trust with young people drawing especially on their recent experiences in Rwanda and Uganda. Implementation of these learnings can provide a fundamental ‘mindset shift’ that reflects new skills and an entrepreneurial socially responsible spirit, resiliency and adaptability among young people that are critical for navigating employment and self-employment opportunities in a digital economy.

The full vignette can be read here.

All audio files relating to the book are also available on our podcast with a new episode every week.

Do follow the podcast here to be the first to hear each new episode