An interactive ethical assessment of surveillance‐capable software within the home‐help service sector
| Pages | 43-68 |
| Published date | 22 February 2013 |
| Date | 22 February 2013 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/14779961311304158 |
| Author | Elin Palm |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management |
An interactive ethical assessment
of surveillance-capable software
within the home-help
service sector
Elin Palm
Centre for Applied Ethics, Linko
¨ping University, Linko
¨ping, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate ethical implications of surveillance by means of
the care software “I-Care” in the Swedish home-help service sector.
Design/methodology/approach – A small-scale interview study on home helpers’ experiences of
and reactions to the implementation of the care software “I-Care” in their workspace has been
conducted. The interview serves as the starting point for an ethical analysis of the impact of the care
software “I-Care” on key values within ethics: privacy, autonomy and equality.
Findings – The implementation and use case of surveillance capable technology in a home-help
service sector is assessed from the perspective of ethics. It is concluded that employees’ level of
awareness, access to sufficient and relevant information, as well as their chances of influencing
surveillance conduct, are significant for their acceptance of the surveillance regime.
Originality/value – Surveillance in the home-help service setting has been investigated from the
perspective of ethnology and organizational studies but not, as here, from the perspective of ethics.
Conditions for the ethical acceptance of workspace surveillance are suggested.
Keywords Sweden, Ethics,Healthcare, Surveillance, Employees attitudes, Workplace, Home care,
Computer software
Paper type Case study
1. Introduction
Modern surveillance technology has a strong impact both on workers and workspaces.
Internet and e-mail monitoring, location tracking and biometrics are examples of how
information is collected about employees at work (Ball, 2010). They can be subjected to
surveillance both inside and outside the work site by means of company owned:
computers, phones and vehicles recording their (in)activities (Palm, 2007). A certain
amount of control over employees’ doings and assessments of their productivity have
almost always been a part of the employment conditions (Ball, 2010). Inexpensive and
easy-to-use surveillance device enable employers to conduct more constant and detailed
surveillance about individual employees than what traditional methods have allowed
(Fairweather, 1999) and the information-gathering process has become more
surreptitious (Bennett in: Hansson and Palm, 2005, p. 73). Importantly, workspace
surveillance can imply an oppressive form of control but will not automatically invite
resistance. Rather, the particular context in which surveillance technology is introduced,
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1477-996X.htm
This paper is written within the project Personalized Health Monitoring Ethics (PHM-Ethics)
funded by the European Commission (contract number 230602): http://ethics.p-h-m.org/activities.
html#D3
An interactive
ethical
assessment
43
Received 17 July 2011
Revised 2 January 2012
14 February 2012
Accepted 27 February 2012
Journal of Information,
Communication and Ethics in Society
Vol. 11 No. 1, 2013
pp. 43-68
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1477-996X
DOI 10.1108/14779961311304158
the ways of implementation and types of technology used determine how it is received
(Zureik in: Lyon, 2003, p. 52).
This article investigates the introduction and implementation of the
surveillance-capable care soft-ware “i-Care” in the Swedish home-help service (HHS)
sector by means of a small-scale interview based on a model of interactive ethical
technology assessment (IETA). The IETA-model aims to reveal how a specific
technology or set of technologies influence the realization of values and principles
central to health care. How are stakeholders affected by a certain technology and why?
Several technology assessment (TA) models have been suggested (Tran and Daim,
2008). In an attempt to integrate ethics is such assessments, the case has been made
that ethical analysis should be executed at an early stage of development and
implementation – preferably in collaboration with technology developers – rather
than ad hoc and in a top-down fashion as most often has been the case (Palm and
Hansson, 2006). Others have suggested that, in order to be successful, the ethical
technology assessment (eTA) should be of an interactive nature (Reuzel et al., 2001).
Drawing on such insights, the IETA-model seeks to incorporate relevant stakeholder
perspectives. By inquiring stakeholders about their experiences of a technology like
i-Care, the ethical analysis can be enriched. An interactive assessment reduces the risk
that relevant perspectives are overlooked and interview data can serve as a basis for
well-funded recommendations. Anchored in public conceptions of the technology,
policy recommendations are likely to gain broader acceptance and their legitimacy
increases with a procedure where stakeholders have been involved.
A backdrop of theoretical and empirical studies of workspace surveillance are
presented in Section 2 followed by a particular focus on surveillance in the HHS sector
in Section 3. Section 4 introduces an IETA model and Section 5 presents an interview
with HHS workers regarding their experiences of- and attitudes to i-Care. Section 6
analyzes the impact of i-Care on central ethical values such as privacy, autonomy and
justice as well as on acceptance and resistance – key issues within surveillance
studies. Section 7 concludes the discussion.
2. Surveillance in the realm of work
Technology that enables continuous and systematic collection of personal dat a
possesses a potential to influence the data subjects in a most profound way. Hence,
surveillance technology is likely to become particularly problematic in the context of
work where employees have limited chances of avoiding surveillance and may be
subject to surveillance over time (Palm, 2007).
Organizations mainly adopt surveillance capable technology to protect their assets
(Ball, 2010). Employers subject employees to surveillance for reasons of effectiveness,
productivity and security, i.e. the health and safety of employees, consumers and the
public. It is used to evaluate workers’ performance, to protect work premises, stock and
means of production and to deter and control abuse of the employment relationship
(Miller and Weckert, 2000). Moreover, it is used to comply with regulatory
requirements and to promote certain public interests (Palm, 2007).
Although typically presented as a top-down activity liable to instigate negative
reactions among those being monitored, surveillance may be not only be in the interest of
employers and owners of the means of production but also to those subjected to
surveillance. Automated surveillance may be considered a more objective form of
JICES
11,1
44
To continue reading
Request your trial