Abstract
Ubiquitous computing is a new kind of computing where devices enhance everyday artefacts and open up previously inaccessible situations for data capture. ‘Technology paternalism’ has been suggested by Spiekermann and Pallas (Poiesis & Praxis: Int J Technol Assess Ethics Sci 4(1):6–18, 2006) as a concept to gauge the social and ethical impact of these new technologies. In this article we explore this concept in the specific setting of UK road maintenance and construction. Drawing on examples from our qualitative fieldwork we suggest that cultural logics such as those reflected in paternalistic health and safety discourse are central in legitimising the introduction of ubiquitous computing technologies. As such, there is little doubt that paternalism plays an essential role in people’s reasoning about ubiquitous computing in this setting. We argue, however, that since discourses such as health and safety are used by everyone (including both managers and workers) in the organisation to further their own aims, technologies transcend purely paternalistic conceptualisations and instead become a focal point for ongoing struggles for control between those deploying and using them. This means that the benefits and costs of such new technologies become harder to define from an ethical and social perspective.
Resumé
L’ubiquité informatique ou ‘Ubiquitous computing’ en anglais est un nouveau concept qui décrit la manière avec laquelle l’embellissement des objets du quotidien se fait de manière électronique et conséquemment nous permet de découvrir de nouvelles situations, qui étaient auparavant inaccessibles, d’obtenir des donnés. Spiekermann et Pallas (Poiesis & Praxis: Int J Technol Assess Ethics Sci 4(1):6–18, 2006) propose le concept de ‘paternalisme de technologie’ pour explorer et examiner les conséquences sociales et éthiques de cette nouvelle forme de technologie. Dans nos travaux, nous examinons cette proposition en utilisant une étude sur l’industrie de construction des routes en Grande-Bretagne. Nous utilisons des exemples qui sont basés sur nos donnés qualitatives et suggérons que la construction des logiques culturelles, qui s’expriment dans le cadre du discours paternaliste autour du thème de ‘la santé et la sécurité’ (au travail), soit très important pour rendre légitime l’introduction des technologies de l’ubiquité informatique. La proposition du system de paternalisme de technologie joue un rôle important et influent dans le raisonnement du rôle de la technologie d’ubiquité dans ce contexte. Cependant, puisque le discours sur le thème de la santé et la sécurité est utilisé par tous les employés de chaque organisation, indépendamment de sa position hiérarchique, y sont inclus la direction tout aussi bien que les travailleurs, nous soutenons que, l’avancement d’un débat unique qui soutiendrait davantage une certaines forme de pensés et ses différentes formes de technologies, encouragent une tension continuelle entre ceux qui les contrôlent et ceux qui les utilisent. Dans ce contexte il devient plus difficile de définir les avantages et désavantages de ces nouvelles formes de technologie d’un point de vue sociale et éthique.
Zusammenfassung
Ubiquitous Computing ist eine neue Art von Informationsverarbeitungstechnologie, bei der Gegenstände des Alltags elektronisch erweitert und vormals nicht erreichbare Gebiete der Datenerfassung zugänglich gemacht werden. „Technologiepaternalismus“ ist ein von Spiekermann und Pallas (Poiesis & Praxis: Int J Technol Assess Ethics Sci 4(1):6–18, 2006) vorgeschlagenens Konzept zur Einschätzung der sozialen und ethischen Auswirkungen solcher neuen Technologien. Im vorliegenden Text untersuchen wir dieses Konzept am Beispiel der Straßenbauindustrie in Großbritannien. Unter Bezug auf Beispiele aus unserer qualitativen Feldfoschung schlagen wir vor, dass kulturelle Logiken, wie sie im paternalistischen Diskurs um ‚Health and Safety’ zum Ausdruck kommen, bei der Legitimation der Einführung von Ubiquitous-Computing-Technologien entscheidend sind. Technologiepaternalismus spielt damit zweifellos eine entscheidende Rolle in der Argumentation der Betroffenen im untersuchten Zusammenhang. Wir vertreten jedoch die Auffassung, dass, da Diskurse wie „Health and Safety“ von allen in der Organisation (d.h. sowohl vom Management als auch von den Arbeitern) verwendet werden, um die eigenen Ziele zu verfolgen, die Technologien über eine paternalistische Konzeptualisierung hinausgehen und zum Schwerpunkt andauernder Auseinandersetzungen um die Kontrolle zwischen den an Einführung und Nutzung Beteiligten werden. Damit wird es aus einer sozialen und ethischen Perspektive schwieriger, die Vor- und Nachteile solcher Technologien zu bestimmen.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This seems to merely translate the question into another one: Who gets to decide what is good for the general public? The problem of whether machines should assist or prevent specific behaviour remains. In order to solve this dilemma we need to find out who is responsible for making these decisions and how it happens that they need to be made at all.
For example, this happened in our project when workers rejected wrist-mounted units in favour of mobile phone-style ones.
As mentioned in the introduction, the definition of ubiquitous computing is not always clear. We defined the PDA system used by the inspectors and the GPS built into gritting vehicles as ubiquitous since they were mobile, integrated into the environment (as in-car systems), and provided data about previously inaccessible places.
References
Adamowsky N (2000) Kulturelle Relevanz. Ladenburger Diskurs “Ubiquitous Computing”, February 2000
Araya A (1995) Questioning ubiquitous computing. Proceedings of the 1995 ACM 23rd annual conference on computer science, pp 230–237
Bohn J, Coroamă V, Langheinrich M, Mattern F, Rohs M (2004) Living in a world of smart everyday objects—social, economic, and ethical implications. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 10(5):763–785 10.1080/10807030490513793
Brey P (2005) Freedom and privacy in ambient intelligence. Ethics Inform Technol 7:157–166 10.1007/s10676-006-0005-3
Bryman A (2004) The Disneyization of society. Sage Publications, London
Burrell J, Brooke T, Beckwith R (2004) Vineyard computing: sensor networks in agricultural production. IEEE Pervasive Comput 3(1):38–45 10.1109/MPRV.2004.1269130
Davies N, Efstratiou C, Finney J, Hooper R, Kortuem G, Lowton M, Strohbach M (2005) Health and safety compliance in the field. Poster and Demo Abstracts, ACM MobiSys 2006, Uppsala, 19–22 June 2006
Deleuze G (1992) Postscript on the societies of control. October 59:3–7
Dourish P (2001) Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge
Downey GL (1998) The machine in me. an anthropologist sits among computer engineers. Routledge, London
Drugge M, Hallber J, Parnes P, Synnes K (2006) Wearable systems in nursing home care: prototyping experience. IEEE Pervasive Comput 3(3):8
Escobar A (1994) Welcome to Cyberia: notes on the anthropology of cyberculture. Current Anthropol 35(3):211–223 10.1086/204266
Fleisch E, Mattern F (2005) Das Internet der Dinge: Ubiquitous Computing und RFID in der Praxis: Visionen, Technologien, Anwendungen, Handlungsanleitungen. Springer, Berlin
Galloway A (2004) Intimations of everyday life: ubiquitous computing and the city. Cult Stud 18(2/3):383–407
Greenfield A (2006) Everyware: the dawning age of ubiquitous computing. New Riders, Berkeley
Hannerz U (1992) Cultural complexity: studies in the social organization of meaning. Columbia University Press, New York
Hansen TR, Bardram JE, Soegard M (2006) Moving out of the lab: deploying pervasive technologies in a hospital. IEEE Pervasive Comput 5(3):24–31 10.1109/MPRV.2006.53
Ilyes P (2003) “Technology is driving the future”. Informationstechnologie und gesellschaftliche Veränderung aus der Perspektive lokaler IT-Experten. FB Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaften. Dissertation, JWG University, Frankfurt
Introna L D (2007) What surveillance does: exploring the ethics and politics of algorithmic surveillance systems. The new surveillance—a critical analysis of research and methods in surveillance studies. International Conference at the Centre for Technology and Society of the Technical University Berlin
Kortuem G, Alford D, Ball L, Busby J, Davies N, Efstratiou C, Finney J, Iszatt White M, Kinder K (2007) Sensor networks or smart artifacts? An exploration of organizational issues of an industrial health and safety monitoring system. In: Krumm J et al (eds) UbiComp 2007: Ubiquitous Computing. 9th International Conference, Innsbruck, Austria, September 2007, Proceedings, LNCS 4717, Springer, Berlin, pp 465–482
Kun A, Miller TW, Lenharth W (2004) Computers in police cruisers. IEEE Pervasive Comput 3(4):34–41 10.1109/MPRV.2004.3
Ong A (1999) Flexible citizenship: the cultural logics of transnationality. Duke University Press, Durham
Rabinow P (1999) French DNA: trouble in purgatory. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Ritzer G (2004) The McDonaldization of society. Revised New Century Edition. Sage Publications, London
Roduner C, Langheinrich M, Floerkemeier C, Schwarzentrub B (2007) Operating appliances with mobile phones—strengths and limits of a universal interaction device. In: LaMarca A, Langheinrich M, Truong KN (eds) Pervasive Computing. 5th International Conference, PERVASIVE 2007, Toronto, Canada, May 2007, Proceedings. Berlin, pp 198–215
Rohs M (2002) Ubiquitous computing criticism. Seminar Ubiquitous Computing Information. Presentation at the Department of Computer Science, ETH Zurich, 6.2.2002, http://www.vs.inf.ethz.ch/edu/WS0102/UI/slides/ui_10critique.pdf
Roussos G, Moussouri T (2004) Consumer perceptions of privacy, security and trust in ubiquitous commerce. Pers Ubiquit Comput 8:416–429 10.1007/s00779-004-0307-6
Spiekermann S, Pallas F (2006) Technology paternalism—wider implications of ubiquitous computing. Poiesis & Praxis: Int J Technol Assess Ethics Sci 4(1):6–18
Stajano F (2002) Security for whom? The shifting security assumptions of pervasive computing. In: Okada M et al (eds) Software security—theories and systems. Mext-NSF-JSPS International Symposium, ISSS 2002, Tokyo, Japan, November 2002, Revised Papers. LNCS 2609, Springer, Berlin, pp 16–27
Stanford V (2002) Using pervasive computing to deliver elder care. IEEE Pervasive Comput 1(1):10–13 10.1109/MPRV.2002.993139
Stranks J (2005) Health and safety law. Prentice Hall, London
Wajcman J, MacKenzie D (eds) (1998) The social shaping of technology, 2nd edn. Open University Press, Buckingham
Want R, Pering T, Borriello G, Farkas K (2002) Disappearing hardware. IEEE Pervasive Comput 1(1):36–47 10.1109/MPRV.2002.993143
Weiser M (1991) The computer fort the 21st century. Sci Am 265(3):94–100 10.1038/scientificamerican0991-94
Weiser M (1993) Some computer science issues in ubiquitous computing. Commun ACM 36(7):75–84 10.1145/159544.159617
Acknowledgements
This work has been supported by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) project NEMO (EP/C014677/1). We would like to thank Mike Chiasson (Lancaster University) for his very helpful comments and suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kinder, K.E., Ball, L.J. & Busby, J.S. Ubiquitous technologies, cultural logics and paternalism in industrial workplaces. Poiesis Prax 5, 265–290 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-007-0041-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-007-0041-z