Difference between revisions of "Lankshear2001"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 3: Line 3:
 
|Author(s)=Gloria Lankshear; David Mason
 
|Author(s)=Gloria Lankshear; David Mason
 
|Title=Technology and ethical dilemmas in a medical setting: privacy, professional autonomy, life and death
 
|Title=Technology and ethical dilemmas in a medical setting: privacy, professional autonomy, life and death
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Medical EMCA; Privacy; Technology; Ethics;
+
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Medical EMCA; Privacy; Technology; Ethics
 
|Key=Lankshear2001
 
|Key=Lankshear2001
 
|Year=2001
 
|Year=2001
Line 12: Line 12:
 
|URL=http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1012248219018
 
|URL=http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1012248219018
 
|DOI=10.1023/A:1012248219018
 
|DOI=10.1023/A:1012248219018
|Abstract=A growing literature addresses the ethicalimplications of electronic surveillance atwork, frequently assigning ethical priority tovalues such as the ‘right to privacy’. Thispaper suggests that, in practice, the issuesare sociologically more complex than someaccounts suggest. This is because manyworkplace electronic technologies not designedor deployed for surveillance purposesnevertheless embody surveillance capacity. Thiscapacity may not be immediately obvious toparticipants or lend itself to simpledeployment. Moreover, because of their primaryfunctions, such systems embody a range of otherfeatures which are potentially beneficial forthose utilising them. As a result, more complexethical dilemmas emerge as different desired ‘goods’ compete for priority in thedecision-making of individuals and groups. From a sociological point of view this raisesinteresting questions about the way ethicaldilemmas arise in the context of the ongoingsocial relationships of work. The paperexplores these issues using data from a studyof the development and implementation of acomputerised instructional package in amaternity setting. This medical settingillustrates clearly how seeking to assignethical priority to a particular concern, suchas the ‘right to privacy’, cannot butoversimplify the real day to day dilemmasencountered by participants. At the same time,the example of the instructional packagedemonstrates that it is difficult to predict inadvance what ethical issues will be raised bytechnologies that almost always turn out tohave a range of capabilities beyond thoseenvisaged in their original designspecification.
+
|Abstract=A growing literature addresses the ethical implications of electronic surveillance at work, frequently assigning ethical priority to values such as the ‘right to privacy’. This paper suggests that, in practice, the issues are sociologically more complex than some accounts suggest. This is because many workplace electronic technologies not designed or deployed for surveillance purposes nevertheless embody surveillance capacity. This capacity may not be immediately obvious to participants or lend itself to simple deployment. Moreover, because of their primary functions, such systems embody a range of other features which are potentially beneficial for those utilising them. As a result, more compl exethical dilemmas emerge as different desired ‘goods’ compete for priority in the decision-making of individuals and groups. From a sociological point of view this raises interesting questions about the way ethical dilemmas arise in the context of the ongoing social relationships of work. The paper explores these issues using data from a study of the development and implementation of a computerised instructional package in a maternity setting. This medical setting illustrates clearly how seeking to assign ethical priority to a particular concern, such as the ‘right to privacy’, cannot but oversimplify the real day to day dilemmas encountered by participants. At the same time, the example of the instructional package demonstrates that it is difficult to predict in advance what ethical issues will be raised by technologies that almost always turn out to have a range of capabilities beyond those envisaged in their original design specification.
 
}}
 
}}

Revision as of 06:54, 25 March 2021

Lankshear2001
BibType ARTICLE
Key Lankshear2001
Author(s) Gloria Lankshear, David Mason
Title Technology and ethical dilemmas in a medical setting: privacy, professional autonomy, life and death
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Medical EMCA, Privacy, Technology, Ethics
Publisher
Year 2001
Language
City
Month
Journal Ethics and Information Technology
Volume 3
Number 3
Pages 225–235
URL Link
DOI 10.1023/A:1012248219018
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

A growing literature addresses the ethical implications of electronic surveillance at work, frequently assigning ethical priority to values such as the ‘right to privacy’. This paper suggests that, in practice, the issues are sociologically more complex than some accounts suggest. This is because many workplace electronic technologies not designed or deployed for surveillance purposes nevertheless embody surveillance capacity. This capacity may not be immediately obvious to participants or lend itself to simple deployment. Moreover, because of their primary functions, such systems embody a range of other features which are potentially beneficial for those utilising them. As a result, more compl exethical dilemmas emerge as different desired ‘goods’ compete for priority in the decision-making of individuals and groups. From a sociological point of view this raises interesting questions about the way ethical dilemmas arise in the context of the ongoing social relationships of work. The paper explores these issues using data from a study of the development and implementation of a computerised instructional package in a maternity setting. This medical setting illustrates clearly how seeking to assign ethical priority to a particular concern, such as the ‘right to privacy’, cannot but oversimplify the real day to day dilemmas encountered by participants. At the same time, the example of the instructional package demonstrates that it is difficult to predict in advance what ethical issues will be raised by technologies that almost always turn out to have a range of capabilities beyond those envisaged in their original design specification.

Notes