Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T00:56:32.169Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The power(s) of observation: theoretical perspectives on surveillance technologies and older people

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 December 2013

W. BEN MORTENSON ,
ANDREW SIXSMITH  and
RYAN WOOLRYCH
W. BEN MORTENSON*
Affiliation:
Gerontology Research Centre, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada. Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
ANDREW SIXSMITH
Affiliation:
Gerontology Research Centre, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada.
RYAN WOOLRYCH
Affiliation:
Gerontology Research Centre, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada.
*
Address for correspondence: Ben Mortenson Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of British ColumbiaT325-2211 Wesbrook Mall Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 2B5, Canada. E-mail: ben.mortenson@ubc.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is a long history of surveillance of older adults in institutional settings and it is becoming an increasingly common feature of modern society. New surveillance technologies that include activity monitoring, and ubiquitous computing, which are described as ambient assisted living (AAL), are being developed to provide unobtrusive monitoring and support of activities of daily living and to extend the quality and length of time older people can live in their homes. However, concerns have been raised with how these kinds of technologies may affect user's privacy and autonomy. The objectives of this paper are (a) to describe the development of home-based surveillance technologies; (b) to examine how surveillance is being restructured with the use of this technology; and (c) to explore the potential outcomes associated with the adoption of AAL as a means of surveillance by drawing upon the theoretical work of Foucault and Goffman. The discussion suggests that future research needs to consider two key areas beyond the current discourse on technology and ageing, specifically: (a) how the new technology will encroach upon the private lived space of the individual, and (b) how it will affect formal and informal caring relationships. This is critical to ensure that the introduction of AAL does not contribute to the disempowerment of residents who receive this technology.

Keywords

surveillanceambient assisted livingFoucaultGoffman
Type
Articles
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , March 2015 , pp. 512 - 530
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Altheide, D. L. and Michalowski, R. S. 1999. Fear in the news: a discourse of control. The Sociological Quarterly, 40, 3, 475–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altman, I. and Low, S. 1992. Place Attachment. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Batsch, N. L. and Mittelman, M. S. 2012. Overcoming the Stigma of Dementia. World Alzheimer Report 2012. Alzheimers Disease International, London.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. 1995. Panopticon. In Bozovic, M. (ed.), The Panopticon Writings. Verso, London, 29–95.Google Scholar
Beringer, R., Sixsmith, A., Campo, M., Brown, J. and McCloskey, R. 2011. The ‘acceptance’ of ambient assisted living: developing an alternative methodology to this limited research lens. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6719, 161–7.Google Scholar
Bharucha, A. J., London, A. J., Barnard, D., Wactlar, H., Drew, M. A. and Reynolds, C. F. 2006. Ethical considerations in the conduct of electronic surveillance research. The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 34, 3, 611–9.Google Scholar
Brownsell, S., Blackburn, S. and Hawley, M. S. 2008. An evaluation of second and third generation telecare services in older people's housing. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 14, 1, 8–12.Google Scholar
Buckingham, D. 2008. Introducing identity. In Buckingham, D. (ed.), Youth, Identity, and Digital Media. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1–24.Google Scholar
Cottle, S. N. 2004. Big brother and grandma: an argument for video surveillance in nursing homes. Elder Law Journal, 12, 1, 119–23.Google Scholar
Courtney, K. L., Demiris, G., Rantz, M. and Skubic, M. 2008. Needing smart home technologies: the perspectives of older adults in continuing care retirement communities. Informatics in Primary Care, 16, 3, 195–201.Google Scholar
Cvach, M. 2012. Monitor alarm fatigue: an integrative review. Biomedical Instrumentation and Technology, 46, 4, 268–77.Google Scholar
Demiris, G., Hensel, B. K., Skubic, M. and Rantz, M. J. 2008. Senior residents’ perceived need of and preferences for ‘smart home’ sensor technologies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 24, 1, 120–4.Google Scholar
Demiris, G., Oliver, D. P. and Courtney, K. L. 2006. Ethical considerations for the utilization of tele-health technologies in home and hospice care by the nursing profession. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 30, 1, 56–66.Google Scholar
Demiris, G., Rantz, M., Aud, M., Marek, M., Tyers, H., Skubic, M. and Hussam, A. 2004. Older adults' attitudes towards and perceptions of ‘smart home’ technologies: a pilot study. Medical Informatics, 29, 2, 87–94.Google Scholar
Doughty, K., Cameron, K. and Garner, P. 1996. Three generations of telecare for the elderly. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 2, 2, 71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Essen, A. 2008. The two facets of electronic care surveillance: an exploration of the views of older people who live with monitoring devices. Social Science and Medicine, 67, 1, 128–36.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1978. The History of Sexuality. Translator R. Hurley, Vintage, New York.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. Pantheon, New York.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1982. The subject and power. In Dreyfus, H. and Rabinow, P. (eds), Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 208–26.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1988. Technologies of the self. In Martin, L. H., Gutman, H. and Hutton, P. H. (eds), Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, Massachusetts, 16–49.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1991. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translator A. Sheridan, Penguin Books, London.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1997. Governmentality. In Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P. (eds), The Foucault Effect. Studies in Governmentality. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 87–104.Google Scholar
Friedman, D. 2008. Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. 1991. Modernity and Self-identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Polity, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday and Co., Garden City, New York.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction Ritual. Doubleday and Co., Garden City, New York.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1968. Asylums. Penguin, London.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1971. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Penguin, London.Google Scholar
Hagestad, G. and Dannefer, D. 2001. Concepts and theories in ageing: beyond microfication in social science approaches. In Binstock, R. H. and George, L. (eds), Handbook of Ageing and the Social Sciences. Academic Press, San Diego, California, 3–21.Google Scholar
Ice, G. H. 2002. Daily life in a nursing home: has it changed in 25 years? Journal of Ageing Studies, 16, 4, 345–60.Google Scholar
Illes, J., Rosen, A. C., Huang, L., Goldstein, R. A., Raffin, T. A., Swan, G. and Atlas, S. W. 2004. Ethical consideration of incidental findings on adult brain MRI in research. Neurology, 62, 6, 888–90.Google Scholar
Kayser-Jones, J., Schell, E., Lyons, W., Kris, A. E., Chan, J. and Beard, R. L. 2003. Factors that influence end-of-life care in nursing homes: the physical environment, inadequate staffing, and lack of supervision. The Gerontologist, 43, supplement 2, 76–84.Google Scholar
Kazdin, A. E. 1979. Unobtrusive measures in behavioral assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 4, 713–24.Google Scholar
Koch, S., Marschollek, M., Wolf, K. H., Plischke, M. and Haux, R. 2009. On health-enabling and ambient-assistive technologies. What has been achieved and where do we have to go? Methods of Information in Medicine, 48, 1, 29–37.Google Scholar
Lett, D., Hier, S. and Walby, K. 2010. CCTV surveillance and the civic conversation: a study in public sociology. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 35, 3, 437–62.Google Scholar
Lippert, R. 2009. Signs of the surveillant assemblage: privacy regulation, urban CCTV and governmentality. Social and Legal Studies, 18, 4, 505–22.Google Scholar
Lyon, D. 1994. The Electronic Eye: The Rise of Surveillance Society. Polity Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lyon, D. 2001. Surveillance Society: Monitoring Everyday Life. Open University Press, Buckingham, UK.Google Scholar
Mann, S., Nolan, J. and Wellman, B. 2003. Sousveillance: inventing and using wearable computing devices. Surveillance & Society, 1, 3, 331–55.Google Scholar
Marx, G. 1998. Ethics for the new surveillance. The Information Society, 14, 3, 171–85.Google Scholar
Mattek, N., Ruhl, M., Dodge, H. and Kaye, J. 2013. Willingness of older adults to share data and privacy concerns after exposure to unobtrusive in-home monitoring. Gerontechnology, 11, 3, 428–35.Google Scholar
Mattimore, T. J., Wenger, N. S., Desbiens, N. A., Teno, J. M., Hamel, M. B., Liu, H., Califf, R., Connors, A. F., Lynn, J. and Oye, R. K. 1997. Surrogate and physician understanding of patients' preferences for living permanently in a nursing home. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 45, 7, 818–24.Google Scholar
Minuk, L. 2006. Why privacy still matters: the case against prophylactic video surveillance in for-profit long-term care homes. Queen's Law Journal, 32, 3, 224–77.Google Scholar
Moffatt, P. 2008. Should we tag people with dementia? International Journal of Palliative Nursing, 14, 2, 56.Google Scholar
Mortenson, W. B., Oliffe, J. L., Miller, W. C. and Backman, C. L. 2012. Grey spaces: the wheeled fields of residential care. Sociology of Health and Illness, 34, 3, 315–29.Google Scholar
Norris, C., McCahill, M. and Wood, D. 2002. The growth of CCTV: a global perspective on the international diffusion of video surveillance in publicly accessible space. Surveillance and Society, 2, 2/3, 110–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orwell, G. 1983. Nineteen-eighty-four. Penguin, Toronto.Google Scholar
Percival, J. and Hanson, J. 2006. Big brother or brave new world? Telecare and its implications for older people's independence and social inclusion. Critical Social Policy, 26, 4, 888–909.Google Scholar
Powell, D. H. 2004. Treating individuals with debilitating performance anxiety: an introduction. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60, 8, 801–8.Google Scholar
Reder, S., Ambler, G., Philipose, M. and Hedrick, S. 2010. Technology and Long-term Care (TLC): a pilot evaluation of remote monitoring of elders. Gerontechnology, 9, 1, 18–31.Google Scholar
Riikonen, M., Mäkelä, K. and Perälä, S. 2010. Safety and monitoring technologies for the homes of people with dementia. Gerontechnology, 9, 1, 32–45.Google Scholar
Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovation. The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Rose, N. 1997. Inventing Ourselves: Psychology, Power and Personhood. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Rothiot, J. P. 1998. Comités de surveillance et terreur dans le département des vosges de 1793 à l'an III. Annales Historiques de la Révolution Française, 314, 1, 621–68.Google Scholar
Rowley, J. 2005. Customer knowledge management or consumer surveillance. Global Business and Economics Review, 7, 1, 100–10.Google Scholar
Salzmann-Erikson, M. and Eriksson, H. 2012. Panoptic power and mental health nursing. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 33, 8, 500–4.Google Scholar
Savage, R. 2010. An exploration of the needs and concerns of potential ambient assisted living users within the context of the meaning of home. Master's thesis, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Shorr, R., Chandler, M., Mion, L., Waters, T., Liu, M., Daniels, M., Kessler, L. P. and Miller, S. 2012. Effects of an intervention to increase bed alarm use to prevent falls in hospitalized patients: a cluster randomized trial. Annals of Internal Medicine, 157, 10, 281–98.Google Scholar
Sixsmith, J. 1986. The meaning of home. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 6, 4, 281–98.Google Scholar
Sixsmith, A. 2013. Technology and the challenge of ageing. In Sixsmith, A. and Gutman, G. (eds), Technologies for Active Ageing. Springer, New York, 7–25.Google Scholar
Sixsmith, A. and Sixsmith, J. 2000. Smart home technologies: meeting whose needs? Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 6, 1, Supplement, 190–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sixsmith, A. and Sixsmith, J. 2008. Ageing in place in the United Kingdom. Ageing International, 32, 3, 219–35.Google Scholar
Sixsmith, A., Woolrych, R., Bierhoff, I., Mueller, S. and Byrne, P. 2012. Ambient assisted living: from concept to implementation. In Glascock, A. and Kutznik, D. (eds), Essential Lessons for the Success of Telehomecare. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 259–86.Google Scholar
Steele, R., Lo, A., Secombe, C. and Wong, Y. K. 2009. Elderly persons’ perception and acceptance of using wireless sensor networks to assist healthcare. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 78, 12, 788–801.Google Scholar
Turner, B. S. 1997. From governmentality to risk: some reflections on Foucault's contribution to medical sociology. In Peterson, A. and Bunton, R. (eds), Foucault, Health and Medicine. Routledge, London, ix–xxi.Google Scholar
UK Department of Health 2011. Whole System Demonstrator Project: Headline Figures. Available online at http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_131684 [Accessed 20 March 2013].Google Scholar
Verbeek, P. 2009. Ambient intelligence and persuasive technology: the blurring boundaries between human and technology. Nanoethics, 3, 3, 231–42.Google Scholar
Vuokko, R. 2008. Surveillance at workplace and at home: social issues in transforming care work with mobile technology. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 6, 1, 60–75.Google Scholar
Walther, J. B. 1996. Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 1, 3–43.Google Scholar
Welsh, S., Hassiotis, A., Omahoney, G. and Deahl, M. 2003. Big brother is watching you – the ethical implications of electronic surveillance measures in the elderly with dementia and in adults with learning difficulties. Ageing and Mental Health, 7, 5, 372–5.Google Scholar
Wild, K., Boise, L., Lundell, J. and Foucek, A. 2008. Unobtrusive in-home monitoring of cognitive and physical health: reactions and perceptions of older adults. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 27, 2, 181–200.Google Scholar
Woolrych, R. and Sixsmith, A. 2012. Challenges of user-centred research in the development of ambient assisted living systems. In Donnelly, M., Paggetti, C., Nugent, C. and Mokhtari, M. (eds), Impact Analysis of Solutions for Chronic Disease Prevention and Management. Springer, Berlin, 1–8.Google Scholar
Zwijsen, S. A., Niemeijer, A. R. and Hertogh, C. M. 2011. Ethics of using assistive technology in the care for community-dwelling elderly people. Aging and Mental Health, 15, 4, 419–27.Google Scholar