Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-kl2l2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-11T03:28:14.996Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

No Place Like Home? Surveillance and What Home Means in Old Age

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2016

W. Ben Mortenson ,
Andrew Sixsmith  and
Robert Beringer
W. Ben Mortenson*
Affiliation:
Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of British Columbia International Collaboration on Repair Discoveries, Vancouver Rehabilitation Research Program, GF Strong Rehabilitation Centre, Vancouver
Andrew Sixsmith
Affiliation:
Department of Gerontology, Simon Fraser University
Robert Beringer
Affiliation:
Department of Gerontology, Simon Fraser University
*
† La correspondance et les demandes de tirés-à-part doivent être adressées à: / Correspondence and requests for offprints should be sent to: W. Ben Mortenson, Ph.D., O.T. University of British Columbia The Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy T-325-2211 Wesbrook Mall Vancouver, BC V6T 2B5 (ben.mortenson@ubc.ca)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

New surveillance technologies like those included in ambient assisted living – such as body-worn and passive environmental sensors, smart interfaces, and communications networks – are being developed to improve the security and safety of “at risk” older people, but ethical questions have been raised about the extent to which they compromise the rights and privacy of the people being monitored. The qualitative study we conducted was designed to help us understand the ways these novel surveillance technologies would influence individuals’ everyday experiences of home. Participants felt new forms of surveillance would influence their sense of security, autonomy, and self-confidence, and would alter perceptions of home. The findings emphasize the need to improve our understanding of how ambient assisted living will affect the lives of those being monitored.

Résumé

Les technologies de surveillance nouvelles, telles que celles inclus dans le logement avec assistance ambiante—les capteurs environnementaux portés sur le corps, les interfaces intelligentes, et les réseaux de communication—sont en cours d'élaboration afin d'améliorer la sécurité et la sûreté des personnes âgées qui sont à risque, mais des questions éthiques ont été soulevées quant à dans quelle mesure ils compromettraient les droits et la vie privée des personnes à surveiller. L'étude qualitative que nous avons mené a été conçu pour nous aider à comprendre les façons dont ces technologies de surveillance nouvelles seraient influencer les expériences quotidiennes des individus de leur maison. Les participants ont estimé que de nouvelles formes de surveillance auraient une influence sur leur sentiment de sécurité, de l'autonomie et de la confiance en soi, et modifieraient leurs perceptions chez soi. Les résultats soulignent la nécessité d'améliorer notre compréhension de la façon dont le logement assisté ambiant affectera la vie des personnes à surveiller.

Keywords

agingambient assisted livingautonomycommunityFoucaultsurveillancevieillissementlogement assisté ambiantautonomiecommunautéFoucaultsurveillance

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 103 - 114
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association on Gerontology 2016 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aetna Inc. (2015). Wheelchairs and power operated vehicles (scooters) . Retrieved from http://www.aetna.com/cpb/medical/data/200_299/0271.html.Google Scholar
Altheide, D. L., & Michalowski, R. S. (1999). Fear in the news: A discourse of control. The Sociological Quarterly, 40(3), 475–503.Google Scholar
Augusto, J. C., Huch, M., Kameas, A., Maitland, J., McCullagh, P., Roberts, J., et al. (2012). Handbook of ambient assistive living. Technology for healthcare, rehabilitation and well-being. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Beck, U. (2006). The cosmopolitan vision (Cronin, C., Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. (Original work published 2004).Google Scholar
Beck, U. (2007). Beyond class and nation: Reframing social inequalities in a globalizing world. The British Journal of Sociology, 58(4), 679–705.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. (1995). Panopticon. In Božovič, M. (Ed.), The Panopticon writings (pp. 29–95). London, England: Verso Books.Google Scholar
Bowles, K., & Baugh, A. (2007). Applying research evidence to optimize telehomecare. Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 22(1), 5–15.Google Scholar
Bryman, A., & Teevan, J. (2005). Social research methods (Canadian, ed.). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Corner, L., & Bond, J. (2006). The impact of the label of mild cognitive impairment on the individual’s sense of self. Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology 13(1), 3–12.Google Scholar
Courtney, K., Demiris, G., Rantz, M., & 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
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Demiris, G., Hensel, B., Skubic, M., & Rantz, M. (2008). Senior residents’ perceived need of and preferences for “smart home” sensor technologies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 24(1), 120–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Domènech, M., & Tirado, F. J. (1997). Rethinking institutions in the societies of control. International Journal of Transdisciplinary Studies, 1(1). Retrieved from http://www.angelfire.com/amiga/misejercicios/eldespertador/variado/wlink1.html.Google Scholar
Dovey, K. (1985). Home and homelessness. In Altman, I., & Werner, C. M. (Eds.). Home environments. Human behavior and environment: Advances in theory and research.(Vol. 8) (pp. 33–64). New York, NY: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Dyck, I., Kontos, P., Angus, J., & McKeever, P. (2005). The home as a site for long-term care: Meanings and management of bodies and space. Health & Place, 11(2), 173–185.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1973). The birth of the clinic: An archaeology of medical perception (Smith, S., Trans.). London, England: Tavistock. (Original work published 1963).Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. London, England: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1978). The history of human sexuality (Hurley, H., Trans.) (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Random House. (Original work published 1976).Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8, 777–795.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge. Gordon, C. (Ed.). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1988). Technologies of the self. In Martin, L. H., Gutman, H., & Hutton, P. H. (Eds.). Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michel Foucault (pp. 16–49). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Gilmour, H., & Park, J. (2006). Dependency, chronic conditions and pain in seniors. Health Reports Supplement, 8, 33–45.Google Scholar
Gitlin, L. (2003). Conducting research on home environments: Lessons learned and new directions. The Gerontologist, 43(5), 628–637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kafka, F. (1976). The diaries, 1910–1923. New York, NY: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
Korosec-Serfaty, P. (1984). The home, from attic to cellar. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4(4), 303–321.Google Scholar
Lemke, T. (2002). Foucault, governmentality, and critique. Rethinking Marxism. A Journal of Economics, Culture & Society, 14(3), 49–64.Google Scholar
Mallet, S. (2004) Understanding home: A critical review of the literature. The Sociological Review, 52(1), 62–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milligan, C., Roberts, C., & Mort, M. (2011). Telecare and older people: Who cares where? Social Science & Medicine, 72(3), 374–354.Google Scholar
Mort, M., Roberts, C., Pols, J., Domènech, M., & Moser, I. (2013). Ethical implications of home telecare for older people: A framework derived from a multisited participative study. Health Expectations, 18(4), 438–439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pare, G., Jaana, M., & Sicotte, C. (2007). Systematic review of home telemonitoring for chronic diseases: The evidence base. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 14(3), 269–277.Google Scholar
Parker, R., & Aggleton, P. (2003). HIV and AIDS-related stigma and discrimination: A conceptual framework and implications for action. Social Science and Medicine, 57(1), 13–24.Google Scholar
Percival, J., & 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
Phillipson, C. (1998). Reconstructing old age: New agendas in social theory and practice. London, England: Sage.Google Scholar
Powell, D. H. (2004). Treating individuals with debilitating perfomance anxiety: An introduction. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60(8), 801–808.Google Scholar
Powell, J. L. (2012). Social work and elder abuse: A Foucauldian analysis. Social Work & Society, 10(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
Roberts, C., & Mort, M. (2009). Reshaping what counts as care: Older people, work and new technologies. ALTER - European Journal of Disability, 3(2), 138–158.Google Scholar
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovation. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Rose, N. (1997). Inventing our selves: Psychology, power and personhood. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schiamberg, L. B., & Gans, D. (2000). Elder abuse by adult children: An applied ecological framework for understanding contextual risk factors and the intergenerational character of quality of life. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 50(4), 329–360.Google Scholar
Scott, D. N. (2007). Risk as a technique of governance in an era of biotechnological innovation: Implications for democratic citizenship and strategies of resistance. In Law Commission of Canada (Ed.), Risk and trust. Including or excluding citizens? (pp. 23–56). Blackpoint, NS: Fernwood Publishing.Google Scholar
Seaman, D. (1993). Dwelling, seeing, and designing: Toward a phenomenological ecology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Seeman, T. E., Unger, J. B., McAvay, G., & de Leon, C. F. M. (1999). Self-efficacy beliefs and perceived declines in functional ability: MacArthur studies of successful aging. Journals of Gerontology B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 54(4), P214–P222.Google Scholar
Sixsmith, A. (1990). The meaning and experience of ‘home’ in later life. In Bytheway, B., & Johnson, J. (Eds.), Welfare and the ageing experience (pp. 172–92). Aldershot, UK: Avebury.Google Scholar
Sixsmith, A. (2013). Technology and the challenge of aging. In Sixsmith, A., & Gutman, G. (Eds.), Technologies for active aging. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Sixsmith, A., & Sixsmith, J. (2008). Ageing in place in the United Kingdom. Ageing International, 32(3), 219––235.Google Scholar
Smith, D. (1990). Texts, facts, and femininity: Exploring the relations of ruling. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Suki, N. M, & Suki, N. M. (2013). Effects of social needs, social influences and convenience on smartphones dependency. In Chuan, P., Khachidze, V., Lai, I. K. W., Liu, Y., Siddiqui, S., & Wang, T. (Eds.), Innovation in the high-tech economy (pp. 143–153). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Tracy, S. C., Drummond, N., Ferris, L. E., Globerman, J., Hébert, P. C., Pringle, D., et al. (2004).To tell or not to tell? Professional and lay perspectives on the disclosure of personal health information in community-based dementia care. Canadian Journal on Aging, 23(3), 203–215.Google Scholar
van Hoof, J., Kort, H. S. M., Rutten, P. G. S., & Duijnstee, M. S. H. (2011). Ageing-in-place with the use of ambient intelligence technology: Perspectives of older users. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 80(5), 310–331.Google Scholar
Verbeek, P. P. (2009). Ambient intelligence and persuasive technology: The blurring boundaries between human and technology. Nanoethics, 3(3), 231–242.Google Scholar
Wahl, H. W., & Oswald, F. (2010). Environmental perspectives on ageing. In Dannefer, D. & Phillipson, C. (Eds.), The handbook of social gerontology (pp. 111–124). London, England: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendell, S. (1996). The rejected body: Feminist philosophical reflections on disability. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wild, K., Boise, L., Lundell, J., & 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
Wilken, D., Baur, X., Barbinova, L., Preisser, A., Meijer, E., Rooyackers, J., et al. (2012). What are the benefits of medical screening and surveillance? European Respiratory Review, 21(124), 105–111.Google Scholar
Zwijsen, S. A., Niemeijer, A. R., & Hertogh, C. M. (2011). Ethics of using assistive technology in the care for community-dwelling elderly people: An overview of the literature. Aging & Mental Health, 15(4), 419–427.Google Scholar