2024
Kamphorst, Bart; Anderson, Joel
E-coaching systems and social justice: ethical concerns about inequality, coercion, and stigmatization Journal Article
In: AI and Ethics, pp. 1-10, 2024.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Coercion, E-coaching systems, Ethics, Inequality, social justice, Stigmatisation
@article{nokey,
title = {E-coaching systems and social justice: ethical concerns about inequality, coercion, and stigmatization},
author = {Bart Kamphorst and Joel Anderson},
url = {https://www.esdit.nl/ecoaching_systems_and_social_justice_ethical_conc-wageningen_university_and_research_650099/},
doi = {10.1007/s43681-024-00424-7},
year = {2024},
date = {2024-02-19},
urldate = {2024-02-19},
journal = {AI and Ethics},
pages = {1-10},
abstract = {Poor self-regulation has been linked to various behaviors that contribute to pressing societal issues, including rising household debt, inefficient use of sustainable resources, and increasing healthcare demands. In light of this observation, the prospect of individuals receiving automated, tailored support by “e-coaching systems” to scaffold and improve their self-regulation is thought to hold promise for making society-wide progress in addressing such issues. Though there may be legitimate reasons for promoting the use of such systems, and individuals might welcome the support, our aim in the present article is to contribute to the ethics of e-coaching by showing how societal pressures towards the widespread adoption of automated e-coaching systems raise concerns in relation to three distinct aspects of social justice. We argue that societal inequalities may be introduced or exacerbated by (1) unequal access to the technologies, (2) unequally distributed restrictions to liberty and subjection to coercion, and (3) the potentially disparate impact of the use of e-coaching technologies on (self-)stigmatizing perceptions of competence. The article offers a research agenda for studying and addressing these concerns.},
keywords = {Coercion, E-coaching systems, Ethics, Inequality, social justice, Stigmatisation},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Poor self-regulation has been linked to various behaviors that contribute to pressing societal issues, including rising household debt, inefficient use of sustainable resources, and increasing healthcare demands. In light of this observation, the prospect of individuals receiving automated, tailored support by “e-coaching systems” to scaffold and improve their self-regulation is thought to hold promise for making society-wide progress in addressing such issues. Though there may be legitimate reasons for promoting the use of such systems, and individuals might welcome the support, our aim in the present article is to contribute to the ethics of e-coaching by showing how societal pressures towards the widespread adoption of automated e-coaching systems raise concerns in relation to three distinct aspects of social justice. We argue that societal inequalities may be introduced or exacerbated by (1) unequal access to the technologies, (2) unequally distributed restrictions to liberty and subjection to coercion, and (3) the potentially disparate impact of the use of e-coaching technologies on (self-)stigmatizing perceptions of competence. The article offers a research agenda for studying and addressing these concerns.
2023
Kamphorst, Bart; Verweij, Marcel; van Zeben, Josephine
On the voluntariness of public health apps: a European case study on digital contact tracing Journal Article
In: Law, Innovation and Technology, vol. 15, pp. 107-123, 2023.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Digital contract tracing, Liberty, Smart phone apps, Stigmatisation, Voluntariness
@article{nokey,
title = {On the voluntariness of public health apps: a European case study on digital contact tracing},
author = {Bart Kamphorst and Marcel Verweij and Josephine van Zeben},
url = {https://www.esdit.nl/on-the-voluntariness-of-public-health-apps-a-european-case-study-on-digital-contact-tracing/},
doi = {10.1080/17579961.2023.2184137},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-03-03},
urldate = {2023-03-03},
journal = {Law, Innovation and Technology},
volume = {15},
pages = {107-123},
abstract = {As evidenced during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a growing reliance on smartphone apps such as digital contact tracing apps and vaccination passports to respond to and mitigate public health threats. In light of the European Commission's guidance, Member States typically offer such apps on a voluntary, ‘opt-in’ basis. In this paper, we question the extent to which the individual choice to use these apps – and similar future technologies – is indeed a voluntary one. By explicating ethical and legal considerations governing the choice situations surrounding the use of smartphone apps, specifically those related to the negative consequences that declining the use of these apps may have (e.g. loss of opportunities, social exclusion, stigma), we argue that the projected downsides of refusal may in effect limit the liberty to decline for certain subpopulations. To mitigate these concerns, we recommend three categories of approaches that may be employed by governments to safeguard voluntariness.},
keywords = {Digital contract tracing, Liberty, Smart phone apps, Stigmatisation, Voluntariness},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
As evidenced during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a growing reliance on smartphone apps such as digital contact tracing apps and vaccination passports to respond to and mitigate public health threats. In light of the European Commission's guidance, Member States typically offer such apps on a voluntary, ‘opt-in’ basis. In this paper, we question the extent to which the individual choice to use these apps – and similar future technologies – is indeed a voluntary one. By explicating ethical and legal considerations governing the choice situations surrounding the use of smartphone apps, specifically those related to the negative consequences that declining the use of these apps may have (e.g. loss of opportunities, social exclusion, stigma), we argue that the projected downsides of refusal may in effect limit the liberty to decline for certain subpopulations. To mitigate these concerns, we recommend three categories of approaches that may be employed by governments to safeguard voluntariness.