Search results

The competition in the academe has always been tough, but today, the academe seems to be more like an industry than an academic community as academics are evaluated through quantified and economic means.

This article leans on Heidegger’s thoughts on the essence of technology and his ontological view on being to show the dangers that lie in this quantification of researchers and research.

Despite the benefits that information systems (ISs) offer to people and research, it seems that technology has made it possible to objectify researchers and research. This has a negative impact on the academe and should thus be looked into especially by the IS field, which should note the problems that exist in its core. This phenomenon of quantified academics is clearly visible at academic quantification sites, where academics are evaluated using metrics that count their output. It seems that the essence of technology has disturbed the way research is valued by emphasising its quantifiable aspects. The study claims that it is important to look for other ways to evaluate researchers rather than trying to maximise research production, which has led to the flooding of articles that few have the time or interest to read.

This paper offers new insights into the current phenomenon of quantification of academics and underlines the need for critical changes if in order to achieve the academic culture that is desirable for future academics.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the current status of ownership of patient information from a Lockean perspective and then present Datenherrschaft (German for “mastery over information”) as a new model for patient ownership of patient information.

This paper is theoretical in approach. It is based on arguments derived from Locke’s Two Treatises of Government. Legal examples of the current situation are derived from Finnish, UK and Swedish legislation.

Current legislation concerning patient information is not clearly formulated and so recognising a new right on the part of the patient, Datenherrschaft, would be an ethically justifiable way of remedying the issue.

The legal analysis was limited to Finland, the UK and Sweden, and so other legislation should be looked at in future research. Datenherrschaft is used as an example of an ethically justified way of regulating patient information ownership and should be analysed further.

Patient information ownership is an issue that is not unambiguously solved in many countries, nor has it, in our view, been ethically justified. The potential solution presented in this paper is clear and has strong ethical justifications.

The purpose of this paper is to create a conceptual framework, based on a structured literature review, to analyze the digital disability divide and help find solutions for it. A digital disability divide exists between people with impairments and those without impairments. Multiple studies have shown that people without impairments are less likely to own a computer or have an Internet connection than are people with impairments. However, the digital disability divide is seen in relation not only to access but also to accessibility and use. For people with impairments, new technological innovations offer solutions for everyday challenges, such as finding information, communicating with others and using electronic services.

For this study, 4,778 conference and journal publications were systematically analyzed.

A number of key findings emerged. This field is relatively new, and the literature is highly focused on the technological and social aspects of the digital disability divide, with technology and societal attributes being the core sub-attributes for a comprehensive model. The previous literature did not significantly study the consequences of the financial situation of individuals; rather, the predominant focus was on the have-nots and countries with low income potentials. Furthermore, motivation reveals a compelling case within the digital disability divide subset.

The review provides a consolidated view of past research on the general topic of the digital disability divide and the attributes that affect it.