Panel report: the dark side of the digitization of the individual

Abstract

Purpose Digital technologies have diffused into many personal life domains. This has created many new phenomena that require systematic theorizing, testing and understanding. Such phenomena have been studied under the Digitization of the Individual (DOTI) umbrella and have been discussed in the DOTI pre-International Conference on Information Systems workshop for the last three years (from 2015 to 2017). While prior years have focused on a variety of issues, this year (2018) we decided to put special emphasis on negative effects of the DOTI, i.e., “the dark side” of the DOTI. Design/methodology/approach This manuscript reports on a panel of three experts (in alphabetical order: John D’Arcy, Hamed Qahri-Saremi and Monideepa Tarafdar) who presented their past research in this domain, as well as their outlook for future research and methodologies in research on the DOTI. Findings The authors introduce the topic, chronicle the responses of the panelists to the questions the authors posed, and summarize and discuss their response, such that readers can develop a good idea regarding next steps in research on the dark side of the DOTI. Originality/value The authors introduce the topic of the dark sides of DOTI and point readers to promising research directions and methodologies for further exploring this relatively uncharted field of research.

From panopticon to heautopticon: A new form of surveillance introduced by quantified‐self practices

“…Because wearables assist individuals in daily life, they are worn continuously and create ubiquitous monitoring of habits and activities (Lupton, ), thus contributing to dependence and enslavement (Jarvenpaa & Lang, ). While this monitoring helps in correcting anomalies and solving weight problems (Depper & Howe, ), it also facilitates an extensive collection of private data and general surveillance of humans (Turel et al, ). Research points out a digitised individual (Matt, Trenz, Cheung, & Turel, ), a kind of data double (Haggerty & Ericson, ) that leaves traces every time the person uses the technology (Kunst & Vatrapu, ; Poster, ).…”

An intertwined perspective on technology and digitised individuals: Linkages, needs and outcomes

“…These changes in the technological landscape have presumably been supported by technological advancements that have made technology more connected and affordable than before, smaller, yet broader in its capabilities, beyond merely being job‐ or leisure‐oriented (Turel et al, 2019). Since many of these technologies are used exclusively in leisure or non‐work settings, or in both work and non‐work (including leisure) settings, they have created what we call digitised individuals , defined as users who use at least one digital technology in their non‐work life domains 1 .…”

“…Several studies have argued for a need to understand digitised individuals, the drivers of the digitisation of individuals and the consequences of this digitisation, because technologies aimed at the digitisation of individuals have unique features that distinguish them from commonly examined business technologies, or that are insufficiently highlighted and understood in studies of non‐work technologies (Matt, Trenz, et al, 2019; Turel et al, 2019). These characteristics include: (1) the creation of new application domains (e.g., Internet connectivity in any home device that has not been IT‐infused before, see Yashiro, Kobayashi, Koshizuka, & Sakamura, 2013), (2) ubiquitous use, including even embedding IT into human bodies and creating cybernetic organisms, or ‘cyborgs’ (Pelegrín‐Borondo, Arias‐Oliva, Murata, & Souto‐Romero, 2020), (3) user volition in defining technology use settings and portfolios (Liu, Santhanam, & Webster, 2017), (4) a change in user landscape that reflects a shift from digital immigrants to digital natives, and the increased acceptance of digital technologies by digital immigrants (Kesharwani, 2020), (5) self‐determined approaches to usage, and self‐learning necessity (Huang, Backman, Backman, McGuire, & Moore, 2019), (6) globalised markets with little and some may say impossible regulation of user and consumer protections (Tanczer, Brass, Elsden, Carr, & Blackstock, 2019) and (7) broad effects, negative, positive and ambivalent, that can relate to usage and non‐usage of an IT, and that can last long after the IT use has been discontinued.…”

“…Using the abovementioned SDT framework and the current understanding of the digitisation of individuals (Matt, Trenz, et al, 2019; Turel et al, 2019), we propose the framework below as a means to understand and classify current works that focus on technologies that digitise individuals, as well as the digitised society, and as a way to plan future work in this domain. The framework (see Figure 1) includes three layers, the interaction amongst which can influence the outcomes (psychological and behavioural, at the micro (e.g., for individuals) and macro (e.g., for societies) levels of digitisation decisions and actions.…”

Understanding Digital Events: Process Philosophy and Causal Autonomy

“…The deployment of digital and social media technologies is increasingly being understood as an ethical issue [34] with negative intended [14] and negative unintended consequences [39,41]. In this paper we argue that immersion in ubiquitous networks of digital devices that take part in co-directing our lives risks overwhelming the director within us.…”