- What would you suggest
is a
reliable measure of “successful” ageing in place?
A
reliable measure of “successful”
ageing in place is the appropriate balance between the degree of
dependency on
others as well as on technology, in the broad sense of the word, on the
one
hand, and the degree of freedom in taking care of myself, on the other.
This
measure depends on a person’s character, relationships, way of life,
history,
health, etc. as well as on historical and cultural dimensions. In other
words,
the “success” or, better, the ethical measure for good life with regard
to
ageing in place comes from our ‘whoness’ or personal identity which
arises in
the interplay with other human beings in physical and digital places
within a
shared world. The question about “success” is addressed to a personal
‘who’ and
not to a neutral ‘what’.
- Smart homes have a role to play
in remote care for elderly people. However, what are the social and
psychological implications of the increased role of technology in
caring for
older people?
Taking
care of others takes
place in between the poles of taking the place of the other and opening
a path
for the other to take care of herself. Smart homes and remote care
might be at
one pole or the other, or at some place in between depending on the
situation
and the degree of personal and social freedom.
- How do we balance the issue of
autonomy in the context of smart homes for elderly people? How is this
balance
affected when the user experiences cognitive difficulties due to
degenerative
diseases such as Alzheimer’s?
Freedom
is not a fixed
parameter but depends on the personal degree of openness to others and
the
shared world. This balance, particularly in the context of smart homes,
should
be thoroughly reflected, evaluated and dynamically adapted to persons
and their
respective worlds, including physical and digital places, within a
relation of
mutual care and respect. In case of degenerative diseases such as
Alzheimer’s
the balance goes towards taking the place of the other by others and/or
by
technology. But there might remain also some kind of personal freedom
to be
respected and acknowledged.
- What is the ideal future for
ageing in place? Is the increased adoption of ICT solutions and “smart
homes” a
necessary part of this future?
Ageing in
place
in smart homes should not be seen as a kind of Utopia – it can easily
turn into
a Dystopia of digital control and surveillance in a negative sense –
but as an
option (with different forms and degrees) for good living in physical
and
digital places. It might allow elderly people to retain or even enhance
their
freedom while at the same time relying on a familiar physical and
digital
context where human relationships might assure them that they are
respected and
hopefully also loved.
- Given that
"successful" ageing is something to be measured or evaluated on an
individual basis, based on, as you say "person’s character,
relationships, way of life, history, health, etc. as well as on
historical and cultural dimensions", the "who" rather than the "what",
alongside the fact that smart home technology represents a vast
umbrella of devices and services, what recommendations would you give
for those attempting to evaluate the effectiveness of the smart home
concept for older people and embed the technology with fundamental
values, such as respect for privacy and dignity of older users?
Those attempting to evaluate the
effectiveness of the smart home concept for older people are already
embedded
in housing traditions with roots in various forms of being-in-the-world
that
might differ from the values and ways of life of the persons for whom
the
devices are supposed to be useful or even “successful”. Such
differences should be made explicit in
order to avoid cultural bias and technological colonialism. Feeling at
home is a key ethical issue with regard to smart homes.
The evaluation of the smartness of a smart
home does not depend originally on new technological devices and
services but
the other way around: devices and services should be conceived and
adapted to
the specific forms in which a person, a family or a whole society
conceives the
freedom to reveal and conceal themselves so that they can decide who
they are
or want to be. The vast umbrella of
devices and services should be matched with the vast umbrella of ways
of life,
giving the opportunity for people to make their own choices.
Such choices should be monitored. People
might be able to make new, informed choices in view of experiences in
other
places and cultures. Knowledge of such experiences might come about
using old
and new media as well as on the basis of face-to-face meetings,
entering into
conversations, exchanging ‘good’ and ‘bad’ experiences and bringing
their needs
and expectations into the process of creating new devices and services.
Both
the designers of devices and services for smart homes and the
evaluators should
take an active part in such conversations.
Acknowledgement
Thanks
to Barry Guihen for the questions and to Michael Eldred (Cologne) for
critical remarks as well as for polishing my English.
Last update:
March 22, 2017
