scholarly journals Common good in the era of data-intensive healthcare

Author(s):  
Kirsikka Grön

AbstractIn recent years, scholars studying data-intensive healthcare have argued that data-driven technologies bind together new actors and goals as part of healthcare. By combining the expectation studies with justification theory, this article adopts a novel theoretical perspective to understand how these actors and goals are enroled in healthcare. Drawing on a case study of Apotti, a Finnish social services and healthcare information system renewal project, the article shows how new emerging health data assemblages stress the aims of producing the common good in public healthcare. The project is studied by analysing interviews of the project’s key actors and various documents produced in the project. The paper shows how, in the collective expectations, the new information system is justified by multiple understandings of the common good, which might be contradictory with each other. Along with the established goals of improving public healthcare operations, the new information system is expected to empower clients and patients, audit and manage personnel, promote national digital social and healthcare service markets, provide better data and tools for research, and promote Finnish research and business in international competition. These expectations are not all based on the settled understanding of the common good of public healthcare as promoting health; the common good is also defined in other terms such as improving research, promoting markets and business, and making Finland famous and a leading country in the digital social services and healthcare field. These goals and expectations are purposely ambiguous to be loose enough to gain attention and maintain it even when the promises are not met. The paper identifies the ambiguity and plurality of the common good as strategies of data-intensive healthcare and raises concerns of how this might shape public healthcare in the future. As the plural understandings of the common good might not support each other, the paper calls for further assessments of how this will affect public healthcare’s core objectives and for seeking solutions that carefully balance the goals of the current and evolving multi-stakeholder environment of data-intensive healthcare.

2009 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 110-127
Author(s):  
Abdoulaye Sounaye

Unexpectedly, one of the marking features of democratization in Niger has been the rise of a variety of Islamic discourses. They focus on the separation between religion and the state and, more precisely, the way it is manifested through the French model of laïcité, which democratization has adopted in Niger. For many Muslim actors, laïcité amounts to a marginalization of Islamic values and a negation of Islam. This article present three voices: the Collaborators, the Moderates, and the Despisers. Each represents a trend that seeks to influence the state’s political and ideological makeup. Although the ulama in general remain critical vis-à-vis the state’s political and institutional transformation, not all of them reject the principle of the separation between religion and state. The Collaborators suggest cooperation between the religious authority and the political one, the Moderates insist on the necessity for governance to accommodate the people’s will and visions, and the Despisers reject the underpinning liberalism that voids religious authority and demand a total re-Islamization. I argue that what is at stake here is less the separation between state and religion than the modality of this separation and its impact on religious authority. The targets, tones, and justifications of the discourses I explore are evidence of the limitations of a democratization project grounded in laïcité. Thus in place of a secular democratization, they propose a conservative democracy based on Islam and its demands for the realization of the common good.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document