Perceptions of Personal Privacy in Smart Home Technologies: Do User Assessments Vary Depending on the Research Method?
Nowadays all Western societies are confronted with the challenges resulting from demographic change, which are (partially) manageable by technical innovations, ranging from sophisticated single devices up to Ambient Assisted Living. However, exceeding the threshold to people’s homes evokes diverse privacy concerns. In this paper, aspects of personal privacy are exposed and validated by three different research methods: focus groups, questionnaire, and an experimental study.
The results of the perceived relevance of privacy across the three methodologies showed a decrease of the attributed importance from the focus group to the hands-on experimental study and an increase of the variability of the data. In order to gain genuine exhaustive information about the user’s perceptions of (aspects of) new technologies it is therefore insufficient to rely on one single research method. Instead, a multi-method research approach is postulated.
KeywordsPrivacy Ambient assisted living Ehealth Multi-method research Focus groups Questionnaire Living-Lab study
This work was funded by the Excellence initiative of German states and federal government. We would also like to thank Barbara Zaunbrecher for the valuable remarks on this paper.
- 1.European Commission (White paper): The Demographic Future of Europe – From Challenge to Opportunity. Commission Communication, COM, Brussels (2006)Google Scholar
- 2.Bloom, D.E., Canning, D.: Global Demographic Change: Dimensions and Economic Significance. National Bureau of Economic Research (2004)Google Scholar
- 4.Gee, E., Gutman, G.: The Overselling of Population Ageing: Apocalyptic Demography, Intergenerational Challenges, and Social Policy. Oxford University Press, Toronto (2000)Google Scholar
- 10.Nehmer, J., Becker, M., Karshmer, A., Lamm, R.: Living assistance systems: an ambient intelligence approach. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 43–50 (2006)Google Scholar
- 13.Lalou, S.: Identity, social status, privacy and face-keeping in the digital society. J. Soc. Sci. Inf. 47, 230–299 (2008)Google Scholar
- 14.Wilkowska, W., Ziefle, M.: User diversity as a challenge for the integration of medical technology into future home environments. In: Ziefle, M., Röcker, C. (eds.) Human-Centered Design of E-Health Technologies: Concepts, Methods and Applications, pp. 95–126. Hershey, PA, IGI Global (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Ziefle, M., Schaar, A.K.: Gender differences in acceptance and attitudes towards an invasive medical stent. Electron. J. Health Inform. 6, e13 (2011)Google Scholar
- 18.Wilkowska, W., Ziefle, M., Alagöz, F.: How user diversity and country of origin impact the readiness to adopt e-health technologies: an intercultural comparison. Work: J. Prev. Assess. Rehabil. 41, 2072–2080 (2012)Google Scholar
- 21.Lymberis, A.: Smart wearable systems for personalised health management: current R&D and future challenges. In: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2003. Proceedings of the 25th Annual International Conference of the IEEE, pp. 3716–3719. IEEE (2003)Google Scholar
- 22.Ziefle, M., Schaar, A.K.: Technology acceptance by patients: empowerment and stigma. In: van Hoof, J., Demiris, G., Wouters, E.J.M. (eds.) Handbook of Smart Homes, Health Care and Well-being. Springer, New York (2014)Google Scholar
- 23.Cvrcek, D., Kumpost, M., Matyas, V., Danezis, G.: A study on the value of location privacy. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM Workshop on Privacy in Electronic Society, pp. 109–118. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
- 24.Wilkowska, W.: Acceptance of eHealth Technology in Home Environments: Advanced Studies on User Diversity in Ambient Assisted Living. Apprimus, Aachen (in press)Google Scholar
- 25.Woolham, J., Frisby, B.: Building a local infrastructure that supports the use of assistive technology in the care of people with dementia. Res. Policy Planning 20(1), 11–24 (2002)Google Scholar