Datorstödda studier i hälso- och socialvård : MuPSiNet-projektet

The aim of the study was to explore why the MuPSiNet project - a computer and network supported learning environment for the field of health care and social work - did not develop as expected. To grasp the problem some hypotheses were formulated. The hypotheses regarded the teachers' skills in and attitudes towards computing and their attitudes towards constructivist study methods. An online survey containing 48 items was performed. The survey targeted all the teachers within the field of health care and social work in the country, and it produced 461 responses that were analysed against the hypotheses. The reliability of the variables was tested using the Cronbach alpha coefficient and t-tests. Poor basic computing skills among the teachers combined with a vulnerable technical solution, and inadequate project management combined with lack of administrative models for transforming economic resources into manpower were the factors that turned out to play a decisive role in the project. Other important findings were that the teachers had rather poor skills and knowledge in computing, computer safety and computer supported instruction, and that these skills were significantly poorer among female teachers who were in majority in the sample. The fraction of teachers who were familiar with software for electronic patient records (EPR) was low. The attitudes towards constructivist teaching methods were positive, and further education seemed to utterly increase the teachers' readiness to use alternative teaching methods. The most important conclusions were the following: In order to integrate EPR software as a natural tool in teaching planning and documenting health care, it is crucial that the teachers have sufficient basic skills in computing and that more teachers have personal experience of using EPR software. In order for computer supported teaching to become accepted it is necessary to arrange with extensive further education for the teachers presently working, and for that further education to succeed it should be backed up locally among other things by sufficient support in matters concerning computer supported teaching. The attitudes towards computing showed significant gender differences. Based on the findings it is suggested that basic skills in computing should also include an awareness of data safety in relation to work in different kinds of computer networks, and that projects of this kind should be built up around a proper project organisation with sufficient resources. Suggestions concerning curricular development and further education are also presented. Conclusions concerning the research method were that reminders have a better effect, and that respondents tend to answer open-ended questions more verbosely in electronically distributed online surveys compared to traditional surveys. A method of utilising randomized passwords to guarantee respondent anonymity while maintaining sample control is presented. Keywords: computer-assisted learning, computer-assisted instruction, health care, social work, vocational education, computerized patient record, online survey

Individuals' Responsibility in Corporations

I discuss role responsibly, individual responsibility and collective responsibility in corporate multinational setting. My case study is about minerals used in electronics that come from the Democratic Republic of Congo. What I try to show throughout the thesis is how many things need to be taken into consideration when we discuss the responsibility of individuals in corporations. No easy and simple answers are available. Instead, we must keep in mind the complexity of the situation at all times, judging cases on individual basis, emphasizing the importance of individual judgement and virtue, as well as the responsibility we all share as members of groups and the wider society. I begin by discussing the demands that are placed on us as employees. There is always a potential for a conflict between our different roles and also the wider demands placed on us. Role demands are usually much more specific than the wider question of how we should act as human beings. The terminology of roles can also be misleading as it can create illusions about our work selves being somehow radically separated from our everyday, true selves. The nature of collective decision-making and its implications for responsibility is important too. When discussing the moral responsibility of an employee in a corporate setting, one must take into account arguments from individual and collective responsibility, as well as role ethics. Individual responsibility is not a separate or competing notion from that of collective responsibility. Rather, the two are interlinked. Individuals' responsibilities in collective settings combine both individual responsibility and collective responsibility (which is different from aggregate individual responsibility). In the majority of cases, both will apply in various degrees. Some members might have individual responsibility in addition to the collective responsibility, while others just the collective responsibility. There are also times when no-one bears individual moral responsibility but the members are still responsible for the collective part. My intuition is that collective moral responsibility is strongly linked to the way the collective setting affects individual judgements and moulds the decisions, and how the individuals use the collective setting to further their own ends. Individuals remain the moral agents but responsibility is collective if the actions in question are collective in character. I also explore the impacts of bureaucratic ethic and its influence on the individual. Bureaucracies can compartmentalize work to such a degree that individual human action is reduced to mere behaviour. Responsibility is diffused and the people working in the bureaucracy can come to view their actions to be outside the normal human realm where they would be responsible for what they do. Language games and rules, anonymity, internal power struggles, and the fragmentation of information are just some of the reasons responsibility and morality can get blurry in big institutional settings. Throughout the thesis I defend the following theses: ● People act differently depending on their roles. This is necessary for our society to function, but the more specific role demands should always be kept in check by the wider requirements of being a good human being. ● Acts in corporations (and other large collectives) are not reducible to individual actions, and cannot be explained fully by the behaviour of individual employees. ● Individuals are responsible for the actions that they undertake in the collective as role occupiers and are very rarely off the hook. Hiding behind role demands is usually only an excuse and shows a lack of virtue. ● Individuals in roles can be responsible even when the collective is not. This depends on if the act they performed was corporate in nature or not. ● Bureaucratic structure affects individual thinking and is not always a healthy environment to work in. ● Individual members can share responsibility with the collective and our share of the collective responsibility is strongly linked to our relations. ● Corporations and other collectives can be responsible for harm even when no individual is at fault. The structure and the policies of the collective are crucial. ● Socialization plays an important role in our morality at both work and outside it. We are all responsible for the kind of moral context we create. ● When accepting a role or a position in a collective, we are attaching ourselves with the values of that collective. ● Ethical theories should put more emphasis on good judgement and decision-making instead of vague generalisations. My conclusion is that the individual person is always in the centre when it comes to responsibility, and not so easily off the hook as we sometimes think. What we do, and especially who we choose to associate ourselves with, does matter and we should be more careful when we choose who we work for. Individuals within corporations are responsible for choosing that the corporation they associate with is one that they can ascribe to morally, if not fully, then at least for the most part. Individuals are also inclusively responsible to a varying degree for the collective activities they contribute to, even in overdetermined contexts. We all are responsible for the kind of corporations we choose to support through our actions as consumers, investors and citizens.