Send message to Author

Short abstract:

In the process of designing a data collection method that could be used by home care workers and advocates to hold employers and policymakers accountable, I explore what “good” means in this context—whose perspective would be centered, when change would be enacted, and what needs to be sacrificed.

Long abstract:

The United States is facing a caregiving crisis where older adults and people with disabilities are not able to receive crucial home and community based services because of a dearth of home care workers. The technology that has been proposed to address this crisis focuses on the “fraud, waste, and abuse” in the system and further burdens, surveils, and invisibilizes workers. My research explores how we might use technology to help workers and advocates collect data on unpaid work that they could use to identify wage and hour violations and make the case for fairer pay. This could be seen as “good” because the data could be used in a “reversal of the Foucauldian panopticon” to hold employers and policymakers accountable. However, the process of designing this technology questions what “good” means in this context—whose perspective would be centered, when change would be enacted, and what needs to be sacrificed. I aimed to work closely with worker advocates in order to leverage their knowledge and reduce the burden on workers, but also note some of their biases and priorities may differ. Even though workers could receive collective benefits through a class action case or policy change in the long-term, it is very unlikely that they would necessarily individually benefit in the short-term. Moreover, the data collection process requires workers sharing sensitive information and using unfamiliar technology. Therefore, I continue to examine tensions in meaningful engagements with marginalized communities, the role of technology in collective action, and mitigating harm.