Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40478031›Full record

ArticleJournal of contingencies and crisis management2022

Crisis management, surveillance, and digital ethics in the COVID-19 era.

Kees Boersma, Monika Büscher, Chiara Fonio

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of contingencies and crisis management, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Crisis management, surveillance, and digital ethics in the COVID-19 era.Journal of contingencies and crisis management · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kees BoersmaDepartment of Organization Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Faculty of Science, Section of Science, Business and Innovation Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Amsterdam Netherlands.
Monika BüscherDepartment of Sociology, Centre for Mobilities Research Lancaster University Lancaster UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5581-1033
Chiara FonioDepartement of Organization Sciences Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this special issue, we reflect on the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis and the containment measures put in place by formal authorities, combining both theoretically and empirically three different fields of study: crisis management, surveillance studies, and digital ethics. The special issue shows how the intersection of these fields provides a great opportunity to better understand challenges that are of critical importance to today's societies, as well as opening up new avenues for innovation. The focus of this special issue is to unpack and understand the debate on crisis management measures, surveillance, and ethical consequences during the ongoing, enduring COVID-19 crisis. Building on crisis management literature, surveillance studies, and digital ethics research the articles included in this special issue reflect on issues of governance, space, as well as moral and ethical considerations, which were often overlooked in the public discourse in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. The special issue provides a deeper and clearer understanding of intended and unintended ethical and political consequences of crisis management practices, such as a politics of visibility that makes the operation of power invisible and fails to combat inequality, whilst ignoring the potential positive power of digital data and surveillance for empowerment and resilience.

Indexed as

crisis managementdigital ethicssurveillance

Identifiers

PMID40478031
PMCPMC9111290

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.