Inom TARA-projektet undersöker vi hur automatisering, robotisering och AI påverkar arbetsmiljön för markpersonal på svenska flygplatser – till exempel lastare, flygplatstekniker och tankningspersonal.
Just nu genomför vi en enkätstudie för att samla in erfarenheter och perspektiv från er som arbetar i dessa yrken. Resultaten kommer att användas för att förebygga framtida arbetsmiljöproblem och för att lyfta fram både de positiva och de utmanande effekterna av ny teknik.
I den här korta filmen berättar vi mer om projektet och enkäten. Kontakta Jonathan Källbäcker (jonathan.kallbacker@it.uu.se) om du vill svara på enkäten!
TARA-projektet drivs av Uppsala universitet i nära samarbete med TYA – Transportfackens Yrkes- och Arbetsmiljönämnd, och finansieras av AFA Försäkring.
Tillsammans arbetar vi för att skapa en säkrare och mer hållbar arbetsmiljö i framtidens flygbransch.
Detta forskningsprojekt, DIGI-RISK, undersöker risker för hot, kränkningar eller trakasserier i samband med digital patientkontakt – till exempel via chatt, video eller meddelanden.
Digitaliseringen av vården har gett stora möjligheter – men den har också medfört nya arbetsmiljörisker. I takt med att video- och chattkonsultationer blivit en allt vanligare del av vårdpersonalens vardag har också förekomsten av hot, trakasserier och gränsöverskridande beteenden ökat. Exempel på digitala aggressioner är hotfulla meddelanden i chattfunktioner, trakasserier via e-post, kränkningar i videosamtal (till exempel nedsättande ton, aggressivitet, sexistiskt eller rasistiskt språk), inspelning av samtal utan samtycke, spridning av personlig information i sociala medier med syfte att hänga ut personal, eller psykologisk press utanför arbetstid.
Projektets syfte är att identifiera riskfaktorer kopplade till digitala aggressioner, undersöka skillnader mellan olika vårdprofessioner och utveckla riktlinjer för en tryggare digital arbetsmiljö. Forskningen kommer att genomföras med hjälp av bland annat intervjuer för att identifiera vilka faktorer som är avgörande för att dessa digitala verktyg ska vara effektiva och samtidigt stödja en hälsosam arbetsmiljö.
Den första delstudien är en intervjustudie med sig till läkare och sjuksköterskor med erfarenhet av digitala aggressioner – eller chefer vars personal har utsatts för detta. Du kan arbeta i primärvården, på sjukhus, hos en digital vårdgivare, eller annat. Genom att samla in erfarenheter från vårdpersonal kommer projektet att bidra till att utforma riktlinjer för hur framtida digitala vårdtjänster ska utformas och implementeras för att förbättra arbetsmiljön inom vården.
Intervjuerna tar ca 60 minuter. Intervjun kan genomföras antingen på plats eller digitalt. Under intervjun får du svara på frågor om dina erfarenheter av digitala aggressioner. Vi frågar om ämnen som erfarenheter av digitala hot och trakasserier, hur det påverkar din arbetsmiljö, och vilka roller tekniken, kollegor och organisationen spelar för att skapa en trygg digital arbetsmiljö.
Låter det intressant? Gör en intresseanmälan här så kontaktar vi dig för att boka in en tid för intervju!
Right now, we’re exploring what it means to put time at the center of railway work. What happens when time is the main factor shaping how tasks are organized and how does technology play into it? Does focusing so much on time make work feel more meaningful, or does it simply add pressure? And could we imagine a future where technology takes on a bigger role in planning and managing time in railway work?
In our interviews with railway professionals, many describe problem solving as one of the most rewarding parts of their job. But problem solving almost always comes down to time: either solving things quickly or making sure every minute is used in the best way possible. In trying to understand this intersection of meaning, time and work, we turn to the German sociologist Hartmut Rosa. He has written about how time shapes our modern lives and he uses the concept ‘social acceleration’ to describe how technology pushes us to move faster and use time more efficiently. He also introduces the idea of ‘resonance’ which is the feeling of being connected to the flow of life, being present in the moment rather than being focused on the past or the future.
This leads us to the question: does technology help workers stay present and grounded, or does it pull away from “the now” by keeping them busy with documenting or reporting on the past and planning for the future? What is the relation between meaning and temporal aspects in railway work? Time can feel like a constant pressure, but it can also be what makes the work exciting. Without the constantly ticking clock, the challenges might lose their urgency, and maybe even their meaning.
That’s what we’re reflecting on right now in the AROA project.
Den förra veckan hade vi en konferens där vi arbetade tillsammans med vårt teoretiska ramverk för att förstå hur artificiell intelligens, robotar och automatisering påverkar arbetslivet och människors engagemang i arbetet.
Vi som deltog var Jessica Lindblom, Andreas Bergqvist, Rebecca Cort, Åsa Cajander och Maria Normark.
Syftet med ramverket är att bättre förstå hur ny teknik påverkar samspelet mellan människor, organisation och teknik – och hur vi kan skapa förutsättningar för engagemang och hållbarhet i arbetslivet.
Under dagarna:
diskuterade vi den empiriska data vi hittills har samlat in från olika branscher,
började bygga vidare på en första version av vårt ramverk,
och reflekterade kring vilka frågor som är mest centrala att ta med i det fortsatta arbetet.
En första version av ramverket finns beskriven i vår artikel Towards a Framework for Digital Work Engagement of Enabling Technologies (länk här) . Artikeln presenterar en grundläggande modell och de första resultaten, som vi nu arbetar vidare med för att utveckla och fördjupa.
Vi ser fram emot att jobba vidare med ramverket och att skriva en artikel om det!
Going to conferences are always interesting experiences, and as with any endeavour I think it’s important to ask oneself what the point of doing it is. Attending HCII in Gothenburg [1] gave me the possibility to meet up with friends and family, attending ARPPID in London [2] gave me the possibility to acquire some top-notch cookies, and there are not really that many culinary experiences that reaches the hights of fish and chips or halv special med pucko.
Halv special med Pucko – the point of going to a conference in Gothenburg?
Despite the personal advantages when travelling for work, the point is still to work, to present ideas, to gather ideas, but the challenge remains to put these ideas into practice. At HCII, I presented our paper examining stakeholders’ views of potential future technologies at airports [3], while at ARPPID I presented our paper on the collaboration throughout our airport project TARA [4] [5]. During HCII, I also gathered notes and talked to people about improving my own research, new application possibilities at airports, AI in large organizations, AI in teaching, AI in design practice – many different perspectives that can be of use for our research.
And then what? An attempt to answer this question came in the form of ARPPID, where the focus was on papers about closing the gap between interaction design research and professional practice. One challenge I take with me is that it can be multiple and different steps, incentives, and definitions between researchers at universities, researchers in industry, designers, and people who are not designers, making discussions between the fields and roles difficult.
There were also articles and presentations focusing on the misunderstanding of HCI methods, which is somewhat ironic since a core idea of HCI that I’ve taken with me is that systems should be easy to use, and therefore a big part of the responsibility of how the technology is used should be on the designer. This idea should naturally translate to usability and HCI concepts as well, which of course is easier said than done. This taps into the central issue of having common language between academia and industry, which our paper largely is about. Maybe it’s not that important to be academically correct all the time, and letting go of the prestige around that our well-defined and (hopefully) well-cited concepts are being bastardized could be more pragmatic in settings when collaboration with people who are not in research is being established.
What does it mean?!
A more long-term perspective on the question “and then what?” was also discussed in ARPPID, mostly during a panel about the future of HCI in a world of (more) AI. A very interesting part of this discussion were the points that there are a lot of negative consequences that HCI research and practice have led to (one thought – the book The Anxious Generation [6]). P(doom) numbers [7] were discussed, some saying 100, some saying 0 – as well as solutions how to mitigate the challenges that potential existentially threatening technologies, like AI, can pose. However, I do believe that despite the best of intentions there is always a risk that the methods, technologies, and ideas will be bastardized or fill a purpose that was never the intent of the developer.
What I take with me from these conferences are therefore three questions: Who are the users (of the methods or technology etc.)? What is a metric of success? What are the trade-offs?
These questions will have different answers for different people, and the focus may, depending on the person, vary between better collaborations, better research, or managing of existentially catastrophic outcomes. This makes us come back to the original question: what is the point – of going to conferences, gathering ideas, developing methods, or creating technologies? The choice is (still, maybe, kind of, not really, never was) up to us (designers, researchers, practitioners, and other stakeholders and concerned citizens of the world).
In a new publication, my colleague Jessica Lindblom and I explore the work of train traffic controllers and information officers working in Sweden’s train traffic control centers to shed light on how they manage to monitor and control this complex, fast-moving railway system without ever stepping foot on the tracks.
Control rooms are often described as the coordination centre, the hub, of critical systems like aviation, shipping, and railway traffic. The atmosphere in such control rooms is often calm and the concentration is almost tangible. The space is filled with computer screens and the constant noise from ringing phones and low-voiced conversations. In Swedish train traffic, two main work roles are keeping things running. These are the traffic controllers and the information officers. The former ensure that trains move safely and on time by controlling switches and signals along the rail, adjusting timetables, and solving problems when something goes wrong. The latter provides travelling information to passengers in cases of delays, disruptions, or platform changes, etc. Together, these two roles are managing thousands of trains across Sweden every single day. They don’t see the rails outside their windows, yet they know them as if they were standing right there. How can that be? To answer that question, we conducted workplace studies in Sweden’s eight traffic control centres over a time period of 2,5 years. During this time, we observed everything from daily work routines to the handling of accidents and extraordinary events, and discovered subtle and highly skilled ways in which the workers interpret and act on digital and analogue information of situations unfolding far from their own location.
Prior research offers concepts like “professional vision,” “situated seeing,” and “tool-mediated seeing” to explain how people use artifacts and experience to interpret their work environment. We combined these with the idea of “sense of place”, a concept we borrowed from environmental and geographical studies that emphasizes how people develop meaning and attachment to specific locations. From this theoretical standpoint, we propose a new concept: remote situatedness. This concept describes how control room workers can develop a deep, practical knowledge and a sense of connection to remote places, although they are not physically present at those locations. This ability allows them to “see” the railway, predict problems, and act in meaningful ways from a distance.
In the paper, we illustrate remote situatedness with three examples: 1. Mutually Enacted Situated Seeing – how traffic controllers and information officers jointly interpret and act on pieces of information about events along the rail. 2. Mediated Sense of Place – how technology and collaboration shape the workers’ connection to locations far from their own. 3. Failed Sense of Place – what happens when this connection breaks down, and how it affects railway operations. In each of these three cases, we show that the workers’ expertise isn’t just technical but social, spatial, and deeply embedded in the context of railway operations. It’s an intricate mix of technology and human skill!
Our findings highlight that effective railway management depends on more than screens, software, and procedures. It relies on workers’ ability to connect with and interpret remote environments through a combination of technology, collaboration, and lived experience. By recognizing and supporting this remote situatedness, we can design better tools, improve training, and strengthen the resilience of the complex railway system.
For those who want to read more, the full publication can be found here.
New publication by Roger McDermott, Mats Daniels, John N.A. Brown, and Åsa Cajander in ITiCSE 2025
When we talk about research in Computing Education, we often refer to data-driven studies—statistical analyses of learning outcomes, empirical classroom studies, or qualitative work grounded in social science methods. But what if we also turned to philosophy to better understand how and why we teach computing?
In our newly published paper, “Determining the Scope of the Philosophy of Computing Education,” we explore what it means to apply philosophical inquiry within computing education research. Inspired by similar movements in engineering education, we ask fundamental questions:
What is the nature of computing as a discipline?
What assumptions shape our teaching practices?
How can conceptual analysis complement empirical and qualitative research?
Rather than offering yet another case study or dataset, this paper delves into the foundations of the field itself. We suggest that a philosophical perspective can enrich our understanding of key concepts, challenge unexamined assumptions, and help clarify the methods and goals of computing education research.
This is not about replacing empirical work—but about broadening the conversation. By including philosophical methods, we can develop a more reflective and mature field, better equipped to navigate the ethical, conceptual, and educational challenges of a rapidly changing discipline.
I should start this the way I used to begin many of my journal entries:
“It’s been awhile! From here on out, I’m going to write every day.” -Me
Of course, I never did, nor do I know why I thought I should. I wasn’t exactly sustainable in my writing habits. Or maybe I was—just not by the expectations I had set for myself in those journals. Now that I’ve spent a few years immersed in software sustainability research, I catch myself viewing everything through that lens. Even this pattern of sporadic journaling feels meaningul: an intention, a system, and then the reality of trying to maintain it. Also, the frustration with myself for not being able to work within the parameters that I’ve set for myself. I think at some point I picked up the expectation that if you didn’t write everyday, then I wasn’t doing it right. It’s worth reflecting at what I’m expecting from journaling and its role in my life to identify goals that have intention. It’s good to sometimes reflect on why do I have these expectations and what is their purpose?
I’ve been thinking about how quality is also an unclear concept. Like sustainability, it’s broad, contested, and highly contextual. I remember reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig back when I was a teenager. At the time, I took it at face value: a story about two people on a road trip riding motorbikes. I remember a section about the choice in motorbikes. One bike was new, top of the line, reliant on technicians and external tools; the other was a classic, simple bike the rider could troubleshoot on their own, with simple tools and manuals.
Back then, I didn’t read for insights or allegories but because I enjoy reading. I didn’t know Pirsig was a philosopher, or that he worked as a technical writer for computer manuals. It wasn’t until recently, when his name popped up again in a different context, that I did a little sleuthing. I learned he developed the Metaphysics of Quality. According to Pirsig, Quality can’t be defined. It’s both dynamic and static, both process and result. He says that everything arises from quality.
That idea’s been sitting with me. I think it’s time for a reread. The book seems to not have made the move with me to Sweden, so I’ll have to track down a copy. It will be a perfect summer read and I can follow up with more thoughts after I’ve had a chance to revisit the book. Bookclub anyone?
Tidigare under veckan var Niklas Humble inbjuden till Mittuniversitetet – och institutionen för kommunikation, kvalitetsteknik och informationssystem (KKI) – för att hålla en presentation på temat “AI i forskning och examination”. Passet varvades med forskning från EDU-AI-projektet vid Uppsala universitet, praktiskt arbete och diskussion.
Som en del i detta skulle deltagarna testa ett antal AI-verktyg, diskutera möjligheter och utmaningar, samt utveckla sina egna AI-strategier för forskning och högre utbildning. Arbetet var inspirerat av artikeln:
Humble, N. (2024). Risk management strategy for generative AI in computing education: How to handle the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00494-x
Under passet, och den efterföljande diskussion, blev det uppenbart hur mycket vi kan lära av varandra när vi samarbetar och diskuterar över ämnesgränserna. Vad händer när datavetare diskuterar med journalister? Eller när ingenjörer samarbetar med arkivarier?
Vi är glada att meddela att vårt forskningsprojekt DIGI-RISK: Hot och trakasserier i digital vård – Riskfaktorer och riktlinjer för förbättring har beviljats finansiering av Forte inom utlysningen “Arbetslivets utmaningar 2025”.
Digitaliseringen av vården har gett stora möjligheter – men den har också medfört nya arbetsmiljörisker. I takt med att video- och chattkonsultationer blivit en allt vanligare del av vårdpersonalens vardag har också förekomsten av hot, trakasserier och gränsöverskridande beteenden ökat.
DIGI-RISK syftar till att:
identifiera riskfaktorer kopplade till digitala vårdmiljöer,
undersöka skillnader mellan olika vårdprofessioner och kontexter,
och tillsammans med vårdpersonal utveckla riktlinjer för hur vi kan skapa tryggare digitala arbetsmiljöer.
Projektet löper mellan 2025 och 2028 och genomförs av ett tvärvetenskapligt forskarteam med expertis inom människa-datorinteraktion, arbetsmiljöforskning och design. Projektledare är professor Åsa Cajander vid Uppsala universitet. Övriga forskare i projektet är Maral Babapour Chafi (Chalmers/ISM) och Magdalena Ramstedt Stadin (Uppsala universitet).
Projektets samhällsnytta är tydlig: en säkrare digital arbetsmiljö för vårdpersonal gynnar inte bara arbetsmiljön, utan även vårdkvalitet och patientsäkerhet. Resultaten kommer att spridas via vetenskapliga publikationer, populärvetenskapliga rapporter och i samverkan med vårdens aktörer.
Läs mer om projektets syfte, metoder och planerade aktiviteter i kommande inlägg här på bloggen!
In our research group, we study the relationships and dynamics of Human, Technology, and Organisation (HTO) to create knowledge that supports sustainable development and utilization of ICT.
