Skip to content
BY 4.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter Open Access March 5, 2019

Studying robots outside the lab: HRI as ethnography

Lasse Blond EMAIL logo

Abstract

As more and more robots enter our social world, there is a strong need for further field studies of humanrobot interaction. Based on a two-year ethnographic study of the implementation of a South Korean socially assistive robot in Danish elderly care, this paper argues that empirical and ethnographic studies will enhance the understanding of the adaptation of robots in real-life settings. Furthermore, the paper emphasizes how users and the context of use matters to this adaptation, as it is shown that roboticists are unable to control how their designs are implemented and how the sociality of social robots is inscribed by its users in practice. This paper can be seen as a contribution to long-term studies of HRI. It presents the challenges of robot adaptation in practice and discusses the limitations of the present conceptual understanding of human-robot relations. The ethnographic data presented herein encourage a move away from static and linear descriptions of the implementation process toward more contextual and relational accounts of HRI.

References

[1] L. Neven, C. Leeson, Beyond determinism: understanding actual use of social robots by older people, In: D. Prendergast, C. Chiara (Eds.), Aging and the Digital Life Course, Berghahn, 2015, 84-10210.2307/j.ctt9qdb6b.10Search in Google Scholar

[2] A. Lazar, H. J. Thompson, A. M. Piper, G. Demiris, Rethinking the design of robotic pets for older adults, In: DIS’16 Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference, (2016, Brisbane, Australia), Queensland, 1034-104610.1145/2901790.2901811Search in Google Scholar

[3] G. Balthus, D. Fox, F. Gemperle, J. Goetz, T. Hirsch, D. Magaritis, et al., Towards personal service robots for the elderly, WIRE-2000, Workshop on Interactive Robots and Entertainment (2000, Pittsburgh, USA), Pennsylvania, https://www.ri.cmu.edu/publications/towards-personalservice- robots-for-the-elderly/Search in Google Scholar

[4] M. A. Goodrich, A. C. Shultz, Human-robot interaction: a survey, Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction, 2008, 7 (3), 203-27510.1561/1100000005Search in Google Scholar

[5] L. Blond, F.Olesen, Unpacking the cultural baggage of travelling robots - how socially assistive robots are integrated in practice, In: C. Hasse, D. M. Søndergaard (Eds.), Designing Robots, Designing Humans, Routledge, 2019 (in press)10.4324/9781315227207-8Search in Google Scholar

[6] M. M. A. de Graaf, S. Ben Allouch, Evaluation of a socially assistive robot in eldercare, HRI’14 (2014, Bielefeld, Germany), ACM PressSearch in Google Scholar

[7] C. Hasse,Multistable roboethics, In: J. K. B. O. Friis, R. P. Crease (Eds.), Technoscience and Postphenomenology - The Manhattan Papers, Lexington Books, 2015, 169-189Search in Google Scholar

[8] C. Leeson, Anthropomorphic Robots on the Move, PhD thesis, University of Copenhagen, 2017Search in Google Scholar

[9] W-Y. G. Louie, D. McColl, G. Nejat, 2014, Acceptance and attitudes toward a human-like socially assistive robot by older adults, Assistive Technology, 2014, 26(3), 140-15010.1080/10400435.2013.869703Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[10] J. Robertson, Robo sapiens japanicus: robots, gender, family, and the Japanese nation, University of California Press, 201710.1525/california/9780520283190.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

[11] H. I. Christensen (Ed.), A roadmap for US robotics: from internet to robotics, Technical Report, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2009Search in Google Scholar

[12] C. Hasse, Artefacts that talk: mediating technologies as multistable signs and tools, Subjectivity, 2013, 6(1), 79-10010.1057/sub.2012.29Search in Google Scholar

[13] K. Darling, Extending legal protection to social robots: the effects of anthropomorphism, empathy, and violent behavior towards robotic object, We Robot Conference (2012, Miami, USA), Florida, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.204479710.2139/ssrn.2044797Search in Google Scholar

[14] P. Lin, Introduction to robot ethics, In: P. Lin, K. Abney, G. A. Bekey (Eds.), Robot Ethics - The Ethical and Social Implications of Robotics, The MIT Press, 2012, 3-17Search in Google Scholar

[15] M. M. A. de Graaf, S. Ben Allouch, J. A. G. M. van Dijk, 2016, Long-term acceptance of social robots in domestic environments: insights from a user’s perspective, In: AAAI Spring SymposiumSeries, AAAI Publications, 2016, https://www.aaai.org/ ocs/index.php/SSS/SSS16/paper/view/12692Search in Google Scholar

[16] M. H. Bruun, S. Hanghøj, C. Hasse, Studying social robots in practiced places, Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 2015, 19(2), 143-16510.5840/techne20159833Search in Google Scholar

[17] I. Leite, C. Martinho, A. Paiva, Social robots for long-term interaction: a survey, International Journal of Social Robotics, 2013, 5(2), 291-30810.1007/s12369-013-0178-ySearch in Google Scholar

[18] Y. Fernaeus, M. Håkansson, M. Jacobsson, S. Ljungblad, How do you play with a robotic toy animal? A long-term study of Pleo, In: IDC’ 10 Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, (2010, Barcelona, Spain), https://doi.org/10.1145/1810543.181054910.1145/1810543.1810549Search in Google Scholar

[19] J. Fink, V. Bauwens, F. Kaplan, P. Dillenbourg, Living with a vacuum cleaning robot - a 6-month ethnographic study, International Journal of Social Robotics, 2013, 5(3), 389-40810.1007/s12369-013-0190-2Search in Google Scholar

[20] T. Fong, I. Nourbakhsh, K. Dautenhahn, A survey of socially interactive robots, Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 2003, 42(3-4), 143-16610.1016/S0921-8890(02)00372-XSearch in Google Scholar

[21] H. Hüttenrauch, K.S. Eklundh, K. S. Fetch-and-carry with CERO: observations from a long-term user study with a service robot, In: Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (2002, Berlin, Germany), 158-163Search in Google Scholar

[22] C. D. Kidd, C. Breazeal, Robots at home: understanding longterm interaction, IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (2008, Nice, France), https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2008.465111310.1109/IROS.2008.4651113Search in Google Scholar

[23] A. M. von der Pütten, N. C. Krämer, S. C. Eimler, Living with a robot companion - empirical study on the interaction with an Artificial Health Advisor, ICM’11 (2011, Alicante, Spain) https:// doi.org/10.1145/2070481.207054410.1145/2070481.2070544Search in Google Scholar

[24] J. Sung, H. I. Christensen, R. E. Grinter, Robots in thewild: understanding long-term use, HRI’09 (2009, La Jolla, USA) California, ACM Press10.1145/1514095.1514106Search in Google Scholar

[25] C. May, R. Harrison, T. Finch, A. MacFarlane, F. Mair, P. Wallace, Understanding the normalization of telemedicine services through qualitative evaluation, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2003, 10(6), 596-60410.1197/jamia.M1145Search in Google Scholar

[26] K. Dautenhahn, A. Billard, Bringing up robots or - the psychology of socially intelligent robots: from theory to implementation, In: Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference on Autonomous Agents (1999, Seattle, USA), Washington, https: //doi.org/10.1145/301136.30123710.1145/301136.301237Search in Google Scholar

[27] C. Breazeal, Toward sociable robots, Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 2003, 42(3-4), 167-175, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00373-110.1016/S0921-8890(02)00373-1Search in Google Scholar

[28] M. Alač, Social robots: things or agents? AI & Society, 2016, 31(4), 519-53510.1007/s00146-015-0631-6Search in Google Scholar

[29] K. Dautenhahn, Design spaces and niche spaces of believable social robots, In: Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (2002, Berlin, Germany), https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2002.104562110.1109/.2002.1045621Search in Google Scholar

[30] C. Bartneck, J. Forlizzi, A design-centered framework for social human-robot interaction, International Workshop on Robot and Human InteractiveCommunication, (2004 Kurashik, Japan), https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2004.137482710.1109/.2004.1374827Search in Google Scholar

[31] S. Zhao, Humanoid social robots as medium of communication, New Media Society, 2006, 8(3), 401-41910.1177/1461444806061951Search in Google Scholar

[32] D. Feil-Seifer, M. J. Matarić, Defining socially assistive robotics, In: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (2005, Chicago, USA), https://doi.org/10.1109/ICORR.2005.150114310.1109/ICORR.2005.1501143Search in Google Scholar

[33] A. Pickering, The mangle of practice - time, agency, and science, University of Chicago Press, 199510.7208/chicago/9780226668253.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

[34] A. Giddens, The Constitution of Society - Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Polity Press, 1984Search in Google Scholar

[35] M. Pantzar, E. Shove, Understanding innovation in practice: a discussion of the production and re-production of Nordic Walking, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 2010, 22(4), 447-46110.1080/09537321003714402Search in Google Scholar

[36] A. Reckwitz, Toward a theory of social practices - a development in culturalist theorizing, European Journal of Social Theory, 2002, 32(2), 243-26310.1177/13684310222225432Search in Google Scholar

[37] E. Shove, M. Pantzar, M. Watson, The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How it Changes, SAGE, 201210.4135/9781446250655Search in Google Scholar

[38] M. Alač, Moving android: on social robots and body-ininteraction, Social Studies of Science, 2009, 39(4), 491-52810.1177/0306312709103476Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[39] M. Alač, J. Movellan, F. Tanaka, When a robot is social: spatial arrangements and multimodal semiotic engagement in the practice of social robotics, Social Studies of Science, 2011, 41(6), 893-926, https://doi.org/10.1177/030631271142056510.1177/0306312711420565Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[40] M. Alač, Points to and shakes the robot’s hand - Intimacy as situated interactional maintenance of humanoid technology, Zeitschrift für Medienwissenhaft, 2016, 15, http://www.zfmedienwissenschaft.de/online/points-andshakes- robots-handSearch in Google Scholar

[41] A. R. Guevara, Techno-modeling care: racial branding, dis/embodied labor, and “Cybraceros” in South Korea, Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 2015, 36(3), 139-19610.5250/fronjwomestud.36.3.0139Search in Google Scholar

[42] L. Blond, K. Schiølin, Lost in translation: getting to grips with multistable technology in an apparently stable world, In: J. Aagaard, J. K. B. O. Friis, J. Sorenson, O. Tafdrup, C. Hasse (Eds.), Postphenomenological methodologies: New ways in mediating techno-human relationships, Rowan & Littlefield International, 2018, 151-167Search in Google Scholar

[43] C. A. Davies, Reflexive ethnography - a guide to researching selves and others, Routledge, 2008Search in Google Scholar

[44] M. Hammersley, P. Atkinson, Ethnography - principles in practice - third edition, Routledge, 2007Search in Google Scholar

[45] N. K. Denzin, The Research Act, Aldine Publishing, 1970Search in Google Scholar

[46] S. Kvale, Doing Interviews, SAGE, 200710.4135/9781849208963Search in Google Scholar

[47] P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, Analysing documentary realities, In: D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative Research - Theory, Method and Practice, SAGE, 1997, 45-63Search in Google Scholar

[48] K. Hastrup, Getting it right - knowledge and evidence in anthropology, Anthropological Theory, 2004, 4(4), 455-47210.1177/1463499604047921Search in Google Scholar

[49] D. Forsythe, “It’s just a matter of common sense”: ethnography as invisible work,Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 1999, 8(1-2), 127-14510.1023/A:1008692231284Search in Google Scholar

[50] C. Hasse, An Anthropology of Learning - On Nested Frictions in Cultural Ecologies, Springer, 2015Search in Google Scholar

[51] S. Šabanović, Robots in society, society in robots, International Journal of Social Robots, 2010, 2(4), 439-45010.1007/s12369-010-0066-7Search in Google Scholar

[52] L. Suchman, Human-machine reconfigurations - plans and situated actions, Cambridge University Press, 200710.1017/CBO9780511808418Search in Google Scholar

[53] J. Sung, H. I. Christensen, R. E. Grinter, Domestic robot ecology: an initial framework to unpack long-term acceptance of robots at home, International Journal of Social Robotics, 2010, 2(4), 417-42910.1007/s12369-010-0065-8Search in Google Scholar

[54] D. Ihde, Technology and the Lifeworld: From Garden to Earth, Indiana University Press, 1990Search in Google Scholar

[55] R. Rosenberger,Multistability and agency of mundane artefacts - from speed bumbs to subway benches, Human Studies, 2014, 37(3), 369-39210.1007/s10746-014-9317-1Search in Google Scholar

[56] E. M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, 2003Search in Google Scholar

[57] J. D. Eveland, Issues in using the concept of “adoption of innovation”, Journal of Technology Transfer, 1979, 4(1), 1-1310.1007/BF02177710Search in Google Scholar

[58] C. R. May, M. Johnson, T. Finch, Implementation, context and complexity, Implementation Science, 2016, 11(141), 1-12, https: //doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0506-310.1186/s13012-016-0506-3Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[59] J. D. Eveland, Diffusion, technology transfer, and implementation - thinking and talking about change, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1986, 8(2), 303-32210.1177/107554708600800214Search in Google Scholar

[60] W. E. Bijker, Do not despair: there is life after constructivism, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 1993, 18(1), 113-13810.1177/016224399301800107Search in Google Scholar

[61] R. Kline, T. Pinch, User as agents of technological change: the social construction of the automobile in the rural united states, Technology and Culture, 1996, 37(4), 763-79510.2307/3107097Search in Google Scholar

[62] P. Rosen, The social construction of mountain bikes: technology and postmodernity in the cycle industry, Social Studies of Science, 1993, 23(3), 479-51310.1177/0306312793023003003Search in Google Scholar

[63] M. Akrich, The description of technical objects, In: W. E. Bijker, J. Law (Eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, The MIT Press, 1992, 119-138Search in Google Scholar

[64] E. Philips, K. E. Schaefter, D. R. Billings, F. Jentsch, P. A. Hancock, Human-animal teams as an analog for future human robot teams: influencing design and fostering trust, Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 2016, 5(1), 100-12510.5898/JHRI.5.1.PhillipsSearch in Google Scholar

[65] P.-P. Verbeek, What Things Do: Philosophical Reflections on Technology, Agency, and Design, The Pennsylvania State University Press, 200510.1515/9780271033228Search in Google Scholar

[66] O. Korkman, K. Storbacka, B. Harald, Practices as markets: value co-creation in e-voicing, Australasian Marketing Journal, 2010, 18(4), 236-247, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2010. 07.00610.1016/j.ausmj.2010.07.006Search in Google Scholar

[67] E. Shove, F. Trentmann, R. Wilk, Time, consumption and everyday life - practice, materiality and culture, Berg, 200910.5040/9781474215862Search in Google Scholar

[68] D. A. Mindell, Our Robots, Ourselves - Robotics and the Myths of Autonomy, Viking, New York, 2015Search in Google Scholar

[69] M. M. A. de Graaf, S. Ben Allouch, J. A. G. M. van Dijk, Long-term evaluation of a social robot in real homes, Interaction Studies, 2016, 17(3), 461-490, http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/is.17.3.08deg10.1075/is.17.3.08degSearch in Google Scholar

[70] A. van Wynsberghe, Healthcare robots - ethics, design and implementation, Ashgate, 201510.4324/9781315586397Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2018-06-29
Accepted: 2019-01-14
Published Online: 2019-03-05

© 2019 Lasse Blond, published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License.

Downloaded on 27.11.2022 from frontend.live.degruyter.dgbricks.com/document/doi/10.1515/pjbr-2019-0007/html
Scroll Up Arrow