Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Methodology
References
All Topics
Anthropology
Social Anthropology

Of robots and humans: Creating user representations in practice

Profile image of Björn FischerBjörn Fischer

2020, Social Studies of Science

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312720905116
visibility

…

description

24 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

In this study, we explore the constitution of user representations of robots in design practice. Using the results of ethnographic research in two robot laboratories, we show how user representations emerge in and are entangled with design activities. Our study speaks to the growing popularity of and investment in robotics, robots and other forms of artificial intelligence. Scholars in Science and Technology Studies (STS) have shown that it is often difficult for designers and engineers to develop accurate ideas about potential users of such technologies. However, the social context of robots and design settings themselves have received significantly less attention. Based on our laboratory ethnographies, we argue that the practices in which engineers are engaged are important as they can shape the kind of user images designers create. To capture these dynamics, we propose two new concepts: ‘image-evoking activities’ as well as ‘user image landscape’. Our findings provide pertinent input for researchers, designers and policy-makers, as they raise questions with regards to contemporary fears of robots replacing humans, for the effectiveness of user involvement and participatory design, and for user studies in STS. If design activities co-constitute the user images that engineers develop, a greater awareness is needed specifically of the locales in which the design of robots and other types of technologies takes place.

Related papers

Becoming in Touch with Industrial Robots through Ethnography
Ned Barker, Carey Jewitt

Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 2020

Touch is central to communication and social interaction. For both humans and robots touch is a mode through which they sense the world. A second wave of industrial robots is reshaping how touch operates within the labor process. Recent studies have turned their attention to the role of touch in Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). While these studies have produced useful knowledge in relation to the affective capacities of robotic touch, methods remain restrictive. This paper contributes to expanding research methods for the study of robotic touch. It reports on the design of an ongoing ethnography that forms part of the InTouch project. The interdisciplinary project takes forward a socially orientated stance and is concerned with how technologies shape the semiotic and sensory dimensions of touch in the 'real world'. We contend that these dimensions are key factors in shaping how humans and robots interact, yet are currently overlooked in the HRI community. This multi-sited sens...

View PDFchevron_right
How engineers’ imaginaries of healthcare shape design and user engagement: A case study of a robotics initiative for geriatric healthcare AI applications
Svenja Breuer

ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction

In the development of robotics and Artificial Intelligence (AI) for healthcare, human-centered approaches seek to meet the requirements of healthcare practice and address social and ethical aspects proactively. In this work, an important but neglected aspect in human-computer interaction (HCI) is how engineers understand and envision the healthcare context. Drawing on insights from STS on engineers’ imaginaries and their role in shaping research and development of new technologies, we propose engineers’ imaginaries of healthcare as a point of analysis and intervention for ethical and social aspects of AI and robotics for healthcare. To illustrate the utility of this lens, we use it to report a case study of an engineering project that develops robotic and AI applications for healthcare. We followed and sought to advance an embedded ethics and social science approach, where ethicists and social scientists accompanied this engineering project using direct interdisciplinary collaborati...

View PDFchevron_right
Three Responses to Anthropomorphism in Social Robotics: Towards a Critical, Relational, and Hermeneutic Approach
Mark Coeckelbergh

International Journal of Social Robotics, 2021

Both designers and users of social robots tend to anthropomorphize robots. Focusing on the question how to conceptualize the relation between robots and humans, this paper first outlines two opposite philosophical views regarding this relation, which are connected to various normative responses to anthropomorphism and anthropomorphization. Then it argues for a third view: navigating between what it calls "naïve instrumentalism" and "uncritical posthumanism", it develops a hermeneutic, relational, and critical approach. Paradoxically, by unpacking the human dimension of robotics in its use and development, this view enables a critical discussion of anthropomorphizing robots. At the same time, and again somewhat paradoxically, it avoids a naïve instrumentalist position by taking robots' role as an instrument in a larger con-technology seriously. As such, the third view questions the dualism assumed in the debate. The paper then explores what this means for the field of social robotics and the education of computer scientists and engineers. It proposes a reform based on a relational understanding of the field itself and offers suggestions for the role of users-citizens.

View PDFchevron_right
Living and Interacting with Robots: Engaging Users in the Development of a Mobile Robot
Daniela Janssen

Becoming Human with Humanoid - From Physical Interaction to Social Intelligence [Working Title]

Mobile robots such as Aldebaran's humanoid Pepper currently find their way into society. Many research projects already try to match humanoid robots with humans by letting them assist, e.g., in geriatric care or simply for purposes of keeping company or entertainment. However, many of these projects deal with acceptance issues that come with a new type of interaction between humans and robots. These issues partly originate from different types of robot locomotion, limited human-like behaviour as well as limited functionalities in general. At the same time, animal-type robots-quadrupeds such as Boston Dynamic's WildCat-and underactuated robots are on the rise and present social scientists with new challenges such as the concept of uncanny valley. The possible positive aspects of the unusual cooperations and interactions, however, are mostly pushed into the background. This paper describes an approach of a project at a research institution in Germany that aims at developing a setting of human-robot-interaction and collaboration that engages the designated users in the whole process.

View PDFchevron_right
Borrowing, Poking and Entangling. In Search of Shared Spaces Between Science and Technology Studies and Human-Robot Interaction
Anna Dobrosovestnova

Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

In this paper, we reflect on the disciplinary foundations and dominant practices in the field of Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) from the perspective of our own experience of working interdisciplinarily and drawing on colleagues' ongoing work that transcends disciplinary boundaries. As a part of this reflection, we explore possibilities for the field's theoretical and methodological expansion, which we contend is needed, given the rapid expansion of robotic technologies in the real world settings. We argue the field of science and technology studies (STS) can be a valuable collaborator and contributor in the process of negotiating disciplinary boundaries of HRI and advancing the field beyond common narratives of technological solutionism and determinism. We frame STS as a field with a strong tradition of studying social and political embeddedness of science and technology, and how these are co-constitutive and co-emergent. STS also investigates the roles and responsibility different actors share in this process. To further explore how the interfacing between STS and HRI can be enacted, we sketch out three modes of interdisciplinary collaboration we call i) Borrowing, ii) Poking and iii) Entangling. We argue that each of these modes comes with advantages, disadvantages and challenges. In the conclusion, we engage the notions of "thinking with care" and disciplinary reflexivity, as an invitation to fellow scholars to consider which disciplinary assumptions are brought to the table when enacting different modes of interfacing between HRI and STS, and how these are entangled with the goals and (desired) outcomes of research practices.

View PDFchevron_right
Design Metaphors for Understanding User Expectations of Socially Interactive Robot Embodiments
Nathaniel Dennler

ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction

The physical design of a robot suggests expectations of that robot’s functionality for human users and collaborators. When those expectations align with the robot’s true capabilities, users are more likely to adopt the technologies for their intended use. However, the relationship between expectations and socially interactive robot design is not well understood. This article applies the concept of design metaphors to robot design and contributes the Metaphors for Understanding Functional and Social Anticipated Affordances dataset of 165 extant robots and the expectations users place on them. We used Mechanical Turk to crowd-source user expectation over three user studies. The first study ( N = 382) associated crowd-sourced design metaphors to different robot embodiments. The second study ( N = 803) assessed initial social expectations of robot embodiments. The final study ( N = 805) addressed the degree of abstraction of the design metaphors and the functional expectations projected...

View PDFchevron_right
Design Research in HRI: Roboticists, Design Features, and Users as Co-Designers
Anastasia Ostrowski

2020

Design research has explored design as it is embodied in many fields including engineering design and industrial design. Questions such as what it means to design, differences between design fields, expertise of designers, who should be included in design, and how to solve “wicked” design problems are all investigated in design research; seeking to understand design from multiple angles. Within human-robot interaction, design needs to be further integrated into research as robots become an increasing part of people’s everyday lives. This paper argues for a triangulated approach, seeking to understand design in the context of the designers (or roboticists, in this case), the design features of the systems, and users as co-designers.

View PDFchevron_right

References (69)

  1. Akrich M (1992) The description of technical opbjects. In: Bijker WE and Law J (eds) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge: MIT Press, 205-224.
  2. Akrich M (1995) User representations: Practices, methods and sociology. In: Rip A, Misa TJ and Schot JW (eds) Managing Technology in Society. The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. London: Pinter, 167-184.
  3. Anderson RJ (1994) Representations and requirements: The value of ethnography in system design. Human-Computer Interaction 9(2): 151-182.
  4. Bardini T and Horvath AT (1995) The social construction of the personal computer user. Journal of Communication 45(3): 40-65.
  5. Bijker WE (1987) The social construction of Bakelite: Toward a theory of invention. In: Bijker WE, Hughes TP and Pinch T (eds) The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge: MIT Press, 159-187.
  6. Bourdieu P (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Bourdieu P (1990) The Logic of Practice. Standford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  8. Bucciarelli LL (1988) An ethnographic perspective on engineering design. Design Studies 9(3): 159-168.
  9. Bucciarelli LL (1994) Designing Engineers. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  10. Clarke AE (1998) Disciplining Reproduction: Modernity, American Life Sciences and 'the Problems of Sex'. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  11. Cockburn C and Ormrod S (1993) Gender and Technology in the Making. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  12. DeSanctis G and Poole MS (1994) Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science 5(2): 121-147.
  13. Engeström Y (1987) Learning by Expanding: An Activity Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
  14. Engeström Y (2000) Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics 43(7): 960-974.
  15. Engeström Y (2001) Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualiza- tion. Journal of Education and Work 14(1): 133-156.
  16. Faulkner W (2000) The power and the pleasure? A research agenda for 'making gender stick' to engineers. Science, Technology & Human Values 25(1): 87-119.
  17. Fleck J (1988) Innofusion or diffusation? The nature of technological development in robotics. Edinburgh PICT working paper 7. Edinburgh.
  18. Geertz C (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
  19. Giddens A (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. University of California Press. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  20. Glaser BG and Strauss AL (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New Brunswick: AldineTransaction.
  21. Hacker S (1989) Pleasure, Power and Technology: Some Tales of Gender, Engineering, and the Cooperative Workplace. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
  22. Hammersley M and Atkinson P (2007) Ethnography: Principles in Practice, 3rd ed. London: Routledge.
  23. Hartwick J and Barki H (1984) Explaining the role of user participation in information system use. Management Science 40(4): 440-465.
  24. Hienerth C (2006) The commercialization of user innovations: The development of the rodeo kayak industry. R&D Management 36(3): 273-294.
  25. Hyysalo S (2006) Representations of use and practice-bound imaginaries in automating the safety of the elderly. Social Studies of Science 36(4): 599-626.
  26. Hyysalo S (2009) Learning for learning economy and social learning. Research Policy 38(5): 726-735.
  27. Hyysalo S and Johnson M (2016) User representation: A journey towards conceptual maturation. In: Hyysalo S, Elgaard Jenssen T and Oudshoorn N (eds) The New Production of Users: Changing Innovation Collectives and Involvement Strategies. New York: Routledge, 75-100.
  28. Ives B and Olson MH (1984) User involvement and MIS success: A review of research. Management Science 30(5): 586-603.
  29. Kaptelinin V and Nardi BA (2006) Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
  30. Kline R and Pinch T (1996) Users as agents of technological change: The social construction of the automobile in the rural United States. Technology and Culture 37(4): 763-795.
  31. Knorr Cetina K (1997) Sociality with objects: Socal relations in postsocial knowledge societies. Theory, Culture & Society 14(4): 1-30.
  32. Kujala S (2003) User involvement: A review of the benefits and challenges. Behaviour & Information Technology 22(1): 1-16.
  33. Kuutti K (1995) Activity Theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In: Nardi BA (ed.) Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human Computer Interaction. Cambridge: MIT Press, 17-44.
  34. Latour B (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  35. Latour B (1991) Technology is society made durable. In: Law J (ed.) A Sociology of Monsters, Essays on Power, Technology and Domination: The Sociological Review Monograph. London: Routledge, 103-131.
  36. Latour B (1992) Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In: Bijker WE and Law J (eds) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge: MIT Press, 225-258.
  37. Latour B (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  38. Lave J (1988) Cognition in Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  39. Leont'ev AN (1978) Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
  40. Lie M and Sørensen KH (eds) (1996) Making Technology Our Own? Domesticating Technology into Everyday Life. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
  41. Mackay H, Carne C, Beynon-Davies P, et al. (2000) Reconfiguring the user: Using rapid applica- tion development. Social Studies of Science 30(5): 737-757.
  42. Neven L (2010) 'But obviously not for me': Robots, laboratories and the defiant identity of elder test users. Sociology of Health & Illness 32(2): 335-347.
  43. Oudshoorn N and Pinch T (2003) Introduction: How users and non-users matter. In: Oudshoorn N and Pinch T (eds) How Users Matter: The Co-Construction of Users and Technology. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1-25.
  44. Oudshoorn N and Pinch T (2008) User-technology relationships: Some recent developments. In: Hackett EJ, Amsterdamska O, Lynch M, et al. (eds) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd ed. Cambridge: MIT Press, 541-565.
  45. Oudshoorn N, Rommes E and Stienstra M (2004) Configuring the user as everybody: Gender and design cultures in information and communication technologies. Science, Technology, & Human Values 29(1): 30-63.
  46. Peine A and Herrmann AM (2012) The sources of use knowledge: Towards integrating the dynam- ics of technology use and design in the articulation of societal challenges. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 79(8): 1495-1512.
  47. Pinch TJ and Bijker WE (1984) The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociol- ogy of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science 14(3): 399-441.
  48. Pollock N, Williams R and Procter R (2003) Fitting standard software packages to non-standard organizations: The 'biography' of an enterprise-wide wystem. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 15(3): 317-332.
  49. Reckwitz A (2002) Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory 5(2): 243-263.
  50. Rice RE and Rogers EM (1980) Reinvention in the innovation process. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 1(4): 499-514.
  51. Rip A and Schot JW (2002) Identifying loci for influencing the dynamics of technological development. In: Sørensen KH and Williams R (eds) Shaping Technology, Guiding Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 155-172.
  52. Ritzer G (1983) The 'McDonaldization' of society. The Journal of American Culture 6(1): 100-107.
  53. Šabanović S (2010) Robots in society, society in robots. International Journal of Social Robotics 2(4): 439-450.
  54. Schatzki TR (1996) Social Practices: A Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  55. Schatzki TR (2001) Introduction: Practice theory. In: Schatzki TR, Knorr Cetina K and Savigny E von (eds) The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge, 10-23.
  56. Schatzki TR (2005) Peripheral vision: The sites of organizations. Organization Studies 26(3): 465-484.
  57. Schuler D and Namioka A (eds) (1993) Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  58. Silverstone R and Haddon L (1996) Design and the domestication of ICTs: Technical change and everyday life. In: Silverstone R and Mansell R (eds) Communication by Design. The Politics of Information and Communication Technologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 44-74.
  59. Silverstone R and Hirsch E (eds) (1992) Consuming Technologies: Media and Information in Domestic Spaces. London: Routledge.
  60. Stewart J and Williams R (2005) The wrong trousers? Beyond the design fallacy: Social learning and the user. In: Howcroft D and Trauth E (eds) Handbook of Critical Information Systems Research: Theory and Application. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 195-221.
  61. Strauss AL and Corbin JM (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
  62. Suchman L (2007) Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  63. Van Maanen J (1988) Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  64. von Hippel E (1976) The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process. Research Policy 5(3): 212-239.
  65. von Hippel E (1986) Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Science 32(7): 791-805.
  66. Wajcman J (1991) Feminism Confronts Technology. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
  67. Williams R, Stewart J and Slack R (2005) Social Learning in Technological Innovation: Experimenting with Information and Communication Technologies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  68. Winner L (1980) Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus 109(1): 121-136.
  69. S (1991) Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. In: Law J (ed.) A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. London: Routledge, 57-99.

Related papers

Where's My Robot? Integrating Human Technology Relations in the Design Curriculum
Wouter Eggink

2014

In today’s society, and in almost every forecast for the future, technology development plays a major role. From theories in Science & Technology Studies we learn that the development of new technology cannot be meaningful unless there are users that successfully adapt the products and services to their own lives. As a result, it is important that designers learn to explore the interrelationships between engineering and behavioural, cultural and social issues. Within our Industrial Design Engineering curriculum we therefore emphasise the influence of technology on human behaviour and vice-versa. Although every specific product and context demands for a specific relation, we have experienced that there is common ground in the developments of these relationships that makes our education work. At a higher level of abstraction, the human side of the relation stays merely the same, because human bodies and human needs and emotions do not develop fast. It is only the technology side of the relation that develops and therefore changes the relationship. Thus, by starting from the human side of the relationship, the technology side can be consciously developed and shaped. A carefully designed series of courses in Design Aesthetics, Philosophy of Technology, Cognitive Ergonomics and Usability develops the students ability to analyse the human needs and characteristics, to understand the impact of technology, and provides the skills to shape the desired relationships. And although we do not design robots, our experience with Industrial Design Engineering is that human technology relations are apparent within all sorts of design challenges.

View PDFchevron_right
Studying robots outside the lab: HRI as ethnography
Lasse Blond

Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics

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 ...

View PDFchevron_right
If I had a robot at home. Peoples? representation of domestic robots
M. Vittoria Giuliani

2004

This paper summarises the what, why and how of inclusive design, and presents key contributions of the 2006-2010 i~design research consortium, the third successive research consortium funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council as part of the Extending Quality of Life initiative. Throughout 10 years of i~design research, the overarching goals have been to provide industrial decision makers with mechanisms for understanding the significance of age-and capabilityrelated factors, and to provide the design community with the techniques and guidance required to deliver better products and services for people of all ages and abilities. In this latest period of research, the specific emphasis has been on quantifying design exclusion and enabling designers to work with users.

View PDFchevron_right
The Robot Makers
Heather Knight

ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction

This article is an ethnographic exploration of robot anthropomorphism at a robotics company. It draws on a 10-month participatory ethnography among a robotics company, an anthropologist, and a social robotics research lab. In contrast to psychological methods, this anthropological participatory ethnography integrates all stakeholders’ insights, offering holistic understandings of robots’ in situ operations throughout the fieldwork, data-sharing, interviews, and analysis. In particular, this article unravels employee social constructions of the company’s self-driving factory transport vehicles, “the robots.” These robots are deployed across a variety of warehouses and factories in North America. Our results involve an assessment of six teams at the robotics company’s headquarters: those testing robots, those developing their hardware and software, and those working with customers. We unpack trends of anthropomorphism for each of these teams and across the company.

View PDFchevron_right
Making sense of social robots: A structural analysis of the layperson's social representation of robots
jean-Christophe Giger

European Review of Applied Psychology, 2016

Introduction.-Given their novelty, social robots (i.e., robots using natural language, displaying and recognizing emotions) will generate uncertainty among users. Social representations allow making sense of the new, drawing from existing knowledge. Objective.-A free association questionnaire was administered to 212 Portuguese adults to identify the social representation of robot. Method.-Data was analysed with EVOC 2000 and SIMI 2000 software. Results.-The social representation of robot is organized around the ideas of technology, help and future. Differences in the representation according to age, gender and level of education where also identified. Conclusion.-The social representation of robot is marked by the conception of it as a tool. This contrasts with the concept of social robots as social agents. Implications for social robot's acceptance are discussed.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Robotics
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Anthropology Of Technology (Anth...
  • Social Anthropology
  • Practice theory
  • Design practice
  • Social and Cultural Anthropology
  • Activity Theory
  • STS (Anthropology)
  • Sociology of Technology
  • Anthropology of Technology
  • science and technology studies (...
  • Sociology of Information and Com...

    • Cited by

    Co-Design as Learning: The Differences of Learning When Involving Older People in Digitalization in Four Countries
    Britt Östlund

    2021

    Involving older people through co-design has become increasingly attractive as an approach to develop technologies for them. However, less attention has been paid to the internal dynamics and localized socio-material arrangements that enact this method in practice. In this paper, we show how the outcomes that can be achieved with user involvement often pertain to learning, but their content can differ significantly based on how the approach is implemented in practice. Combining explorative, qualitative findings from co-design conducted in four countries (Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden), we illustrate how different types of learning occurred as design workshops engaged the experiences and skills of older people in different ways. Our findings make visible how learning can be a core outcome of co-design activities with older adults, while raising awareness of the role of the power relations and socio-material arrangements that structure these design practices in particular...

    View PDFchevron_right
    Design multiple: How different configurations of participation matter in design practice
    Björn Fischer

    Design Studies, 2021

    This article critically interrogates how participation is practiced during the design process. We present the findings of three different configurations of participatory design workshops, each involving a different stakeholder group (age researchers, care experts and older adults). Building on insights from Science and Technology Studies (STS), we reveal how, in design practice, different configurations of participation enact and materialize multiple versions of ageing. To refer to this ontological layer of design processes, we introduce the concept "design multiple". Our study adds to current debates on the practices of participatory design and STS, as it shows how different configurations multiply enact objects into several material realities. We raise awareness on the practices of configuring participatory design, and their ontological consequences

    View PDFchevron_right
    Improving Inclusivity in Robotics Design: An Exploration of Methods for Upstream Co-Creation
    Lyuba Alboul

    Frontiers in Robotics and AI

    Disabled people are often involved in robotics research as potential users of technologies which address specific needs. However, their more generalised lived expertise is not usually included when planning the overall design trajectory of robots for health and social care purposes. This risks losing valuable insight into the lived experience of disabled people, and impinges on their right to be involved in the shaping of their future care. This project draws upon the expertise of an interdisciplinary team to explore methodologies for involving people with disabilities in the early design of care robots in a way that enables incorporation of their broader values, experiences and expectations. We developed a comparative set of focus group workshops using Community Philosophy, LEGO® Serious Play® and Design Thinking to explore how people with a range of different physical impairments used these techniques to envision a “useful robot”. The outputs were then workshopped with a group of ...

    View PDFchevron_right
    Intelligente Systeme für das Bauwesen: überschätzt oder unterschätzt?
    Ann-Kathrin Wortmeier

    Digitalisierung souverän gestalten, 2020

    ZusammenfassungDer Einzug digitaler Technologien in die Baubranche verändert mit den Beziehungen zwischen Menschen und Maschinen auch die Handlungsfähigkeit der Beschäftigten. Neben Chancen auf Entlastung von schwerer Arbeit und eine verbesserte Repräsentation komplexer Bauwelten steht die Herausforderung, die hohen Sicherheits- und Qualitätsanforderungen für langlebige Bauprojekte ohne oder mit nur wenigen menschlichen Eingriffen zu erfüllen. Dafür kommt es auf eine kluge Integration von menschlicher und künstlicher Intelligenz an, bei der ausreichend Handlungsfähigkeit und -kompetenz auf Seiten der menschlichen Maschinensteuerung verbleibt. In unserem Beitrag diskutieren wir drei (Ideal-)Typen von Mensch-Maschine-Beziehungen und ihre Implikationen für Handlungsfähigkeit und Resilienz in künftigen Bauwelten. Dabei wird die Bedeutung vertrauenswürdiger und lernförderlicher Konfigurationen der Mensch-Maschine-Kooperationen herausgestellt.

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved