Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
research-article

"That's Something for Children": An Ethnographic Study of Attitudes and Practices of Care Attendants and Nursing Home Residents Towards Robotic Pets

Published: 14 January 2022 Publication History

Abstract

Robotic systems are increasingly seen as possible technical aids against the background of demographic change and the associated pressures on care systems, with increasing numbers of care recipients and a decreasing number of trained caregivers. In human-computer interaction and computer-supported cooperative work, different design paradigms are currently being pursued to explore which features and appearances are favorable for meaningful interactions of humans with robotic systems. One such approach, labeled as "otherware", proposes to conceptualize robots beyond a naive anthropomorphism or zoomorphism, rather developing the idea of a figure that goes beyond the dichotomy between "being alive" and "being a technical artefact". We present an ethnographic study on the perceptions, attitudes, and practices of care attendants and nursing-home residents in their experimenting with off-the-shelf robotic cats and dogs. The three-week study shows specific appropriation practices of the robotic pets, and how the care attendants - partly together with the residents - define their experiences of the robotic pets, i.e., in which situations the robotic pets are considered either as living beings or as technology toys. The study provides practice-based insights into how possible uses of robotic pets could be meaningfully integrated into care practices, but also which ethical reflections were discussed during their use. Finally, this ethnographic study functioned as a collaborative learning process between researchers, care attendants, and residents, and thus also points out possible aspects that arose with regard to future learning spaces of professional and organizational development for dealing with innovative technologies in residential care contexts.

References

[1]
J. Abdi, A., Ng. T. Al-Hindawi, and M. P. Vizcaychipi. 2018. Scoping review on the use of socially assistive robot technology in elderly care. BMJ Open 8, 2 (Dec. 2018): e018815.
[2]
R. Bemelmans, G. J. Gelderblom, P. Jonker and L. De Witte. 2012. Socially assistive robots in elderly care: A systematic review into effects and effectiveness. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 13, 2 (Feb. 2012), 114--120.
[3]
E. Broadbent, R. Stafford, and B. MacDonald. 2009. Acceptance of Healthcare Robots for the Older Population: Review and Future Directions. Int J of Soc Robotics 1 (Oct. 2009), 319--330.
[4]
R. Kachouie, S. Sedighadeli, R. Khosla, and M. T. Chu. 2014. Socially assistive robots in elderly care: a mixed-method systematic literature review. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 30, 5 (Apr. 2014), 369--393.
[5]
S. A. Ballegaard, J. Bunde-Pedersen, and J. E. Bardram. 2006. Where to, Roberta? Reflecting on the role of technology in assisted living. In Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction: changing roles. ACM, New York, NY, 373--376.
[6]
Yngve Dahl and Kristine Holbø. 2012. "There are no secrets here!" professional stakeholders' views on the use of GPS for tracking dementia patients. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services. ACM, New York, NY, 133--142.
[7]
A. De Angeli, M. Jovanovi?, A. McNeill, and L. Coventry. 2020. Desires for active ageing technology. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 138 (June 2020), 102412.
[8]
Emma Dixon and Amanda Lazar. 2020. The Role of Sensory Changes in Everyday Technology use by People with Mild to Moderate Dementia. In The 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. ACM, New York, NY, 1--12.
[9]
A. Lazar, H. J. Thompson, S. Y. Lin, and G. Demiris. 2018. Negotiating Relation Work with Telehealth Home Care Companionship Technologies That Support Aging in Place. In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(CSCW). ACM, New York, NY, 1--19.
[10]
D. Unbehaun, K. Aal, D. D. Vaziri, P. D. Tolmie, R. Wieching, D. Randall, and V. Wulf. 2020. Social technology appropriation in dementia: investigating the role of care attendants in engaging people with dementia with a videogame-based training system. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 1--15.
[11]
D. Unbehaun, D. Vaziri, K. Aal, Q. Li, R. Wieching, and V. Wulf. 2018. MobiAssist-ICT-based training system for people with dementia and their care attendants: results from a field study. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Supporting Groupwork. ACM, New York, NY, 122--126.
[12]
L. Wan, C. Müller, D. Randall, and V. Wulf. 2016. Design of A GPS monitoring system for dementia care and its challenges in academia-industry project. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 23, 5 (Nov. 2016), 1--36.
[13]
G. Lindemann, H. Matsuzaki, and I. Straub. 2016. Special issue on: Going beyond the laboratory-reconsidering the ELS implications of autonomous robots. AI & Soc 31 (Nov. 2016), 441--444.
[14]
S. Sebo, B. Stoll, B. Scassellati, and M.F. Jung. 2020. Robots in groups and teams: a literature review. In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, Article 176, 1--36.
[15]
I. Aaltonen, A. Arvola, P. Heikkilä, and H. Lammi. 2017. Hello Pepper, may I tickle you? Children's and adults' responses to an entertainment robot at a shopping mall. In Proceedings of the Companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 53--54.
[16]
L. Bechade, G. Dubuisson-Duplessis, G. Pittaro, M. Garcia, and L. Devillers. 2019. Towards metrics of evaluation of pepper robot as a social companion for the elderly. In Advanced Social Interaction with Agents. Springer, Cham, 89--101.
[17]
F. Carros, J. Meurer, D. Löffler, D. Unbehaun, S. Matthies, I. Koch, ... and V. Wulf. 2020. Exploring human-robot interaction with the elderly: Results from a ten-week case study in a care home. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 1--12.
[18]
Raihah Aminuddin and Amanda Sharkey. 2017. A Paro robot reduces the stressful effects of environmental noise. In ECCE 2017: Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics 2017. ACM, New York, NY, 63--64.
[19]
H. S. Kang, K. Makimoto, R. Konno, and I.S. Koh. 2020. Review of outcome measures in PARO robot intervention studies for dementia care. Geriatric Nursing 41, 3 (May--June 2020), 207--214.
[20]
L. Pu, W. Moyle, and C. Jones. 2020. How people with dementia perceive a therapeutic robot called PARO in relation to their pain and mood: A qualitative study. Journal of clinical nursing 29, 3--4 (Feb. 2020), 437--446.
[21]
Wan-Ling Chang. 2016. Socializing robots: Constructing robotic sociality in the design and use of the assistive robot PARO. AI & Soc 31, 4 (Nov. 2016), 537--551.
[22]
X. Wang, J. Shen, and Q. Chen. 2021. How PARO can help older people in elderly care facilities: A systematic review of RCT. Int J Nurs Knowl (2021), 1--11.
[23]
J. Fink, V. Bauwens, F. Kaplan, and P. Dillenbourg. 2013. Living with a vacuum cleaning robot. International Journal of Social Robotics 5, 3 (Aug. 2013), 389--408.
[24]
F. Graf, Ç. Odaba?i, T. Jacobs, B. Graf, and T. Födisch. 2019. MobiKa - low-cost mobile robot for human-robot interaction. In Ro-Man 2019. 28th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. IEEE Press, New York, NY, 1--6.
[25]
G. Hoffman, O. Zuckerman, G. Hirschberger, M. Luria, and T. Shani-Sherman. 2015. Design and evaluation of a peripheral robotic conversation companion. In 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). ACM, New York, NY, 3--10.
[26]
D. Löffler, J. Dörrenbächer, and M. Hassenzahl. 2020a. The uncanny valley effect in zoomorphic robots: the U-shaped relation between animal likeness and likeability. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, March 2020. ACM, New York, NY, 261--270.
[27]
C. Bartneck, T. Belpaeme, F. Eyssel, T. Kanda, M. Keijsers. 2020. Human-Robot Interaction: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
[28]
Jodi Forlizzi. 2007. How robotic products become social products: an ethnographic study of cleaning in the home. In 2007 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). ACM, New York, NY, 129--136.
[29]
Ilona Straub. 2016. ??It looks like a human!' The interrelation of social presence, interaction and agency ascription: a case study about the effects of an android robot on social agency ascription'. AI & Soc 31, 4 (Nov. 2016), 553--571.
[30]
A. Chibani, Y. Amirat, S. Mohammed, E. Matson, N. Hagita, and M. Barreto. 2013. Ubiquitous robotics: Recent challenges and future trends. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 61, 11 (Nov. 2013), 1162--1172.
[31]
D. Hood, S. Lemaignan, and P. Dillenbourg. 2015. When children teach a robot to write: An autonomous teachable humanoid which uses simulated handwriting. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 83--90.
[32]
A. Langer, R. Feingold-Polak, O. Mueller, P. Kellmeyer, and S. Levy-Tzedek. 2019. Trust in socially assistive robots: Considerations for use in rehabilitation. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 104 (Sep. 2019), 231--239.
[33]
M.C. Rozendaal, B. Boon, and V. Kaptelinin. 2019. Objects with intent: Designing everyday things as collaborative partners. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 26, 4 (July 2019), 1--33.
[34]
B. Schulte, P. Graf, L. Franzkowiak, and E. Hornecker. 2020. Hospital Beds, Robot Priests and Huggables: A (Fictional) Review of Commercially Available Care Robots. In Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society. ACM, New York, NY, 1--11.
[35]
S. Thill, C. A. Pop, T. Belpaeme, T. Ziemke, and B. Vanderborght. 2012. Robot-assisted therapy for autism spectrum disorders with (partially) autonomous control: Challenges and outlook. Paladyn 3, 4 (Dec. 2012), 209--217.
[36]
T. Vandemeulebroucke, B. D. de Casterlé, and C. Gastmans. 2018. How do older adults experience and perceive socially assistive robots in aged care: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Aging & mental health 22, 2 (Feb. 2018), 149--167.
[37]
K. Winkle, P. Caleb-Solly, A. Turton, and P. Bremner. 2018. Social robots for engagement in rehabilitative therapies: Design implications from a study with therapists. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International conference on human-robot interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 289--297.
[38]
J. Z?otowski, K. Yogeeswaran, and C. Bartneck. 2017. Can we control it? Autonomous robots threaten human identity, uniqueness, safety, and resources. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 100 (Apr. 2017), 48--54.
[39]
Jodi Forlizzi and Carl DiSalvo. 2006. Service robots in the domestic environment: a study of the roomba vacuum in the home. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on Human-robot interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 258--265.
[40]
Takanori Shibata. 2012. Therapeutic seal robot as biofeedback medical device: Qualitative and quantitative evaluations of robot therapy in dementia care. In Proceedings of the IEEE 100, 8 (Aug. 2012), 2527--2538.
[41]
J. Y. Sung, L. Guo, R. E. Grinter, and H. I. Christensen. 2007. "My Roomba is Rambo": intimate home appliances. In International conference on ubiquitous computing. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 145--162.
[42]
Sung, J., Grinter, R. E., and H. I. Christensen. 2009. "Pimp My Roomba" designing for personalization. In CHI '09: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 193--196.
[43]
I. Erickson, L. P. Robert Jr, K. Crowston, and J. V. Nickerson. 2018. Workshop: Work in the Age of Intelligent Machines. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Supporting Groupwork. ACM, New York, NY, 359--361.
[44]
C. Müller, M. Schorch, and R. Wieching. 2014. PraxLabs as a Setting for Participatory Technology Research and Design in the Field of HRI and Demography. In Proceedings of the workshop "Socially assistive robots for the aging population: Are we trapped in stereotypes?" CITEC, Bielefeld University.
[45]
A. L. Toombs, D. Whitley, and C. M. Gray. 2020. Autono-preneurial Agents in the Community: Developing a Socially Aware API for Autonomous Entrepreneurial Lawn Mowers. In Companion of the 2020 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work. ACM, New York, NY, 69--82.
[46]
D. Wurhofer, T. Meneweger, V. Fuchsberger, and M. Tscheligi. 2018. Reflections on Operators' and Maintenance Engineers' Experiences of Smart Factories. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Supporting Groupwork. ACM, New York, NY, 284--296.
[47]
W. E. Bijker, T.P. Hughes, T. Pinch, and D.G. Douglas. 2012. The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology. MIT Press, Cambridge.
[48]
Jörg Becker and Björn Niehaves. 2007. Epistemological perspectives on IS research: a framework for analysing and systematizing epistemological assumptions. Information Systems Journal 17, 2 (2007), 197--214.
[49]
Kari Kuutti and Liam J. Bannon. 2014. The turn to practice in HCI: towards a research agenda. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 3543--3552.
[50]
Volkmar Pipek and Volker Wulf. 2009. Infrastructuring: Toward an integrated perspective on the design and use of information technology. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10, 5 (2009), Article 1.
[51]
Lucy Suchman. 2007. Human--Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
[52]
Claudia Castañeda and Lucy Suchman. 2014. Robot visions. Social Studies of Science 44, 3 (June 2014), 315--341.
[53]
M. Hassenzahl, J. Borchers, S. Boll, A. R. V. D. Pütten, and V. Wulf. 2020. Otherware: How to best interact with autonomous systems. Interactions 28, 1 (Jan.--Feb. 2021), 54--57.
[54]
Julika Welge and Marc Hassenzahl. 2016. Better than human: about the psychological superpowers of robots. International Conference on Social Robotics, 993--1002. Springer, Cham.
[55]
Paul Dourish. 2001. Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. MIT press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England.
[56]
Don Ihde. 2010. Embodied technics. Automatic Press/VIP, Copenhagen.
[57]
D. Löffler, J. Dörrenbächer, J. Welge, and M. Hassenzahl. 2020b. Hybridity as design strategy for service robots to become domestic products. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 1--8.
[58]
Ageless Innovation. Joy for all companion pets. 2020. Retrieved August 09, 2021 from https://joyforall.com/
[59]
A. Weibert, D. Randall, and V. Wulf. 2017. Extending Value Sensitive Design to Off-the-Shelf Technology: Lessons Learned from a Local Intercultural Computer Club. Interacting with Computers 29, 5 (Sep. 2017), 715--736.
[60]
Peter Eachus. 2001. Pets, people and robots: the role of companion animals and robopets in the promotion of health and well-being. International Journal of Health Promotion and Education 39, 1 (2001), 7--13.
[61]
J. Hudson, R. Ungar, L. Albright, R. Tkatch, J. Schaeffer, and E. R. Wicker. 2020. Robotic Pet Use Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B 75, 9 (Nov. 2020), 2018--2028.
[62]
M. M. Jung, L. van der Leij, and S. M. Kelders. 2017. An exploration of the benefits of an Animallike robot companion with more advanced touch interaction capabilities for dementia care. Frontiers in ICT 4, 16 (June 2017).
[63]
J. Pike, R. Picking, and S. Cunningham. 2020. Robot companion cats for people at home with dementia: A qualitative case study on companotics. Dementia 20, 4 (July 2020), 1300--1318.
[64]
K. Thodberg, L. U. Sørensen, P. B. Videbech, P. H. Poulsen, B. Houbak, V. Damgaard, ... and J. W. Christensen. 2016. Behavioral responses of nursing home residents to visits from a person with a dog, a robot seal or a toy cat. Anthrozoös 29, 1 (Mar. 2016), 107--121.
[65]
Sherry Turkle. 2006. A nascent robotics culture: New complicities for companionship. AAAI Technical Report Series (July 2006), 1--10.
[66]
Mark Coeckelbergh. 2016. Care robots and the future of ICT-mediated elderly care: a response to doom scenarios. AI & Soc 31 (Nov. 2016), 455--462.
[67]
Amanda Sharkey and Noel Sharkey. 2011. Children, the elderly, and interactive robots. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine 18, 1 (Mar. 2011), 32--38.
[68]
Robert Sparrow. 2016. Robots in aged care: a dystopian future? AI & Soc 31 (Nov. 2016), 445--454.
[69]
Andreas Bischof. 2017. Soziale Maschinen bauen: Epistemische Praktiken der Sozialrobotik. transcript Verlag, Bielefeld.
[70]
Manfred Hülsken-Giesler und Sabine Daxberger. 2018. Robotik in der Pflege aus pflegewissenschaftlicher Perspektive. In Oliver Bendel (Ed.). Pflegeroboter. Hochschule für Wirtschaft FHNW, Windisch, Switzerland, 125--139.
[71]
John McCarthy and Peter Wright. 2004. Technology as experience. interactions 11, 5 (Sep.-Oct. 2004), 42--43.
[72]
Peter Wright and John McCarthy. 2010. Experience-centered design: designers, users, and communities in dialogue. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics 3, 1, 1--123.
[73]
Oded Zafrani and Galit Nimrod. 2019. Towards a holistic approach to studying human--robot interaction in later life. The Gerontologist 59, 1 (Feb. 2019), e26-e36.
[74]
, W. L. Chang, and L. Huber. 2013. PARO robot affects diverse interaction modalities in group sensory therapy for older adults with dementia. In 2013 IEEE 13th international conference on rehabilitation robotics (ICORR). IEEE, 1--6.
[75]
C. Thompson, S. Mohamed, W. Y. G. Louie, J. C. He, J. Li, and G. Nejat. 2017. The robot Tangy facilitating Trivia games: A team-based user-study with long-term care residents. In 2017 IEEE international symposium on robotics and intelligent sensors (IRIS). IEEE, 173--178.
[76]
Swapna Joshi 2019. Robots for inter-generational interactions: implications for nonfamilial community settings. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE Press, New York, NY, 478--486.
[77]
E.S. Short, K. Swift-Spong, H. Shim, K. M. Wisniewski, D. K. Zak, S. Wu, ... and M. J. Matari?. 2017. Understanding social interactions with socially assistive robotics in intergenerational family groups. In 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 236--241.
[78]
S. Shen, P. Slovak, and M. F. Jung. 2018. "Stop. I See a Conflict Happening." A Robot Mediator for Young Children's Interpersonal Conflict Resolution. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 69--77.
[79]
M. F. Jung, N. Martelaro, and P. J. Hinds. 2015. Using robots to moderate team conflict: the case of repairing violations. In Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 229--236.
[80]
S. Strohkorb, E. Fukuto, N. Warren, C. Taylor, B. Berry, and B. Scassellati. 2016. Improving human-human collaboration between children with a social robot. In 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 551--556.
[81]
Elaine Short and Maja J. Matari?. 2017. Robot moderation of a collaborative game: Towards socially assistive robotics in group interactions. In 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 385--390.
[82]
H. Tennent, S. Shen, and M. Jung. 2019. Micbot: A peripheral robotic object to shape conversational dynamics and team performance. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE Press, New York, NY, 133--142.
[83]
S. Strohkorb Sebo, M. Traeger, M. Jung, and B. Scassellati. 2018. The ripple effects of vulnerability: The effects of a robot's vulnerable behavior on trust in human-robot teams. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 178--186.
[84]
Meia Chita-Tegmark and Matthias Scheutz. 2021. Assistive Robots for the Social Management of Health: A Framework for Robot Design and Human--Robot Interaction Research. Int J of Soc Robotics 13 (Apr. 2021), 197--217.
[85]
Kate Darling. 2021. The New Breed: What Our History with Animals Reveals about Our Future with Robots. Henry Holt and Company, New York, NY.
[86]
M. R. Banks, L. M. Willoughby, and W. A. Banks. 2008. Animal assisted therapy and loneliness in nursing homes: use of robotic versus living dogs. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 9, 3 (Mar. 2008) 173--177.
[87]
S. Coghlan, J. Waycott, B. B. Neves, and F. Vetere. 2018. Using robot pets instead of companion animals for older people: a case of' reinventing the wheel'?. In Proceedings of the 30th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 172--183.
[88]
Robert Sparrow. 2002. The march of the robot dogs. Ethics Inf. Technol. 4, 4 (Dec. 2002), 305--318.
[89]
W. D. Stiehl, J. Lieberman, C. Breazeal, L. Basel, L. Lalla, and M. Wolf. 2005. Design of a therapeutic robotic companion for relational, affective touch. In ROMAN 2005. IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. IEEE, 408--415.
[90]
A. Lazar, H. J. Thompson, A. M. Piper, and G. Demiris. 2016. Rethinking the Design of Robotic Pets for Older Adults. In DIS 2016 - Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Fuse. Association for Computing Machinery. ACM, New York, NY, 1034--1046.
[91]
Tuck W. Leong and Benjamin Johnston. 2016. Co-design and robots: a case study of a robot dog for aging people. In International Conference on Social Robotics. Springer, Cham, 702--711.
[92]
D. Li, P.L. P. Rau, and Y. Li. 2010. A Cross-cultural Study: Effect of Robot Appearance and Task. Int. J. of Soc. Robotics 2, 2 (May 2010), 175--186.
[93]
H. Robinson, B. MacDonald, and E. Broadbent. 2014. The role of healthcare robots for older people at home: A review. Int J of Soc Robotics 6 (Nov. 2014), 575--591.
[94]
K. Lord, R. Schneider, and R. Coppinger. 2016. Evolution of working dogs. In The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behavior and Interactions with People, James Serpell (Ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 42--66.
[95]
R. Abbott, N. Orr, P. McGill, R. Whear, A. Bethel, R. Garside, K. Stein, and J. Thompson-Coon. 2019. How do "robopets" impact the health and well-being of residents in care homes? A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Int J Older People Nurs. 14, 3 (Sep. 2019), 1--23.
[96]
Fahd Newaz and Diana Saplacan. 2018. Exploring the role of feedback on trust for the robots used in homes of the elderly. In Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 681--685.
[97]
K. Rodil, M. Rehm, and A. L. Krummheuer. 2018. Co-designing social robots with cognitively impaired citizens. In Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 686--690.
[98]
Morana Ala?. 2016. Social robots: Things or agents? AI & Soc 31, 4 (Nov. 2016), 519--535.
[99]
Swapna 2017. A communal perspective on shared robots as social catalysts. In 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 732--738.
[100]
C. D. Kidd, W. Taggart, and S. Turkle. 2006. A sociable robot to encourage social interaction among the elderly. In Proceedings 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2006. ICRA 2006. IEEE, 3972--3976.
[101]
D. Hornung, C. Müller, I. Shklovski, T. Jakobi, and V. Wulf. 2017. Navigating relationships and boundaries: Concerns around ICT-uptake for elderly people. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 7057--7069.
[102]
C. Müller, D. Hornung, T. Hamm, and V. Wulf. 2015a. Measures and tools for supporting ICT appropriation by elderly and non tech-savvy persons in a long-term perspective. In ECSCW 2015: Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Springer, Cham, 263--281.
[103]
C. Müller, D. Hornung, T. Hamm, and V. Wulf. 2015b. Practice-based design of a neighborhood portal: focusing on elderly tenants in a city quarter living lab. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, NY, 2295--2304.
[104]
C. Ogonowski, T. Jakobi, C. Müller. and J. Hess. 2018. PRAXLABS: A Sustainable Framework for User-Centered Information and Communication Technology Development-Cultivating Research Experiences from Living Labs in the Home. In Wulf, V., Pipek, V., Randall, D. and M. Rohde, Schmidt, K., Stevens, G. (Eds.). Socio-Informatics: A Practice-Based Perspective on the Design and Use of IT Artifacts, Oxford, 319--360.
[105]
A. D. Baharudin, N. C. Din, P. Subramaniam, and R. Razali. 2019. The associations between behavioral-psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) and coping strategy, burden of care and personality style among low-income care attendants of patients with dementia. BMC Public Health 19, 4 (2019), 1--12.
[106]
Daniel C. Dennett. 1997. Consciousness in human and robot minds. In Cognition, computation, and consciousness, Masao Ito, Yasushi Miyashita, and Edmund T. Rolls (Eds.). Oxford, New York & Tokyo, Oxford University Press, 17--29.
[107]
Karim Jebari and Joakim Lundborg. 2020. Artificial superintelligence and its limits: why AlphaZero cannot become a general agent. AI Soc. (Oct. 2020), 1--9.
[108]
Lye N. Long and Troy D. Kelley. 2010. Review of consciousness and the possibility of conscious robots. J. Aeros. Comp. Inf. Com. 7, 2 (Feb. 2010), 68--84.
[109]
Patrick Krauss and Andreas Maier. 2020. Will we ever have conscious machines? Front. Comput. Neurosci. 14, 556544 (Dec. 2020), 1--14.
[110]
Camilo M. Signorelli. 2018. Can computers become conscious and overcome humans? Front. Robot. AI 5, 121 (Oct. 2018), 1--20.
[111]
Elisabeth Hildt. 2019. Artificial Intelligence: Does Consciousness Matter? Front. Psychol. 10, 1535 (July 2019), 1--3.
[112]
Theo J.M. van der Voordt. 1997. Housing and care variants for older people with dementia: Current trends in the Netherlands. American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease 12, 2 (Mar. 1997), 84--92.
[113]
GKV Spitzenverband. 2012. Betreuungskräfte in Pflegeeinrichtungen. Schriftenreihe Modellprogramm zur Weiterentwicklung der Pflegeversicherung. Band 9. Berlin.
[114]
D. Becka, U. Borchers, and M. Evans. 2016. Pflegen, Kümmern und Begleiten: berufspolitische Entwicklungspfade zur Sorgearbeit vor Ort. In Pflege-Report, K. Jacobs, A. Kuhlmey, S. Greß, J. Klauber, and A. Schwinger (Eds.). Schattauer, Stuttgart, 151--167.
[115]
Jarg Bergold and Stefan Thomas. 2012. Participatory research methods: A methodological approach in motion. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung 13, 1 (Jan. 2012) 191--222.
[116]
Finn Kensing and Jeanette Blomberg. 1998. Participatory design: Issues and concerns. CSCW, 7, 3 (Sep. 1998), 167--185.
[117]
S. Pink, H. Horst, J. Postill, L. Hjorth, T. Lewis, and J. Tacchi. 2015. Digital ethnography: Principles and practice. Sage, Los Angeles, London, New Dehli, Singapore, Washington DC.
[118]
Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Aldine Publishing Company, Hawthorne, NY.
[119]
C. Mueller, S. Burger, J. Rader, and D. Carter. 2013. Nurse competencies for person-directed care in nursing homes. Geriatric Nursing 34, 2 (Mar.--Apr. 2013), 101--104.
[120]
Tone Bratteteig and Ingvild Eide. 2017. Becoming a good homecare practitioner: integrating many kinds of work. Comput Supported Coop Work (CSCW) 26, 4 (Dec. 2017), 563--596.
[121]
Tom Kitwood and Dawn Brooker. 2019. Dementia reconsidered revisited: The person still comes first. Open University Press, McGraw-Hill Education, London, UK.
[122]
Naomi Feil. 1993. Validation therapy with late-onset dementia populations. In Care-Giving in Dementia, Gemma M. M. Jones and Bère M. L. Miesen (Eds.). Research and Applications, Vol. 1. Routledge, London and New York, 199--218.
[123]
E. Hornecker, A. Bischof, P. Graf, L. Franzkowiak, and N. Krüger. 2020. The Interactive Enactment of Care Technologies and its Implications for Human-Robot-Interaction in Care. In Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society (NordiCHI '20). ACM, New York, NY, 1--11.
[124]
Michaela Pfadenhauer and Christoph Dukat. 2015. Robot Caregiver or Robot-Supported Caregiving?: The Performative Deployment of the Social Robot PARO in Dementia Care. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 7, 3 (Jun. 2015), 393--406.
[125]
Wan-Ling Chang. 2015. Interaction expands function: Social shaping of the therapeutic robot PARO in a nursing home. In 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). ACM, New York, NY, 343--350.
[126]
Claudia Müller and Lin Wan. 2018. Information and Communication Technology Design in a Complex Moral Universe: Ethnography-Based Development of a GPS Monitoring System for Persons Who Wander. In Socio-Informatics: A Practice-based Perspective on the Design and Use of IT Artefacts, V. Wulf, V. Pipek, D. Randall, M. Rohde, K. Schmidt, and G. Stevens (Eds.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 363--390.
[127]
D. Özdemir, J. Cibulka, O. Stepankova, and I. Holmerova. 2021. Design and implementation framework of social assistive robotics for people with dementia-a scoping review. Health Technol 11 (Mar. 2021), 367--378.
[128]
Hee Rin Lee and Laurel D. Riek. 2018. Reframing assistive robots to promote successful aging. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI) 7, 1 (May 2018), 1--23.
[129]
Pelle Ehn. 1992. Scandinavian design: On participation and skill. In Usability Turning Technologies into Tools, Paul S. Adler and Terry A. Winograd (Eds.). Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford, 96--132.
[130]
R. Miettinen, D. Samra-Fredericks, and D. Yanow. 2009. Re-Turn to Practice: An Introductory Essay. Organization Studies 30, 12 (Dec. 2009), 1309--1327.

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)Editorial: Creative approaches to appropriation and design: novel robotic systems for heterogeneous contextsFrontiers in Robotics and AI10.3389/frobt.2024.153113211Online publication date: 3-Jan-2025
  • (2025)Designing for those who are Overlooked - Investigating long-term Impacts of Social Robotics for People with Advanced Dementia, Caregivers and Relatives in a Secured Care EnvironmentProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/37011909:1(1-30)Online publication date: 10-Jan-2025
  • (2024)RoboCare Design Workshop: Understanding, Translating, Operationalizing, and Scaling Up Design Knowledge Regarding Robotic Systems for Care AssistanceCompanion Publication of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3656156.3658395(421-423)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. "That's Something for Children": An Ethnographic Study of Attitudes and Practices of Care Attendants and Nursing Home Residents Towards Robotic Pets

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
    Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction  Volume 6, Issue GROUP
    GROUP
    January 2022
    992 pages
    EISSN:2573-0142
    DOI:10.1145/3511803
    Issue’s Table of Contents
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 14 January 2022
    Published in PACMHCI Volume 6, Issue GROUP

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. care
    2. human-robot interaction
    3. nursing home
    4. participatory design
    5. robotic pets

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Funding Sources

    • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation)

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)159
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)19
    Reflects downloads up to 27 Jan 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2025)Editorial: Creative approaches to appropriation and design: novel robotic systems for heterogeneous contextsFrontiers in Robotics and AI10.3389/frobt.2024.153113211Online publication date: 3-Jan-2025
    • (2025)Designing for those who are Overlooked - Investigating long-term Impacts of Social Robotics for People with Advanced Dementia, Caregivers and Relatives in a Secured Care EnvironmentProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/37011909:1(1-30)Online publication date: 10-Jan-2025
    • (2024)RoboCare Design Workshop: Understanding, Translating, Operationalizing, and Scaling Up Design Knowledge Regarding Robotic Systems for Care AssistanceCompanion Publication of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3656156.3658395(421-423)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
    • (2024)Facilitating Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Large-Scale Research Networks: Tackling Uncertainties in Knowledge Building and the Designing of Robotic Systems in HealthcareInteracting with Computers10.1093/iwc/iwae051Online publication date: 23-Dec-2024
    • (2024)Robot in the loop: a human-centered approach to contextualizing AI and robotics in constructionConstruction Robotics10.1007/s41693-024-00144-89:1Online publication date: 17-Dec-2024
    • (2023)A Systematic Literature Review on the Use of Social Robots in Elderly CareProceedings of the 35th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference10.1145/3638380.3638412(221-230)Online publication date: 2-Dec-2023
    • (2022)A Sustainable, Interactive Elderly Healthcare System for Nursing Homes: An Interdisciplinary DesignSustainability10.3390/su1407420414:7(4204)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2022
    • (2022)Zoomorphic Robots and People with DisabilitiesProceedings of Mensch und Computer 202210.1145/3543758.3547552(431-436)Online publication date: 4-Sep-2022
    • (2022)Pet-Robot or Appliance? Care Home Residents with Dementia Respond to a Zoomorphic Floor Washing RobotProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3491102.3517463(1-21)Online publication date: 29-Apr-2022

    View Options

    Login options

    Full Access

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media