research-article

The Interactive Enactment of Care Technologies and its Implications for Human-Robot-Interaction in Care

Authors:

Andreas Bischof,

Lena Franzkowiak,

Norbert KrügerAuthors Info & Claims

NordiCHI '20: Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society

Article No.: 78, Pages 1 - 11

https://doi.org/10.1145/3419249.3420103

Published: 26 October 2020 Publication History

Abstract

Various technical innovations for the care sector, particularly robots, are being developed to cope with demographic change and to support nursing staff. A central issue for the successful integration of such technology into gerontological care practices has not yet been appropriately addressed from an HCI perspective. Here, we draw from observation of lifting devices, used to move residents between bed and chairs. We found that this process is always moderated and facilitated by caregivers’ ‘interaction work’: The function(ing) of care technology is inseparable from the interactive practices of care staff enacting these functions and from the emotional labor inherent to care practice. The caregivers’ verbal, manual and emotional actions, and also the residents’ active cooperation in the process are important factors for safe, fluid, and pleasant human-machine interaction. We propose to understand such technical care settings as a triadic interaction, and to take account of this in the future design of care technologies, in particular for robotic solutions.

References

[1]

Morana Alač. 2016. Social robots: Things or agents? AI Soc. 31, 4 (2016), 519–535.

Digital Library

[2]

Morana Alač, Javier Movellan, and Fumihide Tanaka. 2011. When a robot is social: Spatial arrangements and multimodal semiotic engagement in the practice of social robotics. Soc. Stud. Sci.41, 6 (2011), 893–926.

[3]

Christoph Bartneck, Takayuki Kanda, Omar Mubin, and Abdullah Al Mahmud. 2008. The perception of animacy and intelligence based on a robot's embodiment. Humanoid Robot. 2007 7th IEEE-RAS Int. Conf. on. IEEE, 2007. (2008), 300–305.

[4]

Sandra Bedaf, Claire Huijnen, Renée van den Heuvel, and Luc de Witte. 2017. Robots Supporting Care for Elderly People. In Robotic Assistive Technologies – Principles and Practice, Pedro Encarnação and Albert M. Cook (eds.). CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group.

[5]

Cynthia L. Bennett and Daniela K. Rosner. 2019. The Promise of Empathy: Design, Disability, and Knowing the “Other.” In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: May 4-9, 2019, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.

[6]

Bioethikkommission. 2018. Roboter in der Betreuung alter Menschen.Wien.

[7]

Andreas Bischof. 2017. Soziale Maschinen bauen: Epistemische Praktiken der Sozialrobotik. transcript, Bielefeld.

[8]

Brian P. Bloomfield, Yvonne Latham, and Theo Vurdubakis. 2010. Bodies, technologies and action possibilities: When is an affordance? Sociology 44, 3 (2010), 415–433.

[9]

Leon Bodenhagen, Stefan-Daniel Suvei, William Kristian Juel, Erik Brander, and Norbert Krüger. 2019. Robot technology for future welfare: meeting upcoming societal challenges – an outlook with offset in the development in Scandinavia. Health Technol. (Berl).9, 3 (2019), 197–218.

[10]

Marion Buchenau and Jane Fulton Suri. 2000. Experience prototyping. In Proceedings of the Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, DIS, 424–433.

Digital Library

[11]

Felix Carros, Johanna Meurer, Diana Löffler, David Unbehaun, Sarah Matthies, Inga Koch, Rainer Wieching, Dave Randall, Marc Hassenzahl, and Volker Wulf. 2020. Exploring Human-Robot Interaction with the Elderly: Results from a Ten-Week Case Study in a Care Home. In CHI ’20: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Honolulu, USA, April 2020.

Digital Library

[12]

Mark Coeckelbergh. 2015. Good Healthcare Is in the “How”: The Quality of Care, the Role of Machines, and the Need for New Skills. In Machine Medical Ethics – Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering, Simon Peter van Rysewyk and Matthijs Pontier (eds.). Springer London, 33–49.

[13]

The Association of Social Anthropologists of the UK and the Commonwealth. 1999. Ethical Guidelines for Good Research Practice.

[14]

David Fischinger, Peter Einramhof, Konstantinos Papoutsakis, Walter Wohlkinger, Peter Mayer, Paul Panek, Stefan Hofmann, Tobias Koertner, Astrid Weiss, Antonis Argyros, and Markus Vincze. 2016. Hobbit, a care robot supporting independent living at home: First prototype and lessons learned. Rob. Auton. Syst.75, (2016), 60–78.

Digital Library

[15]

Harold Garfinkel. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.

[16]

Karin Hausen. 1976. Die Polarisierung der Geschlechtscharaktere. In Sozialgeschichte der Familie in der Neuzeit Europas, Werner Conze (ed.). Ernst Klett Verlag, Stuttgart.

[17]

Christian Heath and Paul Luff. 2000. Technology in Action. Cambridge University Press.

Digital Library

[18]

i-design project Helen Hamlyn Centre for Design at the Royal College of Art. Methods – Empathy Tool. Retrieved October 10, 2019 from ttp://designingwithpeople.rca.ac.uk/methods/empathy-tool

[19]

Arlie Russell Hochschild. 1995. The Cultural of Politics: Traditional, Postmodern, Cold-modern, Warm-modern Ideals of Care. Soc. Polit.2, 3 (1995), 331–346.

[20]

Ivonne Honekamp, Larissa Sauer, Thomas Wache, and Wilfried Honekamp. 2019. Akzeptanz von Pflegerobotern im Krankenhaus. TATuP Zeitschrift für Tech. Theor. und Prax.28, 2 (2019), 58–63.

[21]

John A Hughes, David Randall, and Dan Shapiro. 1992. Faltering from Ethnography to Design. In Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work November 01 - 04, 1992, Toronto, Ontario, Canada., 115–122.

Digital Library

[22]

Manfred Hülsken-Giesler and Sabine Daxberger. 2018. Robotik in der Pflege aus pflegewissenschaftlicher Perspektive. In Pflegeroboter, Oliver Bendel (ed.). Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, 125–139.

[23]

Kathrin Janowski, Hannes Ritschel, Birgit Lugrin, and Elisabeth André. 2018. Sozial interagierende Roboter in der Pflege. In Pflegeroboter. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 63–87.

[24]

Andra Keay. 2012. Cultural Studies In The HRI Loop. In HRI’12 – Proceedings of the 7th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 165–166.

[25]

Norbert Krüger and Ole Dolriis. 2018. 5 reasons robots aren't going to take over the world. Retrieved December 3, 2019 from https://theconversation.com/five-reasons-why-robots-wont-take-over-the-world-94124%0A

[26]

Paul Luff, Christian Heath, and Jon Hindmarsh. 2000. Workplace Studies. Cambridge University Press.

[27]

Annemarie Mol, Ingunn Moser, and Jeannette Pols. 2010. Care: putting practice into theory. In Care in Practice – On Tinkering in Clinics, Homes and Farms, Annemarie Mol, Ingunn Moser and Jeannette Pols (eds.). transcript, Bielefeld.

[28]

Ajung Moon, Minhua Zheng, Daniel M. Troniak, Benjamin A. Blumer, Brian Gleeson, Karon MacLean, Matthew K.X.J. Pan, and Elizabeth A. Croft. 2014. Meet me where i'm gazing: How shared attention gaze affects human-robot handover timing. ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. Human-Robot Interact. (2014), 334–341.

[29]

Wendy Moyle, Amrie Cooke, Elizabeth Beattie, Cindy Jones, Barbara Klein, Glenda Cook, and Chrystal Gray. 2013. Exploring the effect of companion robots on emotional expression in older adults with dementia: a pilot randomized controlled trial. J. Gerontol. nursing. (2013).

[30]

Antti Oulasvirta, Esko Kurvinen, and Tomi Kankainen. 2003. Understanding contexts by being there: Case studies in bodystorming. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput.7, 2 (2003), 125–134.

Digital Library

[31]

Michael Parker. 2007. Ethnography/ethics. Soc. Sci. Med.65, 11 (2007), 2248–2259.

[32]

Christian Pentzold and Andreas Bischof. 2019. Making Affordances Real: Socio-Material Prefiguration, Performed Agency, and Coordinated Activities in Human–Robot Communication. Soc. Media + Soc.5, 3 (2019).

[33]

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 (2015), 393–406.

[34]

Jeannette Pols and Ingunn Moser. 2009. Cold technologies versus warm care? On affective and social relations with and through care technologies. Alter 3, 2 (2009), 159–178.

[35]

Martin Porcheron, Joel E. Fischer, Stuart Reeves, and Sarah Sharples. 2018. Voice interfaces in everyday life. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–12.

Digital Library

[36]

Rajeev Ranjan, Ankan Bansal, Jingxiao Zheng, Hongyu Xu, Joshua Gleason, Boyu Lu, Anirudh Nanduri, Jun-Cheng Chen, Carlos Castillo, and Rama Chellappa. 2019. A Fast and Accurate System for Face Detection, Identification, and Verification. IEEE Trans. Biometrics, Behav. Identity Sci.1, 2 (2019), 82–96.

[37]

Elaine Short, Justin Hart, Michelle Vu, and Brian Scassellati. 2010. No fair!! An interaction with a cheating robot. In2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 219–226.

[38]

Ian Sommerville, Tom Rodden, Pete Sawyer, Richard Bentley, and Michael Twidale. 1993. Integrating ethnography into the requirements engineering process. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Requir. Eng.May 2014 (1993), 165–173.

[39]

Robert Sparrow. 2016. Robots in aged care: a dystopian future? AI Soc.31, 4 (2016), 445–454.

Digital Library

[40]

Lucy Suchman. 2007. Human-Machine Reconfigurations – Plans and Situated Actions (2nd. ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

[41]

Lucy Suchman. 2011. Subject objects. Fem. Theory 12, 2 (2011), 119–145.

[42]

Pat Treusch. 2015. Robotic Companionship: The Making of Anthropomatic Kitchen Robots in Queer Feminist Technoscience Perspective. Linköping University Electronic Press.

[43]

Keiichi Yamazaki, Akiko Yamazaki, Mai Okada, Yoshinori Kuno, Yoshinori Kobayashi, Yosuke Hoshi, Karola Pitsch, Paul Luff, Dirk Vom Lehn, and Christian Heath. 2009. Revealing gauguin: Engaging visitors in robot guide's explanation in an art museum. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – Proceedings, 1437–1446.

Digital Library

[44]

James E. Young, Jayoung Sung, Amy Voida, Ehud Sharlin, Takeo Igarashi, Henrik I. Christensen, and Rebecca E. Grinter. 2011. Evaluating human-robot interaction: Focusing on the holistic interaction experience. Int. J. Soc. Robot.3, 1 (2011), 53–67.

[45]

Liftware. Retrieved December 3, 2019 from https://www.liftware.com/

[46]

Paro Robot. Retrieved December 3, 2019 from http://www.parorobots.com/

[47]

Robear: the bear-shaped nursing robot who'll look after you when you get old. Retrieved May 1, 2020 from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/27/robear-bear-shaped-nursing-care-robot

[48]

MaxiMove. Retrieved December 4, 2019 from ? https://www.arjo.com/int/products/safe-patient-handling/floor-lifters/maxi-move

[49]

2014. Panasonic's Resyone robotic bed. Retrieved December 4, 2019 from https://newatlas.com/panasonic-resyone-robot-bed-wheelchair-iso13482/31656/

[50]

2019. AETHON TUG Robot. Retrieved December 4, 2019 from https://aethon.com/mobile-robots-for-healthcare/

[51]

2019. ETAC Turner Pro. Retrieved December 4, 2019 from https://www.etac.com/products/manual-transfer/sit-to-stand/etac-turner-pro/%0D%0A%0D%0A

[52]

2020. Pressemitteilung Ethikrat: Chancen für die Pflege durch verantwortliche Nutzung von Robotik. Retrieved from https://www.ethikrat.org/mitteilungen/2020/ethikrat-chancen-fuer-die-pflege-durch-verantwortliche-nutzung-von-robotik/

Cited By

Trovato GDu YMitchell STrevejo FCondori RKatagiri MObe RGawande MCosentino SManavi MCarros FWieching R(2024)CelesTE, theomorphic device for cognitive support of older adults2024 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Robotics and Its Social Impacts (ARSO)10.1109/ARSO60199.2024.10557814(200-205)Online publication date: 20-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/ARSO60199.2024.10557814
Gorny PRenner BSchäfer L(2023)Prosocial behavior among human workers in robot-augmented production teams—A field-in-the-lab experimentFrontiers in Behavioral Economics10.3389/frbhe.2023.12205632Online publication date: 6-Nov-2023
https://doi.org/10.3389/frbhe.2023.1220563
Dobrosovestnova Ade Pagter JWeiss ACastellano GRiek LCakmak MLeite I(2023)Borrowing, Poking and Entangling. In Search of Shared Spaces Between Science and Technology Studies and Human-Robot InteractionCompanion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/3568294.3580033(21-29)Online publication date: 13-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3568294.3580033
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

The Interactive Enactment of Care Technologies and its Implications for Human-Robot-Interaction in Care

Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

Recommendations

Care Workers Making Use of Robots: Results of a Three-Month Study on Human-Robot Interaction within a Care Home
CHI '22: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Research on social robots in care has often focused on either the care recipients or the technology itself, neglecting the care workers who, in and through their collaborative and coordinative practices, will need to work with the robots. To better ...
Self-Care Technologies in HCI: Trends, Tensions, and Opportunities

Many studies show that self-care technologies can support patients with chronic conditions and their carers in understanding the ill body and increasing control of their condition. However, many of these studies have largely privileged a medical ...
Technology for Supporting Care Staff in Residential Homes

Care staff, those who attend to the day-to-day needs of people in residential facilities, represent an important segment of the health-care provision of those entrusted to their care. The potential use of technology by care staff has not been a focus of ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

NordiCHI '20: Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society

October 2020

1177 pages

ISBN:9781450375795

DOI:10.1145/3419249

General Chairs:
David Lamas
Tallinn University, Estonia
,
Hegle Sarapuu
Trinidad Wiseman, Estonia
,
Publications Chairs:
Ilja Šmorgun
Tallinn University, Estonia
,
Gerd Berget
Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway

Copyright © 2020 ACM.

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: 26 October 2020

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Conference

NordiCHI '20

NordiCHI '20: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society

October 25 - 29, 2020

Tallinn, Estonia

Acceptance Rates

NordiCHI '20 Paper Acceptance Rate 89 of 399 submissions, 22%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 379 of 1,572 submissions, 24%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

20
Total Citations
View Citations
593
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)101
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)10

Reflects downloads up to 03 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Trovato GDu YMitchell STrevejo FCondori RKatagiri MObe RGawande MCosentino SManavi MCarros FWieching R(2024)CelesTE, theomorphic device for cognitive support of older adults2024 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Robotics and Its Social Impacts (ARSO)10.1109/ARSO60199.2024.10557814(200-205)Online publication date: 20-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/ARSO60199.2024.10557814
Gorny PRenner BSchäfer L(2023)Prosocial behavior among human workers in robot-augmented production teams—A field-in-the-lab experimentFrontiers in Behavioral Economics10.3389/frbhe.2023.12205632Online publication date: 6-Nov-2023
https://doi.org/10.3389/frbhe.2023.1220563
Dobrosovestnova Ade Pagter JWeiss ACastellano GRiek LCakmak MLeite I(2023)Borrowing, Poking and Entangling. In Search of Shared Spaces Between Science and Technology Studies and Human-Robot InteractionCompanion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/3568294.3580033(21-29)Online publication date: 13-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3568294.3580033
Stegner LSenft EMutlu B(2023)Situated Participatory Design: A Method for In Situ Design of Robotic Interaction with Older AdultsProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544548.3580893(1-15)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3544548.3580893
Yuan SCoghlan SLederman RWaycott J(2023)Ethical Design of Social Robots in Aged Care: A Literature Review Using an Ethics of Care PerspectiveInternational Journal of Social Robotics10.1007/s12369-023-01053-615:9-10(1637-1654)Online publication date: 4-Oct-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-01053-6
López-Lago Ortiz LAllen-Perkins Avendaño DRivero Jiménez BPedret Massanet CConde Caballero DMariano Juárez L(2023)Acceptance and Adoption of Care Robots Among Elderly: A Critical Review of the Ethnographic ProductionGerontechnology V10.1007/978-3-031-29067-1_7(55-64)Online publication date: 28-Mar-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29067-1_7
Bischof AHornecker EGraf PFranzkowiak L(2022)Integrierte Roboterentwicklung für die Pflege: Konzeptionelle und praktische Herausforderungen am Beispiel ReThiCareTATuP - Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis10.14512/tatup.31.1.4831:1(48-54)Online publication date: 8-Apr-2022
https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.31.1.48
Breuer SBraun MTigard DBuyx AMüller R(2022)How Engineers’ Imaginaries of Healthcare Shape Design and User Engagement: A Case Study of a Robotics Initiative for Geriatric Healthcare AI ApplicationsACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction10.1145/357701030:2(1-33)Online publication date: 22-Dec-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3577010
Schulte BHornecker E(2022)Care Stories: Understanding People's Hopes and Fears for Technologies of Care through Story ElicitationProceedings of the 25th International Academic Mindtrek Conference10.1145/3569219.3569309(117-128)Online publication date: 16-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3569219.3569309
Yuan SCoghlan SLederman RWaycott J(2022)Social Robots in Aged Care: Care Staff Experiences and Perspectives on Robot Benefits and ChallengesProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/35552206:CSCW2(1-23)Online publication date: 11-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3555220
Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents