A critical analysis of the representations of older adults in the field of human\u2013robot interaction

Dafna Burema

doi:10.1007/s00146-021-01205-0

Abstract

This paper argues that there is a need to critically assess bias in the representations of older adults in the field of Human–Robot Interaction. This need stems from the recognition that technology development is a socially constructed process that has the potential to reinforce problematic understandings of older adults. Based on a qualitative content analysis of 96 academic publications, this paper indicates that older adults are represented as; frail by default, independent by effort; silent and technologically illiterate; burdensome; and problematic for society. Within these documents, few counternarratives are present that do not take such essentialist representations. In these texts, the goal of social robots in elder care is to “enable” older adults to “better” themselves. The older body is seen as “fixable” with social robots, reinforcing an ageist and neoliberal narrative: older adults are reduced to potential care receivers in ways that shift care responsibilities away from the welfare state onto the individual.

Highlights

Since the early 2000s, social robots in elder care are developed and studied in academia (e.g., Wada et al 2003)
A critical analysis of the representations of older adults in the field of HRI is necessary to become aware of potential biases and assumptions that might further inform the construction of technologies
Older adults are seen as people who experience loss in social participation, health and mobility, and cognitive and mental functioning—i.e., fourth agers

Summary

Introduction

Since the early 2000s, social robots in elder care are developed and studied in academia (e.g., Wada et al 2003). As most scholars in HRI do not have the lived experience of being a (care dependent) older adult, they have to rely on additional information (Hyysalo and Johnson 2016). A critical analysis of the representations of older adults in the field of HRI is necessary to become aware of potential biases and assumptions that might further inform the construction of technologies. Related to this is the theoretical argument of social constructivism and the

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion