Abstract

Putting laypeople in an active role as direct expert contributors in the design of service robots becomes more and more prominent in the research fields of human–robot interaction (HRI) and social robotics (SR). Currently, though, HRI is caught in a dilemma of how to create meaningful service robots for human social environments, combining expectations shaped by popular media with technology readiness. We recapitulate traditional stakeholder involvement, including two cases in which new intelligent robots were conceptualized and realized for close interaction with humans. Thereby, we show how the robot narrative (impacted by science fiction, the term robot itself, and assumptions on human-like intelligence) together with aspects of power balancing stakeholders, such as hardware constraints and missing perspectives beyond primary users, and the adaptivity of robots through machine learning that creates unpredictability, pose specific challenges for participatory design processes in HRI. We conclude with thoughts on a way forward for the HRI community in developing a culture of participation that considers humans when conceptualizing, building, and using robots.

Highlights

  • In recent years, the development of co-existing robots (Riek 2014) has gained increased momentum and interest among researchers and industry

  • Stakeholder involvement found its way into the development processes of social service robots

  • We agree with Bratteteig and Verne [2018, p. 5] that artificial intelligence (AI) poses complex challenges, but we do not think that they reach beyond the scope of any participatory design (PD) project

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The development of co-existing robots (Riek 2014) has gained increased momentum and interest among researchers and industry These robots are defined to operate in a human social environment, are physically embodied, and have at least some degree of autonomy (Riek 2014). Long-term field trials, revealed that commercially available co-existing robots, such as Karotz (Graaf et al 2017b), Pleo (Fernaeus et al 2010), and Anki Vector (Tsiourti et al 2020) fail to be sustainably integrated into people’s everyday life [with vacuum cleaning robots being an exception (Fink 2014; Sung et al 2009)]. In the field of human–computer interaction (HCI) research participatory design (PD) has a long tradition with the potential for the collaborative development of meaningful technologies (Harrington et al 2019)

Objectives
Methods
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call