The workshop is held September 30 (Sunday) at the NordiChi'18 conference.
In this workshop we will explore if and how critical questions within the area of Human–Robot Interaction (HRI) could be considered as a new emerging paradigm: critical robotics. McKenzie and Wajcman (MacKenzie and J. Wajcman, 1999) have argued that “technological change is a key aspect of what our societies need actively to shape, rather than passively to respond to” (p.6). They argue that ”technology and society are mutually constitutive”, and should be understood and dealt with as such (p.41). This implies the importance of truly understanding people and society with a holistic perspective, when aiming to contribute with robotic solutions in everyday practices such as in healthcare, homes, schools, as well as other services and settings. Overall, there is a need in robotic research to critically address underlying technology-driven values, unrealistic implications of technical possibilities, and problematic science fiction perspectives of ethical dilemmas (Fernaeus, 2009). This requires that we as researchers actively connect with holistic perspectives of societal needs and practices, and consider how we as researchers engage in and communicate potential robotic solutions compared to alternative solutions and perspectives (ibid).
There are several researchers in robotics, who already contribute to the emerging paradigm of critical robotics, taking a human-centered starting point of everyday practices and situations to reflect on the use of robotic solutions and other technology. Sherry Turkle is taking a psychologist perspective to address critical questions of children’s independence and social ability by conducting qualitative studies, to understand how robotic and other technology that act social or mediate social interaction affect people's relation to each other (Turkle, 2011). Wynsberge (2015) studied nurse care practices and related trust and ethical considerations, to shed light on critical questions of robotic solutions in healthcare. From this, she argues that without understanding and acknowledging different types of practices, user groups, human needs, policies, and take multidisciplinary perspectives on care services, we will not design successful robotic solutions (Wynsberge, 2015).There is already a strand of research that is contributing with qualitative and situated perspectives of ethics for robotic solutions, aiming for a holistic perspective of healthcare practices from both care-givers and care-takers perspective and related policies (Wynsberge, 2011), participatory design processes to design for elderly at home (Frennert and Östlund, 2014) and teacher perspectives on teaching practices at schools (Serholt et al, 2014). There is also a strand of research on ethics that we consider to be related, but out of scope for this specific workshop. That concerns ethics related to more extreme societal threats and disasters, such as military robotics, robot crime, border control, prostitution and civil surveillance. Even though those are important questions, we understand them to belong to a more radical perspective of society and humans, which we consider to be a separate strand.
Paradigm shifts have already occurred in the Human–Computer Interaction (HCI) and NordiCHI research fields. Already, two paradigm shifts have changed the way users or humans are understood and approached in research [4,5]. The first paradigm shift meant that instead of focusing on the optimization of man–machine interaction stemming from the engineering and human factors field, one started focusing on theory and what is happening in both the computer and the human mind. The second paradigm shift lead to a focus on interaction as phenomenologically situated [6]. The current paradigm concerns research questions and approaches related to participatory design, feminism, philosophy of technology, value-sensitive design, experience design, ethnomethodology, embodied interaction and critical design. Overall, the field is now embracing broader perspectives on how to understand people's motivations and the social systems we live in; at the same time, these approaches are explicitly normative, especially as they apply not only deontological and utilitarian considerations, but also virtue ethics and ethics of care (Wynsberghe, 2013;..) Arranging a workshop with these emerging themes at NordiCHI is a highly suitable venue, as we foreground important research questions also relevant for the NordiCHI research field. Moreover, robotic research can contribute with specific perspectives related to Internet of things, privacy, feminism, participatory design, and user experience.
Workshop Set up
The first step - Utopia!
The first step takes a starting point in playful and engaging discussion activities, where we will map out how stakeholder, values and norms and human-centered oriented research perspectives could be addressed in robotic research - how we would like it to be. This may concern specific research perspectives, design methods and situated ethical knowledge that critical robotics could address. We will draw a map of this as a future realistic research field.
The second step - Reality.
The second step concerns discussing how such issues are currently addressed. The participants will then engage in their own work, share their perspectives, backgrounds and expertise and exemplify their own and other related different research methods and perspectives that already exists. What critical perspectives work well already, and which ones do not, and why? We will draw a map of this as the current research field.
The third step - How do we get there?
The third step will discuss which specific questions, research methods and other perspectives are needed in order to reach “how we would like it to be”. It concerns boiling down the previous discussions into actual research actions that lead us towards the utopia. For example, this may concern ideas on how to impact politics and funding agencies on a long term to steer the robotics field into a human-centered direction, to avoid a human-centered wash of the same research perspectives, but a genuine embracement of new human-centered research perspectives such as digital citizenship, user empowerment, ethics of care and virtue ethics, policies, and bildung and dannelse. We will examine what the concept of digital citizenship means specifically in the context of critical robotics and how digital citizenship education can be developed and applied to address the concerns arising from current trends in robot design, production and deployment. We will discuss the implications of our findings for the design of policies and regulation (traditional regulation as well as industry self-regulation). We are especially interested in mapping out interdisciplinary methods that are already used and which could be developed in order to study some of the above stated research questions.
The fourth step - Prioritizing the steps ahead
The fourth step concerns boiling down the outcome of the workshop into a list of priorities, long term and short term. This may, e.g., concern specific considerations related to methods, as well as visions and communication of robotic research. We will also look into the possibilities of extending the workshop submissions to a special issue, and discuss other relevant venues for the outcome of the workshop.
In this workshop we will explore if and how critical questions within the area of Human–Robot Interaction (HRI) could be considered as a new emerging paradigm: critical robotics. McKenzie and Wajcman (MacKenzie and J. Wajcman, 1999) have argued that “technological change is a key aspect of what our societies need actively to shape, rather than passively to respond to” (p.6). They argue that ”technology and society are mutually constitutive”, and should be understood and dealt with as such (p.41). This implies the importance of truly understanding people and society with a holistic perspective, when aiming to contribute with robotic solutions in everyday practices such as in healthcare, homes, schools, as well as other services and settings. Overall, there is a need in robotic research to critically address underlying technology-driven values, unrealistic implications of technical possibilities, and problematic science fiction perspectives of ethical dilemmas (Fernaeus, 2009). This requires that we as researchers actively connect with holistic perspectives of societal needs and practices, and consider how we as researchers engage in and communicate potential robotic solutions compared to alternative solutions and perspectives (ibid).
There are several researchers in robotics, who already contribute to the emerging paradigm of critical robotics, taking a human-centered starting point of everyday practices and situations to reflect on the use of robotic solutions and other technology. Sherry Turkle is taking a psychologist perspective to address critical questions of children’s independence and social ability by conducting qualitative studies, to understand how robotic and other technology that act social or mediate social interaction affect people's relation to each other (Turkle, 2011). Wynsberge (2015) studied nurse care practices and related trust and ethical considerations, to shed light on critical questions of robotic solutions in healthcare. From this, she argues that without understanding and acknowledging different types of practices, user groups, human needs, policies, and take multidisciplinary perspectives on care services, we will not design successful robotic solutions (Wynsberge, 2015).There is already a strand of research that is contributing with qualitative and situated perspectives of ethics for robotic solutions, aiming for a holistic perspective of healthcare practices from both care-givers and care-takers perspective and related policies (Wynsberge, 2011), participatory design processes to design for elderly at home (Frennert and Östlund, 2014) and teacher perspectives on teaching practices at schools (Serholt et al, 2014). There is also a strand of research on ethics that we consider to be related, but out of scope for this specific workshop. That concerns ethics related to more extreme societal threats and disasters, such as military robotics, robot crime, border control, prostitution and civil surveillance. Even though those are important questions, we understand them to belong to a more radical perspective of society and humans, which we consider to be a separate strand.
Paradigm shifts have already occurred in the Human–Computer Interaction (HCI) and NordiCHI research fields. Already, two paradigm shifts have changed the way users or humans are understood and approached in research [4,5]. The first paradigm shift meant that instead of focusing on the optimization of man–machine interaction stemming from the engineering and human factors field, one started focusing on theory and what is happening in both the computer and the human mind. The second paradigm shift lead to a focus on interaction as phenomenologically situated [6]. The current paradigm concerns research questions and approaches related to participatory design, feminism, philosophy of technology, value-sensitive design, experience design, ethnomethodology, embodied interaction and critical design. Overall, the field is now embracing broader perspectives on how to understand people's motivations and the social systems we live in; at the same time, these approaches are explicitly normative, especially as they apply not only deontological and utilitarian considerations, but also virtue ethics and ethics of care (Wynsberghe, 2013;..) Arranging a workshop with these emerging themes at NordiCHI is a highly suitable venue, as we foreground important research questions also relevant for the NordiCHI research field. Moreover, robotic research can contribute with specific perspectives related to Internet of things, privacy, feminism, participatory design, and user experience.
Workshop Set up
The first step - Utopia!
The first step takes a starting point in playful and engaging discussion activities, where we will map out how stakeholder, values and norms and human-centered oriented research perspectives could be addressed in robotic research - how we would like it to be. This may concern specific research perspectives, design methods and situated ethical knowledge that critical robotics could address. We will draw a map of this as a future realistic research field.
The second step - Reality.
The second step concerns discussing how such issues are currently addressed. The participants will then engage in their own work, share their perspectives, backgrounds and expertise and exemplify their own and other related different research methods and perspectives that already exists. What critical perspectives work well already, and which ones do not, and why? We will draw a map of this as the current research field.
The third step - How do we get there?
The third step will discuss which specific questions, research methods and other perspectives are needed in order to reach “how we would like it to be”. It concerns boiling down the previous discussions into actual research actions that lead us towards the utopia. For example, this may concern ideas on how to impact politics and funding agencies on a long term to steer the robotics field into a human-centered direction, to avoid a human-centered wash of the same research perspectives, but a genuine embracement of new human-centered research perspectives such as digital citizenship, user empowerment, ethics of care and virtue ethics, policies, and bildung and dannelse. We will examine what the concept of digital citizenship means specifically in the context of critical robotics and how digital citizenship education can be developed and applied to address the concerns arising from current trends in robot design, production and deployment. We will discuss the implications of our findings for the design of policies and regulation (traditional regulation as well as industry self-regulation). We are especially interested in mapping out interdisciplinary methods that are already used and which could be developed in order to study some of the above stated research questions.
The fourth step - Prioritizing the steps ahead
The fourth step concerns boiling down the outcome of the workshop into a list of priorities, long term and short term. This may, e.g., concern specific considerations related to methods, as well as visions and communication of robotic research. We will also look into the possibilities of extending the workshop submissions to a special issue, and discuss other relevant venues for the outcome of the workshop.