Cover not available
Article published In:
Envisioning Social Robotics: Current challenges and new interdisciplinary methodologies
Edited by Glenda Hannibal and Astrid Weiss
[Interaction Studies 21:1] 2020
► pp. 145–185

Integrative Social Robotics Hands-on

| University of Southern Denmark
| Aarhus University
| Aarhus University
| Aarhus University
| TU Wien
| University of Southern Denmark
| University of Southern Denmark
| University of Southern Denmark
In this paper, we discuss the development of robot use cases in an elderly care facility in the context of exploring the method of Integrative Social Robotics (ISR) when used on top of a user-centered design approach. Integrative Social Robotics is a new proposal for how to generate responsible, i.e. culturally and ethically sustainable, social robotics applications. Starting point for the discussion are the five principles that characterize an ISR approach, which are discussed in application to the three use cases for robot support in a Danish elderly care facility developed within the smooth project. The discussion by an interdisciplinary design team explores what attention to the five principles of ISR can offer for use case development. We report on the consequences of this short-time exposure to the basic ideas of ISR for use case development and discuss the value of approaching robot development from an ISR perspective.
Keywords: integrative social robotics, interdisciplinarity, user-centered design, use case development
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Integrative social robotics
  • 3.Use case development in smooth
    • Laundry & garbage collection scenario
    • Guiding scenario
    • Serving drinks scenario
  • 4.The integrative social robotics approach applied
    • 4.1The process principle P1: Interactions, not robots as the target of the design process?
      • 4.1.1The interactions targeted in smooth
      • 4.1.2Physical form shapes interactions
    • 4.2Quality principle P2: Wide interdisciplinary scope?
    • 4.3Complexity principle P3: First, second and third person perspective?
      • 4.3.1First person perspective: A robot for whom?
      • 4.3.2Matters of fairness
      • 4.3.3Second person perspective: The quality of experience
      • 4.3.4Vulnerable users and scientific knowledge as a stakeholder
    • 4.4The context principle P4: What are the relevant contextual features?
      • 4.4.1Local context: Robots sharing space with people
      • 4.4.2Robots in a societal context
    • 4.5The ‘Values First’ Principle P5: Does the application realize values in ways humans cannot?
      • 4.5.1Competing values
      • 4.5.2The non-replacement maxim in a broader societal context
      • 4.5.3Designing for new values
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 24 January 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18058.fis
References
Admoni, H., Dragan, A., Srinivasa, S. S., & Scassellati, B.
(2014) Deliberate Delays During Robot-to-Human Handovers Improve Compliance with Gaze Communication, Proceedings of HRI’14, Bielefeld, Germany 2014 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andrade, O., A. A. Pereira, S. Walter, R. Almeidac, R. Loureiro, D. Compagna, and P. J. Kyberd
(2014) Bridging the gap between robotic technology and health care. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, vol. 101 2014 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andrist, S., Spannan, E., and Mutlu, B.
(2013) Rhetorical Robots: Making Robots More Effective Speakers Using Linguistic Cues of Expertise. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ’13). IEEE Press. Piscataway, NJ, USA. 341–348.Google Scholar
Andrist, S., Tan, X. Z., Gleicher, M. & Mutlu, B.
(2014) Conversational Gaze Aversion for Humanlike Robots. Proceedings of HRI’14, Bielefeld, Germany. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andrist, S., Ziadee, M., Boukaram, H., Mutlu, B., and Sakr, M.
(2015) Effects of Culture on the Credibility of Robot Speech: A Comparison between English and Arabic. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ’15). ACM. New York, NY, USA. 157–164.Google Scholar
Arnold, Th., and Scheutz, M.
(2017) Beyond moral dilemmas: exploring the ethical landscape in HRI. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction 445–452. DOI logo
Bajones, M., Fischinger, D., Weiss, A., Wolf, D., Vincze, M., de la Puente, P., Körtner, T., Weninger, M., Papoutsakis, K., Michel, D. and Qammaz, A.
(2018) Hobbit: Providing Fall Detection and Prevention for the Elderly in the Real World. Journal of Robotics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bajones, M., Fischinger, D., Weiss, A., Wolf, D., Vincze, M., de la Puente, P., Körtner, T., Weninger, M., Papoutsakis, K., Michel, D. and Qammaz, A., Panteleris, P., Foukarakis, M., Adami, I., Ioannidi, D., Leonidis, A., Antono, M., Argyros, A., Mayer, P., Panek, P., Eftring, H. and Frennert, S.
(2019) Results of Field Trials with a Mobile Service Robot for Older Adults in 16 Private Households. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI), 9(2), 1-27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bijker, W. E., Douglas, D. G., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T.
(2012) The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, US: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chang, W.-L., S. Šabanović, and L. Huber
(2013) “Situated analysis of interactions between cognitively impaired older adults and the therapeutic robot Paro,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Social Robotics (ICSR 2013), Bristol, UK. DOI logo
Cheon, EunJeong and Norman Makoto Su
(2018) Futuristic Autobiographies: Weaving Participant Narratives to Elicit Values around Robots. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI’18), Chicago, Illinois, Full paper conditionally accepted. New York: ACM. DOI logo
Collingridge, D.
(1980) The Social Control of Technology. London: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Darling, K., Nandy, P., & Breazeal, C.
(2015) Empathic concern and the effect of stories in human-robot interaction (pp. 770–775). Presented at the Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on, IEEE.
Dechesne, F., Warnier, M. and van den Hoven, J.
(2013) Ethical requirements for reconfigurable sensor technology – a challenge for value sensitive design, Ethics and Information Technology 15, 3, 173–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dignum, V., Dignum, F., Vázquez-Salceda, J., Clodic, A., Gentile, M., Mascarenhas, S., and Augello, A.
(2018) Design for Values for Social Robot Architectures. Envisioning Robots in Society–Power, Politics, and Public Space: Proceedings of Robophilosophy 2018/TRANSOR 2018, 3111, 43–53.Google Scholar
Fischer, K.
(2011) Interpersonal variation in understanding robots as social actors. In Proceedings of HRI’11, March 6–9th 2011 Lausanne, Switzerland, pp. 53–60.Google Scholar
Fischer, K., K. Foth, K. Rohlfing, and B. Wrede
(2011) Mindful tutors – linguistic choice and action demonstration in speech to infants and to a simulated robot. Interaction Studies 12 (1), 134–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K., Jensen, L. C., Suvei, S.-D. and Bodenhagen, L.
(2016) Between Legibility and Contact: The Role of Gaze in Robot Approach. IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN 2016), New York City. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jensen, L. C., Fischer, K., Kirstein, F., Shukla, D., Erkent, Ö. and Piater, J.
(2017) It Gets Worse Before it Gets Better: Timing of Instructions in Close Human-Robot Collaboration. Proceedings of HRI’17, Vienna, Austria. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K., Niebuhr, O., Jensen, L. C. and Bodenhagen, L.
2019a). Speech Melody Matters. How robots can profit from speaking like Steve jobs. Transactions in Human-Robot Interaction. 9, 1, Article 4.
Fischer, K., Jung, M., Jensen, L. C. and aus der Wieschen, M.
(2019b) Emotional Expression by Robots: When and Why. Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Daegu, Korea.Google Scholar
FOA
(2018) Rekrutteringsudfordringer for social- og sundhedspersonale i kommunerne – Centrale nøgletal vedrørende social- og sundhedspersonale i kommunerne.Google Scholar
Forlizzi, Jodi
(2007) “How robotic products become social products: an ethnographic study of cleaning in the home,” in Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction. ACM 2007, pp. 129–136.Google Scholar
(2018): Moving Beyond User-Centered Design. ACM Interactions, p. 22–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friedman, B.
(2004) Value sensitive design. In W. S. Bainbridge (Ed.), Berkshire encyclopedia of human-computer interaction (pp. 769–774). Great Barrington, MA: Berkshire Publishing Group, LLC.Google Scholar
Friedman, B., Kahn Jr, P. H., & Borning, A.
(1997) Value sensitive design and information systems. In P. Zhang, & D. Galetta (Eds.), Human-Computer Interaction in Management Information Systems (pp. 348–372). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fussel, S. R., Kiessler, S., Setlock, L. D. and Yew, V.
(2008) How People Anthropomorphize Robots. Proceedings of HRI’08, Amsterdam, p. 145–152.Google Scholar
Gadow, S. A.
(1985) Nurse and patient: the caring relationship. In: Caring, Curing, Coping: Nurse, Physician, Patient Relationships (eds A. H. Bishop & J. R. Scudder), pp. 31–43. University of Alabama Press, University, AL.Google Scholar
Graf, B., Reiser, U., Hagele, M., Mauz, J. and P. Klein
(2009) Robotic home assistant care-o-bot 3-product vision and innovation platform. IEEE Workshop on Advanced Robotics and its Social Impacts (ARSO) 2009, pp. 139–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawes, N., Burbridge, C., Jovan, F., Kunze, L., Lacerda, B., Mudrova, L., Young, J., Wyatt, J., Hebesberger, D., Kortner, T. and Ambrus, R.
(2017) The STRANDS project: Long-term autonomy in everyday environments. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 24(3), pp.146–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hebesberger, D., Dondrup, C., Koertner, T., Gisinger, C., & Pripfl, J.
(2016) Lessons learned from the deployment of a long-term autonomous robot as companion in physical therapy for older adults with dementia: A mixed methods study. In The Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (pp. 27–34). IEEE Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, F., Eyssel, F., & Wrede, B.
(2010, September). The social robot‘Flobi’: Key concepts of industrial design. In RO-MAN (pp. 107–112).Google Scholar
Holtzblatt, K., J. B. Wendell, and S. Wood
(2018) Rapid Contextual Design: A How-to Guide to Key Techniques for User-Centered Design. San Francisco, CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G.
(2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series, 1251, 13–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jensen, Lars Christian
(2018) Effects of Contingent Robot Response to the Situatedness of Human-Robot Interactions. PhD Thesis, University of Southern Denmark.Google Scholar
Jensen, Lars Christian, Fischer, Kerstin, Suvei, Stefan-Daniel and Bodenhagen, Leon
(2017a) Timing of Multimodal Robot Behaviors during Human-Robot Collaboration. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Ro-Man 2017, IEEE. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jensen, L. C., Fischer, K., Kirstein, F., Shukla, D., Erkent, Ö. and Piater, J.
(2017b) It Gets Worse Before it Gets Better: Timing of Instructions in Close Human-Robot Collaboration. Proceedings of HRI’17, Vienna, Austria. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Juel, W. K., F. Haarslev, K. Fischer, E. Marchetti, D. Shaikh, P. Manoonpong, C. Hauch, L. Bodenhagen, and N. Krüger
(2018) “The SMOOTH Robot: Design for a Novel Modular Welfare Robot,” in ICRA 2018 Workshop on Elderly Care Robotics – Technology and Ethics, WELCARO 2018.Google Scholar
Kahn Jr, P. H., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Gill, B. T., Shen, S., Gary, H. E., & Ruckert, J. H.
(2015) Will People Keep the Secret of a Humanoid Robot?: Psychological Intimacy in HRI. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 173–180). ACM.Google Scholar
Kalegina, A., Schroeder, G., Allchin, A., Berlin, K., & Cakmak, M.
(2018) Characterizing the Design Space of Rendered Robot Faces. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 96–104). ACM. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirchberger, I., C. Meisinger, M. Heier, A.-K. Zimmermann, B. Thorand, C. S. Autenrieth, A. Peters, K.-H. Ladwig, and A. Döring
(2012) “Patterns of multimorbidity in the aged population. results from the kora-age study,” PLoS ONE, vol. 7, no. 1.Google Scholar
Lee, Hee Rin, Selma Šabanović, Wan Ling Chang, Shinichi Nagata, Jennifer A. Piatt, Casey C. Bennett, David Hakken
(2017): Steps Toward Participatory Design of Social Robots: Mutual Learning with Older Adults with Depression. HRI 2017: 244–253.Google Scholar
Lee, M. K., Forlizzi, J., Kiesler, S., Rybski, P., Antanitis, J., and Savetsila, S.
(2012) Personalization in HRI: A longitudinal field experiment. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (HRI 2012), 319–326.Google Scholar
Lohan, K. S., K. J. Rohlfing, K. Pitsch, J. Saunders, H. Lehmann, C. L. Nehaniv, K. Fischer and B. Wrede
(2012) Tutor spotter: Proposing a feature set and evaluating it in a robotic system. International Journal of Social Robotics 4(2):131–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lohse, M. N., van Berkel, E., M. A. G. van Dijk, M. P. Joosse, D. E. Karreman, V. Evers
(2013) The influence of approach speed and functional noise on users’ perception of a robot, IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 1670–1675.
Mondada, Lorenza
(2009): Emergent Focused Interactions in Public Places: A Systematic Analysis of the Multimodal Achievement of a Common Interactional Space. Journal of Pragmatics 411: 1977–1997. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mutlu, B. and J. Forlizzi
(2008) “Robots in organizations: The role of workflow, social, and environmental factors in human-robot interaction,” in HRI ’08. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nass, C.
(2010) The Man Who Lied to his Laptop: What Machines Teach us about Human Relationships. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
(2004) Etiquette Equality: Exhibitions and Expectations of Computer Politeness. Communications of the ACM 47(4), 35–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Preece, Jenny; Sharp, Helen & Rogers, Yvonne
(2015): Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Rehm, M., Krummheuer, A. L., & Rodil, K.
(2018) Developing a New Brand of Culturally-Aware Personal Robots Based on Local Cultural Practices in the Danish Health Care System. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) IEEE. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riek, Laurel D.
(2017) Healthcare robotics. Communications of the ACM, vol. 60, no. 11, pp. 68–78, 11 2017 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robertson, J.
(2017) Robo Sapiens Japanicus: Robots, Gender, Family, and the Japanese Nation. University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Šabanović, S.
(2010) Robots in society, society in robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(4), 439–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Šabanović, S., Bennett, C. C., Chang, W. L., & Huber, L.
(2013) PARO robot affects diverse interaction modalities in group sensory therapy for older adults with dementia. In Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), 2013 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 1–6). IEEE. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson, G.
(1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50 (4), 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharkey, A. & Sharkey, N.
(2012) Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics and Information Technology 14 (1):27–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scheutz, M. & Arnold, T.
(2016): Are we ready for sex robots? Proceedings of HRI’16, p. 351–358.Google Scholar
Seibt, J.
(2016) Integrative social robotics: A new method paradigm to solve the description and the regulation problem? in What Social Robots Can and Should Do, J. Seibt, M. Nørskov, and S. Schack Andersen, Eds. IOS Press 2016, pp. 104–115.Google Scholar
(2017) Towards an Ontology of Simulated Social Interactions – Varieties of the ‘As-If’ for Robots and Humans, in: Hakli, R., Seibt, J. (eds.), Sociality and Normativity for Robots – Philosophical Investigations, Springer, 11–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Forms of Co-Working in OASIS (Ontology of Asymmetric Social Interactions), in: Coeckelbergh, M. et al., (eds.), Envisioning Robots in Society. Proceedings of Robophilosophy 2018. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 133–146.Google Scholar
Seibt, J., Damholdt, M. and Vestergaard, C.
(2018) Five principles of integrative social robotics: Five principles of integrative social robotics, in Envisioning Robots in Society. Proceedings of Robophilosophy 2018, M. Coeckelberg et al. (eds.). Netherlands: IOS Press, 28–42.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A.
(1996) The sciences of the artificial. MIT press.Google Scholar
Sparrow, R. and Sparrow, L.
(2006) In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds and Machines 16 (2):141–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strupka, E., Niebuhr, O. and Fischer, K.
(2016) Influence of Robot Gender and Speaker Gender on Prosodic Entrainment in HRI. Interactive Session at the IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN 2016), New York City.Google Scholar
Tronto, J.
(1993) Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care. NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Turkle, S.
(2011) Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
van den Hoven, J.
(2005) E-democracy, E-Contestation and the Monitorial Citizen. Ethics and Information Technology, 7 (2), pp. 51–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Wynsberghe, A.
(2013) Designing Robots for Care: Care Centered Value-Sensitive Design. Sci Eng Ethics 191: 407–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weiss, A., Igelsböck, J., Wurhofer, D., & Tscheligi, M.
(2011) Looking forward to a “robotic society”?. International Journal of Social Robotics, 3(2), 111–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wensveen, S. A., Djajadiningrat, J. P., & Overbeeke, C. J.
(2004) Interaction frogger: a design framework to couple action and function through feedback and feedforward. In Proceedings of the 5th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques (pp. 177–184). ACM.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Fischer, Kerstin, Rosalyn M. Langedijk, Lotte Damsgaard Nissen, Eduardo Ruiz Ramirez & Oskar Palinko
2020. Gaze-Speech Coordination Influences the Persuasiveness of Human-Robot Dialog in the Wild. In Social Robotics [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 12483], ► pp. 157 ff. DOI logo
Krüger, Norbert, Kerstin Fischer, Poramate Manoonpong, Oskar Palinko, Leon Bodenhagen, Timo Baumann, Jens Kjærum, Ignacio Rano, Lakshadeep Naik, William Kristian Juel, Frederik Haarslev, Jevgeni Ignasov, Emanuela Marchetti, Rosalyn Melissa Langedijk, Avgi Kollakidou, Kasper Camillus Jeppesen, Conny Heidtmann & Lars Dalgaard
2021. The SMOOTH-Robot: A Modular, Interactive Service Robot. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 8 DOI logo
Seibt, Johanna
2021. Integrative Soziale Robotik. In Soziale Roboter, ► pp. 125 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.