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
Published online: 24 January 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18058.fis
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18058.fis
Abstract
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.
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
- 4.1The process principle P1: Interactions, not robots as the target of the design process?
- 5.Discussion
- 6.Conclusion
- Notes
References
References (72)
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.
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.
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.
Andrist, S., Tan, X. Z., Gleicher, M. & Mutlu, B. (2014). Conversational Gaze Aversion for Humanlike Robots. Proceedings of HRI’14, Bielefeld, Germany.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
FOA. (2018). Rekrutteringsudfordringer for social- og sundhedspersonale i kommunerne – Centrale nøgletal vedrørende social- og sundhedspersonale i kommunerne.
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.
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.
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.
Fussel, S. R., Kiessler, S., Setlock, L. D. and Yew, V. (2008). How People Anthropomorphize Robots. Proceedings of HRI’08, Amsterdam, p. 145–152.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hegel, F., Eyssel, F., & Wrede, B. (2010, September). The social robot‘Flobi’: Key concepts of industrial design. In RO-MAN (pp. 107–112).
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.
Jefferson, G.. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series, 1251, 13–34.
Jensen, Lars Christian. (2018). Effects of Contingent Robot Response to the Situatedness of Human-Robot Interactions. PhD Thesis, University of Southern Denmark.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mutlu, B. and J. Forlizzi. (2008). “Robots in organizations: The role of workflow, social, and environmental factors in human-robot interaction,” in HRI ’08.
Nass, C. (2010). The Man Who Lied to his Laptop: What Machines Teach us about Human Relationships. New York: Penguin.
(2004). Etiquette Equality: Exhibitions and Expectations of Computer Politeness. Communications of the ACM 47(4), 35–37.
Preece, Jenny; Sharp, Helen & Rogers, Yvonne. (2015): Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
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.
Riek, Laurel D. (2017). Healthcare robotics. Communications of the ACM, vol. 60, no. 11, pp. 68–78, 11, 2017.
Robertson, J. (2017). Robo Sapiens Japanicus: Robots, Gender, Family, and the Japanese Nation. University of California Press.
Šabanović, S. (2010). Robots in society, society in robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(4), 439–450.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
(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.
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.
(2020). Integrative Social Robotics, Value-Driven Design, and Transdisciplinarity (Special Issue: Envisioning Social Robotics: Current Challenges and New Interdisciplinary Methodologies), in Interactive Studies, Vol 21 (1):111–144.
Sparrow, R. and Sparrow, L. (2006). In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds and Machines 16 (2):141–161.
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.
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books.
van den Hoven, J. (2005). E-democracy, E-Contestation and the Monitorial Citizen. Ethics and Information Technology, 7 (2), pp. 51–59.
van Wynsberghe, A. (2013). Designing Robots for Care: Care Centered Value-Sensitive Design. Sci Eng Ethics 191: 407–433.
Weiss, A., Igelsböck, J., Wurhofer, D., & Tscheligi, M. (2011). Looking forward to a “robotic society”?. International Journal of Social Robotics, 3(2), 111–123.
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.
Cited by (15)
Cited by 15 other publications
Schmiedel, Theresa & Vivienne Zhong
Langedijk, Rosalyn, Lars C. Jensen & Kerstin Fischer
Winfield, Alan F. T., Matimba Swana, Jonathan Ives & Sabine Hauert
Capasso, Marianna
de Pagter, Jesse
de Pagter, Jesse
Fischer, Kerstin
2023. Risk and responsibility in human-robot interaction. In Risk Discourse and Responsibility [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 336], ► pp. 172 ff.
Langedijk, Rosalyn M. & Kerstin Fischer
Pequeño-Zurro, Alejandro, Jevgeni Ignasov, Eduardo R. Ramírez, Frederik Haarslev, William K. Juel, Leon Bodenhagen, Norbert Krüger, Danish Shaikh, Iñaki Rañó & Poramate Manoonpong
Ravikumar, Varun, Jonathan Bowen & Michael L. Anderson
Rojas, Alejandra & Sladjana Nørskov
Kaipainen, Kirsikka, Salla Jarske, Jari Varsaluoma & Kaisa Vaananen
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
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 march 2026. 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.
