Abstract
Building robots to serve the needs of everyday life is described as a twofold challenge. Firstly, robotics, engineering, and computer science need new theories and concepts. Secondly, new methods and forms of collaboration are required. The article argues that the “wicked” nature of everyday worlds implies another, seemingly mundane challenge for roboticists: to become more self-aware about their own actions (Sect. 1). This includes a critical reflection on the goals of research and development, when dealing with humans (Sect. 2). Furthermore, there are two kinds of rather implicit methods roboticists use to make their machine work in everyday worlds, that should be considered more explicitly: On the one hand, the researcher’s own everyday knowledge becomes an ambivalent resource for making decisions (Sect. 3.1). On the other hand, roboticists themselves often engage in creating expectations and desirable scenarios by staging robot behavior (Sect. 3.2). The article concludes not to wipe out these seemingly mundane practices, but rather to use their marginalization as a starting point for a reflective methodology of technical support systems (Sect. 4).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Akrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society. Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 205–224). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bischof, A. (2017). Soziale Maschinen bauen: Epistemische Praktiken der Sozialrobotik. Bielefeld: Transcript.
Böhle, K, & Bopp, K. (2014). What a vision: The artificial companion. A piece of vision assessment including an expert survey. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies (STI Studies), 10(1), 155–186.
Both, G. (2015). Youtubization of research. Enacting the high-tech cowboy in video demonstrations. In S. Davies, M. Horst, & E. Stengler (Eds.), Studying science communication (pp. 24–27). Bristol University of the West of England.
Courtney, J. F. (2008). Decision making and knowledge management in inquiring organisations: Toward a new decision-making paradigm for DSS. Decision Support Systems—Knowledge Management Support of Decision Making, 31(1), 17–38.
Dautenhahn, K. (1998). The art of designing socially intelligent agents: Science, fiction, and the human in the loop. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 12(7–8), 573–617.
DeGrace, P., & Stahl, L. H. (1990). Wicked problems, righteous solutions: A catalog of modern engineering paradigms. Yourdon Press.
Dourish, P. (2006). Implications for design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 541–550). New York: ACM.
Giesel, K. (2007). Leitbilder in den Sozialwissenschaften. Wiesbaden: Springer.
Harrison, S., Tatar, D., & Sengers, P. (2007). The three paradigms of HCI. Alt. Chi. Session at the 2007 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–18). New York: ACM.
Höflich, J. R. (2013). Relationships to social robots: Towards a triadic analysis of media-oriented behavior. Intervalla, 1, 35–48.
Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S. (2009). Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva, 47(2), 119–146.
Knorr Cetina, K. (1984). The fabrication of facts: Toward a microsociology of scientific knowledge. In M. Stehr (Eds.), Society and knowledge (pp. 223–244). Oxford: Transaction Books.
Kroes, N. (2014). Lighting a SPARC under our competitive economy. Speech available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-14-421_en.htm.
Latour, B., & Weibel, P. (Eds.). (2005). Making things public: Atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Leis, M. J. (2006). Robots–our future partners. A sociologist’s view from a German and Japanese perspective. Marburg: Tectum.
Lindemann, G. (2016). Social interaction with robots: Three questions. AI & Society, 31(4), 573–575.
Meister, M. (2011). Soziale Koordination durch Boundary Objects am Beispiel des heterogenen Feldes der Servicerobotik. Doctoral Thesis, Fakultät Planen, Bauen, Umwelt, Technische Universität Berlin.
Meister, M. (2014). When is a robot really social? An outline of the robot sociologicus. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, 10(1), 107–134.
Nördinger, S. (2014). Zivilies Forschungsprogramm SPARC. EU-Komission startet weltweit größtes ziviles Robotik-Forschungsprogramm. http://sparc-robotics.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Produktion-Germany-EU-Komission-startet-weltweit-gr%C3%B6%C3%9Ftes-ziviles.pdf.
Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
Roelofsen, A., Broerse, J. E., de Cock Buning, T., & Bunders, J. (2008). Exploring the future of ecological genomics: Integrating CTA with vision assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(3), 334–355.
Rosenthal, C. (2005). Making science and technology results public: A sociology of demos. In B. Latour & P. Weibel (Eds.), Making things public. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Šabanović, S. (2007). Imagine all the robots: Developing a critical practice of cultural and disciplinary traversals in social robotics. Doctoral Thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
Suchman, L. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. Cambridge: University Press.
Suchman, L. (2011). Subject objects. Feminist Theory, 12(2), 119–145.
Suchman, L. (2014). Humanizing humanity. Blogpost: https://robotfutures.wordpress.com/2014/07/19/humanizing-humanity/.
Turkle, S. (2017). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Hachette.
Wagner, C. (2014). Techno-imaginations and robot role models: Discussing the influence of popular culture on the development of next generation robots in Japan. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Conference on Universal Village, June 16–17, 2014, Boston.
Weeks, J. (2006). Lay ethnography and unpopular culture. Working Paper 2006/47/OB, 2006.
Winthereik, B., Ross, N., & Strand, D. L. (2008). Making technology public: Challenging the notion of script through an e-health demonstration video. Information Technology & People, 21(2), 116–132.
Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136.
Woolgar, S. (1990). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. The Sociological Review, 38(1), 58–99.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bischof, A. (2018). The Challenge of Being Self-Aware When Building Robots for Everyday Worlds. In: Karafillidis, A., Weidner, R. (eds) Developing Support Technologies. Biosystems & Biorobotics, vol 23. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01836-8_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01836-8_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-01835-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01836-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)