[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Robot Caregiver or Robot-Supported Caregiving?

The Performative Deployment of the Social Robot PARO in Dementia Care

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Much has been written—not least in this journal—about the potential, the benefits, and the risks of social robotics. Our paper is based on the social constructivist perspective that what a technology actually is can be decided only when it is applied. Using as an exemplar the robot baby seal PARO, which is deployed in Germany mainly as activation therapy for elderly people with dementia, we begin by briefly explaining why it is by no means clear at the beginning of the development phase what a technology is actually going to be. Rather, this is established in the light of, and in coordination with, the context of application. We then present some preliminary results from our ongoing study of the way in which this social robot is applied by professional care workers in a nursing home for the elderly. The underlying theoretical assumption on which our study is based is that the appearance and the performative deployment of a technical artifact are interdependent. Only in combination with experiences—the experiences of others, imparted in diverse forms as knowledge, and first-hand experience of using the technology—are the design and the technical functionality of the device of relevance to its appearance, that is, to what it is regarded as being. Our video-assisted ethnographic study of persons with dementia shows that, on the one hand, PARO is deployed performatively as an occasion for communication and as an interlocutor, and, on the other, it is applied as an observation instrument.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. “What matters for the human–robot relation is how the robot appears to human consciousness” [5, p. 199].

  2. On the meaning of “performance” in the phenomenological sociology of knowledge, (cf. [7]); for an understanding of the execution of a projected act following the planning and decision phases, (cf. [8]).

  3. The advantage of these CPU processors is that they initiate processes very quickly, efficiently, and without any noticeable delay.

  4. These sensors were developed collaboratively with a company for Clinical Diagnostics.

  5. Cf. Knoblauch [15, p. 39], who uses the term Selbsttaetigkeit (automation) in relation to the movements of a divining rod.

  6. The designer himself considers the choice of “emotional” as a label for this research area to be unfortunate.

  7. The results of the application of functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) at Nihon University in order to investigate brain activities and functions in student subjects during interaction with PARO [23] are considered to be empirical confirmation of the fact that PARO is perceived as having emotions. In principle, the paradigm shift in the field of robotics, whereby robots are regarded as mechanisms of emotional HRI, has led to a change in the methods of scientific evaluation. Shibata et al. [22, p. 466] stress that subjective assessments rather than objective measures (such as speed, accuracy, etc.) are decisive for the evaluation of interactive, emotion-stimulating robots.

  8. However, with regard to the purpose of such devices, the focus continues to be on the assistive function. As Shibata et al. [32, p. 444] stress, “the artificial emotional creatures exist to assist people in everyday life”. Therefore, in contrast to the EU-funded HOBBIT project, which is based on such a mutual-care concept [33], these robots are not designed to care for humans and to be cared for in return.

  9. Researchers from a diverse range of disciplines have dealt with AI and the possibility of imitating human thinking [(e.g. [34–36]), (cf. [37, p. 221])]. On the debate within AI research, cf. Meister [38]; on “the paradigm shift in AI”, cf. also Brooks [39].

  10. Drawing on cognitive science theories, such as simulation theory [43] and the theory of mind [44], researchers in the area of HRI design consider this empathy to be a basis for “expressive and rich interactions” with robots [45, 46].

  11. Shibata and Wada [3, p. 382] assign PARO to the second of the following three categories of animal-like robots (1) familiar animals, (2) non-familiar animals, and (3) imaginary animals or characters.

  12. PARO is not the only social robot designed for therapeutic use [56]. So-called “robotherapy” or “robotic psychology” [56, p. 1792], for example, employs the cat-like robot NeCoRo [56]. A teddy bear robot called the Huggable [57], which features a “sensitive skin” that detects very light touch, is deployed as a “therapeutic robotic companion for relational, affective touch” [55, 58]. And the robot dog Homie, designed as an “artificial companion for elderly people”, simulates various emotional states with the aim of facilitating emotional bonding [59, p. 1].

  13. Besides the model of innovation proposed by Van de Ven et al., research on technological development has yielded numerous other models for the analysis of the genesis of new technologies (cf. [64]).

  14. The period of investigation—in view of the novelty effect—and the problem of comparison groups are just two very striking problems that beset the research design of these studies. The artificiality of the experimental design, which is necessary to control other factors that could potentially influence the effect, basically cancels out the advantage that, in contrast to many other artifacts developed in this field, PARO has already been applied in professional caregiving settings.

  15. Apart from these studies, the alleged advantages of the robot seal compared, for example, to therapy animals are stressed by the distributors on online platforms and in deployment tests and demo videos that are available on the Internet.

  16. Fuhse and Muetzel [85, p. 7] describe as “relational” those network research approaches that also adopt a cultural rather than a solely structural perspective on their research subject. In contrast to Baecker, Haeussling does not understand design merely as an interface between humans and technology but also as an “arrangement”. By this he means a “social nexus that is formed and that forms” ([71, p. 144], our translation) and in which technology, consciousness, the body, and communication represent the central connection points.

  17. Schuetz [88, p. 210] distinguishes distant “They-relationships” between contemporaries, who are by definition “highly anonymous ideal types”, and “We-relationships” between consociates.

  18. In non-everyday situations, we use robots as vehicles to cultural worlds of experience (cf. [10, 92, 93]).

  19. The qualification measure is preceded by 5 days of practical work experience for orientation purposes. After they qualify, additional care workers are required to attend at least one further-training course per year [section 4 of the Betreuungskraefte-RI].

  20. Cf. by way of example the study currently being conducted by Moyle et al. [94]. In a pilot randomized controlled trial, Moyle and her team have already established the positive effect of PARO on the quality of life of nursing home residents with dementia.

  21. The facility cooperates with a dog-training school, which trains its dogs on site at the home under research to interact with elderly people and people with dementia. Moreover, one of the additional care workers deploys her own dog. (The animals suitability for deployment in this context was established beforehand).

  22. Cf. Pfadenhauer and Grenz [95] on participant observation and Tuma et al. [96] on videography. Participant observation continually tends toward observant participation. Rather than being intended, this is determined by the situation in the field (cf. [97]) for example, when PARO cannot be deployed as planned because the additional care worker is on sick leave, and we find ourselves equipped with the device and sitting among residents of the home. In this case, instead of observation data, we acquire experiential data, which are particularly valuable with regard to the experience of lapses in communication and the use of PARO to overcome them.

  23. On visual protocoling within the framework of which photos acts as a form of knowledge, (cf. [98]).

  24. Our research acquires contextualization—the results of which cannot yet be reported here—by virtue of the fact that we are also studying the deployment of PARO during house calls within the framework of outpatient dementia care (home visit services in Germany and Switzerland). Moreover, we are interested in the (organizational and national) cultural differences in the way in which this artifact is used.

  25. Because of its size and color, PARO is hard to miss—provided, of course, one is a “normal, wide-awake adult” (Schuetzs term; on deviation from the norm as a result of dementia, (cf. [102]). However, if a person has impaired vision, which can be exacerbated in dementia patients by a decreased sensitivity to the color white, PARO may not be noticed.

  26. Germany is not the only country in which the distributors urge customers to take advantage of user training when they purchase PARO. Our ethnographic study confirms Pedersen’s related to Denmark thesis [103, p. 44] that participants are trained not only in the correct application of the device but also in the correct attitude to the technology.

  27. Throughout this paper we use feminine personal pronouns in relation to care workers and residents in order to make it clear that we were able to observe only female care workers and that the share of males among the residents is also very low. Hence, our data cannot be used as a basis for gender-specific statements.

  28. We have not yet been able to identify the selection criterion. However, it is probable that, because of the presence of the researcher, the selection is determined at least in part by a ‘demonstration motive’.

  29. In keeping with our research question, the term ‘humans’ refers here to the care workers. On the problems associated with gaining access to the perceptions of persons with dementia, (cf. [102, 107]).

  30. Anthropomorphizing has been a controversial topic in HRI for some time now (cf. [108–111]).

  31. In 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) certified PARO as a biofeedback medical device. The designer is currently lobbying for its recognition as a medical device in the European Union and Japan (cf. [2, p. 2537]).

References

  1. Kolling T, Haberstroh J, Kapspar R, Pantel J, Oswald F, Knopf M (2013) Evidence and deployment-based research into care for the elderly using emotional robots. GeroPsych 26(2):83–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Shibata T (2012) Therapeutic seal robot as biofeedback medical device: qualitative and quantitative evaluations of robot therapy in dementia care. In: IEEE Proceedings, vol 100, pp 2527–2538

  3. Shibata T, Wada K (2010) Robot therapy: a new approach for mental healthcare of the elderly—a mini-review. Gerontology 57(4):378–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Shibata T (2010) Integration of therapeutic robot, PARO, into welfare systems. In: Proceedings of the 28th annual European conference on cognitive ergonomics (ECCE 2010), p 3

  5. Coeckelbergh M (2011) Humans, animals, and robots: a phenomenological approach to human–robot relations. Int J Soc Robot 3(2):197–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ihde D (1990) Technology and the lifeworld: from garden to Earth. Indiana University Press, Bloomington

    Google Scholar 

  7. Knoblauch H (2012) PowerPoint, communication, and the knowledge society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Schuetz A, Luckmann T (1973) The structures of the life-world. Northwestern University Press, Evanston

    Google Scholar 

  9. Coeckelbergh M (2009) Personal robots, appearance, and human good: a methodological reflection on roboethics. Int J Soc Robot 1(3):217–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Pfadenhauer M (2014) On the sociality of social robots: a sociology of knowledge perspective. Sci Technol Innov Stud 10(1):137–163

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ropohl G (2009) Allgemeine Technologie: Eine Systemtheorie der Technik. Universitätsverlag, Karlsruhe

    Google Scholar 

  12. Shibata T, Tanie K (2001) Physical and affective interaction between human and mental commit robot. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA 2001)

  13. Shibata T (2004) Ubiquitous surface tactile sensor. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA 2004), pp 5–6

  14. Wada K, Shibata T, Saito T, Sakamoto K, Tanie K (2005) Psychological and social effects of one year robot assisted activity on elderly people at a health service facility for the aged. In: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Barcelona, pp 2785–2790

  15. Knoblauch H (1991) Die Welt der Wünschelrutengänger und Pendler: Erkundungen einer verborgenen Wirklichkeit. Camous, Frankfurt a. M

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lindemann G (2005) Die Verkoerperung des Sozialen. Theoriekonstruktion und empirische Forschungsperspektiven. In: Schröer M (ed) Soziologie des Körpers. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M., pp 114–138

  17. von Scheve C (2014) Interaction rituals with artificial companions: from media equation to emotional relationships. Sci Technol Innov Stud 10(1):65–83

    Google Scholar 

  18. Meyer S (2011) Mein Freund der Roboter. VDE Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  19. Picard RW (1997) Affective computing. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Shibata T, Tashima T, Tanie K (1999) Subjective interpretation of emotional behavior through physical interaction between human and robot. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics (SMC 1999), pp 1024–1029

  21. Shibata T, Tanie K (2000) Influence of a priori knowledge in subjective interpretation and evaluation by short-term interaction with mental commit robot. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2000), vol 161, pp 169–174

  22. Shibata T et al (1996) Emotional robot for intelligent system—artificial emotional creature project. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international workshop on robot and human communication (RO-MAN 1996), pp 466–471

  23. Kawaguchi Y, Wada K, Okamoto M, Tsujii T, Shibata T, Sakatani K (2011) Investigation of brain activity during interaction with seal robot by fNIRS. In: Proceedings of the 20th IEEE symposium on robot and human interaction communication (RO-MAN 2011), pp 308–313

  24. Sutherland I (1965) The ultimate display. Information processing techniques. In: Proceedings of the international federation for information processing (IFIP) world computer congress (WCC 1965), pp 506–508

  25. Reeves LM, Lai J, Larson JA, Oviatt S, Balaji TS et al (2004) Guidelines for multimodal user interface design. In: Proceedings of the ACM human language technology conference (HLT 2004), pp 57–59

  26. Manzei A (2003) Koerper-Technik-Grenzen: kritische Anthropologie am Beispiel der Transplantationsmedizin. LIT Verlag, Muenster

    Google Scholar 

  27. Boehle K, Coenen C, Decker M, Rader M (2011) Engineering of intelligent artifacts. In: Making perfect life. Bio-engineering (in) the 21st Century. European Parliament, Brussels, pp 136–176

  28. Sheridan TB, Verplank WL (1978) Human and computer control of undersea teleoperators. MIT Man Machine Systems Laboratory, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  29. Nourbakhsh I, Crowley K, Bhave A, Hamner E, Hsiu T, Perez-Bergquist A, Richards S, Wilkinson K (2005) The robotic autonomy mobile robotics course: robot design. In: Curriculum design and educational assessment. Autonomous robots, vol 18, pp 103–127

  30. Sheridan TB (2011) Adaptive automation, level of automation, allocation authority, supervisory control, and adaptive control: distinctions and modes of adaptation. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 41:662–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Picard RW (2003) Affective computing: challenges. Int J Hum Comput Stud 59:55–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Shibata T, Wada K, Ikeda Y, Sabanovic S (2009b) Cross-cultural studies on subjective evaluation of seal robot. Adv Robot 23(4):443–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lammer L, Huber A, Zagler W, Vincze M (2011) Mutual-care: users will love their imperfect social assistive robots. In: Proceedings of the international conference on social robotics 2011 (ICSR 2011)

  34. Neisser U (1963) The imitation of man by machine the view that machines will think as man does reveals misunderstanding of the nature of human thought. Science 139(3551):193–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Searle JR (1980) Minds, brains, and programs. Behav Brain Sci 3(3):417–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Turing AM (1950) Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 59(236):433–460

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  37. Echterhoff G, Bohner G, Siebler F (2006) “Social robotics” und Mensch-Maschine-Interaktion. Aktuelle Forschung und Relevanz für die Sozialpsychologie. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie 37(4):219–231

  38. Meister M (2011) Soziale Koordination durch Boundary Objects am Beispiel des heterogenen Feldes der Servicerobotik. FU Berlin

  39. Brooks RA (1991) Intelligence without representation. Artif Intell 47:139–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. MacDorman KF, Ishiguro H (2006) The uncanny advantage of using androids in cognitive and social science research. Interact Stud 7(3):297–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kanda T, Nishio S, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2009) Interactive humanoid robots and androids in children’s lives. Child Youth Environ 19(1):12–33

    Google Scholar 

  42. Miklosi A, Gasci M (2012) On the utilization of social animals as a model for social robotics. Front Psychol 3(75). http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00075/full

  43. Gordon RM (1986) Folk psychology as simulation. Mind Lang 1(2):158–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Premack D, Woodruff G (1978) Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behav Brain Sci 1(4):515–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Stienstra J, Marti P (2012) Squeeze me: gently please. In: Proceedings of the 7th nordic conference on human–computer interaction (NordiCHI 2012): making sense through design, pp 746–750

  46. Marti P, Stienstra J (2013) Exploring empathy in interaction: scenarios of respectful robotics. GeroPsych 26(2):101–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Taggart W, Turkle S, Kidd CD (2005) An interactive robot in a nursing home: preliminary remarks. Towards social mechanisms of android science. Cogn Sci Soc 56–61. http://web.media.mit.edu/~coryk/publications.html

  48. Rose R, Scheutz M, Schermerhorn P (2010) Towards a conceptual and methodological framework for determining robot believability. Interact Stud 11(2):314–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Dautenhahn K (1999) Robots as social actors: aurora and the case of autism. In: Proceedings of the third international cognitive technology conference (CT1999)

  50. Breazeal C, Scassellati B (1999) How to build robots that make friends and influence people. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 1999), pp 858–863

  51. Goetz J, Kiesler S, Powers A (2003) Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. In: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 2003), pp 55–60

  52. Syrdal DS, Koay KL, Gacsi M, Walters ML, Dautenhahn K (2010) Video prototyping of doginspired non-verbal affective communication for an appearance constrained robot. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international workshop on robots and human interactive communications (RO-MAN 2010), pp 632–637

  53. Shibata T (2004) An overview of human interactive robots for psychological enrichment. IEEE Proc 92:1749–1758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Wada K, Shibata T, Musha T, Kimura S (2008) Robot therapy for elders affected by dementia. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 27(4):53–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Stiehl WD, Lieberman J, Breazeal C, Basel L, Lalla L, Wolf M (2005) Design of a therapeutic robotic companion for relational, affective touch. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 2005), pp 408–415

  56. Libin AV, Libin EV (2004) Person–robot interactions from the robopsychologists’ point of view: the robotic psychology and robotherapy approach. IEEE Proc 92:1789–1803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Stiehl WD, Lee JK, Breazeal C, Nalin M, Morandi A, Sanna A (2009) The huggable: a platform for research in robotic companions for eldercare. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on interaction design and children, (IDC 2009), pp 317–320

  58. Lumelsky V, Shur M, Wagner S (2001) Sensitive skin. IEEE Sensor J 1(1):41–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Kriglstein S, Wallner GN (2005) Homie: an artificial companion for elderly people. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI2005)

  60. Pinch T, Bijker WE (2012) The social construction of facts and artifacts. In: Bijker WE, Hughes TP, Pinch T (eds) The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 11–44

    Google Scholar 

  61. Kuhn TS (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  62. Dosi G (1982) Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Res Policy 11:147–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Van A, de Ven DE (1999) The innovation journey. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  64. Weyer J (2008) Techniksoziologie: Genese, Gestaltung und Steuerung sozio-technischer Systeme. Juventa, Weinheim and Munich

    Google Scholar 

  65. Wada K, Shibata T, Saito T, Tanie K (2002) Analysis of factors that bring mental effects to elderly people in robot assisted activity. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS2002), pp 1152–1157

  66. Wada K, Shibata T, Saito T, Tanie K (2004) Effects of robot-assisted activity for elderly people and nurses at a day service center. IEEE Proc 92:1780–1788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Wada K, Shibata T, Asada T, Musha T (2007) Robot therapy for prevention of dementia at home—results of preliminary experiment. J Robot Mechatron 19(6):691–697

    Google Scholar 

  68. Klein B, Gaedt L, Cook G (2013) Emotional robots: principles and experiences with PARO in Denmark, Germany, and the UK. GeroPsych 26(2):89–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Nejat G, Sun Y, Nies M (2009) Assistive robots in health care settings. Home Health Care Manag Pract 21(3):177–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Krings BJ, Boehle K, Decker M, Nierling L, Schneider C (2014) Serviceroboter in Pflegearrangements. In: Decker M, Fleischer T, Schippl J, Weinberger N (eds) Zukünftige Themen der Innovations- und Technikanalyse: lessons learned und ausgewählte Ergebnisse. KIT Scientific Publishing, Karlsruhe, pp 63–121

  71. Haeussling R (2010) Zum Design(begriff) der Netzwerkgesellschaft. Design als zentrales Element der Identitätsformation in Netzwerken. In: Fuhse J, Mützel S (eds) Relationale Soziologie. Zur kulturellen Wende der NetzwerkforschungWiesbaden, VS, pp 137–162

  72. Bijker WE (1995) Of bicycles, bakelites and bulbs. Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  73. Latour B (2005) Reassembling the social: an introduction to the actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  74. Van Oost E, Reed D (2010) Towards a sociological understanding of robots as companions. In: Proceedings of the conference on human–robot personal relationships (HRPR 2010), pp 11–18

  75. Hughes TP (2012) The evolution of large technological systems. In: Bijker WE, Hughes TP, Pinch T (eds) The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 45–76

    Google Scholar 

  76. Luckmann T (1983) On the boundaries of the social world. In: Luckmann T (ed) Life-world and social realities. Heinemann, Portsmouth, pp 40–67

    Google Scholar 

  77. Russell S (1986) The social construction of artefacts: a response to pinch and bijker. Soc Stud Sci 16(2):331–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Rammert W (2003) Technik in Aktion: Verteiltes Handeln in soziotechnischen Konstellationen. Workingpaper, TU Berlin

  79. Schulz-Schaeffer I (2000) Sozialtheorie der Technik. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt a.M

    Google Scholar 

  80. Rammert W (2011) Distributed agency and advanced technology or: how to analyse constellations of collective inter-agency. Technical University Technology Studies Working Papers TUTS-WP-3-2011

  81. Rammert W (2008) Where the action is: distributed agency between humans, machines, and programs. In: Seifert U, Jin Hyun K, Moore A (eds) Paradoxes of interactivity: perspectives for media theory, human–computer interaction, and artistic investigations. Transcript, Bielefeld, pp 62–91

    Google Scholar 

  82. Rammert W (2012) Distributed agency and advanced technology. Or: how to analyze constellations of collective inter-agency. In: Passoth JH, Peuker B, Schillmeier M (eds) Agency without actors? New approaches to collective action. RouCampus, Abingdon, Oxon, pp 89–112

    Google Scholar 

  83. Knoblauch H (2013) Communicative constructivism and mediatization. Commun Theory 23:297–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Bonsiepe G (1996) Interface-Design neu begreifen. Bollmann, Mannheim

    Google Scholar 

  85. Fuhse J, Muetzel S (2010) Einleitung: Zur relationalen Soziologie. In: Fuhse J, Mützel S (eds) Relationale Soziologie. Zur kulturellen Wende der Netzwerkforschung. Wiesbaden, VS, pp 7–36

  86. Baecker D (2007) Studien zur nächsten Gesellschaft. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M

    Google Scholar 

  87. Schuetz A (2004[1932]) Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt, Alfred Schütz Werkausgabe Band 1. UVK, Konstanz

  88. Schuetz A (1972) The phenomenology of the social world. Northwestern University Press, Evanston

    Google Scholar 

  89. Knoblauch H (2010) Von der Kompetenz zur Performanz. Wissenssoziologische Aspekte von Kompetenz. In: Kurtz T, Pfadenhauer M (eds) Soziologie der Kompetenz. Springer, Wiesbaden, pp 237–255

  90. Pfadenhauer M (2012) Competence—more than just a buzzword and a provocative term? Towards an internal perspective on situative problem-solving capacity. In: Blömeke S, Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia O, Kuhn C, Fege J (eds) Modeling and measuring of competencies in higher education: tasks and challenges. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, pp 81–90

    Google Scholar 

  91. Rammert W (2007) Die technische Konstruktion als Teil der gesellschaftlichen Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit. In: Tänzler D, Knoblauch H, Soefner HG (eds) Zur Kritik der Wissensgesellschaft. UVK, Konstanz, pp 83–100

  92. Pfadenhauer M, Dukat C (2014) Künstlich begleitet. Der Roboter als neuer bester Freund des Menschen? In: Grenz T, Möll G (eds) Unter Mediatisierungsdruck. Springer, Wiesbaden, pp 189–210

  93. Pfadenhauer M (2015) The contemporary appeal of artificial companions. ac technologies as vehicles to cultural worlds of experience. Inf Soc 31(3) (forthcoming)

  94. Moyle W, Cooke M, Beattie E, Jones C, Klein B, Cook G, Gray C (2013) Exploring the effect of companion robots on older adults with dementia. Emotional expression in a pilot randomized controlled trial. J Gerontol Nurs 39(5):46–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Pfadenhauer M, Grenz T (2015) Entanglement of observation and participation in phenomenology based ethnography. J Contemp Ethnogr, Special Issue Phenomenological Based Ethnography (forthcoming)

  96. Tuma R, Schnettler B, Knoblauch H (2013) Videographie: Einführung in die interpretative Videoanalyse sozialer Situationen. Springer, Wiesbaden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  97. Pfadenhauer M (2003) Wir V-Leute. Über das beiläufig Perfide beobachtender Teilnahme. In: Allmendinger J (ed) Entstaatlichung und soziale Sicherheit. Verhandlungen des 31. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie in Leipzig. Teil 1 (CDROM). Leske & Budrich, Opladen

  98. Pfadenhauer M (2014b) Fotografieren (lassen) in der lebensweltanalytischen Ethngoraphi. Das Foto als Wissensform. In: Eberle T (ed) Phänomenologie und Photografie (forthcoming)

  99. Hitzler R, Reichertz J, Schröer N (2003) Wissenssoziologische Hermeneutik. UVK, Konstanz

    Google Scholar 

  100. Hitzler R (2007) Ethnographie. In: Buber R, Holzmüller H (eds) Qualitative Marktforschung. Wiebsaden, Gabler, pp 207–218

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  101. Reichertz J (2013) Gemeinsam interpretieren. Die Gruppeninterpretation als kommunikativer Prozess. Springer, Wiesbaden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  102. Honer A (2011) Zeit-Konfusionen: Zur intersubjektiven Rekonstruktion des temporalen Erlebens Demenzkranker. In: Hitzler R (ed) Kleine Leiblichkeiten. Springer, Wiesbaden, pp 131–140

  103. Pedersen PL (2011) Do elders dream of electric seals? A scot analysis of the mental commitment robot PARO in elderly care. Master thesis, centre for technology, innovation and culture. Master’s thesis, University of Oslo

  104. Bergmann J (1988) Haustiere als kommunikative Ressourcen. In: Soeffner HG (ed) Kultur und Alltag. Schwartz, Göttingen, pp 299–312

    Google Scholar 

  105. Breidenstein G, Hirschauer S, Kalthoff H, Nieswand B (2014) Ethnografie. Die Praxis der Feldforschung. UVK, Konstanz

    Google Scholar 

  106. Roehl T (2013) Dinge des Wissens. Schulunterricht als sozio-materielle Praxis. Lucius and Lucius, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  107. Kotsch L, Hitzler R (2013) Selbstbestimmung trotz Demenz? Ein Gebot und seine praktische Relevanz im Pflegealltag. Juventa, Weinheim

    Google Scholar 

  108. Turkle S (1984) The second self. Simon and Schuster, New York

    Google Scholar 

  109. Caporael LR (1986) Anthropomorphism and mechanomorphism: two faces of the human machine. Comput Hum Behav 2(3):215–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Brennan SE, Ohaeri JO (1994) Effects of message style on users’ attributions toward agents. In: ACM conference companion on human factors in computing systems (CHI 1994), pp 281–282

  111. Katz JE (2003) Machines that become us: the social context of personal communication technology. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick

    Google Scholar 

  112. Luckmann T (1979) Persönliche Identität, soziale Rolle und Rollendistanz. In: Marquard O, Stierle K (eds) Identität. Fink, Munich, pp 109–120

    Google Scholar 

  113. Mieg H, Pfadenhauer M (2003) Professionelle Leistung—professional performance. Positionen der Professionssoziologie., “Wissen und Studium” seriesUVK, Konstanz

    Google Scholar 

  114. Meister M (2014) When is a robot really social. STI-Stud 10(1):107–134

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Sociology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Michaela Pfadenhauer

  2. Institute of Sociology, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany

    Christoph Dukat

Authors
  1. Michaela Pfadenhauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christoph Dukat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michaela Pfadenhauer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pfadenhauer, M., Dukat, C. Robot Caregiver or Robot-Supported Caregiving?. Int J of Soc Robotics 7, 393–406 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0284-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0284-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation