15 Years of (Who)man Robot Interaction: Reviewing the H in Human-Robot Interaction

Abstract

Recent work identified a concerning trend of disproportional gender representation in research participants in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI). Motivated by the fact that Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) shares many participant practices with HCI, we explored whether this trend is mirrored in our field. By producing a dataset covering participant gender representation in all 684 full papers published at the HRI conference from 2006-2021, we identify current trends in HRI research participation. We find an over-representation of men in research participants to date, as well as inconsistent and/or incomplete gender reporting which typically engages in a binary treatment of gender at odds with published best practice guidelines. We further examine if and how participant gender has been considered in user studies to date, in-line with current discourse surrounding the importance and/or potential risks of gender based analyses. Finally, we complement this with a survey of HRI researchers to examine correlations between the who is doing with the who is taking part, to further reflect on factors which seemingly influence gender bias in research participation across different sub-fields of HRI. Through our analysis we identify areas for improvement, but also reason for optimism, and derive some practical suggestions for HRI researchers going forward.

Towards a conceptualisation and critique of everyday life in HRI

“…Given the focus on the people's everyday experiences, we propose to address the study participants in HRI as 'subjects' in a wider sense, particularly in line with the classical sociological conception of the subject that to a large extent refers to the "person" (Black, 2000). Interestingly, in HRI community too there have also been discussions about how to conceptualise what is meant with 'human subject' in relation to their role (e.g., (Onnasch and Roesler, 2021;Lee et al, 2022)) and in broader terms of participation practices in HRI research (Winkle et al, 2023b). Without neglecting the intersubjectivity aspects, different sociological perspective follow the assumption that human beings are "acting and experiencing individuals" [ (Overgaard et al, 2009): 101] who play an active role in shaping their own existence and giving meanings to the experiences such an existence involves.…”

“…For example, the use and presence of social robots has often been discussed in the context of a growing social isolation taking place in techno-capitalist societies ( Šabanović, 2010 ; Ananto and Young, 2021 ). Another example of a critical HRI inquiry includes recent developments in the “Feminist HRI” ( Winkle et al, 2021 ; Winkle et al, 2023a ) or reflections on human adaptation (or a lack of thereof) to life with robots ( Harrison and Johnson, 2023 ). What are the other aspects of not so much “human nature” as of the contemporary human condition that HRI and social robots could potentially unmask and transfigure?…”

Enactive artificial intelligence: subverting gender norms in human-robot interaction

“…One key distinction between human-robot interaction (HRI) and human-computer or human-AI interaction is that HRI researchers are typically working with the design and development of (robot) bodies and identities for embodied human-robot interactions. We have seen in detail in the previous sections, feminist theory, which has long been concerned with embodiment in terms of the material body, the social and the subject (Butler, 2011 ; De Beauvoir, 2014 ; Halberstam, 2017 ) provides a lens with which to consider this embodiment as a practice rather than an artifact; identifying robots as being embedded within subject-positioning relations and as (robot) bodies which simultaneously reflect and influence structures of power (Winkle et al, 2023 ).…”

Augmented Cognition: Life as we don't know it

“…An example of this is smart assistance, such as Amazon Alexa or Apple Siri referred to as "the smart wife" (Strengers and Kennedy, 2021;Aagaard, 2022), as well as "AI becomes her" (Costa and Ribas, 2019). In this respect, many studies have called for inclusive design (Wellner and Rothman, 2020;Winkle et al, 2022aWinkle et al, , 2022bHipólito, Winkle and Lie, 2023). The design and implementation of HRI technology, in turn, feeds back into the society and individuals' embodied experiences affecting how each embodied individual can or cannot interact with the technology and how their individual bodily experience is affected by the set-up in the HRI technology in a meaningful, embodied perspective, manner.…”