Users, Bystanders and Agents: Participation Roles in Human-Agent Interaction

Krummheuer, Antonia Lina

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-22723-8_19

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(14 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Affected bystanding is nothing fancy. Second, given the mundanity of a bystander’s situation, issues connected to bystanding are not new and have been discussed in previous research on human–technology relations (see, for example, Ferneley and Light, 2008; Hüttenrauch et al, 2006; Krummheuer, 2015). Typically, however, these discussions do too little to develop the notion of bystanding into a concept that avails itself to more analytic, abstract, and critical perspectives.…”

Section: The Affected Bystandermentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond non-/use: The affected bystander and her escalation

Wagenknecht

2017

New Media & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article proceeds from the observation that in everyday life we are surrounded by technology, most of which we do not use ourselves. Rather, we are, often involuntarily, subjected to the effects of others’ technology use. The article characterizes this condition as affected bystanding, a condition that comes with quotidian, often banal, experiences of passivity and marginality. The affected bystander is neither entirely included nor excluded by a technological system and the practices of its operation. For this reason, affected bystanding is not adequately accounted for by established categories of exchange, participation, collaboration, use, and non-use. Since affected bystanding is often an undesirable condition, the article discusses how the affected bystander may address her condition— escalate it—by positioning herself as bystanding affector.

show abstract

Section: The Affected Bystandermentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond non-/use: The affected bystander and her escalation

Wagenknecht

2017

New Media & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Evaluating interactions in public settings opens up a rich space for observing how people intuitively respond to robots in social contexts. Studies conducted in public settings that capture bystanders and passersby yield insights into people's perceptions in ways that go beyond the laboratory settings [38]. They are well-suited to reveal how different embodiments yield different interaction patterns, which is useful for understanding how people engage in physical interaction with a specific robot.…”

Section: Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is a Soft Robot More “Natural”? Exploring the Perception of Soft Robotics in Human–Robot Interaction

Jørgensen

Bojesen

Jochum

2021

Int J of Soc Robotics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soft robotics technology has been proposed for a number of applications that involve human-robot interaction. It is commonly presumed that soft robots are perceived as more natural, and thus more appealing, than rigid robots, an assumption that has not hitherto been tested or validated. This study investigates human perception of and physical interaction with soft robots as compared with rigid robots. Using a mixed-methods approach, we conducted an observational study to explore whether soft robots are perceived as more natural, and what types of interactions soft robots encourage. In a between-subjects study, participants interacted with a soft robotic tentacle or a rigid robot of a similar shape. The interactions were video recorded, and data was also obtained from questionnaires (Nvideo=123, Nquest=94). Despite their drastically different appearances and materials, we found no significant differences in how appealing or natural the robots were rated to be. Appeal was positively associated with perceived naturalness in all cases, however we observed a wide variation in how participants define "natural". Although participants showed no clear preference, qualitative analysis of video data indicates that soft robots and rigid robots elicit different interaction patterns and behaviors. The findings highlight the key role of physical embodiment and materiality in human-robot interaction, and challenge existing assumptions about what makes robots appear natural.

show abstract

AI in situated action: a scoping review of ethnomethodological and conversation analytic studies

Mlynář,

de Rijk,

Liesenfeld

et al. 2024

AI & Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite its elusiveness as a concept, ‘artificial intelligence’ (AI) is becoming part of everyday life, and a range of empirical and methodological approaches to social studies of AI now span many disciplines. This article reviews the scope of ethnomethodological and conversation analytic (EM/CA) approaches that treat AI as a phenomenon emerging in and through the situated organization of social interaction. Although this approach has been very influential in the field of computational technology since the 1980s, AI has only recently emerged as such a pervasive part of daily life to warrant a sustained empirical focus in EM/CA. Reviewing over 50 peer-reviewed publications, we find that the studies focus on various social and group activities such as task-oriented situations, semi-experimental setups, play, and everyday interactions. They also involve a range of participant categories including children, older participants, and people with disabilities. Most of the reviewed studies apply CA’s conceptual apparatus, its approach to data analysis, and core topics such as turn-taking and repair. We find that across this corpus, studies center on three key themes: openings and closing the interaction, miscommunication, and non-verbal aspects of interaction. In the discussion, we reflect on EM studies that differ from those in our corpus by focusing on praxeological respecifications of AI-related phenomena. Concurrently, we offer a critical reflection on the work of literature reviewing, and explore the tortuous relationship between EM and CA in the area of research on AI.

show abstract