What makes a robot ‘social’?

Jones, Raya A.

doi:10.1177/0306312717704722

Cited by 38 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 83 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 2. For an example of how my video excerpts are read in an alternative manner from what I saw, see Jones, 2017. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond intersubjectivity in olfactory psychophysics I: Troubles with the Subject

Alač

2020

Soc Stud Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article provides an experience-oriented relational account that goes beyond a human control of the world. Rather than working with the notion of intersubjectivity (commonly evoked in sensory STS, and still conserving the subject/object opposition), the article reports on how the sense of smell affords a rethinking of our relationship with the world. It does so by challenging the assumption of olfactory ineffability as it turns to a place whose inhabitants speak about smell as a part of their everyday affairs: a laboratory of olfactory psychophysics. There, we attend to a multimodal, embodied language that participates in preparing, running and analyzing scientific experiments. While Western languages are short on specialized vocabulary for expressing olfactory qualities and it feels difficult to talk about smell, laboratory events manifest smell language in its enmeshing with the sensory realm and the world. Noticing these ties destabilizes the idea of agential subject, highlighting instead our pre-intentional sensibility, in its connection with the world. A sister article on ‘troubles with the Object’ (Alač, 2020) continues to argue that the notion of intersubjectivity is overly narrow, highlighting our immersion in the world (rather than assuming our dominance of it).

show abstract

“… 2. For an example of how my video excerpts are read in an alternative manner from what I saw, see Jones, 2017. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond intersubjectivity in olfactory psychophysics I: Troubles with the Subject

Alač

2020

Soc Stud Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ultimately, the view of how robots are perceived and what roles they play is socially and culturally constructed through social interaction (e.g. Jones, 2017;Šabanovi , 2014). Thus, it is important to acknowledge the media discussion as an arena of this interaction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Robots do not replace a nurse with a beating heart”

Tuisku

Pekkarinen

Hennala

et al. 2019

ITP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the publicity around the implementation of the Zora robot in elderly-care services in Lahti, Finland. The aim is to discover opinions concerning the use of robots in elderly care as well as the arguments and justifications behind those opinions. Zora is a humanoid robot intended to promote mobility and rehabilitation. The Lahti pilot was the first Zora pilot in Finland in public elderly-care services. It received much publicity, both regionally and nationally. Design/methodology/approach This study is based on an empirical case study on the implementation of the Zora robot in elderly-care services. The data consist of interviews with personnel who operated Zora and comments from the general public about the “Zora” robot. Two data sources were used: 107 comments were collected from online and print media, and the personnel (n=39) who worked with Zora were interviewed. The data were analysed by means of interpretative content analysis. Findings The results show that public opinion is mainly negative, but that the commentators apparently have little information about the robot and its tasks. The personnel had more positive views; they saw it as a recreational tool, not as a replacement for their own roles. Originality/value There is clearly a need for more information, for a better informed discussion on how robots can be used in elderly care and how to involve the general public in this discussion in a constructive way.

show abstract

“…A more recent definition by Jones (2017) emphasizes social robot's responsiveness and ability to engage in dialogic action with humans. Three aspects are important with regards to creativity.…”

Section: Social Robots and Creativitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Creativity in Humans, Robots, Humbots

Lubart¹,

Esposito²,

Gubenko³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines three ways that robots can interface with creativity. In particular, social robots which are designed to interact with humans are examined. In the first mode, human creativity can be supported by social robots. In a second mode, social robots can be creative agents and humans serve to support robot's productions. In the third and final mode, there is complementary action in creative work, which may be collaborative co-creation or a division of labor in creative projects. Illustrative examples are provided and key issues for further discussion are raised.

show abstract

What makes a robot ‘social’?

Cited by 38 publications

References 83 publications

Beyond intersubjectivity in olfactory psychophysics I: Troubles with the Subject

Beyond intersubjectivity in olfactory psychophysics I: Troubles with the Subject

“Robots do not replace a nurse with a beating heart”

Creativity in Humans, Robots, Humbots

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About