Author: Björn Fischer

Ethnographic study of two robot laboratories: ideas about future technology users emerge in engineering practice.

Generally, it is often assumed that technology development activities are distinct from the use context. Now we know that, rather than distinct, users are enacted as part of ongoing technology design activities. It are precisely the practices in which engineers are engaged that shape their ideas about future users. This is the finding of our most recent ethnographic study published in the journal Social Studies of Science.

As engineers build and develop new technologies, how do they imagine future users? Considering the rapid progress and development of artificial intelligence and robotics, and growing fears surrounding their impact on future societies, this has become a pertinent question. Ideas about future users can impact how new technologies are designed and implemented in our future societies.

Engineering practices evoke user images

So, how do engineers imagine future users? To answer this question, we joined engineers working in two robot laboratories over a period of 6 months, and observed how they  developed their technologies and articulated ideas about future users. What we found is that user images and design activities are related. Engineers develop ideas about possible use scenarios as these ideas are evoked by specific design activities; or – how we call them – ‘image-evoking activities’.

To better understand this phenomenon, we need to look at the detailed work that is done in the laboratories: As engineers go about their everyday work, they engage in different sub-actions, such as writing a software code, testing how codes affects the robot’s movements, or sharing these insights within the online community. Together, these sub-actions form broader activities, each with its own goal. We found four such activities from our observations:  to distinguish technology work from other types of work,  to expand what is technologically possible,  to universalize the applicability of the developed technologies, and  to make robots human-like.

With ‘image-evoking’, we mean that each of these activities evoked a set of use scenarios. For example, universalizing applicability caused the engineers to imagine scenarios of users in diverse industries, and making robots human-like came with images of robots replacing humans, in a variety of settings. To think about this breadth and variety of possible use scenarios available to engineers, it may be helpful to envision how these different scenarios form a ‘user image landscape’, with some images far in the background, some blurred and some rather self-evident.

How can this help technology development?

Well, technologies may fail if they do not correspond to the users’  wishes or desires. So, there is a need for suitable user images, to ensure that millions of investments into robotics and artificial intelligence do not go to waste. Our study speaks to this need. Through developing a better understanding of how users are imagined in practice, we are now beginning to learn how and where we can improve these images; and better tailor them to our needs and expectations.

Crucially, our findings suggest that we need to be more aware of the locales in which technologies are constructed. We have shown how ideas about future users are created in engineering practice, and these can have an impact on how future technologies are constructed. This means that the user is created within the laboratory, as part of ongoing design practices.  So, if we are to change certain practices or ways of imagining future users, we need to consider that our interventions, like user involvement or participatory design, need to fit into the practical realities in the laboratories. They need to connect to what the engineers’ everyday work looks like.

Everyday engineering in robot laboratories

What are the future roles for robots and humans, based on our study?

In our case, multiple future use scenarios became apparent: robots in different industries, in factories, in hospitals, in care facilities. Robots replacing human work, or parts of what humans do at the moment. These all seem possible future scenarios.  However, the impact of robots and increased automatization on our future society is the subject of ongoing debates. Millions of jobs might be threatened, but robots could also function as providing assistance or creating new jobs.

In this context, our study shows that there is a lot to learn by studying the context in which robots are built and created. And it implies that we do have to ask ourselves: What roles do we really want for robots and artificial intelligence to fulfill? Do we want them to replace humans? What are our societal needs? Only if we become clearer about our own desires can robot engineers possibly attend to them.

Robot for the future

You found this discussion interesting? Please share your opinion in the comments below, or contact me.  I am looking forward to hear your ideas!

You can find our original research article published online here for free

Björn Fischer is a PhD student in Technology and Health at KTH in Sweden. His current research focuses on science and technology studies, with a particular interest in engineering and design practices, and the link between technology and use. He is particularly concerned with understanding how technologies can be developed to suit the needs of older people. 
Email: bjorfisc@kth.se

New study shows that older people’s involvement matters, but it hasn’t reached its full potential.

Among companies, engineers and policy-makers, involving older people in design projects is an intervention of increasing popularity.  Our new study just published shows that involving older people is important for engineers and older users, but current practices may miss opportunities.  In our study, we reviewed previous design projects that involved older people in design processes, and investigated how this involvement mattered for the design outcome.  We found that the most common outcomes of older adults’ involvement were:  1) An increased learning by the designers about older people’s lives and needs.  2) A change in design based on the feedback and comments obtained by older people.  3) An appreciation by the older participants of being part in such technological procedures.

Link with technology acceptance and adoption

Interestingly, though, we did not find any evidence that acceptance and adoption were immediate consequences of user involvement of older people.  Acceptance and adoption, however, are often tirelessly proclaimed as the ultimate goals for involving older people:  The idea is that, through involvement, technologies could be tailored better to the needs of older people, and thereby achieve a higher acceptance within the older population.  Our study shows that, despite involvement, not many of these technologies eventually find their way into the homes of older people.  Current practices of involving older people, it seems, have not reached their full potential just yet.  But why is that?

As our study indicates, there may be a general underappreciation of the complexities of involving older people.  User involvement, as it appeared in our research, is not a linear model where you feed some older people into technology design, and “adoption” or “acceptance” automatically emerge at the other end.  Rather, it is an equation that is far more complicated than that, with multiple variables:  What roles do the older people play in the process?  What images and stereotypes exist about older people?  At which level or stage in the design process are they supposed to contribute?  For what purposes are they involved?  How are they selected in the first place?  And, how do designers themselves drive the involvement process?   Each variable can take a different value, and the outcome can look drastically different.

How, then, can we reach the full potential of user involvement?

Well, our research suggests that we need to break down the equation of user involvement, and critically examine its terms and parameters.  Often, older people are involved as passive receivers of technologies, suffering from physical decay and biomedical ailments.  If technologies are to become more appealing to the older population, we might want to question these assumptions, and invert parts of our ways of thinking.  Perhaps, we can involve older people differently, in more active roles, at higher levels, and with less stereotypical views.  What technologies could be built, then?

Following the findings of our research, we feel optimistic that older people’s involvement remains important for both older technology users and engineers, and believe that we should continue to explore what else it may offer.  As we begin to re-define how to include older people in design projects, yet undiscovered technologies may lie just around the corner.

If you found this discussion interesting, and wish to share your opinion: Please feel free to contact me.  I am eager to hear your ideas!

You can find our original review article published open access: https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnz163

Björn Fischer is a PhD student in Technology and Health at KTH in Sweden. His current research focuses on the social study of technology, with a particular interest in engineering and design practices, and user involvement. He is particularly concerned with understanding how technologies can be developed to suit the expectations of older people. Email: bjorfisc@kth.se