Search
Browse By Day
Browse By Person
Browse By Room
Browse By Session Type
Browse By Research Area
Search Tips
Meeting Home Page
Personal Schedule
Sign In
In the development of social robots, their ability to be sensitive and/or sensible is of paramount importance. An autoethnographic approach was taken within the setting of a fabrication laboratory dedicated to the study of human-robot interaction, and focus group interviews were conducted with both engineers and (the presumed) target groups for social robots. The data shows a clear distinction between the concepts of being sensitive and being sensible. To work out the striking difference between sensible (humans) and sensitive (robots), it is helpful to focus two possible domains of social robots: housework and childcare. The analysis of the data shows a clear distinction between homework and childcare for both groups, engineers and target users. In respect to the development of social robots for homework and childcare, the assertion of gender stereotypes is very evident, especially towards the role of motherhood, which is assigned to women. The analysis of the term “being sensible” is also very interesting. It was often used to engender a topography that defined legitimate social actors as humans, as opposed to (social) robots. To be “sensitive” is attributed to both an organic, living entity (childcare) and a highly functional robot (homework). Being sensible, however, is restricted to humans and linked to the dubious assumption of “having a soul”. These findings are also point toward the peculiarity of new interactive technology endangering humans’ status in modern societies as the sole social actors.