Talking robots: A critical examination of strategies for public engagement with robotic technologies

In recent years engagement has become a ‘gold-standard’ amongst the range of policymakers, scientists, private sector organisations and learned institutions that aim to communicate and engage publics with science and technology (Felt and Fochler, 2008:489). In European contexts engagement has sought to become more deliberative and inclusive, with methods such as citizen juries, consensus conferences and science cafes promoting greater two-way discussion on relevant scientific issues. Anticipating public reactions can be insightful for technological development involving significant research and financial investment and a number of studies have highlighted the utility of public or localised understanding in creating socially robust knowledge or research (Wynne, 1996; Epstein, 1996).

[1]  Richard Tutton,et al.  Shifting Subject Positions , 2007 .

[2]  A. Coffey,et al.  Hypermedia ethnography in educational settings: possibilities and challenges , 2006 .

[3]  G. Rowe,et al.  Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation , 2000 .

[4]  Roy Marsh,et al.  Evaluation of a Deliberative Conference , 2004 .

[5]  L. Spencer,et al.  Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research , 2002 .

[6]  David Lee,et al.  The art of designing robot faces: dimensions for human-robot interaction , 2006, HRI '06.

[7]  Ulrike Felt,et al.  The Bottom-up Meanings of the Concept of Public Participation in Science and Technology , 2008 .

[8]  Aaron Powers,et al.  Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation , 2003, The 12th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2003. Proceedings. ROMAN 2003..

[9]  James Trevelyan,et al.  Redefining Robotics for the New Millennium , 1999, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[10]  Florence R. Sullivan.  Robotics and science literacy: Thinking skills, science process skills and systems understanding , 2008 .

[11]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  Interactive robot theatre , 2003, CACM.

[12]  M. Michael.  Between citizen and consumer: multiplying the meanings of the “public understanding of science” , 1998 .

[13]  G. Rowe,et al.  Citizen engagement processes as information systems: the role of knowledge and the concept of translation quality , 2007 .

[14]  Thomas Llewelyn Webb,et al.  What Factors Predict Scientists' Intentions to Participate in Public Engagement of Science Activities? , 2007 .

[15]  A. Coffey,et al.  Multimodal ethnography , 2006 .

[16]  Kai Oliver Arras,et al.  Do we want to share our lives and bodies with robots? A 2000 people survey , 2005 .

[17]  Russell Tytler,et al.  Constructivist views of teaching and learning , 2004 .

[18]  A. Irwin.  Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences , 2001 .

[19]  R. Porter,et al.  Impure Science. AIDS, Activism and the Politics of Knowledge , 1997 .

[20]  Rachid Alami,et al.  How may I serve you?: a robot companion approaching a seated person in a helping context , 2006, HRI '06.

[21]  Roland Clift,et al.  Industrial constructions of publics and public knowledge: a qualitative investigation of practice in the UK chemicals industry , 2007 .

[22]  Roger E. Kasperson,et al.  Rerouting the stakeholder express , 2006 .