The Challenge of Being Self-Aware When Building Robots for Everyday Worlds

Part of the Biosystems & Biorobotics book series (BIOSYSROB, volume 23)


Building robots to serve the needs of everyday life is described as a twofold challenge. Firstly, robotics, engineering, and computer science need new theories and concepts. Secondly, new methods and forms of collaboration are required. The article argues that the “wicked” nature of everyday worlds implies another, seemingly mundane challenge for roboticists: to become more self-aware about their own actions (Sect. 1). This includes a critical reflection on the goals of research and development, when dealing with humans (Sect. 2). Furthermore, there are two kinds of rather implicit methods roboticists use to make their machine work in everyday worlds, that should be considered more explicitly: On the one hand, the researcher’s own everyday knowledge becomes an ambivalent resource for making decisions (Sect. 3.1). On the other hand, roboticists themselves often engage in creating expectations and desirable scenarios by staging robot behavior (Sect. 3.2). The article concludes not to wipe out these seemingly mundane practices, but rather to use their marginalization as a starting point for a reflective methodology of technical support systems (Sect. 4).


Robot Building Everyday World Technical Support System Ambulance Resources Everyday Knowledge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. [Akr92]
    Akrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society. Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 205–224). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. [Bis17]
    Bischof, A. (2017). Soziale Maschinen bauen: Epistemische Praktiken der Sozialrobotik. Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  3. [Boe14]
    Böhle, K, & Bopp, K. (2014). What a vision: The artificial companion. A piece of vision assessment including an expert survey. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies (STI Studies), 10(1), 155–186.Google Scholar
  4. [Bot15]
    Both, G. (2015). Youtubization of research. Enacting the high-tech cowboy in video demonstrations. In S. Davies, M. Horst, & E. Stengler (Eds.), Studying science communication (pp. 24–27). Bristol University of the West of England.Google Scholar
  5. [Cou08]
    Courtney, J. F. (2008). Decision making and knowledge management in inquiring organisations: Toward a new decision-making paradigm for DSS. Decision Support Systems—Knowledge Management Support of Decision Making, 31(1), 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [Dau98]
    Dautenhahn, K. (1998). The art of designing socially intelligent agents: Science, fiction, and the human in the loop. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 12(7–8), 573–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [DeG90]
    DeGrace, P., & Stahl, L. H. (1990). Wicked problems, righteous solutions: A catalog of modern engineering paradigms. Yourdon Press.Google Scholar
  8. [Dou06]
    Dourish, P. (2006). Implications for design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 541–550). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  9. [Gie07]
    Giesel, K. (2007). Leitbilder in den Sozialwissenschaften. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. [Har07]
    Harrison, S., Tatar, D., & Sengers, P. (2007). The three paradigms of HCI. Alt. Chi. Session at the 2007 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–18). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  11. [Hoe13]
    Höflich, J. R. (2013). Relationships to social robots: Towards a triadic analysis of media-oriented behavior. Intervalla, 1, 35–48.Google Scholar
  12. [Jas09]
    Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S. (2009). Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva, 47(2), 119–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [Kno84]
    Knorr Cetina, K. (1984). The fabrication of facts: Toward a microsociology of scientific knowledge. In M. Stehr (Eds.), Society and knowledge (pp. 223–244). Oxford: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
  14. [Kro14]
    Kroes, N. (2014). Lighting a SPARC under our competitive economy. Speech available at
  15. [Lat05]
    Latour, B., & Weibel, P. (Eds.). (2005). Making things public: Atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. [Lei06]
    Leis, M. J. (2006). Robots–our future partners. A sociologist’s view from a German and Japanese perspective. Marburg: Tectum.Google Scholar
  17. [Lin16]
    Lindemann, G. (2016). Social interaction with robots: Three questions. AI & Society, 31(4), 573–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [Mei11]
    Meister, M. (2011). Soziale Koordination durch Boundary Objects am Beispiel des heterogenen Feldes der Servicerobotik. Doctoral Thesis, Fakultät Planen, Bauen, Umwelt, Technische Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
  19. [Mei14]
    Meister, M. (2014). When is a robot really social? An outline of the robot sociologicus. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, 10(1), 107–134.Google Scholar
  20. [Noe14]
    Nördinger, S. (2014). Zivilies Forschungsprogramm SPARC. EU-Komission startet weltweit größtes ziviles Robotik-Forschungsprogramm.
  21. [Rit73]
    Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [Roe08]
    Roelofsen, A., Broerse, J. E., de Cock Buning, T., & Bunders, J. (2008). Exploring the future of ecological genomics: Integrating CTA with vision assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(3), 334–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [Ros05]
    Rosenthal, C. (2005). Making science and technology results public: A sociology of demos. In B. Latour & P. Weibel (Eds.), Making things public. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. [Sab07]
    Šabanović, S. (2007). Imagine all the robots: Developing a critical practice of cultural and disciplinary traversals in social robotics. Doctoral Thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.Google Scholar
  25. [Suc07]
    Suchman, L. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  26. [Suc11]
    Suchman, L. (2011). Subject objects. Feminist Theory, 12(2), 119–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [Suc14]
    Suchman, L. (2014). Humanizing humanity. Blogpost:
  28. [Tur17]
    Turkle, S. (2017). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Hachette.Google Scholar
  29. [Wag14]
    Wagner, C. (2014). Techno-imaginations and robot role models: Discussing the influence of popular culture on the development of next generation robots in Japan. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Conference on Universal Village, June 16–17, 2014, Boston.Google Scholar
  30. [Wee06]
    Weeks, J. (2006). Lay ethnography and unpopular culture. Working Paper 2006/47/OB, 2006.Google Scholar
  31. [Win08]
    Winthereik, B., Ross, N., & Strand, D. L. (2008). Making technology public: Challenging the notion of script through an e-health demonstration video. Information Technology & People, 21(2), 116–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [Win80]
    Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136.Google Scholar
  33. [Woo90]
    Woolgar, S. (1990). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. The Sociological Review, 38(1), 58–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Junior Research Group “Miteinander”, Media InformaticsUniversity of Technology ChemnitzChemnitzGermany

Personalised recommendations