Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Replacement of Highly Educated Surgical Assistants by Robot Technology in Working Life: Paradigm Shift in the Service Sector

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article highlights the thus far unexplained social and professional effects raised by robotization in surgical applications, and further develops an understanding of social acceptance among professional users of robots in the healthcare sector. It presents findings from ethnographic workplace research on human-robot interactions (HRI) in a population of twenty-three professionals. When considering all the findings, the latest da Vinci system equipped with four robotic arms substitutes two table-side surgical assistants, in contrast to the single-arm AESOP robot that only substitutes one surgical assistant. The adoption of robots and the replacement of surgical assistants provide clear evidence that robots are well-accepted among operating surgeons. Because HRI decrease the operating surgeon’s dependence on social assistance and since they replace the work tasks of surgical assistants, the robot is considered a surrogate artificial work partner and worker. This finding is consistent with prior HRI research indicating that users, through their cooperation with robots, often become less reliant on supportive social actions. This research relates to societal issues and provides the first indication that highly educated knowledge workers are beginning to be replaced by robot technology in working life and therefore points towards a paradigm shift in the service sector.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Broadbent E, Stafford R, MacDonald B (2009) Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. Int J Soc Robot 1(4):319–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wasen K (2005) Person-friendly robot interaction: social, psychological and technological issues in health care work. In: Proc 14th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, August 13–15, Nashville, USA, pp 643–648

  3. Kiesler S, Hinds P (2004) Introduction to this special issue on human-robot interaction. Hum-Comput Interact 19:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wasen K (2004) Multi-disciplinary socio-technical management: integrating robot technology and management issues. In: Proceedings, IEEE 21st international symposium on automation and robotics in construction, September 21–25, Jeju, South Korea, pp 21–24

  5. Fox NJ (1992) The social meaning of surgery. Open University Press, Milton Keynes

    Google Scholar 

  6. Conger K (2004) Remote control. Stanf Med Mag. Online edition http://mednews.stanford.edu/stanmed/2004Spring/robots.html

  7. Severinson-Eklundh K, Green A, Huttenrauch H (2003) Social and collaborative aspects of interaction with a service robot. Robot Auton Syst 42(3–4):223–234

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Yanco HA, Drury JL, Scholtz J (2004) Beyond usability evaluation: analysis of human-robot interaction at a major robotics competition. Hum-Comput Interact 19(1–2):117–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Weiss A, Wurhofer D, Lankes M, Tscheligi M (2009) Autonomous vs. tele-operated: how people perceive human-robot collaboration with HRP-2. In: Proc of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction, March 11–13, La Jolla, California, USA, pp 257–258

  10. Young JE, Hawkins R, Sharlin E, Igarashi T (2009) Toward acceptable domestic robots: applying insights from social psychology. Int J Soc Robot 1(1):95–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wasen K (2008) Robotkirurgisk Tjansteproduktion–Distanserad Narhet. Doctoral thesis in Swedish with English summary: Robot surgery—remote closeness providing a new method of human-robot interaction within top-level service production, University of Gothenburg, School of Business, Economics and Law

  12. Dautenhahn K (2004) Robots we like to live with?!—A developmental perspective on a personalized, life-long robot companion. In: Proceedings IEEE Roman 2004, 13th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, 20–22 September 2004, Kurashiki, Okayama, Japan. IEEE Press, New York, pp  17–22

    Google Scholar 

  13. Haasch A, Hohenner S, Hüwel S, Kleinehagenbrock M, Lang S, Toptsis I, Fink GA, Fritsch J, Wrede B, Sagerer G (2004) BIRON—the bielefeld robot companion. In: Prassler E, Lawitzky G, Fiorini P, Hägele M (eds) Proc international workshop on advances in service robotics, Stuttgart, Germany, May 2004. Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, Stuttgart, pp 27–32.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Wrede B, Haasch A, Hofemann N, Hohenner S, Hüwel S, Kleinehagenbrock M, Lang S, Li S, Toptsis I, Fink GA, Fritsch J, Sagerer G (2004) Research issues for designing robot companions: BIRON as a case study. In: Proc IEEE conference on mechatronics & robotics

  15. Breazeal C, Buchsbaum D, Gray J, Gatenby D, Blumberg B (2005) Learning from and about others: towards using imitation to bootstrap the social understanding of others by robots. Artif Life 11(1–2):31–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Nakauchi Y, Simmons R (2002) A social robot that stands in line. Auton Robots 12(3):313–324

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Hinds PJ, Roberts TL, Jones H (2004) Whose job is it anyway? A study of human–robot interaction in a collaborative task. Hum Comput Interact 17:151–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Marble JL, Bruemmer DJ, Few DA, Dudenhoeffer DD (2004). Evaluation of supervisory vs. peer-peer interaction for human-robot teams. In: Proc 37th annual Hawaii international conference on systems sciences, January 4–8, Big Island, Hawaii

  19. Yanco AY, Drury J (2004) Classifying human-robot interaction: an updated taxonomy. In: Proc IEEE int conference on systems, man and cybernetics, vol 3, 10–13 October, pp 2841–2846

  20. Salter T, Dautenhahn K, Boekhorst R (2006) Learning about natural human–robot interaction styles. Robot Auton Syst 54(2):127–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kuzuoka H, Furusawa Y, Kobayashi N, Yamazaki K (2007) Effect of displaying a remote operator’s face on a media robot. In: Int conference on control, automation and systems, vol 1–6, 17–20 October, pp 2409–2412

  22. Bicionek SR (1995) Agent systems that negotiate and learn. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 42:265–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hauptmann AG, Rudnicky AI (1988) Talking to computers: an empirical investigation. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 28:583–604

    Google Scholar 

  24. Nass C, Moon Y (2000) Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J Soc Issues 56(1):81–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Nass C, Steuer J, Henriksen L, Dryer DC (1994) Machines, social attributions, and ethopoeia: performance assessments of computers subsequent to “self”- or “other”-evaluations. Int J Hum Comput Stud 40:543–559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Murphy RR (2004) Human-robot interaction in rescue robotics. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C Appl Rev 34(2):138–153

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  28. Geertz C (1973) The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  29. Patton M (1980) Qualitative evaluation methods. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  30. van Maanen J (1988) Tales of the field: on writing ethnography. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hemal AK, Menon M (2002) Laparoscopy, robot, telesurgery and urology: future perspective. E-Medicine 48(1):39–41

    Google Scholar 

  32. Aanestad M, Edwin B, Marvik R (2003) Medical image quality as a socio-technical phenomenon. Methods Inf Med 42:302–306

    Google Scholar 

  33. Mondada L (2003) Working with video: how surgeons produce video records of their actions. Vis Stud 18:58–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Business & Design Lab, University of Gothenburg, Box 611, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Kristian Wasen

Authors
  1. Kristian Wasen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristian Wasen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wasen, K. Replacement of Highly Educated Surgical Assistants by Robot Technology in Working Life: Paradigm Shift in the Service Sector. Int J of Soc Robotics 2, 431–438 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0062-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0062-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation