Responsible domestic robotics: exploring ethical implications of robots in the home
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-12-2018-0096 |
| Pages | 246-272 |
| Published date | 13 May 2019 |
| Date | 13 May 2019 |
| Author | Lachlan Urquhart,Dominic Reedman-Flint,Natalie Leesakul |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information & communications technology |
Responsible domestic robotics:
exploring ethical implications of
robots in the home
Lachlan Urquhart
School of Law, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK and School of Computer
Science, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK, and
Dominic Reedman-Flint and Natalie Leesakul
School of Computer Science, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
Abstract
Purpose –The vision of robotics in the home promises increased convenience, comfort, companionship and
greater security for users. The robot industryrisks causing harm to users, beingrejectedbysocietyatlargeorbeing
regulated in overly prescriptive ways if robots are not developed in a socially responsible manner. The purpose of
this paper is to explore some of the challenges and requirements for designing responsible domestic robots.
Design/methodology/approach –The paper examines definitions of robotics and the current commercial
state of the art. In particular, it considers the emerging technological trends, such as smart homes, that are
already embedding computational agents in the fabric of everyday life. The paper then explores the role of values
in design, aligning with human computer interaction, and considers the importanceof the home as a deployment
setting for robots. The paper examines what responsibility in robotics means and draws lessons from past home
information technologies. An exploratory pilot survey was conducted to understand user concerns about
different aspects of domestic robots such as form, privacy and trust. The paper provides these findings, married
with literature analysis from across technology law, computer ethics and computer science.
Findings –By drawing together bothempirical observations and conceptual analysis, this paper concludes
that usercentric design is needed to create responsibledomestic robotics in the future.
Originality/value –This multidisciplinary paper provides conceptual and empirical research from
different domains to unpack the challenges of designing responsible domestic robotics. In doing this, the
paper seeks to bridge the gap between the normativedimensions of how responsible robots should be built,
and the practicaldimensions of how people want to live with them in context.
Keywords Social responsibility, Trust, Privacy, Robotics, Human–comp interaction
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction: the robots are coming
The vision of robotics in the home promise increased convenience, comfort, companionship
and greater security for users. However, the reality, and impact on users, may not always
The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of all project participants and all project
activities to the ideas that underpin this paper. The paper was presented at ETHICOMP 2018, and the
authors thank participants for their comments.
Funding: The research benefitted from the activities undertaken in: the “Moral-IT: Enabling Design of
Ethical and Legal IT Systems”project as part of the Horizon Digital Economy Research Institute (EPSRC
Grant EP/M02315X/1); RCUK Horizon Centre for Doctoral Training (EPSRC Grant EP/G037574/1).
Copyright: Copyright remains with the authors. This is an open access article distributed under the
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
JICES
17,2
246
Received3 December 2018
Revised29 January 2019
Accepted31 January 2019
Journalof Information,
Communicationand Ethics in
Society
Vol.17 No. 2, 2019
pp. 246-272
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1477-996X
DOI 10.1108/JICES-12-2018-0096
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1477-996X.htm
meet this vision. Fears of robotuprisings are peppered throughout decades of science fiction
literature and film (Higbie, 2013). However, visions of technological futures often say more
about the period they were writtenin, than actually forecasting what futures might emerge
(Reeves, 2012), as we have seen with computer science research into “ubicomp”(Bell and
Dourish, 2006). Whilst popular science and cultural visions of robots may not have fully
emerged, computational agents have most definitely left the lab and entered daily life in a
variety of forms. The Internet of Things (IoT) is incrementally making homes smarter by
embedding networked, ambient technologies with varying degrees of autonomy into the
physical and social fabric of domestic life. These devices can be for security (smart CCTV
and locks), comfort (smart bulbsand thermostats) and entertainment (conversational agents
in smart speakers). These artefactsmay not all be “robots”in the popular sense of the word,
but they are restructuring interactions, social order and relationships in the home. As
domestic service robot technologies advance and become more commercially accessible, the
smart home will have already changed the domestic setting and laid the groundwork for
robots to assimilate. Accordingly,they need to learn from mistakes being made with smart
homes, including being designed in more user centric ways. It is important to understand
user concerns and respond to theseaccordingly, to create a more sustainable domestic robot
future.
Our paper structure firstly explores changing definitions of domestic robots before
considering human computer interaction perspectives on value sensitive, user centric and
contextually aware design in the home. Secondly, we unpack the nature of responsibility,
arguing roboticists need to understand and respond to user concerns. This often does not
occur currently, creating technologiesunfit for purpose and disruptive to the social order of
the home. We conclude by presenting user concerns from our small-scale exploratory
survey, focusingparticularly on trust, privacy and form of robots as keyhurdles for creating
responsible domestic robotics. We do this to bridge the gap between the normative
dimensions of how responsible robots should be built, and the practical dimensions of how
people want to live withthem in context.
2. Definitions
Standards are a good place to start navigating a definition of domestic robots, as they can
show what multiple stakeholder consensus is around a topic. The International Federation
of Robotics/United NationsEconomic Commission for Europe were influential in classifying
robots, culminating in the ISO standard 8373:2012 on Robots and Robotic devices. This
standard differentiates between, among others, industrial, mobile, service, personal service
and professionalservice robots. According to them, a robot is:
[...] an actuated mechanism programmable in two or more axes with a degree of autonomy,
moving within its environment, to perform intended tasks. Autonomy in this context means the
ability to perform intended tasks based on current state and sensing, without human intervention
(ISO 8373, s2.08).
We focus on “service robots”, which are “robot[s] that perform useful tasks for humans or
equipment excluding industrial automation applications”(ISO 8373, s2.10) and particularly
the sub category of “personal service robots”;“service robots for personal use [...]used for a
non-commercial task, usually by lay persons [...](i.e.) domestic servant robot, automated
wheelchair, personal mobility assist robot, and pet exercising robot”(ISO 8373, s2.11). As we
can see, these definitions foregroundthe materiality of the artefact (i.e. being able to actuate
physically), the varying degrees of autonomy they possess to shape the environment, the
relationship of utilityto humans and the split between industrial and personal.
Responsible
domestic
robotics
247
To continue reading
Request your trial