Roboticists’ Imaginaries of Robots for Care: The Radical Imaginary as a Tool for an Ethical Discussion

IF 2 3区工程技术 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES

Engineering Studies Pub Date : 2020-09-01 DOI:10.1080/19378629.2020.1821695

Núria Vallès-Peris, Miquel Doménech

{"title":"Roboticists’ Imaginaries of Robots for Care: The Radical Imaginary as a Tool for an Ethical Discussion","authors":"Núria Vallès-Peris, Miquel Doménech","doi":"10.1080/19378629.2020.1821695","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper we analyze imaginaries about care robots using a set of interviews with roboticists. The study of imaginaries – from a notion close to that of Castoriadis’s radical imaginary – is used as a tool to unravel ethical, political and social concerns that care robots entail. From the analysis of the interviews, our results highlight that imaginaries regarding care robots are predominantly sustained by a social process of care fragmentation. The translation of the imaginary of industry robots into the wildness of the daily life in healthcare reconfigures the comprehension of robots and their mediations. This process is intensively linked to Human Robot Collaboration (HRC) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) imaginaries of care, based on the cult of domesticity and the opposition of human caring to rational caring. We see how these fragmentations are in tension with an approach that seeks to integrate the ethics of care with technoscience, which has relevant consequences for the ethical debate on care robotics and the political significance of care in our world.","PeriodicalId":49207,"journal":{"name":"Engineering Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/19378629.2020.1821695","citationCount":"23","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Engineering Studies","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2020.1821695","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 23

Abstract

In this paper we analyze imaginaries about care robots using a set of interviews with roboticists. The study of imaginaries – from a notion close to that of Castoriadis’s radical imaginary – is used as a tool to unravel ethical, political and social concerns that care robots entail. From the analysis of the interviews, our results highlight that imaginaries regarding care robots are predominantly sustained by a social process of care fragmentation. The translation of the imaginary of industry robots into the wildness of the daily life in healthcare reconfigures the comprehension of robots and their mediations. This process is intensively linked to Human Robot Collaboration (HRC) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) imaginaries of care, based on the cult of domesticity and the opposition of human caring to rational caring. We see how these fragmentations are in tension with an approach that seeks to integrate the ethics of care with technoscience, which has relevant consequences for the ethical debate on care robotics and the political significance of care in our world.

查看原文本刊更多论文

机器人专家对护理机器人的想象:作为伦理讨论工具的激进想象

在本文中，我们通过对机器人专家的一系列采访来分析关于护理机器人的想象。对想象的研究——从一个接近Castoriadis激进想象的概念——被用作解开护理机器人所带来的伦理、政治和社会问题的工具。从对访谈的分析中，我们的结果强调了关于护理机器人的想象主要是由护理碎片化的社会过程维持的。将工业机器人的想象转化为医疗保健日常生活的野性，重新配置了对机器人及其调解的理解。这一过程与人类机器人协作(HRC)和人工智能(AI)对护理的想象密切相关，这些想象基于对家庭生活的崇拜和人类对理性护理的反对。我们看到这些碎片是如何与一种寻求将护理伦理与技术科学相结合的方法相矛盾的，这对关于护理机器人的伦理辩论和我们世界中护理的政治意义产生了相关的影响。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Engineering Studies ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

CiteScore

3.60

自引率

17.60%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Engineering Studies is an interdisciplinary, international journal devoted to the scholarly study of engineers and engineering. Its mission is threefold: 1. to advance critical analysis in historical, social, cultural, political, philosophical, rhetorical, and organizational studies of engineers and engineering; 2. to help build and serve diverse communities of researchers interested in engineering studies; 3. to link scholarly work in engineering studies with broader discussions and debates about engineering education, research, practice, policy, and representation. The editors of Engineering Studies are interested in papers that consider the following questions: • How does this paper enhance critical understanding of engineers or engineering? • What are the relationships among the technical and nontechnical dimensions of engineering practices, and how do these relationships change over time and from place to place?