Technological Frames and Care Robots in Eldercare

Abstract

Abstract Care robots are often portrayed as an exciting new technology for improving care practices. Whether these robots will be accepted and integrated into care work or not, is likely to be affected by the assumptions, expectations and understandings held by potential end users, such as frontline staff and the people that are cared for. This paper describes how the conceptual framework of technological frames was used to identifythe nature of care robots,care robots in useandcare robot strategyas shared group level assumptions, expectations and understandings of care robots among care staff and potential care receivers. Focus groups were conducted with 94 participants. These groups consisted of line managers, frontline care staff, older people and students training to become carers. The technological frame ofthe nature of care robotsrevealed two complementary components: care robots as a threat to the quality of care, and care robots as substitute for humans and human care, held together by imaginaries of care robots. The technological frame ofcare robots in userevealed aspects of prospective end-users’ uncertainty of their ability to handle care robots, and their own perceived lack of competence and knowledge about care robots. In addition, the following potential criteria for successful use of care robots were identified: adequate training, incentives for usage (needs and motives), usability, accessibility and finances. The technological frame ofcare robot strategywas revealed as believed cost savings and staff reduction. The novelty of the results, and their relevance for science and practice, is derived from the theoretical framework which indicates that adoption of care robots will be dependent on how well societies succeed in collectively shaping congruent technological frames among different stakeholders and aligning technological development accordingly.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 75 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.