Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35832932›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in robotics and AI2022

Improving Inclusivity in Robotics Design: An Exploration of Methods for Upstream Co-Creation.

Stevienna de Saille, Eva Kipnis, Stephen Potter, David Cameron, Calum J R Webb, Peter Winter, Peter O'Neill, Richard Gold, Kate Halliwell, Lyuba Alboul and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in robotics and AI, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Stevienna de SailleDepartment of Sociological Studies, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Eva KipnisManagement School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Stephen PotterCentre for Assistive Technology and Connected Healthcare (CATCH), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
David CameronInformation School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Calum J R WebbDepartment of Sociological Studies, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Peter WinterDepartment of Sociology, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Peter O'NeillDepartment of Computing, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Richard GoldIndependent Researcher, London, United Kingdom.
Kate HalliwellP4C, London, United Kingdom.
Lyuba AlboulDepartment of Robotics, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Andy J BellAdvanced Manufacturing Research Centre (AMRC), Rotherham, United Kingdom.
Andrew StrattonDepartment of Computer Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Jon McNamaraIBM Global, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Disabled people are often involved in robotics research as potential users of technologies which address specific needs. However, their more generalised lived expertise is not usually included when planning the overall design trajectory of robots for health and social care purposes. This risks losing valuable insight into the lived experience of disabled people, and impinges on their right to be involved in the shaping of their future care. This project draws upon the expertise of an interdisciplinary team to explore methodologies for involving people with disabilities in the early design of care robots in a way that enables incorporation of their broader values, experiences and expectations. We developed a comparative set of focus group workshops using Community Philosophy, LEGO® Serious Play® and Design Thinking to explore how people with a range of different physical impairments used these techniques to envision a "useful robot". The outputs were then workshopped with a group of roboticists and designers to explore how they interacted with the thematic map produced. Through this process, we aimed to understand how people living with disability think robots might improve their lives and consider new ways of bringing the fullness of lived experience into earlier stages of robot design. Secondary aims were to assess whether and how co-creative methodologies might produce actionable information for designers (or why not), and to deepen the exchange of social scientific and technical knowledge about feasible trajectories for robotics in health-social care. Our analysis indicated that using these methods in a sequential process of workshops with disabled people and incorporating engineers and other stakeholders at the Design Thinking stage could potentially produce technologically actionable results to inform follow-on proposals.

Indexed as

care robot acceptanceco-creation and co-productiondesign thinkingdisabled peoplelego serious playsocial aspects of roboticssocial robotsuser—centered design

Identifiers

PMID35832932
PMCPMC9272459

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.