Who Owns the Robot?: Four Ethical and Socio-Technical Questions About Wellbeing Robots in the Real World Through Community Engagement

Recent studies indicated that robotic coaches can play a crucial role in promoting wellbeing. However, the real-world deployment of wellbeing robots raises numerous ethical and socio-technical questions and concerns. To explore these questions, we undertake a community-centered investigation to examine three different communities' perspectives on the ethical questions related to using robotic wellbeing coaches in real-world environments. We frame our work as an anticipatory ethical investigation, which we undertake to better inform the development of robotic technologies with communities' opinions, with the ultimate goal of aligning robot development with public interest. In our study, we conducted interviews and workshops with three communities who are under-represented in robotics development: 1) members of the public at a science festival, 2) women computer scientists at a conference, and 3) humanities researchers interested in history and philosophy of science. In the workshops, we collected qualitative data by using the Social Robot Co-Design Canvas on Ethics, which participants filled in individually. We used this tool as it is designed to investigate ethical issues of robots with multiple stakeholders. We analysed the collected qualitative data with Thematic Analysis, informed by notes we took during the workshops. Through our analysis, we identify four themes regarding key ethical and socio-technical questions about the real-world use of wellbeing robots. We group participants' insights and discussions around these broad thematic questions, discuss them in light of state-of-the-art literature, and highlight areas for future investigation. Finally, we provide the four questions as a broad framework that roboticists can and should use during robotic development and deployment, in order to reflect on the ethics and socio-technical dimensions of their robotic applications, and to engage in dialogue with communities of robot users. The four questions are: 1) Is the robot safe and how can we know that?, 2) Who is the robot built for and with?, 3) Who owns the robot and the data?, and 4) Why a robot?.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society
Published
2025-10-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1609/aies.v8i1.36546
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.37

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Who Owns the Robot?: Four Ethical and Socio-Technical Questions About Wellbeing Robots in the Real World Through Community Engagement

Minja Axelsson, Rune Nyrup, Jiaee Cheong, Hatice Güneş
1 citations
Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
2.37
article

Who Owns the Robot?: Four Ethical and Socio-Technical Questions About Wellbeing Robots in the Real World Through Community Engagement

Minja Axelsson, Rune Nyrup, Jiaee Cheong, Hatice Güneş
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Recent studies indicated that robotic coaches can play a crucial role in promoting wellbeing. However, the real-world deployment of wellbeing robots raises numerous ethical and socio-technical questions and concerns. To explore these questions, we undertake a community-centered investigation to examine three different communities' perspectives on the ethical questions related to using robotic wellbeing coaches in real-world environments. We frame our work as an anticipatory ethical investigation, which we undertake to better inform the development of robotic technologies with communities' opinions, with the ultimate goal of aligning robot development with public interest. In our study, we conducted interviews and workshops with three communities who are under-represented in robotics development: 1) members of the public at a science festival, 2) women computer scientists at a conference, and 3) humanities researchers interested in history and philosophy of science. In the workshops, we collected qualitative data by using the Social Robot Co-Design Canvas on Ethics, which participants filled in individually. We used this tool as it is designed to investigate ethical issues of robots with multiple stakeholders. We analysed the collected qualitative data with Thematic Analysis, informed by notes we took during the workshops. Through our analysis, we identify four themes regarding key ethical and socio-technical questions about the real-world use of wellbeing robots. We group participants' insights and discussions around these broad thematic questions, discuss them in light of state-of-the-art literature, and highlight areas for future investigation. Finally, we provide the four questions as a broad framework that roboticists can and should use during robotic development and deployment, in order to reflect on the ethics and socio-technical dimensions of their robotic applications, and to engage in dialogue with communities of robot users. The four questions are: 1) Is the robot safe and how can we know that?, 2) Who is the robot built for and with?, 3) Who owns the robot and the data?, and 4) Why a robot?.

Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and SocietyVol. 8(1)
Aarhus University (DK), University of Cambridge (GB), Harvard University Press (US)
Wellcome Trust, Leverhulme Trust, Emil Aaltosen Säätiö, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
2.37
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.