Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Challenges and Benefits of Stewarding Disruptive Technology

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Book cover The Palgrave Handbook of the Public Servant

  • 1855 Accesses

Abstract

Robotic technologies are increasingly becoming a core feature of many care services. Yet we lack high quality evidence about the most effective ways to steward these technologies. This is problematic because a number of ethical concerns have been raised with respect to these disruptive technologies. This chapter examines the use of robots in different care relationships in Australia and New Zealand, particularly in terms of the ethical implications of these technologies. Our findings demonstrate there are concerns relating to a lack of definitional clarity surrounding these technologies and also a range of different ethical challenges associated with their use. We then go on to argue that there are particular actions that governments can take to address these concerns and develop effective regulatory and legislative frameworks, namely, engaging with a variety of stakeholders to ensure decisions are informed by the research evidence base and the experiences and needs of the carers and those cared for. Responsive regulation should be informed by multiple stakeholders, forward thinking in generating research, and curate an up-to date research repository to inform public servants in their decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Australian Government Productivity Commission. 2017. National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) costs. Productivity commission position paper overview and recommendations. Productivity Commission: Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaikie, N. 2010. Designing social research. 2nd ed. Boston: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, J. 2008. Regulatory capitalism: How it works, ideas for making it work better. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Broekens, J., M. Heerink, and H. Rosendal. 2009. Assistive social robots in elderly care: A review. Geron 8 (2): 94–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrows, Stephanie, Alexander Butchart, Nadia Butler, Zara Quigg, Mark A. Bellis, and Christopher Mikton. 2017. New WHO violence prevention information system, an interactive knowledge platform of scientific findings on violence. Injury Prevention 24 (2): 155–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, Gemma, H. Dickinson, Eleanor Malbon, and Daniel Reeders. 2018. The vexed question of market stewardship in the public sector: Examining equity and the social contract through the Australian National Disabiity Insurance Scheme. Social Policy and Administration 51 (1): 387–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coeckelbergh, M. 2010. Health care, capabilities, and AI assistive technology. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13 (2): 181–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Care robots and the future of ICT-mediated elderly care: A response to doom scenarios. AI & SOCIETY 31 (4): 455–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, H., Catherine Smith, Nicole Carey, and Gemma Carey. 2018. Robots and the delivery of care services: What is the role for government in stewarding disruptive innovation? Melbourne: ANZSOG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N., and A. Honneth. 2003. Redistribution or recognition. London: Verso Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Génova, G., and M.R. González. 2017. Educational encounters of the third kind. Science and Engineering Ethics 23: 1791–1800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glasby, Jon, and H. Dickinson. 2014. Partnership working in health and social care: What is integrated care and how can we deliver it? 2nd ed. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gunkel, David J. 2012. The machine question: Critical perspectives on AI, robot and ethics. London: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgkin, Suzanne, Jeni Warburton, Pauline Savy, and Melissa Moore. 2017. Workforce crisis in residential aged care: Insights from rural, older workers. Australian Journal of Public Administration 76 (1): 93–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IEEE. 2019. Ethically aligned design: A vision for prioritizing human well-being with autonomous and intelligent systems. Available from https://standards.ieee.org/content/ieee-standards/en/industry-connections/ec/autonomous-systems.html. Accessed 17 Aug 2019.

  • Ienca, M., F. Jotterance, C. Viča, and B. Elger. 2016. Social and assistive robotics in de- mentia care: Ethical recommendations for research and practice. International Journal of Social Robotics 8 (4): 565–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamal, Arif H., Janet H. Bull, Keith M. Swetz, Steven O. Wolk, Tait D. Shanafelt, and Evan R. Myers. 2017. Future of the palliative care workforce: Preview to an impending crisis. The American Journal of Medicine 130 (2): 113–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Körtner, T. 2016. Ethical challenges in the use of social service robots for elderly people. Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriartrie 49 (4): 303–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Low, Jacqueline. 2013. Unstructured and semi-structured interviews in health research. In Researching health: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods, ed. Mike Saks and Judith Allsop. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malle, Bertram F. 2016. Integrating robot ethics and machine morality: The study and design of moral competence in robots. Ethics and Information Technology 18: 243–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon, K., D. Marsh, H. Dickinson, and Gemma Carey. 2017. Is all stewardship equal? Developing a typology of stewardship approaches. Canberra: Public Service Research Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. 2006. Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palinkas, Lawrence A., Sarah M. Horwitz, Carla A. Green, Jennifer P. Wisdom, Naihua Duan, and Kimberly Hoagwood. 2015. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementaton research. Administration and Policy in Mental Helth and Mental Health Services 42 (5): 533–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, R., C. Coss, and J. Quinn. 2017. Exploration of relational factors and the likelihood of a sexual robotic experience. In Love and sex with robots, ed. A.D. Cheok, K. Devlin, and D. Levy, 97–103. London: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rosch-Villaronga, E., and J. Albo-Canals. 2019. “I’ll take care of you,” said the robot. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioural Robotics 10 (1): 77–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheutz, Matthias. 2011. The inherent dangers of unidirectional emotional bonds between humans and social robots. In Robot ethics: The ethical and social implications of robotics, ed. P. Lin, K. Abney, and G.A. Bekey. London: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharkey, Amanda, and Noel Sharkey. 2012. Granny and the robots: Ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics and Information Technology 14 (1): 27–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shatzer, J. 2013. A posthuman liturgy? Virtual worlds, robotics, and human flourishing. The New Bioethics 19 (1): 46–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinoo, C.S., O.A.B.. van der Pal, A. Keizer Henkemans, P.P.B. Bierman, R. Looije, and M.A. Neerincx. 2018. Friendship with a robot: Children’s perception of similarity between a robot’s physical and virtual embodiment that support diabetes self-management. Patient Education and Counselling 101 (7): 1248–1255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Jonathan A. 1995. Semi-structured interviewing and qualitative analysis. In Rethinking methods in psychology, ed. Jonathan A. Smith, Rom Harré, and Luk Van Langenhove, 9–26. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorrell, Tom, and Heather Draper. 2014. Robot carers, ethics, and older people. Ethics and Information Technology 16 (3): 183–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparrow, R., and L. Sparrow. 2006. In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds and Machines 16 (2): 141–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparrow, Robert. 2015. Robots in aged care: A dystopian future? AI & Society 31 (4): 445–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparrow, Robert, and Mark Howard. 2017. When human beings are like drunk robots: Driverless vehicles, ethics, and the future of transport. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 80 (July): 206–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. 1987. Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tronto, Joan C. 1993. Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. Caring democracy: Markets, equality and justice. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umberson, D., and J. Karas Montez. 2010. Social relationships and health: A flashpoint for health policy. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 51 (1): S54–S66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vallor, Shannon. 2011. Carebots and caregivers: Sustaining the ethical ideal of care in the twenty-first century. Philosophy and Technology 24 (3): 251–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandemeulebroucke, T., D. Dierckx de Casterlé, and C. Gastmans. 2018. How do older adults experience and perceive socially assistive robots in aged care: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Aging and Metal Health 22 (2): 149–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Wynsberghe, Aimee. 2015. Healthcare robots: Ethics, design and implementation. Abingdon: Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016. Service robots, care ethics, and design. Ethics and Information Technology 18: 311–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

    Catherine Smith

  2. Public Service Research Group, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Canberra, ACT, Australia

    Helen Dickinson

  3. Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA

    Nicole Carey

  4. Centre for Social Impact, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Gemma Carey

Authors
  1. Catherine Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Helen Dickinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicole Carey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gemma Carey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine Smith .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia

    Helen Sullivan

  2. Public Service Research Group, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Canberra, ACT, Australia

    Helen Dickinson

  3. Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia

    Hayley Henderson

Section Editor information

  1. University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Gemma Carey

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Smith, C., Dickinson, H., Carey, N., Carey, G. (2021). The Challenges and Benefits of Stewarding Disruptive Technology. In: Sullivan, H., Dickinson, H., Henderson, H. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of the Public Servant. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29980-4_56

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation