IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v365y2025ics0277953624010414.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ambiguous animals, ambivalent carers and arbitrary care collectives: Re-theorizing resistance to social robots in healthcare

Author

Listed:
  • Ahlin, Tanja
  • Mann, Anna

Abstract

Many countries are under pressure because of lack of healthcare staff to provide care to an increasingly aged population. Potential solutions are often sought through technological innovation, including social robots to cater to the patients' emotional needs. Despite significant financial investments in social robots, they have not been implemented at a larger scale. One reason commonly cited for this is the resistance of healthcare staff. Drawing on an ethnographic case study of a social robot Paro in an Austrian hospital, we nuance resistance to robots through the heuristic of ambivalence. We argue that the ontological ambiguity of an animal-looking robot provokes highly ambivalent reactions among healthcare staff. Additionally, these reactions are shaped by how the social robot interferes with different professions and the forms of care that they provide. Finally, we show that non-significant others, such as fellow patients, can importantly impact the (dis)use of social robots, an influence which occurs through what we call ‘arbitrary care collectives.’

Suggested Citation

  • Ahlin, Tanja & Mann, Anna, 2025. "Ambiguous animals, ambivalent carers and arbitrary care collectives: Re-theorizing resistance to social robots in healthcare," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 365(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:365:y:2025:i:c:s0277953624010414
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117587
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953624010414
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117587?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:365:y:2025:i:c:s0277953624010414. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.