IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/geronb/v75y2020i9p1996-2007..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Ethics of Socially Assistive Robots in Aged Care. A Focus Group Study With Older Adults in Flanders, Belgium

Author

Listed:
  • Tijs Vandemeulebroucke
  • Bernadette Dierckx de Casterlé
  • Laura Welbergen
  • Michiel Massart
  • Chris Gastmans
  • Deborah Carr

Abstract

ObjectivesSocially assistive robots (SARs) need to be studied from older adults’ perspective, given their predicted future ubiquity in aged-care settings. Current ethical discourses on SARs in aged care are uninformed by primary stakeholders’ ethical perceptions. This study reports on what community-dwelling older adults in Flanders, Belgium, perceive as ethical issues of SARs in aged care.MethodsConstructivist grounded theory guided the study of 9 focus groups of 59 community-dwelling older adults (70+ years) in Flanders, Belgium. An open-ended topic guide and a modified Alice Cares documentary focused discussions. The Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven (QUAGOL) guided data analysis.ResultsData revealed older adults’ multidimensional perceptions on the ethics of SARs which were structured along three sections: (a) SARs as components of a techno-societal evolution, (b) SARs’ embeddedness in aged-care dynamics, (c) SARs as embodiments of ethical considerations.DiscussionPerceptions sociohistorically contextualize the ethics of SAR use by older adults’ views on societal, organizational, and relational contexts in which aged care takes place. These contexts need to inform the ethical criteria for the design, development, and use of SARs. Focusing on older adults’ ethical perceptions creates “normativity in place,” viewing participants as moral subjects.

Suggested Citation

  • Tijs Vandemeulebroucke & Bernadette Dierckx de Casterlé & Laura Welbergen & Michiel Massart & Chris Gastmans & Deborah Carr, 2020. "The Ethics of Socially Assistive Robots in Aged Care. A Focus Group Study With Older Adults in Flanders, Belgium," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 75(9), pages 1996-2007.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:geronb:v:75:y:2020:i:9:p:1996-2007.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/geronb/gbz070
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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:oup:geronb:v:75:y:2020:i:9:p:1996-2007.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/psychsocgerontology .

    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.