Categories Luxury

The atypical interactant in a framework of participation in intelligent home care – Saul Albert


This article contributes to research on the role of technology in “atypical” interactions by examining a situation in which technology assumes the stigma of the atypical. Building on our analysis, we argue that this approach provides a model for research and development of assistive technologies that moves away from the techno-medical model and focuses on how typicality (and atypicality) are obtained in an interactional manner.

References

  • Alač, M., Gluzman, Y., Aflatoun, T., Bari, A., Jing, B. and Mozqueda, G. (2020). How daily interactions with digital voice assistants resist a return to the individual. Event aesthetics, 9(1), 51.
  • Albert, S., Hamann, M. and Stokoe, E. (2023). Conversational User Interfaces in Smart Homecare Interactions: A Conversation Analysis Case Study. In ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (CUI’23),
  • July 19-21, 2023, Eindhoven, Netherlands. ACM, New York, NY, USA 12
  • Amazon Echo (director). (2019). Amazon Echo and Alexa – Morning Ritual (60s).
  • Amazon Echo (director). (2019). Amazon Alexa: Sharing is Caring.
  • Antaki, C. and Wilkinson, R. (2012). Conversation analysis and study of atypical populations. In The Conversation Analysis Handbook (pages 533 to 550). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
  • Barnes, S. and Bloch, S. (2020). Communication disorders, enchronia and other participation in repair. Clinical linguistics and phonetics, 34(10-11), 887-893.
  • Bedaf, S., Gelderblom, GJ, de Witte, L., Syrdal, D., Lehmann, H., Amirabdollahian, F., Dautenhahn, K. and Hewson, D. (2013). Service selection for a service robot: assessment of problematic activities threatening the autonomy of elderly people. 2013 13th IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR)1–6.
  • Bottema-Beutel, K., Kapp, SK, Lester, JN, Sasson, NJ and Hand, BN (2021). Avoiding ableist language: Suggestions for autism researchers. Autism in adulthood, 3(1), 18-29.
  • Ekberg, K., Hickson, L., and Lind, C. (2020). Practices for negotiating responsibility for interaction problems involving people with hearing loss. In R. Wilkinson, JP Rae and G. Rasmussen (eds.), Atypical interaction: the impact of communication disorders in daily conversation (pages 409 to 433). Springer International Publishing.
  • García-Soler, Á., Facal, D., Díaz-Orueta, U., Pigini, L., Blasi, L. and Qiu, R. (2018). Inclusion of service robots in the daily lives of frail elderly users: a step-by-step process of defining user needs. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 74191-196.
  • Goodwin, C. (2007). Interactive foot. In E. Holt and R. Clift (eds.), Discussion of reports (pp. 16-46). Cambridge University Press.
  • Jackson, L., Haagaard, A. and Williams, R. (2022). Dongle for disabled people | Platypus.
  • Kachouie, R., Sedighadeli, S., Khosla, R. and Chu, M.-T. (2014). Social assistance robots in elderly care: a systematic mixed-methods literature review. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 30(5), 369-393.
  • Kendrick, K.H. and Drew, P. (2015). Recruitment: offers, requests and organization of interactive assistance. Research on language and social interaction, 49(1), 1-19.
  • Maguire, D., Honeyman, M., Fenney, D. and Jabbal, J. (2021). Shaping the future of digital technology in health and social care. The King’s Fund.
  • Porcheron, M., Fischer, JE, Reeves, S. and Sharples, S. (2018). Voice interfaces in everyday life. Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’18).
  • Robinson, J.D. (2006). Managing problem responsibility and relationships during conversational repair. Communication monographs, 73(2), 137-161.
  • Bags, H. (1984). Make “be ordinary”. In J. Heritage and J. M. Atkinson (Eds.), Structures of social action: studies in conversation analysis (pp. 413-429). Cambridge University Press.
  • Scherer, M. J. (2020). It’s time to embrace the biopsychosocialtech model. Disability and rehabilitation: assistive technologies, 15(4), 363-364.
  • Tuisku, O., Pekkarinen, S., Hennala, L. and Melkas, H. (2018). “Robots do not replace a nurse with a beating heart”: Publicity around a robotic innovation in elderly care. Information technology and people, 32(1), 47-67.
  • White, GW, Lloyd Simpson, J., Gonda, C., Ravesloot, C. and Coble, Z. (2010). Moving from independence to interdependence: A conceptual model to better understand community participation in independent living consumer centers. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20(4), 233-240.
  • Wilkinson, R. (2019). Atypical interaction: conversation analysis and communication disorders. Research on language and social interaction, 52(3), 281-299.
  • Wright, J. (2019). Robots against migrants? Reconfiguring the future of institutional care for the elderly in Japan. Critical Asian Studies, 51(3), 331-354.
  • Wright, J. (2023). Robots Won’t Save Japan: An Ethnography of Elderly Care Automation. ILR Press, an imprint of Cornell University Press.



Technology

More From Author