Working with Robotic Animals in Dementia Care: The Significance of Caregivers’ Competences
Keywords:Health, Working Environment & Wellbeing, Learning & Competencies, Innovation & Productivity, Identity, Meaning & Culture
Robotic animals are increasingly discussed as a solution to challenges connected to the aging population and limited resources in care. While previous research focuses on the robots’ effect on the patients’ well-being, there is a general lack of knowledge regarding the hands-on experience of caregivers’ use of robots. Therefore, the aim of the study is to explore the competences that caregivers draw upon when facilitating interaction between residents and robots. The study was conducted through ethnographic observations and interviews with caregivers at dementia care homes in Sweden. The notion of ‘competence’ is understood as knowledge about the ways of working and social norms that are valued within a community of practice, which members develop through engagement in the community. The findings show that caregivers’ use of robotic animals as caregiving tools rests on embodied, social, and ethical competences.
Abbott, R., Orr, N., McGill, P., Whear, R., Bethel, A., Garside, R., Stein, K. & Thompson-Coon, J. (2019). How do "robopets" impact the health and well-being of residents in care homes? A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence. International Journal of Older People Nursing, 14(3): e12239. doi: http://doi.org/10.1111/opn.12239
Ajslev, J.Z.N., Højbjerg, H., Andersen, M.F., Andersen, L.L. & Poulsen, O.M. (2019). Occupational identities and physical exertion in (re)configurations of new technologies in eldercare. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 9(4): 19–37. doi: http://doi.org/10.18291/njwls.v9i4.117778
Alvesson, M. (2004). Knowledge Work and Knowledge-Intensive Firms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) (2008). The essentials of baccalaureate education for professional nursing practice. Washington: AACN. https://www.aacnnursing.org/portals/42/publications/baccessentials08.pdf
Aspers, P. (2007). Etnografiska metoder (Ethnographic Methods). Malmö: Liber.
Beedholm, K., Frederiksen, K., Frederiksen, A.M.S. & Lomborg, K. (2015). Attitudes to a robot bathtub in Danish elder care: A hermeneutic interview study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 17(3): 280–286. http://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12184
Bradwell, H.L., Edwards, K., Shenton, D., Winnington, R., Thill, S. & Jones, R.B. (2021). User-centered design of companion robot pets involving care home resident-robot interactions and focus groups with residents, staff, and family: Qualitative study. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 8(4): e30337. doi: http://doi.org/10.2196/30337
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2): 77–101. doi: http://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Castillo, J. (2002). A note on the concept of tacit knowledge. Journal of Management Inquiry, 11: 46–57. doi: http://doi.org/10.1177%2F1056492602111018
Chrzan-Rodak, A., Ślusarska, B., Nowicki, G., Ogórek, M., Zarzycka, D., Niedorys, B. & Dziedzic, E. (2019). Selected socio-demographic and work-related determinants of the social competence of professionally active nurses. Nursing in the 21st Century, 18 (1): 12–20. https://doi.org/10.2478/pielxxiw-2019-0006
la Cour, A. & Højlund, H. (2019). Untimely welfare technologies. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 9(5): 69–87. doi: http://doi.org/10.18291/njwls.v9iS5.112688
Dag, M., Svanelöv, E. & Gustafsson, C. (2017). Experiences of using Bestic, an eating aid for people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 21(1): 87–98. doi: http://doi.org/10.1177/1744629515623167
Dautenhahn, K., Woods, S., Kaouri, C., Walters, M., Koay, K.L. & Werry, I. (2005). What is a robot companion—friend, assistant, or butler? In Proc. IEEE IRS/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2005), Edmonton, Canada, pp. 1488-1493. Piscataway: IEEE Press.
Dewey, J. & Bentley, A. F. (1949). Knowing and the Known. Boston: The Beacon Press
Edlund, P., Lövgren, D. & Thorén, C. (2021). Från ideal till golv: Marknadslika reformer i mötet med dagens äldreomsorg. (From ideals to floor: Market-like reforms in the face of today’s elderly care). Stockholm: SCORE.
Engeström, Y. (1993). Development studies of work as a test bench of activity theory: the case of primary care medical practice. In Chaiklin, S. and Lave, J. (Eds.), Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity and Context, pp. 64–103. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fejes, A. & Nicoll, K. (2010). A vocational calling: exploring a caring technology in elderly care. Pedagogy. Culture & Society, 18(3): 353–370. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2010.504646
Frennert, S. & Östlund, B. (2018). Narrative review: Welfare Technologies in Eldercare. Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies, 6(1): 21–34. doi: http://doi.org/10.5324/njsts.v6i1.2518
Fritz, H.L. (2020). Why are humor styles associated with well-being, and does social competence matter? Examining relations to psychological and physical well-being, reappraisal, and social support. Personality and Individual Differences, 154, Article 109641. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109641
Gadecka, W., Piskorz-Ogórek, K. & Regin, K.J. (2015). Social competence of mental health nurses. Polish Annals of Medicine, 22(2): 105-109. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poamed.2015.03.014
Gallagher, A. (2006). The teaching of nursing ethics: content and method. In: Davis A, Tschudin V & De Raeve L (eds) Essentials of teaching and learning in nursing ethics: perspectives and methods. London, UK: Churchill Living-stone, pp. 223–239.
Greenhalgh, M., Landis, J.M., Brown, J., Kulich, H., Bass, S., Alqahtani, S., Deepak, N., Cryzter, T.M., Grindle, G., Koontz, A.M. & Cooper, R.A. (2019). Assessment of usability and task load demand using a robot-assisted transfer device compared with a Hoyer advance for dependent wheelchair transfers. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 98(8): 729–734. doi: http://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0000000000001176
Gustafsson, C., Svanberg, C. & Müllersdorf, M. (2015). Using a robotic cat in dementia care. A pilot study. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 41(10): 46–56. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/00989134-20150806-44
Hasse, C. (2013). Artefacts that talk: Mediating technologies as multistable signs and tools. Subjectivity, 6(1): 79-100. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/sub.2012.29
Hasse, C. (2018). How robots challenge institutional practices. Learning. Culture and Social Interaction, 26: 100223. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.04.003
Hansen, A.M. & Grosen, S.L. (2019). Transforming bodywork in eldercare with wash-and-dry toilets. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies 9(5): 49–67. doi: http://doi.org/10.18291/njwls.v9iS5.112689
Hebesberger, D., Koertner, T., Gisinger, C. & Pripfl, J. (2017). A long-term autonomous robot at a care hospital: A mixed methods study on social acceptance and experiences of staff and older adults. International Journal of Social Robotics, 9(3): 417–429. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs12369-016-0391-6
Hudson, J., Orviska, M. & Hunday, J. (2016). People’s attitudes to robots in caring for the elderly. International Journal of Social Robotics, 9: 199-210. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0384-5
Huizinga, J. (1970). Homo Ludens: A study of the play element in culture. London: Maurice Temple Smith Ltd.
Hydén, L-C., Majlesi, A.R. & Ekström, A. (2022). Assisted eating in late-stage dementia: Intercorporeal interaction. Journal of Aging Studies, 61:101000. doi: 10.1016/j.jaging.2022.101000
Hydén, L-C. & Samuelsson, C. (2019). ‘So they are not alive?’: Dementia, reality disjunctions and conversational strategies. Dementia, 18(7-8): 2662–2678. doi: http://doi.org/10.1177/1471301217754012
Ihde, D. (2002). Bodies in Technology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Jung, M.M., van der Leij, L. & Kelders, S.M. (2017). An exploration of the benefits of an Animal like robot companion with more advanced touch interaction capabilities for dementia care. Frontiers in ICT, 4(16). doi: http://doi.org/10.3389/fict.2017.00016
Kamp, A., Obstfelder, A., & Andersson, K. (2019). Welfare technologies in care work. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 9(S5). doi: https://doi.org/10.18291/njwls.v9iS5.112692
Kangasniemi, M., Karki, S., Colley, N. & Voutilainen, A. (2019). The use of robots and other automated devices in nurses’ work: An integrative review. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 25(4). doi: http://doi.org/10.1111/ijn.12739
Kirpal, S. (2004). Work identities of nurses: Between caring and efficiency demands. Career Development International, 9(3): 274–304. doi: http://doi.org/10.1108/13620430410535850
Kontos, P.C. & Naglie, G. (2009). Tacit knowledge of caring and embodied selfhood. Sociology of Health & Illness, 31(5): 688-704. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2009.01158.x.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lechasseur, K., Caux, C., Dollé, S. & Legault, A. (2018). Ethical competence: An integrative review. Nursing Ethics, 25(6): 694–706. doi: 10.1177/0969733016667773.
Matthias, A. (2015). Robot Lies in Health Care: When Is Deception Morally Permissible? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 25(2): 169–162. doi: http://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2015.0007
Mead, G.H. (1932/2002). The Philosophy of the Present. Ed. Arthur E. Murphy. New York: Prometheus Books.
Merton, R.K., Fiske, M. & Kendall, P.L. (1990/1956). The Focused Interview. A Manual of Problems and Procedures. New York: The Free Press.
Mol, A., Moser, I. & Pols, J. (2010). Care: putting practice into theory. In Annemarie Mol, Ingunn Moser, and Jeannette Pols (eds) Care in practice: On tinkering in clinics, homes and farms, pp. 7–27. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.
Moyle, W., Bramble, M., Jones, C. & Murfield, J. (2018). Care staff perceptions of a social robot called Paro and a look-alike Plush Toy: A descriptive qualitative approach. Aging & Mental Health, 22(3): 330–335. doi: http://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2016.1262820
Mulder, M., Weigel, T. & Collins, K. (2007). The concept of competence in the development of vocational education and training in selected EU member states: a critical analysis. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 59: 67-88. doi: http://doi.org/10.1080/13636820601145630
Nickelsen, N.C.M. (2019). Imagining and tinkering with assistive robotics in care for the disabled. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 10(1): 128–139. doi: http://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2019-0009
Oh, J. (2019). Effects of Nursing Students' Empathy and Interpersonal Competence on Ideal Nurse Attributes. Journal of Nursing Education, 58(3): 130–135. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20190221-02
Parks, J. (2010). Lifting the burden of women’s care work: Should robots replace the “human touch”? Hypatia, 25(1): 100–120. doi: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2009.01086.x
Persson, M., Redmalm, D. & Iversen, C. (2021). Caregivers’ use of robots and effect on work environment – A scoping review. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 40(3): 251-277. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2021.2000554
Persson, M. (2020). Introducing social robots in Swedish dementia care: Exploring the interaction between care workers, residents, and robotic cats. Journal of Sociology and Social Work, 8(1): 8-18. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15640/jssw.v8n1a1
Pedrazza, M., Berlanda, S., Trifiletti, E. & Minuzzo, S. (2017). Variables of individual difference and the experience of touch in nursing. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 40(11): 1614–1637. doi: 10.1177/0193945917705621.
Petersen, S., Houston, S., Qin, H., Tague, C. & Studley, J. (2016). The utilization of robotic pets in dementia care. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 55(2): 569–574. doi: http://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-160703
Pfadenhauer, M. & Dukat, C. (2015). Robot caregiver or robot-supported caregiving? International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(3): 393–406. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0284-0
Pickering, A. (1993). The mangle of practice: Agency and emergence in the sociology of science. American Journal of Sociology, 99: 559–589. doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/230316
Poorchangizi, B., Borhani, F., Abbaszadeh, A., Mirzaee, M. & Farokhzadian, J. (2019). The importance of professional values from nursing students’ perspective. BMC Nursing, 18(26). doi: http://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-019-0351-1
Read, E., Woolsey, C., McGibbon, C.A. & O’Connell, C. (2020). Physiotherapists’ experiences using the Ekso bionic exoskeleton with patients in a neurological rehabilitation hospital: A qualitative study. Rehabilitation Research and Practice. doi: http://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2939573
Roger, K., Guse, L., Mordoch, E. & Osterreicher, A. (2012). Social commitment robots and dementia. Canadian Journal of Ageing, 31(1): 87–94. doi: http://doi.org/10.1017/s0714980811000663
Sandberg, J. (2000). Understanding human competence at work. An interpretive approach. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 9–25. doi: http://doi.org/10.2307/1556383
Sandberg, J. & Pinnington, A.H. (2009). Professional competence as ways of being: An existential ontological perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 46(7): 1138–1170. doi: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00845.x
Sharkey, A. (2014). Robots and human dignity: a consideration of the effect of robot care on dignity of older people. Ethics of Information Technology, 16: 63–75. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10676-014-9338-5
Sorensen, E. (2009). The Materiality of Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Statens beredning av medicinsk och social utvärdering (SBU) (2022). Robotdjurs betydelse för hälsa och välbefinnande hos äldre personer med kognitiv nedsättning i särskilt boende. (The importance of robotic animals for the health and well-being of elderly people with dementia in special housing. https://www.sbu.se/2022_02?lang=sv
Statens Medicin-Etiska Råd (SMER) (2014). Robotar och övervakning i vården av äldre – etiska aspekter. (Robots and surveillance in the care of elderly—ethical aspects) Stockholm: SMER.
Statistics Sweden (2020). Occupations in Sweden. https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/sverige-i-siffror/utbildning-jobb-och-pengar/yrken-i-sverige/
Talbot, R. & Brewer, G. (2016). Care assistant experiences of dementia care in long-term nursing and residential care environments. Dementia, 15(6): 1737-1754. doi: http://doi.org/10.1177/1471301215576416
Timmons, S. (2003). Nurses resisting information technology. Nursing Inquiry, 10(4): 257–269. doi: http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1800.2003.00177.x
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone Together. Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books.
Vandemeulebroucke, T., Dietckx de Casterlé, B. & Gastman, C. (2018). The use of care robots in aged care: A systematic review of argument-based ethics literature. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 74: 15–25. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2017.08.014
Wenger, E. (2010). Communities of practice and social learning systems: the career of a concept. In C. Blackmore (Ed.), Social learning systems and communities of practice, pp. 179–198. London: Springer.
Werner, N., Rutkowski, R., Holden, R., Ponnala, S. & Gilmore-Bykovskyi, A. (2022). A human factors and ergonomics approach to conceptualizing care work among caregivers of people with dementia. Applied Ergonomics, 104:103820. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103820.
Wright, J. (2018). Tactile care, mechanical Hugs: Japanese caregivers and robotic lifting devices. Asian Anthropology, 17(1): 24–39. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1683478X.2017.1406576
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2020 Author and Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The Copyright Holder of this Journal is the authors and the Journal. This Journal gives Open Access with CreativeCommons license CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0.
You can download all the content of the Journal and share it with others as long as you credit the authors and the journal, but you can’t change it in any way or use it commercially.
More specifically this license means that you – authors and users – may:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or form as long as you follow the license terms. The freedom to share includes parallel publishing on authors’ own website and in institutional repositories or in ResearchGate after publication in NJWLS, or if you want to reprint your article as part of publication of a PhD-thesis or a dissertation
You may share under these terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit and provide a link to the license. Appropriate credit implies that you provide the name of the creator and attribution parties, a copyright notice, a license notice, a disclaimer notice, and a link to the material. The link used should be its DOI.
NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes. A commercial use is one primarily intended for commercial advantage or monetary compensation.
NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material. Merely changing the format never creates a derivative.
Exceptions to the license terms may be granted
If you want to use content in the Journal in another way then described by this license, you must contact the licensor and ask for permission. Contact Bo Carstens at firstname.lastname@example.org. Exceptions are always given for specific purposes and specific content only.
The Journal is listed as a blue journal in Sherpa/Romeo, meaning that the author can archive post-print ((ie final draft post-refereeing) and author can archive publisher's version/PDF.
Copyright of others
Authors are responsible for obtaining permission from copyright holders for reproducing any illustrations, tables, figures or lengthy quotations previously published elsewhere.
All published material is archived at Roskilde University Library, Denmark, and transmitted to the Danish Royal Library in conformity with the Danish rules of legal deposit.
We do not screen articles for plagiarism. It is the responsibility of the authors to make sure they do not plagiate.