Unintended Impacts of Collaborative Robots on Social Relations at Work
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18291/njwls.160897Keywords:
Health, Working Environment & Wellbeing, Learning & Competencies, Identity, Meaning & Culture, Organization & ManagementAbstract
In light of the growing use of collaborative robots in workplaces, this article investigates how they reshape workplace dynamics and have unintended impacts on the psychosocial work environment and social interactions—issues central to the Nordic model of ‘good work’. This article builds on qualitative interviews from three workplaces in Sweden: a mechanical workshop, a university laboratory, and restaurants in an amusement park. To interpret the findings, we apply Collins’s theory of interaction rituals. While robots were introduced to reduce physical strain, they initially also generated enthusiasm, learning, and ergonomic relief. Over time, however, they contributed to job intensification, additional tasks, and fewer opportunities for spontaneous interaction. The study contributes to debates on robot–human relations and interaction rituals by showing how robots can energize or disrupt social interactions, providing insights into the theoretical understanding and the practical implementation of social robots in the Nordic work context.
References
Abeliansky, A. L., Beulmann, M., & Prettner, K. (2024). Are they coming for us? Industrial robots and the mental health of workers. Research Policy, 53(3), 104956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2024.104956
Abrahamsson, L., & Johansson, J. (2013). One hundred years of inertia: An expos? of the Concept of the psychosocial work environment in Swedish policy and research. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 3(1), 4–30. https://doi.org/10.19154/njwls.v3i1.2518
Alasoini, T., Ala-Laurinaho, A., & Känsälä, M. (2022). Driving high and low: heavy vehicle drivers and their supervisors facing digitalization. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 13(S10). 119-137. https://doi.org/10.18291/njwls.132379
Armijo, P. R., Huang, C.-K., High, R., Leon, M., Siu, K.-C., & Oleynikov, D. (2019). Ergonomics of minimally invasive surgery: an analysis of muscle effort and fatigue in the operating room between laparoscopic and robotic surgery. Surgical Endoscopy, 33, 2323–2331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6515-3
Adattil, R., Thorvald, P., & Romero, D. (2024). Assessing the psychosocial impacts of industry 4.0 technologies adoption in the operator 4.0: literature review & theoretical framework. International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 15(1), 59–80. https://doi.org/10.24867/ijiem-2024-1-348
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056
Berkers, H. A., Rispens, S., & Le Blanc, P. M. (2023). The role of robotization in work design: a comparative case study among logistic warehouses. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(9), 1852–1875. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2022.2043925
Berx, N., Adriaensen, A., Decré, W., & Pintelon, L. (2022). Assessing system-wide safety readiness for successful human–robot collaboration adoption. Safety, 8(3), 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/safety8030048
Bingham, A. J. (2023). From data management to actionable findings: A five-phase process of qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 16094069231183620. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231183620
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brougham, D., & Haar, J. (2018). Smart technology, artificial intelligence, robotics, and algorithms (STARA): Employees’ perceptions of our future workplace. Journal of Management & Organization, 24(2), 239–257. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2016.55
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford University Press.
Cascio, W. F., & Montealegre, R. (2016). How technology is changing work and organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3(Volume 3, 2016), 349–375. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062352
Cavuoto, L. A., Hussein, A. A., Vasan, V., Ahmed, Y., Durrani, A., Khan, S., Cole, A., Wang, D., Kozlowski, J., & Ahmad, B. (2017). Improving teamwork: evaluating workload of surgical team during robot-assisted surgery. Urology, 107, 120–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.05.012
Chandra, V., Nehra, D., Parent, R., Woo, R., Reyes, R., Hernandez-Boussard, T., & Dutta, S. (2010). A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic assisted suturing performance by experts and novices. Surgery, 147(6), 830–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2009.11.002
Collins, R. (1975) Conflict sociology. Towards an explanatory science. Academic Press.
Collins, R. (2005). Interaction ritual chains (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.
Collins, R. (2020). Social distancing as a critical test of the micro-sociology of solidarity. American Journal of Cultural Sociology, 8(3), 477–497. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41290-020-00120-z
Craven, R., Franasiak, J., Mosaly, P., & Gehrig, P. A. (2013). Ergonomic deficits in robotic gynecologic oncology surgery: a need for intervention. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, 20(5), 648–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2013.04.008
DiMaggio, P., Bernier, C., Heckscher, C., & Mimno, D. (2018). Interaction ritual threads: Does IRC theory apply online? In Ritual, emotion, violence (pp. 81–124). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429464157-4
Dupret, K., & Friborg, B. (2018). Workarounds in the Danish health sector: From tacit to explicit innovation. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 8(S3), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.18291/njwls.v8is3.105274
Edwards, P., & Ramirez, P. (2016). When should workers embrace or resist new technology? New Technology, Work and Employment, 31(2), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12067
Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254–280. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.019
Haapakorpi, A., & Alasoini, T. (2018). Work organization and technology: Introduction to the theme of the special issue. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 8(S3). 1-6. https://doi.org/10.18291/njwls.v8iS3.105273
Hartmann, H. I., Kraut, R. E., & Tilly, L. (1986). Computer chips and paper clips: Technology and women's employment, Volume I. National Academies Press.
Heinold, E., Funk, M., Niehaus, S., Rosen, P. H., & Wischniewski, S. (2023). OSH-related risks and opportunities for industrial human-robot interaction: results from literature and practice. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 10, 1277360. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2023.1277360
Hughes, K. D. (1996). Transformed by technology? The changing nature of women's `Traditional' and `Non-Traditional' white-collar work. Work, Employment and Society, 10(2), 227–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017096102002
Johansson, J., & Abrahamsson, L. (2009). The good work–a Swedish trade union vision in the shadow of lean production. Applied Ergonomics, 40(4), 775–780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2008.08.001
Johansson, J. J., & Abrahamsson, L. (2021). Digitalisation and sustainable work: obstacles and pathways. European Journal of Workplace Innovation, 6(2), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.46364/ejwi.v6i2.801
Johannessen, L. E. F. (2023). Interaction rituals and technology: a review essay. Poetics, 98, 101765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2023.101765
Joyce, S., Umney, C., Whittaker, X., & Stuart, M. (2023). New social relations of digital technology and the future of work: beyond technological determinism. New Technology, Work and Employment, 38(2), 145–161. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12276
Kamino, W., Jung, M. F., & Sabanović, S. (2024). Constructing a Social Life with Robots: Shifting Away from Design Patterns Towards Interaction Ritual Chains. Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, https://doi.org/10.1145/3610977.3634994
Karlsson, J. C., & Bergman, A. (2016). Methods for social theory: analytical tools for theorizing and writing. Routledge.
King, A. (2019). Emotion, interaction and the structure–agency problem: building on the sociology of Randall Collins. Thesis Eleven, 154(81), 38–51.
Locks, F., Hansson, G.-Å., Nogueira, H. C., Enquist, H., Holtermann, A., & Oliveira, A. B. (2018). Biomechanical exposure of industrial workers: influence of automation process. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 67, 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2018.04.002
Loyal, S. (2019). Bourdieu and Collins on the reproduction of elites. Thesis Eleven, 154(81), 80–96.
Maher, C., Hadfield, M., Hutchings, M., & De Eyto, A. (2018). Ensuring rigor in qualitative data analysis: a design research approach to coding combining NVivo with traditional material methods. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1609406918786362.
Murphy, L. (2025). Wellbeing in the age of virtual teams and workplace automation–a systematic review and future research agenda. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 33(5), 1039-1065.https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoa-08-2023-3938
MYNAK. (2020). Work environment of the future—Trends, digitalization and employment forms: Three systematic reviews. Swedish Agency for Work Environment Expertise, 2020:1. https://media.sawee.se/2020/06/Work-environment-of-the-future-%E2%80%93-trends-digitalization-and-employment-forms.pdf.
MYNAK. (2022). Artificial intelligence, robotisation and the work environment. Swedish Agency for Work Environment Expertise, 2022:1. https://media.sawee.se/2022/09/Artificial_intelligence_robotisation_Digital.pdf.
Nikolakis, N., Maratos, V., & Makris, S. (2019). A cyber-physical system (CPS) approach for safe human-robot collaboration in a shared workplace. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 56, 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2018.10.003
Nikolova, M., Cnossen, F., & Nikolaev, B. (2024). Robots, meaning, and self-determination. Research Policy, 53(5), 104987. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4661471
Nyholm, S. (2020). Humans and robots. Ethics, agency, and anthropomorphism. Rowman & Littlefield.
Olsson, E. (2008). Emotioner i arbete: En studie av vårdarbetares upplevelser av arbetsmiljö och arbetsvillkor [Emotions at work: a study of care workers' experiences of work environment and working conditions]. Doctoral dissertation. Karlstads universitet. [https://kau.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:5313/FULLTEXT01.pdf]
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.398
Oyekan, J. O., Hutabarat, W., Tiwari, A., Grech, R., Aung, M. H., Mariani, M. P., López-Dávalos, L., Ricaud, T., Singh, S., & Dupuis, C. (2019). The effectiveness of virtual environments in developing collaborative strategies between industrial robots and humans. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 55, 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2018.07.006
Palm, K., Asp, A., & Håkansta, C. (2024). Implementing digital technologies in the school setting – how does it relate to the work environment? Educational Review, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2024.2368183
Passerotti, C. C., Franco, F., Bissoli, J. C., Tiseo, B., Oliveira, C. M., Buchalla, C. A., Inoue, G. N., Sencan, A., Sencan, A., & do Pardo, R. R. (2015). Comparison of the learning curves and frustration level in performing laparoscopic and robotic training skills by experts and novices. International Urology and Nephrology, 47, 1075–1084. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-015-0991-3
Persson, M., Redmalm, D., & Iversen, C. (2022). Caregivers' use of robots and their effect on the work environment – a scoping review. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 40(3), 251–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2021.2000554
Pringle, R. (1988). Secretaries talk. Sexuality, power and work. Verso.
Regin, D. Ö. (2022). Risks, possibilities, and social relations in the computerisation of Swedish university administration. New Technology, Work and Employment, 38(3), 434–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12265
Silverstein, S. (2010). Pharmacy automation and workflow implications: a case study. Journal of Pharmacy Technology, 26(2), 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/875512251002600203
Solem, P. E., Hauge, L., Hellevik, T., & Herlofson, K. (2023). Older workers and work exit preferences in a digitalized working life. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 14(S12). 71-86. https://doi.org/10.18291/njwls.140206
Tonn, B. E., & Stiefel, D. (2019). Anticipating the unanticipated-unintended consequences of scientific and technological purposive actions. World Futures Review, 11(1), 19–50.
Tracy, S. J. (2024). Qualitative research methods: collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. John Wiley & Sons.
von Scheve, C. (2014). Interaction rituals with artificial companions: from media equation to emotional relationships. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, 10(1), 65–83.
Walsh, K. E., Chui, M. A., Kieser, M. A., Williams, S. M., Sutter, S. L., & Sutter, J. G. (2011). Exploring the impact of an automated prescription-filling device on community pharmacy technician workflow. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association, 51(5), 613–618. https://doi.org/10.1331/japha.2011.09166
Wasen, K. (2010). Replacement of highly educated surgical assistants by robot technology in working life: paradigm shift in the service sector. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(4), 431–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0062-y
Weiss, A., Wortmeier, A. K., & Kubicek, B. (2021). Cobots in Industry 4.0: a roadmap for future practice studies on human-robot collaboration. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 51(4), 335–345. https://doi.org/10.1109/thms.2021.3092684
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
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. Normally the journal use the CC-BY NC-ND 4.0 licence.
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 Annica Asp at annica.asp@kau.se. Exceptions are always given for specific purposes and specific content only.
Sherpa/Romeo
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.
Archives policy
All published material is archived at the Danish Royal Library in conformity with the Danish rules of legal deposit.
Plagiarism screening
We do not screen articles for plagiarism. It is the responsibility of the authors to make sure they do not plagiate.





