We present a vision for conversational user interfaces (CUIs) as probes for speculating with, rather than as objects to speculate about. Popular CUIs, e.g., Alexa, are changing the way we converse, narrate, and imagine the world(s) to come. Yet, current conversational interactions normatively may promote non-desirable ends, delivering a restricted range of request-response interactions with sexist and digital colonialist tendencies. Our critical design approach envisions alternatives by considering how future voices can reside in CUIs as enabling probes. We present novel explorations that illustrate the potential of CUIs as critical design material, by critiquing present norms and conversing with imaginary species. As micro-level interventions, we show that conversations with diverse futures through CUIs can persuade us to critically shape our discourse on macro-scale concerns of the present, e.g., sustainability. We refect on how conversational interactions with pluralistic, imagined futures can contribute to how being human stands to change.@en

Interest in design methods and tools has been steadily growing in HRI. Yet, design is not acknowledged as a discipline with specific epistemology and methodology. Designerly HRI work is validated through user studies which, we argue, provide a limited account of the knowledge design produces. This paper aims to broaden current understanding of designerly HRI work and its contributions by unpacking what designerly knowledge is and how to produce it. Through a critical analysis of current HRI design literature, we identify a lack of work dedicated to understanding the conceptual implications of robotic artifacts. These, in fact, are implicit carriers of crucial HRI knowledge that can challenge established assumptions about how a robot should look, act, and be like. We conclude by discussing a set of practices desirable to legitimize designerly HRI work, and calling for further research addressing the conceptual implications designerly HRI work.@en

This paper is a methodological replication of Barendregt et al. [11], who urged Child-Computer Interaction field to embrace Intermediate Level Knowledge as a meaningful and valid way of generating knowledge. We extend this epistemological gap to the Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). Currently, artefact-centered papers - papers that present the development of an artefact - seem to be one of the primary ways that the HRI field generates knowledge. In this paper, we made an analysis of all papers presented at the HRI Conference from 2006 to 2020. Our results indicate that the 41,2 % of the papers were artefact-centered; and the impact of them, measured in the number of citations, was significantly lower than other kinds of papers. We used 23 artefact-centered papers to formulate two strong concepts and investigate how the foundational design epistemology about intermediate-level knowledge and RtD can contribute to other design-related disciplines to produce useful and valuable knowledge.@en

Technologies in the workplace have been a major focus of CSCW, including studies that investigate technologies for collaborative work, explore new work environments, and address the importance of political and organizational aspects of technologies in workplaces. Emerging technologies, such as AI and robotics, have been deployed in various workplaces, and their proliferation is rapidly expanding. These technologies have not only changed the nature of work but also reinforced power and social dynamics within workplaces, requiring us to rethink the legitimate relationship between emerging technologies and human workers. It will be critical to the development of equitable future work arrangements to identify how these emerging technologies will develop relationships with human workers who have limited power and voice in their workplaces. How can these emerging technologies develop mutually beneficial partnerships with human workers? In this one-day workshop, we seek to illustrate the meaning of human-machine partnerships (HMP) by highlighting that how we define HMP may shape the design of future robots at work. By incorporating interdisciplinary perspectives, we aim to develop a taxonomy of HMP by which we can broaden our relationship with embodied agents but also evaluate and reconsider existing theoretical, methodological, and epistemological challenges in HMP research.@en

In Industry 5.0, cognitive robots and workers will engage in evolving and reciprocal relations, which we call worker-robot relationships (WRRs). To enable evidence-based work futures with workers, we must co-develop WRRs and understand their impact on work, workers, management, and society. To this end, we posit that the HRI field should work beyond disciplines and include value-driven and plural perspectives through transdisciplinary research done with and for workers. However, WRRs and transdisciplinarity pose unique technical, design, and methodological challenges yet to be explored. We propose a workshop to engage the HRI community working on Industry 5.0, aiming at 1) taking stock of current WRR-related challenges in relevant disciplines, 2) collectively kick-off the exploration of a joint research agenda, 3) preliminary examining if and how transdisciplinarity could help the HRI community, and 4) start discussing how to deal with such complex knowledge integration in practice.@en

We propose a workshop stemming from ongoing conversations about the role of design methods and designed artefacts within the field of Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). Given the growing interest in understanding what the field can learn from design explorations, the workshop focuses on hands-on annotating activity where participants (researchers and practitioners from HRI, Human-Computer Interaction, and Design Research) will analyze and reflect upon selected collections of robotic artefacts. Ultimate goal of the workshop is to explicate values, concepts and perspectives that usually remain tacitly embedded in the designed artefacts and, as such, hard to appreciate as proper HRI contributions. The expected outcome of the workshop is a set of methodological recommendations and concrete examples of what kind of knowledge can be generated through robotic artefacts.@en

Many researchers have started to explore natural interaction scenarios for children. No matter if these children are normally developing or have special needs, evaluating Child- Robot Interaction (CRI) is a challenge. To find methods that work well and provide reliable data is difficult, for example because commonly used methods such as questionnaires do not work well particularly with younger children. Previous research has shown that children need support in expressing how they feel about technology. Given this, researchers often choose time-consuming behavioral measures from observations to evaluate CRI. However, these are not necessarily comparable between studies and robots. This workshop aims to bring together researchers from different disciplines to share their experiences on these aspects. The main topics are methods to evaluate child-robot interaction design, methods to evaluate socially assistive child-robot interaction and multi-modal evaluation of child-robot interaction. Connected questions that we would like to tackle are for example: i) What are reliable metrics in CRI? ii) How can we overcome the pitfalls of survey methods in CRI? iii) How can we integrate qualitative approaches in CRI? iv) What are the best practices for in the wild studies with children? Looking across disciplinary boundaries, we want to discuss advantages and shortcomings of using different evaluation methods in order to compile guidelines for future CRI research. This workshop is the second in a series that started at the International Conference on Social Robotics in 2015.@en

Many researchers have started to explore natural interaction scenarios for children. No matter if these children are normally developing or have special needs, evaluating Child- Robot Interaction (CRI) is a challenge. To find methods that work well and provide reliable data is difficult, for example because commonly used methods such as questionnaires do not work well particularly with younger children. Previous research has shown that children need support in expressing how they feel about technology. Given this, researchers often choose time-consuming behavioral measures from observations to evaluate CRI. However, these are not necessarily comparable between studies and robots. This workshop aims to bring together researchers from different disciplines to share their experiences on these aspects. The main topics are methods to evaluate child-robot interaction design, methods to evaluate socially assistive child-robot interaction and multi-modal evaluation of child-robot interaction. Connected questions that we would like to tackle are for example: i) What are reliable metrics in CRI? ii) How can we overcome the pitfalls of survey methods in CRI? iii) How can we integrate qualitative approaches in CRI? iv) What are the best practices for in the wild studies with children? Looking across disciplinary boundaries, we want to discuss advantages and shortcomings of using different evaluation methods in order to compile guidelines for future CRI research. This workshop is the second in a series that started at the International Conference on Social Robotics in 2015.@en