Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
Articles
DOI: 10.14254/1795-6889.2024.20-2.6
Submitted: 2023-11-13
Published: 2024-09-05

Who sets the pace in robotisation? ‘Working at a robotic pace’ according to the justifying, criticising and problem-solving discourse frames

Tampere University
frame analysis robots sociology of scientific knowledge sociology of technology values working life

Abstract

In a society driven by clock time and technology, it is no suprise that a robotic working pace is often viewed as inevitable, even ideal. However, ultimately discussions regarding robotic pace are shaped by different perspectives and contexts. In this paper, content-frame analysis was used to examine how ‘working at a robotic pace’ is addressed in academic discourse across scientific disciplines. The statements (N=22) were coded and examined for their positive, negative, or neutral appraisal, as well as the value base derived from either a human(e) or efficiency perspective. In academic communication, the concept has been framed by justifying, criticizing, and problem-solving discourses. The criticising frame was not found exclusively in the social sciences but across disciplines. It was the most common discourse frame, with its subjective perspective focusing on people and well-being. The problem-solving frame included a neutral, constructive and more objective approach associated with socio-technical ideals emphasized in engineering disciplines.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

  1. Addo, P. M., Verhulst, S., Young, A., Zahuranec, A.J., Baumann. D., & McMurren, J. (2021). Emerging Uses of Technology for Development: a New Intelligence Paradigm. Paris, France : AFD éditions. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3937649 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3937649
  2. Aneesh, A. (2001). Skill Saturation: Rationalization and Post-Industrial Work. Theory and Society, 30(3), 363–396. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017567412100 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017567412100
  3. Arntz, A., Di Dia, A, Riebner, T., & Eimler, S. C. (2021). Machine learning concepts for dual-arm robots within virtual reality. In: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Reality (AIVR), IEEE, 15–17 November: 168–172. http://doi.org/10.1109/AIVR52153.2021.00038 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/AIVR52153.2021.00038
  4. Beillon, K., & Wramsby, W. (2012). Automating final assembly of MINI-LINKs at Ericsson Sandlid. Master’s thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden.
  5. Benbya, H., Pachidi, S., & Järvenpää, S. (2021). Special Issue Editorial: Artificial Intelligence in Organizations: Implications for Information Systems Research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 22(2), 10. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00662 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00662
  6. Bergenheim, S. (2020). From Barracks to Garden Cities: The Finnish Population and Family Welfare League as a Housing Policy Expert in the 1940s and 1950s. Science & Technology Studies, 33(2), 120–138. https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.60807 DOI: https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.60807
  7. Braun, M., Tigard, D., Schönweitz, F., Lucaj, L., & von Janowski, A. (2022). AI Ethics and the Automation Industry: How Companies Respond to Questions About Ethics at the automatica Trade Fair 2022. Philosophy & Technology, 35(3), 76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00570-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00570-y
  8. Bourcier, T., Chammas, J., Becmeur, P. H., Sauer, A., Gaucher, D., Liverneaux, P., Marescaux, J., & Mutter, D. (2017). Robot-Assisted Simulated Cataract Surgery. Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, 43(4), 552–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.02.020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.02.020
  9. Cook, W.C., Turnhout, E., & van Bommel, S. (2020). Learning to Become an FSC Auditor: Objectivity, Interpretation, and Mastery. Science & Technology Studies, 33(2), 32–48. https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.60766 DOI: https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.60766
  10. Corlett, E.N. (1988). Manufacturing Automation. In: Nicholson, A. S., & Ridd, J. E. (eds.) Health, Safety and Ergonomics. Butterworth-Heinemann, pp.143–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-408-02386-3.50016-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-408-02386-3.50016-0
  11. Costantinom F., Falegnami, A., Fedele, L., Bernabei, M., Stabile, S., & Bentivenga, R. (2021). New and Emerging Hazards for Health and Safety Within Digitalized Manufacturing Systems. Sustainability, 13(19),10948. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910948 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910948
  12. Crawley, S. L. (2019). Reality Disjunctures and Epistemological Encampment: Addressing Relevance in Constructionist Perspectives on Social Problems. The American Sociologist, 50(2), 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-018-9398-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-018-9398-9
  13. Deranty, J. P., & Corbin, T. (2024). Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences. AI & Society, 39(2), 675-691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01496-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01496-x
  14. Dhillon, B. S. (1993). Human Factors in Robotic Systems. In Kaynak, O., Honderd, G., & Grant, E. (eds.) Intelligent Systems: Safety, Reliability and Maintainability Issues. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp.221–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-58021-5_15 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-58021-5_15
  15. Dølvik, J. E., & Steen, J. R. (2018). The Nordic Future of Work: Drivers, Institutions, and Politics. Denmark: Nordic Council of Ministers. http://dx.doi.org/10.6027/TN2018-555 DOI: https://doi.org/10.6027/TN2018-555
  16. Ellegård, K. (1999). Automation and Inertia. In Comacchio, A., Volpato, G., & Camuffo, A. (eds.) Automation in Automotive Industries: Recent Developments. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp.46–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-59864-7_5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-59864-7_5
  17. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
  18. Fasuludeen Kunju, F. K., Naveed, N., Anwar, M. N., & Ul Haq, M. I. (2022). Production and Maintenance in Industries: Impact of Industry 4.0. Industrial Robot: The International Journal of Robotics Research and Application, 49(3), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1108/IR-09-2021-0211 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IR-09-2021-0211
  19. Grant, B. K. (1997). Replications: A Robotic History of the Science Fiction Film. Film Quarterly, 51(1), 57–59. https://libproxy.tuni.fi/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fscholarly-journals%2Freplications-robotic-history-science-fiction-film%2Fdocview%2F223097623%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D14242 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/fq.1997.51.1.04a00180
  20. Gregor, S,, Chandra, Kruse. L., & Seidel, S. (2020). Research Perspectives: The Anatomy of a Design Principle. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 21(6). https://dx.doi.org/ 10.17705/1jais.00649 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00649
  21. Guan, Y., & Liao, H. (2014). Industrial Engineering from the Vision of a Portable Automated Model. In Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference: 3673–3682.
  22. Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which Academic Search Systems Are Suitable for Systematic Reviews or Meta‐Analyses? Evaluating Retrieval Qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 Other Resources. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(2), 181–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378
  23. Habermas, J. (1997). Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge: Polity. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1564.001.0001
  24. Harju, L., Hakanen, J. J., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2014). Job Boredom and Its Correlates in 87 Finnish Organizations. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 56(9), 911–918. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000000248 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000000248
  25. Hillersdal, L., Jespersen, A. P., Oxlund, B., & Bruun, B. (2020). Affect and Effect in Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration. Science & Technology Studies, 33(2), 66–82. https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.63305 DOI: https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.63305
  26. Huber, M., Lenz, C., Wendt, C., Färber, B., Knoll, A., & Glasauer, S. (2013). Predictive mechanisms increase efficiency in robot-supported assemblies: An experimental evaluation. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.
  27. Huter, K., Krick, T., Domhoff, D., Seibert, K., Wolf-Ostermann, K., & Rothgang, H. (2020). Effectiveness of Digital Technologies to Support Nursing Care: Results of a Scoping Review. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 13: 1905–1926. https://www.doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S286193 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S286193
  28. Keulartz, J., Schermer, M., Korthals, M., & Swierstra, T. (2004). Ethics in Technological Culture: A Programmatic Proposal for a Pragmatist Approach. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 29(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243903259188 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243903259188
  29. Khan, A. S., Homri, L., Dantan, J. Y., & Siadat, A. (2022). An Analysis of the Theoretical and Implementation Aspects of Process Planning in a Reconfigurable Manufacturing System. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 119(9–10), 5615–5646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-021-08522-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-021-08522-0
  30. Laurent, B., & Thoreau, F. (2019). Situated Expert Judgement: QSAR Models and Transparency in the European Regulation of Chemicals. Science & Technology Studies, 32(4), 158–174. https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.65249 DOI: https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.65249
  31. Léna, P. (2012). Educating to Complexity: A Challenge. In: Pascal–Pensées, B. (ed.) Complexity and Analogy in Science: Theoretical, Methodological and Epistemological Aspects. Vatican City: Acta 22, pp.268–276.
  32. Lin, P., Abney, K., & Bekey, G. (2011). Robot Ethics: Mapping the Issues for a Mechanized World. Artificial Intelligence, 175(5–6), 942–949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2010.11.026 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2010.11.026
  33. Liu, Y., & Jebelli, H. (2022). Worker-Aware Robotic Motion Planner in Construction for Improved Psychological Well-Being During Worker-Robot Interaction. Construction Research Congress 2022, 205–214. United States, Arlington, American Society of Civil Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784483961.022 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784483961.022
  34. Liu, Y., Habibnezhad, M., Jebelli, H., & Monga, V. (2021). Worker-in-the-Loop Cyber-Physical System for Safe Human-Robot Collaboration in Construction. Computing in Civil Engineering 2021, 1075–1083. United States, Orlando, American Society of Civil Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784483893.132 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784483893.132
  35. Loeb, Z. (2021). Syllabus for the internet the magnificent bribe. Real Life Magazine. Available at: https://reallifemag.com/the-magnificent-bribe/
  36. Mateos, J. M. (2019). Robots Leading the Working Field at Amazon: Humans, We Don’t Need You Anymore? Switzerland, University of St. Gallen.
  37. Matthes, J., & Kohring, M. (2008). The Content Analysis of Media Frames: Toward Improving Reliability and Validity. Journal of Communication, 58(2), 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00384.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00384.x
  38. Mauno, S., Kubicek, B., Feldt, T., & Minkkinen, J. (2020). Intensified Job Demands and Job Performance: Does Soc Strategy Use Make a Difference? Industrial Health, 58(3), 224–237. https://doi.org/10.2486/indhealth.2019-0067 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2486/indhealth.2019-0067
  39. Melkas, H., Hennala, L., Pekkarinen, S., & Kyrki, V. (2020). Impacts of Robot Implementation on Care Personnel and Clients in Elderly-Care Institutions. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 134: 104041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.104041 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.104041
  40. Messeri, C., Masotti, G., Zanchettin, A. M., & Rocco, P. (2021). Human-Robot Collaboration: Optimizing Stress and Productivity Based on Game Theory. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 6(4), 8061–8068. https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2021.3102309 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2021.3102309
  41. Militello, L. G., Arbuckle, N. B., Saleem, J. J., Petterson, E., Flanagan, M., Haggstrom, D,, Doebbeling, B. N. (2013). Sources of Variation in Primary Care Clinical Workflow: Implications for the Design of Cognitive Support. Health Informatics Journal, 20(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458213476968 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458213476968
  42. Mumford, L. (1934). Technics and Civilization. Nature, 136: 282. https://doi.org/10.1038/136282b0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/136282b0
  43. Ng, K. K., Chen, C. H., Lee, C. K., Jiao, J. R., & Yang, Z. X. (2021). A Systematic Literature Review on Intelligent Automation: Aligning Concepts From Theory, Practice, and Future Perspectives. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 47, 101246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2021.101246 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2021.101246
  44. Park, J. H. (2008). The Relationship Between Scholarly Communication and Science and Technology Studies (STS). Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 39(3), 257–273. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.39.3.257 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/scp.0.0005
  45. Pekkarinen, S., Hennala, L., Tuisku, O., Gustafsson, C., Johansson-Pajala, R., Thommes, K., Hoppe, J. A., & Melkas, H. (2020). Embedding Care Robots Into Society and Practice: Socio-Technical Considerations. Futures, 122, 102593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2020.102593 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2020.102593
  46. Petrović, N. (2022). Why Do Environmental and Ecological Economics Diverge? Comparison of the Ideological, Institutional and Scientific Backgrounds of the Main Actors. Science & Technology Studies, 35(1), 35–57. https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.95175 DOI: https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.95175
  47. Pfeil, U., & Zaphiris, P. (2010). Applying Qualitative Content Analysis to Study Online Support Communities. Universal Access in the Information Society, 9: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-009-0154-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-009-0154-3
  48. Rapley, T. (2022). Developing Research Questions: The Social Lives of Ideas, Interests and Questions (Vol. 1–2). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529770278 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529770278.n17
  49. Rosenmeyer, A. (2020). We Are the Robots. Art Monthly (436), 12–16. https://libproxy.tuni.fi/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fscholarly-journals%2Fwe-are-robots%2Fdocview%2F2398186315%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D14242
  50. Siderska, J., & Alsaqoor, S. (2023). Employees’ attitudes towards implementing robotic process automation technology at service companies. Human Technology, 19(1), 23-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14254/1795-6889.2023.19-1.3
  51. Sobczak, A. (2022). Analysis of the conditions influencing the assimilation of the robotic process automation by enterprises. Human Technology, 18(2), 143-190. https://doi.org/10.14254/1795-6889.2022.18-2.4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14254/1795-6889.2022.18-2.4
  52. Sony, M., Antony, J., & Tortorella, G. L. (2023). Critical Success Factors for Successful Implementation of Healthcare 4.0: a Literature Review and Future Research Agenda. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(5), 4669. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20054669 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20054669
  53. Tankard, J. W. (2001). The Empirical Approach to the Study of Media Framing. In Reese, S. D., Gandy, O. H. & Grant, A. E. (eds.) Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World. Routledge, pp.95–106. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410605689-12 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410605689-12
  54. Trist, E. L. (1981). The Evolution of Socio-Technical Systems. Ontario, QWL Centre, Ministry of Labour.
  55. Turja, T., Hakanen, J., Krutova, O., & Koistinen, P. (2023). Traces of Technological Well-being: Digi-uplifters and Digi-downshifters. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 14(S12). https://doi.org/10.18291/njwls.137541 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18291/njwls.137541
  56. Turja, T., Minkkinen, J., & Mauno, S. (2022b). Robotizing Meaningful Work. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 20(2), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1108/jices-06-2021-0063 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-06-2021-0063
  57. Turja, T., & Parviainen, J. (2020, August). The use of affective care robots calls forth value-based consideration. In 2020 29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 950-955). IEEE.
  58. Turja, T., Särkikoski, T., Koistinen, P., Krutova, O., & Melin, H. (2022a). Job well robotized! - Maintaining task diversity and well-being in managing technological changes. European Management Journal, 42(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2022.08.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2022.08.002
  59. Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content Analysis and Thematic Analysis: Implications for Conducting a Qualitative Descriptive Study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3), 398–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048
  60. Van Leeuwen, T., & Tijssen. R. (2000). Interdisciplinary Dynamics of Modern Science: Analysis of Cross-Disciplinary Citation Flows. Research Evaluation, 9(3), 183–187. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154400781777241 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3152/147154400781777241
  61. Weinberg, A. (2016). When the Work Is Not Enough: The Sinister Stress of Boredom. In Fink, G. (ed.) Stress: Concepts, Cognition, Emotion, and Behavior. Elsevier Academic Press, pp.195–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800951-2.00023-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800951-2.00023-6
  62. Williams, G. (2019). Applied Qualitative Research Design. Scientific e-Resources.
  63. Winskel, M., & Radcliffe. J. (2014). The Rise of Accelerated Energy Innovation and Its Implications for Sustainable Innovation Studies: A UK Perspective. Science & Technology Studies, 27(1), 8–33. https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.55332 DOI: https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.55332
  64. Zanchettin, A. M., Marconi, M., Ongini, C., Rossi, R., & Rocco, P. (2020). A Formal Control Architecture for Collaborative Robotics Applications. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Human-Machine Systems (ICHMS) (1–4). Italy, Rome, IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICHMS49158.2020.9209533 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICHMS49158.2020.9209533
  65. Zhu, J. J., Liu, Z., Huang, T., & Guo, X. S. (2023). Roboethics of Tourism and Hospitality Industry: A Systematic Review. PloS One, 18(6), e0287439. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287439 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287439
  66. Zimmer, M., Al-Yacoub, A., Ferreira, P., Hubbard, E., & Lohse, N. (2022). Experimental Study to Investigate Mental Workload of Local vs Remote Operator in Human-Machine Interaction. Production & Manufacturing Research, 10(1), 410–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/21693277.2022.2090458 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21693277.2022.2090458
  67. Östlund, B. (2004). Social Science Research on Technology and the Elderly-Does It Exist? Science & Technology Studies, 17(2), 44–62. https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.55165 DOI: https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.55165

How to Cite

Turja, T. (2024). Who sets the pace in robotisation? ‘Working at a robotic pace’ according to the justifying, criticising and problem-solving discourse frames. Human Technology, 20(2), 361–383. https://doi.org/10.14254/1795-6889.2024.20-2.6