IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2017 - 57

rather than interacting with others [4]. As Richardson
suggests, we only experience our full humanity when
confronted with another human [21].
At the other end of the spectrum, not treating
humanoid robots as humans may raise ethical issues.
In a promotional video for the male-presenting robot
Atlas, the demonstrator hits Atlas with a bar so that the
robot falls over. Popular media on the video uses emotive language to describe the action, calling the demonstrator a "jerk" and saying that the robot is being
"bullied" [64], [65]. If the robot were female in appearance, would viewers react differently? Violence towards
female-presenting robots may have implications for violence against women. Simulated violence in films is
already regulated, but how would users be regulated in
their treatment of robots? Sparrow highlights this issue
in reference to the ethics of kicking a robot dog, and its
broader implications for ethics in technology [66]. We
can also see examples of ethical issues in the human
treatment of virtual assistants, that are designed to be
"sexy," assailed with explicit talk and treated as objects
to be sexually exploited [67].

Robots at the Margins
Gender is one lens by which we can view the development of humanoid robots and their impact on society.
However a range of marginalized groups are likely to be
affected by the development of robots with specific
form and behavior. The culture of technology tends to
privilege the ideas and wants of particular ethnicities,
appearances, genders, and bodies, entrenching inequality by imposing a limited worldview onto a broad range
of people. This could have serious implications for the
inclusion and acceptance of a range of marginalized
groups in society that don't fit within the margins of
robot form and behavior, for example, different ethnicities, disabilities, or varying body shapes and ages.
As Chavan's paper on cross-cultural design demonstrates, technology that takes no account of different needs
is better than useless [68]. Moreover technology that is
developed within specific cultural and social contexts can
act as a tool for their dissemination. While users in different
countries may adapt technology to their specific needs,
such as the rapid uptake of mobile phones in the Global
South [69], this is not a value-free transaction. Each technology comes with its own cultural baggage and robots
would be no different. In India, women are being prevented
from using smart phones, due to their association with
other cultures and the implication of promiscuity that this
entails [70]. Technology can heighten and create new gender gaps, and have negative or unanticipated impacts on
those at the margins.
Observations in this article suggest that the current
development of humanoid robots is not fully adopting
june 2017

∕

human-centered design by neglecting broader social
impacts. Research projects appear to have not sufficiently investigated the context of use, and in particular,
users and their environments, to specify their requirements. To overcome these gulfs in the design process,
teams require greater multidisciplinary representation
and/or greater education on these issues. As seminal
design theorist Don Norman argues, "many designers
are woefully ignorant of the deep complexity of social
and organizational problems" [71].

Realistic humanoid robots have
the potential to disrupt social
interaction and create less
empathic relationships.
Positive research by Weiss et al. provides a framework
to consider the broad social implications of humanoid
robots during the evaluation stage of the design process
[8]. To address the complexity of this space, the authors
expand traditional evaluation models that only consider
usability and UX, adding social acceptance and societal
impact objectives to form a more holistic methodology.
One of the main goals of their approach is to guide
researchers to develop robots that are accepted "as a
part of society" [8]. The approach has great potential to
be more widely adopted across HRI.

Complexities of Applying Gender to Robots
Gendered humanoid robots are likely to be encountered
in society soon. The assignation of gender is presented
by designers as a way to create more natural interaction
with machines, however this article reveals that applying
gender is complex and has a range of potential social
implications. As Wacjman noted in 1991, technological
change is increasingly impinging on our public and private lives [51]. Consequently, the presence of gendered
humanoid robots is likely to affect how we perceive the
gendering of ourselves and associated cultural norms.
This may result in a narrowing of gender roles along stereotypical lines, and conversely, greater fluidity of gender as it is increasingly viewed as an assignation.
Designers must take account of the issues presented
in this article, to respond to the potential social and cultural impacts of gendering humanoid robots. Recommendations for designers include developing humanoids
that challenge social expectations regarding gender
roles, such as a male housecleaning robot; and applying

IEEE Technology and Society Magazine

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2017