Paper short abstract:

Several feeding assistive robotics are described in the literature, but few studies have explored the reception. I report from an ethnographic study of the Neater-Eater robot in a housing institution for the disabled. Due to a number of values the implementation is something of a balancing act.

Paper long abstract:

Several feeding assistive robotics (FAR) are described in the literature; Neater-Eater; My Spoon (Song & Kim, 2012) and Bestic (Juksa (2015). Although there are a number of problems few studies have explored the reception (McDoll & Nejat, 2013). A study has pointed at the challenge the care providers have in imposing a relevant interplay between the citizen and the FAR. When this is unsuccessful the result is demeaning (Nickelsen, 2013). During the last decade feeding has broadly been eliminated from nurses' responsibilities and relegated to non-professionals (Martinsen et al. 2007). It has become low status work and as such it is currently robotized. Despite the lack of knowledge there is an intense pressure from political authorities in Denmark to implement FAR. The Boroughs Association (KL) has for instance established a "Common municipality program for the implementation of welfare technology". In a recent report it is stated that the Danish boroughs by January 1. 2015 have bought 154, but they are only able to apply 95 (KL, 2015).

Based on an ethnographic study of the reception of the British Neater-Eater FAR in a housing institution for the disabled I analyze shifts in the care providers' routines and the implication for the citizens. It is difficult to recruit citizens due to the unpredictability of the human-robot assembly. The analysis points at a number of values from core participants and argues that the implementation is somewhat of a balance and that it is resisted because it is politically, not professionally driven.