台灣聯合大學博碩士論文系統

社交機器人作為科技創新的成果，其中最受各界矚目的應用即是醫療照護。在醫護陪伴情境之下，機器人預期中的服務對象大多是神經多樣性族群(Neurodiversity)如：自閉症、智能障礙，阿茲海默症與其他發展性障礙者。但在HRI (Human-Robot Interaction)研究領域中，該族群在認知上的敏感性與溝通表達的困難，以至於難以採取書面或是口頭的方法對該族群進行社交機器人的倫理議題調查，這將導致神經多樣族群在照護機器人的創新歷程中無法對倫理議題發聲。我們引用「負責任創新研究」概念，將神經多樣族群列為照護機器人創新歷程的利害關係人，並提出「戲劇」作為HRI研究的方法邀請神經多樣族群參與社交機器人的照護情境並提出他們的倫理觀點。本研究招募的神經多樣族群為泛自閉症與部分兼併智能障礙者。他們將作為觀眾來觀賞我們設計的照護機器人互動情境劇，並在觀賞完後回應戲劇中的自主權議題。為了證明戲劇方法有潛力讓神經多樣族群以被照護者的身分參與社交機器人的照護倫理議題，我們將比較自主權議題的書面調查與戲劇方法的調查方法。在本研究的第二章將提出戲劇之於HRI研究的四項優勢：「多元親和力」、「安全觀賞」、「編寫爭議」與「研究倫理限制的化解」。在本研究的實證階段，為了確立戲劇方法對於人HRI的倫理議題的四項優勢，我們在研究期間蒐集了8位參與者在書面調查與戲劇參與方法的回應內容，還有觀賞期間的的行為反應表。根據我們的研究結果顯示：對於表達意願較低或是口語能力較低的對象，戲劇方法的介入雖然無法讓本研究的所有參與者給出有效回應，但在本研究中發現戲劇方法比起常見的書面或口頭調查方法更能引發他們的關注與投入的回應，且在實驗期間沒有風險與研究倫理的問題。為了讓神經多樣族群能夠以利害關係人的身分在照護機器人相關議題中發聲，我們認為有必要持續地開發戲劇方法這類多元的參與管道讓自閉症或其他神經多樣族群能夠共參與科技創新的歷程，以此落實「負責任創新研究」的前瞻性責任觀。

As a result of technological innovation, medical care become one of the most eye-catching application in social robot. Social robots are expected to serve mostly neurodiversity groups such as: autism, intellectual disability, Alzheimer's disease and other developmental disabilities. However, in the research fields of Social Robot (SR) and HRI (Human-Robot Interaction), because people with neurodiversity don’t appreciate usual method such like writing or oral interview to let them expresses the opinion in ethical issue. It would lead to a situation that neurodiversity unable to be part of ethic issue in human robot interaction. To settle this problem, we quoted the concept of "Responsible Research of Innovation" to take autism as one of the stakeholders in the innovation process of social robot, and use a novel theatre method to invite people with neurodiversity to participate in social robot care situations and discuss ethic issue - autonomy. We have assumed that theatre method can unburden the loading of cognition from people with neurodiversity to express their ethical views easier. In this research we invited 8 people with autism as audience to a theatre scenario with autonomy issues. In order to establish the empirical feasibility of the theatre method for HRI's ethical issues, we analyzed the responses from 8 autistic audience after participating in the theatre scene, as well as the behavior response table during the viewing period. According to our analysis: although the intervention of the theatre method cannot make all the participants in this study consistently give proper response, we did observe that the intervention of the theatre method is more capable to triggered 3 participants’ attention and more devoted response to robot ethics issues. And theatre method reduced more risks and research ethics issues when we tried to study human robot interaction with neurodiversity participants. In order to allow the people with neurodiversity to speak as a stakeholder in issues related to the social robots in medical care, we believe that it is necessary to continuously refine multiple participation way such as theatre to enable people with autism or other neurodiversity to participate in technological innovations. To achieve a true "Responsible Innovation Research" for multiple stakeholder in social robot, we have to develop multiple way to collect their opinion.

第一章　緒論 1
第一節　研究背景 1
(一)　人-機器人互動研究(HRI) 2
(二)　神經多樣族群與機器人 3
(三)　HRI研究的負責任創新 4
(四) 照護機器人中的倫理議題－自主權 5
(五)　小結 6
第二節　問題意識 6
(一)　風險治理與科技創新的責任觀 7
(二)　照護機器人－獨缺一角的負責任創新研究 11
第三節 創新方法對於神經多樣族群與HRI研究的意義 13
(一) 缺乏照護情境的神經多樣族群與HRI倫理研究 13
(二) 研究倫理對HRI的限制 15
第四節 小結 17
第二章 戲劇之於HRI研究的限制與優勢 20
第一節 戲劇方法在HRI領域的回顧 20
第二節　戲劇方法之於HRI倫理研究的優勢 23
(一) 戲劇的「多元親和力」 23
(二)「安全觀賞」HRI現場與使用情境 24
(三)「編寫爭議」的彈性 26
(四) 研究倫理限制的化解 27
第三節 小結 31
第三章 研究設計 32
第一節 研究參與者（戲劇觀眾） 33
第二節 編劇說明－一齣倫理爭議 34
第三節 機器人動作設計與開發 36
第五節 資料分析 41
第六節 預計成果 42
第四章　研究結果與分析 43
第一節　研究結果 43
(一)　書面/口頭詢問的回應 46
(二) 戲劇方法的介入結果 47
第二節　結果分析 49
(一)　機器人戲劇的多元親和力 50
(二)　從參與者的觀賞反應談機器人戲劇的安全性 68
(三)　編寫爭議的彈性－將倫理爭議編寫為適合特殊族群的劇本 76
(四)　機器人戲劇作為方法的研究倫理 79
第五章　討論、限制與建議 82
第一節　討論 82
(一)　為什麼戲劇方法需要受到重視 82
(二)　本研究補充的知識斷層 83
(三)　我的新發現是否與現有文獻與預期一致 84
第二節　限制、建議與未來目標 85
(一)　戲劇方法的參與者數量 85
(二)　戲劇內容如何能代表倫理爭議－戲劇與現實的差距 86
(三)　自閉症、HRI與戲劇創作的跨域挑戰 87
(四)　未來研究目標 88
總結 90
附錄 93
附件1 (自主權倫理訪談) 93
附件2 (泛自閉症訪談紀錄表) 95
附件3(分鏡表與台詞修正) 100
附件4(機器人戲劇腳本) 106
參考書目 111

英文部分
Adam, B., & Groves, G. (2011). Futures tended: care and future-oriented responsibility. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 31 pp. 17-27.
Ahn, H. S., Lee, M. H., Broadbent, E., & MacDonald, B. A. (2017, 10-12 April 2017). Is Entertainment Services of a Healthcare Service Robot for Older People Useful to Young People? Paper presented at the 2017 First IEEE International Conference on Robotic Computing (IRC).
Akalin, N., Kristoffersson, A., & Loutfi, A. (2019). Evaluating the Sense of Safety and Security in Human–Robot Interaction with Older People. In O. Korn (Ed.), Social Robots: Technological, Societal and Ethical Aspects of Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 237-264). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Alaieri, F., & Vellino, A. (2016). Ethical Decision Making in Robots: Autonomy, Trust and Responsibility. Paper presented at the Social Robotics, Cham.
Arai, T., Kato, R., & Fujita, M. (2010). Assessment of operator stress induced by robot collaboration in assembly. CIRP Annals, 59(1), 5-8.
Baldwin, A. (2009). Applied theatre: performing the future. Australas Psychiatry, 17 Suppl 1, S133-136.
Barba, E., & Savarese, N. (2005). A Dictionary of Theatre Anthropology: The Secret Art of the Performer: Routledge.
Barco, A., Albo-Canals, J., Ng, M. K., Garriga, C., Callejón, L., Turón, M., . . . López-Sala, A. (2013, 3-6 March 2013). A robotic therapy for children with TBI. Paper presented at the 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).
Bartneck, C., Kulić, D., Croft, E., & Zoghbi, S. (2008). Measurement Instruments for the Anthropomorphism, Animacy, Likeability, Perceived Intelligence, and Perceived Safety of Robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(1), 71-81.
Battistuzzi, L., Sgorbissa, A., Papadopoulos, C., Papadopoulos, I., & Koulouglioti, C. (2018, 1-5 Oct. 2018). Embedding Ethics in the Design of Culturally Competent Socially Assistive Robots. Paper presented at the 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).
Bayón, C., Martín-Lorenzo, T., Moral-Saiz, B., Ramírez, Ó., Pérez-Somarriba, Á., Lerma-Lara, S., . . . Rocon, E. (2018). A robot-based gait training therapy for pediatric population with cerebral palsy: goal setting, proposal and preliminary clinical implementation. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 15(1), 69.
Beauchamp, T. L. (2012). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York, United States: Oxford University Press Inc.
Beck, U. (1999). World Risk Society. Oxford, United Kingdom: Polity Press.
Blond, L. (2019). Studying robots outside the lab: HRI as ethnography. In Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics (Vol. 10, pp. 117).
Boal, A. (1985). THEATRE OF THE OPPRESSED. New York, NY: Theatre Communications Group.
Bowell, P., & S. Heap, B. (2013). Planning Process Drama: Enriching teaching and learning (2 ed.): Routledge.
Breazeal, C., Brooks, A., Gray, J., Hancher, M., Kidd, C., McBean, J., . . . Strickon, J. (2003, 27-31 Oct. 2003). Interactive robot theatre. Paper presented at the Proceedings 2003 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2003) (Cat. No.03CH37453).
Butler, J. T., & Agah, A. (2001). Psychological Effects of Behavior Patterns of a Mobile Personal Robot. Autonomous Robots, 10(2), pp 185–202.
Cao, H.-L., Esteban, P. G., Bartlett, M., Baxter, P., Belpaeme, T., Billing, E., . . . Ziemke, T. (2019). Robot-Enhanced Therapy: Development and Validation of Supervised Autonomous Robotic System for Autism Spectrum Disorders Therapy. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 26(2), 49-58.
Carpenter, J. (2016). Culture and Human-Robot Interaction in Militarized Spaces A War Story In Meaningful Connection with Non-Human Things. London: Routledge.
Chatley, A. R., Dautenhahn, K., Walters, M. L., Syrdal, D. S., & Christianson, B. (2010). Theatre as a Discussion Tool in Human-Robot Interaction Experiments - A Pilot Study. Paper presented at the 2010 Third International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions.
Coeckelbergh, M., Pop, C., Simut, R., Peca, A., Pintea, S., David, D., & Vanderborght, B. (2016). A Survey of Expectations About the Role of Robots in Robot-Assisted Therapy for Children with ASD: Ethical Acceptability, Trust, Sociability, Appearance, and Attachment. Sci Eng Ethics, 22(1), 47-65
Collingridge, D. (1980). The Social Control of Technology. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
Collopy, B. J. (1988). Autonomy in Long Term Care: Some Crucial Distinctions1. The Gerontologist, 28(Suppl), 10-17.
Conti, D., Trubia, G., Buono, S., Di Nuovo, S., & Di Nuovo, A. (2018). Evaluation of a robot-assisted therapy for children with autism and intellectual disability. Paper presented at the Towards Autonomous Robotic Systems - 19th Annual Conference, Springer Verlag.
Corbett, B. A., Gunther, J. R., Comins, D., Price, J., Ryan, N., Simon, D., . . . Rios, T. (2011). Brief report: theatre as therapy for children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 41(4), 505-511.
Costa, A., Schweich, T., Charpiot, L., & Steffgen, G. (2018). Attitudes of Children with Autism towards Robots: An Exploratory Study. Paper presented at the Interaction Design and Children.
D. Barben, E. F., C. Selin, D. Guston. (2008). Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: foresight, engagement, and integration. In E. Hackett, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (pp. 979-1000). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dancyger, K. (1994). 電影編劇新論: 遠流出版事業股份有限公司.
Dautenhahn, K. (2007). Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human-robot interaction. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 362(1480), 679-704.
Davis, N. (2015). “Not a soul in sight!”: Beckett's Fourth Wall. Journal of Modern Literature, 38(2), pp. 86-102.
Dolic, Z., Castro, R., & Moarca, A. (2019). Robots in healthcare: a solution or a problem?, Study for the Committee on Environment, Public Health, and Food Safety, . Luxembourg: European Parliament
Duncan, B. A., Murphy, R. R., Shell, D., & Hopper, A. G. (2010). A midsummer night's dream. Paper presented at the Proceeding of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction - HRI '10.
Edwards, B. M., Smart, E., King, G., Curran, C. J., & Kingsnorth, S. (2018). Performance and visual arts-based programs for children with disabilities: a scoping review focusing on psychosocial outcomes. Disability and Rehabilitation, 1-12.
Edwards, C. (2000). Accessing the user’s perspective. Health and Social Care in the Community, 8((6)), 417–424. Principles of robotics: Regulating Robots in the Real World (Tech. Rep.), (2011 ).
Eronen, N. (2015). Responsible Research and Innovation in H2020-Science withand for Society work progamme in 2016-2017. Retrieved from Rome.
Etherto, M., & Prentki, T. (2006). Drama for change? Prove it! Impact assessment in applied theatre. The Journal of Applied Theatre, 11(2), 139-155.
Fischer, K., Jensen, L. C., & Bodenhagen, L. ( 2014). To Beep or Not to Beep Is Not the Whole Question. Paper presented at the Social Robotics. ICSR.
Fisher, E., Mahajan, R., & Mitcham, C. (2006). Midstream modulation of technology: governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26 pp. 485-496.
Fitrianie, S., Bruijnes, M., Richards, D., Abdulrahman, A., & Brinkman, W.-P. (2019). What are We Measuring Anyway?: - A Literature Survey of Questionnaires Used in Studies Reported in the Intelligent Virtual Agent Conferences. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents, Paris, France.
Fitzgerald, M., & Yip, J. (2017). Autism - Paradigms, Recent Research and Clinical Application. In T. Lorenz, N. Reznik, & K. Heinitz (Eds.), A Different Point of View: The Neurodiversity Approach to Autism and Work.
Friedman, B. ( 1996). Value-sensitive design. ACM Interactions, 3(6), pp. 17-23.
Greer, J. A. (2017 ). Method and improvisation: Theatre arts performance techniques to further HRI in social and affective robots. Paper presented at the 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), Lisbon, Portugal.
Grinbaum, A., & Groves, C. ( 2013). What is “responsible” about responsible innovation? Understanding the ethical issues. In J. B. R. Owen, M. Heintz (Ed.), Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, (pp. 119-142). London: Wiley.
Guston, D. (2006). Toward Centres for Responsible Innovation in the Commercialized University. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, .
Hajer, M. (2003). Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy Sciences, 36. pp. 175-195.
Hajer, M., & Wagenaar, H. (2003). Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hellström, T. (2003). Systemic innovation and risk: technology assessment and the challenge of responsible innovation. Technology in Society 25, pp. 369-384.
Henkel, Z., Baugus, K., Bethel Cindy, L., & May David, C. (2019). User expectations of privacy in robot assisted therapy. In Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics (Vol. 10, pp. 140).
Hens, K. (2019). The many meanings of autism: conceptual and ethical reflections. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology,, 61( 9), 1025-1029.
Hoven, M. J. v. d., LokhorstI, G., & Poel, v. d. (2012). Engineering and the problem of moral overload. Science and engineering ethics, 18, pp. 1-13.
Hughes, J. C. (2005). Dependence and autonomy in old age: an ethical framework for long term care. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31(1), e3.
Irwin, A. (2006). The politics of talk: coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, 36, pp. 299-330.
Jaarsma, P., & Welin, S. J. H. C. A. (2012). Autism as a Natural Human Variation: Reflections on the Claims of the Neurodiversity Movement. 20(1), 20-30.
Jasanoff, S. (2007). Making Order: Law and Science in Action. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. E. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd ed. (pp. 761-786). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jochum, E., Vlachos, E., Christoffersen, A., Nielsen, S. G., Hameed, I. A., & Tan, Z.-H. (2016). Using Theatre to Study Interaction with Care Robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8(4), 457-470.
Johal, W., Calvary, G., & Pesty, S. (2015, 2015//). Non-verbal Signals in HRI: Interference in Human Perception. Paper presented at the Social Robotics, Cham.
John, M. C. (Ed.) (1995). Scenario-based design: envisioning work and technology in system development: John Wiley, Inc.
Jones, P. (2007). Drama as Therapy: Theory, Practice and Research: Routledge.
Kempe, A. (2011). Drama and the Education of Young People with Special Needs. In S. Schonmann (Ed.), Key Concepts in Theatre/Drama Education (pp. 165-169). Rotterdam: SensePublishers.
Kumazaki, H., Warren, Z., Muramatsu, T., Yoshikawa, Y., Matsumoto, Y., Miyao, M Kikuchi, M. (2017). A pilot study for robot appearance preferences among high-functioning individuals with autism spectrum disorder: Implications for therapeutic use. PLoS One, 12(10).
Kwon, M., Jung, M. F., & Knepper, R. A. (2016). Human Expectations of Social Robots. Paper presented at the The Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Laitinen, A., Niemelä, M., & Pirhonen, J. (2016). Social Robotics, Elderly Care, and Human Dignity: A Recognition-theoretical Approach. In J. Seibt, M. Nørskov, & S. Schack Andersen (Eds.), What Social Robots Cand and Should Do (pp. 155-163): IOS Press.
Lammers, E. (2017). Can Theatre Help? A literature review of applied theatre for the embodiment of empowerment, resilience, and other need-based characteristics with refugee youth. Retrieved from Stockholm University:
Langley, D. (2006). An Introduction to Dramatherapy: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Lash, S. (1994). Reflexivity and its Doubles: Structure, Aesthetics, and Community. In U. Beck, A. Giddens, & S. Lash (Eds.), Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Cambridge: Polity.
Lee, R. (2012). Look at mother nature on the run in the 21st century: responsibility, research and innovation. Transnational Environmental Law, 4(1), pp. 105-117.
Leenes, R., Palmerini, E., Koops, B.-J., Bertolini, A., Salvini, P., & Lucivero, F. (2017). Regulatory challenges of robotics: some guidelines for addressing legal and ethical issues. Law, Innovation and Technology, 9(1), 1-44.
Lin, P., Abney, K., & Bekey, G. A. (2011). Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Robotics: The MIT Press.
Ljungblad, S., Nylander, S., & Nørgaard, M. (2011). Beyond speculative ethics in HRI? Ethical considerations and the relation to empirical data. Paper presented at the 6th international conference on Human-robot interaction Lausanne, Switzerland.
Logan, D. E., Breazeal, C., Goodwin, M. S., Jeong, S., O'Connell, B., Smith-Freedman, D., Weinstock, P. (2019). Social Robots for Hospitalized Children. Pediatrics, 144(1).
Lohse, M., Hegel, F., & Wrede, B. (2008). Domestic applications for social robots: an online survey on the influence of appearance and capabilities. Journal of Physical Agents (JoPha), 2(2), 21-32.
Lothian, K., & Philp, I. (2001). Care of older people: Maintaining the dignity and autonomy of older people in the healthcare setting. BMJ, 322(7287), 668.
Lu, D. V., & Smart, W. D. (2011). Human-Robot Interactions as Theatre. Paper presented at the RO-MAN: 20th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Maas, C. (2019). Improvisational Theatre and Occupational Therapy for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 1-16.
Maha Salem, G. L., Farshid Amirabdollahian, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. (2015). Towards Safe and Trustworthy Social Robots: Ethical Challenges and Practical Issues. Paper presented at the International Conference on Social Robotics.
Mark Coeckelbergh, C. P., Ramona Simut, Andreea Peca, Sebastian Pintea, Daniel David, Bram Vanderborght. (2016). A survey of expectations about the role of robots in robot-assisted therapy for children with ASD: Ethical acceptability, trust, sociability, appearance, and attachment. Science and engineering ethics, 22(1), 47-65.
Martin-Ortiz, M., Kim, M.-G., & Barakova, E. I. (2017). Mobile Application for Executing Therapies with Robots. In Advances in Computational Intelligence (pp. 82-92).
Miller, K. W. (2010). It's Not Nice to Fool Humans. IT Professional, 12(1), 51-52.
Mitcham, C. (2003). Co-responsibility for research integrity. Science and engineering ethics, 9, (pp. 273-290). London: Wiley.
Muniesa, F., & Lenglet, M. (2013). Responsible innovation in finance: directions and implications. In R. Owen, J. Bessant, & M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, (pp. 185-198). London: Wiley.
O'Sullivan, C. (2015). Drama and Autism. In F. R. Volkmar (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Autism Spectrum Disorders. New York: Springer, New York, NY.
Oberg, R. (2012). Social skills, emotional growth and drama therapy: inspiring connection on the autism spectrum, by Lee R. Chasen. Dramatherapy, 34(2), 104-105.
Ochoa, A., Mejía, J., & Hernández, J. (2019). Implementing Humanoid Nao Robot Therapies’ Children with Down Syndrome in a Smart City. Biomedical Journal of Scientiffic & Technical Research, 14(4), 10774-10782.
Oestreicher, L., & Eklundh, K. S. (2006, 6-8 Sept. 2006). User Expectations on Human-Robot Co-operation. Paper presented at the ROMAN 2006 - The 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.
Otgaar, H., Ruiter, C., Rooy, D. L., Horselenberg, R., Hershkowitz, I., & Geijsen, K. (2019). The burden of proof of the Dutch police: Why the scenario model continues to deliver low‐quality child interviews, , . Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(5), 901-903.
Owen, R., & Goldberg, N. (2010). Responsible innovation: a pilot study with the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. Risk Analysis, 30, pp. 1699-1707.
Pellizzoni, L. (2004). Responsibility and environmental governance. Environmental Politics, 13, pp. 541-565.
Pendzik, S., & Raviv, A. (2011). Therapeutic clowning and drama therapy: A family resemblance. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 38(4), 267-275.
Perrow, C. (1999). Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies - Updated Edition (REV - Revised ed.): Princeton University Press.
Prendergast, M., & Saxton, J. (2010). Applied Theatre: International Case Studies and Challenges for Practice: Intellect Ltd.
Prescott, T. (2017). Robotics in Social Care: A Connected Care EcoSystem for Independent Living. Retrieved from United Kingdom:
Qiu, H., Li, M., Shu, B., & Bai, B. (2019). Enhancing hospitality experience with service robots: the mediating role of rapport building. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 1-22.
R. Karinen, D. G. (2010). Toward anticipatory governance: the experience with nanotechnology. Governing future technologies. Sociology of the Sciences, 27, pp. 217-232.
Randles, S., & Youtie, J. (2012 ). A trans-Atlantic conversation on responsible innovation and responsible governance. In C. C. H. Van Lente, et al. (Ed.), Little by Little: Expansions of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies, (pp. 169-180). Heidelberg Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft,.
Richardson, H. (1999). Institutionally divided moral responsibility. In E. Paul & F. M. J. Paul (Eds.), Responsibility (pp. 218-249). Cambridge: University Press.
Riek, L., & Howard, D. ( 2014). A Code of Ethics for the Human-Robot Interaction Profession. Paper presented at the We Robot.
Riek, L. D., & Watson, R. N. M. (2010). The Age of Avatar Realism. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 17(4), 37-42.
Robaczewski, A., Bouchard, J., Bouchard, K., & Gaboury, S. (2020). Socially Assistive Robots: The Specific Case of the NAO. International Journal of Social Robotics.
Robins, B., Dautenhahn, K., & Dubowski, J. (2004). Investigating autistic children's attitudes towards strangers with the theatrical robot - a new experimental paradigm in human-robot interaction studies. Paper presented at the RO-MAN 2004. 13th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (IEEE Catalog No.04TH8759).
Ruggiu, D. (2019). Models of Anticipation Within the Responsible Research and Innovation Framework: the Two RRI Approaches and the Challenge of Human Rights. NanoEthics, 13(1), 53-78.
Russell-Smith, S. N., Maybery, M. T., Bayliss, D. M., & Sng, A. A. H. (2012). Support for a Link Between the Local Processing Bias and Social Deficits in Autism: An Investigation of Embedded Figures Test Performance in Non-Clinical Individuals. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 42(11), 2420-2430.
Salem, M., Lakatos, G., Amirabdollahian, F., & Dautenhahn, K. (2015). Would You Trust a (Faulty) Robot? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction - HRI '15.
Salem, M., Ziadee, M., & Sakr, M. (2013,). Effects of Politeness and Interaction Context on Perception and Experience of HRI. Paper presented at the Social Robotics, Cham.
Sandygulova, A., & O’Hare, G. M. P. (2015,). Children’s Perception of Synthesized Voice: Robot’s Gender, Age and Accent. Paper presented at the Social Robotics, Cham.
Schomberg, R. V. (2007). From the Ethics of Technology towards an Ethics of Knowledge Policy & Knowledge Assessment. . Retrieved from Brussels:
Schomberg, R. v. (2011). Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation
(M. Dusseldorp & R. Beecroft Eds.).
Schuurbiers, D. ( 2011). What happens in the lab: applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory. Science and engineering ethics, 17, pp. 769-788.
Shah, J. A., Fong, T., & Lasota, P. A. (2017). A Survey of Methods for Safe Human-Robot Interaction. Foundations and Trends in Robotics, 5(3), 314-326.
Simmons, R., Makatchev, M., Kirby, R., Lee, M. K., Fanaswala, I., Browning, B., Sakr, M. (2011). Believable Robot Characters. AI Magazine, 32, 39-52.
Smebye, K. L., Kirkevold, M., & Engedal, K. (2016). Ethical dilemmas concerning autonomy when persons with dementia wish to live at home: a qualitative, hermeneutic study. BMC Health Serv Res, 16, 21.
Smith, A. (2014). Maximizing empowerment in applied theatre with refugees and migrants in the United Kingdom: Facilitation shaped by an ethic of care. Journal of Arts & Communities, 6(2-3), 177-188.
Song, W., Guo, X., Gu, J., Miao, X., Zhu, K., & Pang, H. (2013). Application of RobotBASIC in Robot Teaching. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2013 Fifth International Conference on Multimedia Information Networking and Security.
Stahl, B. C. (2018). Implementing Responsible Research and Innovation for Care Robots through BS 8611. In B. O (Ed.), Pflegeroboter. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.
Stahl, B. C., & Coeckelbergh, M. (2016). Ethics of healthcare robotics: Towards responsible research and innovation. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 86, 152-161.
Stirling, A. (2008). “Opening up” and “closing down”: power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science Technology & Human Values, 33, pp. 262-294.
Strati, A. (2012). Aesthetic Understanding and Tacit Knowledge. In A. S. Silvia Gherardi (Ed.), Learning and Knowing in Practice-based Studies (pp. 16-38): Elgar.
Sutcliffe, H. (2011). A Report on Responsible Research and Innovation for the European Commission. Retrieved from London
Suzuki, Y., Galli, L., Ikeda, A., Itakura, S., & Kitazaki, M. (2015). Measuring empathy for human and robot hand pain using electroencephalography. Sci Rep, 5, 15924.
Syrdal, D. S., Dautenhahn, K., Walters, M. L., Koay, K. L., & Otero, N. R. (2011). The Theatre Methodology for Facilitating Discussion in Human-Robot Interaction on Information Disclosure in a Home Environment" Paper presented at the 20th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (Ro-Man).
T. Pinch, W. B. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14, pp. 388-441.
Taylor, P. (2003). Applied Theatre: Creating Transformative Encounters in the Community: Heinemann Drama.
Trovato, G., Zecca, M., Sessa, S., Jamone, L., Ham, J., Hashimoto, K., & Takanishi, A. (2013). Cross-cultural study on human-robot greeting interaction: acceptance and discomfort by Egyptians and Japanese. In Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics (Vol. 4, pp. 83).
Trudel, C., & Nadig, A. (2019). A role-play assessment tool and drama-based social skills intervention for adults with autism or related social communication difficulties. Dramatherapy, 40(1), 41-60.
Vallès-Peris, N., Angulo, C., & Domènech, M. (2018). Children's Imaginaries of Human-Robot Interaction in Healthcare. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 15(5).
Vandemeulebroucke, T., de Casterle, B. D., & Gastmans, C. (2018). How do older adults experience and perceive socially assistive robots in aged care: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Aging Ment Health, 22(2), 149-167.
Wada, K., Shibata, T., Musha, T., & Kimura, S. (2008). Robot therapy for elders affected by dementia. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, 27(4), 53-60.
Walters, M. L., Koay, K. L., Syrdal, D. S., Campbell, A., & Dautenhahn, K. (2013). Companion robots for elderly people: Using theatre to investigate potential users' views. Paper presented at the 2013 Ieee Ro-Man.
Williams, R., & Edge, D. ( 1996). What is the social shaping of technology? Research Policy, 25, pp. 856-899.
Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See-Through Science. London: Demos.
Winfield, A. (2019). Ethical standards in robotics and AI. Nature Electronics, 2(2), 46-48.
Wynne, B. (1991). Knowledges in Context. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16(1), 111-121.
Wynne, B. ( 2002). Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of science and technology: reflexivity inside-out? Current Sociology, 50, pp. 459-477.
Wynne, B. (2004). Science and citizens : globalization and the challenge of engagement. (Claiming citizenship. Rights, participation and accountability.) In I. S. In M. Leach, & B. Wynne (Ed.), Risk at global discourse: framing issues and subjects. (pp. 87-112): Zed Books.

中文部分
Wynne, B. (2007). 風險社會、不確定性和科學民主化：STS 的未來. 科技醫療與社會, 5, 15-42.
Xu, Q., Ng, J., Cheong, Y. L., Tan, O., Wong, J. B., Tay, T. C., & Park, T. (2012, 9-12 July 2012). The role of social context in human-robot interaction. Paper presented at the 2012 Southeast Asian Network of Ergonomics Societies Conference (SEANES).
李盛雯. (2018). 全國科技願景大家談！未來科技政策公民共創. 匯流新聞.
林宗弘, 蕭新煌, & 許耿銘. (2018). 邁向世界風險社會？台灣民眾的社會資本、風險感知與風險因應行為. [Approaching a World Risk Society? Social Capital, Risk Perception and Risk Coping Behavior in Taiwan]. 調查研究-方法與應用, 40期(40), 127-166.
林宜平. (2011). 死了幾位電子廠女工之後：有機溶劑的健康風險爭議. 科技醫療與社會, 12, 61-112.
莫慕貞, 林思明, 劉志勇, 梁寶華, 郭伯臣, 陶潔瑩, & 郭嘉榮. (2016). 粵劇生行身段要訣：電腦化自動評估與學習系統. Paper presented at the Global Chinese Conference on Computers in Education, Hong Kong.
曾麗娟, 莫藜藜, 顧美俐, 黃韻如, 張宏哲, & 徐錦鋒. (2003). 社會個案工作: 理論與實務: 五南.
臺灣省立臺南師範學院. (1992). 歌仔戲的身段.
戴華, 甘偵蓉, & 鄭育萍. (2010). 人文社會科學與研究倫理審查：執行研究倫理治理架構計畫的考察與反思. 人文與社會科學簡訊, 12(1), 10-18.