Qualitative Research in HRI: A Review and Taxonomy

Abstract

The field of human–robot interaction (HRI) is young and highly inter-disciplinary, and the approaches, standards and methods proper to it are still in the process of negotiation. This paper reviews the use of qualitative methods and approaches in the HRI literature in order to contribute to the development of a foundation of approaches and methodologies for these new research areas. In total, 73 papers that use qualitative methods were systematically reviewed. The review reveals that there is widespread use of qualitative methods in HRI, but very different approaches to reporting on it, and high variance in the rigour with which the approaches are applied. We also identify the key qualitative methods used. A major contribution of this paper is a taxonomy categorizing qualitative research in HRI in two dimensions: by ’study type’ and based on the specific qualitative method used.

Full text

International Journal of Social Robotics (2021) 13:1689–1709
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00723-z
Qualitative Research in HRI: A Review and Taxonomy
Louise Veling1·Conor McGinn2
Accepted: 29 October 2020 / Published online: 20 February 2021
© Springer Nature B.V. 2021
Abstract
The field of human–robot interaction (HRI) is young and highly inter-disciplinary, and the approaches, standards and methods
proper to it are still in the process of negotiation. This paper reviews the use of qualitative methods and approaches in the
HRI literature in order to contribute to the development of a foundation of approaches and methodologies for these new
research areas. In total, 73 papers that use qualitative methods were systematically reviewed. The review reveals that there
is widespread use of qualitative methods in HRI, but very different approaches to reporting on it, and high variance in the
rigour with which the approaches are applied. We also identify the key qualitative methods used. A major contribution of this
paper is a taxonomy categorizing qualitative research in HRI in two dimensions: by ’study type’ and based on the specific
qualitative method used.
Keywords Qualitative methods ·Survey ·Taxonomy ·Human–robot interaction ·Social robotics ·Interviews ·Ethnography ·
Participatory design ·Social science ·Grounded theory
1 Introduction
The field of human–robot interaction (HRI), which includes
the domain of social robotics, is concerned with understand-
ing, designing, and evaluating robots for use by, or with,
humans, often in uncontrolled, or ‘real-world’ settings. HRI
originated from the field of Human-Computer Interaction
(HCI), but over several decades has established itself as dis-
tinct research field [1,2]. Factors that distinguish HRI include
the embodied nature of robots, the effect of anthropomor-
phism and the unconstrained nature of interaction between
robots and people typical of HRI experiments. Collectively,
these serve to uniquely define HRI as a research field in its
own right.
HRI is a research area that remains young and highly inter-
disciplinary, and the approaches, standards and methods are
still in the process of negotiation. While this brings a high
level of interdisciplinary attention, innovation, and creativity
to the field, it also leads to challenges in establishing agreed
BConor McGinn
mcginnc@tcd.ie
Louise Veling
louise.veling@mu.ie
1Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland
2Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
upon systematic approaches and methods. The field has been
widely criticized for its lack of scientific quality and method-
ological rigour [3–6]. This has led to calls and proposals for
the development of a standardized approach to allow for com-
parable and reproducible results [7]. Researchers have also
called for larger sample sizes [5,6,8], more longitudinal stud-
ies to mitigate the novelty effect [3,5], more controlled trials
[3,5,6], higher quality reporting [3,6] and an increase in the
number of methods used [8].
However, caution should be used when calling for a
single, standardized approach, or for an insistence on con-
trolled, testable conditions across all studies. Such a move
could preclude studies that aim to understand social con-
texts, human perspectives, the nature of interactions, and to
generate new understandings and explanations. Theory test-
ing is one aspect of scientific inquiry, but theory development
and refinement are equally important [9]. For this, qualita-
tive, interpretative and exploratory research provide powerful
tools. While qualitative studies necessarily lack the precision
of hypothesis-driven experimental studies, they can capture
holistic, multi-factorial and emergent data in a way that is
nonetheless formal, rigorous and systematic [9]. Instead of
developing a single, standardized approach, then, a founda-
tion of complementary approaches and methodologies are
needed [4,10], as well as greater clarity in methodological
reporting [6].
123
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.