Project Reflections
Our student co-researcher reflections
We asked our young co-reseaechers from Greenacre Special School for their reflections on the project. Scroll through the images to read their responses.
What have you learnt from this project?
What activities have you enjoyed in this project?
What activities would you like to do more of in the future?
Our thoughts on Reimagining Trustworthy Autonomous Systems
Our first work package, ‘Imagining TAS’ introduced us as a team to the world of technology, robotics and developing autonomous systems. We explored what might be important in using these technologies and how they might fit into our everyday lives.
As part of this exploration, there were conversations about the practical tasks that technology might help us with, like cooking or cleaning, the critical engagements on the adoption of technologies (e.g. to replace workers) but we also pushed at the possibilities of technology enhancing our social lives. For example, lots of our discussion centred around dancing and whether or not robots could teach us to dance.
We explored whether a robot could work alongside us to learn a TikTok dance routine, emphasising companionship and working collaboratively (e.g. showing each other and learning together) as opposed to solely assistive. Similarly, we explored whether robots might be able to do team exercises with us, such as boxing. These examples were not only examples of mundane assistance with everyday tasks, but about hobbies, hopes, desires and enjoyment in everyday life. Significantly, these examples were often areas of social life and participation in which young people had been denied opportunities and the space to imagine and create TAS that might plug such a gap became evident. Of course, this was negotiated, explored and conditional on the trustworthiness of such technologies, but absence of opportunity and exclusion left a space to explore the risk.
Of course, significant to these conversations were the processes of co-production, building and co-defining trust. Exploring the big question of ‘What is trust?’ and ‘Do we trust technology?’ provided a route into imagining TAS, but also a route into co-defining and working together as a research team. Our student co-researchers have provided significant theorisations into definitions of trust and trustworthiness relevant to conversations on TAS and more relational ethics theorisations but defined within the concept of trust. Together, these theorisations of trust, further complemented by our ‘circles of trust’ show substantive themes of human and (non)human networks, (inter)dependency and the role of time in building trust, relationships and adapting such networks and systems into our everyday lives.
Part of this trust also centres around trust in us as academics, the university and knowledge about it, and significantly, ‘meeting the designers’ of such technologies. Our student co-researchers made connections in conversations of TAS, meeting the designer and their involvement in visiting the AMRC and York ISA later in the course of our pump priming project.
The foundational work of WP1 for imagining and exploring TAS opens up the space to visualise, see TAS in action and importantly, start those important conversations and critical questions on what matters for young people and their futures as they enter into such spaces and significantly, set the agenda.
The second stage of our project - ‘Reimagining TAS’ - introduced us as a team to the practices of makerspaces and invited us to explore our aspirations for the world of technology, robotics, and autonomous systems. Further to this, we immersed ourselves in the latest developments and research through visits to the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (AMRC) at the University of Sheffield and the Institute for Safe Autonomy (ISA) at the University of York. Together, these activities worked at moving from ideas of technology or imagined users, to makers, active participants and critical consultants in practice.
Our initial workshop with the Maker{futures} team reminded us of the importance of introductions, (re)familiarising with people and projects and building relationships and trust in collaborative projects. We found it important to have conversations about things that we were good at and things we found difficult whilst also sharing things that we had previously made. In this sense we were reminded that we were already makers before we had even entered the exciting world of Maker{futures}. We made badges to allow our student co-researchers to make their own mark and create their own name for academic research purposes. This worked as an important process in co-production as well as the making of the badges being an important part of the makerspaces process. Central to our introduction to makerspaces was also just having fun, having a go, and having a play!
The connections between makerspaces philosophies and practice could not be separated from the research processes of participatory design and co-production. Our affirmative and capacity focused 'Robots rules' and 'Lollypop traffic light system' were evidence of this where there was an emphasis on team work, collaboration, and supporting others when needed. Our second makerspace workshop also gave time to think through ideas, collectively discuss and begin to design. Not only did this enhance research relationships and collaboration, but instilled confidence in our co-researchers to imagine themselves with particular skill sets and see themselves as designers. This combination of co-researcher to co-maker brings participation to life in particular ways - not least in the co-fabrication of material realities, products and prototypes. This is participatory research on sterioids.
Finally, we got to the making - our designs, prototypes, devices and constructions. Importantly, the fan for our room, the therapy robot, the tea tray and the communicating messaging tool all had others in mind. The ‘finished products’ were perhaps manifestations of the positive culture of difference and care felt throughout the entire process and how the community of our co-researchers positively influenced the philosophy of design. Our student co-researchers were in tune with each other, with the academic team, the community, their family, and their friends. Accommodating each other's needs, waiting for team members, and looking out for each other were part and parcel of the process and exemplified through the work of Maker{Futures}. This collective working, culture, knowledge, and empathy with and for each other should be central to technological design and the direction of TAS and of course, central to co-production. What is is noticeable is the community-oriented focus of our makers; not simply about making entities for serve one's interests but to co-create prototypes that might serve the self and many others.
Our trips to the AMRC and ISA picked up on our important thread from WP1 - meeting (and trusting!) the designers. Critical questions continued as well as playful participation and team work when working with robots. At the AMRC, making personalised pens was a particular highlight and only worked to emphasise the continued importance of making and having ownership of the 'products' of research. At the ISA visit, being involved in activities where technology and robots went wrong and how we might reimagine and recreate with our insights in mind was centered. Our student co-researchers also highlighted in our final project reflections that sometimes, robots just aren't listening!
To conclude, the engaged and participatory nature of WP2, 'Reimagining TAS', has seen co-creating and making in action. Our young co-researchers are makers of technology for the future. They are important collaborators with brilliant inputs on philosophies of design, teamwork and making – this gives us hope for inclusive, equitable and collaborative research on TAS for the future.
Do you have thoughts on our project?
We are keen to hear other peoples' thoughts on this project or if you have used any of our resources or findings. Let us know via our contact us page.