Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2025 May;47(4):e70033.
doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.70033.

Towards a Sociology of Healthcare Robots

Daniel Robins  1 , Nik Brown  1 , Karl Atkin  1 , Luna Dolezal  2 , Sarah Nettleton  1
Affiliations
Review

Towards a Sociology of Healthcare Robots

Daniel Robins et al. Sociol Health Illn. 2025 May.

Abstract

We propose a sociological approach to healthcare robots that emphasises the heterogeneous ethics of mutual labour and the complex definitions of care that emerge through robot design/deployment. This argument is the product of a narrative literature review that examined assistive robots deployed in care settings. We found that although the deployment of healthcare robots has redefined the concept of care, as featured in geography, legal studies, and philosophy, it rarely appears in sociological inquiry. There are three fields that this approach to a sociology of health and illness complements. These are (1) phenomenology and the new approaches to touch and recognition in embodied relations with robots, (2) biopolitics, where the governance of life is conceptualised as a conjunction between the biological and artificial and (3) the reconfiguration of healthcare labour around mutuality, where robots both maintain and are maintained by the human. We end by suggesting that the increased implementation of robotics into care work provides a broader sociological opportunity for addressing how boundaries of 'human' can be rethought alongside new healthcare technologies.

Keywords: artificial intelligence; biopolitics; data; labour; robots.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Abrishami, P., A. Boer, and K. Horstman. 2014. “Understanding the Aadoption Dynamics of Medical Innovations: Affordances of the Da Vinci Robot in the Netherlands.” Social Science & Medicine 117: 125–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.07.046.
    1. Alač, M. 2016. “Social Robots: Things or Agents?” AI and Society 31, no. 4: 519–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146‐015‐0631‐6.
    1. Aronsson, A., and F. Holm. 2021. “Conceptualizing Robotic Agency. Social Robots in Elder Care in Contemporary Japan. Relations.” Beyond Anthropocentrism 8, no. 1–2: 1. https://doi.org/10.7358/rela‐2020‐0102‐arho.
    1. Bedaf, S., G. J. Gelderblom, D. S. Syrdal, et al. 2014. “Which Activities Threaten Independent Living of Elderly when Becoming Problematic: Inspiration for Meaningful Service Robot Functionality.” Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 9, no. 6: 445–452. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2013.840861.
    1. Bissell, D., and V. J. Del Casino. 2017. “Whither Labor Geography and the Rise of the Robots?” Social and Cultural Geography 18, no. 3: 435–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2016.1273380.

LinkOut - more resources