The Atypical Interactant in a Smart Homecare Participation Framework

This paper contributes to research on the role of technology in ‘atypical’ interaction by examining a situation in which the technology takes on the stigma of atypicality. Building on our analysis, we argue that this approach provides a model for assistive technology research and development that moves away from a techno-medical model and focuses on how typicality (and atypicality) are achieved interactionally.


  • Alač, M., Gluzman, Y., Aflatoun, T., Bari, A., Jing, B., & Mozqueda, G. (2020). How Everyday Interactions with Digital Voice Assistants Resist a Return to the Individual. Evental Aesthetics, 9(1), 51.
  • Albert, S., Hamann, M., & Stokoe, E. (2023). Conversational User Interfaces in Smart Homecare Interactions: A Conversation Analytic Case Study. In ACM conference on Conversational User Interfaces (CUI ’23), 
  • July 19–21, 2023, Eindhoven, Netherlands. ACM, New York, NY, USA 12
  • Amazon Echo (Director). (2019). Amazon Echo & Alexa—Morning Ritual (60s).
  • Amazon Echo (Director). (2019). Amazon Alexa: Sharing is Caring.
  • Antaki, C., & Wilkinson, R. (2012). Conversation Analysis and the Study of Atypical Populations. In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 533–550). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
  • Barnes, S., & Bloch, S. (2020). Communication disorders, enchrony, and other-participation in repair. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 34(10–11), 887–893.
  • Bedaf, S., Gelderblom, G. J., de Witte, L., Syrdal, D., Lehmann, H., Amirabdollahian, F., Dautenhahn, K., & Hewson, D. (2013). Selecting services for a service robot: Evaluating the problematic activities threatening the independence of elderly persons. 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), 1–6.
  • Bottema-Beutel, K., Kapp, S. K., Lester, J. N., Sasson, N. J., & Hand, B. N. (2021). Avoiding Ableist Language: Suggestions for Autism Researchers. Autism in Adulthood, 3(1), 18–29.
  • Ekberg, K., Hickson, L., & Lind, C. (2020). Practices of Negotiating Responsibility for Troubles in Interaction Involving People with Hearing Impairment. In R. Wilkinson, J. P. Rae, & G. Rasmussen (Eds.), Atypical Interaction: The Impact of Communicative Impairments within Everyday Talk (pp. 409–433). Springer International Publishing.
  • García-Soler, Á., Facal, D., Díaz-Orueta, U., Pigini, L., Blasi, L., & Qiu, R. (2018). Inclusion of service robots in the daily lives of frail older users: A step-by-step definition procedure on users’ requirements. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 74, 191–196.
  • Goodwin, C. (2007). Interactive footing. In E. Holt & R. Clift (Eds.), Reporting Talk (pp. 16–46). Cambridge University Press.
  • Jackson, L., Haagaard, A., & Williams, R. (2022). Disability Dongle | Platypus.
  • Kachouie, R., Sedighadeli, S., Khosla, R., & Chu, M.-T. (2014). Socially Assistive Robots in Elderly Care: A Mixed-Method Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 30(5), 369–393.
  • Kendrick, K. H., & Drew, P. (2015). Recruitment: Offers, Requests, and the Organization of Assistance in Interaction. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 49(1), 1–19.
  • Maguire, D., Honeyman, M., Fenney, D., & Jabbal, J. (2021). Shaping the future of digital technology in health and social care. The King’s Fund.
  • Porcheron, M., Fischer, J. E., Reeves, S., & Sharples, S. (2018). Voice Interfaces in Everyday Life. Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’18).
  • Robinson, J. D. (2006). Managing Trouble Responsibility and Relationships During Conversational Repair. Communication Monographs, 73(2), 137–161.
  • Sacks, H. (1984). On doing ‘being ordinary’. In J. Heritage & J. M. Atkinson (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 413–429). Cambridge University Press.
  • Scherer, M. J. (2020). It is time for the biopsychosocialtech model. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 15(4), 363–364.
  • Tuisku, O., Pekkarinen, S., Hennala, L., & Melkas, H. (2018). “Robots do not replace a nurse with a beating heart”: The publicity around a robotic innovation in elderly care. Information Technology & People, 32(1), 47–67.
  • White, G. W., Lloyd Simpson, J., Gonda, C., Ravesloot, C., & Coble, Z. (2010). Moving from Independence to Interdependence: A Conceptual Model for Better Understanding Community Participation of Centers for Independent Living Consumers. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20(4), 233–240.
  • Wilkinson, R. (2019). Atypical Interaction: Conversation Analysis and Communicative Impairments. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(3), 281–299.
  • Wright, J. (2019). Robots vs migrants? Reconfiguring the future of Japanese institutional eldercare. Critical Asian Studies, 51(3), 331–354.
  • Wright, J. (2023). Robots won’t save Japan: An ethnography of eldercare automation. ILR Press, an imprint of Cornell University Press.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.