IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i8p4696-d793132.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“We’re Still Struggling a Bit to Actually Figure Out What That Means for Government”: An Exploration of the Policy Capacity Required to Oversee Robot Technologies in Australia and New Zealand Care Services

Author

Listed:
  • Helen Dickinson

    (Public Service Research Group, University of New South Wales, Canberra, ACT 2612, Australia)

  • Catherine Smith

    (Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia)

  • Nicole Carey

    (Wyss Institute of Biologically Inspired Engineering, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
    Autodesk Robotics Lab, Autodesk Inc., San Rafael, CA 94903, USA)

  • Gemma Carey

    (Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia
    Centre for Social Impact, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia)

Abstract

Many countries are experiencing a “care crisis” driven by increasing demand for care services alongside difficulties in recruiting and retaining an appropriate care workforce. One of the solutions offered to this is the use of robotic technologies. While there are several positives produced by robots, they are not without challenges and have the potential to be misused. History shows disruptive technologies require appropriate policy capacity for these to be effectively stewarded so that we can secure the positive gains of these without encountering potential harms. In this paper, we explore the types of policy capacity needed to oversee robotic technologies. Drawing on interviews with 35 key stakeholders involved with the implementation of robots in Australian and New Zealand care services, we identify the capabilities required at the individual, organisational, and systemic levels across the analytical, operational, and political domains. We found the respondents perceived a lack of policy capacity to oversee robotics in the government. However, these gaps are less in respect to technological skills and abilities and more in respect to the system’s impacts and effects of these technologies. We conclude by outlining a summary of the capabilities required to oversee robots in complex care systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Helen Dickinson & Catherine Smith & Nicole Carey & Gemma Carey, 2022. "“We’re Still Struggling a Bit to Actually Figure Out What That Means for Government”: An Exploration of the Policy Capacity Required to Oversee Robot Technologies in Australia and New Zealand Care Ser," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-14, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:8:p:4696-:d:793132
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/8/4696/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/8/4696/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adam Wellstead & Richard Stedman, 2010. "Policy Capacity and Incapacity in Canada's Federal Government," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(6), pages 893-910, November.
    2. H. Brinton Milward & Keith Provan, 2003. "Managing the hollow state Collaboration and contracting," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 1-18, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Döring, Matthias & Löbel, Stephan, 2018. "Street-Level Bureaucrats und Intermediäre: Konflikt oder Symbiose?," SocArXiv ngmja, Center for Open Science.
    2. Momani Bessma, 2013. "Management consultants and the United States’ public sector," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 15(3), pages 381-399, October.
    3. Steffie Lucidarme & Greet Cardon & Annick Willem, 2016. "A Comparative Study of Health Promotion Networks: Configurations of determinants for network effectiveness," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(8), pages 1163-1217, September.
    4. Pierre-Olivier Bédard, 2015. "The Mobilization of Scientific Evidence by Public Policy Analysts," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(3), pages 21582440156, September.
    5. Nathalie Brender & Bledi Yzeiraj & Florian Dupuy, 2017. "Risk and accountability: Drivers for change in network governance. The case of school restaurants governance in a Swiss city," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 1384636-138, January.
    6. Kirchner, Alexander & Labusch, Nils & Lopez Cordoba, Adriana & Sartor, Sebastian & Tumbas, Sanja & Villalon, Enrique & Wiethoff, Sebastian, 2011. "Network e-Volution," ERCIS Working Papers 11, University of Münster, European Research Center for Information Systems (ERCIS).
    7. Collins-Camargo, Crystal & Hollie, Mary & McBeath, Bowen, 2014. "Private child and family serving agencies: Implications of national survey results for policy and managerial practice," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 142-149.
    8. Wong, Dan & Baker, Douglas, 2014. "Improving US airport taxicab services through governance arrangements," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 126-131.
    9. Collins-Camargo, Crystal & Chuang, Emmeline & McBeath, Bowen & Bunger, Alicia C., 2014. "Private child welfare agency managers' perceptions of the effectiveness of different performance management strategies," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 133-141.
    10. Martina Dal Molin & Cristina Masella, 2016. "Networks in policy, management and governance: a comparative literature review to stimulate future research avenues," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 20(4), pages 823-849, December.
    11. Soo-Young Lee & Taesik Yun & Andrew B. Whitford & Jae Young Lim, 2020. "The Reorganization of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and Its Effects," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 647-663, December.
    12. Seejeen Park & Seunghoo Lim, 2018. "Are Networks Flat or Vertical?: Developing a Multi-Level Multi-Dimension Network Model," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 223-243, June.
    13. Chris Huxham & Paul Hibbert, 2008. "Manifested Attitudes: Intricacies of Inter‐Partner Learning in Collaboration," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(3), pages 502-529, May.
    14. Willem, Annick, 2010. "Trust in whole networks in the public and nonprofit sector: The impact of public sector characteristics," Working Papers 2010/13, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    15. Dax D. Jacobson, 2016. "How and why network governance evolves: evidence from a public safety network," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 26(1), pages 43-54, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:8:p:4696-:d:793132. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.