Towards a Socio-Legal Robotics: A Theoretical Framework on Norms and Adaptive Technologies
This article proposes a conceptual framework for 'socio-legal robotics' by bridging Sociology of Law, Gender Studies, and Human-Robot Interaction. It examines how adaptive technologies and social robots mirror and potentially reproduce social norms, stereotypes, and power dynamics, particularly regarding gender. The authors outline three levels of adaptive technologies—design, datasets, and in situ personalisation—and advocate for approaching algorithmic and robotic modeling as a situated practice to address fairness in society.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Researchers, developers, and ethicists in human-robot interaction who want to understand the social and gender implications of adaptive robotic technologies.
What the document contains
The article covers the integration of socio-legal theory and gender studies into social robotics, analyzing how robots learn from and mirror human social norms, and proposing a framework involving design, datasets, and personalisation levels.
The document does not provide binding legal regulations, specific technical code implementations, or enforcement mechanisms for robot developers.
- Social robots and adaptive technologies risk mirroring and amplifying existing societal biases, sexism, and stereotypes.
- A socio-legal robotics framework integrates Sociology of Law and Gender Studies with Human-Robot Interaction to examine informal social norms.
- Normative mirroring occurs across three distinct levels of adaptive technologies: design, datasets, and in situ personalisation.
- Fairness in robotics must be treated as a contextualized and situated practice rather than an abstract property of technology.
· 1 Introduction: The Social in Social Robotics · 1.1 Purpose and Aims · 1.2 Developing the Argument: Acceptability and Personalisation · 2 Theoretical Development: Interdisciplinary Contributions · 2.1 Sociology of Law as a Study of Norms · 2.2 Gender Studies · 3 A Theoretical Framework · 3.1 Discussion · 4 Conclusions
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
2/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
leading to questions of accountability for those devising the mirror, its reproducing as well as amplifying abilities
2.1.1 The Robotic Mirroring of Social Norms
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Dignity
1/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
We use the term adaptive technologies (see Fig. 1) to theorise on how robotic design, with or without AI-systems, adapt to or reproduce social norms in their design or via collected data.
1 Introduction: The Social in Social Robotics
screening score · 2026-10-24
Human Oversight
0/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
screening score · 2026-10-24
Privacy
0/5Protection of personal data and private life
screening score · 2026-10-24
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
screening score · 2026-10-24
Impact Assessment
1/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
we see a need for a developed understanding of what role social norms play in social robotics, particularly with regards to fairness.
Abstract
screening score · 2026-10-24