Public engagement

We have become more reliant on digital technologies since the COVID-19 pandemic. They have helped us to connect with family and friends, bring online events to life, and access shops and services during COVID-19 restrictions. How has this acceleration in technology use impacted our perception of autonomous systems?

In 2020 we ran focus groups to ask the public about autonomous technologies: about their perceived risks and their use in driving and healthcare. A year later, we wanted to ask these questions again and to see the impact on attitudes and perceptions, if any, of COVID-19 and the associated increased general use of digital technology.

Attitudes towards technology

As we saw in 2020, the groups we met spoke positively about how technology supports their lives. These benefits tended to be at an individual level: saving them time, helping them to keep fit and to keep in touch with friends. They also had concerns and these were on a societal level: that children might be missing out by being online, that vulnerable groups could be left behind, and a worry about technology replacing jobs.

There were two interesting new findings in the 2021 focus groups. Firstly, a generational difference in terms of technology fatigue: younger groups we spoke with were tired of the reliance on technology while older participants saw technology as novel and exciting. Secondly, a concern about the pace of technology and its environmental impact.

"...there is an awful amount of waste built into the sort of general leaping of technology. …it is just literally more landfill. I think that’s going to be a huge issue because obviously a lot of the components of the technology are toxic things which need processing.”

The societal impact arose again linked to the use of personal data. Participants were very unhappy about companies using their data unless it was for the greater good.

Autonomous vehicles

Participants split naturally into three categories in their discussions of autonomous vehicles, as they had in 2020: supporters, potentials and rejectors.

Supporters believe that an autonomous vehicle would have undergone rigorous testing and that technology can outperform a human driver, similar to our results in 2020.

"The thing is, ... a computer can perform calculations and make decisions thousands of times faster than the human brain, so theoretically it should be safe.”

As part of our discussions, participants were shown a magazine cover that portrayed an autonomous car, and a short video showing a car identifying hazards. The film showing the hazard identification overwhelmed many of our participants, leading to a feeling of unease.

"Yeah, it was making me feel very uneasy thinking – seeing all those things. I think, if I reflect on it, if it was an autonomous system which had gone through all the safety precautions, then I would rather all the workings were just hidden for me.”

“Hiding the workings” is difficult, however, while there is a need for a human driver to be alert in case of a handover situation. Participants assumed that buying an autonomous car would mean giving full control to the system and many rejected the whole concept of a driverless car if they still had to be alert in case of an emergency.

"But I mean it kind of defeats the point, if I’ve got to sit in the front and be still very aware, you know, if my car is not necessarily going to take action for me and it’s going to, you know, flag up warnings here and there and I’ve got to be ready, ...I might as well just drive the car normally.”

The feeling of apprehension caused by the video of hazard identification and the idea of handover led to conversations about what information they would want in such a situation. Participants were clear that they did not want to be over-stimulated by warnings and information. They wanted to know why they needed to take over the wheel and what was expected of them. 

Healthcare

In contrast to autonomous driving, participants were clear that they wanted a human involved in our healthcare scenario, which involved patients monitoring their own blood pressure at home.

"I think as long as it complements the doctor’s knowledge and not takes it over.”

"...the blood pressure monitor definitely seems like a good idea, as long as the machine is not making the decision.”

The groups identified benefits of the use of autonomous technology in healthcare, as long as it was for monitoring and not for taking the final decision about a diagnosis or a treatment.

Again our groups split into three categories: supporters, potentials and rejectors. Supporters were clear that technology could help to ease the burden on the NHS and could outperform a human. Potentials were uncertain and wanted more information about how easy such equipment might be to use, especially for older and more vulnerable groups. Rejectors were concerned about technology going wrong and most clearly wanted a human involved in the final decision making.

"Because in the medicine world there is not really room for mistakes, so I wouldn’t say 100% start relying on machines.”