This article draws on an empirical, practice-based study of robotcare understood as a situated care practice, conducted in two elderly nursing homes with specialized dementia units, where the companion robot Hiro was introduced. The concept of more-than-human intimacy serves as a lens for reading how humans, more-than-humans, and discourses are entangled in the practice of robotcare and how this practice is collectively learnt. More-than-human intimacy comes to life in a material-discursive process, in which the subjectivity of neurodivergent people emerges ‘beyond words’, through their sensible knowledge in relation to the vibrant materiality of Hiro. At the same time, this subjectivity is ‘talked-into-being’ by the discursive practices of other people (caregivers and we, researchers) who act as spokespersons for those who do not have the same access to language. This perspective offers an alternative, nonanthropocentric understanding of care relationships and of vulnerability as an existential condition traversing the boundaries between neurotypicality and neurodivergence.
AhmedS (2006) Orientations: Toward a queer phenomenology. GLQ: A journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies12(4): 543–574.
2.
AhmedS (2010) Orientations matter. In: CooleDFrostS (eds) New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 234–257.
3.
AlaimoS (2012) States of suspension: Trans-corporeality at sea. ISLE: Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment19(3): 476–493.
4.
AzerJAlexanderM (2024) Human-machine engagement (HME): Conceptualization, typology of forms, antecedents, and consequences. Journal of Service Research28(1): 112–130.
5.
BaradK (2003) Post humanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs28(3): 801–831.
6.
BaradK (2007) Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
7.
BeckUBeck-GernsheimE (2002) Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and Its Social and Political Consequences. London: SAGE.
8.
BennettJ (2010) Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
BerlantL (1998) Intimacy: A special issue. Critical Inquiry24(2): 281–288.
11.
BraidottiR (2013) The Posthuman. Cambridge: Polity Press.
12.
BruniA (2005) Shadowing software and clinical records: On the ethnography of non-humans. Organization12(3): 357–378.
13.
ButlerJ (2004) Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence. New York: Verso.
14.
CalásMSmircichL (2023) A Research Agenda for Organization Studies, Feminisms and New Materialisms. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
15.
CalvilloNGarnettE (2019) Data intimacies: Building infrastructures for intensified embodied encounters with air pollution. The Sociological Review67(2): 340–356.
16.
CohenRL (2011) Time, space and touch at work: Body work and labour process (re)organization. Sociology of Health & Illness33(2): 189–205.
17.
CooleDFrostS (2010) Introducing the new materialisms. In: CooleDFrostS (eds) New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics. Druham, NC: Duke University Press, 1–43.
18.
CooperCHunterDMichelAJ, et al. (2024) A positionality tool to support ethical research and inclusion in the participatory sciences. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice9(1): 1–10.
19.
CoorenF (2004) Textual agency: How texts do things in organizational settings. Organization11(3): 373–393.
20.
CozzaMCersosimoG (2023) A responsible approach to age, aging, and digital technology. Italian Journal of Sociology of Education15(2): 1–20.
21.
CozzaMGherardiS (2023) The Posthumanist Epistemology of Practice Theory: Re-imagining Method in Organization Studies and beyond. London: Palgrave Mcmillan.
22.
de VaujanyF-XGherardiSSilvaP (eds) (2024) Organization Studies and Posthumanism: Towards a More-Than-Human World. London: Routledge.
23.
DeFalcoA (2020) Towards a theory of posthuman care: Real humans and caring robots. Body & Society26(3): 31–60.
24.
DeFalcoADolezalL (2023) What is affective techno-touch (and why does it matter)?The Senses and Society18(2): 85–91.
25.
DeleuzeGGuattariF (1987) A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (trans. MassumiB). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
26.
FarnellB (2011) Theorizing ‘the body’ in visual culture. In:BanksMRubyJ (eds) Made to be Seen: Perspectives on the History of Visual Anthropology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 136–158.
27.
GaniJKKhanR M (2024) Positionality statements as a function of coloniality: Interrogating reflexive methodologies. International Studies Quarterly, 68(2): sqae038.
28.
GherardiS (2019) Theorizing affective ethnography for organization studies. Organization26(6): 741–760.
29.
GherardiS (2022) A posthumanist epistemology of practice. In: NeeshamCReihlenMSchoenebornD (eds) Handbook of Philosophy of Management. (Section Epistemology of Management). Cham: Springer, 99–120.
30.
GherardiS (2024) How practice theory participates in critical posthumanist conversations. In: de VaujanyFGherardiSSilvaP (eds) Organization Studies and Posthumanism: Towards a More-Than-Human World. London: Routledge, 162–182.
31.
GherardiS (2026) How to Conduct a Practice-Based Study: Problems and Methods. 3rd edn.Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
32.
GherardiSCozzaM (2022) Atmospheric attunement in the becoming of a happy object: ‘That special gut feeling’. In:BarbaraSRevsbaekL (eds) Doing Process Research in Organizations: Noticing Differently. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 16–38.
33.
GherardiSRodeschiniG (2016) Caring as a collective knowledgeable doing: About concern and being concerned. Management Learning47(3): 266–284.
34.
GiddensA (1992) The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Cambridge: Polity Press.
35.
GilsonE (2011) Vulnerability, ignorance, and oppression. Hypatia26(2): 308–332.
36.
GoodmanS (2010) Sonic Warfare: Sound, Affect, and the Ecology of Fear. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37.
GreggMSeigworthG (eds)(2010) The Affect Theory Reader. London: Duke University Press.
38.
HarawayD (1991) Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge.
39.
HarawayD (2016) Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
40.
HuiA (2023) Situating decolonial strategies within methodologies-in/as-practices: A critical appraisal. The Sociological Review71(5): 1075–1094.
41.
InnolaT (2025) Refraining co-becomings: The affective pulse of companionships. Nora-Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research33(1): 70–85.
42.
JenkinsN (2014) Dementia and the inter-embodied self. Social Theory & Health12(2: 125–137.
43.
KinnunenTKolehmainenM (2019) Touch and affect: Analyzing the archive of touch biographies. Body & Society25(1): 29–56.
44.
KolehmainenMLahtiALahadK (2022) Affective Intimacies. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
45.
KuzniarA (2008) ‘I married my dog’: On queer Canine literature. In: GiffneyNHirdM (eds) Queering the Non/Human. Aldershot: Ashgate, 205–226.
46.
LathamAWagnerL (2021) Experiments in becoming: Corporeality, attunement and doing research. Cultural Geographies28(1): 91–108.
47.
LatimerJGómezDL (2019) Intimate entanglements: Affects, more-than-human intimacies and the politics of relations in science and technology. The Sociological Review67(2): 247–263.
48.
Lenz TaguchiHSt PierreE (2017) Using concepts as method in educational and social science inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry23(9): 643–648.
49.
LuptonD (2019) Toward a more-than-human analysis of digital health: Inspirations from feminist new materialism. Qualitative Health Research29(14): 1998–2009.
50.
LuptonDWatsonA (2021) Towards more-than-human digital data studies: Developing research-creation methods. Qualitative Research21(4): 463–480.
51.
LykkeN (2019) Co-becoming with diatoms: Between posthuman mourning and wonder in algae research. Catalyst. Feminism, Theory, Technoscience5(2): 1–25.
52.
ManningE (2016) The Minor Gesture. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
53.
MassumiB (2002) Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
54.
MazzeiLJacksonA (2012) Complicating voice in a refusal to ‘Let participants speak for themselves’. Qualitative Inquiry18(9): 745–751.
55.
MeleC (2025) The caring turn in service research. Journal of Services Marketing: 1–14.
56.
MeleCRusso-SpenaT (2025) Agencement of onlife and phygital: Smart tech–enabled value co-creation practices. Journal of Service Management36(2): 217–240.
57.
MeleCMarzulloMDi BernardoI, et al. (2022) A smart tech lever to augment caregivers’ touch and foster vulnerable patient engagement and well-being. Journal of Service Theory and Practice32(1): 52–74.
58.
MeleCRusso-SpenaTDi BernardoI, et al. (2025a) Affect-based well-being in caring practices with companion robots. Journal of Service Research. Epub ahead of print 18 October. DOI: 10.1177/10946705251372448.
59.
MeleCRusso-SpenaTRanieriA, et al. (2025b) A system and learning perspective on human–robot collaboration. Journal of Service Management36(4): 495–522.
60.
Méndez de la BrenaD (2022) ‘Caring matter’: A love story of queer intimacies between (her) body and object (her cigarette). In: KolehmainenMLahtiALahadK (eds) Affective Intimacies. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 27–44.
61.
Merleau-PontyM (2002) Causeries 1948. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
62.
MieleFGherardiS (2025) Atmospheres of care, coercion and containment: An affective ethnography. Management Learning56(5): 940–961.
63.
MolA (2002) The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
64.
Odekerken-SchröderGMeleCRusso-SpenaT, et al. (2020) Mitigating loneliness with companion robots in the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: An integrative framework and research agenda. Journal of Service Management31(6): 1149–1162.
ÖrulvL (2023) Neurodiversity and dementia: Pitfalls, possibilities and some personal notes. In WardRSödermanL (eds) Critical Dementia Studies: An Introduction. London: Taylor and Francis, 247–261.
67.
PaasonenS (2017) Infrastructures of intimacy. In: AndreassenRPetersenMHarrisonK, et al (eds) Mediated intimacies: Connectivities, Relationalities and Proximities. London: Routledge, 103–116.
68.
PaasonenSJaaksiVKoivunenA, et al. (2023) Intimate infrastructures we depend upon: Living with data. Media Theory7(2): 285–308.
69.
PageT (2017) Vulnerable writing as a feminist methodological practice. Feminist Review115(1): 13–29.
70.
ParviainenJPirhonenJ (2017) Vulnerable bodies in human–robot interactions: Embodiment as ethical issue in robot care for the elderly. Transformations17(1): 104–115.
71.
PerssonMRedmalmDIversenC (2022) Caregivers’ use of robots and their effect on work environment: A scoping review. Journal of Technology in Human Services40(3): 251–277.
PirasEMieleF (2019) On digital intimacy: Redefining provider–patient relationships in remote monitoring. Sociology of Health & Illness41: 116–131.
74.
Puig de la BellacasaM (2017) Matters of Care: Speculative Ethics in More Than Human Worlds. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
75.
RevillG (2021) Voicing the environment: Latour, Peirce and an expanded politics. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space39(1): 121–138.
76.
RobertsT (2012) From ‘new materialism’ to ‘machinic assemblage’: Agency and affect in IKEA. Environment and Planning A44(10): 2512–2529.
77.
RozmarinM (2021) Navigating the intimate unknown: Vulnerability as an affective relation. Nora-Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research29(3): 190–202.
78.
SætraHS (2020) The foundations of a policy for the use of social robots in care. Technology in Society63: 101383.
79.
SatamaS (2020) Researching through experiencing aesthetic moments: ‘Sensory slowness’ as my methodological strength. In: PullenAHelinJHardingN (eds) Writing Differently. Leeds: Emerald Publishing Limited, 209–230.
80.
SatamaSHuopalainenA (2019) Please tell me when you are in pain: A heartbreaking story of care, grief and female–canine companionship. Gender, Work & Organization26(3): 358–376.
81.
SeyfertR (2012) Beyond personal feelings and collective emotions: Toward a theory of social affect. Theory, Culture & Society29(6): 27–46.
82.
ShanksIScottMLMendeM, et al. (2024) Cobotic service teams and power dynamics: Understanding and mitigating unintended consequences of human-robot collaboration in healthcare services. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science53(2): 1–27.
83.
SharkeyA (2014) Robots and human dignity: A consideration of the effects of robot care on the dignity of older people. Ethics and Information Technology16(1): 63–75.
84.
SimpsonBRevsbaekL (eds) (2022) Doing Process Research in Organizations: Noticing Differently. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
85.
StewartK (2007) Ordinary Affects. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
86.
StewartK (2011) Atmospheric attunements. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space29(3): 445–453.
87.
StratiA (2007) Sensible knowledge and practice-based learning. Management Learning38(1): 61–77.
88.
SumiokaHYamatoNShiomiM, et al. (2021) A minimal design of a human infant presence: A case study toward interactive Doll therapy for older adults with dementia. Front Robot AI8: 633378.
89.
UlmerJ (2017) Posthumanism as research methodology: Inquiry in the Anthropocene. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education30(9): 832–848.
90.
van der TuinIDolphijnR (2010) The Transversality of New Materialism. Women: A Cultural Review21(2): 153–171.
WarrenS (2018) Photography in qualitative organizational research: Conceptual, analytical and ethical issues in photo-elicitation inspired methods. In: CassellCGrandyGCunliffeAL (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods. London: SAGE, 239–261.
93.
WilsonA (2016) The Infrastructures of Intimacy. Signs41(2): 247–280.
94.
XiaoLKumarV (2021) Robotics for customer service: A useful complement or an ultimate substitute?Journal of Service Research24(1): 9–29.
95.
YamatoNSumiokaHIshiguroH, et al. (2023) Technology acceptance models from different viewpoints of caregiver, receiver, and care facility administrator: Lessons from long-Term Implementation Using Baby-Like Interactive Robot for Nursing Home Residents with Dementia, Journal of Technology in Human Services41(4): 296–321.
