Human Technology and Organisations Research Group

Month: October 2026

New publication on how social drones could be utilised for recreational running

18 October 2026 /

Human-drone interaction is an emerging field investigating ways to extend the conventionally passive role of drones with autonomous, socially interactive functionalities. Drones offer unique opportunities for applications, such as exercise support, due to their mobility and flexibility. While previous research has studied drones for, e.g., pacing, gait analysis, and accessibility in running contexts, we propose that an equally crucial part of such applications is the socially interactive role of the drone.

Our paper “Investigating social drones for recreational running through co-design” was recently published in Frontiers in Robotics and AI. In this paper, Stine Schmieg Johansen, Martin Bergström, Mohammad Obaid, and I, present a study in two phases. In the first phase, we conducted a preliminary study that informed the design of a co-design workshop through eight semi-structured interviews exploring drone support for runners. In the second phase, we designed and conducted a co-design workshop with five experienced recreational runners to reflect on the practical and ethical challenges of using drones and to envision ways in which drones could support and interact with runners in future scenarios. The results present five low-fidelity social drone prototypes (seen above), including participants’ reflections tied to each prototype. Furthermore, we present analytical themes that demonstrate the necessity of extending and re-framing approaches to designing social drones.

The results expanded the Design Space for Social Drones framework, previously developed by Bayatas et al. (2019). Bold = Extensions derived from the thematic analysis. Bottom of the two sections are non-user concerns.

Read the full paper here: https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2026.1897014

Citation: Thunberg S, Schmieg Johansen S, Bergström M and Obaid M (2026) Investigating social drones for recreational running through co-design. Front. Robot. AI 13:1897014. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2026.1897014

HTO in Conversations about PhD supervision

7 October 2026 /

Last week, a few of us from the HTO research group attended the Nordic Conference on PhD Supervision. It was a very enjoyable conference, held on SLU’s beautiful campus here in Uppsala. The conference brought together supervisors, researchers, educational developers, and others interested in doctoral education to share experiences and discuss current developments and future directions in PhD supervision.

It was a well-organised conference and a great opportunity to spend a few days discussing PhD supervision with people from different universities and contexts. The keynote speakers captured three central challenges in PhD supervision today: Karen Clegg focused on the role of the supervisory team and the need to see supervision as a professional practice that develops over time. An important part of that is learning with and from colleagues, rather than treating supervision as something we develop individually and in isolation. Kirsi Pyhältö then turned to what happens after the PhD and discussed the changing career landscape for doctoral graduates, emphasising that supervisors need to actively prepare PhD students for what comes next, whether that is a career within academia or beyond it. And, of course, no conference today would be complete without a discussion of AI. At the CoPhS conference, Rune Johan Krumsvik took this on and explored what AI might mean for knowledge, learning and research, but also for the supervisory relationship itself

Taken together, the keynote talks raised fundamental questions that everyone involved in PhD education and supervision should be talking about: How do we support doctoral researchers during their studies? How can we prepare them for what comes after their education? And how can we, as supervisors, keep adapting and developing our supervisory practice as the context around us changes?

There were many interesting presentations during the conference, but one that particularly stayed with me was about building communities to enhance supervisory practice and collaborative problem-solving. Roisin Asfell and Julia Rayner from the University of York delivered this talk and proposed a model that uses small peer mentoring circles, where supervisors from different disciplines and with different levels of experience regularly meet to reflect on their supervisory practice. They described how the conversations were supported by coaching-informed approaches such as active listening and structured questioning, and rather than providing supervisors with ready-made answers, the aim of these circles was to create a space where supervisors could explore difficult situations together and learn from others’ experiences.

Feedback from the supervisors participating in these mentoring circles highlighted peer learning, a stronger sense of community, and increased confidence. I think this is a very important point. Teaching and supervising can easily become something we do quite independently. We work with our own students, encounter different types of situations and try to work out how best to respond. Yet many of the questions we face are not unique. Having a structured space to talk openly about those situations can help to normalise the challenges and bring in perspectives we might not otherwise have considered.

For me, the strongest message from the conference as a whole was that becoming a better supervisor is not an individual project but something we do together by making time for reflection, sharing experiences, and having ongoing conversations about supervision.

You could read more about the Nordic Conference on PhD Supervision, and also access the Book of abstracts here: Nordic Conference on PhD Supervision at SLU.

HTO at NordiCHI 2026 in Vaasa

6 October 2026 /

This week, members of the HTO research group are taking part in NordiCHI 2026 in Vaasa, Finland. NordiCHI is one of the main Nordic conferences for Human Computer Interaction and brings together researchers working with the relationships between people, technology, organizations and society.

For us, there is also a nice sense of continuity. The previous NordiCHI conference was held in Uppsala in 2024. This time, we have travelled to Vaasa as participants, contributing to several different parts of the programme.

Åsa Cajander and Viktoria Rubin are among the organisers of the workshop Empowering Users in Public Procurement: User Involvement, Work Environment, and AI in Practice, together with Marta Larusdottir, Johanna Viitanen, Torkil Clemmensen, Lilja Jóhannsdóttir Petersen, Maral Babapour Chafi and Laura Moll Meldgård.

The workshop connects closely to our research in AI PROCARE, a Nordic research project studying the procurement of AI systems in healthcare. The project asks how decisions made during procurement influence healthcare professionals’ future work environment. AI may change clinical decisions, administrative work, professional autonomy and the distribution of responsibility. This means that usability, user involvement and work environment issues need to be considered before a new system reaches the workplace, not only after implementation.

Jonathan Källbäcker is presenting the paper The Association Between User Involvement and Workload in Technology Use: A Survey of Technology Implementation Across Ground Staff and Managers at Swedish Airports. The study builds on our research on digitalisation and automation in airport ground operations. In the TARA project, we have studied how new technologies affect the everyday work of ground staff, including questions of workload, control, communication and opportunities to influence the technologies they use.

HTO is also contributing to other parts of the conference programme. Åsa Cajander is chairing the research paper session Taking Care of Ethics and participating in the panel Is AI Making Researchers’ Work More Meaningful?. The panel raises a question that is becoming increasingly relevant as generative AI becomes part of everyday academic work. AI can help with many research tasks, but efficiency is not necessarily the same thing as meaningfulness. What happens to the parts of research that we care about, such as relationships with colleagues and students, intellectual curiosity, creativity, and the careful work of producing high-quality research?

Taken together we have had a great conference!

Welcome Cora Ljunggren Axelsson – one of our new PhD students in the LärA-AI research school

2 October 2026 /



This autumn, three new PhD students joined our research group as part of the launch of LärA-AI, a new research school exploring how generative artificial intelligence is affecting teachers’ work environment and professional role. Cora Ljunggren Axelsson is the last of them to be introduced here.

Welcome to the HTO group, Cora! Can you briefly introduce yourself and your background? 
I am interested in understanding human needs and how people’s identities and ways of acting are shaped by changing conditions. With a background in Human-Computer Interaction, Behavioural Science and some experience at the Teacher Education Programme, I am particularly interested in keeping people in focus and understanding what shapes their judgements and decisions.

What made you apply to the graduate school?
Doing a PhD has been a dream of mine for a long time, and I have always been drawn to the opportunity to tackle scientific problems and work with others to turn fragmented information into a coherent whole. The theme of the graduate school brings together several of my academic interests, and I found the focus on teachers’ experiences especially important. Teachers are the ones navigating these changes in their everyday work.

The social aspect of the graduate school was also an important factor in my decision to apply, as I value the opportunity to discuss and share ideas with people approaching similar questions from different backgrounds. I look forward to learning from each other and seeing how our different perspectives can complement each other.

What is your focus at the graduate school?
My research focuses on how teachers experience their autonomy and professional judgement in the context of GenAI, and how gendered norms and expectations may influence these experiences. More broadly, I am interested in the human side of decision-making, how people make sense of changing conditions and what creates motivation to act. GenAI is changing the conditions of teaching practice, but people ultimately shape what these changes mean in practice.

What do you hope your research will contribute to?
I hope my research will contribute to a better understanding of teachers’ situations and the challenges they face when navigating GenAI in education. GenAI is introducing new demands into teaching practices, while the direction of future developments remains uncertain. At the same time, research on AI is expanding and new policies and guidelines are continuosly being introduced, creating further changes that teachers need to navigate.

When you’re not working, what do you like to do in your free time?
I sing in a choir, which I enjoy both for the social aspect and the feeling of being part of a community creating something together. To stimulate my brain even more (as if reading for a PhD were not enough), I also enjoy reading fiction with my book club. As a contrast to the intellectual side of work, I find being physically active a good way to switch off, especially when so much of the work happens in your head. You can therefore find me running and skiing, both downhill and cross-country.