# Stakeholder Perspectives on Whether and How Social Robots Can Support Mediation and Advocacy for Higher Education Students with Disabilities

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.16499 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.16499/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 6 of its 65 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 11 Mar 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [Participation is not a Design Fix for Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.02423/) (2020)
- [Bias Against 93 Stigmatized Groups in Masked Language Models and Downstream Sentiment Classification Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05550/) (2023)
- [VoicePilot: Harnessing LLMs as Speech Interfaces for Physically Assistive Robots](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.04066/) (2024)
- [Design and Evaluation of a Socially Assistive Robot Schoolwork Companion for College Students with ADHD](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.06289/) (2024)
- [Avatar Work: Telework for Disabled People Unable to Go Outside by Using Avatar Robots "OriHime-D" and Its Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2003.12569/) (2020)
- [An Empirical Design Justice Approach to Identifying Ethical Considerations in the Intersection of Large Language Models and Social Robotics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.06400/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

This paper presents an iterative, participatory, empirical study that examines the potential of using artificial intelligence, such as social robots and large language models, to support mediation and advocacy for students with disabilities in higher education. Drawing on qualitative data from interviews and focus groups conducted with various stakeholders, including disabled students, disabled student representatives, and disability practitioners at the University of Cambridge, this study reports findings relating to understanding the problem space, ideating robotic support and participatory co-design of advocacy support robots. The findings highlight the potential of these technologies in providing signposting and acting as a sounding board or study companion, while also addressing limitations in empathic understanding, trust, equity, and accessibility. We discuss ethical considerations, including intersectional biases, the double empathy problem, and the implications of deploying social robots in contexts shaped by structural inequalities. Finally, we offer a set of recommendations and suggestions for future research, rethinking the notion of corrective technological interventions to tools that empower and amplify self-advocacy.