Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 81 references

Infrastructures for Inspiration: The Routine Construction of Creative Identity and Inspiration

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Artist identity is built on platform rituals, 22 interviews show

desk verdict A competent empirical mapping of Hymer's inspiration contradictions onto platform infrastructures, with a moderate circularity issue in the confirmatory second pass. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07999 v1 pith:AYM6XBZW submitted 2025-02-11 cs.HC

Ellen Simpson , Bryan Semaan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords inspirationinfrastructurecreativeidentityartistsonlinecommunitiesalgorithmicrecommendationqualitativeinterviewsplatformdesign
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the online platforms where visual artists share work do not simply host art; they mediate the contradictory routines through which artists become and remain artists. Drawing on interviews with 22 visual artists and the three contradictions of inspiration—discipline and spontaneity, mindfulness and mindlessness, active searching and receptive waiting—it shows how artists use Discord Power Hours, critique channels, algorithmic feeds, and image search to get themselves into a state where inspiration can strike. The authors claim that platforms increasingly support passive, algorithmically mediated routes to inspiration, while small human-built communities on top of platforms (Discord servers, Twitch feedback streams) do the work of sustaining disciplined creative practice and negotiating creative identity. They conclude with design recommendations for fostering human connection, flexible paid features, and artist-aware content moderation.

What carries the argument

The analytical engine is the three contradictions of inspiration, applied as a lens to the interview data: discipline versus spontaneity, mindfulness versus mindlessness, and active searching versus receptive waiting. Each contradiction is mapped to concrete platform mechanisms: Power Hours and critique channels carry discipline, spontaneous peer interactions in Discord carry spontaneity, mindful photography and documentation of the environment carry mindfulness, algorithmic scrolling on Pinterest and Instagram carries mindlessness, platform search carries active searching, and assembling fragments from multiple searches carries receptive waiting. The other load-bearing object is the 'necessary others' assemblage—creative peers, mentors, search algorithms, recommendation algorithms, and the self—which the paper claims must be in place for inspiration and identity negotiation to occur. The machinery works by showing that every contradiction is mediated by some infrastructural element, so the same routines that build creative identity also expose artists to algorithmic flattening, content moderation, and nichification.

What would settle it

A longitudinal trace study that logs artists' actual platform behavior over several weeks—scrolls, searches, community posts, and moments of reported inspiration—alongside daily diaries would settle the claim. If logged encounters with algorithmic feeds and search results do not reliably precede reported moments of inspiration, or if diary accounts contradict interview narratives, the paper's central mechanism fails. A complementary field experiment comparing artists with recommendation feeds disabled against a control group with normal feeds would directly test whether algorithmically mediated passive inspiration is doing the claimed work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that inspiration is not a private psychological event that happens to artists and then gets posted online; it is a routine, sociomaterial accomplishment distributed across human and algorithmic 'necessary others'—the creative peers, mentors, search systems, and recommendation systems required for inspiration to arise. Across the 22 interviews, the same contradictory structure appeared: artists are disciplined in their creative practice, using peer accountability spaces like Discord Power Hours or Twitch critique streams, yet they depend on spontaneous flashes triggered by creative peers; they deliberately document inspirational objects from their surroundings, yet also scroll algorithmic feeds mindlessly; they actively search for inspirational material, yet also wait receptively, assembling fragments from multiple search results into new wholes. The paper claims that the passive side of these contradictions—mindless browsing and receptive waiting—is increasingly handed over to recommendation and search algorithms, which datafy artists and their work, while the active, social side is carried by small communities that artists build on top of platforms. Platform infrastructures are therefore not neutral containers for creativity; they co-construct inspiration and creative identity, and they can either support or undermine the necessary others artists depend on.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that artists' own retrospective descriptions of how inspiration happens to them, read through the three contradictions of inspiration, are true to their real daily routines rather than shaped by how artists like to narrate inspiration.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If platforms are now part of the inspiration routine, then design choices about feed structure, search indexing, upload limits, and moderation policy directly affect whether artists can become and stay inspired, not just whether their posts get views.
  • Small, human-built communities such as Discord servers and Twitch feedback streams are the most effective infrastructure for disciplined creative practice and identity negotiation, so platform monetization and policy decisions that squeeze these communities will reduce artists' creative output.
  • The passive side of inspiration—mindless browsing and receptive waiting—is increasingly mediated by recommendation and search algorithms, meaning artists' creative horizons are shaped by how algorithms index and datafy art, which can flatten artists into narrow niches.
  • Algorithmic content moderation that removes artistic nudes or other legitimate art blocks active searching for inspiration and pushes artists away from platforms, shrinking the spaces where creative identity can be negotiated.
  • Platforms that want to support creativity should embed mechanisms for inspiration into their infrastructure—community-building features, a la carte paid features for artist communities, and artist-aware moderation—rather than treating art as ordinary user-generated content.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An implication the authors leave implicit is that their logic extends beyond visual artists to any identity built through routine platform interaction—writers, musicians, and crafters should show the same contradictory structure of discipline and drift, searching and waiting, all mediated by platform infrastructure.
  • A testable extension would be to instrument a study that logs artists' actual browsing, search, and posting behavior alongside diary reports of inspiration: if trace data confirms that moments of inspiration follow platform encounters, the paper's mechanism is strengthened, and if not, the self-report assumption would need revision.
  • The authors' framing suggests that inspiration is not a fixed psychological state but a resource that platforms can allocate and shape; if that is true, platform companies could measure and optimize for inspiration in much the same way they optimize engagement, which is a double-edged prospect.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents an interview study of 22 visual artists, examining how online platforms mediate the routine and contradictory practices through which artists become and remain inspired, and how these practices support the construction of creative identity. The analysis is organized around Hymer's three contradictions of inspiration: discipline versus spontaneity, mindfulness versus mindlessness, and active searching versus receptive waiting. The authors report three main findings: platforms that support disciplined creative practice also support spontaneous inspiration; platforms play an increasing role in passive approaches to searching for inspiration; and small community spaces on platforms foster the negotiation of creative identity. The paper closes with design recommendations for platforms to better support artist communities and inspiration. The manuscript provides detailed recruitment information, a demographics appendix, and a limitations section.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper makes a useful empirical contribution to CSCW and HCI research on creative labor, platform infrastructures, and identity. It extends prior work on creative identity and infrastructure by grounding the concept of 'necessary others' in concrete platform features such as Discord accountability spaces, Pinterest browsing, and algorithmically curated feeds. The authors are transparent about recruitment channels and participant diversity, and they include direct quotes from participants, which helps the reader evaluate the interpretive claims. The paper also gives credit to relevant prior work on algorithmic content moderation and creative labor. However, the analytic method has a load-bearing weakness: the deductive second pass is confirmatory in design, and the absence of negative case analysis means the reported findings may reflect the a priori framework more than the participants' own accounts. Strengthening the analysis and hedging the claims accordingly is necessary before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3 (Analysis)] The deductive second pass is described as a confirmatory search: the first author read Hymer, then did a secondary pass to 'extract where these contradictions were already coded' and 'identify further instances of where these contradictions were clearly illustrated.' No negative case analysis is reported, and the paper does not state how a participant who described inspiration as unipolar or as non-contradictory would have been coded. Because the findings in Section 4 are organized entirely around Hymer's three contradictions, this method makes it difficult to rule out that the framework was imposed on the data. The authors should report the frequency of coded instances per contradiction, discuss any disconfirming or ambiguous cases, and reflect explicitly on how the deductive pass could have circularly shaped the findings. If such a report is not possible, the claims should be reframed as illustrative themes, not as a verified account of the contradictions' empirical prevalence.
  2. [Section 4 (intro) and Section 3.2 (Interviews)] The paper states that participants 'tended to start describing their creative process with how they got inspired' even though the interviews did not directly ask about inspiration. This is used to support the salience of inspiration. However, the interview protocol asked participants about their creative process, sharing, and community support, so the emergence of inspiration talk may have been shaped by the framing of the interview rather than by the routine centrality of inspiration. The paper should discuss this possibility explicitly, and it would be strengthened by providing the full interview protocol in an appendix so readers can assess the degree of prompting.
  3. [Section 5.1 (The Necessary Others of The Creative Internet)] The claim that algorithms 'mediate the objectification of the self' and 'give the appearance of ìthe divineî' is a strong theoretical interpretation. The participant quotes in Section 4 show artists experiencing algorithmic recommendations, but they do not directly express anything like 'objectification of the self' or 'the divine.' This interpretive leap should be either grounded in more explicit participant language or clearly marked as the authors' theoretical extrapolation rather than a finding.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The final sentence contains a repeated phrase: 'embed mechanisms for inspiration into their infrastructures into their design and platform policy.' This should be edited to a single construction, such as 'embed mechanisms for inspiration into their infrastructures, design, and platform policy.'
  2. [Section 2.2] In the paragraph beginning 'Mindfulness and Mindlessness,' the text reads 'according to Hymer are are framed around artistic awareness.' The duplicated 'are' should be removed.
  3. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'any participants (P1 - P6, P9, P10, P12, P14, P15, P18) discussed consuming media' should likely read 'many participants' rather than 'any participants,' which is confusing as written.
  4. [Table 2] Table 2 lists 'Self' as a necessary other under Mindfulness and Receptive Waiting, but the table's first column labels these 'Characteristic' rather than 'Contradiction.' The label should be clarified to match the terminology used in the text (e.g., 'Contradiction').

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Hymer lens is applied transparently after inductive open coding, and the empirical claims rest on participant narratives rather than on a fitted parameter or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical claims about how online platforms mediate artists' inspiration practices, based on 22 interviews. There is no formal derivation with equations, so circularity must be assessed by whether the analysis reduces to its own inputs. The potentially concerning step is the secondary deductive pass described in Section 3.3, where the first author 'extract[s] where these contradictions were already coded within the data' and 'identif[ies] further instances of where these contradictions were clearly illustrated.' That is a confirmatory search, and the paper does not report negative cases. However, the paper explicitly states that the contradictions emerged from the initial inductive open coding before Hymer's framework was consulted: 'Emergent from this narrative was an examination of the creative processes of the participants... These findings led us to review literature on inspiration and to read Hymer's analysis on the contradictions of inspiration, which supported our observations and provided a helpful lens through which to reinterpret the results.' The framework is therefore applied as an interpretive lens to pre-existing codes, not as a fitted parameter that produces the outcome. The finding that participants 'were not directly asked about getting inspired during our interviews' yet 'tended to start describing their creative process with how they got inspired' provides independent evidence that inspiration was salient in participants' own accounts. The claims about platform support are anchored in specific participant quotations (e.g., P3's Discord Power Hour, P10's spontaneous D&D inspiration, P13's Pinterest browsing, P7's mindful sidewalk photography) rather than in the framework itself. Self-citations to the authors' prior work (e.g., [63, 65, 66, 67, 68]) are used for background concepts and prior empirical findings, not as the sole justification for the present conclusions; the load-bearing evidence is the interview data and external foundational work such as Hymer [38] and Glaveanu and Tanggaard [31]. No prediction is made from a fitted value, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known empirical pattern is merely renamed as a contribution. The deductive second pass is a methodological limitation regarding confirmatory bias and missing negative-case analysis, but it does not make the central claim equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or formal entities. It uses existing theoretical constructs such as 'necessary others' and 'human infrastructures' without presenting them as new empirically independent entities, so the invented-entities ledger is empty. The free-parameter ledger is also empty because the study is qualitative and contains no fitted numeric parameters.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Hymer's three contradictions of inspiration are a valid and reasonably complete lens for understanding inspiration.
    Adopted in Related Work and used to structure the findings in Section 4. If the framework does not capture important non-contradictory experiences, the main thematic architecture of the paper is weakened.
  • domain assumption Creative identity is collectively negotiated through interaction with others.
    Drawn from Glăveanu and Tanggaard's socio-cultural theory of creative identity and invoked throughout the analysis to connect platform communities to identity development.
  • domain assumption Infrastructures are sociotechnical, value-laden, and defined in use.
    Taken from Star and Ruhleder and used to interpret online platforms as mediators of inspiration and identity rather than neutral tools.
  • domain assumption Participants' retrospective self-reports accurately reflect their routine inspiration practices.
    All evidence is interview-based; there is no observational or trace data and no member checking. Section 3.2 describes the data collection, but the accuracy of recall is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Infrastructures for Inspiration: The Routine Construction of Creative Identity and Inspiration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AYM6XBZW

@misc{pith2026250207999,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Infrastructures for Inspiration: The Routine Construction of Creative Identity and Inspiration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AYM6XBZW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07999}
}
read the original abstract

Online, visual artists have more places than ever to routinely share their creative work and connect with other artists. These interactions support the routine enactment of creative identity in artists and provide inspirational opportunities for artists. As creative work shifts online, interactions between artists and routines around how these artists get inspired to do creative work are mediated by and through the logics of the online platforms where they take place. In an interview study of 22 artists, this paper explores the interplay between the development of artists' creative identities and the, at times, contradictory practices they have around getting inspired. We find platforms which support the disciplined practice of creative work while supporting spontaneous moments of inspiration, play an increasing role in passive approaches to searching for inspiration, and foster numerous small community spaces for artists to negotiate their creative identities. We discuss how platforms can better support and embed mechanisms for inspiration into their infrastructures into their design and platform policy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07999 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. P2’s illustration of the role getting critique and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A recolored version of the photograph P7 Took. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Teresa M Amabile and Regina Conti. 1999. Changes in the work environment for creativity during downsizing. Academy of Management journal 42, 6 (1999), 630–640

    1999

  2. [2]

    India Anderson and Dhaval Vyas. 2022. Shedding Ageist Perceptions of Making: Creativity in Older Adult Maker Communities. In Proceedings of the 14th Confer- ence on Creativity and Cognition (Venice, Italy) (C&C ’22). Association for Com- puting Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 208–219. doi:10.1145/3527927.3532800

    work page arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Patrick Biernacki and Dan Waldorf. 1981. Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods & Research 10, 2 (1981), 141–163

    work page 1981

  4. [4]

    Sophie Bishop. 2019. Managing visibility on YouTube through algorithmic gossip. New Media & Society 21, 11-12 (2019), 2589–2606

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Sophie Bishop. 2020. Algorithmic experts: Selling algorithmic lore on YouTube. Social Media+ Society 6, 1 (2020), 2056305119897323

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Sophie Bishop. 2023. Influencer creep: How artists strategically navigate the platformisation of art worlds. New media & society (2023), 14614448231206090

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Geoffrey Bowker. 1994. Information mythology: The world of/as information. Information acumen: The understanding and use of knowledge in modern business (1994), 231–247

    work page 1994

  8. [8]

    Geoffrey C Bowker and Susan Leigh Star. 1999. Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. MIT press

    work page 1999

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Mothers as Candy Wrappers

    Lauren Britton, Louise Barkhuus, and Bryan Semaan. 2019. "Mothers as Candy Wrappers": Critical Infrastructure Supporting the Transition into Motherhood. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, GROUP, Article 232 (dec 2019), 21 pages. doi:10.1145/3361113

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    John Cheney-Lippold. 2018. We are data: Algorithms and the making of our digital selves. NYU Press

    2018

  3. [11]

    Francesco Cirillo. 2018. The Pomodoro technique: The acclaimed time-management system that has transformed how we work . Currency

    2018

  4. [12]

    Kenneth Clark. 2023. The nude: A study in ideal form . Vol. 2. Princeton University Press

    2023

  5. [13]

    Scott DN Cook and John Seely Brown. 1999. Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization science 10, 4 (1999), 381–400

    1999

  6. [14]

    Mark De Rond. 2014. The structure of serendipity. Culture and Organization 20, 5 (2014), 342–358

    2014

  7. [15]

    Maya Desai. 2024. The Psychology of Inspiration: Its Impact on Creative Processes. Shodh Sagar Journal of Inspiration and Psychology 1, 2 (2024), 36–41

    2024

  8. [16]

    Michael Ann DeVito, Ashley Marie Walker, and Jeremy Birnholtz. 2018. ’Too Gay for Facebook’ Presenting LGBTQ+ Identity Throughout the Personal Social Media Ecosystem. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW (2018), 1–23

    2018

  9. [17]

    Jill P Dimond, Casey Fiesler, Betsy DiSalvo, Jon Pelc, and Amy S Bruckman. 2012. Qualitative data collection technologies: A comparison of instant messaging, email, and phone. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work. 277–280

    2012

  10. [18]

    Brooke Erin Duffy, Annika Pinch, Shruti Sannon, and Megan Sawey. 2021. The Nested Precarities of Creative Labor on Social Media. Social Media+ Society 7, 2 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Paul N Edwards. 2003. Infrastructure and modernity: Force, time, and social organization in the history of sociotechnical systems. Modernity and technology 1 (2003), 185–226

    2003

  12. [20]

    Emerson, Shreyosi Endow, and Cesar Torres

    Adam G. Emerson, Shreyosi Endow, and Cesar Torres. 2024. Shared, Shaped, and Stolen: Tracing Sites of Knowledge Transfer across Creative Communities of Practice. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition (Chicago, IL, USA) (C&C ’24). Association for Compu...

    2024

  13. [21]

    Martha S Feldman. 2000. Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization science 11, 6 (2000), 611–629

    2000

  14. [22]

    Martha S Feldman, Brian T Pentland, Luciana D’Adderio, and Nathalie Lazaric

  15. [23]

    Allen Foster and Nigel Ford. 2003. Serendipity and information seeking: an empirical study. Journal of documentation 59, 3 (2003), 321–340

    2003

  16. [24]

    Jonas Frich, Lindsay MacDonald Vermeulen, Christian Remy, Michael Mose Biskjaer, and Peter Dalsgaard. 2019. Mapping the landscape of creativity support tools in HCI. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–18

    2019

  17. [25]

    Jonas Frich, Michael Mose Biskjaer, and Peter Dalsgaard. 2018. Twenty years of creativity research in human-computer interaction: Current state and future directions. In Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference . 1235–1257

    2018

  18. [26]

    Mikhaila Friske, Jordan Wirfs-Brock, and Laura Devendorf. 2020. Entangling the roles of maker and interpreter in interpersonal data narratives: Explorations in yarn and sound. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 297–310

    2020

  19. [27]

    Courtney Lynn Gallagher. 2017. Sketching for Ideation: A Structured Approach for Increasing Divergent Thinking. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA) (CHI EA ’17). Association for Computing Ma...

    2017

  20. [28]

    Lillian Hemingway Gallay. 2013. Understanding and treating creative block in professional artists. Alliant International University

    2013

  21. [29]

    Viktor Gecas. 1982. The self-concept. Annual Review of Sociology 8, 1 (1982), 1–33

    1982

  22. [30]

    Anthony Giddens. 1991. Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford university press

    1991

  23. [31]

    Vlad Petre Glăveanu and Lene Tanggaard. 2014. Creativity, identity, and rep- resentation: Towards a socio-cultural theory of creative identity. New Ideas in Psychology 34 (2014), 12–21

    2014

  24. [32]

    Ole Hanseth and Kalle Lyytinen. 2010. Design theory for dynamic complexity in information infrastructures: the case of building internet. Journal of Information Technology 25, 1 (2010), 1–19

    2010

  25. [33]

    Tobin Hart. 1998. Inspiration: Exploring the experience and its meaning. Journal of Humanistic Psychology 38, 3 (1998), 7–35

    1998

  26. [34]

    Search- ing for inspiration

    Timothy Hill, Valentine Charles, Juliane Stiller, and Antoine Isaac. 2016. “Search- ing for inspiration”: User needs and search architecture in Europeana collections. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 53, 1 (2016), 1–7

    2016

  27. [35]

    Alexander D Hoppe. 2022. Before creativity: Inspiration as a micro foundation for action. In Sociological Forum, Vol. 37. Wiley Online Library, 350–368

    2022

  28. [36]

    Jackson, Daniela K

    Lara Houston, Steven J. Jackson, Daniela K. Rosner, Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed, Meg Young, and Laewoo Kang. 2016. Values in Repair. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI ’16). Association for Computing Machin...

    2016

  29. [37]

    Angel Hsing-Chi Hwang and Andrea Stevenson Won. 2021. IdeaBot: investigating social facilitation in human-machine team creativity. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–16. Infrastructures for Inspiration CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2...

    2021

  30. [38]

    Sharon Hymer. 1990. On inspiration. The Psychotherapy Patient 6, 3-4 (1990), 17–38

    1990

  31. [39]

    Herminia Ibarra and Jennifer L Petriglieri. 2010. Identity work and play. Journal of Organizational Change Management (2010)

    2010

  32. [40]

    Lee Jones, Ahmed Awad, Marion Koelle, and Sara Nabil. 2024. Hand Spinning E-textile Yarns: Understanding the Craft Practices of Hand Spinners and Work- shop Explorations with E-textile Fibers and Materials. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conferenc...

    2024

  33. [41]

    Pegah Karimi, Jeba Rezwana, Safat Siddiqui, Mary Lou Maher, and Nasrin Dehbo- zorgi. 2020. Creative sketching partner: an analysis of human-AI co-creativity. In Proceedings of the 25th international conference on intelligent user interfaces . 221–230

    2020

  34. [42]

    Nadia Karizat, Dan Delmonaco, Motahhare Eslami, and Nazanin Andalibi. 2021. Algorithmic folk theories and identity: How TikTok users co-produce Knowledge of identity and engage in algorithmic resistance. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–44

    2021

  35. [43]

    Simon Laing and Masood Masoodian. 2015. A study of the role of visual infor- mation in supporting ideation in graphic design. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 66, 6 (2015), 1199–1211

    2015

  36. [44]

    Bruno Latour. 2007. Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network- theory. Oxford University Press

    2007

  37. [45]

    Lee, Paul Dourish, and Gloria Mark

    Charlotte P. Lee, Paul Dourish, and Gloria Mark. 2006. The Human Infrastructure of Cyberinfrastructure. In Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (Banff, Alberta, Canada) (CSCW ’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New Y...

    2006

  38. [46]

    Yuyu Lin, Jiahao Guo, Yang Chen, Cheng Yao, and Fangtian Ying. 2020. It Is Your Turn: Collaborative Ideation With a Co-Creative Robot through Sketch. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association for ...

    2020

  39. [47]

    Andrés Lucero. 2012. Framing, aligning, paradoxing, abstracting, and directing: how design mood boards work. In Proceedings of the designing interactive systems conference. 438–447

    2012

  40. [48]

    We’re not all construction workers

    Nina Lutz and Cecilia Aragon. 2024. " We’re not all construction workers": Algorithmic Compression of Latinidad on TikTok.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.13927 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Renkai Ma, Xinning Gui, and Yubo Kou. 2023. Multi-Platform Content Creation: The Configuration of Creator Ecology through Platform Prioritization, Content Synchronization, and Audience Management. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–19

    2023

  42. [50]

    How advertiser-friendly is my video?

    Renkai Ma and Yubo Kou. 2021. " How advertiser-friendly is my video?": YouTu- ber’s Socioeconomic Interactions with Algorithmic Content Moderation. Pro- ceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–25

    2021

  43. [51]

    Philip M Morse. 1970. On Browsing: The Use of Search Theory in the Search for Information. MIT Operations Research Center (1970). https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/ pdf/AD0702920.pdf

    1970

  44. [52]

    Takeshi Okada and Kentaro Ishibashi. 2017. Imitation, inspiration, and creation: Cognitive process of creative drawing by copying others’ artworks. Cognitive science 41, 7 (2017), 1804–1837

    2017

  45. [53]

    Paidi O’Raghallaigh, Stephen McCarthy, and Frédéric Adam. 2017. Sociomateri- ality: an object inspired proposal for IS scholars. Proceedings of the 25th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    Wanda J Orlikowski. 2007. Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization studies 28, 9 (2007), 1435–1448

    2007

  47. [55]

    Brian T Pentland, Martha S Feldman, Markus C Becker, and Peng Liu. 2012. Dynamics of organizational routines: A generative model.Journal of Management Studies 49, 8 (2012), 1484–1508

    2012

  48. [56]

    Emma Perriton. 2023. The constitutive entanglement between open office spacing and grouping: The production of sociomaterial control. Organization (2023), 13505084231198449

    2023

  49. [57]

    Thomas Poell, David B Nieborg, and Brooke Erin Duffy. 2021. Platforms and cultural production. John Wiley & Sons

    2021

  50. [58]

    Piera Riccio, Thomas Hofmann, and Nuria Oliver. 2024. Exposed or Erased: Algorithmic Censorship of Nudity in Art. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–17

    2024

  51. [59]

    Ronald E Rice, Maureen McCreadie, and Shan-Ju L Chang. 2001. Accessing and browsing information and communication . MIT Press

    2001

  52. [60]

    Lisette A Romero and Hyunjoo Oh. 2024. Woven Speaker: Exploring the Potential of Craft as a Method for Exploring Technology through Weaving. In Companion Publication of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (IT Univer- sity of Copenhagen, Denmark) (DIS ’24 Comp...

    2024

  53. [61]

    My ideas come little by little

    Emilia Rosselli Del Turco and Peter Dalsgaard. 2024. “My ideas come little by little”: how graphic professionals manage ideas. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition (Chicago, IL, USA) (C&C ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, ...

    2024 doi

  54. [62]

    Seweryn Rudnicki. 2021. What are ideas made of? On the socio-materiality of creative processes. Creativity studies 14, 1 (2021), 187–196

    2021

  55. [63]

    Bryan Semaan. 2019. ’Routine Infrastructuring’ as ’Building Everyday Resilience with Technology’: When Disruption Becomes Ordinary.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, CSCW, Article 73 (Nov. 2019), 24 pages. doi:10.1145/3359175

    2019 doi

  56. [64]

    Renee Shelby, Ramya Srinivasan, Katharina Burgdorf, Jennifer C Lena, and Negar Rostamzadeh. 2024. Creative ML Assemblages: The Interactive Politics of People, Processes, and Products. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 8, CSCW1 (2024), 1–30

    2024

  57. [65]

    Hey, Can You Add Captions?

    Ellen Simpson, Samantha Dalal, and Bryan Semaan. 2023. "Hey, Can You Add Captions?": The Critical Infrastructuring Practices of Neurodiverse People on TikTok. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (2023), 1–27

    2023

  58. [66]

    Ellen Simpson, Andrew Hamann, and Bryan Semaan. 2022. How to tame" your" algorithm: LGBTQ+ users’ domestication of TikTok. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction 6, GROUP (2022), 1–27

    2022

  59. [67]

    Ellen Simpson and Bryan Semaan. 2021. For You, or For"You"? Everyday LGBTQ+ Encounters with TikTok. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4, CSCW3, Article 252 (Jan. 2021), 34 pages. doi:10.1145/3432951

    2021 doi

  60. [68]

    Ellen Simpson and Bryan Semaan. 2023. Rethinking creative labor: A sociotech- nical examination of creativity & creative work on TikTok. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–16

    2023

  61. [69]

    Scott Sonenshein. 2016. Routines and creativity: From dualism to duality. Orga- nization Science 27, 3 (2016), 739–758

    2016

  62. [70]

    Susan Leigh Star and Karen Ruhleder. 1996. Steps toward an ecology of infras- tructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information systems research 7, 1 (1996), 111–134

    1996

  63. [71]

    Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research . Sage Publications

    1990

  64. [72]

    Todd M Thrash, Emil G Moldovan, Victoria C Oleynick, and Laura A Maruskin

  65. [73]

    Eddie L Ungless, Nina Markl, and Björn Ross. 2024. Experiences of censorship on TikTok across marginalised identities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.14164 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Dhaval Vyas. 2019. Altruism and Wellbeing as Care Work in a Craft-based Maker Culture. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, GROUP, Article 239 (dec 2019), 12 pages. doi:10.1145/3361120

    2019 doi

  67. [75]

    David L Wallace. 1987. Using peer tutors to overcome writer’s block. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education 3, 2 (1987), 32–41

    1987

  68. [76]

    Qian Wan and Zhicong Lu. 2023. GANCollage: A GAN-Driven Digital Mood Board to Facilitate Ideation in Creativity Support. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Pittsburgh, PA, USA) (DIS ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, ...

    2023

  69. [77]

    M Weber. 1919. Science as a Vocation [in:] HH Gerth, C. Wright Mills (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (1919)

    1946

  70. [78]

    Tom Wengraf. 2001. Qualitative research interviewing: Biographic narrative and semi-structured methods. Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA

    2001

  71. [79]

    Johannes Wheeldon and Jacqueline Faubert. 2009. Framing experience: Concept maps, mind maps, and data collection in qualitative research.International journal of qualitative methods 8, 3 (2009), 68–83. CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan Simpson & Semaan A Appendix ...

    2009

  72. [2014]

    Social and personality psychology compass 8, 9 (2014), 495–510

    The psychology of inspiration. Social and personality psychology compass 8, 9 (2014), 495–510

    2014

  73. [2016]

    505–513 pages

    Beyond routines as things: Introduction to the special issue on routine dynamics. 505–513 pages

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.