Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 52 references

Generative AI & Changing Work: Systematic Review of Practitioner-led Work Transformations through the Lens of Job Crafting

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Workers across 18 professions are reshaping their jobs around generative AI by delegating tasks, absorbing new 'AI managerial labor,' and fragmenting work into piecework, requiring job crafting theory to evolve.

desk verdict Valuable synthesis of practitioner-led GenAI work transformations, but 'technology crafting' overlaps with 'AI managerial labor' and needs disambiguation before the framework-evolution claim lands. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08854 v2 pith:EKFIBIFK submitted 2025-02-13 cs.HC

Matthew Law , Rama Adithya Varanasi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords generativeAIjobcraftingmanageriallabortechnologypieceworksystematicliteraturereviewworktransformationpractitioner-ledchange
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

This paper argues that workers across professions are actively reshaping their own jobs to absorb generative AI tools, and that these changes do not fit existing models of job crafting. Reviewing 23 studies, it finds practitioners delegating routine and even creative tasks to AI while taking on new 'AI managerial labor' of prompting, verifying, refining, and configuring the tools. Collaboration patterns shift as well, with workers sometimes replacing peers or subordinates with AI. The result is a fragmentation of cohesive jobs into piecework that strains professional identity. The authors conclude that job crafting theory needs to evolve to include a new form, 'technology crafting,' aimed at reconfiguring the technology itself.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the job crafting lens, applied abductively to synthesize qualitative accounts. The authors distinguish task crafting (changing what tasks are done), cognitive crafting (changing how roles are perceived), and relational crafting (changing interactions with others), and they extend the framework by adding 'technology crafting,' defined as actions aimed specifically at reconfiguring the AI technology to improve one's work experience. This lens lets them group diverse worker behaviors under common patterns: delegation, AI managerial labor, collaboration reshaping, and piecework fragmentation.

What would settle it

A large-scale, cross-sector survey measuring the prevalence of AI managerial labor, technology crafting, and peer-bypassing in non-tech professions such as health, law, and education would directly test whether these patterns are common across work or artifacts of a tech-heavy corpus. If such a survey found these behaviors concentrated only in technology and design roles, the claim that job crafting frameworks generally need to evolve would lose its basis.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the introduction of generative AI into white-collar work has produced a distinct, worker-led pattern of transformation that existing job crafting theory does not capture. Across 23 studies covering 18 professions, practitioners delegated tasks to GenAI, took on AI managerial labor to oversee and refine its outputs, restructured collaborations by substituting or bypassing human stakeholders, and decomposed cohesive work into piecework. These transformations created tensions around role boundaries and professional identity. From this synthesis, the authors propose 'technology crafting' as a new form of job crafting, in which workers reconfigure the AI tool itself—through prompt curation, parameter tuning, and controlling when the tool is active—to improve their own work experience.

Load-bearing premise

The review's findings depend on the assumption that 23 studies drawn from a single digital library, with most focused on technology and design roles, adequately represent worker-led transformations across all 18 professions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Job-crafting theory and organizational research must add technology crafting as a recognized dimension rather than treating AI configuration as peripheral to work.
  • Organizations should account for AI managerial labor as real work, with time and evaluation structures that recognize prompting, verifying, and refining as part of the role.
  • Work design must confront the piecework dynamic: when workers fragment tasks for AI, the boundaries and safeguards that held cohesive jobs together can erode, shifting tasks to other roles.
  • Training and support systems should target the new skills of verifying and correcting AI outputs, which are currently absorbed as individual labor.
  • The displacement of human dependencies implies that collaboration quality and knowledge sharing may decline as workers bypass peers and subordinates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If technology crafting becomes a recognized craft, organizations could deliberately allocate time and incentives for workers to configure AI tools, turning what is now invisible labor into a visible skill.
  • The piecework analogy suggests a possible trajectory: as AI fragments professional tasks, those pieces could be re-aggregated into gig-style markets or moved across role boundaries, not just within an individual's job.
  • The bypassing of peers and subordinates, if widespread, could erode organizational memory and informal learning, since workers will interact less with the humans who hold contextual knowledge.
  • A quantitative test would be to measure whether workers in non-tech professions such as medicine, law, or education show the same AI managerial labor and technology crafting patterns; if not, the framework may be specific to design and software settings.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a systematic literature review of 23 studies from the ACM Digital Library (2022–2024) that examine practitioners' lived experiences with generative AI. Using thematic synthesis and the lens of job crafting, the authors identify four patterns: (1) practitioners delegate routine and even core tasks to GenAI; (2) they take on new 'AI managerial labor' such as prompting, verifying, refining, and configuring outputs; (3) they restructure collaborations, sometimes displacing human peers or subordinates; and (4) they fragment cohesive work into piecework, creating tensions around role boundaries and professional identity. The paper's central theoretical claim is that existing job crafting frameworks need to evolve because these practices include a distinct new form, 'technology crafting,' aimed at reconfiguring the technology itself. The authors contribute a synthesis of recent HCI studies, a codebook, and a set of analytical themes.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely and important question: how white-collar workers themselves are reshaping their work around generative AI. It usefully aggregates a scattered body of recent ACM papers and provides a transparent interpretive synthesis, including an OSF codebook and clear examples for each theme. The identified patterns—delegation, verification labor, collaboration substitution, and task fragmentation—are plausible and likely to be of interest to HCI, CSCW, and organizational researchers. However, the core theoretical contribution, the claim that job crafting frameworks need to evolve to accommodate 'technology crafting,' is not yet established: the new construct is not clearly distinguished from the paper's own 'AI managerial labor' or from existing patchwork categories, and the evidence base is narrow (ACM-only, mostly technology/design roles). As a synthesis of current HCI work, the paper is valuable; as a conceptual contribution to job crafting theory, it needs sharper construct definition and a more guarded generalization.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.4 vs §4.3] The claimed new form of job crafting, 'technology crafting,' is not distinguished from 'AI managerial labor' introduced in Section 4.3. Section 4.3 explicitly frames AI managerial labor as task crafting and includes prompting, refining/verifying outputs, and configuring models. Section 5.4 defines technology crafting as actions 'exclusively aimed at reconfiguring a specific technology' and lists curating prompts, tuning model parameters, and managing when a tool is active or inactive—the same activities. The manuscript never states whether technology crafting is a subcategory of AI managerial labor or a separate fourth dimension, nor does it explain why reconfiguring a tool is not simply task crafting under the Wrzesniewski and Dutton definition in Section 2.3, where task crafting covers changes to the form or number of work activities. Without a distinguishing criterion, the central conclusion that job crafting frameworks 'need to evolve' is underdetermined.
  2. [§5.4 vs §2.1] The novelty claim of technology crafting relative to Fox et al.'s patchwork is not established. Section 5.4 says technology crafting 'differed from previously-studied forms' in requiring continuous interaction and in the black-box variability of control, but it never directly compares these characteristics with the three patchwork categories (compensating, peripheral, collaborative) summarized in Section 2.1. Because configuring, prompting, and oversight activities resemble collaborative or peripheral patchwork, the paper needs an explicit contrast to justify introducing a new construct rather than extending an existing one.
  3. [§3.1, §3.2, §6] The evidence base and quality appraisal limit the generalizability claims. The search was restricted to the ACM Digital Library, used purposive sampling, and yielded a corpus in which 15 of 23 papers focus on technology or design roles. The Limitations section acknowledges this, but the abstract's phrasing 'across 18 professions' and 'comprehensive' overstates the strength of the evidence. In addition, the exclusion criterion 'Low-quality studies' in Table 2 is undefined; no quality appraisal instrument, screening protocol, or inter-coder reliability metric is reported for the title/abstract or full-text screening described in Section 3.2. This weakens the paper's status as a systematic review and should be addressed by defining the quality criterion and, at minimum, reporting agreement or a quality checklist.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§6] There is a typo: 'purspose' should be 'purpose.'
  2. [§3.2] The phrase 'the we employed' is ungrammatical; it should be 'we employed.'
  3. [§4.1] There is a missing space after the period in 'analysistasks.Thesetasks' and a repeated word in 'explained using used GenAI.'
  4. [References] References 42 and 43 appear to be the same paper (same title, authors, and page numbers); one should be removed or they should be distinguished correctly.
  5. [Table 1] The header 'T able 1' contains an extra space; the table itself is otherwise clear.
  6. [Keywords] The keyword list includes 'meta analysis,' which does not capture the paper's content and may mislead automated indexing; consider replacing it with 'systematic review' or 'thematic synthesis.'

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The 'technology crafting' contribution relabels Section 4.3's 'AI managerial labor' categories; the claim that job crafting 'needs to evolve' therefore rests on a labeling choice rather than independent evidence.

  1. renaming known result [Section 5.4 ('Technology Crafting: A New Form of Job Crafting'), compared with Section 4.3 ('Engaging in AI Managerial Labor')]
    "Finally, we observed several instances of job crafting with technology that do not fit the traditional job crafting framework. This form of crafting, which we label technology crafting, is characterized by actions that are exclusively aimed at reconfiguring a specific technology to improve one's work experience."

    Section 4.3 already classified the same behaviors as task crafting: 'The third form of transformation was the introduction of new planning and execution tasks that focused on maximizing the potential of GenAI in practitioners' work (task crafting)... We describe these tasks as AI managerial labor,' and its subcategories include developing prompts, refining outputs, and configuring models at the system or application level (e.g., managing when a tool is active or inactive).

full rationale

This is a qualitative systematic review with no equations, fitted parameters, or quantitative predictions, so the usual prediction-circularity patterns do not apply. The empirical findings (delegation, AI managerial labor, relational changes, piecework, identity tensions) are synthesized from the reviewed studies and are self-contained. However, the paper's headline theoretical claim—that current frameworks like job crafting need to evolve—is supported by Section 5.4's introduction of 'technology crafting' as a form that 'do[es] not fit the traditional job crafting framework.' That support is undercut because Section 4.3 explicitly coded the same activities (prompt development, output verification, system/application configuration, toggling tool activity) as task crafting under the very framework being criticized. The paper never explains what distinguishes technology crafting from the task crafting category it already used, so the 'new form' is, at this stage, a relabeling of its own AI managerial labor construct rather than an independently derived result. This is a conceptual circularity in one discussion-level contribution, not a wholesale collapse of the review, hence a moderate score of 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

This review introduces no numeric free parameters. Its central claims rest on domain assumptions: that job crafting is the right lens, that a purposive ACM-only corpus of 23 studies, mostly in technology and design, supports cross-occupational patterns, and that self-reported practices in the primary studies are accurate. The paper also introduces two conceptual entities, AI managerial labor and technology crafting, which have no falsifiable handles independent of the reviewed examples.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Job crafting is an appropriate analytic lens for interpreting GenAI-driven work transformations.
    Invoked in Section 2.3; the entire coding scheme maps data onto task, cognitive, and relational crafting categories.
  • domain assumption A purposive sample of 23 studies from the ACM Digital Library is sufficient to identify common patterns across occupations.
    Stated in Section 3.1; the generalizability of the findings depends on this, though Limitations partially acknowledges the narrow corpus.
  • domain assumption Self-reported experiences in the primary studies accurately reflect actual work transformations.
    The synthesis treats quotations and survey responses in the 23 included papers as evidence of real practice changes; no independent behavioral verification is available.
  • ad hoc to paper AI managerial labor and technology crafting are treated as distinct from prior constructs like patchwork, despite overlapping definitions.
    Sections 4.3 and 5.4 introduce these constructs without systematically contrasting them with Fox et al.'s patchwork categories, which are cited in Section 2.1.
invented entities (2)
  • AI managerial labor
    purpose: Umbrella construct for the new work of prompting, verifying, refining, and configuring GenAI tools that practitioners take on.
    The paper provides examples and a codebook but no operationalized measure or falsifiable prediction; overlap with Fox et al.'s patchwork is not fully disambiguated.
  • technology crafting
    purpose: Proposed fourth form of job crafting in which workers reconfigure the technology itself to improve their work experience.
    Introduced in Section 5.4 as a conceptual extension; no independent empirical test or measurable definition is provided beyond the presented examples.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generative AI & Changing Work: Systematic Review of Practitioner-led Work Transformations through the Lens of Job Crafting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EKFIBIFK

@misc{pith2026250208854,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generative AI & Changing Work: Systematic Review of Practitioner-led Work Transformations through the Lens of Job Crafting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EKFIBIFK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08854}
}
read the original abstract

Widespread integration of Generative AI tools is transforming white-collar work, reshaping how workers define their roles, manage their tasks, and collaborate with peers. This has created a need to develop an overarching understanding of common worker-driven patterns around these transformations. To fill this gap, we conducted a systematic literature review of 23 studies from the ACM Digital Library that focused on workers' lived-experiences and practitioners with GenAI. Our findings reveal that while many professionals have delegated routine tasks to GenAI to focus on core responsibilities, they have also taken on new forms of AI managerial labor to monitor and refine GenAI outputs. Additionally, practitioners have restructured collaborations, sometimes bypassing traditional peer and subordinate interactions in favor of GenAI assistance. These shifts have fragmented cohesive tasks into piecework creating tensions around role boundaries and professional identity. Our analysis suggests that current frameworks, like job crafting, need to evolve to address the complexities of GenAI-driven transformations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sustainability 16(3), 1166 (Jan 2024)

    Al Naqbi, H., Bahroun, Z., Ahmed, V.: Enhancing work productivity through generative artificial intelligence: A comprehensive literature review. Sustainability 16(3), 1166 (Jan 2024). https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031166, https://www. mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/3/1166

    doi:10.3390/su16031166 2024

  2. [2]

    In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI con- ference on human factors in computing systems

    Alkhatib, A., Bernstein, M.S., Levi, M.: Examining crowd work and gig work through the historical lens of piecework. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI con- ference on human factors in computing systems. pp. 4599–4616 (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Academy of Management Annals 10(1), 183–244 (Jan 2016)

    Anteby, M., Chan, C.K., DiBenigno, J.: Three lenses on occupations and profes- sions in organizations: Becoming, doing, and relating. Academy of Management Annals 10(1), 183–244 (Jan 2016). https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016. 1120962, http://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/19416520.2016.1120962

    work page arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    In: Proceedings of the 2023 5th World Symposium on Software Engineer- ing

    Asadi, A.R.: Llms in design thinking: Autoethnographic insights and design impli- cations. In: Proceedings of the 2023 5th World Symposium on Software Engineer- ing. p. 55–60. WSSE ’23, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA(2023). https://doi.org/10.1145/3631991.3631999, https://doi.org/10. 1145/3631991.3631999

    work page arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Journal of economic perspectives29(3), 3–30 (2015) Gen AI & Changing Work: Systematic Review 19

    Autor, D.H.: Why are there still so many jobs? the history and future of workplace automation. Journal of economic perspectives29(3), 3–30 (2015) Gen AI & Changing Work: Systematic Review 19

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    The Quarterly journal of economics 118(4), 1279–1333 (2003)

    Autor, D.H., Levy, F., Murnane, R.J.: The skill content of recent technological change: An empirical exploration. The Quarterly journal of economics 118(4), 1279–1333 (2003)

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (2023)

    Autor, D.H., Mindell, D.A., Reynolds, E.B., Solow, R.M.: The work of the future: building better jobs in an age of intelligent machines. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    BMC Medical Research Methodology 9(1), 59 (Dec 2009)

    Barnett-Page, E., Thomas, J.: Methods for the synthesis of qualita- tive research: a critical review. BMC Medical Research Methodology 9(1), 59 (Dec 2009). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-59, https:// bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-9-59

    work page doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-59 2009

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Jour- nal of Organizational Behavior 31(2–3), 158–186 (Feb 2010).https://doi.org/ 10.1002/job.645, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.645

    Berg, J.M., Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J.E.: Perceiving and responding to chal- lenges in job crafting at different ranks: When proactivity requires adaptivity. Jour- nal of Organizational Behavior 31(2–3), 158–186 (Feb 2010).https://doi.org/ 10.1002/job.645, https://onlinelibr...

    2010 doi

  2. [10]

    In: Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Boucher, J.D., Smith, G., Telliel, Y.D.: Is resistance futile?: Early career game developers, generative ai, and ethical skepticism. In: Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’24, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, US...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Personal and Ubiquitous Computing pp

    Boulus-Rødje, N., Cranefield, J., Doyle, C., Fleron, B.: Genai and me: the hid- den work of building and maintaining an augmentative partnership. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing pp. 1–14 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    https://doi.org/10.3386/w31161, http://www.nber.org/papers/ w31161.pdf

    Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., Raymond, L.: Generative ai at work (w31161), w31161 (Apr 2023). https://doi.org/10.3386/w31161, http://www.nber.org/papers/ w31161.pdf

    2023 doi

  5. [14]

    In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM International Conference on AI-Powered Software

    Coutinho, M., Marques, L., Santos, A., Dahia, M., França, C., de Souza Santos, R.: The role of generative ai in software development productivity: A pilot case study. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM International Conference on AI-Powered Software. p. 131–138. AIware 2024, Assoc...

    2024

  6. [15]

    Theory Into Practice 39(3), 124–130 (Aug 2000)

    Creswell, J.W., Miller, D.L.: Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry. Theory Into Practice 39(3), 124–130 (Aug 2000). https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15430421tip3903_2

    2000

  7. [16]

    In: Proceedings of the 46th International Conference on Software Engi- neering: Software Engineering in Practice

    Davila, N., Wiese, I., Steinmacher, I., Lucio da Silva, L., Kawamoto, A., Favaro, G.J.P., Nunes, I.: An industry case study on adoption of ai-based programming assistants. In: Proceedings of the 46th International Conference on Software Engi- neering: Software Engineering in P...

    2024

  8. [18]

    https: //doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2303.10130, https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.10130

    Eloundou, T., Manning, S., Mishkin, P., Rock, D.: Gpts are gpts: An early look at the labor market impact potential of large language models (2023). https: //doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2303.10130, https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.10130

    2023 doi arXiv

  9. [19]

    SSRN Electronic Journal (2023).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn

    Felten, E.W., Raj, M., Seamans, R.: Occupational heterogeneity in exposure to generative ai. SSRN Electronic Journal (2023).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn. 4414065, https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=4414065

    2023 doi

  10. [20]

    A Oneworld book, Oneworld, London (2015)

    Ford, M.: The rise of the robots: technology and the threat of mass unemployment. A Oneworld book, Oneworld, London (2015)

    2015

  11. [21]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7(CSCW1), 1–20 (2023)

    Fox, S.E., Shorey, S., Kang, E.Y., Montiel Valle, D., Rodriguez, E.: Patchwork: the hidden, human labor of ai integration within essential work. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7(CSCW1), 1–20 (2023)

    2023

  12. [22]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116(14), 6531–6539 (2019)

    Frank, M.R., Autor, D., Bessen, J.E., Brynjolfsson, E., Cebrian, M., Deming, D.J., Feldman, M., Groh, M., Lobo, J., Moro, E., et al.: Toward understanding the impact of artificial intelligence on labor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116(14), 6531–6539 (2019)

    2019

  13. [23]

    Vocations and Learn- ing 10(3), 307–324 (Oct 2017)

    Fuller, A., Unwin, L.: Job crafting and identity in low-grade work: How hospi- tal porters redefine the value of their work and expertise. Vocations and Learn- ing 10(3), 307–324 (Oct 2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-017-9173-z, http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12186-017-9173-z

    2017 doi

  14. [24]

    Labour History: A Journal of Labour and Social History (25), 19–39 (1973)

    Hagan, J., Fisher, C.: Piece work and some of its consequences in the printing and coal mining industries in australia, 1850-1930. Labour History: A Journal of Labour and Social History (25), 19–39 (1973)

    1973

  15. [25]

    New media & society17(5), 720–739 (2015)

    Irani, L.: The cultural work of microwork. New media & society17(5), 720–739 (2015)

    2015

  16. [26]

    In: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Jo, E., Epstein, D.A., Jung, H., Kim, Y.H.: Understanding the benefits and chal- lenges of deploying conversational ai leveraging large language models for public health intervention. In: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 1–16 (2023)

    2023

  17. [27]

    Science 380(6651), 1222–1223 (Jun 2023)

    Kidd, C., Birhane, A.: How ai can distort human beliefs. Science 380(6651), 1222–1223 (Jun 2023). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adi0248, https:// www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adi0248

    2023 doi

  18. [29]

    Journal of Vocational Behavior 116, 103267 (Feb 2020).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.01.001, https: //linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0001879119300016

    Lazazzara, A., Tims, M., De Gennaro, D.: The process of reinventing a job: A meta–synthesis of qualitative job crafting research. Journal of Vocational Behavior 116, 103267 (Feb 2020).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.01.001, https: //linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S000...

    2020 doi

  19. [30]

    Li, J., Cao, H., Lin, L., Hou, Y., Zhu, R., El Ali, A.: User experience design professionals’ perceptions of generative artificial intelligence. In: Proceedings of the CHIConferenceonHumanFactorsinComputingSystems.CHI’24,Associationfor Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2...

    2024

  20. [31]

    you’re on a bicycle with a little motor

    Mendes, W., Souza, S., De Souza, C.: "you’re on a bicycle with a little motor": Benefits and challenges of using ai code assistants. In: Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE/ACM 17th International Conference on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Gen AI & Changing Work: Systematic Review...

    2024

  21. [32]

    SAGE, Los Angeles London New Delhi Singapore Washington DC Melbourne, fourth edition edn

    Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., Saldaña, J.: Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook. SAGE, Los Angeles London New Delhi Singapore Washington DC Melbourne, fourth edition edn. (2020)

    2020

  22. [33]

    In: Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Hu- man Factors in Computing Systems

    Mim, N.J., Nandi, D., Khan, S.S., Dey, A., Ahmed, S.I.: In-between visuals and visible: The impacts of text-to-image generative ai tools on digital image-making practices in the global south. In: Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Hu- man Factors in Computing Systems. C...

    2024

  23. [34]

    In: 2024 IEEE/ACM 21st International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR)

    Mohamed, S., Parvin, A., Parra, E.: Chatting with ai: Deciphering developer con- versations with chatgpt. In: 2024 IEEE/ACM 21st International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR). pp. 187–191. IEEE (2024)

    2024

  24. [35]

    In: Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition

    Palani, S., Ramos, G.: Evolving roles and workflows of creative practitioners in the age of generative ai. In: Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition. p. 170–184. C&C ’24, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2024). https://doi.org/10.1...

    2024

  25. [36]

    Relations industrielles 77(3), 1094209ar (2022)

    Perez, F., Conway, N., Roques, O.: The autonomy tussle: Ai technol- ogy and employee job crafting responses. Relations industrielles 77(3), 1094209ar (2022). https://doi.org/10.7202/1094209ar, http://id.erudit. org/iderudit/1094209ar

    2022

  26. [37]

    Academy of management review36(4), 641–662 (2011)

    Petriglieri, J.L.: Under threat: Responses to and the consequences of threats to individuals’ identities. Academy of management review36(4), 641–662 (2011)

    2011

  27. [38]

    Sanchez, T.: Examining the text-to-image community of practice: Why and how do people prompt generative ais? In: Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Creativity and Cognition. p. 43–61. C&C ’23, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2023). https://doi.org/10...

    2023

  28. [39]

    In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Future Networks and Distributed Systems

    Shakib Kotamjani, S., Shirinova, S., Fahimirad, M.: Lecturers perceptions of us- ing artificial intelligence in tertiary education in uzbekistan. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Future Networks and Distributed Systems. p. 570–578. ICFNDS ’23, Association...

    2024

  29. [40]

    In: Proceedings of the 21st Interna- tional Conference on Mining Software Repositories

    Siddiq, M.L., Roney, L., Zhang, J., Santos, J.C.D.S.: Quality assessment of chatgpt generated code and their use by developers. In: Proceedings of the 21st Interna- tional Conference on Mining Software Repositories. p. 152–156. MSR ’24, Associ- ation for Computing Machinery, N...

    2024

  30. [41]

    In: Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work

    Suh, H., Dangol, A., Meadan, H., Miller, C.A., Kientz, J.A.: Opportunities and challenges for ai-based support for speech-language pathologists. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work. CHIWORK ’24, Association for Comp...

    2024

  31. [42]

    Takaffoli, M., Li, S., Mäkelä, V.: Generative ai in user experience design and re- search: How do ux practitioners, teams, and companies use genai in industry? 22 Law & Varanasi., 2025 In: Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. pp. 1579–1593 (2024)

    2024

  32. [43]

    Takaffoli, M., Li, S., Mäkelä, V.: Generative ai in user experience design and research: How do ux practitioners, teams, and companies use genai in indus- try? In: Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. p. 1579–1593. DIS ’24, Association for Comp...

    2024

  33. [44]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Confer- ence on Software Engineering

    Tanzil, M.H., Khan, J.Y., Uddin, G.: Chatgpt incorrectness detection in soft- ware reviews. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Confer- ence on Software Engineering. ICSE ’24, Association for Computing Machin- ery, New York, NY, USA (2024). https://doi.org/10.11...

    2024

  34. [45]

    BMC Medical Research Methodology 8(1), 45 (Dec 2008)

    Thomas, J., Harden, A.: Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualita- tive research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology 8(1), 45 (Dec 2008). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45, https:// bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45

    2008 doi

  35. [46]

    In: Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference

    Uusitalo, S., Salovaara, A., Jokela, T., Salmimaa, M.: ”clay to play with”: Genera- tive ai tools in ux and industrial design practice. In: Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. p. 1566–1578. DIS ’24, Association for Computing Machinery, New Yor...

    2024

  36. [47]

    an adapt-or-die type of situation

    Vimpari, V., Kultima, A., Hämäläinen, P., Guckelsberger, C.: “an adapt-or-die type of situation”: Perception, adoption, and use of text-to-image-generation ai by game industry professionals. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7(CHI PLAY) (oct 2023). https://doi.org/10.1145/36110...

    2023 doi

  37. [48]

    Economics and Business Review 9(2) (Jul 2023)

    Walczak, K., Cellary, W.: Challenges for higher education in the era of widespread access to generative ai. Economics and Business Review 9(2) (Jul 2023). https://doi.org/10.18559/ebr.2023.2.743, https://journals.ue. poznan.pl/ebr/article/view/743

    2023 doi

  38. [49]

    In: Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency

    Wolfe, R., Mitra, T.: The impact and opportunities of generative ai in fact- checking. In: Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. p. 1531–1543. FAccT ’24, Association for Computing Machin- ery, New York, NY, USA (2024). https://do...

    2024

  39. [50]

    Human Resource Management Journal 31(4), 918–935 (Nov 2021).https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12342, https: //onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1748-8583.12342

    Wong, S.I., Kost, D., Fieseler, C.: From crafting what you do to building resilience for career commitment in the gig economy. Human Resource Management Journal 31(4), 918–935 (Nov 2021).https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12342, https: //onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1748...

    2021

  40. [51]

    The Academy of Management Review 26(2), 179 (Apr 2001)

    Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J.E.: Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as ac- tive crafters of their work. The Academy of Management Review 26(2), 179 (Apr 2001). https://doi.org/10.2307/259118, http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 259118?origin=crossref

    2001 doi

  41. [52]

    Xiao, T., Hata, H., Treude, C., Matsumoto, K.: Generative ai for pull request descriptions: Adoption, impact, and developer interventions. Proc. ACM Softw. Eng. 1(FSE) (jul 2024). https://doi.org/10.1145/3643773, https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3643773

    2024 doi

  42. [53]

    org/10.1177/0739456X17723971, http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/ 0739456X17723971 Gen AI & Changing Work: Systematic Review 23

    Xiao,Y.,Watson,M.:Guidanceonconductingasystematicliteraturereview.Jour- nal of Planning Education and Research39(1), 93–112 (Mar 2019).https://doi. org/10.1177/0739456X17723971, http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/ 0739456X17723971 Gen AI & Changing Work: Systematic Review 23

    2019 doi

  43. [54]

    Journal of Organizational Be- havior 40(2), 126–146 (Feb 2019).https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2332, https: //onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2332

    Zhang, F., Parker, S.K.: Reorienting job crafting research: A hierarchical struc- ture of job crafting concepts and integrative review. Journal of Organizational Be- havior 40(2), 126–146 (Feb 2019).https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2332, https: //onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002...

    2019 doi

  44. [55]

    Human relations69(1), 139–168 (2016)

    Zikic, J., Richardson, J.: What happens when you can’t be who you are: Pro- fessional identity at the institutional periphery. Human relations69(1), 139–168 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.