Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 100 references

AI Adoption Across a Multinational Workforce: Sociotechnical Conditions for GenAI Acceptance in Human Resources

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-06-26 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read GenAI adoption in HR succeeds when the system's design assumptions align with employees' roles, spoken languages, and tenure.

desk verdict A grounded single-case study of GenAI rollout in one HR department that adds real transition data but rests its design recommendations on limited evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.17887 v1 pith:6HYN55HR submitted 2026-06-16 cs.HC cs.AI

Dalia Ali , Maria José Rodríguez Velázquez , Manoel Horta Ribeiro , Vera Liao , Orestis Papakyriakopoulos This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.AI
keywords generativeAIworkplaceadoptionhumanresourcessociotechnicalsystemstrustinorganizationalchangedeploymentsearch
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 studies a multinational tech company replacing its legacy HR search system with a GenAI-supported one. Analysis of logs, a 25-person survey, and ten interviews shows uneven adoption driven by how well the tool's built-in assumptions match workers' specific positions. Trust formed when employees could check sources, compare outputs across systems, and consult colleagues or HR. The authors argue these sociotechnical conditions must be addressed for inclusive rollout in high-stakes settings. Their evidence points to treating company knowledge resources as part of the AI infrastructure itself.

What carries the argument

The fit between GenAI design assumptions and employees' work positionalities (role, spoken language, tenure)

What would settle it

A study in another organization or with a larger workforce where GenAI adoption rates show no link to differences in role, language, or tenure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Adoption depended on the fit between the GenAI system's design assumptions and employees' work positionalities (role, spoken language, tenure). Employees built trust in GenAI answers through source-checking, comparison among systems, and seeking input from colleagues or HR when in doubt. The study supplies empirical evidence from a live organizational transition and converts the patterns into design considerations for inclusive deployment.

Load-bearing premise

Observations from a single tech company's HR transition and a small sample of participants can inform broader GenAI deployment in other high-stakes environments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Organizations must design GenAI systems to account for role- and context-sensitive benefits across different employee groups.
  • Treating organizational knowledge infrastructure as AI infrastructure improves accountability and usability of GenAI systems.
  • Search literacy, trust calibration, content quality, training, and guidance shape adoption alongside positional fit.
  • Inclusive deployment requires attention to situational fit rather than uniform rollout.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same positional fit issues could appear in other knowledge-work settings where information quality affects decisions.
  • Targeted design adjustments for language or tenure groups might raise overall adoption without changing the underlying model.
  • Longitudinal tracking of the same employees after initial rollout could reveal whether trust-building habits persist or change.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper reports a mixed-methods case study of GenAI adoption during a live transition from a legacy HR search system to a GenAI-supported system at one multinational tech company. Drawing on search logs, a survey (n=25), and 10 semi-structured interviews, it claims that adoption is shaped by the fit between the system's design assumptions and employees' positionalities (role, spoken language, tenure), and that trust is constructed via source-checking, cross-system comparison, and consultation with colleagues or HR. The stated contributions are empirical evidence on sociotechnical adoption factors (situational fit, search literacy, trust calibration, knowledge infrastructure) plus design considerations for inclusive GenAI deployment in high-stakes HR settings.

Significance. If the patterns hold, the work supplies timely, real-world evidence on how positionalities and trust-calibration practices affect workplace GenAI uptake, which could usefully inform HCI and CSCW research on sociotechnical systems. The live-transition setting and mixed-methods design are strengths. However, the single-site, small-sample evidence base (explicitly noted as n=25 survey + 10 interviews) substantially constrains the strength of any broader claims about adoption dynamics or design recommendations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods / Findings] Methods and Findings sections: The abstract and introduction state that search log data were analyzed alongside the survey and interviews, yet no quantitative results, metrics, or triangulation from the logs are reported to corroborate the positionalities (role/language/tenure) claims; the central findings therefore rest entirely on the small qualitative sample.
  2. [Discussion] Discussion section: The leap from the single-company case to 'design considerations for inclusive deployment' in high-stakes HR environments (final paragraph of abstract and Discussion) is presented without an explicit limitations subsection addressing external validity, cross-site replication, or tests of whether the same positionalities predict adoption elsewhere.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract / Introduction] The term 'work positionalities' is used repeatedly from the abstract onward but receives no explicit operational definition or citation to prior literature on the first use, which reduces clarity for readers outside the immediate subfield.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive feedback. We address the two major comments point by point below, indicating the revisions we will make to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods / Findings] Methods and Findings sections: The abstract and introduction state that search log data were analyzed alongside the survey and interviews, yet no quantitative results, metrics, or triangulation from the logs are reported to corroborate the positionalities (role/language/tenure) claims; the central findings therefore rest entirely on the small qualitative sample.

    Authors: We acknowledge the referee's observation. The search log data were used to guide participant recruitment and to provide background context on overall usage patterns during the transition, but no quantitative metrics or direct triangulation from the logs were reported to support the positionalities findings. The core claims rest on the survey and interview data. We will revise the Methods section to clarify the specific role of the log data, adjust the abstract and introduction to avoid overstating its contribution to the reported findings, and add any non-sensitive descriptive statistics from the logs if they can be included without privacy issues. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Discussion] Discussion section: The leap from the single-company case to 'design considerations for inclusive deployment' in high-stakes HR environments (final paragraph of abstract and Discussion) is presented without an explicit limitations subsection addressing external validity, cross-site replication, or tests of whether the same positionalities predict adoption elsewhere.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit limitations discussion is warranted. We will add a dedicated Limitations subsection that directly addresses the single-site case-study design, the modest sample (n=25 survey + 10 interviews), constraints on external validity, and the absence of cross-site replication or predictive testing. The design considerations will be reframed as case-derived insights intended to inform future work rather than as broadly generalizable prescriptions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: purely empirical qualitative study with data-grounded observations

full rationale

The paper reports findings from search logs, a small survey (n=25), and 10 interviews in a single-organization case study. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or derivations appear. Central claims about adoption depending on fit with positionalities and trust-building behaviors are presented as direct observations from the collected data rather than reductions to prior self-citations or constructed quantities. The contribution section frames results as empirical evidence translated into design considerations without any load-bearing self-citation chains or ansatzes. This is a standard honest non-finding for an empirical HCI paper.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard HCI assumptions that qualitative data from interviews and surveys reliably reveal adoption factors and that positionalities shape technology use; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Qualitative interviews and surveys can reliably capture adoption factors and trust mechanisms in workplace technology use
    Invoked implicitly when interpreting survey and interview data as evidence for the fit and trust findings.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AI Adoption Across a Multinational Workforce: Sociotechnical Conditions for GenAI Acceptance in Human Resources." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6HYN55HR

@misc{pith2026260617887,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AI Adoption Across a Multinational Workforce: Sociotechnical Conditions for GenAI Acceptance in Human Resources},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6HYN55HR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.17887}
}
read the original abstract

Generative AI (GenAI) deployment in the workplace is accelerating rapidly. Nevertheless, questions of who adopts, who benefits, and who is left behind and why are still understudied. In this paper, we investigate these dynamics in the context of a multinational tech company transitioning from a legacy Human Resources (HR) search system to a GenAI-supported system, analyzing search log data, survey data (n=25), and ten semi-structured interviews. Our findings show that adoption depended on the fit between the GenAI system's design assumptions and employees' work positionalities (role, spoken language, tenure). Further, we find that employees' trust in GenAI answers was built through source-checking, comparison among systems, and seeking input from colleagues or HR when in doubt. Our contribution is twofold. First, we provide empirical evidence of workplace GenAI adoption during a live organizational transition, showing that adoption is influenced by factors such as situational fit, search literacy, and trust calibration. It is also further shaped by knowledge conditions such as the system's content quality, employee training, and guidance. Second, we translate these findings into design considerations for inclusive deployment and adoption in high-stakes environments such as HR. We argue that organizations should design systems considering the role and context-sensitive benefits they yield to different social groups. They also need to treat the organizational knowledge infrastructure as AI infrastructure to improve the accountability and usability of GenAI systems

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.17887 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sequential mixed-methods study design. Each phase informed the next, with search log patterns shaping the survey [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Adoption unfolded through selective use across parallel systems, varied by situational fit, required learning a new [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Average query length in STEVE and PEOPLE TOOL. Steve People Tool 0 20 40 60 80 100 83.4 83.3 Queries (%) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: illustrates the same trend from a different per￾spective. The proportion of one- or two-token searches re￾mained virtually unchanged for both systems. It is note￾worthy that while GenAI-based searches might demand more precise phrasing, a significant number of people s…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: distinguishes between three types of interaction phases in PEOPLE TOOL, which include whether there was a response from the search query, whether one of the re￾sponses was clicked on, and whether there was a response generated by GenAI. The reason for this distinction …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Click behavior by GenAI answer exposure in P [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Survey ratings for ease, helpfulness, and trust. Ease [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Respondents’ weekly or daily use of each system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: System preference reported in the survey. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Frequency of clicking sources displayed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Reported responses when GenAI did not provide [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science , year=

    Employees' Perceptions of the Implementation of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, and Automation on Job Satisfaction, Job Security, and Employability , author=. Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science , year=

  2. [3]

    Generative

    Brynjolfsson, Erik and Li, Danielle and Raymond, Lindsey , journal=. Generative. 2025 , doi=

    2025

  3. [4]

    Technovation , volume=

    When does AI pay off? AI-adoption intensity, complementary investments, and R&D strategy , author=. Technovation , volume=. 2022 , doi=

    2022

  4. [5]

    2025 , institution=

    The Cybernetic Teammate: A Field Experiment on Generative AI Reshaping Teamwork and Expertise , author=. 2025 , institution=

    2025

  5. [6]

    R.; and Verstyuk, S

    Douglas, Michael R. and Verstyuk, Sergiy , title =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.17894 , year =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2501.17894 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.17894

  6. [7]

    Measuring AI ability to complete long software tasks, 2025

    Kwa, Thomas and West, Ben and Becker, Joel and Deng, Amy and Garcia, Katharyn and Hasin, Max and Jawhar, Sami and Kinniment, Megan and Rush, Nate and Von Arx, Sydney and Bloom, Ryan and Broadley, Thomas and Du, Haoxing and Goodrich, Brian and Jurkovic, Nikola and Miles, Luke Harold and Nix, Seraphina and Lin, Tao and Parikh, Neev and Rein, David and Sato,...

    work page Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.14499

  7. [8]

    Information Systems Frontiers , year =

    Enholm, Ida Merete and Papagiannidis, Emmanouil and Mikalef, Patrick and Krogstie, John , title =. Information Systems Frontiers , year =

  8. [9]

    Annals of Operations Research , year =

    Venkatesh, Viswanath , title =. Annals of Operations Research , year =

Show all 100 references
  1. [10]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , year =

    Humlum, Anders and Vestergaard, Emilie , title =. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , year =

  2. [11]

    2026 , month = jan, url =

    Deloitte AI Institute , title =. 2026 , month = jan, url =

    2026

  3. [12]

    2025 , month = jul, url =

    The GenAI Divide: State of AI in Business 2025 , author =. 2025 , month = jul, url =

    2025

  4. [13]

    2025 , month = dec, type =

    The Dividend Age: How AI Is Turning Promise into Payoff , author =. 2025 , month = dec, type =

    2025

  5. [14]

    MIS Quarterly , volume=

    Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology , author=. MIS Quarterly , volume=. 1989 , doi=

    1989

  6. [15]

    MIS Quarterly , volume=

    User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view , author=. MIS Quarterly , volume=. 2003 , doi=

    2003

  7. [16]

    Journal of Biomedical Informatics , volume =

    Shachak, Aviv and Kuziemsky, Craig and Petersen, Carolyn , title =. Journal of Biomedical Informatics , volume =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  8. [17]

    , title =

    Mogaji, Emmanuel and Viglia, Giampaolo and Srivastava, Pallavi and Dwivedi, Yogesh K. , title =. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management , volume =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  9. [18]

    Kanesaraj and Subbarao, Anusuyah , title =

    Lee, Ann Thong and Ramasamy, R. Kanesaraj and Subbarao, Anusuyah , title =. Healthcare , volume =. 2025 , doi =

    2025

  10. [19]

    How to raise technology acceptance: user experience characteristics as technology-inherent determinants , journal =

    Mlekus, Lisa and Bentler, Dominik and Paruzel, Agnieszka and Kato-Beiderwieden, Anna-Lena and Maier, G. How to raise technology acceptance: user experience characteristics as technology-inherent determinants , journal =. 2020 , volume =

    2020

  11. [20]

    Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , series =

    How Do Data Analysts Respond to AI Assistance? A Wizard-of-Oz Study , author =. Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , series =. 2024 , publisher =

    2024

  12. [21]

    Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , series =

    The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI , author =. Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , series =. 2024 , publisher =

    2024

  13. [22]

    Proceedings of the 2022 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency , year =

    Designing for Responsible Trust in AI Systems: A Communication Perspective , author =. Proceedings of the 2022 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency , year =

    2022

  14. [24]

    Human Resource Management Journal , year =

    Human Resource Management in the Age of Generative Artificial Intelligence: Perspectives and Research Directions on ChatGPT , author =. Human Resource Management Journal , year =

  15. [26]

    1990 , publisher=

    The Processes of Technological Innovation , author=. 1990 , publisher=

    1990

  16. [27]

    Information Systems Theory: Explaining and Predicting Our Digital Society, Vol

    The technology--organization--environment framework , author=. Information Systems Theory: Explaining and Predicting Our Digital Society, Vol. 1 , pages=. 2011 , publisher=

    2011

  17. [28]

    Journal of Enterprise Information Management , volume=

    Integrated technology-organization-environment (TOE) taxonomies for technology adoption , author=. Journal of Enterprise Information Management , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  18. [29]

    2011 , journal=

    Literature review of information technology adoption models at firm level , author=. 2011 , journal=

    2011

  19. [30]

    Revisiting

    Wolfe, Diana and Price, Matt and Choe, Alice and Kidd, Fergus and Wagner, Hannah , journal=. Revisiting. 2025 , doi=

    2025

  20. [31]

    Proceedings of the

    Woodruff, Allison and Shelby, Renee and Kelley, Patrick Gage and Rousso-Schindler, Steven and Smith-Loud, Jamila and Wilcox, Lauren , title =. Proceedings of the. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  21. [32]

    Proceedings of the

    Kawakami, Anna and Taylor, Jordan and Fox, Sarah and Zhu, Haiyi and Holstein, Kenneth , title =. Proceedings of the. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  22. [33]

    Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) , pages =

    Raghavan, Manish and Barocas, Solon and Kleinberg, Jon and Levy, Karen , title =. Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) , pages =. 2020 , doi =

    2020

  23. [34]

    Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) , pages =

    Sanchez-Monedero, Javier and Dencik, Lina and Edwards, Lilian , title =. Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) , pages =. 2020 , doi =

    2020

  24. [35]

    Proceedings of the

    Ingber, Alexis Shore and Andalibi, Nazanin , title =. Proceedings of the. 2025 , doi =

    2025

  25. [36]

    and Woo, Sang Eun , title =

    Bankins, Sarah and Ocampo, Anna Carmella and Marrone, Mauricio and Restubog, Simon Lloyd D. and Woo, Sang Eun , title =. Journal of Organizational Behavior , volume =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  26. [37]

    Journal of the Association for Information Systems , year =

    A Knowledge Management Perspective of Generative Artificial Intelligence , author =. Journal of the Association for Information Systems , year =

  27. [38]

    MIS Quarterly , year =

    Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues , author =. MIS Quarterly , year =

  28. [39]

    Proceedings of the

    Bansal, Gagan and Wu, Tongshuang and Zhou, Joyce and Fok, Raymond and Nushi, Besmira and Kamar, Ece and Ribeiro, Marco Tulio and Weld, Daniel , title =. Proceedings of the. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  29. [40]

    Proceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems , pages=

    Why Johnny can't prompt: how non-AI experts try (and fail) to design LLM prompts , author=. Proceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems , pages=. 2023 , doi=

    2023

  30. [41]

    and Cox, Anna L

    Xia, Qing Nancy and Constantinides, Marios and Sarkar, Advait and Brumby, Duncan P. and Cox, Anna L. , journal=. ``. 2026 , doi=

    2026

  31. [43]

    and boyd, danah and Friedler, Sorelle A

    Selbst, Andrew D. and boyd, danah and Friedler, Sorelle A. and Venkatasubramanian, Suresh and Vertesi, Janet , title =. Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) , pages =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  32. [44]

    2020 , publisher =

    Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need , author =. 2020 , publisher =

    2020

  33. [45]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , volume =

    Cheon, EunJeong and Erickson, Ingrid , title =. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , volume =. 2025 , doi =

    2025

  34. [46]

    2003 , publisher =

    Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide , author =. 2003 , publisher =

    2003

  35. [47]

    2005 , publisher =

    The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Information Society , author =. 2005 , publisher =

    2005

  36. [48]

    2021 , publisher =

    The Digital Disconnect: The Social Causes and Consequences of Digital Inequalities , author =. 2021 , publisher =

    2021

  37. [49]

    and See, Katrina A

    Lee, John D. and See, Katrina A. , title =. Human Factors , volume =. 2004 , doi =

    2004

  38. [50]

    , title =

    Knowles, Bran and Richards, John T. , title =. Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  39. [51]

    2025 , month = jul, note =

    Large Language Models in Human Resource Management: A Systematic Literature Review of Applications, Open Issues and Future Research Directions , author =. 2025 , month = jul, note =

    2025

  40. [52]

    Qualitative Research in Psychology , volume =

    Braun, Virginia and Clarke, Victoria , title =. Qualitative Research in Psychology , volume =. 2006 , doi =

    2006

  41. [53]

    Alavi, M.; and Leidner, D. E. 2001. Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1): 107--136

    2001

  42. [54]

    E.; and Mousavi, R

    Alavi, M.; Leidner, D. E.; and Mousavi, R. 2024. A Knowledge Management Perspective of Generative Artificial Intelligence. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 25(1): 1--12

    2024

  43. [55]

    Ali, D.; Ahmed, M.; Wang, H.; Khan, A.; Jordan, N. P. A.; Kim, S. S.; Muchhala, M. D.; Merkle, A. K.; and Papakyriakopoulos, O. 2025. AI Adoption Across Mission-Driven Organizations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.03868

    2025

  44. [56]

    O.; Ojiabo, O

    Awa, H. O.; Ojiabo, O. U.; and Orokor, L. E. 2017. Integrated technology-organization-environment (TOE) taxonomies for technology adoption. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 30(6): 893--921

    2017

  45. [57]

    Baker, J. 2011. The technology--organization--environment framework, 231--245. Springer

    2011

  46. [58]

    C.; Marrone, M.; Restubog, S

    Bankins, S.; Ocampo, A. C.; Marrone, M.; Restubog, S. L. D.; and Woo, S. E. 2024. A multilevel review of artificial intelligence in organizations: Implications for organizational behavior research and practice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 45(2): 159--182

    2024

  47. [59]

    T.; and Weld, D

    Bansal, G.; Wu, T.; Zhou, J.; Fok, R.; Nushi, B.; Kamar, E.; Ribeiro, M. T.; and Weld, D. 2021. Does the Whole Exceed Its Parts? T he Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performance. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    2021

  48. [60]

    Bhargava, A.; Bester, M.; and Bolton, L. 2021. Employees' Perceptions of the Implementation of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, and Automation on Job Satisfaction, Job Security, and Employability. Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science, 6: 106--113

    2021

  49. [61]

    Braun, V.; and Clarke, V. 2006. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2): 77--101

    2006

  50. [62]

    Brynjolfsson, E.; Li, D.; and Raymond, L. 2025. Generative AI at Work. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 140(2): 889--942

    2025

  51. [63]

    J.; Beltran, J

    Budhwar, P.; Chowdhury, S.; Wood, G.; Aguinis, H.; Bamber, G. J.; Beltran, J. R.; Boselie, P.; Cooke, F. L.; Decker, S.; DeNisi, A.; Dey, P. K.; Guest, D.; Knoblich, A. J.; Malik, A.; Paauwe, J.; Papagiannidis, S.; Patel, C.; Pereira, V.; Ren, S.; Rogelberg, S.; Saunders, M. N...

    2023

  52. [64]

    Cheon, E.; and Erickson, I. 2025. Fulfillment of the Work Games: Warehouse Workers' Experiences with Algorithmic Management. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 9

    2025

  53. [65]

    Costanza-Chock, S. 2020. Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press

    2020

  54. [66]

    K.; Giannopoulos, P

    Dasaklis, T. K.; Giannopoulos, P. G.; Koutras, D.; Malamas, V.; and Chountalas, P. T. 2025. Large Language Models in Human Resource Management: A Systematic Literature Review of Applications, Open Issues and Future Research Directions. Preprint submitted to Elsevier

    2025

  55. [67]

    Davis, F. D. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3): 319--340

    1989

  56. [68]

    Dell'Acqua, F.; Ayoubi, C.; Lifshitz, H.; Sadun, R.; Mollick, E.; Mollick, L.; Han, Y.; Goldman, J.; Nair, H.; Taub, S.; and Lakhani, K. R. 2025. The Cybernetic Teammate: A Field Experiment on Generative AI Reshaping Teamwork and Expertise. Technical Report w33641, NBER

    2025

  57. [69]

    R.; and Verstyuk, S

    Douglas, M. R.; and Verstyuk, S. 2025. Progress in Artificial Intelligence and its Determinants. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.17894

    2025

  58. [70]

    M.; Papagiannidis, E.; Mikalef, P.; and Krogstie, J

    Enholm, I. M.; Papagiannidis, E.; Mikalef, P.; and Krogstie, J. 2022. Artificial Intelligence and Business Value: a Literature Review. Information Systems Frontiers, 24: 1709--1734

    2022

  59. [71]

    Ernst & Young LLP . 2025. The Dividend Age: How AI Is Turning Promise into Payoff. Us ai pulse survey: Wave 4, EY. Survey of 500 US senior business leaders

    2025

  60. [72]

    Gu, K.; Grunde-McLaughlin, M.; McNutt, A.; Heer, J.; and Althoff, T. 2024. How Do Data Analysts Respond to AI Assistance? A Wizard-of-Oz Study. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '24. ACM

    2024

  61. [73]

    Helsper, E. J. 2021. The Digital Disconnect: The Social Causes and Consequences of Digital Inequalities. London: SAGE Publications

    2021

  62. [74]

    Humlum, A.; and Vestergaard, E. 2025. The unequal adoption of ChatGPT exacerbates existing inequalities among workers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(1): e2414972121

    2025

  63. [75]

    S.; and Andalibi, N

    Ingber, A. S.; and Andalibi, N. 2025. Emotion AI in Job Interviews: Injustice, Emotional Labor, Identity, and Privacy. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT)

    2025

  64. [76]

    Institute, D. A. 2026. State of AI in the Enterprise: The Untapped Edge. Technical report, Deloitte AI Institute

    2026

  65. [77]

    Kawakami, A.; Taylor, J.; Fox, S.; Zhu, H.; and Holstein, K. 2024. AI Failure Loops in Feminized Labor: Understanding the Interplay of Workplace AI and Occupational Devaluation. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI , Ethics, and Society (AIES)

    2024

  66. [78]

    Knowles, B.; and Richards, J. T. 2021. The Sanction of Authority: Promoting Public Trust in AI. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 262--271

    2021

  67. [79]

    H.; Nix, S.; Lin, T.; Parikh, N.; Rein, D.; Sato, L

    Kwa, T.; West, B.; Becker, J.; Deng, A.; Garcia, K.; Hasin, M.; Jawhar, S.; Kinniment, M.; Rush, N.; Von Arx, S.; Bloom, R.; Broadley, T.; Du, H.; Goodrich, B.; Jurkovic, N.; Miles, L. H.; Nix, S.; Lin, T.; Parikh, N.; Rein, D.; Sato, L. J. K.; Wijk, H.; Ziegler, D. M.; Barnes...

    2025

  68. [80]

    T.; Ramasamy, R

    Lee, A. T.; Ramasamy, R. K.; and Subbarao, A. 2025. Understanding Psychosocial Barriers to Healthcare Technology Adoption: A Review of TAM and UTAUT Frameworks. Healthcare, 13(3): 250

    2025

  69. [81]

    D.; and See, K

    Lee, J. D.; and See, K. A. 2004. Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance. Human Factors, 46(1): 50--80

    2004

  70. [82]

    S.; Kim, T.; Choi, S.; and Kim, W

    Lee, Y. S.; Kim, T.; Choi, S.; and Kim, W. 2022. When does AI pay off? AI-adoption intensity, complementary investments, and R&D strategy. Technovation, 118: 102590

    2022

  71. [83]

    V.; and Sundar, S

    Liao, Q. V.; and Sundar, S. S. 2022. Designing for Responsible Trust in AI Systems: A Communication Perspective. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. ACM

    2022

  72. [84]

    MIT Project NANDA . 2025. The GenAI Divide: State of AI in Business 2025. Technical report, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Preliminary findings

    2025

  73. [85]

    Mlekus, L.; Bentler, D.; Paruzel, A.; Kato-Beiderwieden, A.-L.; and Maier, G. W. 2020. How to raise technology acceptance: user experience characteristics as technology-inherent determinants. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift f \"u r Angewandte Organisationspsycho...

    2020

  74. [86]

    Mogaji, E.; Viglia, G.; Srivastava, P.; and Dwivedi, Y. K. 2024. Is it the end of the technology acceptance model in the era of generative artificial intelligence? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 36(10): 3324--3339

    2024

  75. [87]

    Oliveira, T.; and Martins, M. d. R. F. d. O. 2011. Literature review of information technology adoption models at firm level. The Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation, 14(1): 110--121

    2011

  76. [88]

    Raghavan, M.; Barocas, S.; Kleinberg, J.; and Levy, K. 2020. Mitigating Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: Evaluating Claims and Practices. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT), 469--481

    2020

  77. [89]

    Sanchez-Monedero, J.; Dencik, L.; and Edwards, L. 2020. What Does It Mean to ``Solve'' the Problem of Discrimination in Hiring? S ocial, Technical and Legal Perspectives from the UK on Automated Hiring Systems. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and ...

    2020

  78. [90]

    D.; Negreanu, C.; Poelitz, C.; Ragavan, S

    Sarkar, A.; Gordon, A. D.; Negreanu, C.; Poelitz, C.; Ragavan, S. S.; and Zorn, B. 2022. What is it like to program with artificial intelligence? arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.06213

    2022

  79. [91]

    D.; boyd, d.; Friedler, S

    Selbst, A. D.; boyd, d.; Friedler, S. A.; Venkatasubramanian, S.; and Vertesi, J. 2019. Fairness and Abstraction in Sociotechnical Systems. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT), 59--68

    2019

  80. [92]

    Shachak, A.; Kuziemsky, C.; and Petersen, C. 2019. Beyond TAM and UTAUT : Future directions for HIT implementation research. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 100: 103315

    2019

  81. [93]

    E.; Sarkar, A.; Sellen, A.; and Rintel, S

    Tankelevitch, L.; Kewenig, V.; Simkute, A.; Scott, A. E.; Sarkar, A.; Sellen, A.; and Rintel, S. 2024. The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '24. ACM

    2024

  82. [94]

    G.; and Fleischer, M

    Tornatzky, L. G.; and Fleischer, M. 1990. The Processes of Technological Innovation. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books

    1990

  83. [95]

    van Dijk , J. A. G. M. 2005. The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Information Society. London: SAGE Publications

    2005

  84. [96]

    Venkatesh, V. 2022. Adoption and use of AI tools: a research agenda grounded in UTAUT. Annals of Operations Research, 308(1): 641--652

    2022

  85. [97]

    G.; Davis, G

    Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M. G.; Davis, G. B.; and Davis, F. D. 2003. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3): 425--478

    2003

  86. [98]

    Warschauer, M. 2003. Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

    2003

  87. [99]

    A.; Isaac, W.; Legassick, S.; Irving, G.; and Gabriel, I

    Weidinger, L.; Mellor, J.; Rauh, M.; Griffin, C.; Uesato, J.; Huang, P.-S.; Cheng, M.; Glaese, M.; Balle, B.; Kasirzadeh, A.; Kenton, Z.; Brown, S.; Hawkins, W.; Stepleton, T.; Biles, C.; Birhane, A.; Haas, J.; Rimell, L.; Hendricks, L. A.; Isaac, W.; Legassick, S.; Irving, G....

    2021 arXiv

  88. [100]

    D.; Muller, M.; He, J.; and Houde, S

    Weisz, J. D.; Muller, M.; He, J.; and Houde, S. 2023. Toward general design principles for generative AI applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.05578

    2023

  89. [101]

    Wolfe, D.; Price, M.; Choe, A.; Kidd, F.; and Wagner, H. 2025. Revisiting UTAUT for the Age of AI : Understanding Employees AI Adoption and Usage Patterns Through an Extended UTAUT Framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.15142

    2025

  90. [102]

    G.; Rousso-Schindler, S.; Smith-Loud, J.; and Wilcox, L

    Woodruff, A.; Shelby, R.; Kelley, P. G.; Rousso-Schindler, S.; Smith-Loud, J.; and Wilcox, L. 2024. How Knowledge Workers Think Generative AI Will (Not) Transform Their Industries. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    2024

  91. [103]

    N.; Constantinides, M.; Sarkar, A.; Brumby, D

    Xia, Q. N.; Constantinides, M.; Sarkar, A.; Brumby, D. P.; and Cox, A. L. 2026. `` If You're Very Clever, No One Knows You've Used It'': The Social Dynamics of Developing Generative AI Literacy in the Workplace. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.01386. Accepted at CHIWORK 2026

    2026 arXiv

  92. [104]

    D.; Wong, R

    Zamfirescu-Pereira, J. D.; Wong, R. Y.; Hartmann, B.; and Yang, Q. 2023. Why Johnny can't prompt: how non-AI experts try (and fail) to design LLM prompts. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 1--21

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed June 26, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.