pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.10883 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · 💻 cs.HC

Recognition: unknown

Towards Designing for Resilience: Community-Centered Deployment of an AI Business Planning Tool in a Small Business Center

Quentin Romero Lauro , Aakash Gautam , Yasmine Kotturi
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords community-centered designAI literacybusiness planningresilienceentrepreneursmakerspacegenerative AIpeer support
0
0 comments X

The pith

An AI business planning tool lowers barriers for entrepreneurs but peer support is needed to preserve the thinking that makes plans effective.

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

The paper reports on deploying BizChat, an AI tool that turns rough business ideas into formal plans, across workshops at a feminist makerspace serving resource-limited entrepreneurs. Log data and interviews indicated the tool helped translate ideas into the language funders expect, easing access to capital. At the same time the speed of AI outputs created worries that users might skip the personal reflection needed for workable strategies. Group discussions let participants question, change, or reject the AI suggestions, building shared skills in using, adjusting, and sometimes refusing the technology. From these observations the authors derive design ideas such as adding friction that prompts reflection and building communal supports that let groups shape how the tool is used.

Core claim

Through log data from 30 workshop participants and interviews with 10 entrepreneurs, we observed that BizChat lowered barriers to accessing capital by translating ideas into business language, yet this ease raised questions about whether instant AI outputs undermine sensemaking essential to planning. Peer support in the makerspace setting helped entrepreneurs navigate this tension through collective development of AI literacy that includes adoption, adaptation, and refusal.

What carries the argument

BizChat, the AI-powered business planning tool, together with the processes of collective AI literacy development through adoption, adaptation, and refusal enabled by peer interactions.

If this is right

  • Entrepreneurs gain faster access to the professional language required for funding applications.
  • Instant AI outputs can reduce the personal reflection that strengthens business strategies.
  • Peer groups enable users to adapt or refuse AI suggestions, preserving essential sensemaking.
  • Designs that include productive friction encourage critical engagement with tool outputs.
  • Communal scaffolds and co-optable features strengthen community resilience when adopting new tools.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same community-centered approach could be tested with other generative AI tools used by small groups facing resource limits.
  • Allowing easy refusal of AI suggestions without penalty may be a general requirement for tools meant to support rather than replace user judgment.
  • Physical co-location in workshops likely amplifies the peer support effect; virtual versions would need explicit mechanisms to replicate that interaction.

Load-bearing premise

The self-reported experiences and log data from 30 workshop participants and 10 interviewees at one makerspace accurately capture mechanisms of resilience building that generalize beyond this specific community setting.

What would settle it

Repeating the workshops in a different setting with weaker peer networks and finding no difference in planning depth or sensemaking when AI outputs are used without group discussion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.10883 by Aakash Gautam, Quentin Romero Lauro, Yasmine Kotturi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: We introduced BizChat, an AI-powered business planning tool for small business owners, and deployed it through co-designed, community-centered workshops at a feminist makerspace in Pittsburgh. This figure shows P5, a custom jewelry and apparel designer, using BizChat to create her first business plan and gain entry to a grant-backed fashion week program. Abstract Entrepreneurs in resource-constrained commu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: BizChat supports small business owners to draft and refine business plans. Interface legend. (a) Prompt suggestions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: BizChat scaffolds the onboarding process for business plan creation. To (1) collect business context, users can enter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: We intentionally separate tool access from research [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: BizChat’s Explore Local Grants tab provides a cu￾rated list of local grants and loans maintained by the re￾search team. Users can search, filter by deadlines, and view detailed information about each opportunity, including fund￾ing amount, equity requirements, and application dates. This feature helps entrepreneurs discover and apply for relevant opportunities without leaving the platform. sensemaking, qui… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Entrepreneurs in resource-constrained communities often lack time and support to translate ideas into actionable business plans. While generative AI promises assistance, most systems assume high digital literacy and overlook community infrastructures that shape adoption. We report on the community-centered design and deployment of BizChat, an AI-powered business planning tool, introduced across four workshops at a feminist makerspace in Pittsburgh. Through log data (N=30) and interviews (N=10), we examine how entrepreneurs build resilience through collective AI literacy development-encompassing adoption, adaptation, and refusal of AI. Our findings reveal that while BizChat lowered barriers to accessing capital by translating ideas into "business language," this ease raised questions about whether instant AI outputs undermine sensemaking essential to planning. We show how peer support helped entrepreneurs navigate this tension. We contribute design implications, including productive friction, communal scaffolds, and co-optability, for strengthening resilience amid technological change.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports on the community-centered design and deployment of BizChat, an AI-powered business planning tool, across four workshops at a feminist makerspace in Pittsburgh. Drawing on log data from N=30 participants and semi-structured interviews with N=10, it examines entrepreneurs' collective AI literacy development through patterns of adoption, adaptation, and refusal. The central findings are that BizChat lowers barriers to capital access by translating ideas into business language, yet this ease can undermine essential sensemaking processes, with peer support helping participants navigate the resulting tension. The authors derive three design implications—productive friction, communal scaffolds, and co-optability—for building resilience in AI tool use.

Significance. If the interpretive claims are robustly supported, the work offers a timely contribution to HCI and AI ethics by foregrounding community infrastructures and collective sensemaking in the deployment of generative AI for resource-constrained entrepreneurs. The emphasis on refusal and adaptation as resilience mechanisms, alongside concrete design implications, could inform more context-sensitive AI systems beyond the specific makerspace setting.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods and Analysis sections] Methods and Analysis sections: The abstract and findings report results from N=30 logs and N=10 interviews but provide no details on analysis methods, coding schemes, thematic analysis procedures, or how specific claims (e.g., peer support navigating the AI-sensemaking tension) were derived from the data. This absence is load-bearing for the defensibility of the resilience-building mechanisms.
  2. [Findings and Discussion sections] Findings and Discussion sections: The claims about transferable resilience mechanisms and the three design implications rest on a single-site qualitative study without cross-site comparison, independent observation of sensemaking processes, or longitudinal follow-up. The manuscript does not address how the feminist makerspace context or self-reported experiences might limit generalizability, weakening the leap from this case to broader design guidance.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: Consider adding one sentence on the qualitative analysis approach to better ground the reported findings for readers.
  2. [Methods] The manuscript would benefit from explicit discussion of positionality or researcher reflexivity given the community-centered framing.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed feedback. The comments identify key areas where methodological transparency and discussion of study limitations can be strengthened. We address each major comment below and outline specific revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods and Analysis sections] Methods and Analysis sections: The abstract and findings report results from N=30 logs and N=10 interviews but provide no details on analysis methods, coding schemes, thematic analysis procedures, or how specific claims (e.g., peer support navigating the AI-sensemaking tension) were derived from the data. This absence is load-bearing for the defensibility of the resilience-building mechanisms.

    Authors: We agree that the current Methods and Analysis sections lack sufficient detail on our analytical procedures, which weakens the defensibility of the findings. In the revised manuscript, we will expand the Methods section with a dedicated subsection on data analysis. This will describe: (1) the thematic analysis process, including how we followed an inductive approach to identify patterns of adoption, adaptation, and refusal; (2) the iterative development of the coding scheme through team discussions and memoing; (3) how log data (e.g., interaction patterns) was triangulated with interview transcripts; and (4) specific examples of coded excerpts that support claims about peer support mitigating the AI-sensemaking tension. We will also note steps taken to ensure analytical rigor, such as reflexive memoing and consensus-building among coders. These additions will directly address the load-bearing concern. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Findings and Discussion sections] Findings and Discussion sections: The claims about transferable resilience mechanisms and the three design implications rest on a single-site qualitative study without cross-site comparison, independent observation of sensemaking processes, or longitudinal follow-up. The manuscript does not address how the feminist makerspace context or self-reported experiences might limit generalizability, weakening the leap from this case to broader design guidance.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the study is limited to a single site and that this constrains claims about transferability. As an in-depth qualitative exploration, the work prioritizes contextual richness over breadth, which is standard for deriving design implications in HCI. However, we will add a new Limitations section in the revised manuscript that explicitly discusses: the feminist makerspace context and its potential influence on collective practices; reliance on self-reported interviews alongside usage logs; absence of independent observation, cross-site data, or longitudinal follow-up; and how these factors shape the scope of the resilience mechanisms and design implications. We will also revise the Discussion to present the three implications (productive friction, communal scaffolds, co-optability) as contextually derived propositions for future research rather than broadly generalizable guidelines, thereby tempering the leap from this case. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical qualitative study with independent observational grounding

full rationale

The paper reports findings from log data (N=30) and interviews (N=10) collected across four workshops at a single feminist makerspace. No equations, fitted parameters, derivations, or self-referential modeling appear; claims about adoption/adaptation/refusal patterns and design implications rest directly on observed participant behaviors and self-reported experiences rather than reducing to prior definitions, self-citations, or fitted inputs by construction. Minor self-citations, if present, are not load-bearing for the central interpretive claims.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard qualitative HCI assumptions about the validity of interview self-reports and workshop observations for revealing adoption mechanisms; no free parameters, mathematical derivations, or new postulated entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Participant self-reports and usage logs from small workshops can reliably surface mechanisms of collective AI literacy and sensemaking tensions
    Invoked when interpreting how peer support navigates the ease-vs-sensemaking tension

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5464 in / 1343 out tokens · 54931 ms · 2026-05-10T16:37:00.341061+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Upmetrics

    Upmetrics 2025.AI-Powered Upmetrics Assistant. Upmetrics. https://upmetrics. co/features/ai-assistant

    2025

  2. [2]

    CloudBank: Cloud Computing for Research & Education

    2025. CloudBank: Cloud Computing for Research & Education. https://www. cloudbank.org/. Accessed: 2025-09-11

    2025

  3. [3]

    OpenRouter: The Unified Interface for LLMs

    2025. OpenRouter: The Unified Interface for LLMs. https://openrouter.ai. Ac- cessed: 2025-09-11

    2025

  4. [4]

    SCORE Association

    SCORE Association 2025.SCORE: For the Life of Your Business. SCORE Association. https://www.score.org/

    2025

  5. [5]

    IdeaBuddy

    IdeaBuddy 2025.Smart business plan builder, powered by AI. IdeaBuddy. https: //ideabuddy.com/features/business-plan/

    2025

  6. [6]

    Jacob Abbott, Haley MacLeod, Novia Nurain, Gustave Ekobe, and Sameer Patil

  7. [7]

    InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Local standards for anonymization practices in health, wellness, accessi- bility, and aging research at CHI. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14

    2019

  8. [8]

    Small Business Administration

    U.S. Small Business Administration. 2025. Write Your Business Plan: Sample Business Plans & Business Plan Template. https://www.sba.gov/business-guide/ plan-your-business/write-your-business-plan. Accessed: 2025-09-11

    2025

  9. [9]

    Sherry R Arnstein. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation.Journal of the American Institute of planners35, 4 (1969), 216–224

    1969

  10. [10]

    Seyram Avle, Julie Hui, Silvia Lindtner, and Tawanna Dillahunt. 2019. Additional labors of the entrepreneurial self.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction3, CSCW (2019), 1–24

    2019

  11. [11]

    François Bar, Francis Pisani, and Matthew Weber. 2007. Mobile technology appro- priation in a distant mirror: Baroque infiltration, creolization and cannibalism. Seminario sobre Desarrollo Económico, Desarrollo Social y Comunicaciones Móviles en América Latina(2007), 20–21

    2007

  12. [12]

    Eric PS Baumer, Morgan G Ames, Jed R Brubaker, Jenna Burrell, and Paul Dourish

  13. [13]

    InCHI’14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Refusing, limiting, departing: why we should study technology non-use. InCHI’14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 65–68

  14. [14]

    Ruha Benjamin. 2016. Informed refusal: Toward a justice-based bioethics.Science, Technology, & Human Values41, 6 (2016), 967–990

    2016

  15. [15]

    Rahul Bhargava, Erica Deahl, Emmanuel Letouzé, Amanda Noonan, David San- gokoya, and Natalie Shoup. 2015. Beyond data literacy: Reinventing community engagement and empowerment in the age of data. (2015)

    2015

  16. [16]

    Abeba Birhane, William Isaac, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Mark Diaz, Madeleine Clare Elish, Iason Gabriel, and Shakir Mohamed. 2022. Power to the people? Opportunities and challenges for participatory AI. InProceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization. 1–8

    2022

  17. [17]

    George A. Bonanno. 2004. Loss, Trauma, and Human Resilience: Have We Underestimated the Human Capacity to Thrive After Extremely Aversive Events? American Psychologist59, 1 (2004), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59. 1.20

    work page doi:10.1037/0003-066x.59 2004

  18. [18]

    Callum Borchers. [n. d.]. Americans Are Side-Hustling Like We’re in a Recession. The Wall Street Journal([n. d.]). Online; accessed 2025-09-07

    2025

  19. [19]

    Nicolás, The bar derived category of a curved dg algebra, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 212 (2008) 2633–2659

    K.J. Bucknell, M. Kangas, and M.F. Crane. 2022. Adaptive self-reflection and resilience: The moderating effects of rumination on insight as a mediator.Per- sonality and Individual Differences185 (2022), 111234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. paid.2021.111234

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2022

  20. [20]

    2023.What the Data Says About Americans’ Views of Artificial Intelligence

    Pew Research Center. 2023.What the Data Says About Americans’ Views of Artificial Intelligence. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/11/21/ what-the-data-says-about-americans-views-of-artificial-intelligence/ Accessed: 2025-01-07

    2023

  21. [21]

    Shannon Cook. 2021. The Rise Of TikTok Entrepreneurs: How Useful Is Their Business Advice?BusinessBecause(27 May 2021). https://www.businessbecause. com/news/insights/7658/tiktok-entrepreneurs-business-advice Accessed: 2025- 09-11

    2021

  22. [22]

    Ned Cooper, Tiffanie Horne, Gillian R Hayes, Courtney Heldreth, Michal Lahav, Jess Holbrook, and Lauren Wilcox. 2022. A systematic review and thematic analy- sis of community-collaborative approaches to computing research. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–18

    2022

  23. [23]

    Fernando Delgado, Stephen Yang, Michael Madaio, and Qian Yang. 2023. The participatory turn in ai design: Theoretical foundations and the current state of practice. InProceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization. 1–23

    2023

  24. [24]

    Tawanna R Dillahunt. 2014. Fostering social capital in economically distressed communities. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems. 531–540

    2014

  25. [25]

    Tawanna R Dillahunt, Vaishnav Kameswaran, Desiree McLain, Minnie Lester, Delores Orr, and Kentaro Toyama. 2018. Entrepreneurship and the socio-technical chasm in a lean economy. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14

    2018

  26. [26]

    Dillahunt, Alex Jiahong Lu, Aarti Israni, Ruchita Lodha, Savana Brewer, Tiera S

    Tawanna R. Dillahunt, Alex Jiahong Lu, Aarti Israni, Ruchita Lodha, Savana Brewer, Tiera S. Robinson, Angela Brown Wilson, and Earnest Wheeler. 2022. The Village: Infrastructuring Community-based Mentoring to Support Adults Experiencing Poverty. InCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New Orle...

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3501949 2022

  27. [27]

    Tawanna R Dillahunt, Kerby Shedden, Mila Ekaterina Filipof, Soyoung Lee, Mustafa Naseem, Kentaro Toyama, and Julie Hui. 2025. The Development of a New Measure of Collective Digital Literacy.Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction9, 2 (2025), 1–33. CHI ’26, April 13–17, 2026, Barcelona, Spain Quentin Romero Lauro, Aakash Gautam, and Yasmine Kotturi

    2025

  28. [28]

    Flanagan

    John C. Flanagan. 1954. The Critical Incident Technique.Psychological Bulletin 51, 4 (1954), 327–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061470

    work page doi:10.1037/h0061470 1954

  29. [29]

    Aakash Gautam. 2024. Reconfiguring participatory design to resist ai realism. In Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference 2024: Exploratory Papers and Workshops-Volume 2. 31–36

    2024

  30. [30]

    Aakash Gautam and Deborah Tatar. 2020. p for political: Participation without agency is not enough. InProceedings of the 16th Participatory Design Conference 2020-Participation (s) Otherwise-Volume 2. 45–49

    2020

  31. [31]

    Aakash Gautam and Deborah Tatar. 2022. Empowering Participation Within Structures of Dependency. InProceedings of the Participatory Design Conference 2022-Volume 1. 75–86

    2022

  32. [32]

    Aakash Gautam, Deborah Tatar, and Steve Harrison. 2020. Crafting, communality, and computing: Building on existing strengths to support a vulnerable population. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14

    2020

  33. [33]

    Elena L Glassman, Ziwei Gu, and Jonathan K Kummerfeld. 2024. Ai-resilient interfaces.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.08447(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Peter M Gollwitzer. 1999. Implementation intentions: strong effects of simple plans.American psychologist54, 7 (1999), 493

    1999

  35. [35]

    Tanya Goyal, Junyi Jessy Li, and Greg Durrett. 2022. News summarization and evaluation in the era of gpt-3.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.12356(2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    2024.How SMBs Are Using AI in 2024

    Gusto. 2024.How SMBs Are Using AI in 2024. https://gusto.com/company- news/smbs-using-ai-2024# Accessed: 2025-01-07

    2024

  37. [37]

    Luke Haliburton, David Joachim Grüning, Frederik Riedel, Albrecht Schmidt, and Nađa Terzimehić. 2024. A longitudinal in-the-wild investigation of design frictions to prevent smartphone overuse. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16

    2024

  38. [38]

    Christina Harrington, Sheena Erete, and Anne Marie Piper. 2019. Deconstructing community-based collaborative design: Towards more equitable participatory design engagements.Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction3, CSCW (2019), 1–25

    2019

  39. [39]

    Suzanne Hidi and K Ann Renninger. 2006. The four-phase model of interest development.Educational psychologist41, 2 (2006), 111–127

    2006

  40. [40]

    micro units

    Theo Hug. 2005. Micro Learning and Narration. Exploring possibilities of uti- lization of narrations and storytelling for the designing of" micro units" and didactical micro-learning arrangements. Infourth Media in Transition conference, Vol. 6. MiT4

    2005

  41. [41]

    Julie Hui, Nefer Ra Barber, Wendy Casey, Suzanne Cleage, Danny C Dolley, Frances Worthy, Kentaro Toyama, and Tawanna R Dillahunt. 2020. Community collectives: Low-tech social support for digitally-engaged entrepreneurship. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–15

    2020

  42. [42]

    Julie Hui, Kristin Seefeldt, Christie Baer, Lutalo Sanifu, Aaron Jackson, and Tawanna R Dillahunt. 2023. Community Tech Workers: Scaffolding Digital Engagement Among Underserved Minority Businesses.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7, CSCW2 (2023), 1–25

    2023

  43. [43]

    Julie Hui, Kentaro Toyama, Joyojeet Pal, and Tawanna Dillahunt. 2018. Making a living my way: Necessity-driven entrepreneurship in resource-constrained communities.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction2, CSCW (2018), 1–24

    2018

  44. [44]

    2025.LivePlan Assistant

    Chris Iacofano. 2025.LivePlan Assistant. Palo Alto Software. https://help.liveplan. com/hc/en-us/articles/14925894216717-LivePlan-Assistant

    work page arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Beautiful Seams

    Sarah Inman and David Ribes. 2019. " Beautiful Seams" Strategic Revelations and Concealments. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14

    2019

  46. [46]

    Israel, Amy J

    Barbara A. Israel, Amy J. Schulz, Edith A. Parker, and Adam B. Becker. 1998. Review of Community-Based Research: Assessing Partnership Approaches to Improve Public Health.Annual Review of Public Health19 (1998), 173–202. https: //doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.173

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.173 1998

  47. [47]

    Philip Jackson. 2002. Life in classrooms. InTeaching and Learning in the Primary School. Routledge, 123–128

    2002

  48. [48]

    Manu Kapur. 2008. Productive failure.Cognition and instruction26, 3 (2008), 379–424

    2008

  49. [49]

    Louise Kay and Amy Buxton. 2023. Makerspaces and the Characteristics of Effective Learning in the Early Years.Journal of Early Childhood Research22, 3 (2023), 343–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X231210633 Original work published 2024

    work page doi:10.1177/1476718x231210633 2023

  50. [50]

    Yasmine Kotturi, Angel Anderson, Glenn Ford, Michael Skirpan, and Jeffrey P Bigham. 2024. Deconstructing the Veneer of Simplicity: Co-Designing Introduc- tory Generative AI Workshops with Local Entrepreneurs. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16

    2024

  51. [51]

    Yasmine Kotturi, Julie Hui, TJ Johnson, Lutalo Sanifu, and Tawanna R Dillahunt

  52. [52]

    Sustaining Community-Based Research in Computing: Lessons from Two Tech Capacity Building Initiatives for Local Businesses.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction8, CSCW1 (2024), 1–31

    2024

  53. [53]

    Yasmine Kotturi, Herman T Johnson, Michael Skirpan, Sarah E Fox, Jeffrey P Bigham, and Amy Pavel. 2022. Tech help desk: Support for local entrepreneurs addressing the Long Tail of computing challenges. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–15

    2022

  54. [54]

    Yasmine Kotturi, Jenny Yu, Pranav Khadpe, Erin Gatz, Harvey Zheng, Sarah E Fox, and Chinmay Kulkarni. 2024. Peerdea: Co-Designing a Peer Support Plat- form with Creative Entrepreneurs.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction8, CSCW1 (2024), 1–24

    2024

  55. [55]

    Kuhn and Tera L

    Kristine M. Kuhn and Tera L. Galloway. 2015. With a Little Help from My Competitors: Peer Networking among Artisan Entrepreneurs.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice39, 3 (2015), 571–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12053

    work page doi:10.1111/etap.12053 2015

  56. [56]

    Johan P Larsson and Per Thulin. 2019. Independent by necessity? The life satisfaction of necessity and opportunity entrepreneurs in 70 countries.Small Business Economics53, 4 (2019), 921–934

    2019

  57. [57]

    2024.A look at small businesses in the U.S.Accessed 2025-09-07

    Rebecca Leppert. 2024.A look at small businesses in the U.S.Accessed 2025-09-07

    2024

  58. [58]

    Griffin, and Mengting (Rachel) Xia

    Keyao Li, Mark A. Griffin, and Mengting (Rachel) Xia. 2025. How do work- force adaptability and reskilling initiatives drive innovations: the case of West- ern Australian construction industry.Construction Management and Eco- nomics43, 9 (2025), 746–763. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2025.2511831 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2025.2511831

    work page doi:10.1080/01446193.2025.2511831 2025

  59. [59]

    Calvin A Liang, Sean A Munson, and Julie A Kientz. 2021. Embracing four tensions in human-computer interaction research with marginalized people. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)28, 2 (2021), 1–47

    2021

  60. [60]

    Duri Long and Brian Magerko. 2020. What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–16

    2020

  61. [61]

    Suniya S. Luthar. 1991. Vulnerability and Resilience: A Study of High-Risk Adolescents.Child Development62, 3 (1991), 600–616. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1467-8624.1991.tb01555.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j 1991

  62. [62]

    Manifest-No Collective. 2024. Manifest-No. https://www.manifestno.com/. Ac- cessed: 2025-12-01

    2024

  63. [63]

    Ann S Masten. 2001. Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American psychologist56, 3 (2001), 227

    2001

  64. [64]

    Microsoft. 2025. Prompts to try. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/copilot- microsoft365-chat Accessed: 2025-04-27

    2025

  65. [65]

    Cai, Jess Holbrook, Chinmay Kulkarni, and Michael Terry

    Meredith Ringel Morris, Carrie J. Cai, Jess Holbrook, Chinmay Kulkarni, and Michael Terry. 2023. The Design Space of Generative Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10547(2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.10547 Accessed: 2025-09-11

    work page arXiv 2023

  66. [66]

    Helene Mueller and Martina Pieperhoff. 2023. Necessity entrepreneurship: An integrative review and research agenda.Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 35, 9-10 (2023), 762–787

    2023

  67. [67]

    Michael Muller and Allison Druin. 2002. Participatory Design: The Third Space in HCI.Handbook of HCI(01 2002)

    2002

  68. [68]

    Diana Murdoch, Andrea R English, Allison Hintz, and Kersti Tyson. 2020. Feeling heard: Inclusive education, transformative learning, and productive struggle. Educational theory70, 5 (2020), 653–679

    2020

  69. [69]

    Norris, Susan P

    Fran H. Norris, Susan P. Stevens, Betty Pfefferbaum, Karen F. Wyche, and Rose L. Pfefferbaum. 2007. Community Resilience as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Ca- pacities, and Strategy for Disaster Readiness.American Journal of Community Psychology41 (2007), 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9156-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s10464-007-9156-6 2007

  70. [70]

    OpenAI. 2025. ChatGPT Overview. https://openai.com/chatgpt/overview/ Accessed: 2025-01-03

    2025

  71. [71]

    OpenAI. 2025. openai/openai-openapi: OpenAPI specification for the OpenAI API. https://github.com/openai/openai-openapi. Accessed: 2025-09-11

    2025

  72. [72]

    Nicholas Otis, Rowan P Clarke, Solene Delecourt, David Holtz, and Rembrand Koning. 2023. The uneven impact of generative AI on entrepreneurial perfor- mance.A vailable at SSRN 4671369(2023)

    2023

  73. [73]

    2020.Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas

    Seymour A Papert. 2020.Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic books

    2020

  74. [74]

    Andrea G Parker, Laura M Vardoulakis, Jatin Alla, and Christina N Harrington

  75. [75]

    In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Participatory AI Considerations for Advancing Racial Health Equity. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–24

    2025

  76. [76]

    Community Resilience

    Shantanu S. Patel, Monica S. Rogers, Jason Amlôt, and G. James Rubin. 2017. What Do We Mean by “Community Resilience”? A Systematic Literature Review of How It Is Defined in the Literature.PLoS Currents9 (2017). https://doi.org/10. 1371/currents.dis.db775aff25efc5ac4f0660ad9c9f7db2

    2017

  77. [77]

    Lucy Pei and Bonnie Nardi. 2019. We did it right, but it was still wrong: Toward assets-based design. InExtended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–11

    2019

  78. [78]

    Jennifer Pierre, Roderic Crooks, Morgan Currie, Britt Paris, and Irene Pasquetto

  79. [79]

    InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Getting Ourselves Together: Data-centered participatory design research & epistemic burden. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–11

    2021

  80. [80]

    2007.Information Foraging Theory: Adaptive Interaction with Infor- mation

    Peter Pirolli. 2007.Information Foraging Theory: Adaptive Interaction with Infor- mation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    2007

Showing first 80 references.