pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.00280 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · 💻 cs.HC

Recognition: unknown

How Designers Envision Value-Oriented AI Design Concepts with Generative AI

Pitch Sinlapanuntakul , Aayushi Dangol , Xiaoyi Xue , Mark Zachry
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 19:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords generative AIdesign practicevalue tensionsharm recognitionreflection-in-actionmeta-designAI conceptsvalue-oriented design
0
0 comments X

The pith

Designers using generative AI for concept creation engage in reciprocal reflection that surfaces value tensions and prioritizes harm detection.

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

The paper studies how designers treat generative AI as both a tool for creating new concepts and the material those concepts are made of. Through a task where 18 designers generated AI-enabled ideas followed by interviews, the authors show that this use triggers an ongoing back-and-forth reflection between the designer and the AI output. The reflection brings conflicting values into view at the level of the tool itself, the designer's choices, and the resulting concept. Designers notice and respond more readily to possible harms than to clear statements of positive value. They also step back to consider how assumptions built into the AI tool might carry forward into the designs and their later uses.

Core claim

Designers engage in reciprocal reflection-in-action with AI during concept envisioning; this process surfaces multi-level value tensions across tool, designer, and concept; designers demonstrate greater attunement to harm recognition as a primary design signal than to articulating positive value fulfillment; and designers exercise anticipatory judgment through meta-design reasoning about how tool assumptions risk propagating into designed concepts and future use contexts.

What carries the argument

Reciprocal reflection-in-action with AI, the iterative dialogue between designer and tool output that surfaces value tensions and supports meta-design reasoning about assumption propagation.

If this is right

  • AI-mediated design tools should be redesigned to make value tensions visible during use.
  • Design education and practice should prioritize harm-centered reasoning alongside positive value articulation.
  • Design work should be positioned as foundational input for AI system development.
  • Tool assumptions must be examined for how they may embed into concepts and future contexts.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Current generative AI tools may embed assumptions that go unexamined unless designers actively surface them through reflection.
  • The same reciprocal process could appear in other creative professions that adopt generative AI for idea generation.
  • Training programs might add explicit practice in meta-design reasoning to reduce unintended harms from AI-supported designs.

Load-bearing premise

The specific concept envisioning activity and interviews with 18 designers capture how designers generally navigate values when using generative AI in real-world settings.

What would settle it

A field observation of practicing designers using generative AI in their normal projects, without any structured envisioning task, that shows no evidence of reciprocal reflection, multi-level value tension awareness, or meta-design reasoning about harm propagation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00280 by Aayushi Dangol, Mark Zachry, Pitch Sinlapanuntakul, Xiaoyi Xue.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Examples of AI concept sketches. We re-sketched 15 of 18 participant sketches for clarity and excluded 3 sketches [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Process Framework of Reciprocal Reflection-in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

As AI integrates into design practice, designers increasingly use generative AI tools to envision AI-enabled solutions, positioning AI as both design tool and design material. This dual role creates recursive value tensions distinct from traditional design work. We engaged 18 designers in a concept envisioning activity and interviews to understand how they navigate values and recognize potential harms in this context. Our analysis reveals that (i) designers engage in reciprocal reflection-in-action with AI; (ii) this process surfaces multi-level value tensions across tool, designer, and concept; (iii) designers demonstrate greater attunement to harm recognition as a primary design signal than to articulating positive value fulfillment; and (iv) designers exercise anticipatory judgment through meta-design reasoning about how tool assumptions risk propagating into designed concepts and future use contexts. We extend Schon's reflection-in-action framework and discuss implications for redesigning AI-mediated design tools, supporting harm-centered reasoning, and positioning design as foundational to AI development.

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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a qualitative study in which 18 designers completed a generative-AI-supported concept-envisioning activity followed by semi-structured interviews. The authors claim that designers engage in reciprocal reflection-in-action with the AI tool, that this process surfaces value tensions at the levels of tool, designer, and concept, that participants attend more readily to potential harms than to positive value fulfillment, and that they perform anticipatory meta-design reasoning about how tool assumptions may propagate into future use contexts. The work extends Schön’s reflection-in-action framework and offers implications for the redesign of AI-mediated design tools.

Significance. If the findings are robust, the paper contributes to HCI by adapting an established design-theory lens to the novel setting of generative AI as both tool and material. The hands-on activity provides a methodological strength by eliciting reflection-in-action in real time rather than relying solely on retrospective accounts. The emphasis on harm recognition and multi-level tensions supplies concrete guidance for tool builders and for value-sensitive design curricula. These elements position the work as a useful bridge between design research and AI ethics.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods] Methods section (analysis subsection): the thematic-analysis procedure is described only at a high level; no details are given on the coding scheme, inter-rater reliability, resolution of disagreements, or member-checking. Because the four numbered findings rest directly on these interpretations, greater transparency is required to evaluate the reliability of the claims.
  2. [Participants and Study Design] Participants and Study Design section: the sample of 18 designers recruited via professional networks and the use of a single contrived concept-envisioning task leave open the possibility that observed patterns are artifacts of the experimental setup rather than representative of everyday value navigation with generative AI. This directly affects the load-bearing claim that the results extend Schön’s framework and justify redesign recommendations for real-world tools.
  3. [Findings] Findings section (claim iii): the assertion that designers exhibit “greater attunement to harm recognition … than to articulating positive value fulfillment” is supported only by selected quotes. Without systematic counts, a comparison table, or explicit coding criteria, the comparative strength of this claim cannot be assessed and remains vulnerable to selection bias.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: a one-sentence description of the analysis approach would improve standalone readability and address the reviewer concern about unshown rigor.
  2. [Discussion] Discussion: each implication for tool redesign should be explicitly cross-referenced to the specific finding and participant excerpt that supports it.
  3. [Related Work] Related Work: ensure that recent papers on value-sensitive design for AI (e.g., work on participatory AI and harm-centered design) are cited so the positioning of the Schön extension is clear.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback and positive assessment of the manuscript's potential contributions to HCI. We address each major comment point by point below, with clear indications of planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods section (analysis subsection): the thematic-analysis procedure is described only at a high level; no details are given on the coding scheme, inter-rater reliability, resolution of disagreements, or member-checking. Because the four numbered findings rest directly on these interpretations, greater transparency is required to evaluate the reliability of the claims.

    Authors: We agree that greater transparency is needed in the analysis subsection. The current description is high-level, which limits evaluation of interpretive reliability. In the revised manuscript we will expand this section to specify the inductive thematic analysis approach, the iterative development of the coding scheme through repeated reading of transcripts by the lead author, collaborative review of codes with the second author, resolution of disagreements via discussion to consensus, and the member-checking process (sharing theme summaries with participants for feedback). We will also note that formal inter-rater reliability was not computed, as the analysis follows interpretive qualitative conventions common in HCI rather than positivist standards. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Participants and Study Design] Participants and Study Design section: the sample of 18 designers recruited via professional networks and the use of a single contrived concept-envisioning task leave open the possibility that observed patterns are artifacts of the experimental setup rather than representative of everyday value navigation with generative AI. This directly affects the load-bearing claim that the results extend Schön’s framework and justify redesign recommendations for real-world tools.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the modest sample size and single-task design introduce potential limitations on generalizability. As an exploratory qualitative study, our goal was depth of insight into reflection-in-action rather than statistical representativeness. In revision we will augment the Participants and Study Design section with additional recruitment details, justification of the task (grounded in pilot testing with designers), and a dedicated limitations discussion addressing possible setup artifacts. We will also moderate language around the extension of Schön’s framework and tool redesign implications to reflect the provisional, context-specific nature of the findings while retaining the core contribution of the observed patterns. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Findings] Findings section (claim iii): the assertion that designers exhibit “greater attunement to harm recognition … than to articulating positive value fulfillment” is supported only by selected quotes. Without systematic counts, a comparison table, or explicit coding criteria, the comparative strength of this claim cannot be assessed and remains vulnerable to selection bias.

    Authors: We agree that the comparative claim would be more robust with systematic evidence beyond illustrative quotes. In the revised Findings section we will add explicit coding criteria distinguishing harm recognition from positive value articulation, together with a summary (table or textual) of code prevalence across participants and transcripts. This addition will allow readers to evaluate the strength of the attunement claim and mitigate selection-bias concerns while preserving the qualitative richness of the supporting excerpts. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in qualitative empirical study

full rationale

This paper is a qualitative HCI study that derives its four main findings directly from thematic analysis of interviews and a concept-envisioning activity with 18 designers. No mathematical derivations, fitted parameters, equations, or self-referential definitions appear in the provided text or abstract. Claims rest on observed participant data rather than reducing to inputs by construction, self-citation chains, or renamed known results. The extension of Schön's framework is presented as an interpretive contribution grounded in the data, with no load-bearing self-citations or ansatz smuggling. Generalizability concerns exist but are orthogonal to circularity; the derivation chain is self-contained as empirical observation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard qualitative research assumptions in HCI rather than new postulates or fitted parameters.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Participant reflections during interviews accurately reflect their internal value navigation processes during the AI design activity.
    Invoked implicitly when interpreting interview data as evidence of reflection-in-action and harm attunement.
  • domain assumption The sample of 18 designers provides sufficient insight into broader designer practices with generative AI.
    Basis for generalizing the four findings beyond the specific study participants.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5470 in / 1353 out tokens · 25877 ms · 2026-05-09T19:33:16.615076+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

106 extracted references · 82 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Saleema Amershi, Dan Weld, Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Adam Fourney, Besmira Nushi, Penny Collisson, Jina Suh, Shamsi Iqbal, Paul N Bennett, Kori Inkpen, et al. 2019. Guidelines for human-AI interaction. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19). ACM, 1–13. doi:10.1145/3290605.3300233

    work page doi:10.1145/3290605.3300233 2019

  2. [2]

    Barrett R Anderson, Jash Hemant Shah, and Max Kreminski. 2024. Homogeniza- tion effects of large language models on human creative ideation. InProceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition (C&C ’24). ACM, 413–425. doi:10.1145/3635636.3656204

    work page doi:10.1145/3635636.3656204 2024

  3. [3]

    Apple. 2019. Human interface guidelines: Machine learning. https: //developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/technologies/ machine-learning/introduction

    2019

  4. [4]

    Jesse Josua Benjamin, Arne Berger, Nick Merrill, and James Pierce. 2021. Machine learning uncertainty as a design material: A post-phenomenological inquiry. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21). ACM, Article 171, 14 pages. doi:10.1145/3411764.3445481

    work page doi:10.1145/3411764.3445481 2021

  5. [5]

    Alan Borning and Michael Muller. 2012. Next steps for value sensitive design. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’12). ACM, 1125–1134. doi:10.1145/2207676.2208560

    work page doi:10.1145/2207676.2208560 2012

  6. [6]

    Richard Buchanan. 1992. Wicked problems in design thinking.Design issues8, 2 (1992), 5–21. doi:10.2307/1511637

    work page doi:10.2307/1511637 1992

  7. [7]

    2010.Sketching user experiences: Getting the design right and the right design

    Bill Buxton. 2010.Sketching user experiences: Getting the design right and the right design. Morgan Kaufmann. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-374037-3.X5043-3

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-374037-3.x5043-3 2010

  8. [8]

    Joel Chan, Pao Siangliulue, Denisa Qori McDonald, Ruixue Liu, Reza Moradinezhad, Safa Aman, Erin T Solovey, Krzysztof Z Gajos, and Steven P Dow. 2017. Semantically far inspirations considered harmful? Accounting for cognitive states in collaborative ideation. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition (C&C ’17). ACM, 93–10...

    work page doi:10.1145/3059454.3059455 2017

  9. [9]

    Elizabeth F Churchill and Mikael Wiberg. 2025. Human augmentation: A para- digm shift for HCI?Interactions32, 1 (2025), 5. doi:10.1145/3708356

    work page doi:10.1145/3708356 2025

  10. [10]

    2021.Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work

    Nigel Cross. 2021.Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Bloomsbury Publishing. doi:10.5040/9781474293884

    work page doi:10.5040/9781474293884 2021

  11. [11]

    Wesley Hanwen Deng, Nur Yildirim, Monica Chang, Motahhare Eslami, Kenneth Holstein, and Michael Madaio. 2023. Investigating practices and opportunities for cross-functional collaboration around AI fairness in industry practice. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Trans- parency (FAccT ’23). ACM, 705–716. doi:10.1145/...

    work page doi:10.1145/3593013.3594037 2023

  12. [12]

    2019.Responsible artificial intelligence: How to develop and use AI in a responsible way

    Virginia Dignum. 2019.Responsible artificial intelligence: How to develop and use AI in a responsible way. Vol. 2156. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-30371-6

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-30371-6 2019

  13. [13]

    Dennis P Doordan. 2003. On materials.Design Issues19, 4 (2003), 3–8. doi:10. 1162/074793603322545000

    2003

  14. [14]

    Graham Dove and Anne-Laure Fayard. 2020. Monsters, metaphors, and ma- chine learning. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20). ACM, 1–17. doi:10.1145/3313831.3376275

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831.3376275 2020

  15. [15]

    Graham Dove, Kim Halskov, Jodi Forlizzi, and John Zimmerman. 2017. UX design innovation: Challenges for working with machine learning as a design material. InProceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’17). ACM, 278–288. doi:10.1145/3025453.3025739

    work page doi:10.1145/3025453.3025739 2017

  16. [16]

    KJ Kevin Feng, Maxwell James Coppock, and David W McDonald. 2023. How do UX practitioners communicate AI as a design material? Artifacts, conceptions, and propositions. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’23). ACM, 2263–2280. doi:10.1145/3563657.3596101

    work page doi:10.1145/3563657.3596101 2023

  17. [17]

    2019.Value sensitive design: Shaping technology with moral imagination

    Batya Friedman and David G Hendry. 2019.Value sensitive design: Shaping technology with moral imagination. MIT Press. doi:10.7551/mitpress/7585.001. 0001

    work page doi:10.7551/mitpress/7585.001 2019

  18. [18]

    Batya Friedman, Peter Kahn, and Alan Borning. 2002. Value sensitive design: Theory and methods.University of Washington Technical Report2, 8 (2002), 8 pages. https://faculty.washington.edu/pkahn/articles/vsd-theory-methods- tr.pdf

    2002

  19. [19]

    Batya Friedman, Peter H Kahn Jr, Alan Borning, and Alina Huldtgren. 2013. Value sensitive design and information systems. InEarly engagement and new technologies: Opening up the laboratory. Vol. 5. Springer, 55–95. doi:10.1007/978- 94-007-7844-3_4

    work page doi:10.1007/978- 2013

  20. [20]

    Yue Fu, Han Bin, Tony Zhou, Marx Wang, Yixin Chen, Zelia Gomes Da Costa Lai, Jacob O Wobbrock, and Alexis Hiniker. 2024. Creativity in the age of AI: Evaluating the impact of generative AI on design outputs and designers’ creative thinking.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.00168(2024). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2411.00168

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.00168 2024

  21. [21]

    Iason Gabriel. 2020. Artificial intelligence, values, and alignment.Minds and machines30, 3 (2020), 411–437. doi:10.1007/s11023-020-09539-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11023-020-09539-2 2020

  22. [22]

    Elisa Giaccardi and Elvin Karana. 2015. Foundations of materials experience: An approach for HCI. InProceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’15). ACM, 2447–2456. doi:10.1145/2702123. 2702337

    work page doi:10.1145/2702123 2015

  23. [23]

    Barney G Glaser and Anselm L Strauss. 1998. Grounded theory.Strategien Qualitativer Forschung4 (1998)

    1998

  24. [24]

    Gabriela Goldschmidt. 1991. The dialectics of sketching.Creativity research journal4, 2 (1991), 123–143. doi:10.1080/10400419109534381

    work page doi:10.1080/10400419109534381 1991

  25. [25]

    Xinyue Guo, Yu Xiao, Jun Wang, and Ting Ji. 2023. Rethinking Designer Agency: A Case Study of Co-creation between Designers and AI. InProceedings of IASDR 2023: Life-Changing Design, David De Sainz Molestina, Laura Galluzzo, Francesca Rizzo, and Davide Spallazzo (Eds.). Article 170, 18 pages. doi:10.21606/iasdr. 2023.478

    work page doi:10.21606/iasdr 2023

  26. [26]

    Nava Haghighi, Matthew Jörke, Yousif Mohsen, Andrea Cuadra, and James A Landay. 2023. A Workshop-based method for navigating value tensions in col- lectively speculated worlds. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’23). ACM, 1676–1692. doi:10.1145/3563657.3595992

    work page doi:10.1145/3563657.3595992 2023

  27. [27]

    Lars Erik Holmquist. 2017. Intelligence on tap: Artificial intelligence as a new design material.interactions24, 4 (2017), 28–33. doi:10.1145/3085571

    work page doi:10.1145/3085571 2017

  28. [28]

    Kenneth Holstein, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hal Daumé III, Miro Dudik, and Hanna Wallach. 2019. Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19). ACM, 1–16. doi:10.1145/3290605.3300830

    work page doi:10.1145/3290605.3300830 2019

  29. [29]

    Xi Hu, Yiwen Xing, Xudong Cai, Yihang Zhao, Michael Cook, Rita Borgo, and Timothy Neate. 2025. Designing interactions with generative AI for art and creativity: A systematic review and taxonomy. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’25). ACM, 1126–1155. doi:10. 1145/3715336.3735843

    work page arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    IBM. 2019. Design for AI. https://www.ibm.com/design/ai/

    2019

  31. [31]

    Tim Ingold. 2007. Materials against materiality.Archaeological dialogues14, 1 (2007), 1–16. doi:10.1017/S1380203807002127

    work page doi:10.1017/s1380203807002127 2007

  32. [32]

    Anniek Jansen and Sara Colombo. 2023. Mix & match machine learning: An ideation toolkit to design machine learning-enabled solutions. InProceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI ’23). ACM, Article 8, 18 pages. doi:10.1145/3569009.3572739

    work page doi:10.1145/3569009.3572739 2023

  33. [33]

    Ji-Youn Jung, Devansh Saxena, Minjung Park, Jini Kim, Jodi Forlizzi, Ken Hol- stein, and John Zimmerman. 2025. Making the Right Thing: Bridging HCI and Responsible AI in Early-Stage AI Concept Selection. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’25). ACM, 2992–3012. doi:10.1145/3715336.3735745

    work page doi:10.1145/3715336.3735745 2025

  34. [34]

    Tiffany Knearem, Mohammed Khwaja, Yuling Gao, Frank Bentley, and Clara E Kliman-Silver. 2023. Exploring the future of design tooling: The role of artificial intelligence in tools for user experience professionals. InExtended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’23). ACM, Article 384, 6 pages. doi:10.1145/3544...

    work page doi:10.1145/3544549.3573874 2023

  35. [35]

    Sean Kross and Philip Guo. 2021. Orienting, framing, bridging, magic, and coun- seling: How data scientists navigate the outer loop of client collaborations in industry and academia.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2, Article 311 (2021), 28 pages. doi:10.1145/3476052

    work page doi:10.1145/3476052 2021

  36. [36]

    Jie Li, Hancheng Cao, Laura Lin, Youyang Hou, Ruihao Zhu, and Abdallah El Ali

  37. [37]

    Chakraborti, C

    User experience design professionals’ perceptions of generative artificial intelligence. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24). ACM, Article 381, 18 pages. doi:10.1145/3613904. 3642114

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904 2024

  38. [38]

    Q Vera Liao, Hariharan Subramonyam, Jennifer Wang, and Jennifer Wort- man Vaughan. 2023. Designerly understanding: Information needs for model transparency to support design ideation for AI-powered user experience. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23). ACM, Article 9, 21 pages. doi:10.1145/3544548.3580652

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3580652 2023

  39. [39]

    2023.Critical theory of AI

    Simon Lindgren. 2023.Critical theory of AI. John Wiley & Sons

    2023

  40. [40]

    Fang Liu, Junyan Lv, Shenglan Cui, Zhilong Luan, Kui Wu, and Tongqing Zhou

  41. [41]

    doi:10.1145/3637398

    Smart "Error"! Exploring imperfect AI to support creative ideation.Pro- ceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction8, CSCW1, Article 121 (2024), 28 pages. doi:10.1145/3637398

    work page doi:10.1145/3637398 2024

  42. [42]

    Yaoli Mao, Dakuo Wang, Michael Muller, Kush R Varshney, Ioana Baldini, Casey Dugan, and Aleksandra Mojsilović. 2019. How data scientists work together with domain experts in scientific collaborations: To find the right answer or to ask the right question?Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, GROUP, Article 237 (2019), 23 pages. doi:10.11...

    work page doi:10.1145/3361118 2019

  43. [43]

    Jon McCormack, Patrick Hutchings, Toby Gifford, Matthew Yee-King, Maria Teresa Llano, and Mark d’Inverno. 2020. Design considerations for real-time collaboration with creative artificial intelligence.Organised Sound25, 1 (2020), 41–52. doi:10.1017/S1355771819000451

    work page doi:10.1017/s1355771819000451 2020

  44. [44]

    Michael J Muller and Sandra Kogan. 2012. Grounded theory method in human- computer interaction and computer-supported cooperative work.The Human– Computer Interaction Handbook3 (2012)

    2012

  45. [45]

    Meena Devii Muralikumar and David W McDonald. 2025. An emerging de- sign space of how tools support collaborations in AI design and development. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction9, 1, Article GROUP2 (2025), 28 pages. doi:10.1145/3701181

    work page doi:10.1145/3701181 2025

  46. [46]

    Nadia Nahar, Shurui Zhou, Grace Lewis, and Christian Kästner. 2022. Collabo- ration challenges in building ML-enabled systems: Communication, documenta- tion, engineering, and process. InProceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’22). ACM, 413–425. doi:10.1145/3510003.3510209 DIS ’26, June 13–17, 2026, Singapore, Singa...

    work page doi:10.1145/3510003.3510209 2022

  47. [47]

    Cheryl Nakata. 2025. Designing innovations for and with human flourishing: A research agenda.The Design Journal28, 1 (2025), 50–53. doi:10.1080/14606925. 2024.2440783

    work page doi:10.1080/14606925 2025

  48. [48]

    Lexi Namer and Sharon Joines. 2025. What 96 designers taught us about harm: The behaviors around considering harm in digital products.Journal of User Ex- perience20, 3 (2025), 125–142. https://uxpajournal.org/harm-digital-products/

    2025

  49. [49]

    2014.The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world

    Harold G Nelson and Erik Stolterman. 2014.The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world. MIT Press. doi:10.7551/mitpress/9188.001.0001

    work page doi:10.7551/mitpress/9188.001.0001 2014

  50. [50]

    Sachita Nishal and Nicholas Diakopoulos. 2025. Values as problems, principles, and tensions in sociotechnical system design for journalism. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’25). ACM, 2975–2991. doi:10.1145/3715336.3735717

    work page doi:10.1145/3715336.3735717 2025

  51. [51]

    2014.Things that make us smart

    Don Norman. 2014.Things that make us smart. Diversion Books

    2014

  52. [52]

    Jonas Oppenlaender, Hannah Johnston, Johanna Maria Silvennoinen, and Helena Barranha. 2025. Artworks reimagined: Exploring human-AI co-creation through body prompting.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction9, 4, Article EICS012 (2025), 34 pages. doi:10.1145/3734189

    work page doi:10.1145/3734189 2025

  53. [53]

    Google PAIR. 2019. People + AI Guidebook. https://pair.withgoogle.com/ guidebook

    2019

  54. [55]

    Minjung Park, Jodi Forlizzi, and John Zimmerman. 2025. Exploring the In- novation Opportunities for Pre-trained Models. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’25). ACM, 1973–2005. doi:10.1145/3715336.3735753

    work page doi:10.1145/3715336.3735753 2025

  55. [56]

    Elena Popa. 2021. Human goals are constitutive of agency in artificial intelligence (AI).Philosophy & Technology34, 4 (2021), 1731–1750. doi:10.1007/s13347-021- 00483-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s13347-021- 2021

  56. [57]

    A Terry Purcell and John S Gero. 1998. Drawings and the design process: A review of protocol studies in design and other disciplines and related research in cognitive psychology.Design studies19, 4 (1998), 389–430. doi:10.1016/S0142- 694X(98)00015-5

    work page doi:10.1016/s0142- 1998

  57. [58]

    Roope Raisamo, Ismo Rakkolainen, Päivi Majaranta, Katri Salminen, Jussi Rantala, and Ahmed Farooq. 2019. Human augmentation: Past, present and future.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies131 (2019), 131–143. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.05.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.05.008 2019

  58. [59]

    Inioluwa Deborah Raji and Joy Buolamwini. 2019. Actionable auditing: Investi- gating the impact of publicly naming biased performance results of commercial AI products. InProceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES ’19). ACM, 429–435. doi:10.1145/3306618.3314244

    work page doi:10.1145/3306618.3314244 2019

  59. [60]

    Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Andrew Smart, Rebecca N White, Margaret Mitchell, Timnit Gebru, Ben Hutchinson, Jamila Smith-Loud, Daniel Theron, and Parker Barnes. 2020. Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. InProceedings of the 2020 Con- ference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3351095.3372873 2020

  60. [61]

    Jude Rayan, Dhruv Kanetkar, Yifan Gong, Yuewen Yang, Srishti Palani, Haijun Xia, and Steven P Dow. 2024. Exploring the potential for generative AI-based conversational cues for real-time collaborative ideation. InProceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition (C&C ’24). ACM, 117–131. doi:10. 1145/3635636.3656184

    work page arXiv 2024

  61. [62]

    2023.Towards designing engaging and ethical human-centered AI partners for human-AI co-creativity

    Jeba Rezwana. 2023.Towards designing engaging and ethical human-centered AI partners for human-AI co-creativity. Ph. D. Dissertation. The University of North Carolina at Charlotte. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13093/etd:3601

    2023

  62. [63]

    Mark Ryan. 2020. In AI we trust: Ethics, artificial intelligence, and reliability. Science and Engineering Ethics26, 5 (2020), 2749–2767. doi:10.1007/s11948-020- 00228-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11948-020- 2020

  63. [64]

    Samar Sabie, Steven J Jackson, Wendy Ju, and Tapan Parikh. 2022. Unmaking as agonism: Using participatory design with youth to surface difference in an intergenerational urban context. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’22). ACM, Article 324, 16 pages. doi:10.1145/3491102.3501930

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3501930 2022

  64. [65]

    Malak Sadek, Rafael A Calvo, and Céline Mougenot. 2024. Designing value- sensitive AI: A critical review and recommendations for socio-technical design processes.AI and Ethics4, 4 (2024), 949–967. doi:10.1007/s43681-023-00373-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s43681-023-00373-7 2024

  65. [66]

    Malak Sadek, Marios Constantinides, Daniele Quercia, and Céline Mougenot

  66. [67]

    F or get B!

    Guidelines for integrating value sensitive design in responsible AI toolkits. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24). ACM, Article 472, 20 pages. doi:10.1145/3613904.3642810

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642810 2024

  67. [68]

    Devansh Saxena, Ji-Youn Jung, Jodi Forlizzi, Kenneth Holstein, and John Zimmer- man. 2025. AI mismatches: Identifying potential algorithmic harms before AI development. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems (CHI ’25). ACM, Article 8, 23 pages. doi:10.1145/3706598.3714098

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3714098 2025

  68. [69]

    1983.The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action

    Donald A Schön. 1983.The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Routledge

    1983

  69. [70]

    1987.Educating the reflective practitioner

    Donald A Schön. 1987.Educating the reflective practitioner. Jossey-Bass

    1987

  70. [71]

    Donald A Schön. 1992. Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation.Knowledge-Based Systems5, 1 (1992), 3–14. doi:10.1016/0950- 7051(92)90020-G

    work page doi:10.1016/0950- 1992

  71. [72]

    Hua Shen, Tiffany Knearem, Reshmi Ghosh, Kenan Alkiek, Kundan Krishna, Yachuan Liu, Ziqiao Ma, Savvas Petridis, Yi-Hao Peng, Li Qiwei, et al . 2024. Towards bidirectional human-AI alignment: A systematic review for clarifica- tions, framework, and future directions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09264(2024). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2406.09264

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.09264 2024

  72. [73]

    Hua Shen, Tiffany Knearem, Reshmi Ghosh, Yu-Ju Yang, Tanushree Mitra, and Yun Huang. 2024. Valuecompass: A framework of fundamental values for human-AI alignment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.09586(2024). doi:10.48550/arXiv. 2409.09586

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv 2024

  73. [74]

    Yang Shi, Tian Gao, Xiaohan Jiao, and Nan Cao. 2023. Understanding design collaboration between designers and artificial intelligence: A systematic litera- ture review.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7, CSCW2, Article 368 (2023), 35 pages. doi:10.1145/3610217

    work page doi:10.1145/3610217 2023

  74. [75]

    Katie Shilton. 2018. Values and ethics in human-computer interaction.Foun- dations and Trends®in Human–Computer Interaction12, 2 (2018), 104–171. doi:10.1561/1100000073

    work page doi:10.1561/1100000073 2018

  75. [76]

    2019.The sciences of the artificial

    Herbert A Simon. 2019.The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press. doi:10.7551/ mitpress/12107.001.0001

    2019

  76. [77]

    Pitch Sinlapanuntakul, Soyun Moon, Yuri Kawada, Yeha Chung, and Mark Zachry. 2026. Developing an AI concept envisioning toolkit to support reflective juxtaposition of values and harms. InProceedings of the 2026 ACM Designing In- teractive Systems Conference (DIS ’26). ACM, 1–22. doi:10.1145/3800645.3813054

    work page doi:10.1145/3800645.3813054 2026

  77. [78]

    Pitch Sinlapanuntakul and Mark Zachry. 2025. Exploring the future of AI- powered design with working professionals: A novel design jam approach. In Proceedings of the 2025 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (ProComm ’25). IEEE, 185–189. doi:10.1109/ProComm64814.2025.00042

    work page doi:10.1109/procomm64814.2025.00042 2025

  78. [79]

    Pitch Sinlapanuntakul and Mark Zachry. 2025. Impacts of AI on human design- ers: A systematic literature review.IEEE Transactions on Professional Communi- cation68, 3 (2025), 264–283. doi:10.1109/TPC.2025.3588655

    work page doi:10.1109/tpc.2025.3588655 2025

  79. [80]

    Kihoon Son, DaEun Choi, Tae Soo Kim, and Juho Kim. 2024. Demystifying tacit knowledge in graphic design: Characteristics, instances, approaches, and guide- lines. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24). ACM, Article 221, 18 pages. doi:10.1145/3613904.3642886

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642886 2024

  80. [81]

    Jonathan Stray, Alon Halevy, Parisa Assar, Dylan Hadfield-Menell, Craig Boutilier, Amar Ashar, Chloe Bakalar, Lex Beattie, Michael Ekstrand, Claire Leibowicz, et al. 2024. Building human values into recommender systems: An interdisciplinary synthesis.ACM Transactions on Recommender Systems2, 3, Article 20 (2024), 57 pages. doi:10.1145/3632297

    work page doi:10.1145/3632297 2024

Showing first 80 references.