pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.02313 · v1 · pith:5IAXKNJMnew · submitted 2026-07-02 · 💻 cs.CY

AI usage patterns are shaped by perceived gains in human agency

Ian Beacock , Rachel Xu , Laura Murray , Patrick Anson , Beth Goldberg , Devika Kumar , Jun Lee , Rebekah Park
show 1 more author
Anoop Sinha
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-03 05:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY
keywords conversational AIhuman agencyAI usage patternsethnographic studytrust modelssociotechnical practiceempowerment
0
0 comments X

The pith

Sustained use of conversational AI is driven by perceived gains in individual agency rather than concerns over accuracy or reliability.

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

The paper draws on deep ethnographic interviews with 51 daily users of AI chatbots across the United States, Germany, and Singapore to examine AI as a situated sociotechnical practice. It establishes that users link their continued engagement with these systems to a sense that the AI increases their personal control and capability. These perceived agency gains routinely override doubts about the systems being accurate, reliable, or consistent. The work shows that conventional trust-based accounts do not fully explain long-term human behavior with conversational AI. It further identifies a gap where short-term feelings of empowerment do not necessarily produce material changes or lasting structural benefits.

Core claim

Through analysis of ethnographic data from daily AI chatbot users, the authors show that people consistently link sustained usage to perceived gains in individual agency. These perceived gains often outweigh concerns about accuracy, reliability, and consistency to shape usage patterns. The findings indicate that traditional trust-based models are not sufficient for explaining human behavior with conversational AI and expose a tension in which immediate psychological boosts to perceived agency may not translate into material effects, structural empowerment, or long-term capacity.

What carries the argument

Perceived gains in individual agency as the primary mechanism driving sustained conversational AI usage, identified through situated ethnographic observation of sociotechnical practices.

Load-bearing premise

Self-reported perceptions collected in ethnographic interviews accurately capture the primary drivers of real-world usage behavior without substantial distortion from social desirability, selective recall, or interviewer effects.

What would settle it

A longitudinal study that tracks actual usage frequency alongside repeated measures of perceived agency and finds sustained high usage among participants reporting no or declining agency gains.

read the original abstract

As conversational AI systems become more deeply integrated into daily life, the implications for human agency are increasingly urgent to understand. AI's potential to amplify capability sits alongside risks of individual and collective disempowerment, yet empirical, ecologically-valid evidence about cumulative usage is scarce. We analyze deep ethnographic data from a study of daily AI chatbot users (n = 51) in the United States, Germany, and Singapore to illuminate conversational AI usage in situated context as a sociotechnical practice. We show that people consistently link sustained AI usage to perceived gains in individual agency. Crucially, these perceived gains often outweigh concerns about accuracy, reliability, and consistency to shape usage patterns. Our findings challenge prevailing assumptions about how and why humans use AI systems over time, suggesting that traditional trust-based models are not sufficient for explaining human behavior with conversational AI. Finally, we expose a critical tension: immediate psychological boosts to perceived agency may not necessarily translate into material effects, structural empowerment, or long-term capacity. Our results help establish a new foundation for novel behavioral frameworks, measurement tools, and AI benchmarks to ensure conversational AI strengthens human agency in substantial, sustained ways.

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 paper presents findings from deep ethnographic interviews with n=51 daily conversational AI chatbot users across the United States, Germany, and Singapore. It claims that participants consistently link their sustained AI usage to perceived gains in individual agency, that these perceived gains often outweigh concerns about accuracy, reliability, and consistency in shaping usage patterns, and that this challenges prevailing trust-based models of human-AI interaction. The work also identifies a tension between immediate psychological agency boosts and longer-term material or structural empowerment.

Significance. If the interpretive claims hold after methodological strengthening, the study supplies ecologically valid, situated evidence on cumulative AI usage that could support development of new behavioral frameworks, measurement tools, and AI benchmarks focused on agency. The primary interview data and cross-cultural sampling are strengths that distinguish this from purely theoretical or lab-based work.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods section: The description of data analysis provides no information on the development of the coding scheme, inter-rater reliability, number of coders, or procedures for handling contradictory or negative cases. Because the central claim—that agency perceptions consistently shape usage and outweigh accuracy concerns—rests entirely on thematic patterns extracted from the n=51 interviews, this omission is load-bearing for the reliability of the reported linkages.
  2. [Findings] Findings / Results section (and abstract): The assertion that perceived agency gains 'often outweigh' accuracy/reliability concerns is derived solely from self-reported perceptions without behavioral logs, longitudinal usage data, or explicit bias checks (e.g., for social desirability or post-hoc rationalization). This interpretive step is load-bearing for the claim that agency perceptions are the primary driver of sustained usage patterns.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The sentence on the tension between psychological boosts and material effects could be expanded with a brief example from the data to improve clarity.
  2. [Discussion] Discussion: Consider adding a short paragraph contrasting the agency framing with existing trust and acceptance models (e.g., TAM or UTAUT) to make the challenge to prevailing assumptions more precise.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback, which identifies key opportunities to improve methodological transparency and the framing of interpretive claims. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will undertake.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: The description of data analysis provides no information on the development of the coding scheme, inter-rater reliability, number of coders, or procedures for handling contradictory or negative cases. Because the central claim—that agency perceptions consistently shape usage and outweigh accuracy concerns—rests entirely on thematic patterns extracted from the n=51 interviews, this omission is load-bearing for the reliability of the reported linkages.

    Authors: We agree that the original Methods section lacks sufficient detail on the qualitative analysis process. In the revised manuscript we will expand this section to describe the inductive development of the coding scheme via iterative open and axial coding, the involvement of two primary coders with a third researcher resolving disagreements through consensus discussion, the use of constant comparison to address contradictory and negative cases, and the role of member checking with a subset of participants. These additions will make the derivation of thematic patterns explicit and address concerns about reliability. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Findings] Findings / Results section (and abstract): The assertion that perceived agency gains 'often outweigh' accuracy/reliability concerns is derived solely from self-reported perceptions without behavioral logs, longitudinal usage data, or explicit bias checks (e.g., for social desirability or post-hoc rationalization). This interpretive step is load-bearing for the claim that agency perceptions are the primary driver of sustained usage patterns.

    Authors: The study is an ethnographic interview project centered on participants' situated perceptions and accounts; behavioral logs and longitudinal instrumentation were outside its design. We will revise the abstract, Findings, and Discussion to qualify the 'often outweigh' language as reflecting patterns in self-reported linkages, add an explicit limitations subsection addressing social desirability, post-hoc rationalization, and the absence of behavioral data, and describe mitigation steps such as open-ended probing and cross-participant triangulation. This preserves the contribution of rich contextual data while making interpretive boundaries clearer. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: qualitative findings derived from primary interview data

full rationale

The paper reports thematic patterns from n=51 ethnographic interviews as its central evidence. No equations, fitted parameters, models, or derivations exist. No self-citations are invoked to justify uniqueness or to define the outcome. The claim that agency perceptions shape usage is presented as an observation from the collected data rather than a reduction to prior self-work or input definitions. Methodological concerns about self-report bias are validity issues, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard qualitative social-science assumptions about the validity of self-reported motivations; no free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc mathematical constructs are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Ethnographic interviews yield reliable accounts of users' perceived drivers of behavior
    Invoked implicitly when the abstract treats interview statements as direct evidence for usage patterns

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5748 in / 1214 out tokens · 18619 ms · 2026-07-03T05:44:56.784837+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

71 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    & Wang, H

    Liu, Y. & Wang, H. Who on earth is using Generative AI? World Dev. 199 , 107260 (2026)

    2026

  2. [2]

    & Hirsch, E., eds

    Silverstone, R. & Hirsch, E., eds. Consuming Technologies: Media and Information in Domestic Spaces . (Routledge, London, England, 1992)

    1992

  3. [3]

    & Jones, G

    Satyanarayan, A. & Jones, G. M. Intelligence as agency: Evaluating the capacity of generative AI to empower or constrain human action . An MIT Exploration of Generative AI (2024) doi:10.21428/e4baedd9.2d7598a2

    work page doi:10.21428/e4baedd9.2d7598a2 2024

  4. [4]

    & Beato, G

    Hoffman, R. & Beato, G. Superagency: What Could Possibly Go Right with Our AI Future . (Authors Equity, New York, 2025)

    2025

  5. [5]

    Human-AI agency in the age of generative AI

    Krakowski, S. Human-AI agency in the age of generative AI . Inf. Organ. 35 , 100560 (2025)

    2025

  6. [6]

    Extended human agency: towards a teleological account of AI

    Noller, J. Extended human agency: towards a teleological account of AI . Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 11 , 1338 (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    Human-centered artificial intelligence: Reliable, safe & trustworthy

    Shneiderman, B. Human-centered artificial intelligence: Reliable, safe & trustworthy . Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 36 , 495–504 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    & Duvenaud, D

    Sharma, M., McCain, M., Douglas, R. & Duvenaud, D. Who’s in charge? Disempowerment patterns in real-world LLM usage . arXiv [cs.CY] (2026) doi:10.48550/arXiv.2601.19062

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.19062 2026

  9. [9]

    & Boudreaux, B

    Moon, A. & Boudreaux, B. A Formal Model of How Artificial Intelligence Erodes Human Agenc y . (RAND Corporation, 2026)

    2026

  10. [10]

    Human autonomy at risk? An analysis of the challenges from AI

    Prunkl, C. Human autonomy at risk? An analysis of the challenges from AI . Minds and Machines 34, 1–21 (2024)

    2024

  11. [11]

    Fang, C. M. et al. How AI and human behaviors shape psychosocial effects of extended chatbot use: A longitudinal randomized controlled study . arXiv [cs.HC] (2025) doi:10.48550/arXiv.2503.17473

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.17473 2025

  12. [12]

    El-Sayed, S. et al. A mechanism-based approach to mitigating harms from persuasive generative AI . arXiv [cs.CY] (2024)

    2024

  13. [13]

    Kosmyna, N. et al. Your brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of cognitive debt when using an AI assistant for essay writing task . arXiv [cs.AI] (2025) doi:10.48550/arXiv.2506.08872. 13 PREPRINT | Please do not share or copy without author permission

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.08872 2025

  14. [14]

    Kulveit, J. et al. Gradual disempowerment: Systemic existential risks from incremental AI development . arXiv [cs.CY] (2025)

    2025

  15. [15]

    Schmuckler, M. A. What is ecological validity? A dimensional analysis . Infancy 2 , 419–436 (2001)

    2001

  16. [16]

    I Teach Creative Writing

    O’Rourke, M. I Teach Creative Writing. This Is What A.I. Is Doing to Students . The New York Times (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    Suchman, L. A. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication . (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 1987)

    1987

  18. [18]

    Hassoun, A. et al. Practicing information sensibility: How Gen Z engages with online information . in Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems vol. 10 1–17 (ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2023)

    2023

  19. [19]

    & Ahlin, T

    van Voorst, R. & Ahlin, T. Key points for an ethnography of AI: an approach towards crucial data . Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 11 , 337 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    Ethnography and artificial intelligence: the question of context

    Witteborn, S. Ethnography and artificial intelligence: the question of context . Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc. 50 , 66–74 (2026)

    2026

  21. [21]

    R., Gabriel, I., Summerfield, C., Vidgen, B

    Kirk, H. R., Gabriel, I., Summerfield, C., Vidgen, B. & Hale, S. A. Why human–AI relationships need socioaffective alignment . Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 12 , 728 (2025)

    2025

  22. [22]

    Manzini, A. et al. The code that binds us: Navigating the appropriateness of human-AI assistant relationships . Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society 7 , 943–957 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    & Sharot, T

    Glickman, M. & Sharot, T. How human-AI feedback loops alter human perceptual, emotional and social judgements . Nat. Hum. Behav. 9 , 345–359 (2025)

    2025

  24. [24]

    & Maes, P

    Pataranutaporn, P., Liu, R., Finn, E. & Maes, P. Influencing human–AI interaction by priming beliefs about AI can increase perceived trustworthiness, empathy and effectiveness . Nat. Mach. Intell. 5 , 1076–1086 (2023)

    2023

  25. [25]

    J., Lametti, D

    Castiello, S., Pitliya, R. J., Lametti, D. R. & Murphy, R. A. Affiliation in human-AI interactions is based on shared psychological traits . Commun. Psychol. 1–10 (2026) doi:10.1038/s44271-026-00433-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s44271-026-00433-8 2026

  26. [26]

    & West, R

    Salvi, F., Horta Ribeiro, M., Gallotti, R. & West, R. On the conversational persuasiveness of GPT-4 . Nat. Hum. Behav. 1–9 (2025) doi:10.1038/s41562-025-02194-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41562-025-02194-6 2025

  27. [27]

    Chatterji, A. et al. How People Use ChatGPT . (2025) doi:10.3386/w34255

    work page doi:10.3386/w34255 2025

  28. [28]

    Costa-Gomes, B. et al. Public use of a generalist LLM chatbot for health queries . Nat. Health 1–8 (2026) doi:10.1038/s44360-026-00117-x. 14 PREPRINT | Please do not share or copy without author permission

    work page doi:10.1038/s44360-026-00117-x 2026

  29. [29]

    Ahearn, L. M. Language and agency . Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 30 , 109–137 (2001)

    2001

  30. [30]

    Moore, J. W. What is the sense of agency and why does it matter? Front. Psychol. 7 , 1272 (2016)

    2016

  31. [31]

    Cornelio, P. et al. The sense of agency in emerging technologies for human-computer integration: A review . Front. Neurosci. 16 , 949138 (2022)

    2022

  32. [32]

    & Imamizu, H

    Wen, W. & Imamizu, H. The sense of agency in perception, behaviour and human–machine interactions . Nat. Rev. Psychol. 1 , 211–222 (2022)

    2022

  33. [33]

    Legaspi, R. et al. The sense of agency in human–AI interactions . Knowl. Based Syst. 286 , 111298 (2024)

    2024

  34. [34]

    The experience of acting and the structure of consciousness

    Shepherd, J. The experience of acting and the structure of consciousness . J. Philos. 114 , 422–448 (2017)

    2017

  35. [35]

    Gelman, S. A. & Legare, C. H. Concepts and folk theories . Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 40, 379–398 (2011)

    2011

  36. [36]

    & Alambeigi, H

    Afroogh, S., Akbari, A., Malone, E., Kargar, M. & Alambeigi, H. Trust in AI: progress, challenges, and future directions . Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 11 , 1568 (2024)

    2024

  37. [37]

    European Union Artificial Intelligence Act (2024)

    2024

  38. [38]

    & Dawson, K

    Bartoletti, I. & Dawson, K. How to design for trust in the age of AI agents . World Economic Forum (2026)

    2026

  39. [39]

    Ng, S. W. T. & Zhang, R. Trust in AI chatbots: A systematic review . Telemat. Inform. 97 , 102240 (2025)

    2025

  40. [40]

    A., Khan, A., Hallock, H., Beltrão, G

    Bach, T. A., Khan, A., Hallock, H., Beltrão, G. & Sousa, S. A systematic literature review of user trust in AI-enabled systems: An HCI perspective . Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 40 , 1251–1266 (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    & Lamas, D

    Gulati, S., McDonagh, J., Sousa, S. & Lamas, D. Trust models and theories in human–computer interaction: A systematic literature review . Comput. Hum. Behav. Rep. 16 , 100495 (2024)

    2024

  42. [42]

    Mehrotra, S., Degachi, C., Vereschak, O., Jonker, C. M. & Tielman, M. L. A systematic review on fostering appropriate trust in human-AI interaction: Trends, opportunities and challenges . ACM J. Responsib. Comput. 1 , 1–45 (2024)

    2024

  43. [43]

    Muir, B. M. Trust between humans and machines, and the design of decision aids . Int. J. Man. Mach. Stud. 27 , 527–539 (1987)

    1987

  44. [44]

    Muir, B. M. Trust in automation: Part I. Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems . Ergonomics 37 , 1905–1922 (1994). 15 PREPRINT | Please do not share or copy without author permission

    1905

  45. [45]

    & Asif, M

    Wang, S., Fatima, N., Shahbaz, M. & Asif, M. Building user trust in AI chatbots for customer service through human-like cues and perceived reliability . Sci. Rep. 16 , 7860 (2026)

    2026

  46. [46]

    Siddike, M. A. K. & Kohda, Y. Towards a framework of trust determinants in people and cognitive assistants interactions . in Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2018). doi:10.24251/hicss.2018.672

    work page doi:10.24251/hicss.2018.672 2018

  47. [47]

    H., Carter, M., Thatcher, J

    Mcknight, D. H., Carter, M., Thatcher, J. B. & Clay, P. F. Trust in a specific technology: An investigation of its components and measures . ACM Trans. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2 , 1–25 (2011)

    2011

  48. [48]

    Explainable AI: from black box to glass box

    Rai, A. Explainable AI: from black box to glass box . J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 48 , 137–141 (2020)

    2020

  49. [49]

    The effects of explainability and causability on perception, trust, and acceptance: Implications for explainable AI

    Shin, D. The effects of explainability and causability on perception, trust, and acceptance: Implications for explainable AI . Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 146 , 102551 (2021)

    2021

  50. [50]

    and Gebru, Timnit and McMillan-Major, Angelina and Shmitchell, Shmargaret

    Jacovi, A., Marasović, A., Miller, T. & Goldberg, Y. Formalizing trust in artificial intelligence: Prerequisites, causes and goals of human trust in AI . in Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2021). doi:10.1145/3442188.3445923

    work page doi:10.1145/3442188.3445923 2021

  51. [51]

    J., Simmons, J

    Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P. & Massey, C. Algorithm aversion: people erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err . J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 144 , 114–126 (2015)

    2015

  52. [52]

    & Schreck, P

    Klingbeil, A., Grützner, C. & Schreck, P. Trust and reliance on AI — An experimental study on the extent and costs of overreliance on AI . Comput. Human Behav. 160 , 108352 (2024)

    2024

  53. [53]

    Han, J. & Ko, D. Trust formation, error impact, and repair in human-AI financial advisory: A dynamic behavioral analysis . Behav. Sci. (Basel) 15 , 1370 (2025)

    2025

  54. [54]

    & Seifert, C

    Papenmeier, A., Kern, D., Englebienne, G. & Seifert, C. It’s complicated: The relationship between user trust, model accuracy and explanations in AI . ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 29 , 1–33 (2022)

    2022

  55. [55]

    Cohn, M. et al. Believing anthropomorphism: Examining the role of anthropomorphic cues on trust in large language models . in Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1–15 (ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2024). doi:10.1145/3613905.3650818

    work page doi:10.1145/3613905.3650818 2024

  56. [56]

    & Davani, A

    Schimmelpfennig, R., Díaz, M., Prabhakaran, V. & Davani, A. Humanlike AI design increases anthropomorphism but yields divergent outcomes on engagement and trust globally . arXiv [cs.AI] (2025) doi:10.48550/arXiv.2512.17898

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.17898 2025

  57. [57]

    & Woolley, A

    Glikson, E. & Woolley, A. W. Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research . Acad. Manag. Ann. 14 , 627–660 (2020)

    2020

  58. [58]

    Lee, J. D. & See, K. A. Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance . Hum. Factors 46 , 50–80 (2004). 16 PREPRINT | Please do not share or copy without author permission

    2004

  59. [59]

    Lewis, P. R. & Marsh, S. What is it like to trust a rock? A functionalist perspective on trust and trustworthiness in artificial intelligence . Cogn. Syst. Res. 72 , 33–49 (2022)

    2022

  60. [60]

    & Zhong, Y

    Cao, H. & Zhong, Y. Digitally mediated (dis)empowerment paradox in women-led group-buying during the Shanghai COVID lockdown . J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 29 , zmae005 (2024)

    2024

  61. [61]

    W., Zheng, Y

    Chib, A., Ang, M. W., Zheng, Y. & Nguyen, S. H. Subverted agency: The dilemmas of disempowerment in digital practices . New Media Soc. 24 , 458–477 (2022)

    2022

  62. [62]

    Shaw, S. D. & Nave, G. Thinking—fast, slow, and artificial: How AI is reshaping human reasoning and the rise of cognitive surrender . Social Science Research Network (2026) doi:10.2139/ssrn.6097646

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.6097646 2026

  63. [63]

    & Anthis, J

    Sturgeon, B., Samuelson, D., Haimes, J. & Anthis, J. R. HumanAgencyBench: Scalable evaluation of human agency support in AI assistants . arXiv [cs.CY] (2025) doi:10.48550/arXiv.2509.08494

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.08494 2025

  64. [64]

    Towards Open Benchmarks for Human Flourishing with AI: Report of the October ‘25 Workshop and Next Steps

    Advancing Humans with AI (AHA) Program, MIT Media Lab. Towards Open Benchmarks for Human Flourishing with AI: Report of the October ‘25 Workshop and Next Steps . https://www.media.mit.edu/projects/report-benchmarks-for-human-flourishing-with-ai/overvi ew/ (2026)

    2026

  65. [65]

    & Ashton, H

    Zhi-Xuan, T., Carroll, M., Franklin, M. & Ashton, H. Beyond preferences in AI alignment . Philos. Stud. 1–51 (2024) doi:10.1007/s11098-024-02249-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s11098-024-02249-w 2024

  66. [66]

    Edelman, J. et al. Full-stack alignment: Co-aligning AI and institutions with thick models of value . arXiv [cs.LG] (2025) doi:10.48550/arXiv.2512.03399

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.03399 2025

  67. [67]

    Social anthropology of technology

    Pfaffenberger, B. Social anthropology of technology . Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 21 , 491–516 (1992)

    1992

  68. [68]

    Chen, B. J. & Metcalf, J. Explainer: A Sociotechnical Approach to AI Policy . https://datasociety.net/library/a-sociotechnical-approach-to-ai-policy/ (2024)

    2024

  69. [69]

    Ortner, S. B. Anthropology and Social Theory: Culture, Power, and the Acting Subject . (Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 2006)

    2006

  70. [70]

    Outline of a Theory of Practice

    Bourdieu, P. Outline of a Theory of Practice . (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1977)

    1977

  71. [71]

    Structuration theory: past, present and future

    Giddens, A. Structuration theory: past, present and future. in Giddens’ Theory of Structuration: A Critical Appreciation (eds Bryant, C. & Jary, D.) 201–21 (Routledge, London and New York, 1991). 17

    1991