Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Human-Centered AI Transformation: Exploring Behavioral Dynamics in Software Engineering

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that AI-driven change in software organizations is shaped by twelve behavioral-software-engineering concepts and six recurring challenges, with individual-level effects dominant early.

desk verdict Solid exploratory qualitative study mapping BSE concepts onto early AI transformation; the taxonomy is plausible but not independently auditable as presented. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08693 v1 pith:X2G242P2 submitted 2024-11-13 cs.SE

Theocharis Tavantzis , Robert Feldt This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SE
keywords HumanAspectsOrganizationalChangeArtificialIntelligenceAITransformationBehavioralSoftwareEngineeringqualitativeinterviewsthematicanalysisnarrative
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper is trying to establish that AI-driven change in software engineering organizations is not mainly a technical rollout but a behavioral and social process. Using Behavioral Software Engineering as a lens, it claims that ten interviews across four Swedish organizations surface twelve recurring BSE concepts, concentrated at the individual level, and six challenges tied to those concepts. If this is right, organizations starting AI transformation should expect early friction in attitudes, emotions, cognition, and stress before group or organizational dynamics dominate, and should treat communication, leadership, resistance management, and ethics as core change-management work.

What carries the argument

The analytical machinery is the Behavioral Software Engineering (BSE) framework—a taxonomy of human, cognitive, emotional, and social factors in software work, organized by individual, group, and organizational levels—used as the coding grid for thematic analysis. Sub-themes are derived from interview transcripts using thematic analysis, with one interview double-coded and disagreements resolved by discussion; challenge themes for RQ2 are induced directly from the data without a pre-existing grid. A complementary narrative analysis classifies each role's account as progressive, stable, or regressive to show how position shapes experience.

What would settle it

Re-coding all ten interview transcripts with two independent researchers who have not seen the paper's theme definitions, then measuring inter-coder agreement for the twelve BSE concepts and six challenges, would test whether the taxonomy is a stable property of the data or an artifact of one coder's interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a behavioral-software-engineering analysis of ten semi-structured interviews with practitioners in four early-stage AI-transforming organizations yields twelve BSE concepts—Attitudes, Cognitive, Creativity, Emotions, Group Dynamics, Motivation, Organizational Culture, Organizational Readiness, Personality, Politics (at both the group and organizational levels), and Stress—plus six challenge themes: change management strategy, ethical concerns, organizational readiness for AI adoption, resistance to change, skills in the era of AI, and strategic adoption of AI. Because the organizations are early in their AI journeys, seven of the twelve concepts sit at the individual level, and the authors interpret this as evidence that individual-level behavioral dynamics are the leading edge of AI transformation. A narrative analysis of roles shows developers, IT section managers, and AI-created roles telling progressive stories, while system engineers and HR roles tell stable ones; no role reported a regressive narrative. The authors conclude that AI transformation is 'not solely technical but deeply intertwined with human behaviors and attitudes.'

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that one researcher's coding of nine of ten interviews, with only one interview double-coded and disagreements settled by discussion, yields a stable taxonomy that generalizes beyond ten convenience-sampled Swedish interviewees.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Organizations at the start of AI adoption should expect the strongest behavioral effects at the individual level—attitudes, emotions, cognitive confusion, and stress—before group and organizational dynamics surface.
  • Successful AI integration hinges on communication, proactive leadership, resistance management, and, distinctively, ethics such as data privacy, which the paper says prior change-management work underplays.
  • Different roles experience the same AI rollout differently: early adopters in developer and AI-specific roles tell progressive narratives, while system engineers and HR report stable ones, so change efforts should be differentiated by role.
  • The six challenge themes give practitioners a checklist for diagnosing why an AI transformation is stalling, covering communication, ethics, readiness, resistance, skills, and strategic adoption.
  • Studying organizations further along in AI transformation would likely reveal more group- and organizational-level BSE concepts than the seven individual-level themes found here.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper does not draw: the twelve concepts and six challenges could be converted into a survey instrument for AI-change readiness, letting organizations benchmark themselves before rollout.
  • The absence of regressive narratives may be a self-selection effect: interviewees are early in the transformation and have not yet faced displacement outcomes, so later-stage studies might surface regressive narratives this design cannot see.
  • The emphasis on ethical concerns and sensitive-data risk aversion suggests that regulatory and data-governance constraints, not just human attitudes, may be a binding constraint on AI adoption in software-dependent sectors.
  • Because convenience sampling recruited organizations with existing university ties and included participants with high self-reported AI experience, the individual-level concentration may partly reflect who was interviewed rather than the true stage of transformation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This exploratory qualitative study uses Behavioral Software Engineering (BSE) as a lens to examine human and behavioral dynamics in AI-driven transformation of software organizations. Based on ten semi-structured interviews across four Swedish organizations, the authors report twelve BSE concepts organized at individual, group, and organizational levels, six challenge themes, and a narrative analysis of how different roles experience AI transformation. The paper argues that AI transformation is not solely technical but deeply intertwined with human behaviors and attitudes, and it identifies communication, leadership, resistance management, and ethical considerations as critical factors.

Significance. If the findings are reliable, the paper addresses a genuine gap: empirical research on human and cooperative aspects of AI transformation in software engineering is scarce, and the BSE lens provides a useful structuring device. The study offers concrete, interview-grounded illustrations of attitudes, emotions, stress, group dynamics, and organizational culture during early AI adoption, and it explicitly discusses ethical concerns as a dimension often overlooked in prior work. The authors are transparent about several validity threats, which is commendable. However, the central taxonomy and challenge themes rest on a fragile coding foundation—nine of ten interviews were analyzed by a single researcher with no codebook, audit trail, or intercoder agreement—and there is an internal inconsistency in the naming of a core theme. These issues currently limit the confidence one can place in the specific twelve-concept and six-challenge claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.C] The central empirical claim—twelve BSE themes and six challenges—is almost entirely the product of one researcher's coding. The paper states that after one interview was double-coded, "Due to time limitations only one researcher then analyzed the rest of the interviews." No codebook, audit trail, or intercoder agreement measure is reported. Because the top-level RQ1 themes were predetermined from BSE literature, the empirical weight falls on the sub-theme coding and the allocation of themes to individual, group, and organizational levels, and that weight is carried by a single coder. As presented, the taxonomy is non-replicable. Please address this by providing a codebook, having at least a second coder independently code a meaningful subset of the transcripts, reporting agreement, and describing how disagreements were resolved; alternatively, explicitly reframe the findings as a single-coder exploratory interpretation and soften the taxonomic claims accordingly.
  2. [Section III.C and Section IV.A] For RQ1, the theme definitions were explicitly "relied on established concepts from the existing BSE literature," meaning the twelve themes are partly imposed a priori rather than emerging from the data. This creates a risk of confirmation bias in the sub-theme coding and in the level assignments. The paper should clarify which of the twelve concepts were specified a priori and which emerged during analysis, and justify the assignment of sub-themes to levels, especially for 'Politics,' which appears at both group and organizational levels with the same name. This is load-bearing because the paper's abstract and conclusions present "twelve BSE concepts" as a finding of the analysis, not as a constructed framework.
  3. [Section V versus Table V and Section VI] There is a direct internal inconsistency in the naming of a core organizational-level theme. Table V and Section IV.A call the theme "Organizational Readiness," Section V discusses it as "Organizational Adaptability" and even labels it "a relatively new concept within BSE and the work psychology literature," and Section VI again lists "Organizational Readiness." This is not a trivial wording issue: it indicates that the coding categories are not stable enough to support the confidence with which the twelve-concept taxonomy is presented. Please harmonize the terminology and explain which concept is intended, or acknowledge the instability as a limitation.
  4. [Section IV.C and Table VII] The narrative analysis for RQ3 categorizes roles as progressive, stable, or regressive, but the procedure is underspecified: there is no detail on how narrative segments were identified, who performed the classification, whether any reliability check was conducted, or how the two-phase descriptive/interpretive method was operationalized on the transcripts. Given that the narrative categorization is itself an interpretive judgment and that the paper reports that no role exhibited a regressive narrative, this lack of procedural transparency weakens the support for the RQ3 claims. Please provide more detail on the analysis steps and, if possible, a second-coder check or at least illustrative narrative excerpts.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III.B and Acknowledgment] The paper reports ten interviews with participants P1–P10, but the acknowledgment thanks "all the nine participants." This numeric inconsistency should be corrected and checked against the actual data set.
  2. [Section III.C] The sentence "we relied our theme definition in established concepts" should read "we relied on established concepts" or similar; the current phrasing is ungrammatical.
  3. [Table VI and Section VI] The first challenge theme is labeled "Change Management Strategy" in Table VI but is referred to as "Communication Strategy" in the conclusions; please harmonize the label.
  4. [Section VI] The sentence "six challenges was found" should be "six challenges were found."
  5. [References] Reference [5] contains a typo in the author name ("V otta" should be "Votta"), and several references would benefit from consistent page ranges or DOI formatting.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

RQ1 top-level themes are imported from the BSE framework, but sub-themes, challenges, and narrative findings are data-driven; no central claim is forced by construction.

  1. self definitional [Section III.C (Data Analysis) and Section IV.A (RQ1 results)]
    "To analyze the qualitative data for RQ1, we relied our theme definition in established concepts from the existing BSE literature, ensuring consistency with prior research. Then, the sub-themes were delineated using Braun and Clarke’s methodology."

    RQ1 asks which BSE concepts influence AI-driven organizational change, and the paper answers with twelve BSE-related themes. The top-level themes are not derived from the interview data; they are adopted from the BSE framework before coding. Any dataset coded into those categories will therefore 'reveal' BSE concepts, making the statement that the analysis resulted in twelve themes related to BSE concepts partly guaranteed by the coding scheme. This is a mild self-definitional element: the output category set is the input framework. The empirical content is carried by the sub-themes, which were allowed to emerge, and by the separately coded RQ2 challenges and RQ3 narrative analysis, so the central claims do not fully reduce to the framework.

full rationale

The paper's main empirical contribution—six challenges and the narrative analysis—is grounded in interview data rather than in the BSE framework. RQ2 themes and sub-themes were explicitly coded to emerge naturally from the transcripts, and RQ3 applies Murray's narrative method to the data; neither is a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The principal caveat is RQ1: top-level themes were defined using established BSE concepts, so the twelve-concept taxonomy is partly a framing choice rather than a purely inductive discovery. This limitation is disclosed in Section III.C and does not undermine the sub-themes, which are concrete and quote-supported. The self-citations to Lenberg et al. are ordinary use of an established research framework and are not load-bearing in a circular way; no uniqueness theorem is invoked to forbid alternatives. The one-coder analysis of nine of ten interviews is a reliability threat, not a circularity, and the Organizational Readiness/Organizational Adaptability naming inconsistency in Tables versus Discussion is a consistency issue, not a definitional reduction. Overall, the paper is self-contained against external interview evidence, so the circularity score is low.

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

This is a qualitative study, so there are no fitted numerical free parameters and no invented entities. The central claims rest on methodological assumptions about interview self-reports, single-coder thematic reliability, the transferability of the BSE taxonomy to AI contexts, and the representativeness of the convenience sample. The main burden is analytic interpretation, not mathematical derivation.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Participants' self-reports in semi-structured interviews accurately reflect the behavioral dynamics of AI transformation in their organizations.
    Section III.B and III.D: the method relies on interviews; social desirability bias is acknowledged as a threat but assumed not to invalidate the data.
  • domain assumption Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis, applied with one double-coded interview and single coding of the rest, yields reliable themes.
    Section III.C: 'Due to time limitations only one researcher then analyzed the rest of the interviews'; replicability of the taxonomy depends on this.
  • domain assumption The BSE framework of Lenberg et al. is a valid lens for categorizing AI transformation experiences.
    Section II.A and III.C: RQ1 codes sub-themes into established BSE concepts from the authors' own prior work, assuming the taxonomy transfers to the AI context.
  • domain assumption Convenience-sampled organizations with existing university connections are representative enough of early AI transformation.
    Section III.B: organizations selected through prior collaborations; Section III.D acknowledges selection bias and narrow domain.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Human-Centered AI Transformation: Exploring Behavioral Dynamics in Software Engineering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X2G242P2

@misc{pith2026241108693,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Human-Centered AI Transformation: Exploring Behavioral Dynamics in Software Engineering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X2G242P2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08693}
}
read the original abstract

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) becomes integral to software development, understanding the social and cooperative dynamics that affect AI-driven organizational change is important. Yet, despite AI's rapid progress and influence, the human and cooperative facets of these shifts in software organizations remain relatively less explored. This study uses Behavioral Software Engineering (BSE) as a lens to examine these often-overlooked dimensions of AI transformation. Through a qualitative approach involving ten semi-structured interviews across four organizations that are undergoing AI transformations, we performed a thematic analysis that revealed numerous sub-themes linked to twelve BSE concepts across individual, group, and organizational levels. Since the organizations are at an early stage of transformation we found more emphasis on the individual level. Our findings further reveal six key challenges tied to these BSE aspects that the organizations face during their AI transformation. Aligned with change management literature, we emphasize that effective communication, proactive leadership, and resistance management are essential for successful AI integration. However, we also identify ethical considerations as critical in the AI context-an area largely overlooked in previous research. Furthermore, a narrative analysis illustrates how different roles within an organization experience the AI transition in unique ways. These insights underscore that AI transformation extends beyond technical solutions; it requires a thoughtful approach that balances technological and human factors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08693 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Research Method Overview B. Data Collection and Interviewees The data collection process included two phases: pilot interviews and core interviews. The pilot interviews had two main objectives: first, to identify key concepts relevant to the research questions, and second, to refine the interview format based on initial insights. We used semi-structured interviews, balancing structured questions with the flexibility… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Cross-Functional AI Task Forces (X-FAITs) for AI Transformation of Software Organizations

    cs.SE 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The X-FAIT framework combines force field analysis, executive sponsorship, and AI-SEAL risk assessment to coordinate AI transformation across departments in a software organization.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The critical role of hrm in ai-driven digital transformation: a paradigm shift to enable firms to move from ai implementation to human-centric adoption,

    A. Fenwick, G. Molnar, and P. Frangos, “The critical role of hrm in ai-driven digital transformation: a paradigm shift to enable firms to move from ai implementation to human-centric adoption,” Discover Artificial Intelligence, vol. 4, p. 34, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-024-00125-4

    doi:10.1007/s44163-024-00125-4 2024

  2. [2]

    The next frontier in software development: Ai-augmented software development processes,

    I. Ozkaya, “The next frontier in software development: Ai-augmented software development processes,” IEEE Software , vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 4–9, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Large language models for software engineering: Sur- vey and open problems,

    A. Fan, B. Gokkaya, M. Harman, M. Lyubarskiy, S. Sengupta, S. Yoo, and J. M. Zhang, “Large language models for software engineering: Sur- vey and open problems,” in 2023 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering: Future of Software Engineering (ICSE-FoSE), 2023, pp. 31–53

    2023

  4. [4]

    Intent-driven mobile gui testing with autonomous large language model agents,

    J. Yoon, R. Feldt, and S. Yoo, “Intent-driven mobile gui testing with autonomous large language model agents,” in 2024 IEEE Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 129–139

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    People, organiza- tions, and process improvement,

    D. E. Perry, N. A. Staudenmayer, and L. G. V otta, “People, organiza- tions, and process improvement,” IEEE Software , vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 36–45, 1994

    work page 1994

  6. [6]

    Bringing the human factor to software engineering,

    L. F. Capretz, “Bringing the human factor to software engineering,” IEEE Software, vol. 31, no. 2, 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    The who, what, how of software engineering research: a socio-technical framework,

    M.-A. Storey, N. A. Ernst, C. Williams, and E. Kalliamvakou, “The who, what, how of software engineering research: a socio-technical framework,” Empirical Software Engineering , vol. 25, pp. 4097–4129, 2020

    2020

  8. [8]

    Socio-technical grounded theory for software engineering,

    R. Hoda, “Socio-technical grounded theory for software engineering,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering , vol. 48, no. 10, pp. 3808– 3832, 2021

    2021

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Towards a behavioral software engineering,

    P. Lenberg, R. Feldt, and L. G. Wallgren, “Towards a behavioral software engineering,” in Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering. ACM, 2014, pp. 48–55

    2014

  2. [10]

    Behavioral software en- gineering: A definition and systematic literature review,

    P. ’Lenberg, R. Feldt, and L. G. Wallgren, “Behavioral software en- gineering: A definition and systematic literature review,” Journal of Systems and Software , 2015

    2015

  3. [11]

    J. P. Kotter, Leading Change. USA: Harvard Business Press, 2012

    2012

  4. [12]

    J. P. Kotter and D. S. Cohen, The Heart of Change: Real-Life Stories of How People Change Their Organizations . USA: Harvard Business Press, 2012

    2012

  5. [13]

    Human factors related challenges in software engineering – an industrial perspective,

    P. Lenberg, R. Feldt, and L. G. Wallgren, “Human factors related challenges in software engineering – an industrial perspective,” in 2015 IEEE/ACM 8th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE) . IEEE/ACM, 2015, pp. 43–49

    2015

  6. [14]

    An initial analysis of software engineers’ attitudes towards organizational change,

    P. Lenberg, L. G. Wallgren Tengberg, and R. Feldt, “An initial analysis of software engineers’ attitudes towards organizational change,” Empirical Software Engineering, vol. 22, pp. 2179–2205, 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    Empirical ai transformation re- search: A systematic mapping study and future agenda,

    E. Peretz-Andersson and R. Torkar, “Empirical ai transformation re- search: A systematic mapping study and future agenda,” e-Informatica Software Engineering Journal , vol. 16, no. 1, p. 220108, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    G. M. Weinberg, The Psychology of Computer Programming . New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1971, vol. 932633420

    1971

  9. [17]

    Software process improvement: A organizational change that need to be managed and motivated,

    M. G. Ferreira and R. S. Wazlawick, “Software process improvement: A organizational change that need to be managed and motivated,” World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, vol. 50, p. 296 – 304, 2011

    2011

  10. [18]

    Conse- quences of unhappiness while developing software,

    D. Graziotin, F. Fagerholm, X. Wang, and P. Abrahamsson, “Conse- quences of unhappiness while developing software,” in 2017 IEEE/ACM 2nd International Workshop on Emotion Awareness in Software Engi- neering (SEmotion). IEEE, 2017, pp. 42–47

    2017

  11. [19]

    Psy- chometric instruments in software engineering research on personality: Status quo after fifty years,

    D. A. Felipe, M. Kalinowski, D. Graziotin, and J. C. Natividade, “Psy- chometric instruments in software engineering research on personality: Status quo after fifty years,” Journal of Systems and Software , vol. 203, p. 111740, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Studying attitudes and social norms in agile software devel- opment,

    L. Gren, “Studying attitudes and social norms in agile software devel- opment,” in Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Agile Software Development, XP 2018 , 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    Understanding an organizational change and development intervention applied in a global software industry: A case study: A case study,

    R. Lima, L. Albuquerque, M. Ayres, S. Silva, A. Oran, and C. Franc ¸a, “Understanding an organizational change and development intervention applied in a global software industry: A case study: A case study,” in Proceedings of the XXXVII Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineer...

    2023

  14. [22]

    Continuous software engineering in the wild,

    E. Klotins and T. Gorschek, “Continuous software engineering in the wild,” in Software Quality: The Next Big Thing in Software Engineering and Quality , ser. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, D. Mendez, M. Wimmer, D. Winkler, S. Biffl, and J. Bergsmann, Eds., v...

    2022

  15. [23]

    Understanding an organizational change and development intervention applied in a global software industry: A case study,

    R. Lima, L. Albuquerque, M. Ayres, S. Silva, A. Oran, and C. Franc ¸a, “Understanding an organizational change and development intervention applied in a global software industry: A case study,” in Proceedings of the XXXVII Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering (SBES ’23)...

    2023

  16. [24]

    Organization change and development,

    M. Beer and A. E. Walton, “Organization change and development,” Annual Review of Psychology , vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 339–367, 1987

    1987

  17. [25]

    Human factors in business process re-engineering,

    M.-C. Roy, K. Roy, and L. Bouchard, “Human factors in business process re-engineering,” Human System Management, pp. 193–204, Jan 1998

    1998

  18. [26]

    Resistance to adoption of an oo software engineering process: An empirical study,

    M. Serour and B. Henderson-Sellers, “Resistance to adoption of an oo software engineering process: An empirical study,” in European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (EMCIS) 2005 . University of Technology, Sydney, Australia, 2005

    2005

  19. [27]

    The determinants of organizational change management success: Literature review and case study,

    A. Errida and B. Lotfi, “The determinants of organizational change management success: Literature review and case study,” International Journal of Engineering Business Management , vol. 13, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Implementing and scaling artificial intelligence: A review, framework, and research agenda,

    N. Haefner, V . Parida, O. Gassmann, and J. Wincent, “Implementing and scaling artificial intelligence: A review, framework, and research agenda,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change , vol. 197, p. 122878, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Investigation of artificial intelligence in smes: A systematic review of the state of the art and the main implementation challenges,

    L. Oldemeyer, A. Jede, and F. Teuteberg, “Investigation of artificial intelligence in smes: A systematic review of the state of the art and the main implementation challenges,” Management Review Quarterly , 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    The new normal: The status quo of ai adoption in smes,

    J. Schwaeke, A. Peters, D. K. Kanbach, S. Kraus, and P. Jones, “The new normal: The status quo of ai adoption in smes,” Journal of Small Business Management, 2024, in press

    2024

  23. [31]

    Understanding forced adoption of self- service technology: The impacts of users’ psychological reactance,

    W. Feng, R. Tu, and Z. Zhou, “Understanding forced adoption of self- service technology: The impacts of users’ psychological reactance,” Behaviour and Information Technology , vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 820–832, 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    Innovating through digital revolution: The role of soft skills and big data in increasing firm performance,

    F. Caputo, V . Cillo, E. Candelo, and Y . Liu, “Innovating through digital revolution: The role of soft skills and big data in increasing firm performance,” Management Decision , vol. 57, no. 8, pp. 2032–2051, 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    Artificial intelligence (ai): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy,

    Y . K. Dwivedi, L. Hughes, E. Ismagilova, G. Aarts, C. Coombs, T. Crick, Y . Duan, R. Dwivedi, J. Edwards, A. Eirug, V . Galanos, P. V . Ilavarasan, M. Janssen, P. Jones, A. K. Kar, H. Kizgin, B. Kronemann, B. Lal, B. Lucini, R. Medaglia, K. Le Meunier-FitzHugh, L. C. Le Meuni...

    2021

  26. [34]

    Leadership challenges and strategies in the era of ai trans- formation,

    S. Singh, “Leadership challenges and strategies in the era of ai trans- formation,” in 2023 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI) , 2023, pp. 119–124

    2023

  27. [35]

    Using thematic analysis in psychology,

    V . Braun and V . Clarke, “Using thematic analysis in psychology,” Qualitative Research in Psychology , vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77– 101, 2006. [Online]. Available: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/ 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    2006 doi

  28. [36]

    Narrative psychology,

    M. Murray, “Narrative psychology,” in Qualitative Psychology , J. A. Smith, Ed. London: Sage, 2008, pp. 111–132

    2008

  29. [37]

    Links between the personalities, views and attitudes of software engineers,

    R. Feldt, L. Angelis, R. Torkar, and M. Samuelsson, “Links between the personalities, views and attitudes of software engineers,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 611–624, 2010

    2010

  30. [38]

    Why do people use chatgpt? exploring user motivations for generative conversational ai,

    M. Skjuve, P. B. Brandtzaeg, and A. Følstad, “Why do people use chatgpt? exploring user motivations for generative conversational ai,” First Monday, vol. 29, no. 1, Jan 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Emergent ai, social robots and the law: Security, privacy and policy issues,

    R. Subramanian, “Emergent ai, social robots and the law: Security, privacy and policy issues,” Journal of International Technology and Information Management , vol. 26, no. 3, p. Article 4, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/jitim/vol26/iss3/4

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.