Mlynar2024a
| Mlynar2024a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Mlynar2024a |
| Author(s) | Jakub Mlynář, Lynn de Rijk, Andreas Liesenfeld, Wyke Stommel, Saul Albert |
| Title | AI in situated action: a scoping review of ethnomethodological and conversation analytic studies |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, In press, Artificial intelligence, Conversation analysis, Embodiment, Ethnomethodology, Multimodality, Robotics, Social interaction, Video analysis, AI Reference List |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2024 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | AI & Society |
| Volume | |
| Number | |
| Pages | |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1007/s00146-024-01919-x |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Despite its elusiveness as a concept, ‘artificial intelligence’ (AI) is becoming part of everyday life, and a range of empirical and methodological approaches to social studies of AI now span many disciplines. This article reviews the scope of ethnomethodological and conversation analytic (EM/CA) approaches that treat AI as a phenomenon emerging in and through the situated organization of social interaction. Although this approach has been very influential in the field of computational technology since the 1980s, AI has only recently emerged as such a pervasive part of daily life to warrant a sustained empirical focus in EM/CA. Reviewing over 50 peer-reviewed publications, we find that the studies focus on various social and group activities such as task-oriented situations, semi-experimental setups, play, and everyday interactions. They also involve a range of participant categories including children, older participants, and people with disabilities. Most of the reviewed studies apply CA’s conceptual apparatus, its approach to data analysis, and core topics such as turn-taking and repair. We find that across this corpus, studies center on three key themes: openings and closing the interaction, miscommunication, and non-verbal aspects of interaction. In the discussion, we reflect on EM studies that differ from those in our corpus by focusing on praxeological respecifications of AI-related phenomena. Concurrently, we offer a critical reflection on the work of literature reviewing, and explore the tortuous relationship between EM and CA in the area of research on AI.
Notes
