Jul 2026· ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems· 0 citations· 13 references
TL;DR
This work offers seven provocations, one adaptive cycle per stakeholder region of the paradox, designed to embed the continuous surfacing and provisional resolution of epistemic friction into the field’s core institutions, so that AI serves as an engine for pluralistic discovery rather than a homogenizing force.
Abstract
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into Information Systems (IS) research is driving unprecedented individual productivity while introducing systemic strains: methodological homogenization, workflow opacity, and citation polarization. We argue these pathologies are not transient technological glitches but symptoms of an epistemic fairness paradox: the AI capabilities that maximize fluent, high-volume throughput strain the methodological pluralism and contextual rigor required to study sociotechnical phenomena. Drawing upon the FAIR design theory [13], we translate the architecture of organizational AI fairness to the decentralized epistemic ecosystem and conceptualize the challenge as a single paradox spanning three dimensions of tension (principles, goals, and foci) and three coupled stakeholders: the researcher, the intermediary, and the ecosystem. Because the paradox is endogenous to a rapidly evolving, stochastic, and increasingly agentic technology, static policy will fail. We offer seven provocations, one adaptive cycle per stakeholder region of the paradox, designed to embed the continuous surfacing and provisional resolution of epistemic friction into the field’s core institutions, so that AI serves as an engine for pluralistic discovery rather than a homogenizing force.
This article contests the deterministic narrative of artificial intelligence (AI) and the future of labor, oscillating between utopian projections of a four-day workweek and nightmarish predictions of widespread displacement. The primary question is why the swift adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has not led to...
S. Dzreke, S. Dzreke· Computer Science & IT Re...· 0 citations
Research on algorithmic management is expanding rapidly but remains highly fragmented, lacking a systematized understanding of how cross-disciplinary debates address its real-world implementation barriers. To address this gap, this study conducts a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of 340 peer-reviewed journal arti...
Arne Jeppe, Tim Brée, Erik Karger et al.· Management Review Quarterly· 0 citations
A five-dimensional diagnostic framework that maps the challenges of human-AI collaboration across Integration, Representation, Scale, Temporality, and Adequacy gaps and shows that augmentation remains the dominant and most viable mode of use in complex environments.
Ganesh Sankaran, Marco A. Palomino, G. Siestrup· Big Data and Cognitive Compu...· 0 citations
It is argued that AI is no longer merely a computational instrument, but increasingly functions as a structural mediator shaping human consciousness through the reconstruction of global information architecture, and the future trajectory of civilization will be determined not merely by control over energy and material...
La Himmah Il Princess Choris, M. Shoim· Journal La Bisecoman· 0 citations
This paper examines the tension between the benefits of generative artificial intelligence (AI) for scientific research and the unresolved governance questions that accompany its rapid adoption. Drawing on an academic roundtable held at the AI for Science and Innovation Workshop (Scuola IMT Alti Studi Lucca, April 2026...
F. Castellacci, Tommaso Ciarli, Yuan Gao et al.· 0 citations
It is argued that while AI has a “democratizing effect” in making research tasks less costly and more convenient for scholars worldwide, it simultaneously increases skill requirements, efficiency pressures and thresholds for what counts as valuable data and knowledge.
Stephan Manning· Critical Perspectives on Int...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.