Sociotechnical Systems

Artificial intelligence systems increasingly enact market-facing promises through chatbots, recommendation systems, automated decisions, and generative interfaces. Their failures, misuse, and misrepresentation raise a question that conventional brand-crisis models do not fully specify: how do stakeholders assign responsibility when technical causation, customer-facing control, and governance duties are distributed across an AI system, developer, deployer, vendor, and user? This conceptual paper develops a sociotechnical process theory from a structured, federated scoping synthesis of verified academic and primary sources. It distinguishes an AI/algorithmic incident from an AI-related organisational crisis and, in turn, from an AI-related organisational scandal. The framework proposes that incident configuration shapes actor-specific attribution; attribution informs capability, integrity, fairness, and relationship appraisals; and public moralisation may, but need not, escalate an incident into scandal. The theory offers a reconciliation of findings that algorithm involvement can buffer negative brand reactions in some settings while robot and chatbot failures can redirect responsibility to an associated firm in others. It introduces accountable transparency as a proposed response configuration that combines timely notice, an intelligible account, role-responsibility acknowledgement, remedy, evidence of correction, and recourse. The evidence supports conditional, proximal inferences about blame, trust, satisfaction, firm evaluation, and communication credibility more strongly than claims about durable reputation, brand equity, or market performance.

Algorithm registers have been championed as a means of providing transparency on the use of algorithms in public services. Yet potential publics differ in their expectations of what should be made transparent and how, as well as in their interest in and ability to parse the information currently published in the registers. Moreover, it remains unclear how these instruments can represent the sociotechnical systems in which these algorithms are embedded, and how system-level transparency can facilitate accountability. In this paper, we ask, what do algorithm registers reveal (and occlude) about the sociotechnical systems governing algorithmic systems, and how can diverse stakeholder perspectives inform a more pluralistic system-theoretic safety analysis? To do this, we probe the municipal algorithm register of a Dutch city through a case study of a decision-support tool for caseworkers' assessment of citizens' welfare benefits eligibility based on legal automation through a business rule engine. Through interviews, surveys, and participatory system mapping workshops (with municipal staff, civil society organisations, and ombudsmen, N=8), we seek to understand to what extent the register allows stakeholders to map the algorithmic system in question. These maps inform a System-Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA) that situates the register within a wider sociotechnical governance structure. Participants' contributions allow us to identify potential safety hazards which would not have been possible to see using the algorithm register alone, including benefits eligibility denial, system performance deterioration, and inability to contest wrongful decisions. By engaging both direct and indirect stakeholders, we reflect on the normative dimensions of algorithm governance efforts and how politics shape the practice of system safety analysis.

The increasing deployment of autonomous, agentic AI systems challenges traditional accountability mechanisms. Existing research predominantly frames AI accountability gaps as barriers that can be overcome through better standards, transparency, and institutional reform. We argue that this framing is insufficient: certain configurations of actors, systems, and institutions render AI accountability conceptually unachievable regardless of effort. We introduce the concept of constitutive AI unaccountability to capture these configurations. Through a three-stage qualitative study comprising a concept-centric literature analysis, a secondary analysis of 27 expert interviews with AI professionals from technical, legal, and sociotechnical backgrounds, and an illustrative framework application to the open-source agentic AI system OpenClaw, we identify nine categories and 20 themes of constitutive AI unaccountability. These are organized across structural, technological, and normative clusters and reinforce one another through eight directed interdependencies. Our framework is operationalized as a diagnostic instrument of 20 questions, which detected 17 of 20 conditions when applied to OpenClaw, including an inverted anthropomorphism configuration in which the AI agent was the only identifiable actor. We contribute a reframing of AI unaccountability as a constitutive property of sociotechnical systems, an extension of the four barriers to accountability, and a practical instrument for identifying accountability voids in specific AI deployments.

Safety risks of AI are becoming increasingly evident in human interactions with AI technologies. The prominent approaches to evaluating these risks favor technical methods, such as model benchmarks and LLM simulations, often sidelining empirical research with human subjects. To examine this apparent gap in the acceptance of human research, we conduct an expert survey (n=93) and expert interviews (n=17) with AI Safety & Ethics (AISE) researchers from Technical, Sociotechnical, Governance, and Normative backgrounds. Our findings suggest that although there is a consensus that human research is valuable for generating evidence for AISE, its adoption and acceptance are constrained by perceived validity issues, tangible resource barriers, epistemic and personal preferences in methods, and infrastructural constraints from the broader research community. In particular, Technical researchers tend to value human research less and collaborate across disciplines less, suggesting an epistemic tension towards human methods. We propose recommendations for establishing the epistemic fit of human research within AISE and bridging the prohibitive limitations that researchers face, while avoiding performative 'human-washing'.

As AI systems are deployed across increasingly diverse social contexts, alignment can no longer be framed as the optimization of a single, unified set of values. Instead, systems must be able to recognize, represent, and respond to multiple legitimate perspectives. This has led to growing interest in pluralistic alignment, which seeks to move beyond one-size-fits-all models of appropriate behaviour. However, current approaches often lack a clear account of how values are socially organized, contested, and coordinated in practice. In this paper, we argue that social theory provides essential conceptual and design resources for addressing these challenges. Drawing on established traditions in sociology, we show how perspectives can be understood as structured by roles, shaped through interaction, and distributed across fields of power and expertise. We translate these insights into concrete implications for AI system design, including role-based representations, structured coordination among perspectives, and context-sensitive evaluation. For agentic systems, this requires aligning not only final outputs, but also the role activations, deliberative traces, aggregation rules, and feedback loops through which those outputs are produced. Our contribution is to reposition pluralistic alignment as a problem of socially grounded coordination rather than output diversification. We outline a design space for systems that engage multiple perspectives in structured and accountable ways, and we identify directions for future work to implement and empirically evaluate these approaches in real-world settings.

This paper presents a speculative Human-Computer Interaction design proposal for encouraging geopolitical reflexivity amongst tech workers at geopolitically relevant technology companies. Recent scholarship in International Relations and Science and Technology Studies increasingly recognizes technology firms and their workers as geopolitical actors whose decisions shape international dynamics. However, existing Responsible Innovation and Responsible AI approaches rarely engage with the geopolitical narratives and imaginaries that underpin contemporary AI development. Building upon RI scholarship on reflexivity, reflective HCI, and creative HCI work on computational narratives, this paper proposes an AI-enabled interactive narrative system in which users engage with a speculative scenario centred on technology, power, and geopolitics. Through narrative interaction, archetype assignment, and socially scaffolded workshop reflection, the system aims to encourage target users to critically examine their assumptions, values, and positionality within broader sociotechnical systems. We argue that speculative narrative systems may offer a productive avenue for introducing geopolitical reflexivity into responsible technology initiatives without relying on prescriptive or moralising approaches.

Current AI safety discourse still focuses disproportionately on visible failures, including obvious harms, dramatic misuse, and hypothetical catastrophic scenarios. That focus is incomplete. In deployed systems, many of the most consequential failures are quieter: plausible rather than spectacular, distributed across components rather than localized in a single output, and normalized by workflows before they are recognized as hazards. We argue that a central safety challenge in modern AI systems is increasingly not only whether a model emits a harmful response, but whether the broader socio-technical system preserves the conditions under which errors remain visible, contestable, containable, and recoverable. We propose a five-layer framework for diagnosing these hidden risks: (1) epistemic integrity, concerning whether evidence and uncertainty are represented honestly enough to support calibrated reliance; (2) control integrity, concerning whether authority, permissions, and action boundaries remain robust under attack and optimization; (3) temporal integrity, concerning whether safety holds across sessions, memory updates, and deployment drift; (4) organizational integrity, concerning whether institutions retain the capacity to audit, assign responsibility, and intervene effectively; and (5) ecosystem integrity, concerning whether AI systems preserve rather than erode the information environment on which future oversight depends. Across these layers, we identify under-recognized risk patterns, including overreliance, uncertainty and legitimacy laundering in retrieval, prompt injection, reward hacking, memory poisoning, evaluation deception, fictional human oversight, synthetic evidence pollution, and model collapse. We conclude with design and governance recommendations and a research agenda for shifting AI safety from model-centric evaluation toward socio-technical reliability.

As automated decision-making and data-driven technologies pervade society and are used to manage consequential outcomes, understanding the technology's capabilities, limitations, and attendant risks in context requires analysis of full sociotechnical systems. Sociotechnical analysis of risks in highly complex systems provides clear lessons for the design and evaluation of AI systems, transcending a technical focus on reliable or "responsibly designed" components to understand risks at a systems level. Human-made catastrophes have been studied for decades because of the severity of these events: consider Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima-Daiichi, Bhopal, the Challenger disaster. A common misconception is that these kinds of events are freak accidents, resulting from the inherently unforeseeable interactions in complex systems. Closer examination reveals that the risks and hazards were well-known beforehand but not acted upon due to social structural, political and economic factors. We outline several areas where the development and use of AI can benefit from learning these unlearned lessons: improved risk perception, communication, and analysis at the organizational level; traceability of requirements and responsibilities; and holistic approaches to responsibility and safety that include social and organizational dynamics as first-order engineering concerns. For each area, we offer concrete unlearned lessons and exemplify how they led to failure in prior accidents as well as examples of how these lessons remain unlearned for modern computing systems, particularly AI.

Human-centered AI (HCAI) refers to guidelines or principles that aim on ethi-cally oriented design of systems. We compare HCAI- guidelines with princi-ples of socio-technical systems that emerged in the context of conventional in-formation technology. The comparison leads to a revision of socio-technical heuristics by including aspects of AI-usage. The comparison reveals that con-tinuous evolution is a basic characteristic of socio-technical systems, and that human oversight or interventions and the subsequent appropriation of AI-systems lead to continuous adaptation and re-design of the systems, if autono-my is collaboratively exercised. From a socio-technical point of view, the cru-cial requirement of transparency has not only to be fulfilled with technical fea-tures, but also by contributions of the whole system including human actors. It will be promising for using AI, if not only technical features, but organization-al and social practices are socio-technically designed in a way that compen-sates shortcomings of AI.

Despite the extensive discussions of human-centric AI (HCAI) in Industry 5.0, its effects on firms' idiosyncratic risks (IR) remains underexplored. This is an imperative issue for firms navigate financial risks during the current technological revolution, as IR reflects investor reactions to corporate heterogeneous AI strategies and implementations by isolating firm-level stock volatility from systematic factors. Integrating situated AI theory with social-technical systems theory, we conceptualise HCAI as a situated AI strategy that reduces AI-related ethical risks and fosters AI-Human synergies in firms' business operations, ultimately reducing IR by aligning with stakeholders' diverse expectations. Moreover, socio-technical factors, namely digitalisation, operational efficiency, executive shareholding, and CEOs with IT background, may moderate the HCAI-IR relationship. Using a multi-source panel dataset of Chinese listed firms from 2015 to 2023, we find that HCAI is associated with lower firm IR. Furthermore, digitalisation and executive shareholding strengthen this risk-reducing effect, whereas operational efficiency and CEOs with IT background surprisingly attenuate it. Our findings offer theoretical contributions and practical insights for both ethical AI governance and firm financial risk management in the AI era.

At the core of most socio-technical systems lies a scarce resource that is allocated among agents: highway lanes, public transit, road space, water rights, energy access, grid capacity, user attention, pollution rights, etc. With further automation of the underlying allocation processes, control engineers are increasingly tasked to make decisive assumptions regarding what society wants. In practice to date, design choices are largely driven by industry norms and conventions rather than a result of conscientiously responsible and ethical design. In this paper, we look at tools available to control engineers to design systems in a more principled manner in order to match the societal mandate. We consider three control design paradigms: online feedback optimization, control of Markov decision processes, and model predictive control. Beginning with aggregating individual agents' preferences into control design objectives, subsequently ensuring and certifying the fulfillment of those specifications, we argue that the feedback nature of control systems enables appropriate allocation of the shared resources in ways hitherto unparalleled.

The paper explores how "culture" can be operationalised in Natural Language Processing (NLP) and what this reveals about the possibilities and limits of considering a plurality of cultural backgrounds in technological design. It proposes that cultural alignment cannot be achieved only by adding more examples of "other cultures", rather it requires plural epistemologies: allowing multiple, locally grounded ways of knowing. To analyze how this plurality of knowing can be addressed in NLP, the paper uses a socio-technical model of language technology (LT) design, the five layers of technological activity model, for collecting and systematizing approaches to culture in NLP. The analysis shows that while NLP research has made progress toward more culturally sensitive systems, many approaches remain partial, addressing "culture" primarily at the level of output or representation while leaving deeper questions of power, governance, and social context unresolved. The paper concludes that operationalising culture requires much more than technical adaptation; it suggests a reflexive and plural socio-technical approach that navigates potentials and limits of computational formalisation for accounting multiple linguistic and socio-cultural backgrounds.

Generative AI (GenAI) deployment in the workplace is accelerating rapidly. Nevertheless, questions of who adopts, who benefits, and who is left behind and why are still understudied. In this paper, we investigate these dynamics in the context of a multinational tech company transitioning from a legacy Human Resources (HR) search system to a GenAI-supported system, analyzing search log data, survey data (n=25), and ten semi-structured interviews. Our findings show that adoption depended on the fit between the GenAI system's design assumptions and employees' work positionalities (role, spoken language, tenure). Further, we find that employees' trust in GenAI answers was built through source-checking, comparison among systems, and seeking input from colleagues or HR when in doubt. Our contribution is twofold. First, we provide empirical evidence of workplace GenAI adoption during a live organizational transition, showing that adoption is influenced by factors such as situational fit, search literacy, and trust calibration. It is also further shaped by knowledge conditions such as the system's content quality, employee training, and guidance. Second, we translate these findings into design considerations for inclusive deployment and adoption in high-stakes environments such as HR. We argue that organizations should design systems considering the role and context-sensitive benefits they yield to different social groups. They also need to treat the organizational knowledge infrastructure as AI infrastructure to improve the accountability and usability of GenAI systems

Sociotechnical alignment concerns the social desirability of AI behavior and is thus inherently normative, not merely technical. While NLP research increasingly addresses its technical aspects, it often leaves underspecified what such "social desirability" entails. We argue that this reflects a fundamental gap: the absence of a systematic way to specify how sociotechnical alignment defines, justifies, and evaluates socially desirable AI behavior. To address this gap, we introduce a human-centered framework for specifying sociotechnical alignment. We draw on social-scientific accounts of sociobehavioral desirability to ground the basis for behavioral desirability judgments and use this framework to analyze how alignment is specified in practice. Our systematic literature review identifies recurring patterns: normative concepts grounding desirability judgments are often unspecified or conflated with alignment targets for (desired) system behavior, target populations are underdefined, and design choices are rarely theoretically justified. These findings point to a lack of conceptual specificity that limits cumulative progress. We therefore offer recommendations that link social-scientific frameworks to alignment design choices, supporting more conceptually precise approaches to sociotechnical alignment.

Automatic deepfake detection has received considerable research attention, yet the socio-technical environment in which humans actually encounter synthetic speech remains poorly understood. We investigate voice deepfake detection as a perceptual and contextual process, presenting a localization task in which 47 participants marked suspected synthetic segments across authentic, fully synthetic, and partially synthetic utterances under three manipulated trust cues: instructional framing, affective priming, and provenance labeling. Participants provided quality ratings on mechanicalness, expressiveness, intelligibility, clarity, calmness, and confidence of evaluation. Utterance class was the primary determinant of detection accuracy and perceptual quality; trust cues produced no main effects but motivated detection behavior. Fully synthetic speech was detected at below-chance levels. Quality ratings tracked utterance type, indicating implicit discrimination where overt detection failed.

AI is now embedded in healthcare, finance, policy, and many other domains, yet genuine human-AI synergy - combined performance that exceeds what either party achieves alone - is uncommon. Meta-analyses show that AI assistance tends to improve human performance compared to working alone, but studies finding true synergy are scarce. We call this persistent shortfall the synergy gap. Most current work treats human-AI combination as an engineering problem and concentrates on interpretability, trust calibration, or interface design. These matter, but they cover only part of what determines whether combination works. Closing the synergy gap, we argue, requires explicit engagement with a wider design space. We map that space through six interconnected elements: sociotechnical context, decision-making frameworks, human decision participants, AI capabilities, interaction, and holistic evaluation. For each element, we describe what it covers, how it shapes the others in practice, and what it implies for design. The result is a shared vocabulary for practitioners building hybrid systems, an analytical lens for researchers studying combination patterns, and a starting point for evaluators interested in the full quality of human-AI decision-making rather than accuracy alone.

Recent advancements in generative AI facilitate large-scale synthetic data generation for model evaluation. However, without targeted approaches, these datasets often lack the sociotechnical nuance required for sensitive domains. We introduce NodeSynth, an evidence-grounded methodology that generates socially relevant synthetic queries by leveraging a fine-tuned taxonomy generator (TaG) anchored in real-world evidence. Evaluated against four mainstream LLMs (e.g., Claude 4.5 Haiku), NodeSynth elicited failure rates up to five times higher than human-authored benchmarks. Ablation studies confirm that our granular taxonomic expansion significantly drives these failure rates, while independent validation reveals critical deficiencies in prominent guard models (e.g., Llama-Guard-3). We open-source our end-to-end research prototype and datasets to enable scalable, high-stakes model evaluation and targeted safety interventions (https://github.com/google-research/nodesynth).

The rapid convergence of artificial intelligence (AI) toward conversational chatbot interfaces marks a critical moment for the industry. This paper argues that the chatbot paradigm is not a neutral interface choice, but a dominant sociotechnical configuration whose widespread adoption reshapes social, economic, legal, and environmental systems. We examine how treating AI primarily as conversational assistants has extensive structural downsides. We show how chatbot-based systems often fail to adequately meet user needs, particularly in complex or high-stakes contexts, while projecting confidence and authority. We further analyze how the normalization of chatbot-mediated interaction alters patterns of work, learning, and decision-making, contributing to deskilling, homogenization of knowledge, and shifting expectations of expertise. Finally, we examine broader societal effects, including labor displacement, concentration of economic power, and increased environmental costs driven by sustained investment in large-scale chatbot infrastructures. While acknowledging legitimate benefits, we argue that the current trajectory of AI development reflects specific value choices that prioritize conversational generality over domain specificity, accountability, and long-term social sustainability. We conclude by outlining alternative directions for AI development and governance that move beyond one-size-fits-all chatbots, emphasizing pluralistic system design, task-specific tools, and institutional safeguards to mitigate social and economic harm.

How might implicit aesthetic perspectives shape what Information Systems (IS) scholarship recognises as worthy of study (or not)? In this hermeneutic literature analysis, we surface foundational aesthetic assumptions underpinning IS research. We identify four perspectives (aesthetics as imitation, sensory experience, world-making, and political doing) that guide how IS scholars perceive and appreciate sociotechnical phenomena. These perspectives influence what becomes recognisable as legitimate research and what remains unseen. By making aesthetic assumptions explicit, we show how they form epistemic infrastructure that conditions horizons of inquiry. We apply this framework to algorithmic management and digitally mediated intimacy, revealing how alternative perspectives open new research questions whilst exposing dimensions that dominant framings overlook. This analysis foregrounds the importance of aesthetic philosophy to IS literature, offering a vocabulary for articulating how aesthetic perspectives shape theorising, method, and contribution.

In measurement theory, instruments do not simply record reality; they help constitute what is observed. The same holds for generative AI evaluation: benchmarks do not just measure, they shape what models appear to be. Functionalist benchmarks treat models as isolated predictors, while prescriptive approaches assess what systems ought to be. Both obscure the sociotechnical processes through which meaning and values are enacted, risking the reification of narrow cultural perspectives in pluralist contexts. This thesis advances a descriptive alternative. It argues that generative AI must be evaluated as a pluralist sociotechnical system and develops Machine-Society-Human (MaSH) Loops, a framework for tracing how models, users, and institutions recursively co-construct meaning and values. Evaluation shifts from judging outputs to examining how values are enacted in interaction. Three contributions follow. Conceptually, MaSH Loops reframes evaluation as recursive, enactive process. Methodologically, the World Values Benchmark introduces a distributional approach grounded in World Values Survey data, structured prompt sets, and anchor-aware scoring. Empirically, the thesis demonstrates these through two cases: value drift in early GPT-3 and sociotechnical evaluation in real estate. A final chapter draws on participatory realism to argue that prompting and evaluation are constitutive interventions, not neutral observations. The thesis argues that static benchmarks are insufficient for generative AI. Responsible evaluation requires pluralist, process-oriented frameworks that make visible whose values are enacted. Evaluation is therefore a site of governance, shaping how AI systems are understood, deployed, and trusted.

The post-ChatGPT surge has rapidly reframed IS research and practice. As organizations and society grapple with GenAI adoption, a body of secondary studies and research agendas has emerged to synthesize early evidence and chart directions for future inquiry. This study reviews secondary and roadmap papers to synthesize the state of knowledge on GenAI's benefits and challenges in IS, and to identify future research directions. We performed a systematic search across Scopus, WoS, and eAIS for publications from 2023 onwards. Following a rigorous, multi-stage screening process, we selected a final set of 28 papers for analysis using bibliometric mapping and thematic analysis. We also conducted a quality assessment of all sources to gauge confidence in each source's contribution to the findings. GenAI offers transformative potential to drive productivity, accelerate innovation, personalize services, and democratize access to expertise. However, its adoption is constrained by interrelated challenges: technical unreliability, societal-ethical risks, and a governance vacuum. Interpreted through a socio-technical lens, our findings reveal a persistent misalignment between GenAI's fast-evolving technical subsystem and the slower-adapting social subsystem, positioning IS research as critical for achieving joint optimization. To bridge this gap, we propose a research agenda that reorients IS scholarship from analyzing impacts toward actively shaping the co-evolution of technical capabilities with organizational routines, societal values, and regulatory institutions: emphasizing hybrid human-AI ensembles, situated validation, design principles for probabilistic systems, and adaptive governance. For practitioners and policymakers, responsible adoption requires balancing automation with human augmentation alongside transparent governance and adaptive regulations to ensure broadly shared benefits.

AI is changing work and decision making faster than many institutions can adapt their operating practices. We argue that this adaptation gap makes human resilience a core capability for the AI era. We define resilience as the capacity to absorb disruption while preserving effective action and human agency around core purposes. The framework operates at three interacting levels. Psychological resilience keeps a person goal-directed under stress. Social resilience makes trusted support and correction available across a group. Organizational resilience turns detected problems into learning and recovery. We connect established resilience and technostress research with direct AI-in-the-loop experiments. General resilience is trainable, while AI-specific causal evidence is still emerging. Direct AI studies show that assistance can raise productivity and spread expertise. Other experiments show improved expressed empathy and more calibrated reliance. We translate these findings into a practical agenda for AI education, workplace design, governance, and evaluation. The central proposal is socio-technical: structural safeguards define the operating boundary, while resilient people and institutions provide adaptive capacity when conditions change.

Peer support plays a vital role in expanding access to mental health care by providing empathetic, community-based support outside formal clinical systems. As digital platforms increasingly mediate such support, the design and impact of these technologies remain under-examined, particularly in Asian contexts. This paper presents findings from an interview study with 20 peer supporters in Singapore, who operate across diverse online, offline, and hybrid environments. Through a thematic analysis, we unpack how participants start, conduct, and sustain peer support, highlighting their motivations, emotional labour, and the sociocultural dimensions shaping their practices. Building on this grounded understanding, we surface design directions for culturally responsive digital tools that scaffold rather than supplant relational care. Drawing insights from qualitative accounts, we offer a situated perspective on how AI might responsibly augment peer support. This research contributes to human-centred computing by articulating the lived realities of peer supporters and proposing design implications for trustworthy and context-sensitive AI in mental health.