Redefining intelligence: collaborative tinkering of healthcare professionals and algorithms as hybrid entity in public healthcare decision-making.

IF 2.9 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
AI & Society Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-09 DOI:10.1007/s00146-024-02177-7
Roanne van Voorst
{"title":"Redefining intelligence: collaborative tinkering of healthcare professionals and algorithms as hybrid entity in public healthcare decision-making.","authors":"Roanne van Voorst","doi":"10.1007/s00146-024-02177-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper analyzes the collaboration between healthcare professionals and algorithms in making decisions within the realm of public healthcare. By extending the concept of 'tinkering' from previous research conducted by philosopher Mol (Care in practice. On tinkering in clinics, homes and farms Verlag, Amsterdam, 2010) and anthropologist Pols (Health Care Anal 18: 374-388, 2009), who highlighted the improvisational and adaptive practices of healthcare professionals, this paper reveals that in the context of digitalizing healthcare, both professionals and algorithms engage in what I call 'collaborative tinkering' as they navigate the intricate and unpredictable nature of healthcare situations together. The paper draws upon an idea that is increasingly common in academic literature, namely that healthcare professionals and the algorithms they use can form a hybrid decision-making entity, challenging the conventional notion of agency and intelligence as being exclusively confined to individual humans or machines. Drawing upon an international, ethnographic study conducted in different hospitals around the world, the paper describes empirically how humans and algorithms come to decisions together, making explicit how, in the practice of daily work, agency and intelligence are distributed among a range of actors, including humans, technologies, knowledge resources, and the spaces where they interact. The concept of collaborative tinkering helps to make explicit how both healthcare professionals and algorithms engage in adaptive improvisation. This exploration not only enriches the understanding of collaborative dynamics between humans and AI but also problematizes the individualistic conception of AI that still exists in regulatory frameworks. By introducing empirical specificity through ethnographic insights and employing an anthropological perspective, the paper calls for a critical reassessment of current ethical and policy frameworks governing human-AI collaboration in healthcare, thereby illuminating direct implications for the future of AI ethics in medical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":47165,"journal":{"name":"AI & Society","volume":"40 5","pages":"3237-3248"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12152098/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AI & Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-02177-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper analyzes the collaboration between healthcare professionals and algorithms in making decisions within the realm of public healthcare. By extending the concept of 'tinkering' from previous research conducted by philosopher Mol (Care in practice. On tinkering in clinics, homes and farms Verlag, Amsterdam, 2010) and anthropologist Pols (Health Care Anal 18: 374-388, 2009), who highlighted the improvisational and adaptive practices of healthcare professionals, this paper reveals that in the context of digitalizing healthcare, both professionals and algorithms engage in what I call 'collaborative tinkering' as they navigate the intricate and unpredictable nature of healthcare situations together. The paper draws upon an idea that is increasingly common in academic literature, namely that healthcare professionals and the algorithms they use can form a hybrid decision-making entity, challenging the conventional notion of agency and intelligence as being exclusively confined to individual humans or machines. Drawing upon an international, ethnographic study conducted in different hospitals around the world, the paper describes empirically how humans and algorithms come to decisions together, making explicit how, in the practice of daily work, agency and intelligence are distributed among a range of actors, including humans, technologies, knowledge resources, and the spaces where they interact. The concept of collaborative tinkering helps to make explicit how both healthcare professionals and algorithms engage in adaptive improvisation. This exploration not only enriches the understanding of collaborative dynamics between humans and AI but also problematizes the individualistic conception of AI that still exists in regulatory frameworks. By introducing empirical specificity through ethnographic insights and employing an anthropological perspective, the paper calls for a critical reassessment of current ethical and policy frameworks governing human-AI collaboration in healthcare, thereby illuminating direct implications for the future of AI ethics in medical practice.

重新定义智能:医疗保健专业人员和算法在公共医疗保健决策中的混合实体的协作修补。
本文分析了在公共医疗保健领域内做出决策的医疗保健专业人员和算法之间的协作。通过将哲学家Mol (Care)先前研究的“修补”概念扩展到实践中。关于诊所,家庭和农场的修补(Verlag,阿姆斯特丹,2010)和人类学家Pols (Health Care Anal 18: 374-388, 2009),他强调了医疗保健专业人员的即兴和适应性实践,本文揭示了在数字化医疗保健的背景下,专业人员和算法都参与了我所谓的“协作修补”,因为他们一起驾驭医疗保健情况的复杂和不可预测的性质。这篇论文借鉴了一个在学术文献中越来越普遍的观点,即医疗保健专业人员和他们使用的算法可以形成一个混合决策实体,挑战了代理和智能仅局限于个体人类或机器的传统概念。根据在世界各地不同医院进行的一项国际人种学研究,本文从经验上描述了人类和算法如何共同做出决策,明确了在日常工作实践中,代理和情报如何在一系列行动者之间分配,包括人类、技术、知识资源以及它们相互作用的空间。协作修补的概念有助于明确医疗保健专业人员和算法如何参与自适应即兴创作。这一探索不仅丰富了对人类和人工智能之间协作动态的理解,而且还对仍然存在于监管框架中的人工智能的个人主义概念提出了问题。通过引入民族志见解和人类学视角的经验特异性,本文呼吁对当前管理人类-人工智能医疗合作的伦理和政策框架进行批判性重新评估,从而阐明人工智能伦理在医疗实践中的未来的直接影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
AI & Society
AI & Society COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
257
期刊介绍: AI & Society: Knowledge, Culture and Communication, is an International Journal publishing refereed scholarly articles, position papers, debates, short communications, and reviews of books and other publications. Established in 1987, the Journal focuses on societal issues including the design, use, management, and policy of information, communications and new media technologies, with a particular emphasis on cultural, social, cognitive, economic, ethical, and philosophical implications. AI & Society has a broad scope and is strongly interdisciplinary. We welcome contributions and participation from researchers and practitioners in a variety of fields including information technologies, humanities, social sciences, arts and sciences. This includes broader societal and cultural impacts, for example on governance, security, sustainability, identity, inclusion, working life, corporate and community welfare, and well-being of people. Co-authored articles from diverse disciplines are encouraged. AI & Society seeks to promote an understanding of the potential, transformative impacts and critical consequences of pervasive technology for societies. Technological innovations, including new sciences such as biotech, nanotech and neuroscience, offer a great potential for societies, but also pose existential risk. Rooted in the human-centred tradition of science and technology, the Journal acts as a catalyst, promoter and facilitator of engagement with diversity of voices and over-the-horizon issues of arts, science, technology and society. AI & Society expects that, in keeping with the ethos of the journal, submissions should provide a substantial and explicit argument on the societal dimension of research, particularly the benefits, impacts and implications for society. This may include factors such as trust, biases, privacy, reliability, responsibility, and competence of AI systems. Such arguments should be validated by critical comment on current research in this area. Curmudgeon Corner will retain its opinionated ethos. The journal is in three parts: a) full length scholarly articles; b) strategic ideas, critical reviews and reflections; c) Student Forum is for emerging researchers and new voices to communicate their ongoing research to the wider academic community, mentored by the Journal Advisory Board; Book Reviews and News; Curmudgeon Corner for the opinionated. Papers in the Original Section may include original papers, which are underpinned by theoretical, methodological, conceptual or philosophical foundations. The Open Forum Section may include strategic ideas, critical reviews and potential implications for society of current research. Network Research Section papers make substantial contributions to theoretical and methodological foundations within societal domains. These will be multi-authored papers that include a summary of the contribution of each author to the paper. Original, Open Forum and Network papers are peer reviewed. The Student Forum Section may include theoretical, methodological, and application orientations of ongoing research including case studies, as well as, contextual action research experiences. Papers in this section are normally single-authored and are also formally reviewed. Curmudgeon Corner is a short opinionated column on trends in technology, arts, science and society, commenting emphatically on issues of concern to the research community and wider society. Normal word length: Original and Network Articles 10k, Open Forum 8k, Student Forum 6k, Curmudgeon 1k. The exception to the co-author limit of Original and Open Forum (4), Network (10), Student (3) and Curmudgeon (2) articles will be considered for their special contributions. Please do not send your submissions by email but use the "Submit manuscript" button. NOTE TO AUTHORS: The Journal expects its authors to include, in their submissions: a) An acknowledgement of the pre-accept/pre-publication versions of their manuscripts on non-commercial and academic sites. b) Images: obtain permissions from the copyright holder/original sources. c) Formal permission from their ethics committees when conducting studies with people.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信