专业人士如何应对人工智能对其管辖权的破坏性影响:互动治理的作用

IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Qin Chen , Hongchuan Wang , Chengcheng Ma , Peng Ru
{"title":"专业人士如何应对人工智能对其管辖权的破坏性影响:互动治理的作用","authors":"Qin Chen ,&nbsp;Hongchuan Wang ,&nbsp;Chengcheng Ma ,&nbsp;Peng Ru","doi":"10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118626","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The increasing adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in professional work has disrupted established jurisdiction, frequently eliciting defensive responses from professionals. However, limited research has systematically examined how professionals respond to such disruptions. Based on 86 interviews, 240 hours of non-participatory observation, and 20 documents collected over 47 months of fieldwork in Chinese public hospitals, this article investigates the Intelligent Prescribing Review (IPR) system — an AI tool designed to assist physicians with prescribing and dispensing — in order to analyze professionals’ responses to AI disruption. The study identifies four models of interactive governance employed by professionals: intra-professional division, inter-professional coordination, professional-AI collaboration, and professional-organization consultation. These responses are shown to be shaped by the interplay of the institutional environment, organizational strain, and a relationship-oriented society. By presenting interactive governance as the central mechanism, the analysis moves beyond dichotomous narratives that depict professional responses as mere acceptance or resistance. The findings highlight an important shift in professional jurisdiction, from reliance on individual knowledge-based expertise toward interactive governance through collaborative negotiation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49122,"journal":{"name":"Social Science & Medicine","volume":"386 ","pages":"Article 118626"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How professionals respond to disruptive effects of artificial intelligence on their jurisdiction: The role of interactive governance\",\"authors\":\"Qin Chen ,&nbsp;Hongchuan Wang ,&nbsp;Chengcheng Ma ,&nbsp;Peng Ru\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118626\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>The increasing adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in professional work has disrupted established jurisdiction, frequently eliciting defensive responses from professionals. However, limited research has systematically examined how professionals respond to such disruptions. Based on 86 interviews, 240 hours of non-participatory observation, and 20 documents collected over 47 months of fieldwork in Chinese public hospitals, this article investigates the Intelligent Prescribing Review (IPR) system — an AI tool designed to assist physicians with prescribing and dispensing — in order to analyze professionals’ responses to AI disruption. The study identifies four models of interactive governance employed by professionals: intra-professional division, inter-professional coordination, professional-AI collaboration, and professional-organization consultation. These responses are shown to be shaped by the interplay of the institutional environment, organizational strain, and a relationship-oriented society. By presenting interactive governance as the central mechanism, the analysis moves beyond dichotomous narratives that depict professional responses as mere acceptance or resistance. The findings highlight an important shift in professional jurisdiction, from reliance on individual knowledge-based expertise toward interactive governance through collaborative negotiation.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49122,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Science & Medicine\",\"volume\":\"386 \",\"pages\":\"Article 118626\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Science & Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953625009578\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953625009578","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在专业工作中越来越多地采用人工智能(AI)已经破坏了既定的管辖权,经常引起专业人士的防御反应。然而,有限的研究系统地考察了专业人士如何应对这种干扰。基于86次访谈,240小时的非参与性观察,以及在中国公立医院进行的超过47个月的实地调查收集的20份文件,本文调查了智能处方审查(IPR)系统——一种旨在协助医生开处方和配药的人工智能工具——以分析专业人员对人工智能中断的反应。该研究确定了专业人员使用的四种互动治理模式:专业内部划分、专业间协调、专业-人工智能协作和专业-组织咨询。这些反应是由制度环境、组织压力和以关系为导向的社会的相互作用形成的。通过将交互式治理作为中心机制,分析超越了将专业反应描述为仅仅接受或抵制的二分叙述。研究结果强调了专业管辖权的一个重要转变,即从依赖个人知识为基础的专业知识转向通过协作协商进行互动治理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How professionals respond to disruptive effects of artificial intelligence on their jurisdiction: The role of interactive governance
The increasing adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in professional work has disrupted established jurisdiction, frequently eliciting defensive responses from professionals. However, limited research has systematically examined how professionals respond to such disruptions. Based on 86 interviews, 240 hours of non-participatory observation, and 20 documents collected over 47 months of fieldwork in Chinese public hospitals, this article investigates the Intelligent Prescribing Review (IPR) system — an AI tool designed to assist physicians with prescribing and dispensing — in order to analyze professionals’ responses to AI disruption. The study identifies four models of interactive governance employed by professionals: intra-professional division, inter-professional coordination, professional-AI collaboration, and professional-organization consultation. These responses are shown to be shaped by the interplay of the institutional environment, organizational strain, and a relationship-oriented society. By presenting interactive governance as the central mechanism, the analysis moves beyond dichotomous narratives that depict professional responses as mere acceptance or resistance. The findings highlight an important shift in professional jurisdiction, from reliance on individual knowledge-based expertise toward interactive governance through collaborative negotiation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Social Science & Medicine
Social Science & Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
762
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Social Science & Medicine provides an international and interdisciplinary forum for the dissemination of social science research on health. We publish original research articles (both empirical and theoretical), reviews, position papers and commentaries on health issues, to inform current research, policy and practice in all areas of common interest to social scientists, health practitioners, and policy makers. The journal publishes material relevant to any aspect of health from a wide range of social science disciplines (anthropology, economics, epidemiology, geography, policy, psychology, and sociology), and material relevant to the social sciences from any of the professions concerned with physical and mental health, health care, clinical practice, and health policy and organization. We encourage material which is of general interest to an international readership.
×
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