“人工智能在这里代表你”:理解制度逻辑如何塑造法律工作中对智能技术的态度

IF 16.4 1区化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2023-02-17 DOI:10.1177/08933189231158282

Chengyu Fang, J. Wilkenfeld, Nitzan Navick, Jennifer L. Gibbs

{"title":"“人工智能在这里代表你”:理解制度逻辑如何塑造法律工作中对智能技术的态度","authors":"Chengyu Fang, J. Wilkenfeld, Nitzan Navick, Jennifer L. Gibbs","doi":"10.1177/08933189231158282","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in work is increasingly common across industries and professions. This study explores professional discourse around perceptions and use of intelligent technologies in the legal industry. Drawing on institutional theory, we conducted 30 semi-structured interviews with legal professionals and semi-professionals in varying roles including lawyers, law librarians, legal staff (paralegals, document clerks), and law students. Their discursive accounts provided evidence for three institutional logics—expertise, accessibility, and efficiency—that guided their understanding and use of AI. Our analysis further revealed that legal professionals and semi-professionals held contradictory attitudes towards intelligent technologies and invoked contradictory institutional logics. These findings contribute to theory on institutional logics and digital transformation, providing insights into how occupational roles and institutional logics shape professionals’ discursive construction of intelligent technologies, and how discursive tensions are redefining professional boundaries and contributing to institutional change in knowledge-intensive work.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“AI Am Here to Represent You”: Understanding How Institutional Logics Shape Attitudes Toward Intelligent Technologies in Legal Work\",\"authors\":\"Chengyu Fang, J. Wilkenfeld, Nitzan Navick, Jennifer L. Gibbs\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08933189231158282\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in work is increasingly common across industries and professions. This study explores professional discourse around perceptions and use of intelligent technologies in the legal industry. Drawing on institutional theory, we conducted 30 semi-structured interviews with legal professionals and semi-professionals in varying roles including lawyers, law librarians, legal staff (paralegals, document clerks), and law students. Their discursive accounts provided evidence for three institutional logics—expertise, accessibility, and efficiency—that guided their understanding and use of AI. Our analysis further revealed that legal professionals and semi-professionals held contradictory attitudes towards intelligent technologies and invoked contradictory institutional logics. These findings contribute to theory on institutional logics and digital transformation, providing insights into how occupational roles and institutional logics shape professionals’ discursive construction of intelligent technologies, and how discursive tensions are redefining professional boundaries and contributing to institutional change in knowledge-intensive work.\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189231158282\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189231158282","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

摘要

人工智能（AI）在工作中的应用在各行各业中越来越普遍。本研究探讨了法律行业中围绕智能技术的感知和使用的专业话语。根据制度理论，我们对不同角色的法律专业人士和半专业人士进行了30次半结构化访谈，包括律师、法律图书馆员、法律工作人员（律师助理、文书员）和法律系学生。他们的论述为指导他们理解和使用人工智能的三种制度逻辑——专业知识、可访问性和效率——提供了证据。我们的分析进一步表明，法律专业人士和半专业人士对智能技术持有矛盾的态度，并援引了矛盾的制度逻辑。这些发现有助于研究制度逻辑和数字化转型的理论，深入了解职业角色和制度逻辑如何塑造专业人员对智能技术的话语建构，以及话语张力如何重新定义专业边界并促进知识密集型工作中的制度变革。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

“AI Am Here to Represent You”: Understanding How Institutional Logics Shape Attitudes Toward Intelligent Technologies in Legal Work

The implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in work is increasingly common across industries and professions. This study explores professional discourse around perceptions and use of intelligent technologies in the legal industry. Drawing on institutional theory, we conducted 30 semi-structured interviews with legal professionals and semi-professionals in varying roles including lawyers, law librarians, legal staff (paralegals, document clerks), and law students. Their discursive accounts provided evidence for three institutional logics—expertise, accessibility, and efficiency—that guided their understanding and use of AI. Our analysis further revealed that legal professionals and semi-professionals held contradictory attitudes towards intelligent technologies and invoked contradictory institutional logics. These findings contribute to theory on institutional logics and digital transformation, providing insights into how occupational roles and institutional logics shape professionals’ discursive construction of intelligent technologies, and how discursive tensions are redefining professional boundaries and contributing to institutional change in knowledge-intensive work.

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

Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合

CiteScore

31.40

自引率

1.10%

发文量

312

审稿时长

2 months

期刊介绍： Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.