Cited by 247AI in Service InteractionsSpeech and dialogue systemsSocial Robot Interaction and HRI

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 118 of the 124 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 79 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Future directions for chatbot research: an interdisciplinary research agenda

Open access
Følstad, Asbjørn, Araujo, Theo, Law, Effie Lai-Chong, Brandtzaeg, Petter Bae, Papadopoulos, Symeon, Reis, Lea, Baez, Marcos, Laban, Guy, McAllister, Patrick, Ischen, Carolin, Wald, Rebecca, Catania, Fabio, Meyer von Wolff, Raphael, Hobert, Sebastian, Luger, Ewa·2021·Computing

Abstract

Chatbots are increasingly becoming important gateways to digital services and information—taken up within domains such as customer service, health, education, and work support. However, there is only limited knowledge concerning the impact of chatbots at the individual, group, and societal level. Furthermore, a number of challenges remain to be resolved before the potential of chatbots can be fully realized. In response, chatbots have emerged as a substantial research area in recent years. To help advance knowledge in this emerging research area, we propose a research agenda in the form of future directions and challenges to be addressed by chatbot research. This proposal consolidates years of discussions at the CONVERSATIONS workshop series on chatbot research. Following a deliberative research analysis process among the workshop participants, we explore future directions within six topics of interest: (a) users and implications, (b) user experience and design, (c) frameworks and platforms, (d) chatbots for collaboration, (e) democratizing chatbots, and (f) ethics and privacy. For each of these topics, we provide a brief overview of the state of the art, discuss key research challenges, and suggest promising directions for future research. The six topics are detailed with a 5-year perspective in mind and are to be considered items of an interdisciplinary research agenda produced collaboratively by avid researchers in the field.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This paper proposes an interdisciplinary 5-year research agenda for chatbot research, distilled from the CONVERSATIONS workshop series and organized into six topics: users and implications; user experience and design; frameworks and platforms; chatbots for collaboration; democratizing chatbots; and ethics and privacy. It argues that chatbot research is fragmented across disciplines and offers future directions and challenges for each topic.

Key findings

  • The agenda identifies six topics and two proposed future directions per topic (Table 1): emerging chatbot user groups and behaviours, social implications of chatbots; design for improving chatbot UX, modelling/evaluating chatbot UX; interpretation capabilities/context understanding, emerging techniques for design/testing; modelling human–chatbot collaboration, empirical investigations of it; chatbots for social good, inclusive design with/for diverse user groups; understanding chatbot ethics/privacy, ethics by design.
  • The CONVERSATIONS 2020 workshop involved about 150 registered participants from more than 30 countries and 80 different organizations, including more than 20 paper presentations; the 2017 workshop had approximately half of 30 participants identify/cluster key challenges, and the 2019 workshop revisited topics through in-depth group discussions involving approximately half of 50 participants.
  • The paper reports that in 2019 over 50% of US and German consumers were estimated to have used chatbots at least once, with even higher numbers in the UK or France; it also notes GPT-3 uses 175 billion parameters and was estimated to cost 12 million US dollars to train.
  • It identifies research challenges including fragmentation across disciplines/application areas, lack of common definitions, metrics and validated scales for chatbot evaluations, scarce models/theories of human–chatbot collaboration, and limited ethics/privacy research specific to conversational user interfaces.

Methods

  • Design: a collaborative, deliberative research agenda developed through the CONVERSATIONS workshop series (2017–2020), explicitly contrasted with a mapping study or systematic literature review.
  • Data/sample: workshop participants and group discussions; in 2019, participants were assigned to six topic groups and worked in two sessions across the 2-day workshop, with output presented to plenary; the 2020 workshop had about 150 registered participants from more than 30 countries and 80 organizations.
  • Analysis: groups discussed each topic in a 5-year frame, identifying relevant state of the art, key research challenges, and future directions; the process extended across the following year and incorporated CONVERSATIONS 2020 contributions.

Limitations

  • Stated: the findings are based on discussions at the CONVERSATIONS workshop and mainly involve researchers from European organizations; the authors assume broad international relevance but say this should be tested through discussion.
  • Stated: topics, state-of-the-art, and research challenges may have been omitted, and the set of topics/directions needs regular updating; for ethics, the authors note other directions could be possible and equally relevant.
  • Evident: the paper is a consensus-based agenda rather than a systematic review or empirical study, so its coverage and prioritization reflect the workshop participants and deliberative process rather than a comprehensive evidence synthesis.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00607-021-01016-7

Cites

118 of 118 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 79 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 28 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 62
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 30
76 of 76
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The substantial impact of chatbots on the level of organizations and society is assumed to be seen in the future more so than the present.

    “This may in part be due to the substantial impact on the level of organizations and society is assumed to be seen in the future more so than the present.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Chatbots will become more pervasive in the coming years and communication with non-human agents will increasingly become part of daily routines.

    “As chatbots become more pervasive in the coming years, and communication with non-human agents increasingly become part of our daily routines, it becomes even more pressing to expand our knowledge on the antecedents, contents and consequences of human–machine communication.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Including common measurements across studies enables cross-study comparison and aggregation and tracking progress over time.

    “there is clearly a benefit in including common measurements across studies so as to enable cross-study comparison and aggregation, and to be able to track progress over time.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The proposed research directions hold broad international relevance and interest.

    “we assume the proposed directions hold broad international relevance and interest”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Chatbots permit users to interact through natural language.

    “Chatbots permit users to interact through natural language”
5 of 5

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Citation for AI ethics guidelines points to a dialogue-technology paper

    Minor

    The text attributes a finding about divergence in AI ethics guidelines to reference 58, but reference 58 is a 2002 paper on spoken dialogue technology.

  • Collaboration scope excludes and includes dyadic interactions

    Minor

    The state-of-the-art section defines chatbots for collaboration as involving networks larger than dyads, but then lists one human collaborating with one chatbot as a type of collaboration.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 124 references

6 of the 124 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Følstad A, Brandtzaeg PB, Feltwell T, Law ELC, Tscheligi M, Luger E (2018) Chatbots for social good. In: Extended abstracts of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (paper no. SIG06). ACM, New York
  2. Hobert S, Meyer von Wolff, R (2019) Say hello to your new automated tutor—a structured literature review on pedagogical conversational agents. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik. Association for Information Systems, pp.301–313
  3. Shevat A (2017) Designing bots: creating conversational experiences. O’Reilly Media, Boston

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–244 of 244

Metadata

Authors
Følstad, A., Araujo, T., Law, E. L.-C., Brandtzaeg, P. B., Papadopoulos, S., Reis, L., Baez, M., Laban, G., McAllister, P., Ischen, C., Wald, R., Catania, F., Meyer von Wolff, R., Hobert, S., & Luger, E.
Affiliations
  • SINTEF (NO)
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Durham University (GB)
  • Centre for Research and Technology Hellas (GR)
  • University of Bamberg (DE)
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
  • University of Ulster (GB)
  • Politecnico di Milano (IT)
  • University of Göttingen (DE)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Følstad, Asbjørn
Venue
Computing
Published
2021-10-19
Volume
103
Issue
12
Pages
2915-2942
ISSN
  • 0010-485X (ISSN-L)
  • 1436-5057
OpenAlex
W3205211246
Cited by
247
References
124
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 67 · 2022: 22
FWCI
12.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Computing (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Ulster University Research Portal (Ulster University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Virtual Community of Pathological Anatomy (University of Castilla La Mancha) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • GoeScholar The Publication Server of the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Norges Forskningsråd (270940)
  • SINTEF AS
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › AI in Service Interactions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
Keywords
chatbots, research agenda, user experience, chatbot design, collaboration, ethics, privacy, social impact

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review