Cited by 56AI in Service InteractionsPublic Relations and Crisis CommunicationDigital Marketing and Social Media

Conversational agents in online organization–stakeholder interactions: a state-of-the-art analysis and implications for further research

Open access
Syvänen, Salla, Valentini, Chiara·2020·Journal of Communication Management

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to review the extant literature on chatbots and stakeholder interactions to identify major trends and shed light on knowledge gaps. Design/methodology/approach: A systematic literature review was conducted combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. A code book based on early systematic literature reviews was developed and used to extract information from 62 discrete peer-reviewed English articles. An inductive approach was used to analyse definitions of chatbots, topics, metrics, perspectives and implications. Findings: Chatbots have been studied by many different disciplines, but not much from organizational, stakeholder and corporate communication perspectives. Existing studies focus on the technical developments of chatbots and chatbot language and conversations skills. Research has remained anchored at the micro-level understanding of the phenomenon, that is, the nature of chatbots, but has not yet taken into consideration the meso (organizational) or macro (societal) levels. Research limitations/implications: This study focused only on academic peer-reviewed papers in English and excluded conference proceeding, books, book chapters and editorials that may have offered other important and relevant reflections. The limited number of studies in communication-related disciplines shows that corporate communication scholars could contribute more to the discussion of chatbot–stakeholder interactions. Originality/value: This is the first research in the field of corporate communication that examines organizational chatbot–stakeholder interactions. Results of this review offer important information on chatbots' organizational capabilities and affordances, which, arguably, must be taken into consideration when stakeholder engagement strategies are set.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/jcom-11-2019-0145

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • There has been an initial lack of ethical discussion in chatbot research, though exceptions exist.

    “as noted in a review of the chatbot literature, there has been an initial lack of ethical discussion in chatbot research [102]—though noteworthy exceptions to this exist, such as the exploration of ethical and social considerations for conversational AI by Ruane et al. [91].”

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 54 · Cited by 56

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Bell, M. and Pavitt, K. (1995), "The development of technological capabilities", in Ul Haque, I., Bell, M., Dahlmann, C., Lall, S. and Pavitt, K. (Eds), Trade, Technology and International Competitiveness, The World Bank, Washington, DC, pp. 69-102.
  2. Carley, K.M. (2002), "Smart agents and organizations of the future", in Lievrouw, L. and Livingstone, S. (Eds), Handbook of New Media, Sage, London, pp. 206-220.
  3. Ledingham, J.A. and Bruning, S.D. (Eds), Public Relations as Relationship Management, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 23-58.
  4. JCOM Kim, L. (1997), From Imitation to Innovation. The Dynamics of Korea's Technological Learning, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
  5. Nass, C., Steuer, J. and Tauber, E.R. (1994), "Computers are social actors", Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, New York, NY, pp. 72-78.
  6. Pickering, A. (1995), The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  7. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J.M. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA.
  8. Tilson, D.J. (2017), "From the natural world to artificial intelligence: public relations as covenantal stewardship", in Brunner, B.R. (Ed.), The Moral Compass of Public Relations, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 206-222.
  9. Ullrich, D. and Smallwood, N. (2004), "Capitalizing on capabilities", Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 6, pp. 2-11.
  10. Wang, X., Wang, C., Ding, Z., Zhu, M. and Huang, J. (2018), "Predicting the populatiry of topics based on user sentiment in migroblogging websites", Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 97-114.
  11. Weizenbaum, J. (1966). "ELIZA -a computer program for the study of natural communication between man and machine", Communications of AMC, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 36-45.
  12. Wirtz, J., Patterson, P.G., Kunz, W.H., Gruber, T., Lu, W.N., Paluch, S. and Martins, A. (2018), "Brave new world: service robots in front line", Journal on Service Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 907-931.

Authors
Syvänen, S., & Valentini, C.
Affiliations
University of Jyväskylä (FI)
Corresponding author
Syvänen, Salla
Venue
Journal of Communication Management
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2020-06-02
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
339-362
ISSN
1363-254X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3033808529
Cited by
56
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 8
FWCI
2.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Communication Management (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Jyväskylä University Digital Archive (University of Jyväskylä) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Public Relations and Crisis Communication
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Marketing and Social Media
Keywords
chatbots, stakeholder interaction, corporate communication, organizational communication, stakeholder engagement

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.

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