CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 80Artificial Intelligence ApplicationsEthics and Social Impacts of AIComputational and Text Analysis Methods

The Future of Research in an Artificial Intelligence-Driven World

Open access
Kulkarni, Mukta, Mantere, Saku, Vaara, Eero, van den Broek, Elmira, Pachidi, Stella, Glaser, Vern L., Gehman, Joel, Petriglieri, Gianpiero +5 more·2024·Journal of Management Inquiry
DOI 10.1177/10564926231219622
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Current and future developments in artificial intelligence (AI) systems have the capacity to revolutionize the research process for better or worse. On the one hand, AI systems can serve as collaborators as they help streamline and conduct our research. On the other hand, such systems can also become our adversaries when they impoverish our ability to learn as theorists, or when they lead us astray through inaccurate, biased, or fake information. No matter which angle is considered, and whether we like it or not, AI systems are here to stay. In this curated discussion, we raise questions about human centrality and agency in the research process, and about the multiple philosophical and practical challenges we are facing now and ones we will face in the future.

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 · 10.1177/10564926231219622

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 108

  1. Aguinis, H., Cummings, C., Ramani, R. S., & Cummings, T. G. (2020). "An A is an A": The new bottom line for valuing academic research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(1), 135-154. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2017.0193 · DOI
  2. Alkaissi, H., & McFarlane, S. I. (2023). Artificial Hallucinations in ChatGPT: Implications in Scientific Writing. Cureus. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.35179 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Amabile, T. (2020). GUIDEPOST: Creativity, Artificial Intelligence, and a World of Surprises Guidepost Letter for Academy of Management Discoveries. Academy of Management Discoveries, 6(3): 351-354. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2019.0075 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Amabile, T. M., & Hall, D. T. (2021). The undervalued power of self-relevant research: The case of researching retirement while retiring. Academy of Management Perspectives, 35(3), 347-366. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2018.0083 · DOI
  5. Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(4), 604-633. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393511 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Babayiğit, S., & Stainthorp, R. (2011). Modeling the relationships between cognitive- linguistic skills and literacy skills: New insights from a transparent orthography. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 169- 189. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021671 · DOI
  7. Balmer, A. (2023). A Sociological Conversation with ChatGPT about AI Ethics, Affect and Reflexivity. Sociology, https://doi.org/10.1177/00380385231169676 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801-831. https://doi.org/10.1086/345321 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Barthes R. (1977). The Death of the Author. In Image, Music, Text (pp. 142-148).
  10. Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021, March). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? � � � � � � � � �. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency(pp. 610-623). https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Berg, M., & Seeber, B. K. (2016). The slow professor: Challenging the culture of speed in the academy. University of Toronto Press.
  12. Bouchard, F. (2016). The roles of institutional trust and distrust in grounding rational deference to scientific expertise. Perspectives on Science, 24(5), 582-608. https://doi.org/10.1162/POSC_a_00224 · DOI
  13. Bubeck, S., Chandrasekaran, V., Eldan, R., Gehrke, J., Horvitz, E., Kamar, E., ... & Zhang, Y. (2023). Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.12712 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Cabantous, L., & Gond, J. P. (2011). Rational decision making as performative praxis: Explaining rationality's Éternel Retour. Organization science, 22(3), 573-586. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0534 · DOI
  15. Cameron, L. D. (2022). "Making out" while driving: Relational and efficiency games in the gig economy. Organization Science, 33(1), 231-252. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1547 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2023). I, Human. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
  17. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE Publications.
  18. Christiano P., Leike J., Brown T. B., Martic M., Legg S., Amodei D. (2023). Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. http://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03741 · arXiv
  19. Christianson M. (2011). Using surprise as a guide:" Aha" moments of confirmation and disconfirmation. In A. Carlsen, & J. E. Dutton (Eds.), Research alive: Exploring generative moments in doing qualitative research (Vol. 27). Copenhagen Business School Press.
  20. Cook, S. D., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization science, 10(4), 381-400. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.4.381 · DOI
  21. Courpasson, D. (2013). On the Erosion of 'Passionate Scholarship.' Organization Studies, 34(9), 1243-1249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840613502292 · DOI
  22. Creed, W. E. D., DeJordy, R., & Lok, J. (2010). Being the change: Resolving institutional contradiction through identity work. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1336- 1364. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.57318357 · DOI
  23. Czarniawska, B. (1999). Writing management: Organization theory as a literary genre. Oxford University Press.
  24. Davenport, T. H. (2005). Thinking for a living: How to get better performances and results from knowledge workers. Harvard Business Press.
  25. Drucker, P. (1996). Landmarks of tomorrow: A report on the new post modern world (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003423461 · DOI
  26. Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K.,…Wright, R. (2023). "So what if ChatGPT wrote it?" Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. https://doi.org/10.2307/258557 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Eloundou, T., Manning, S., Mishkin, P., & Rock, D. (2023). GPTs are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of Large Language Models. arXiv.2303.10130 · arXiv
  29. Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. The American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 1- 40. https://doi.org/10.1086/517897 · DOI
  30. Feldberg, A. C. (2022). The task bind: Explaining gender differences in managerial tasks and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 67(4), 1049- 1092. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392221124607 · DOI
  31. Foucault, M. (1969). What is an author?. In J. Marsh, J. D. Caputo, & M. Westphal (Eds.), Modernity and its discontents (pp. 299-314). Fordham University Press.
  32. Frey, C. (2019). The technology trap: Capital, labor, and power in the age of automation. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691191959 · DOI
  33. Friedland, J. (2019). Activating moral agency by design: A model for ethical AI development. MIT Sloan Management Review, 60(4), 2019. 1-7.
  34. Gabriel, Y. (2016). The essay as an endangered species: Should we care. Journal of Management Studies, 53(2), 244-249. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12176 · DOI
  35. Gehman, J., Sharma, G., & Beveridge, A. (2022). Theorizing institutional entrepreneuring: Arborescent and rhizomatic assembling. Organization Studies, 43(2), 289- 310. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406211044893 · DOI
  36. Glaser, V. L., Fiss, P. C., & Kennedy, M. T. (2016). Making snowflakes like stocks: Stretching, bending, and positioning to make financial market analogies work in online advertising. Organization Science, 27(4), 1029-1048. https://doi.org/10.1287/ORSC.2016.1069 · DOI
  37. Glaser, V. L., Pollock, N., & D'Adderio, L. (2021). The Biography of an Algorithm: Performing algorithmic technologies in organizations. Organization Theory, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877211004609 · DOI
  38. Gond, J. P., Cabantous, L., Harding, N., & Learmonth, M. (2016). What do we mean by performativity in organizational and management theory? The uses and abuses of performativity. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18(4), 440-463. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12074 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Greenwood, M., & Wolfram Cox, J. (2023). Seduced by technology? How moral agency is mediated by the invisibility of everyday technologies. Organization Studies, 44(4), 523-543. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406221107455 · DOI
  40. Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and Human Interests. Beacon Press.
  41. Hannigan, T. R., Haans, R. F., Vakili, K., Tchalian, H., Glaser, V. L., Wang, M. S., ... & Jennings, P. D. (2019). Topic modeling in management research: Rendering new theory from textual data. Academy of Management Annals, 13(2), 586-632. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0099 · DOI
  42. Howard-Grenville, J. (2021). Caring, Courage and Curiosity: Reflections on our roles as scholars in organizing for a sustainable future. Organization Theory, 2(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787721991143 · DOI
  43. Jensen, T., & Mahmud, Y. (2023). Decentering sensemaking: The Mann Gulch disaster revisited. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 39(3), 101-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2023.101279 · DOI
  44. Kelle, U. (1997). Theory building in qualitative research and computer programs for the management of textual data. Sociological Research Online, 2(2), 10- 22. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro. · DOI
  45. Kellogg, K. C. (2009). Operating room: Relational spaces and microinstitutional change in surgery. American Journal of Sociology, 115(3), 657-711. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1086/603535 · DOI · Paper page
  46. Kennedy, M. T., & Phillips, N. (2023). The participation game. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12700. · arXiv
  47. Ketokivi, M. J., Mantere, S., & Cornelissen, J. (2017). Reasoning by analogy and the progress of theory. Academy of Management Review, 42(4), 637-658. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2015.0322 · DOI
  48. Krakowski, S., Luger, J., & Raisch, S. (2023). Artificial intelligence and the changing sources of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 44(6), 1425-1452.
  49. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. Oxford University Press.
  50. Lebovitz, S., Levina, N., & Lifshitz-Assaf, H. (2021). Is AI ground truth really true? The dangers of training and evaluating AI tools based on experts' know-what. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1501-1525. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2021/16564 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Leone, P. V., Mantere, S., & Faraj, S. (2021). Open theorizing in management and organization studies. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 725-749. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0279 LexisNexis (2023). Artificial Intelligence: Judge slams attorney for not using AI in court. https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/b/thought- leadership/posts/judge-slams-attorney-for-not-using-ai-in-court · DOI
  52. Li, G., Hammoud, H. A. A. K., Itani, H., Khizbullin, D., & Ghanem, B. (2023). CAMEL: Communicative agents for "mind" exploration of large-scale language model society. http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.17760 · arXiv
  53. Lightman, H., Kosaraju, V., Burda, Y., Edwards, H., Baker, B., Lee, T., …Cobbe, K. (2023). Let's Verify Step by Step. http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.20050 · arXiv
  54. Lindebaum, D. (2023). Management learning and education as 'big picture' social science. Academy of Management Learning Education. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2023.0173 · DOI
  55. Lindebaum, D. & Fleming, P. (2023). ChatGPT undermines human reflexivity, scientific responsibility and responsible management research. British Journal of Management.
  56. Lindebaum, D., Moser, C., Ashraf, M., & Glaser, V. L. (2023). Reading The Technological Society to understand the mechanization of values and its ontological consequences. Academy of Management Review, 48(3), 575-592. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2021.0159 · DOI
  57. Lindebaum, D., & Ramirez, M. F. (2023). "Negative" resource review: On the essay-writing algorithm Essay Genius at https://essaygenius.ai/. Academy of Management Learning & Education. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2022.0474 · DOI
  58. Lindebaum, D., Vesa, M., & Den Hond, F. (2020). Insights from "The Machine Stops" to better understand rational assumptions in algorithmic decision making and its implications for organizations. Academy of Management Review, 45(1), 247-263. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0181 · DOI · Paper page
  59. Locke, K., Feldman, M. S., & Golden-Biddle, K. (2015). Discovery, validation, and live coding. In Handbook of qualitative organizational research: Innovative pathways and methods, 371-380. Routledge.
  60. Locke, K., & Golden-Biddle, K. (1997). Constructing opportunities for contribution: Structuring intertextual coherence and "problematizing" in organizational studies. Academy of Management journal, 40(5), 1023-1062. https://doi.org/10.5465/256926 · DOI
  61. Long, J. (2023). Large language model guided tree-of-thought. arXiv:2305.08291 · arXiv
  62. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. MIT Press.
  63. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. The University of Chicago Press.
  64. Moser, C., den Hond, F., & Lindebaum, D. (2022). Morality in the age of artificially intelligent algorithms. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 21(1), 139- 155. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2020.0287 · DOI
  65. Nelson, A., Anthony, C., & Tripsas, M. 2023. "If I could turn back time": Occupational dynamics, technology trajectories, and the reemergence of the analog music synthesizer. Administrative Science Quarterly, 68(2), 551-599. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392231163178 · DOI
  66. Nicolini, D. (2011). Practice as the site of knowing: Insights from the field of telemedicine. Organization Science, 22(3), 602-620. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0556 · DOI · Paper page
  67. Noble, S. (2018). Algorithms of pppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York, USA: New York University Press. https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479833641.001.0001 · DOI
  68. OpenAI, R. (2023). GPT-4 technical report (arXiv: 2303.08774). · arXiv
  69. Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2014). What happens when evaluation goes online? Exploring apparatuses of valuation in the travel sector. Organization Science, 25(3), 868-891. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0877 · DOI
  70. Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C., Mishkin, P., ... & Lowe, R. (2022). Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35, 27730-27744. https://arxiv. org/abs/2203.02155
  71. Pachidi, S., Berends, H., Faraj, S., & Huysman, M. (2021). Make way for the algorithms: Symbolic actions and change in a regime of knowing. Organization Science, 32(1), 18- 41. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2020.1377 · DOI
  72. Pachidi, S., & Huysman, M. (2017). Organizational intelligence in the digital age: Analytics and the cycle of choice. In The Routledge Companion to Management Information Systems (pp. 391-402). Routledge.
  73. Pakarinen, P., & Huising, R. (2023). Relational expertise: What machines can't know. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12915 · DOI · Paper page
  74. Park, M., Leahey, E., & Funk, R.J. (2023). Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time. Nature, 613, 138-144. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x · DOI · Paper page
  75. Park, J. S., O'Brien, J. C., Cai, C. J., Morris, M. R., Liang, P., & Bernstein, M. S. (2023). Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. UIST '23. http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.03442 · arXiv
  76. Petriglieri, G. (2020). F**k science!? An invitation to humanize organization theory. Organization Theory, 1(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787719897663 · DOI
  77. Petriglieri, G., & Ashford, S. J. (2023). Theorizing gets personal: Management academia in the mirror of independent work. Organization Theory, 4(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877231153188 · DOI
  78. Petriglieri, G., & Petriglieri, J. L. (2015). Can business schools humanize leadership? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(4), 625-647. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2014.0201 · DOI
  79. Petriglieri, G., & Petriglieri, J.L (2022). The work is alive! Systems psychodynamics and the pursuit of pluralism without polarization in human relations. Human Relations, 75(8), 1431-1460. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267221089208 · DOI
  80. Petriglieri, G., Wood, J. D., & Petriglieri, J. L. (2011). Up close and personal: Building foundations for leaders' development through the personalization of management learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(3), 430-450. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0032 · DOI
  81. Rahman, H. A. (2019). Invisible Cages: Algorithmic Evaluations in Online Labor Markets Dissertation. (Publication No. 28113148) [Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
  82. Rahman, H. A., Weiss, T., & Karunakaran, A. (2023). The Experimental Hand: How Platform-Based Experimentation Reconfigures Worker Autonomy. Academy of Management Journal, 1-62. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2022.0638 · DOI
  83. Rindermann, H., & Becker, D. (2023). The future of intelligence: A prediction of the FLynn effect based on past student assessment studies until the year 2100. Personality and Individual Differences, 206, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112110 · DOI
  84. Sætre, A. S., & Van de Ven, A. (2021). Generating theory by abduction. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 684-701. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0233 · DOI
  85. Smith, B. C. (2019). The promise of artificial intelligence: Reckoning and judgment. MIT Press.
  86. Strauss, A. C., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Second Edition: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications.
  87. Susarla, A., Gopal, R., Thatcher, J. B., & Sarker, S. (2023). The Janus effect of generative AI: Charting the path for responsible conduct of scholarly activities in information systems. Information Systems Research, 34(2), 399-408. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2023.ed.v34.n2 · DOI
  88. Sutton, R. L. (1988). Untangling the relationship between displayed emotions and organizational sales: The case of convenience stores. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 461-487. https://doi.org/10.2307/256456 · DOI
  89. Suzman, J. (2020). Work: A deep history from the stone age to the age of robots. Penguin Press.
  90. Trinh, M. P., Kirsch, R., Castillo, E. A., & Bates, D. E. (2022). Forging paths to interdisciplinary research for early career academics. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 21(2), 318-335. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2019.0386 · DOI
  91. Vaara, E., Sonenshein, S., & Boje, D. (2016). Narratives as sources of stability and change in organizations: Approaches and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 495-560. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1120963 · DOI
  92. van den Broek, E., Sergeeva, A., & Huysman, M. (2021). When the machine meets the expert: An ethnography of developing AI for hiring. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1557-1580. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2021/16559 · DOI · Paper page
  93. Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., ... & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30. 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2017), Long Beach, CA, USA. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2017/file/3f5ee243547dee91fbd053c1c 4a845aa-Paper.pdf
  94. Verbeek, P. P. (2011). Moralizing technology: Understanding and designing the morality of things. University of Chicago Press.
  95. von Krogh, G., Roberson, Q., & Gruber, M. (2023). Recognizing and utilizing novel research opportunities with artificial intelligence. Academy of Management Journal, 66(2), 367- 373. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2023.4002 · DOI · Paper page
  96. Waardenburg, L., & Huysman, M. (2022). From coexistence to co-creation: Blurring boundaries in the age of AI. Information and Organization, 32(4), 100432.
  97. Watson, G., Freeman, R. E., & Parmar, B. (2008). Connected moral agency in organizational ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2), 323-341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007- 9497-y · DOI
  98. Wei J., Wang X., Schuurmans D., Bosma M., Ichter B., Xia F.,…Zhou D. (2023). Chain-of- thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. arXiv:2201.11903 · arXiv
  99. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. SAGE Publications.
  100. Weick, K. E. (1998). The attitude of wisdom: Ambivalence as the optimal compromise. Organizational wisdom and executive courage, 40-64. New Lexington Press.
  101. Whiteman, G., & Cooper, W. H. (2011). Ecological sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 889-911. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.0843 · DOI
  102. Woodmansee, M. (1992). On the author effect: Recovering collectivity. Case Legal Studies Research Paper, (1992), 10. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3730199
  103. Woodmansee, M. (1994). The author, art, and the market: Rereading the history of aesthetics. Columbia University Press.
  104. Xiao, Z., Yuan, X., Liao, Q. V., Abdelghani, R., & Oudeyer, P. Y. (2023, March). Supporting qualitative analysis with large language models: Combining codebook with GPT-3 for deductive coding. In Companion Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (pp. 75-78).
  105. Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Florence, M. K. (2004). Scientists' views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 338-369. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20008 · DOI
  106. Zhang, C., Zhang, C., Li, C., Qiao, Y., Zheng, S., Dam, S. K.,… & Hong, C. S. (2023). One small step for generative AI, one giant leap for AGI: A complete survey on ChatGPT in AIGC Era. http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.06488 · arXiv
  107. Zhao, W. X., Zhou, K., Li, J., Tang, T., Wang, X., Hou, Y., … Wen, J.-R. (2023). A survey of large language models. http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.18223 · arXiv
  108. Ziman, J. (2001). Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kulkarni, M., Mantere, S., Vaara, E., van den Broek, E., Pachidi, S., Glaser, V. L., Gehman, J., Petriglieri, G., Lindebaum, D., Cameron, L. D., Rahman, H. A., Islam, G., & Greenwood, M.
Affiliations
  • Indian Institute of Management Bangalore (IN)
  • McGill University (CA)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • George Washington University (US)
  • INSEAD (FR)
  • Grenoble Ecole de Management (FR)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Monash University (AU)
Corresponding author
Kulkarni, Mukta
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Management Inquiry
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2024-02-22
Volume
33
Issue
3
Pages
207-229
ISSN
  • 1056-4926 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-6542
DOI
10.1177/10564926231219622
OpenAlex
W4392109933
Cited by
80
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 1
FWCI
11.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Management Inquiry (publishedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (cc-by)
Funders
  • University of Alberta
  • Times Higher Education
  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
Keywords
artificial intelligence in research, algorithmic bias, fake information, AI misinformation, future of research, research philosophy

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