CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 32Posthumanist Ethics and ActivismArtistic and Creative ResearchDigital Education and Society

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 81 of the 81 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Posthuman Creativity: Unveiling Cyborg Subjectivity Through ChatGPT

Open access
Yan, Dave·2025·Qualitative Inquiry
DOI 10.1177/10778004241231923
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This narrative experiment expands upon Wyatt and Gale’s practice of “writing to it” that involves interactions between humans and an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot named ChatGPT. Building on Haraway’s concept of the cyborg, posthuman creativity opens up a larger space for material-discursive practices, taking account of human and other-than-human forms of agency in the apparatuses of bodily production. By applying diffractive interpretations and analyses across various situations, I then experience the implications of research where discourse and matter mutually constitute the production of knowing. The intention is not to discover something that already exists within the experience of “knowing,” but rather to re-orient one’s thinking and understand the histories of be(com)ing the other within a dialogical, judgment-free space. By embracing posthuman creativity, ChatGPT could potentially serve as an ontological response to St. Pierre’s call for experimenting and creating other “new forms of inquiry.”

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/10778004241231923

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Yan (2025) argued that ChatGPT supports a form of posthuman creativity in which human and machine agency are productively entangled.

    “Yan (2025) devised a narrative experiment with ChatGPT and argued that the tool supports a form of posthuman creativity in which human and machine agency are productively entangled.”

    From How Creative Is AI Writing? Generative and Collaborative AI in Japanese Fiction (2026) · cites this paper as Yan (2025)

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Braidotti R., 2013, The posthuman
  2. Derrida J., 1997, Of grammatology
  3. Ferrando F., 2013, Existenz, 8, 26
  4. Foucault M., 2002, The order of things: An archeology of the human sciences
  5. Haraway D., 2008, When species meet
  6. Harris D., 2021, Creative ecologies
  7. Homer, 1997, The odyssey
  8. Thacker E., 2011, In the dust of this planet: Horror of philosophy, 1
  9. Trinh M. T., 1988, Inscriptions, 3, 71
  10. Trinh M. T., 1986, Discourse, 8, 1
  11. Wolfe C., 2010, What is posthumanism?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Yan, D.
Affiliations
Monash University (AU)
Corresponding author
Yan, Dave
ORCID
Yan, Dave
Venue
Qualitative Inquiry
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2024-03-16
Volume
31
Issue
2
Pages
253-264
ISSN
  • 1077-8004 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7565
DOI
10.1177/10778004241231923
OpenAlex
W4392880419
Cited by
28
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8
FWCI
81.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Qualitative Inquiry (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Posthumanist Ethics and Activism
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Visual Arts and Performing Arts › Artistic and Creative Research
  • Social Sciences › Education › Digital Education and Society
Keywords
ChatGPT, human-AI interaction, Donna Haraway, diffractive analysis, material-discursive practices, embodiment, dialogical inquiry, St. Pierre

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