CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1Information Systems Theories and ImplementationInnovative Education and Learning PracticesSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Generative AI in the Software Engineering Domain: Tensions of Occupational Identity and Patterns of Identity Protection

Open access
Schmitt, Anuschka, Gajos, Krzysztof Z., Mokryn, Osnat·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2410.03571arXiv 2410.03571
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The adoption of generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) in organizational settings calls into question workers' roles, and relatedly, the implications for their long-term skill development and domain expertise. In our qualitative study in the software engineering domain, we build on the theoretical lenses of occupational identity and self-determination theory to understand how and why software engineers make sense of GAI for their work. We find that engineers' sense-making is contingent on domain expertise, as juniors and seniors felt their needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness to be differently impacted by GAI. We shed light on the importance of the individual's role in preserving tacit domain knowledge as engineers engaged in sense-making that protected their occupational identity. We illustrate how organizations play an active role in shaping workers' sense-making process and propose design guidelines on how organizations and system designers can facilitate the impact of technological change on workers' occupational identity.

Overview

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2410.03571

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • Writers with an established writing identity need to engage more in sense-making of change and its impact compared with novices.

    “This can be seen through the lenses of forming an identity within the writers' domain, as writers with an established writing identity need to engage more in the sense-making of the change and its impact compared with novices (Schmitt et al., 2024).”

    From Fanfiction in the Age of AI: Community Perspectives on Creativity, Authenticity and Adoption (2026) · cites this paper as Schmitt et al., 2024

    The Introduction says software engineers’ sense-making about generative AI differs with domain expertise, and §5.1.1 describes established occupational identity as potentially threatened by new technology. The paper studies software engineers, not writers, and does not establish that experienced workers need to engage in more sense-making than novices. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. Ajay Agrawal, Joshua S Gans, and Avi Goldfarb. 2023. Do we want less automa- tion? Science 381, 6654 (2023), 155-158.
  2. David H Autor. 2003. Outsourcing at will: The contribution of unjust dismissal doctrine to the growth of employment outsourcing. Journal of labor economics 21, 1 (2003), 1-42.
  3. M. R. Barrick, G. R. Thurgood, T. A. Smith, and S. H Courtright. 2015. Collective organizational engagement: linking motivational antecedents, strategic imple- mentation, and firm performance. Academy of Management Jourrnal 58 (2015), 111-135.
  4. Michelle Brachman, Amina El-Ashry, Casey Dugan, and Werner Geyer. 2024. How Knowledge Workers Use and Want to Use LLMs in an Enterprise Context. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-8.
  5. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2021. Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. SAGE.
  6. W Warner Burke. 2017. Organization Change: Theory and Practice. SAGE Publi- cations.
  7. Michelle Carter and Varun Grover. 2015. Conceptualizing Information Technol- ogy Identity and its Implications. Miss. Q. 39, 4 (2015), 931-958.
  8. Edward L Deci, Anja H Olafsen, and Richard M Ryan. 2017. Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual review of organiza- tional psychology and organizational behavior 4 (2017), 19-43.
  9. Edward L Deci and Richard M Ryan. 2012. Self-determination theory. Handbook of theories of social psychology 1, 20 (2012), 416-436.
  10. Humphrey S. E., Nahrgang J. D., and Morgeson F. P. 2007. Integrating motiva- tional, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (2007), 1332-1356.
  11. Tyna Eloundou, Sam Manning, Pamela Mishkin, and Daniel Rock. 2023. Gpts are gpts: An early look at the labor market impact potential of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10130 (2023). · arXiv
  12. Morgan R Frank, David Autor, James E Bessen, Erik Brynjolfsson, Manuel Cebrian, David J Deming, Maryann Feldman, Matthew Groh, José Lobo, Esteban Moro, et al. 2019. Toward understanding the impact of artificial intelligence on labor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 14 (2019), 6531-6539.
  13. Deep Ganguli, Danny Hernandez, Liane Lovitt, Amanda Askell, Yuntao Bai, Anna Chen, Tom Conerly, Nova Dassarma, Dawn Drain, Nelson Elhage, Sheer El Showk, Stanislav Fort, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Tom Henighan, Scott Johnston, Andy Jones, Nicholas Joseph, Jackson Kernian, Shauna Kravec, Ben Mann, Neel Nanda, Kamal Ndousse, Catherine Olsson, Daniela Amodei, Tom Brown, Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Christopher Olah, Dario Amodei, and Jack Clark. 2022. Predictability and Surprise in Large Generative Models. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (FAccT '22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1747-1764.
  14. Katy Ilonka Gero, Tao Long, and Lydia B Chilton. 2023. Social Dynamics of AI Support in Creative Writing. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (<conf-loc>, <city>Hamburg</city>, <coun- try>Germany</country>, </conf-loc>) (CHI '23, Article 245). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-15.
  15. Karan Girotra, Lennart Meincke, Christian Terwiesch, and Karl T Ulrich. 2023. Ideas are dimes a dozen: Large language models for idea generation in innovation. Available at SSRN 4526071 (2023).
  16. A. Goldfarb, B. Taska, and F. Teodoridis. 2023. Could machine learning be a general purpose technology? a comparison of emerging technologies using data from online job postings. Research Policy 52, 1 (2023), 104653.
  17. D. T. Hall. 2002. Careers In And Out Of Organizations. SAGE.
  18. Dominik K Kanbach, Louisa Heiduk, Georg Blueher, Maximilian Schreiter, and Alexander Lahmann. 2024. The GenAI is out of the bottle: generative artificial intelligence from a business model innovation perspective. Review of Managerial Science 18, 4 (2024), 1189-1220.
  19. Naveena Karusala, David Odhiambo Seeh, Cyrus Mugo, Brandon Guthrie, Megan A Moreno, Grace John-Stewart, Irene Inwani, Richard Anderson, and Keshet Ronen. 2021. "That courage to encourage": Participation and Aspira- tions in Chat-based Peer Support for Youth Living with HIV. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (<conf-loc>, <city>Yokohama</city>, <country>Japan</country>, </conf-loc>) (CHI '21, Arti- cle 223). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-17.
  20. Naveena Karusala, Shirley Yan, Nupoor Rajkumar, and Richard Anderson. 2023. Speculating with Care: Worker-centered Perspectives on Scale in a Chat-based Health Information Service. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Inter- action 7, CSCW2 (2023), 1-26.
  21. Daniel Martin Katz, Michael James Bommarito, Shang Gao, and Pablo Arredondo. 2023. Gpt-4 passes the bar exam. Available at SSRN 4389233 (2023).
  22. Charlotte Kobiella, Yarhy Said Flores López, Franz Waltenberger, Fiona Draxler, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2024. " If the Machine Is As Good As Me, Then What Use Am I?"-How the Use of ChatGPT Changes Young Professionals' Perception of Productivity and Accomplishment. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-16.
  23. Jessica K Miller, Batya Friedman, Gavin Jancke, and Brian Gill. 2007. Value tensions in design: the value sensitive design, development, and appropriation of a corporation's groupware system. In Proceedings of the 2007 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work (Sanibel Island, Florida, USA) (GROUP '07). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 281-290.
  24. Emmanuel Monod, Raphael Lissillour, Antonia Köster, and Qi Jiayin. 2023. Does AI control or support? Power shifts after AI system implementation in customer relationship management. Journal of Decision Systems 32, 3 (July 2023), 542-565.
  25. Moin Nadeem, Anna Bethke, and Siva Reddy. 2020. StereoSet: Measuring stereo- typical bias in pretrained language models. (April 2020). arXiv:2004.09456 [cs.CL] · arXiv
  26. Andrew J Nelson and Jennifer Irwin. 2014. "DEFINING WHAT WE DO-ALL OVER AGAIN": OCCUPATIONAL IDENTITY, TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE, AND THE LIBRARIAN/INTERNET-SEARCH RELATIONSHIP. Acad. Manage. J. 57, 3 (2014), 892-928.
  27. Michael Polanyi and Amartya Sen. 2009. The Tacit Dimension. University of Chicago Press.
  28. Davide Ravasi and Anna Canato. 2010. We are what we do (and how we do it): Organizational technologies and the construction of organizational identity. In Technology and Organization: Essays in Honour of Joan Woodward. Vol. 29. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 49-78.
  29. Suzanne Rivard and Liette Lapointe. 2012. Information Technology Implementers' Responses to User Resistance: Nature and Effects. Miss. Q. 36, 3 (2012), 897-920.
  30. Johnny Saldana. 2014. Thinking Qualitatively: Methods of Mind. SAGE Publica- tions.
  31. Rylan Schaeffer, Brando Miranda, and Sanmi Koyejo. 2023. Are Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models a Mirage? (April 2023). arXiv:2304.15004 [cs.AI] · arXiv
  32. Linda Schamber. 2000. Time-line interviews and inductive content analysis: their effectiveness for exploring cognitive behaviors. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 51, 8 (2000), 734-744.
  33. Ulrike Schultze. 2000. A Confessional Account of an Ethnography about Knowl- edge Work. Miss. Q. 24, 1 (2000), 3-41.
  34. Anastasia V Sergeeva. 2023. A postphenomenological perspective on the changing nature of work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 32, 2 (2023), 215- 236.
  35. Alyssa Sheehan and Christopher A Le Dantec. 2023. Making Meaning from the Digitalization of Blue-Collar Work. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7, CSCW2 (Oct. 2023), 1-21.
  36. Yanyan Shen and Wencheng Cui. 2024. Perceived support and AI literacy: the mediating role of psychological needs satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology 15 (2024), 1415248.
  37. S. M. Strachan, M. S. Fortier, M. G. Perras, and C. Lugg. 2013. Understanding varia- tions in exercise-identity strength through identity theory and self-determination theory. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 11 (3) (2013), 273- 285.
  38. David Gray Widder, Laura Dabbish, James D Herbsleb, Alexandra Holloway, and Scott Davidoff. 2021. Trust in Collaborative Automation in High Stakes Software Engineering Work: A Case Study at NASA. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (<conf-loc>, <city>Yokohama</city>, <country>Japan</country>, </conf-loc>) (CHI '21, Arti- cle 184). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-13.
  39. Allison Woodruff, Renee Shelby, Patrick Gage Kelley, Steven Rousso-Schindler, Jamila Smith-Loud, and Lauren Wilcox. 2024. How knowledge workers think generative ai will (not) transform their industries. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-26.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Schmitt, A., Gajos, K. Z., & Mokryn, O.
Affiliations
  • London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of Haifa (IL)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2410.03571
arXiv
2410.03571
OpenAlex
W4403884676
Cited by
1
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Education and Learning Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
Keywords
generative AI, software developers, occupational identity, identity protection, self-determination theory, sensemaking, domain knowledge, tacit knowledge, autonomy, competence, relatedness, technological change in work

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