Cited by 84Information Systems Theories and ImplementationKnowledge Management and SharingManagement and Organizational Studies

To Question or Accept? How Status Differences Influence Responses to New Epistemic Technologies in Knowledge Work

Anthony, Callen·2018·Academy of Management Review

Abstract

In this article I present a theoretical model of how relationships among members of groups of knowledge workers shape the way new epistemic technologies, which are tools that play a central role in the ongoing construction of knowledge, are encountered. In particular, I theorize about how status differences influence interactions among group members. These interactions shape whether users engage in questioning practices, which involve examining the embedded assumptions within the technology, or accepting practices, where users trust the technology’s outputs without seeking to understand the assumptions that may influence their content. I then consider the consequences of these practices on the novelty of knowledge outcomes. Because knowledge work continues to rely upon increasingly complex epistemic technologies, I suggest that the salience of status differences is of central importance to the production of new and updated knowledge.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5465/amr.2016.0334

Cites

100 of 100 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • AI is an epistemic technology: a tool that plays a key part in the ongoing construction of knowledge.

    “This is because AI constitutes an 'epistemic technology'; that is, 'a tool that plays a key part in the ongoing construction of knowledge' (Anthony, 2018, p. 661).”
  • AI as an epistemic technology poses new challenges to the expertise and jurisdictions of professionals.

    “As an 'epistemic technology' AI poses new challenges to the expertise and jurisdictions of professionals.”
  • Sensemaking responses to AI and its black boxing effects varied according to the triadic view, being centred on the degree of perceived threat or enhancement to jurisdiction, and not according to the status differences highlighted by Anthony (2018).

    “Our findings further show how sensemaking responses to AI and its black boxing effects varied according to this triadic view, being centred on the degree of perceived threat or enhancement to jurisdiction, and not according to the status differences highlighted by Anthony (2018).”
  • In more recent literature, the sensemaking challenges posed by AI have been viewed primarily in cognitive terms, with studies highlighting the 'black boxing' associated with AI as an epistemic technology.

    “In more recent literature, these sensemaking challenges have been viewed primarily in cognitive terms, with studies highlighting the 'black boxing' associated with AI as an epistemic technology (Anthony, 2018;Lebovitz et al., 2022).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Anthony, C.
Affiliations
New York University (US)
Corresponding author
Anthony, Callen
Venue
Academy of Management Review
Published
2018-10
Volume
43
Issue
4
Pages
661-679
ISSN
  • 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-3807
OpenAlex
W2805440323
Cited by
84
References
100
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2
FWCI
11.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Academy of Management Review (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Knowledge Management and Sharing
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
Keywords
status differences, knowledge work, questioning practices, group interaction, knowledge construction, trust in technology

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