Significant and rapid advancements in cancer research have been attributed to Artificial Intelligence (AI). However, AI’s role and impact on the clinical side has been limited. This discrepancy manifests due to the overlooked, yet profound, differences in the clinical and research practices in oncology. Our contribution seeks to scrutinize physicians’ engagement with AI by interviewing 7 medical-imaging experts and disentangle its future alignment across the clinical and research workflows, diverging from the existing “one-size-fits-all” paradigm within Human-Centered AI discourses. Our analysis revealed that physicians’ trust in AI is less dependent on their general acceptance of AI, but more on their contestable experiences with AI. Contestability, in clinical workflows, underpins the need for personal supervision of AI outcomes and processes, i.e., clinician-in-the-loop. Finally, we discuss tensions in the desired attributes of AI, such as explainability and control, contextualizing them within the divergent intentionality and scope of clinical and research workflows.

The current mechanisms that drive the development of AI technologies are widely criticized for being tech-oriented and market-led instead of stemming from societal challenges. In Human-Centered AI discourses, and more broadly in Human-Computer Interaction research, initiatives have been proposed to engage experts from various domains of social science in determining how AI should reach our societies, predominantly through informing the adoption policies. Our contribution, however, seeks a more essential role for social sciences, namely to introduce discursive standpoints around what we need AI to be. With a focus on the domain of urbanism, the specific goal has been to elicit – from interviews with 16 urban experts – the imaginaries of how AI can and should impact future cities. Drawing on the social science literature, we present how the notion of “imaginary” has essentially framed this research and how it could reveal an alternative vision of non-human intelligent actors in future cities.

Abstract We examine the technological aspects of political collaborative practices in one of the first studies of participatory constitution writing in the course of its progression. In particular, we examine how digital collaborative and communicative tools can facilitate (or inhibit) the permeation of boundaries, which manifest through the differences in political ideologies and partisan beliefs. Our study is grounded in interviews with 15 members of the Constituent Assembly in the canton of Valais, Switzerland, and its primary contribution is in constructing a fine-grained contextualized understanding of political collaborations, their evolution, and their relationship with collaborative tools. Our findings demonstrate the centrality of versatile and widely available digital tools (such as WhatsApp and Google Docs) in political work. In addition, elected lawmakers prefer tools that allow them to organize their collaborative and communicative actions based on dynamic social boundaries, and their need for asynchronous work practices. We observed a tendency of simultaneously using multiple digital tools to accomplish specific political objectives, and leveraging them in plenary sessions for strategic advantages. On the one hand, collaborative tools enabled strategic advantages by selective permeation of boundaries across political ideologies. On the other hand, lack of awareness about boundaries between ‘private’ and ‘public’ on social networks were considered as privacy blind spots. By focusing on boundaries of different kinds, our paper elucidates how the introduction of digital technologies into political process transforms the long-established categories, distinctions and divisions that are often taken for granted.

This contribution exemplifies how the study of space perception and its impact on space-use behavior can inform sustainable architecture. We describe our attempt to integrate the methods of user research in an architectural project that was focused on optimization of space usage. In an office building, two large office rooms were refurbished to provide desk-sharing opportunities through hot-desking. We studied the space-use behavior of 33 office workers over eight weeks in those two rooms as well as their occasional presence in ten other areas (cafeteria, atrium, meeting rooms, etc.). Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed to understand the nature and nuances of space occupancy at the scope of the building and within the refurbished offices. While at the scope of building the patterns of movements between rooms were found to be related to the professional profile of the users, at the scope of office the occupancy patterns were influenced by the spatial design of workspaces. More precisely, certain visual attributes of a workspace, namely Visual Exposure and Visual Openness, could determine whether or not it was regularly used. In this paper, we describe our findings in detail and discuss their implications for sustainable building design.

Video-based communication has become a common way of interacting with remote interlocutors, whether through complex videoconferencing systems or webcams integrated into consumer technologies. Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (EM/CA) are sociological approaches that have been influential in Human–Computer Interaction for nearly three decades due to their focus on the situated organization of practical activities. In this article, we present a state-of-the-art review of empirical research on video-mediated social interaction studied from the perspective of EM/CA. We put forward an original organization of the findings on the interplay of talk, bodily behavior and spatial and material resources. The review underscores the ways in which technology enables and constrains interaction, shaping familiar and novel social activities. We also propose directions for future research and systems design.

Interacting with Computers, 2018:73–84. doi: 10.1093/iwc/iwx019 This article has been corrected to address an error in the reference list. The correct reference is: Pekarek Doehler, S., Wagner, J. and González-Martínez, E. (eds) (2018) Longitudinal Studies on the Organization of Social Interaction. Palgrave MacMillan, London, [in press].