Scholarlink

<p>The emergence of generative AI (GenAI) within human-centered guidance professions marks a transformative shift in society that transcends mere improvements in technical efficiency. With large language models (LLMs) becoming increasingly embedded in professional practices centered on care, trust, and relational knowledge, critical questions arise about how algorithmic systems reshape human agency, autonomy, tacit expertise, and the ethical foundations of professional relationships. This study examines these questions through coaching, a socio-cultural practice characterized by tacit expertise, empathetic engagement, and care obligations. Through a survey with 205 self-identified GenAI-using coaches, this research explores how algorithmic systems mediate professional practice, what tensions emerge between human-centered values and algorithmic logic, and what this may reveal, within the boundaries of this exploratory sample, about emerging patterns in human–AI relations. The findings reveal that coaches report using GenAI extensively for structured, information-intensive tasks while maintaining control over relational and interpretative work. This pattern can be understood as boundary work preserving human authority over domains of tacit expertise. Significantly, frequent GenAI users report higher scores on self-reported ethical behaviors and beliefs, yet the majority rely on proprietary LLM platforms, highlighting structural constraints that shape technological choices. These patterns highlight critical societal questions about the valuation of tacit expertise, trust formation in AI-mediated relationships, and design justice issues in AI development. The study contributes to understanding how AI integration may reconfigure, and not just augment, the ethical foundations and cultural understanding of professional practice, with urgent implications for shaping AI-mediated futures for the common good.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Negotiating epistemic authority in the age of generative AI: AI reliance, responsibility, and usage intensity among GenAI-using coaching professionals

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年8月4日

查看全文
  • Jennifer Haase

摘要

The emergence of generative AI (GenAI) within human-centered guidance professions marks a transformative shift in society that transcends mere improvements in technical efficiency. With large language models (LLMs) becoming increasingly embedded in professional practices centered on care, trust, and relational knowledge, critical questions arise about how algorithmic systems reshape human agency, autonomy, tacit expertise, and the ethical foundations of professional relationships. This study examines these questions through coaching, a socio-cultural practice characterized by tacit expertise, empathetic engagement, and care obligations. Through a survey with 205 self-identified GenAI-using coaches, this research explores how algorithmic systems mediate professional practice, what tensions emerge between human-centered values and algorithmic logic, and what this may reveal, within the boundaries of this exploratory sample, about emerging patterns in human–AI relations. The findings reveal that coaches report using GenAI extensively for structured, information-intensive tasks while maintaining control over relational and interpretative work. This pattern can be understood as boundary work preserving human authority over domains of tacit expertise. Significantly, frequent GenAI users report higher scores on self-reported ethical behaviors and beliefs, yet the majority rely on proprietary LLM platforms, highlighting structural constraints that shape technological choices. These patterns highlight critical societal questions about the valuation of tacit expertise, trust formation in AI-mediated relationships, and design justice issues in AI development. The study contributes to understanding how AI integration may reconfigure, and not just augment, the ethical foundations and cultural understanding of professional practice, with urgent implications for shaping AI-mediated futures for the common good.