Anna Cox

Qing Nancy Xia, Advait Sarkar, Duncan P. Brumby et al.

Informal Knowledge Sharing (KS) is vital for end-user programmers to gain expertise. To better understand how personal (self-efficacy), social (reputational gains, trust between colleagues), and software-related (codification effort) variables influence spreadsheet KS intention, we conducted a multiple regressions analysis based on survey data from spreadsheet users (n=100) in administrative and finance roles. We found that high levels of spreadsheet self-efficacy and a perception that sharing would result in reputational gains predicted higher KS intention, but individuals who found knowledge codification effortful showed lower KS intention. We also observed that regardless of occupation, users tended to report a lower sense of self-efficacy in their general spreadsheet proficiency, despite also reporting high self-efficacy in spreadsheet use for job-related contexts. Our findings suggest that acknowledging and designing for these social and personal variables can help avoid situations where experienced individuals refrain unnecessarily from sharing, with implications for spreadsheet design.

Yoana Ahmetoglu, Marios Constantinides, Anna Cox

The use of AI tools in research is becoming routine, alongside growing consensus that such use should be transparently disclosed. However, AI disclosure statements remain rare and inconsistent, with policies offering limited guidance and authors facing social, cognitive, and emotional barriers when reporting AI use. To explore how structured disclosure shapes what authors report and how they experience disclosure, we present DAISY (Disclosure of AI-uSe in Your Research), a form-based tool for generating AI disclosure statements. DAISY was developed from literature-derived requirements and co-design (N =11), and deployed in a user study with authors (N=31). DAISY-supported disclosures met more completeness criteria, offering clearer breakdowns of AI use across research and writing than unsupported disclosures. Surprisingly, despite concerns about how transparently disclosed AI use might be perceived, the use of DAISY did not reduce author comfort with the disclosure statements. We discuss design implications and a research agenda for AI disclosure as a sociotechnical practice.

Qing Nancy Xia, Advait Sarkar, Duncan Brumby et al.

Spreadsheet collaboration provides valuable opportunities for learning and expertise sharing between colleagues. Sharing expertise is essential for the retention of important technical skillsets within organisations, but previous studies suggest that spreadsheet experts often fail to disseminate their knowledge to others. We suggest that social norms and beliefs surrounding the value of spreadsheet use significantly influence user engagement in sharing behaviours. To explore this, we conducted 31 semi-structured interviews with professional spreadsheet users from two separate samples. We found that spreadsheet providers face challenges in adapting highly personalised strategies to often subjective standards and evaluating the appropriate social timing of sharing. In addition, conflicted self-evaluations of one's spreadsheet expertise, dismissive normative beliefs about the value of this knowledge, and concerns about the potential disruptions associated with collaboration can further deter sharing. We suggest these observations reflect the challenges of long-term learning in feature-rich software designed primarily with initial learnability in mind. We therefore provide implications for design to navigate this tension. Overall, our findings demonstrate how the complex interaction between technology design and social dynamics can shape collaborative learning behaviours in the context of feature-rich software.

Qing, Xia, Marios Constantinides et al.

Generative AI (GenAI) tools are rapidly transforming knowledge work, making AI literacy a critical priority for organizations. However, research on AI literacy lacks empirical insight into how knowledge workers' beliefs around GenAI literacy are shaped by the social dynamics of the workplace, and how workers learn to apply GenAI tools in these environments. To address this gap, we conducted in-depth interviews with 19 knowledge workers across multiple sectors to examine how they develop GenAI competencies in real-world professional contexts. We found that, while knowledge sharing from colleagues supported learning, the ability to remove cues indicating GenAI use was perceived as validation of domain expertise. These behaviours ultimately reduced opportunities for learning via knowledge sharing and undermined transparency. To advance workplace AI literacy, we argue for fostering open dialogue, increasing visibility of user-generated knowledge, and greater emphasis on the benefits of collaborative learning for navigating rapid technological developments.