Vol. 2 (2025)
Original Articles

Notes on a sociology of generative knowledge: Human-AI epistemic stewardship

PDF
  • Paolo Granata
Paolo Granata
University of Toronto, Canada
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/jep-20882

Published 2026-07-18

Keywords

  • generative knowledge,
  • epistemic stewardship,
  • human-AI co-creation,
  • distributed agency,
  • actor-network theory,
  • Mertonian norms,
  • automation bias,
  • situated knowledge,
  • provenance tracking,
  • calibrated trust,
  • communal verification,
  • epistemic literacy
    • ...More
    Less

Copyright (c) 2026 Paolo Granata

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

This article develops a sociology of generative knowledge for the age of AI. It treats contemporary systems as hybrid actors within sociotechnical networks and reframes classical anchors – Mannheim’s situatedness, Merton’s norms, and Latour’s distributed agency – for model-mediated inquiry. Generative knowledge is defined as knowledge organized to produce further knowledge through iterative, tool-mediated, and socially embedded processes. On this basis, the paper advances epistemic stewardship as a practical orientation that sustains human agency while harnessing computational acceleration. Stewardship is operationalized through transparency-by-design, provenance and traceability, calibrated trust, independent verification and red teaming, structured challenge routines, inclusivity in data and participation, and proportional delegation to machines. The account clarifies gains in discovery and education alongside risks from opacity, automation bias, feedback loops, and cognitive drift, and it specifies institutional reforms: standardized disclosure artifacts, replication triggers for AI-assisted claims, revised authorship taxonomies, and equitable access to compute, benchmarks, and community-governed datasets. A research agenda follows, calling for comparative evaluations of stewardship designs, longitudinal studies of hybrid practice, and field-specific protocols that link evaluation to adoption thresholds. The result is a framework that integrates social theory with design and governance guidance, aiming to convert acceleration into certified advance while keeping responsibility legible and contestable.

PDF

References

  1. Alon-Barkat, S. & Busuioc, M. (2023). Human-AI Interactions in Public Sector Decision Making: Automation Bias and Selective Adherence to Algorithmic Advice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 33(1), 153–69. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac007
  2. Alvarado, R. (2023). AI as an Epistemic Technology. Science and Engineering Ethics 29(4), 26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-023-00451-3
  3. Amershi, S., Weld, D., Vorvoreanu, M., Fourney, A., Nushi, B., Collisson, P., Suh, J., et al. (2019). Guidelines for Human-AI Interaction. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Paper 3. New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300233
  4. Attwood, S.W., Hill, S.C., Aanensen, D.M., Connor, T.R. & Pybus, O.G. (2022). Phylogenetic and Phylodynamic Approaches to Understanding and Combating the Early SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic. Nature Reviews Genetics 23(9), 547–562. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-022-00483-8
  5. Babich, B. (2017). The ‘New’ Sociology of Knowledge. In Hermeneutic Philosophies of Social Science. Walter de Gruyter GmbH. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110528374-013
  6. Baehr, J. (2011). The Inquiring Mind: On Intellectual Virtues and Virtue Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  7. Balasubramaniam, N., Lehmkuhl, K., Holmström Olsson, H. & Bosch, J. (2023). Transparency and Explainability of AI Systems: From Ethical Guidelines to Requirements. Information and Software Technology 159, 107197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2023.107197
  8. Bauchner, H. & Rivara, F.P. (2024). Use of Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Peer Review. Health Affairs Scholar 2(5), qxae058. https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxae058
  9. Bender, E.M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A. & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’21), 610–623. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
  10. Bommasani, R., Hudson, D.A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M.S. et al. (2021). On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models. Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI), Stanford University.
  11. Bowker, G.C. & Leigh Star, S. (1999). Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  12. Burrell, J. (2016). How the Machine ‘Thinks’: Understanding Opacity in Machine Learning Algorithms. Big Data & Society 3(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715622512
  13. Callon, M. (1987). Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis. In The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes & Trevor Pinch (Eds, pp. 83–103). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  14. Canty, R.B. & Abolhasani, M. (2025). Science Acceleration and Accessibility with Self-Driving Labs. Nature Communications 16, (3856). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-59231-1
  15. Chiang, C.-W., Zixuan, L., Zhuoyan, L. & Ming Y. (2024). Evaluating Human-AI Collaboration: A Review and Methodological Framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.19098
  16. Collins, H. (2025). Why Artificial Intelligence Needs Sociology of Knowledge. AI & Society 40, 1249–1263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-01954-8
  17. Crawford, K. (2021). Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  18. Douglas, H. (2009). Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  19. Ferrara, E. (2024). Fairness and Bias in Artificial Intelligence: A Brief Survey of Sources, Impacts, and Mitigation Strategies. Sci 6(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/sci6010003
  20. Ferrario, A. (2024). Justifying Our Credences in the Trustworthiness of AI Systems: A Reliabilistic Approach. Science and Engineering Ethics 30(55). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-024-00522-z
  21. Fuchs, S. (2025). Classical sociology of knowledge and contemporary constructivism. In Research Handbook on the Sociology of Knowledge, F. Collyer (Ed, pp. 192-208). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800376649.00020
  22. Fügener, A, Grahl, J., Gupta, A. & Ketter, W. (2022). Cognitive Challenges in Human-Artificial Intelligence Collaboration: Investigating the Path Toward Productive Delegation. Information Systems Research 33(2), 678–696. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2021.1079
  23. Gao, L. & Wang, Y. (2025). Rethinking Laboratory Life in the Age of AI. AI & Society, forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02495-4
  24. Gerlich, M. (2025). AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the Future of Critical Thinking. Societies 15(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006
  25. González B.K., Wood, N. & Pawlowski, P. (2024). Beyond Transparency and Explainability: On the Need for Adequate and Contextualized User Guidelines for LLM Use. Ethics and Information Technology 26, 47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-024-09778-2
  26. Granata, P. (2026). Generative Knowledge: Think, Learn, Create with AI. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  27. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies 14(3), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066
  28. Hauswald, R. & Schmechtig, P. (2025). New Waves in the Philosophy of Epistemic Authority and Expert Testimony: An Introduction to the Special Issue. Social Epistemology, May, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2025.2496203
  29. Hauswald, R.. (2025). Artificial Epistemic Authorities. Social Epistemology 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2025.2449602
  30. Horowitz, M.C. & Kahn, L. (2024). Bending the Automation Bias Curve: A Study of Human and AI-Based Decision Making in National Security Contexts. International Studies Quarterly 68(2), sqae020. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqae020
  31. Hosseini, Mohammad, Bastian Greshake Tzovaras, Koray Karaca, and Tony Ross-Hellauer. (2025). “Open Science at the Generative AI Turn: An Exploratory Analysis of Challenges and Opportunities.” Quantitative Science Studies. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00337
  32. Huang, L. & Ting, L. (2024). A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 43(1). https://doi.org/10.1145/3703155
  33. Humphreys, P. (2004). Extending Ourselves: Computational Science, Empiricism, and Scientific Method. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  34. Humphreys, P. (2009). The Philosophical Novelty of Computer Simulation Methods. Synthese 169(3), 615–626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-008-9435-2
  35. Jasanoff, S. (Ed) (2004). States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. London: Routledge.
  36. Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science. Minerva 41(3), 223–244. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025557512320
  37. Ji, Z., Lee, N., Frieske, R. et al. (2023). Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation. ACM Computing Surveys 55(12). https://doi.org/10.1145/3571730
  38. Jobin, A., Ienca, M. & Vayena, E. (2019). The Global Landscape of AI Ethics Guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence 1, 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2
  39. Kahn, L., Probasco, E.S. & Kinoshita R. (2024). AI Safety and Automation Bias: The Downside of Human-in-the-Loop. Washington, DC: Center for Security and Emerging Technology.
  40. Kestin, G., Miller, K., Klales, A., Milbourne, T. & Ponti, G. (2025). AI Tutoring Outperforms In-Class Active Learning. Scientific Reports 15, 97652. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-97652-6
  41. Kitcher, P. (1993). The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  42. Kitto, K., Bruza, P., Sheng Loh, B. & Boschetti, F. (2023). A Quantum Model of Trust Calibration in Human-AI Interactions. Entropy 25(9), 1362. https://doi.org/10.3390/e25091362
  43. Koivisto, M., Pekkarinen, S. & Hiekkanen, K. (2023). Transparency and Explainability of AI Systems: From Ethical Guidelines to Requirements. Information and Software Technology 159, 107202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2023.107202
  44. Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  45. Latour, B. (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Originally published (1991).
  46. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  47. Lee, D., Pruitt, J., Zhou, T., Du, J. & Odegaard, B. (2025). Metacognitive Sensitivity: The Key to Calibrating Trust and Optimal Decision Making with AI. PNAS Nexus 4(5), pgaf133. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf133
  48. Lindebaum, D. & Fleming, P. (2024). ChatGPT Undermines Human Reflexivity, Scientific Responsibility and Responsible Management Research. British Journal of Management 35(2), 566–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12781
  49. Loru, E., Nudo, J., Di Marco, N., Santirocchi, A., Atzeni R., Cinelli, M., Cestari V., Rossi-Arnaud, C. & Quattrociocchi, W. (2025). The Simulation of Judgment in LLMs. PNAS 122(42): e2518443122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2518443122
  50. Mannheim, K. (1954). Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Harcourt Brace.
  51. Merchant, A., Batzner, S., Schoenholz, S.S., Aykol, M. et al. (2023). “Scaling Deep Learning for Materials Discovery.” Nature 624 (7990): 80–85. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06735-9
  52. Merton, R.K. (1942). The Normative Structure of Science. In The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, N.W. Storer (Ed, pp. 267–278). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, (1973).
  53. Nicolae, S.. (2025). The ‘New’ Sociology of Knowledge and the Sociology of Valuation. In The Routledge International Handbook of Valuation and Society, T. Peetz, A.K. Krüger & H. Schäfer (Eds, 1st ed., vol. 1, 79–90). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003229353-9
  54. Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
  55. Nosek, B.A., Alter, G., Banks, G.C. et al. (2015). Promoting an Open Research Culture. Science 348 (6242): 1422–1425. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab2374
  56. Novelli, C., Taddeo, M. & Floridi, L. (2024). Accountability in Artificial Intelligence: What It Is and How It Works. AI & Society 39(4), 2331–2343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01635-y
  57. Parasuraman, R. & Manzey, D.H. (2010). Complacency and Bias in Human Use of Automation: An Attentional Integration. Human Factors 52(3), 381–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720810376055
  58. Pasquale, F. (2015). The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  59. Peverini, P. (2024). Bruno Latour in the Semiotic Turn: An Inquiry into the Networks of Meaning. Berlin: Springer Nature.
  60. Rammert, W. (2012). Distributed Agency and Advanced Technology. Or: How to Analyze Constellations of Collective Inter-Agency. In Agency without Actors? New Approaches to Collective Action, J.-H. Passoth, B. Peuker & M. Schillmeier (Eds, pp. 89–112). London: Routledge.
  61. Resnik, D.B. & Hosseini, M. (2025). Disclosing Artificial Intelligence Use in Scientific Research and Publication: When Should Disclosure Be Mandatory, Optional, or Unnecessary? Accountability in Research, March, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2481949
  62. Schnettler, B., Knoblauch, H. & Raab, J. (2017). The ‘New’ Sociology of Knowledge. In Hermeneutic Philosophies of Social Science, B. Babich (Ed, pp. 237–266). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110551563-013
  63. Shneiderman, B. (2020). “Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence: Reliable, Safe & Trustworthy.” International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 36 (6): 495–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1741118
  64. Shumailov, I., Shumaylov, Z., Zhao, Y., Papernot, N., Anderson, R. & Gal, Y. (2024). AI Models Collapse When Trained on Recursively Generated Data. Nature 631, 755–59. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07566-y
  65. Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G. & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic Vigilance. Mind & Language 25(4), 359–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x
  66. Thomas, R.L. & Uminsky, D. (2022). Reliance on Metrics Is a Fundamental Challenge for AI. Patterns 3(5), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2022.100476
  67. Turing, A.M. (1950). Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Mind 59(236), 433–460. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433
  68. Urmeneta, A. & Romero, M. (Eds) (2024). Creative Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Springer Nature.
  69. Vaccaro, M., Almaatouq, A. & Malone, T. (2024). When Combinations of Humans and AI Are Useful: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nature Human Behaviour 8, 2293–2303. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02024-1
  70. Wu, J.-Y, Lee, Y.-H., Sing Chai, C. & Tsai, C.-C. (2025). Strengthening Human Epistemic Agency in the Symbiotic Learning Partnership with Generative Artificial Intelligence. Educational Researcher 54(6), 358–368. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X251333628
  71. Yampolskiy, R.V. (2024). AI: Unexplainable, Unpredictable, Uncontrollable. CRC Press.
  72. Yilmaz, R. & Yilmaz, F.G.K. (2023). The effect of generative artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool use on students’ computational thinking skills, programming self-efficacy and motivation. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 4, 100147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100147
  73. Zagzebski, L.T. (1996). Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  74. Zhai, C., Wibowo, S. & Li, L.D. (2024). The Effects of Over-Reliance on AI Dialogue Systems on Students’ Cognitive Abilities: A Systematic Review. Smart Learning Environments 11(1), 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7
  75. Zhang, Y. & Zenil, H. (2025). Exploring the Role of Large Language Models in the Scientific Method. Nature Reviews Methods Primers 5, 19. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44387-025-00019-5