Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1942/49578
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorTHYS, Jarne-
dc.contributor.authorGutierrez Lopez, Marisela-
dc.contributor.authorGEURTS, Eva-
dc.contributor.authorVANACKEN, Davy-
dc.contributor.authorROVELO RUIZ, Gustavo-
dc.date.accessioned2026-07-10T14:47:45Z-
dc.date.available2026-07-10T14:47:45Z-
dc.date.issued2026-
dc.date.submitted2026-06-25T11:29:05Z-
dc.identifier.citationCHI '26 Workshop on Mapping the Responsible Democratization of Generative AI through Participatory Futuring, Barcelona, Spain, 2026, April 13-17-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1942/49578-
dc.description.abstractThe increasing deployment of AI systems in consequential domains has intensified calls to democratize AI governance. However, existing participatory approaches often involve stakeholders only after key system boundaries have already been set, and tend to frame disagreement as a problem to be resolved rather than a condition to be engaged. In this paper, we argue that many AI governance challenges are fundamentally boundary-setting problems, characterized by irreducible value conflicts over what AI should do, under what conditions, and who gets to decide. Drawing on agonistic pluralism and participatory design, we propose to apply a four-stage Participatory Boundary Negotiation (PBN) approach to consequential AI deployments. We demonstrate PBN's application through an illustrative use case of AI-assisted grading in universities, showing how the method grounds deliberation in situated practices, surfaces conflicts through speculative futures, diagnoses their underlying conflict types, and supports negotiation through boundary objects. Rather than seeking consensus, this approach treats disagreement as a legitimate and productive feature of democratic AI governance, thereby contributing to participatory futuring research in consequential contexts.-
dc.language.isoen-
dc.titleNegotiating AI Boundaries Through Participatory Futuring-
dc.typeConference Material-
local.bibliographicCitation.conferencedate2026, April 13-17-
local.bibliographicCitation.conferencenameCHI '26 Workshop on Mapping the Responsible Democratization of Generative AI through Participatory Futuring-
local.bibliographicCitation.conferenceplaceBarcelona, Spain-
local.format.pages4-
local.bibliographicCitation.jcatC2-
dc.relation.references[1] Jim Dator. 2019. Alternative Futures at the Manoa School. In Jim Dator: A Noticer in Time: Selected work, 1967-2018, Jim Dator (Ed.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 37–54. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-17387-6_5 2] Karl de Fine Licht. 2025. Resolving value conflicts in public AI governance: A procedural justice framework. Government Information Quarterly 42, 2 (June 2025), 102033. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2025.102033 [3] Fernando Delgado, Stephen Yang, Michael Madaio, and Qian Yang. 2023. The Participatory Turn in AI Design: Theoretical Foundations and the Current State of Practice. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (EAAMO ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–23. doi:10.1145/3617694.3623261 [4] Carl DiSalvo. 2022. Design as Democratic Inquiry: Putting Experimental Civics into Practice. The MIT Press. doi:10. 7551/mitpress/13372.001.0001 [5] Chris Elsden, David Chatting, Abigail C. Durrant, Andrew Garbett, Bettina Nissen, John Vines, and David S. Kirk. 2017. On Speculative Enactments. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 5386–5399. doi:10.1145/3025453.3025503 [6] Batya Friedman, Peter H. Kahn, Alan Borning, and Alina Huldtgren. 2013. Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems. In Early engagement and new technologies: Opening up the laboratory, Neelke Doorn, Daan Schuurbiers, Ibo van de Poel, and Michael E. Gorman (Eds.). Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 55–95. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7844-3_4 [7] John Gaventa. 2006. Finding the Spaces for Change: A Power Analysis. IDS Bulletin 37, 6 (2006), 23–33. doi:10.1111/j. 1759-5436.2006.tb00320.x [8] Emma Kallina, Thomas Bohné, and Jatinder Singh. 2025. Stakeholder Participation for Responsible AI Development: Disconnects Between Guidance and Current Practice. In Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1060–1079. doi:10.1145/3715275.3732069 [9] Tomoko Komatsu, Marisela Gutierrez Lopez, Stephann Makri, Colin Porlezza, Glenda Cooper, Andrew MacFarlane, and Sondess Missaoui. 2020. AI should embody our values: Investigating journalistic values to inform AI technology design. In Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society (NordiCHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. doi:10.1145/3419249.3420105 [10] Chantal Mouffe. 2013. Agonistics: Thinking The World Politically. Verso Books. [11] Michael J. Muller. 2002. Participatory design: the third space in HCI. In The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., USA, 1051–1068. [12] Camilo Sanchez, Sui Wang, Kaisa Savolainen, Felix Anand Epp, and Antti Salovaara. 2025. Let’s Talk Futures: A Literature Review of HCI’s Future Orientation. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–36. doi:10.1145/3706598.3713759 [13] Donald Schön and Martin Rein. 1994. Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies.Basic Book (1994). [14] Elizabeth Seger, Aviv Ovadya, Divya Siddarth, Ben Garfinkel, and Allan Dafoe. 2023. Democratising AI: Multiple Meanings, Goals, and Methods. In Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 715–722. doi:10.1145/3600211.3604693 [15] Donna Spencer. 2009. Card sorting: Designing usable categories. Rosenfeld Media. [16] Susan Leigh Star and James R. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science 19, 3 (Aug. 1989), 387–420. doi:10.1177/030631289019003001 [17] Jarne Thys, Davy Vanacken, and Gustavo Rovelo Ruiz. 2025. Engineering Trustworthy Automation: Design Principles and Evaluation for AutoML Tools for Novices. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2511.22352-
local.type.refereedRefereed-
local.type.specifiedConference Material-
local.provider.typePdf-
local.uhasselt.internationalyes-
item.contributorTHYS, Jarne-
item.contributorGutierrez Lopez, Marisela-
item.contributorGEURTS, Eva-
item.contributorVANACKEN, Davy-
item.contributorROVELO RUIZ, Gustavo-
item.accessRightsOpen Access-
item.fullcitationTHYS, Jarne; Gutierrez Lopez, Marisela; GEURTS, Eva; VANACKEN, Davy & ROVELO RUIZ, Gustavo (2026) Negotiating AI Boundaries Through Participatory Futuring. In: CHI '26 Workshop on Mapping the Responsible Democratization of Generative AI through Participatory Futuring, Barcelona, Spain, 2026, April 13-17.-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
Appears in Collections:Research publications
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
paper.pdfPeer-reviewed author version387.95 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show simple item record

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.