Critical-Reflective Human-AI Collaboration: Exploring Computational Tools for Art Historical Image Retrieval

Just as other disciplines, the humanities explore how computational research approaches and tools can meaningfully contribute to scholarly knowledge production. We approach the design of computational tools through the analytical lens of 'human-AI collaboration.' However, there is no generalizable concept of what constitutes 'meaningful' human-AI collaboration. In terms of genuinely human competencies, we consider criticality and reflection as guiding principles of scholarly knowledge production. Although (designing for) reflection is a recurring topic in CSCW and HCI discourses, it has not been centered in work on human-AI collaboration. We posit that integrating both concepts is a viable approach to supporting 'meaningful' human-AI collaboration in the humanities. Our research, thus, is guided by the question of how critical reflection can be enabled in human-AI collaboration. We address this question with a use case that centers on computer vision (CV) tools for art historical image retrieval. Specifically, we conducted a qualitative interview study with art historians and extended the interviews with a think-aloud software exploration. We observed and recorded our participants' interaction with a ready-to-use CV tool in a possible research scenario. We found that critical reflection, indeed, constitutes a core prerequisite for 'meaningful' human-AI collaboration in humanities research contexts. However, we observed that critical reflection was not fully realized during interaction with the CV tool. We interpret this divergence as supporting our hypothesis that computational tools need to be intentionally designed in such a way that they actively scaffold and support critical reflection during interaction. Based on our findings, we suggest four empirically grounded design implications for 'critical-reflective human-AI collaboration'.

[1]  Jed R. Brubaker,et al.  Scholastic: Graphical Human-AI Collaboration for Inductive and Interpretive Text Analysis , 2022, UIST.

[2]  Mark O. Riedl,et al.  Human-Centered Explainable AI (HCXAI): Beyond Opening the Black-Box of AI , 2022, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[3]  Tsz Tung Yu,et al.  Human-AI Collaboration for UX Evaluation: Effects of Explanation and Synchronization , 2022, Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact..

[4]  L. Klic Linked Open Images: Visual similarity for the Semantic Web , 2022, Semantic Web.

[5]  B. Ommer,et al.  Large-scale interactive retrieval in art collections using multi-style feature aggregation , 2021, PloS one.

[6]  Shiri Azenkot,et al.  Accept or Address? Researchers’ Perspectives on Response Bias in Accessibility Research , 2021, ASSETS.

[7]  Jed R. Brubaker,et al.  Putting Tools in Their Place: The Role of Time and Perspective in Human-AI Collaboration for Qualitative Analysis , 2021, Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact..

[8]  A. Dahlgren,et al.  The Digital U-Turn in Art History , 2021, Konsthistorisk tidskrift/Journal of Art History.

[9]  Claudia Müller-Birn,et al.  Explanation Strategies as an Empirical-Analytical Lens for Socio-Technical Contextualization of Machine Learning Interpretability , 2021, Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact..

[10]  Emily Denton,et al.  Do Datasets Have Politics? Disciplinary Values in Computer Vision Dataset Development , 2021, Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact..

[11]  Eyke Hüllermeier,et al.  iART: A Search Engine for Art-Historical Images to Support Research in the Humanities , 2021, ACM Multimedia.

[12]  Alex Brey Digital art history in 2021 , 2021, History Compass.

[13]  Tammy Toscos,et al.  Standardizing Reporting of Participant Compensation in HCI: A Systematic Literature Review and Recommendations for the Field , 2021, CHI.

[14]  A. Hanna,et al.  Documenting Computer Vision Datasets: An Invitation to Reflexive Data Practices , 2021, FAccT.

[15]  Casey Fiesler,et al.  Supporting Serendipity , 2021, Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact..

[16]  Elena Villaespesa,et al.  This is not an apple! Benefits and challenges of applying computer vision to museum collections , 2021, Museum Management and Curatorship.

[17]  Natalia Kovalyova,et al.  Data feminism , 2020, Information, Communication & Society.

[18]  Micki McGee,et al.  Topicalizer: reframing core concepts in machine learning visualization by co-designing for interpretivist scholarship , 2020, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[19]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  From Human-Human Collaboration to Human-AI Collaboration: Designing AI Systems That Can Work Together with People , 2020, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[20]  Leonardo Impett,et al.  Analyzing Gesture in Digital Art History , 2020 .

[21]  Christopher Frauenberger,et al.  Entanglement HCI The Next Wave? , 2019, ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact..

[22]  John Rodzvilla,et al.  Critical Digital Humanities: The Search for a Methodology , 2019, Journal of Web Librarianship.

[23]  Virginia Braun,et al.  Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis , 2019, Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health.

[24]  Paul N. Bennett,et al.  Guidelines for Human-AI Interaction , 2019, CHI.

[25]  R. Alvarado Digital Humanities and the Great Project: , 2019, Debates in the Digital Humanities 2019.

[26]  Trevor Muñoz,et al.  Against Cleaning , 2019, Debates in the Digital Humanities 2019.

[27]  Livio De Luca,et al.  An Ontological Approach to the Description of Visual and Iconographical Representations , 2019, Heritage.

[28]  Nan Z. Da The Computational Case against Computational Literary Studies , 2019, Critical Inquiry.

[29]  J. Aerts,et al.  Slow Digital Art History in Action: Project Cornelia’s Computational Approach to Seventeenth-century Flemish Creative Communities , 2019, Visual Resources.

[30]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects , 2019, Behavioural Public Policy.

[31]  Björn Ommer,et al.  Attesting similarity: Supporting the organization and study of art image collections with computer vision , 2018, Digit. Scholarsh. Humanit..

[32]  Marijn Koolen,et al.  Toward a model for digital tool criticism: Reflection as integrative practice , 2018, Digit. Scholarsh. Humanit..

[33]  M. Schäfer,et al.  Tool Criticism: From Digital Methods to Digital Methodology , 2018, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Web Studies.

[34]  Ahmed Hosny,et al.  The Dataset Nutrition Label: A Framework To Drive Higher Data Quality Standards , 2018, Data Protection and Privacy.

[35]  Benoit Seguin,et al.  The Replica Project: Building a visual search engine for art historians , 2018, XRDS.

[36]  Timnit Gebru,et al.  Datasheets for datasets , 2018, Commun. ACM.

[37]  Eric Ps Baumer,et al.  Toward human-centered algorithm design , 2017 .

[38]  Christopher Frauenberger,et al.  Reflective Practicum: A Framework of Sensitising Concepts to Design for Transformative Reflection , 2017, CHI.

[39]  Taina Bucher,et al.  The algorithmic imaginary: exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms , 2017, The Social Power of Algorithms.

[40]  J. Grudin,et al.  Human-computer integration , 2016, Interactions.

[41]  Harald Klinke,et al.  Big Image Data within the Big Picture of Art History , 2016 .

[42]  Hieke Huistra,et al.  Phrasing history: Selecting sources in digital repositories , 2016 .

[43]  V. Braun,et al.  (Mis)conceptualising themes, thematic analysis, and other problems with Fugard and Potts’ (2015) sample-size tool for thematic analysis , 2016 .

[44]  Anna L. Cox,et al.  Design Frictions for Mindful Interactions: The Case for Microboundaries , 2016, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[45]  Eric Baumer,et al.  Reflective Informatics: Conceptual Dimensions for Designing Technologies of Reflection , 2015, CHI.

[46]  T. Underwood Theorizing Research Practices We Forgot to Theorize Twenty Years Ago , 2014 .

[47]  Johanna Drucker,et al.  Graphesis: Visual Forms of Knowledge Production , 2014 .

[48]  Vera D. Khovanskaya,et al.  Reviewing reflection: on the use of reflection in interactive system design , 2014, Conference on Designing Interactive Systems.

[49]  Melanie Feinberg,et al.  Always somewhere, never there: using critical design to understand database interactions , 2014, CHI.

[50]  J. Drucker Is There a “Digital” Art History? , 2013 .

[51]  Diane M. Zorich Digital Art History: A Community Assessment , 2013 .

[52]  John Riedl,et al.  Introduction to the Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems , 2011, ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst..

[53]  Claire Waterton,et al.  Experimenting with the Archive: STS-ers As Analysts and Co-constructors of Databases and Other Archival Forms , 2010 .

[54]  Jodi Forlizzi,et al.  A stage-based model of personal informatics systems , 2010, CHI.

[55]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  A behavior model for persuasive design , 2009, Persuasive '09.

[56]  P. Homulos,et al.  Propositions for the future: Museum data standards , 2009 .

[57]  L. D. Couprie,et al.  Iconclass, a device for the iconographical analysis of art objects , 2009 .

[58]  P. Müller Understanding history: Hermeneutics and source-criticism in historical scholarship , 2008 .

[59]  Johanna Drucker,et al.  Speculative Computing: Aesthetic Provocations in Humanities Computing , 2007 .

[60]  V. Braun,et al.  Using thematic analysis in psychology , 2006 .

[61]  K. Fisher Demystifying Critical Reflection: Defining criteria for assessment , 2003 .

[62]  Martin Doerr,et al.  The CIDOC Conceptual Reference Module: An Ontological Approach to Semantic Interoperability of Metadata , 2003, AI Mag..

[63]  Johan Redström,et al.  Slow Technology – Designing for Reflection , 2001, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[64]  Eric Horvitz,et al.  Principles of mixed-initiative user interfaces , 1999, CHI '99.

[65]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Direct manipulation vs. interface agents , 1997, INTR.

[66]  Loren G. Terveen,et al.  Overview of human-computer collaboration , 1995, Knowl. Based Syst..

[67]  Peter G. B. Enser,et al.  Progress in Documentation Pictorial Information Retrieval , 1995, J. Documentation.

[68]  Karen Ruhleder,et al.  Reconstructing Artifacts, Reconstructing Work: From Textual Edition to On-Line Databank , 1995 .

[69]  R. J. Bogumil,et al.  The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action , 1985, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[70]  Linda C. Smith Representation issues in information retrieval system design , 1981, SIGIR '81.

[71]  L. A. Hausman How we Think , 1921 .

[72]  Peter Bell,et al.  imgs.ai. A Deep Visual Search Engine for Digital Art History , 2023, DH.

[73]  Michael Chromik,et al.  Human-XAI Interaction: A Review and Design Principles for Explanation User Interfaces , 2021, INTERACT.

[74]  David M. Berry,et al.  Critical Digital Humanities and Machine-Learning , 2017, DH.

[75]  Sabrina Eberhart,et al.  Where To Begin , 2016 .

[76]  P. Verbeek COVER STORY: Beyond interaction: a short introduction to mediation theory , 2015, Interactions.

[77]  M. Kirschenbaum What Is Digital Humanities and What’s It Doing in English Departments? , 2010 .

[78]  Philip E. Agre,et al.  Toward a Critical Technical Practice: Lessons Learned in Trying to Reform AI , 2006 .