A Qualitative Study on a Hybrid Human–AI Model in the Workplace Based on Socio-Technical Systems Theory

Fevziye Bekar

doi:10.38057/bifd.1945318

TR EN

Sosyo-Teknik Sistemler Teorisi Temelinde İş Hayatında Hibrit İnsan–AI Modeli Üzerine Nitel Bir Araştırma

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı Türkiye bağlamında iş ortamında oluşturulabilecek hibrit insan – yapay zeka ilişkisine yönelik bireylerin görüşlerini ve beklentilerini incelemektir. Araştırma nitel araştırma deseni temelinde yürütülmüştür. Yarı yapılandırılmış soru formu kullanılmıştır. Veriler, Strauss’un temellendirilmiş teori yaklaşımı çerçevesinde açık, eksenel ve seçici kodlama yöntemleri kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Amaçlı yöntem tekniği ile 92 katılımcıya ulaşılmıştır. MAXQDA v.2020 analiz programı destekli açık, eksenel ve seçici kodlama yöntemleri ile katılımcı ifadeleri ekseninde tema ve kodlar oluşturulmuştur. Araştırmanın sonucunda hibrit bir modelden ziyade insan ve robotik sistemlere dayalı kavramların ayrımının yapılması, iş ortamında insani özelliklerin ve insan kontrolünde teknoloji yönetiminin mevcut olması gerekliliği üzerine görüşler elde edilmiştir. Katılımcılar empati, vicdan, etik duyarlılık ve kültürel farkındalık gibi insani özelliklerin korunmasını önemli görürken; yapay zekâ ve robotik sistemlerin analitik düşünme, planlı çalışma, hız ve iş yükünü azaltma gibi alanlarda kullanılmasına yönelik görüş belirtmişlerdir. Araştırma, sosyo-teknik sistemler teorisi çerçevesinde değerlendirilmiş ve hibrit çalışma sistemlerinde sosyal ve teknik yapıların nasıl entegre edileceği konusunda bilgiler sunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Hibrit İnsan – YZ Modeli, İnsan-Yapay Zekâ İş Birliği, Sosyo-Teknik Sistemler Teorisi, Grounded Theory, Nitel Araştırma

Destekleyen Kurum

Gümüşhane Üniversitesi

Etik Beyan

Etik kurul onayı, 30 Mayıs 2024 tarihli ve E-95674917-108.99-253386 numaralı belge ile alınmıştır.

A Qualitative Study on a Hybrid Human–AI Model in the Workplace Based on Socio-Technical Systems Theory

Öz

The aim of this study is to examine individuals’ views and expectations regarding the hybrid human–artificial intelligence relationship that could be established in the workplace within the Turkish context. The study was conducted using a qualitative research design. A semi-structured questionnaire was used. Data were analysed using the Straussian grounded theory approach through open, axial and selective coding. A total of 92 participants were recruited using a purposive sampling method. Themes and codes were developed based on participants’ statements using open, axial and selective coding methods, supported by the MAXQDA v.2020 analysis software. The findings of the study revealed that, rather than a hybrid model, there is a need to distinguish between concepts based on human and robotic systems, and highlighted the necessity for human characteristics and technology management under human control to be present in the workplace. The participants considered the preservation of human qualities such as empathy, conscience, ethical sensitivity and cultural awareness to be important; whilst expressing views on the use of artificial intelligence and robotic systems in areas such as analytical thinking, systematic work, speed and reducing the workload. The research was evaluated within the framework of socio-technical systems theory and provided insights into how social and technical structures can be integrated within hybrid working systems.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Hybrid Human Model, Human-AI Collaboration, Socio-Technical Systems Theory, Grounded Theory, Qualitative Research

Destekleyen Kurum

Gümüşhane Üniversitesi

Etik Beyan

The ethical aspects of the study: Ethics committee approval was obtained via document number E-95674917-108.99-253386 dated 30 May 2024.

Kaynakça

Akata, Z., Balliet, D., De Rijke, M., Dignum, F., Dignum, V., Eiben, G., ... & Welling, M. (2020). A research agenda for hybrid intelligence: augmenting human intellect with collaborative, adaptive, responsible, and explainable artificial intelligence. Computer, 53(8), 18-28. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2020.2996587
Akinwalere, S., & Chang, K. (2026). The symbiotic roles of artificial intelligence and human intelligence in advancing knowledge ecosystem. Journal of Knowledge Management, 1-42. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-03-2025-0362
Angwaomaodoko, E. A. (2023). The Re-examination of the dangers and implications of artificial intelligence for the future of scholarship and learning. Traektoriâ Nauki, 9(10), 3021-3028.
Arslan, E. (2022). Nitel araştırmalarda geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (51), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.1116878
Breque, M., De Nul, L., & Petridis, A. (2021). Industry 5.0: Towards a sustainable, human-centric and resilient European industry. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. https://doi.org/10.2777/308407
Brey, P., & Dainow, B. (2024). Ethics by design for artificial intelligence. AI and Ethics, 4(4), 1265-1277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-023-00330-4
Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W. W. Norton & Company.
Cambridge Dictionary. (2026). Artificial intelligence. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/artificial-intelligence.
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). SAGE Publications

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2021). Araştırma tasarımı: Nitel, nicel ve karma yöntem yaklaşımları (E. Karadağ, Trans. Ed.; 5. ed.). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
Davutoğlu, N. A. (2022). Sosyo teknik modellemeye uygun yönetim-organizasyon yapısına determinist yaklaşım. Journal of Social and Humanities Sciences Research, 9(89), 2386–2393. https://doi.org/10.26450/jshsr.3233
Dellermann, D., Ebel, P., Söllner, M., & Leimeister, J. M. (2019). Hybrid intelligence. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 61(5), 637-643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-019-00595-2
European Commission. (2019). Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. High-level expert group on artificial intelligence. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai
Fernandez, C. (2012). Guest editorial, themed section. The Grounded Theory Review, 11(1), 7–28.
Fırat, O. Z., & Fırat, S. Ü. (2017). Endüstri 4.0 yolculuğunda trendler ve robotlar. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 46(2), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.5152/iujsb.2017.005
Ghobakhloo, M., Amoozad Mahdiraji, H., Iranmanesh, M., & Jafari-Sadeghi, V. (2024). From Industry 4.0 digital manufacturing to Industry 5.0 digital society: A roadmap toward human-centric, sustainable, and resilient production. Information Systems Frontiers. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-024-10476-z
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge
Gomez, C., Cho, S. M., Ke, S., Huang, C. M., & Unberath, M. (2025). Human-AI collaboration is not very collaborative yet: A taxonomy of interaction patterns in AI-assisted decision making from a systematic review. Frontiers in Computer Science, 6, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2024.1521066
Grzybowski, A., Pawlikowska–Łagód, K., & Lambert, W. C. (2024). A history of artificial intelligence. Clinics in Dermatology, 42(3), 221-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2023.12.016
Gürbüz, S., & Şahin, F. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri: Felsefe–yöntem–analiz (8. ed.). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
Haenlein, M., & Kaplan, A. (2019). A brief history of artificial intelligence: On the past, present, and future of artificial intelligence. California Management Review, 61(4), 5-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125619864925
Hoffman, R. R., Mueller, S. T., Klein, G., & Litman, J. (2023). Measures for explainable AI: Explanation goodness, user satisfaction, mental models, curiosity, trust, and human-AI performance. Frontiers in Computer Science, 5, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2023.1096257
Jarrahi, M. H. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human–AI symbiosis in organizational decision making. Business Horizons, 61(4), 577–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.03.007
Jarrahi, M. H., Lutz, C., & Newlands, G. (2022). Artificial intelligence, human intelligence and hybrid intelligence based on mutual augmentation. Big Data & Society, 9(2), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517221142824
Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2
Kanade, V. (7 May 2022). Narrow AI vs. General AI vs. Super AI: Keu Comparisons. https://www.spiceworks.com/tech/artificial-intelligence/articles/narrow-general-super-ai-difference/
Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (2019). Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who’s the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence. Business Horizons, 62(1), 15-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.08.004
Karabulut, B. (2021). Yapay zekâ bağlamında yaratıcılık ve görsel tasarımın geleceği. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20(79), 1516-1539. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.844536
Kayra, F. (2023). Neo-klasik yaklaşımın katkıları: Modern iş dünyasında hâlâ geçerli mi?. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, 13(4), 2151-2173. https://doi.org/10.30783/nevsosbilen.1289195
Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366–410. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0174
Kirby, J., & Davenport, T. (2016). The knowledge jobs most likely to be automated. Harvard Business Review, 2-4.
Kuru Çetin, S. (2012). Sosyo-teknik sistem kuramı ve sosyo-teknik sistem kuramının eğitime yansımaları. CBÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(2), 52–63.
Kwon, K., Lee, S., & Kim, S. (2021). AI-based home energy management system considering energy efficiency and resident satisfaction. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 9(2), 1608-1621. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2021.3104830
Liveley, G., & Thomas, S. (2020). Homer's intelligent machines: AI in antiquity. S. Cave, K. Dihal, & S. Dillon (Eds.), AI narratives: A history of imaginative thinking about intelligent machines (1st ed., pp. 19–37). Oxford University Press.
McKinsey Global Institute. (2023). The economic potential of generative AI: The next productivity frontier. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-economic-potential-of-generative-ai-the-next-productivity-frontier
Mentzas, G., Hribernik, K., Stahre, J., Romero, D., & Soldatos, J. (2024). Human-centered artificial intelligence in industry 5.0. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 7, 1-4. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1429186
Nahavandi, S. (2019). Industry 5.0—A human-centric solution. Sustainability, 11(16), 4371, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164371
Nguyen, T., & Elbanna, A. (2025). Understanding human-AI augmentation in the workplace: A review and a future research agenda. Information Systems Frontiers, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-025-10591-5
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2019). Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence (OECD/LEGAL/0449). https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/oecd-legal-0449
Parker, S. K., & Grote, G. (2022). Automation, algorithms, and beyond: Why work design matters more than ever in a digital world. Applied Psychology, 71(4), 1171–1204. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12241
Pereira, A. C., & Romero, F. (2017). A review of the meanings and the implications of the Industry 4.0 concept. Procedia Manufacturing, 13, 1206–1214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.09.032
Pirim, A. G. H. (2006). Yapay zeka. Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi, 1(1), 81-93.
Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation–augmentation paradox. Academy of management review, 46(1), 192-210. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0072
Schepman, A., & Rodway, P. (2020). Initial validation of the general attitudes towards artificial ıntelligence scale. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 1, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2020.100014
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
Silver, D., Huang, A., Maddison, C. J., Guez, A., Sifre, L., van den Driessche, G., Schrittwieser, J., Antonoglou, I., Panneershelvam, V., Lanctot, M., Dieleman, S., Grewe, D., Nham, J., Kalchbrenner, N., Sutskever, I., Lillicrap, T., Leach, M., Kavukcuoglu, K., Graepel, T., & Hassabis, D. (2016). Mastering the game of go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature, 529, 484-489. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16961
Song, B., Zhu, Q., & Luo, J. (2024). Human-AI collaboration by design. Proceedings of The Design Society, 4, 2247-2256. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2024.227
Sony, M., & Naik, S. (2020). Industry 4.0 integration with socio-technical systems theory: A systematic review and proposed theoretical model. Technology in Society, 61, 1-11. 101248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101248
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Tarafdar, M., Cooper, C. L., & Stich, J. F. (2019). The technostress trifecta‐techno eustress, techno distress and design: Theoretical directions and an agenda for research. Information Systems Journal, 29(1), 6-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12169
Thomson, S. B. (2011). Sample size and grounded theory. Journal of Administration & Governance, 5(1), 45–52.
Trist, E. L., & Bamforth, K. W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal-getting: An examination of the psychological situation and defences of a work group in relation to the social structure and technological content of the work system. Human Relations, 4(1), 3-38. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001872675100400101
Tutar, H. (2022). Nitel araştırmalarda geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik: Bir model önerisi. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 22 (Özel Sayı 2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.1227323
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(12), 2293-2303. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02024-1
Wang, D., Churchill, E., Maes, P., Fan, X., Shneiderman, B., Shi, Y., & Wang, Q. (2020, April). From human-human collaboration to human-AI collaboration: Designing AI systems that can work together with people. [Konferans sunumu] Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–6). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3381069
Wilson, H. J., & Daugherty, P. R. (2018). Collaborative intelligence: Humans and AI are joining forces. Harvard Business Review, 96(4), 114-123.
World Economic Forum. (2023). The future of jobs report 2023. https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-future-of-jobs-report-2023/
Xu, X., Lu, Y., Vogel-Heuser, B., & Wang, L. (2021). Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0—Inception, conception and perception. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 61, 530–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2021.10.006
Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri (10. ed.). Seçkin Yayıncılık

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

İngilizce

Konular

Örgütsel Davranış

Bölüm

Araştırma Makalesi

Yazarlar

Fevziye Bekar ^*
0000-0003-1692-4294
Türkiye

Yayımlanma Tarihi

29 Ekim 2026

Gönderilme Tarihi

6 Mayıs 2026

Kabul Tarihi

22 Eylül 2026

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 2026 Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2

DOI

https://doi.org/10.38057/bifd.1945318

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA52JY62DU

APA

Bekar, F. (2026). A Qualitative Study on a Hybrid Human–AI Model in the Workplace Based on Socio-Technical Systems Theory. Bucak İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(2), 164-176. https://doi.org/10.38057/bifd.1945318

AMA

1.Bekar F. A Qualitative Study on a Hybrid Human–AI Model in the Workplace Based on Socio-Technical Systems Theory. BİFD. 2026;9(2):164-176. doi:10.38057/bifd.1945318

Chicago

Bekar, Fevziye. 2026. “A Qualitative Study on a Hybrid Human–AI Model in the Workplace Based on Socio-Technical Systems Theory”. Bucak İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi 9 (2): 164-76. https://doi.org/10.38057/bifd.1945318.

EndNote

Bekar F (01 Ekim 2026) A Qualitative Study on a Hybrid Human–AI Model in the Workplace Based on Socio-Technical Systems Theory. Bucak İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi 9 2 164–176.

IEEE

[1]F. Bekar, “A Qualitative Study on a Hybrid Human–AI Model in the Workplace Based on Socio-Technical Systems Theory”, BİFD, c. 9, sy 2, ss. 164–176, Eki. 2026, doi: 10.38057/bifd.1945318.

ISNAD

Bekar, Fevziye. “A Qualitative Study on a Hybrid Human–AI Model in the Workplace Based on Socio-Technical Systems Theory”. Bucak İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi 9/2 (01 Ekim 2026): 164-176. https://doi.org/10.38057/bifd.1945318.

JAMA

1.Bekar F. A Qualitative Study on a Hybrid Human–AI Model in the Workplace Based on Socio-Technical Systems Theory. BİFD. 2026;9:164–176.

MLA

Bekar, Fevziye. “A Qualitative Study on a Hybrid Human–AI Model in the Workplace Based on Socio-Technical Systems Theory”. Bucak İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, c. 9, sy 2, Ekim 2026, ss. 164-76, doi:10.38057/bifd.1945318.

Vancouver

1.Fevziye Bekar. A Qualitative Study on a Hybrid Human–AI Model in the Workplace Based on Socio-Technical Systems Theory. BİFD. 01 Ekim 2026;9(2):164-76. doi:10.38057/bifd.1945318

Bu eser Creative Commons Atıf 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.

Sosyo-Teknik Sistemler Teorisi Temelinde İş Hayatında Hibrit İnsan–AI Modeli Üzerine Nitel Bir Araştırma

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

Destekleyen Kurum

Etik Beyan

A Qualitative Study on a Hybrid Human–AI Model in the Workplace Based on Socio-Technical Systems Theory

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

Destekleyen Kurum

Etik Beyan

Kaynakça

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

Konular

Bölüm

Yazarlar

Yayımlanma Tarihi

Gönderilme Tarihi

Kabul Tarihi

Yayımlandığı Sayı

DOI

IZ

Kaynak Göster