| Submission declined on 27 June 2025 by Rambley (talk). This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner. Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
|  |
| Submission declined on 7 June 2025 by Ca (talk). Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include: Declined by Ca 26 days ago.
| |
Comment: Has AI-indicative tone and structuring issues. AI tends to make overly vague statements without any detail. Please expand those bullet points into proper sentences and reduce generalizations and vagueness. Ca talk to me! 09:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Socio-Cognitive Engineering (SCE) is a transdisciplinary methodology for designing, developing, and evaluating hybrid human–artificial intelligence systems.[1][2]. It integrates basic components of human-centered design, cognitive science, requirement engineering, human factors and value sensitive design, with participatory domain, stakeholder and human needs' analyses. SCE makes responsible research and innovation practical and evidence-based by the iterative development of the design rationale that includes univocal, theoretically and empirically grounded, claim statements on the functional effectiveness and alignment with humans values.
Origins and Theoretical Foundations
[edit]The term socio-cognitive reflects the mutual influence between individual cognitive processes and social dynamics, a central concern in educational psychology, social cognition, and human–computer interaction.[3] SCE evolved from foundational work in Cognitive Systems Engineering (CSE), which emerged in the 1980s to improve human performance in complex and high-risk domains such as aviation, nuclear power, and process control.[4]
The first notion of Socio-Cognitive Engineering as a design methodology was presented by Sharples et al. (2002), who proposed a stakeholder-centered process that integrates cognitive models, usability evaluation, and task analysis in human-centered system design.[5]
Subsequently, Neerincx and Lindenberg (2008) introduced Situated Cognitive Engineering (SCE), extending CSE principles with scenario-based design and cognitive task modeling for mission-critical applications.[6] Their elaboration of the methodology was based on the needs for a practical coherent research and development of intelligent work support in two high-stake domains (i.e., manned space and naval missions). SCE itself was developed through an iterative process, being refined based on practical experience of real-world cases and incorporating advances from the field of cognitive engineering. The evolution into Socio-Cognitive Engineering was further formalized in Neerincx et al. (2019) through its application in health robotics with the example a robotic-and-agentic partner with dedicated dashboards to support children with type 1 diabetes and their caregivers [7]
Methodological Framework
[edit]Socio-Cognitive Engineering (SCE) is structured as an iterative, four-phase methodology. It takes a transdisciplinary approach to address both the diversity of theories and models that can enhance the design and evaluation and the domain and context-dependent requirements and effects. There are four established methods with key principles that SCE incorporated: First, Norman's (1986) work on user-centered design and cognitive artifacts[8] emphasizes the importance of design, usability, and end-user evaluation for appropriate adoption of new interactive technology (addressing the psychological aspects, like end-user vs. software-engineer mental models). Second, Vicente's (1999) ecological interface design[9] added a socio-technical perspective to develop displays that accommodate for expert knowledge to control complex dynamic processes. Third, Carroll's (2000) on scenario-based design[10] approach showed how the construction of problem and design scenarios can facilitate the iterative development process to address task-artefact cycle (i.e., a new artefact brings about new tasks that set new requirements for a new artefact, ...). Fourth, Friedman et al. work (2006) on value sensitive design[11] provide sound value analyses method that can facilitate human-technology value alignment.
1. Foundation
[edit]The first phase identifies and synthesizes core requirements by analyzing the operational context, cognitive demands, and technological constraints. This process is structured around three main perspectives:
- Operational Demands: Analyses are based on in-depth investigations of the work environment and tasks. Techniques such as ethnographic fieldwork, work domain analysis [12], and goal-directed task modeling [13] are used to understand the structure and dynamics of user activities within the specific domain.
- Human Factors and Cognitive Theories: This involves applying theoretical models to guide design assumptions. Examples include workload theory[14] to estimate cognitive-affective task load and mental effort, mental models[15] to understand user expectations and behaviors, and situation awareness frameworks [16] to support real-time comprehension and decision making.
- Technological Constraints and Opportunities: The analysis includes examining the capabilities and limitations of AI technologies, interaction modalities (e.g., voice, gesture, mixed reality), and sensor-actuator systems. These are assessed for their suitability within the target environment and tasks.
2. Design Specification
[edit]This phase translates the foundational insights into concrete system behavior and interaction strategies. The core of this specification consists of two components that are being worked in combination. The first component concerns the generation of Use Cases, as common in software engineering but with an emphasize on the human-technology interaction. Detailed narratives or scenarios are developed to describe system functionalities and user interactions. These use cases are grounded in the operational context and aim to cover both routine and edge-case situations[10]. Second, the Claims Analysis is being worked out, i.e., each design choice is linked to specific user outcomes through structured claims. These claims articulate assumed or evidenced cause–effect relationships between system features and their anticipated effects on concrete measures, e.g. on performance, workload, learning, trust, situation awareness, safety and well-being. [17]
3. Evaluation
[edit]The evaluation is embedded throughout the development cycle and relies on a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to test claims, identify value mis-alignments, and inform design iterations. It is integral and recursive, informed by principles of mixed methods research. Also here, two central components are distinguished. First, prototypes are built that may range from simulations, early mock-ups to functional systems (it can also be combinations of "real technology" and simulations). Functions may be partially included in a prototype to test specific claims. In general, prototypes are used in controlled settings or in the field to generate user feedback and empirical data. Second, the evaluation methods concern multiple empirical approaches. Quantitative methods include performance metrics and standardized usability assessments. Qualitative methods such as semi-structured interviews, think-aloud protocols, and field observations help interpret user experience. Evaluation is conducted through iterative cycles that may include laboratory experiments, cognitive walkthroughs, ethnographic studies, and field trials. Overall, the techniques are combined to assess claims and guide refinements. The combination of methods (e.g., controlled experiments, cognitive walkthroughs, ethnographic observation, and field trials) allows for triangulation of results.[18][19]
4. Abstraction for Coherence and Reuse
[edit]To support generalization and knowledge reuse, this phase focuses on formalizing insights and making them applicable across domains. The knowledge abstraction concerns three models.
- Values: Ethical and societal considerations are translated into actionable design criteria and evaluation benchmarks. These are not treated as abstract principles but as operational requirements derived from stakeholder input and value-sensitive design processes. Note that scenarios are used to facilitate reflection, deliberation and modeling of the values (e.g., to be included in requirements engineering processes); these context-dependencies are included in the value models. [11].
- Design Patterns: Common solutions to recurring interaction and interface challenges are abstracted into reusable patterns. These patterns are documented with guidance on their applicability (context-dependency), limitations, and associated empirical findings. Furthermore, the related requirements to their part of the work are explicated, both for the AI and the human [20]
- Ontologies: Domain-specific ontologies are developed to represent task structures, system functions, mental models and user goals. These formal models enable consistency in design, support model-driven development, and facilitate interoperability across systems and components[21]
Applications
[edit]SCE has been applied in several domains where collaboration between humans and intelligent systems is essential (human–AI collaboration). The methodology has supported system design and evaluation in the following areas.
In the domain of Health and Wellbeing, for digital health interventions and social robotics, SCE has been used to guide the design of e-coaching systems, serious games, and social robots (companion robots). These systems support long-term behavior change and chronic disease management by aligning system functions with user goals, values, and cognitive capacities.[7]
Further, SCE informed the development of intelligent cognitive agents to assist astronauts with planning, monitoring, and anomaly handling in the domain of Space Exploration. For instance, in the European Space Agency’s MECA project, the methodology helped define the agent’s interaction capabilities and ensure that its reasoning processes were transparent and aligned with human expectations.[22]
In the domain of Traffic Management (e.g. rail traffic): SCE has been applied to the design of decision-support systems that help distribute cognitive workload among human operators (e.g. train dispatchers) and AI agents. This includes techniques to model team coordination and dynamically adjust automation levels to avoid overload or underload.[14]
As another example, now for Disaster Response, SCE supported the design of robotic platforms and coordination tools used in emergency response scenarios. SCE helped identify critical information needs, evaluate situation awareness support under high workload, and ensure that air and ground vehicles (robots) remained under meaningful human control.[23]
In Defense and Security applications, SCE has been used to support human–machine teaming for tasks such as situational awareness, threat assessment, and tactical decision-making. The methodology guided the design of actionable explanations to improve trust calibration and design of a work agreements model to attune information processes and responsibilities to the momentary context .[24]
Significance
[edit]Systemic Cognitive Engineering (SCE) offers a structured methodology for the design of interactive systems involving human–AI collaboration. Its main contribution lies in integrating empirical evaluation, cognitive theory, and value-oriented design into a coherent process. This integration allows design teams to align technical system capabilities with human cognitive needs and social values, especially in domains characterized by complexity and high risk.
The methodology's strength is its grounding in iterative, mixed-method development cycles that combine theoretical analysis with practical feedback. Its emphasis on prototyping and empirical validation supports early identification of design shortcomings, while the use of scenario-based design and claims analysis helps make the rationale behind design choices explicit and testable. Furthermore, the incorporation of values—as operational design elements rather than abstract principles—helps bring ethical and societal concerns into concrete design and evaluation processes.
At the same time, several areas for improvement remain. For example, while the methodology supports transdisciplinary collaboration in principle, applying it effectively in large, heterogeneous teams can be challenging. Coordinating between cognitive scientists, engineers, designers, and domain experts requires careful facilitation and often additional effort in communication and documentation.
Another area for further development involves the scalability of design patterns and ontologies across domains. While abstraction is a key feature of the methodology, generalizing knowledge without oversimplifying context-specific constraints remains an ongoing tension. Similarly, methods for operationalizing and measuring values—especially those that are contested or context-dependent—can benefit from more robust frameworks and shared benchmarks.
SCE continues to evolve in response to these challenges. Its current form provides a solid foundation for responsible system development, particularly in settings where human judgment, collaboration, and adaptation remain essential. However, its long-term value will depend on ongoing methodological refinement, empirical validation in diverse settings, and sustained attention to issues of interdisciplinary coordination and value negotiation.
See Also
[edit]- Cognitive Systems Engineering
- Human–Computer Interaction
- Participatory Design
- Value sensitive design
- Human-centered design
- Human-centered computing
- Sociocognitive
References
[edit]- ^ Dellermann, Dominik; Ebel, Philipp; Söllner, Matthias; Leimeister, Jan Marco (2019-10-01). "Hybrid Intelligence". Business & Information Systems Engineering. 61 (5): 637–643. arXiv:2105.00691. doi:10.1007/s12599-019-00595-2. ISSN 1867-0202.
- ^ Akata, Zeynep; Balliet, Dan; De Rijke, Maarten; Dignum, Frank; Dignum, Virginia; Eiben, Guszti; Fokkens, Antske; Grossi, Davide; Hindriks, Koen; Hoos, Holger; Hung, Hayley; Jonker, Catholijn; Monz, Christof; Neerincx, Mark; Oliehoek, Frans; Prakken, Henry; Schlobach, Stefan; Van Der Gaag, Linda; Van Harmelen, Frank; Van Hoof, Herke; Van Riemsdijk, Birna; Van Wynsberghe, Aimee; Verbrugge, Rineke; Verheij, Bart; Vossen, Piek; Welling, Max (2020). "A Research Agenda for Hybrid Intelligence: Augmenting Human Intellect With Collaborative, Adaptive, Responsible, and Explainable Artificial Intelligence". Computer. 53 (8): 18–28. doi:10.1109/MC.2020.2996587. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
- ^ Sociocognitive. Wikipedia.
- ^ Rasmussen, Pejtersen, & Goodstein, 1994; Hollnagel & Woods, 2005.
- ^ Sharples, M., Jeffries, H., du Boulay, B., Teather, D., & du Boulay, G. (2002). Socio-cognitive engineering: A methodology for the design of human-centred technology. European Journal of Operational Research, 136(2), 310–323.
- ^ Neerincx, M. A., & Lindenberg, J. (2008). Situated cognitive engineering for complex task environments. Ashgate Publishing.
- ^ a b Neerincx, M. A., Van Vught, W., Blanson Henkemans, O., Oleari, E., Broekens, J., Peters, R., ... & Bierman, B. (2019). Socio-cognitive engineering of a robotic partner for child's diabetes self-management. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 6, 118. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2019.00118
- ^ Norman, D. A. (1986). The design of everyday things. Basic Books.
- ^ Vicente, K. J. (1999). Cognitive Work Analysis: Toward safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. CRC Press.
- ^ a b Carroll, J. M. (2000). Making use: scenario-based design of human–computer interactions. MIT Press.
- ^ a b Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H., & Borning, A. (2006). Value sensitive design and information systems. In Human-computer interaction and management information systems: Foundations, 348–372.
- ^ Vicente, K. J. (1999). Cognitive work analysis: Toward safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. CRC press.Endsley (1995)
- ^ Neerincx, M. A. (2003). Cognitive task load analysis: Allocating tasks and designing support. In D. A. Schraagen, S. F. Chipman, & V. L. Shalin (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive task design (pp. 283–306). CRC Press.
- ^ a b Harbers, M., & Neerincx, M. A. (2017). Value sensitive design of a virtual assistant for workload harmonization in teams. Cognition, Technology & Work, 19(2–3), 329–343.
- ^ Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Harvard University Press.
- ^ Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human factors, 37(1), 32-64.
- ^ McCrickard, D. S., Catrambone, R., Chewar, C. M., & Stasko, J. T. (2003). Establishing tradeoffs that leverage attention for utility: Empirically evaluating information display in notification systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(5), 547–582.
- ^ Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
- ^ Taherdoost, H. (2022). What are different research approaches? Comprehensive review of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method research, their applications, types, and limitations. Journal of Management Science & Engineering Research, 5(1), 53–63.
- ^ Van Zoelen, E., Mioch, T., Tajaddini, M., Fleiner, C., Tsaneva, S., Camin, P., ... & Neerincx, M. A. (2023). Developing team design patterns for hybrid intelligence systems. In HHAI 2023: Augmenting Human Intellect (pp. 3-16). IOS Press.
- ^ Rijgersberg-Peters, R., van Vught, W., Broekens, J., & Neerincx, M. A. (2023). Goal Ontology for Personalized Learning and Its Implementation in Child's Health Self-Management Support. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 17, 903-918.
- ^ Neerincx, M. A. (2011). Situated cognitive engineering for crew support in space. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 15(5), 445–456.
- ^ Kruijff-Korbayová, I., Colas, F., Gianni, M., Pirri, F., de Greeff, J., Hindriks, K., ... & Worst, R. (2015). Tradr project: Long-term human-robot teaming for robot assisted disaster response. KI-Künstliche Intelligenz, 29, 193–201.
- ^ De Greef, T. E. G., Henryk, F. A., & Neerincx, M. A. (2010). Adaptive automation based on an object-oriented task model: Implementation and evaluation in a realistic C2 environment. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 4(2), 152–182.