AI · Full-text scoping review/evidence synthesis
The effects of artificial intelligence on human resource activities and the roles of the human resource triad: opportunities and challenges
Frontiers in Psychology · 2024
Summary
Synthesizes five main AI effects on HR activities and maps opportunities/challenges across the HR triad; highlights automation, decision support, bias/ethics, changing roles and need for multilevel research. For a founder, use this as a question to test in your own context, not a universal playbook.
For your marketing
Possible founder application
Treat this as evidence for the specific customer behavior and adoption question studied. Compare the setting and sample to your company before changing a growth decision; use a local experiment where the paper does not match your context.
Reported result
What the study found
Synthesizes five main AI effects on HR activities and maps opportunities/challenges across the HR triad; highlights automation, decision support, bias/ethics, changing roles and need for multilevel research.
Research question
What the authors investigated
What does the peer-reviewed literature show about AI’s effects on HR activities and the roles of employees, line managers and HR professionals?
Design
Scoping review of 27 years of literature; searches across four databases; 11,405 initial records, 9,413 screened after deduplication, 811 full texts assessed and 43 peer-reviewed articles included. The included empirical studies comprised 26 quantitative, 12 qualitative and five mixed-methods studies.
Sample and setting
43 articles across 38 journals covering eight HR activity categories; 95.7% intercoder agreement on 20% of coded studies.
Scope and transfer
Limitations to keep in view
Scoping review does not include formal quality assessment; keyword scope and four-database search may omit studies; authors call for broader databases/disciplines and more empirical work.
Research sources
Publisher DOI record and accessible article/abstract directly support the bibliographic record and the summary fields; editorial review remains appropriate for duplicate checking against the unseen 300-study library. Correction notices were not separately verified in this collection; consult the current publisher record before applying the findings.