Question 1

Why does this paper matter when my team encounters pushback from domain experts against algorithmic recommendations?

Accepted Answer

Sergeeva, Leonardi, and Faraj reframe expert resistance as a genuine epistemological conflict rather than adoption friction. They show that AI doesn't simply fit into existing authority structures—it introduces a rival basis for knowing that can displace professional expertise. Understanding this distinction helps product directors recognize that clinician, lawyer, or analyst objections are fundamentally about whose grounds for justified belief count in the organization, not surface-level resistance to new tools.

Question 2

How does the 'epistemic regimes' concept improve on older frameworks for understanding technology in organizations?

Accepted Answer

Unlike adoption, automation, and augmentation models that assume new technology absorbs into existing structures, the epistemic regimes frame treats organizations as arenas where competing logics of credible knowledge actively contend. This connects to classical decision-making theory (Simon, March) on bounded rationality but extends it into territory those authors couldn't anticipate—specifically, how AI systems don't just inform decisions within an existing epistemic order, they can destabilize which forms of knowledge are considered legitimate.

Question 3

Is this paper established enough to rely on for strategy decisions, given it was published in 2026?

Accepted Answer

Yes. While citation count is modest, Leonardi and Faraj are recognized organization-theory voices with prior influential work on technology and knowing. The epistemic regimes framing is original conceptually rather than a restatement of existing models, which suggests it will likely shape future research in the field. For product directors, the analytical clarity alone—having proper vocabulary for a real organizational challenge—justifies engagement with the work.