Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces and validates an AI Agent-based collaborative research workflow (Agentic Workflow) for humanities and social science research, addressing the gap in methodological exploration of generative AI in these fields. The workflow, designed with task modularization, human-AI division of labor, and verifiability principles, was tested using Taiwan's Claude.ai usage data from the Anthropic Economic Index (AEI). The study demonstrates the workflow's feasibility and identifies three operational modes of human-AI collaboration, highlighting the continued importance of human judgment in key research tasks.
Forget replacing researchers: this study shows how to build a replicable AI collaboration framework that *augments* humanities and social science research, not automates it.
Generative AI is reshaping knowledge work, yet existing research focuses predominantly on software engineering and the natural sciences, with limited methodological exploration for the humanities and social sciences. Positioned as a "methodological experiment," this study proposes an AI Agent-based collaborative research workflow (Agentic Workflow) for humanities and social science research. Taiwan's Claude.ai usage data (N = 7,729 conversations, November 2025) from the Anthropic Economic Index (AEI) serves as the empirical vehicle for validating the feasibility of this methodology. This study operates on two levels: the primary level is the design and validation of a methodological framework - a seven-stage modular workflow grounded in three principles: task modularization, human-AI division of labor, and verifiability, with each stage delineating clear roles for human researchers (research judgment and ethical decisions) and AI Agents (information retrieval and text generation); the secondary level is the empirical analysis of AEI Taiwan data - serving as an operational demonstration of the workflow's application to secondary data research, showcasing both the process and output quality (see Appendix A). This study contributes by proposing a replicable AI collaboration framework for humanities and social science researchers, and identifying three operational modes of human-AI collaboration - direct execution, iterative refinement, and human-led - through reflexive documentation of the operational process. This taxonomy reveals the irreplaceability of human judgment in research question formulation, theoretical interpretation, contextualized reasoning, and ethical reflection. Limitations including single-platform data, cross-sectional design, and AI reliability risks are acknowledged.
