A Discourse Analysis of Ethical Communication and Power Dynamic in Artificial Intelligence: A Case Study of Customer Service AI Chatbots
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This article examines ethical discourse and power dynamics in AI chatbot interactions through Critical Discourse Analysis based on Fairclough’s framework. Drawing upon 14 simulated conversations from two corporate case studies, the analysis identifies three key discourses: 1) hidden transparency through human-like personas, 2) programmed emotional responses, and 3) communication structures that limit user agency. The study concludes that AI communication architectures primarily serve corporate interests. This research contributes to communication ethics by shifting the focus from technical usability to structural power dynamics within the Thai context.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
ลิขสิทธิ์ของบทความ
ผลงานที่ได้รับการตีพิมพ์ถือเป็นลิขสิทธิ์ของมหาวิทยาลัยหอการค้าไทย ห้ามมิให้นำเนื้อหา ทัศนะ หรือข้อคิดเห็นใด ๆ ของผลงานไปทำซ้ำ ดัดแปลง หรือเผยแพร่ ไม่ว่าทั้งหมดหรือบางส่วนโดยไม่ได้รับอนุญาตเป็นลายลักษณ์อักษรจากมหาวิทยาลัยหอการค้าไทยก่อน
References
A Telecommunication Organization. (2026). Ask Aunjai [Mobile application].
An Aviation Organization. (2026). Chat with Bo [Mobile application].
Bates, T. R. (1975). Gramsci and the theory of hegemony. Journal of the History of Ideas, 36(2), 351–366. https://doi.org/10.2307/2708933
Bickmore, T. W., & Cassell, J. (2005). Social dialogue with embodied conversational agents. In J. C. J. van Kuppevelt, L. Dybkjær, & N. O. Bernsen (Eds.), Advances in natural multimodal dialogue systems (pp. 23–54). Springer.
Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). Data colonialism: Rethinking big data’s relation to the contemporary subject. Television & New Media, 20(4), 336–349. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/ 1527476418796632
Davis, F. D. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Polity Press.
Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777–795.
Gnewuch, U., Morana, S., & Maedche, A. (2017). Towards designing cooperative and social conversational agents for customer service. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2017). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2017/HCI/Presentations/1/
Kaewthep, K., & Hinwiman, S. (2017). Streams of political economy theorists and communication studies (3rd ed.). Inthanin. [In Thai]
Kageki, N. (2012). An uncanny mind [Turning Point]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(2), 108–112. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2012.2192819
Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153
Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. NYU Press.
Powers, T. M., & Ganascia, J.-G. (2020). The ethics of the ethics of AI. In M. D. Dubber, F. Pasquale, & S. Das (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of ethics of AI (pp. 27–52). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190067397.013.2
Shum, H. Y., He, X. D., & Li, D. (2018). From ELIZA to XiaoIce: Challenges and opportunities with social chatbots. Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering, 19(1), 10–26. https://doi.org/10.1631/FITEE.1700826
Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2018). How AI can be a force for good. Science, 361(6404), 751–752. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat5991
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from ourselves. Basic Books.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and power. Palgrave Macmillan.
