Robo-Advice (RA): implications for the sociology of the professions

Abstract

PurposeThis conceptual paper explores the implications for the sociology of the professions of robo-advice (RA) provided by robo-advisors (RAs) as an early example of successfully programmed algorithmic knowledge managed by artificial intelligence (AI).Design/methodology/approach The authors examine the drivers of RAs, their success, characteristics, and establish RA as an early precursor of commercialized, programmed professional advice with implications for developments in the sociology of the professions.FindingsWithin the lens of the sociology of the professions, the success of RAs suggests that the diffusion of this innovation depends on three factors: the programmed flows of automated professional knowledge are minimally disruptive, they are less costly, and attract attention because of the “on-trend” nature of algorithmic authority guided by AI. The on-trend nature of algorithmic governance and its increasing public acceptance points toward an algorithmic paradox. The contradictions arise in the gap between RA marketed to the public and as a set of professional practices.Practical implicationsThe incursion of RA-like disembodied advice into other professions is predicted given the emergence of tech-savvy clients, the tie between RA and updatable flows of big data, and an increasing shift to the “maker” or “do-it-yourself” movements.Originality/valueUsing the success of RAs in the financial industry, the authors predict that an AI-managed platform, despite the algorithmic paradox, is an avenue for growth with implications for researchers in the sociology of the professions.

Being Human in the Digitally Enabled Workplace: Insights From the Robo-Advice Literature

“…As Northey et al [65] suggest, the source of information, whether human or automated, impacts the level of trust in the information received [65]. With the increasing authority of algorithms, trust in human experts and professionals has been reported to be decreasing [91]. Wexler and Oberlander [91,p.…”