（错）位的贡献：揭示涉及非母语者、母语者和AI驱动编辑工具的协作写作中的隐性障碍
(Dis)placed Contributions: Uncovering Hidden Hurdles to Collaborative Writing Involving Non-Native Speakers, Native Speakers, and AI-Powered Editing Tools
AI总结：
本研究通过32组母语与非母语者的协作写作实验，揭示了非母语者面临的“后动者劣势”，并发现AI编辑工具会加剧协作紧张关系，强调需区分多语言协作中的多维贡献。
摘要：
如今的内容创作通常通过协作写作来进行。CSCW研究长期以来的一个关注点在于理解并促进共同作者之间的协调。然而，对于使用非母语写作的个人以及包含他们的共同作者群体，却鲜少受到关注。我们提出了一项填补上述空白的混合方法研究。我们的参与者包括32个共同作者小组，每组由一名英语母语者（NS）和一名英语水平有限的非母语者（NNS）组成。他们采用两种不同的工作流进行协作写作：一半小组由NNS先进行编辑，另一半则由NS先编辑后NNS再进行。我们的数据揭示了NNS专属经历的“后动者劣势”：当NNS的编辑回合排在NS之后而非之前时，NNS对联合文档的观点贡献会受到抑制。令人惊讶的是，AI驱动工具提供的编辑帮助并未使NNS免受这一劣势。相反，它引发了NS对NNS在写作中展现出的英语水平和主观能动性的高估，从而在协作中引入了意想不到的紧张关系。这些发现为在语言多样化环境中公平评估和有效促进共同作者的贡献提供了启示。具体而言，它们强调了对联合写作中在观点、表达和词汇层面所作贡献进行区分的必要性。
英文摘要：
Content creation today often takes place via collaborative writing. A longstanding interest of CSCW research lies in understanding and promoting the coordination between co-writers. However, little attention has been paid to individuals who write in their non-native language and to co-writer groups involving them. We present a mixed-method study that fills the above gap. Our participants included 32 co-writer groups, each consisting of one native speaker (NS) of English and one non-native speaker (NNS) with limited proficiency. They performed collaborative writing adopting two different workflows: half of the groups began with NNSs taking the first editing turn and half had NNSs act after NSs. Our data revealed a "late-mover disadvantage" exclusively experienced by NNSs: an NNS's ideational contributions to the joint document were suppressed when their editing turn was placed after an NS's turn, as opposed to ahead of it. Surprisingly, editing help provided by AI-powered tools did not exempt NNSs from being disadvantaged. Instead, it triggered NSs' overestimation of NNSs' English proficiency and agency displayed in the writing, introducing unintended tensions into the collaboration. These findings shed light on the fair assessment and effective promotion of a co-writer's contributions in language diverse settings. In particular, they underscore the necessity of disentangling contributions made to the ideational, expressional, and lexical aspects of the joint writing.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
