As qualitative research is increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence (AI), new challenges emerge. While AI expands creative possibilities, its integration also risks reducing sensory knowledge to abstract symbols and reinforcing cultural bias. This article introduces Sensory–Algorithmic Dialogue (SAD) as a critical methodological framework that reorients how qualitative research, particularly arts-based research (ABR), engages with AI. Rather than fusing sensory ethnography and algorithmic processes, SAD sustains their difference, treating misalignments not as flaws but as productive frictions. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork in Jingdezhen, a thousand-year-old ceramic art community, we show how AI’s misreading becomes entry points for reflection, where researchers’ multisensory expertise reclaims knowledge overlooked by algorithmic abstraction. In doing so, SAD repositions AI from a passive tool to an active interlocutor, turning algorithmic limitations into opportunities for creativity, critique, and methodological innovation, while deepening ABR’s capacity to sustain embodied, multisensory, and culturally grounded inquiry in the AI era.
AlayracJ.-B.DonahueJ.LucP.MiechA.BarrI.HassonY.LencK.MenschA.MillicanK.ReynoldsM.RingR.RutherfordE.CabiS.HanT.GongZ.SamangooeiS.MonteiroM.MenickJ.BorgeaudS.…SimonyanK. (2022). Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35, 23716–23736.
2.
AnantrasirichaiN.BullD. (2022). Artificial intelligence in the creative industries: a review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 55(1), 589–656.
3.
AvlonitouC.PapadakiE. (2025). AI: An active and innovative tool for artistic creation. Arts, 14(3), 52.
4.
BaroneT.EisnerE. W. (2012). Arts-based research. Sage.
5.
BarrettL.StoutD. (2024). Minds in movement: Embodied cognition in the age of artificial intelligence. Philosophical Transactions B, 379(1911), 20230144.
6.
BarsalouL. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 617–645.
CallénB.DuqueM. (2023). Editorial: Repairing design: Damage, care, and fragilities. Diseña, 23, Editorial.
9.
ClarkB.FosterJ. B. (2002). Helen Keller and the Touch of Nature: An introduction to Keller’s The World I Live in (Selections). Organization & Environment, 15(3), 278–284.
10.
CrawfordK. (2021). The atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press.
11.
DingY. (2024). The impact of artificial intelligence on art research: An analysis of academic productivity and multidisciplinary integration. arXivpreprint arXiv:2412.04850.
12.
EdwardsE. (1994). Anthropology and photography, 1860-1920. Yale University Press.
13.
EdwardsE. (2021). Raw histories: Photographs, anthropology and museums. Routledge.
14.
FokaA.GriffinG.Ortiz PabloD.RajkowskaP.BadriS. (2025). Tracing the bias loop: AI, cultural heritage and bias-mitigating in practice. AI & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02349-z
15.
FokaA.von BonsdorffJ. (2025). AI and image: Critical perspectives on the application of technology on art and cultural heritage. Cambridge University Press.
16.
FosterH. (1995). The artist as ethnographer? In FosterH. (Ed.), The return of the real: Art and theory at the end of the century (pp. 302–304). MIT Press.
17.
GallegosI. O.RossiR. A.BarrowJ.TanjimM. M.KimS.DernoncourtF.. . . AhmedN. K. (2024). Bias and fairness in large language models: A survey. Computational Linguistics, 50(3), 1097–1179.
18.
HowesD. (2019). Multisensory anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 48(1), 17–28.
19.
JacksonS. J. (2014). Rethinking repair. In GillespieT.BoczkowskiP. J.FootK. A. (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society. MIT Press.
20.
KellerH. (1903). The story of my life. Doubleday.
21.
LeavyP. (Ed.) (2025). Handbook of arts-based research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
22.
LowK. E. (2023). Sensory anthropology: Culture and experience in Asia. Cambridge University Press.
23.
MorozovE. (2013). To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism. PublicAffairs.
24.
McCormackJ.GiffordT.HutchingsP. (2019). Autonomy, authenticity, authorship and intention in computer-generated art. Symmetry, 11(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11020128
25.
NakamuraK. (2013). Making sense of sensory ethnography: The sensual and the multisensory. American Anthropologist, 115(1), 132–135.
NathanM. J. (2023). Disembodied AI and the limits to machine understanding of students’ embodied interactions. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 6, Article 1148227.
28.
NobleS. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. NYU Press.
29.
PengY.MaoS. (2025). EARTH: Structuring creative evolution through model error in generative AI. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2507.18004.
30.
PinkS. (2015). Doing sensory ethnography. Sage.
31.
PinkS. (2023). Emerging technologies/life at the edge of the future. Routledge.
PinkS.SalazarJ. F. (2017). Anthropologies and futures: Setting the agenda. In SalazarJ. F.PinkS.IrvingA.SjobergJ. (Eds.), Anthropologies and futures: Researching emerging and uncertain worlds (pp. 3–22). Bloomsbury Academic.
34.
PulvermüllerF. (2005). Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(7), 576–582.
35.
RammalH.HejaseH. J.El TakachA. (2025). Artificial intelligence in art: Bridging the gap between automation and human expression. Asian Journal of Social Science Studies, 10(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.20849/ajsss.v10i1.1485
36.
SahaS.PandeyS. K.ChoudhuryM. (2025). Meta-cultural competence: Climbing the right hill of cultural awareness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.09637.
37.
SalimbeniG.BenfordS.ReevesS.MartindaleS. (2024). Decoding AI in contemporary art: A five-trope classification for understanding and categorization. Leonardo, 57(4), 415–421.
38.
SimsA. (2024). From creation to curriculum: Examining the role of generative AI in arts universities. arXiv PreprintarXiv:2412.16531.
39.
StollerP. (1997). Sensuous Scholarship. University of Pennsylvania Press.
40.
YiA. (2021, October6). We are biological beings. We need to smell things, taste things, hear things. The online world can’t capture that. The Guardian.
