Vibe to Code：生成AIデザインワークフローにおける暗黙知の戦略的振動の解明 — 探索的質的研究
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51094/jxiv.5731キーワード:
人間とAIの協働、 暗黙知、 戦略的振動、 思考発話法、 メタ認知、 SECIモデル抄録
生成AIツールの急速な普及により、デザイナーは自然言語プロンプトを通じて暗黙知を言語化するという新たなリテラシーを求められている。しかし、反復的なAI対話のなかでデザイナーが暗黙の意図を外化する際のミクロな認知過程は、十分に解明されていない。本研究は探索的な質的研究として、熟練デザイナー5名（UI/UX経験11〜20年、平均15.4年）を対象に思考発話法を用いて検討した。その結果、操作的な仕様（Code）へ具体化を進めたのち、意図的に曖昧な言語（Vibe）へ回帰する「戦略的振動（Strategic Oscillation）」を見出した。これはAIの確率的性質を創造的探索に活用する行為である。さらに、「指示」から「相談」へのモード転換、意味的衝突を契機とする深い省察、および1名の離脱事例から示唆される境界条件としての概念的整合を観察した。本研究は、SECIモデルの「表出化」を人間とAIの協働に向けて操作化するECRTサイクル（Expectation–Collision–Reflection–Transformation）を提案する。これらの知見から、メタ認知を支援する3つのデザインパターンを導出し、暗黙知の外化を促す「確率的な鏡」としてAIを位置づける。
利益相反に関する開示
著者は開示すべき利益相反はない。ダウンロード *前日までの集計結果を表示します
引用文献
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (2002, amended effective June 1, 2010, and January 1, 2017). https://www.apa.org/ethics/code
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822388128
Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 19(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.2307/2088165
Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. Kogan Page.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
Buxton, B. (2007). Sketching user experiences: Getting the design right and the right design. Morgan Kaufmann.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design (4th ed.). Sage.
Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.001
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Rev. ed.). MIT Press.
Gaver, W. W., Beaver, J., & Benford, S. (2003). Ambiguity as a resource for design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '03) (pp. 233–240). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/642611.642653
Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419109534381
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Anchor Books.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Karpathy, A. [@karpathy]. (2025, February 2). There's a new kind of coding I call "vibe coding" where you fully give in to the vibes [Post]. X. https://x.com/karpathy/status/1886192184808149383
Knoth, N., Tolzin, A., Janson, A., & Leimeister, J. M. (2024). AI literacy and its implications for prompt engineering strategies. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100225
Koch, J., Lucero, A., Hegemann, L., & Oulasvirta, A. (2019). May AI? Design ideation with cooperative contextual bandits. In Proceedings of CHI '19. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300863
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
Lee, H. P., Sarkar, A., Tankelevitch, L., Drosos, I., Rintel, S., Banks, R., & Wilson, N. (2025). The impact of generative AI on critical thinking: Self-reported reductions in cognitive effort and confidence effects from a survey of knowledge workers. In Proceedings of CHI '25. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713778
Lieberman, H., Paternò, F., Klann, M., & Wulf, V. (2006). End-user development: An emerging paradigm. In End user development (pp. 1–8). Springer.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753–1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444
Meske, C., Hermanns, T., von der Weiden, E., Loser, K.-U., & Berger, T. (2025). Vibe coding as a reconfiguration of intent mediation in software development: Definition, implications, and research agenda. IEEE Access, 13, 213242–213259. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3645466
Nardi, B. A. (1993). A small matter of programming: Perspectives on end user computing. MIT Press.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. Oxford University Press.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. University of Chicago Press.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. Basic Books.
Sidra, S., & Mason, C. (2025). Generative AI in human-AI collaboration: Validation of the collaborative AI literacy and collaborative AI metacognition scales for effective use. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 41, 5084–5108. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2025.2543997
Simkute, A., Tankelevitch, L., Kewenig, V., Scott, A. E., Sellen, A., & Rintel, S. (2025). Ironies of generative AI: Understanding and mitigating productivity loss in human-AI interaction. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 41(5), 2898–2919. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2405782
Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human–machine communication. Cambridge University Press.
Tankelevitch, L., Kewenig, V., Simkute, A., Scott, A. E., Sarkar, A., Sellen, A., & Rintel, S. (2024). The metacognitive demands and opportunities of generative AI. In Proceedings of CHI '24. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642902
Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2014). Abductive analysis: Theorizing qualitative research. University of Chicago Press.
Vallgårda, A., & Fernaeus, Y. (2015). Interaction design as a bricolage practice. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI '15) (pp. 173–180). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2677199.2680594
World Medical Association. (2013). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA, 310(20), 2191–2194. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053
Yang, Q., Steinfeld, A., Rosé, C., & Zimmerman, J. (2020). Re-examining whether, why, and how human-AI interaction is uniquely difficult to design. In Proceedings of CHI '20. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376301
Zamfirescu-Pereira, J. D., Wong, R. Y., Hartmann, B., & Yang, Q. (2023). Why Johnny can't prompt. In Proceedings of CHI '23. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581388
ダウンロード
公開済
投稿日時: 2026-07-24 08:32:49 UTC
公開日時: 2026-08-04 08:24:28 UTC — 2026-08-17 04:09:18 UTCに更新
バージョン
- 2026-08-17 04:09:18 UTC（2）
- 2026-08-04 08:24:28 UTC（1）
改版理由
査読前の投稿版（2026年2月にジャーナルへ投稿した原稿）に差し替えました。本稿は International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction（Taylor & Francis）に採択されています。掲載後、出版版リンクを登録する予定です。ライセンス
Copyright（c）2026
Sato, Daisaku
この作品は、Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Licenseの下でライセンスされています。
