Jens Peter Andersen , Lise Degn , Rachel Fishberg , Ebbe K. Graversen , Serge P.J.M. Horbach , Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt , Jesper W. Schneider , Mads P. Sørensen
{"title":"Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in the research process – A survey of researchers’ practices and perceptions","authors":"Jens Peter Andersen , Lise Degn , Rachel Fishberg , Ebbe K. Graversen , Serge P.J.M. Horbach , Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt , Jesper W. Schneider , Mads P. Sørensen","doi":"10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.102813","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study explores the use of generative AI (GenAI) and research integrity assessments of use cases by researchers, including PhD students, at Danish universities. Conducted through a survey sent to all Danish researchers from January to February 2024, the study received 2534 responses and evaluated 32 GenAI use cases across five research phases: idea generation, research design, data collection, data analysis, and writing/reporting. Respondents reported on their own and colleagues' GenAI usage. They also assessed whether the practices in the use cases were considered good research practice. Through an explorative factor analysis, we identified three clusters of perception: \"GenAI as a work horse\", \"GenAI as a language assistant only\", and \"GenAI as a research accelerator\". The findings further show varied opinions on GenAI's research integrity implications. Language editing and data analysis were generally viewed positively, whereas experiment design and peer review tasks faced more criticism. Controversial areas included image creation/modification and synthetic data, with comments highlighting the need for critical and reflexive use of GenAI. Usage differed by main research area, with technical and quantitative sciences reporting slightly higher usage and more positive assessments. Junior researchers used GenAI more than senior colleagues, while no significant gender differences were observed. The study underscores the need for adaptable, discipline-specific guidelines for GenAI use in research, developed collaboratively with experts to align with diverse research practices and minimize ethical and practical misalignment.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47979,"journal":{"name":"Technology in Society","volume":"81 ","pages":"Article 102813"},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technology in Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X2500003X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study explores the use of generative AI (GenAI) and research integrity assessments of use cases by researchers, including PhD students, at Danish universities. Conducted through a survey sent to all Danish researchers from January to February 2024, the study received 2534 responses and evaluated 32 GenAI use cases across five research phases: idea generation, research design, data collection, data analysis, and writing/reporting. Respondents reported on their own and colleagues' GenAI usage. They also assessed whether the practices in the use cases were considered good research practice. Through an explorative factor analysis, we identified three clusters of perception: "GenAI as a work horse", "GenAI as a language assistant only", and "GenAI as a research accelerator". The findings further show varied opinions on GenAI's research integrity implications. Language editing and data analysis were generally viewed positively, whereas experiment design and peer review tasks faced more criticism. Controversial areas included image creation/modification and synthetic data, with comments highlighting the need for critical and reflexive use of GenAI. Usage differed by main research area, with technical and quantitative sciences reporting slightly higher usage and more positive assessments. Junior researchers used GenAI more than senior colleagues, while no significant gender differences were observed. The study underscores the need for adaptable, discipline-specific guidelines for GenAI use in research, developed collaboratively with experts to align with diverse research practices and minimize ethical and practical misalignment.
期刊介绍:
Technology in Society is a global journal dedicated to fostering discourse at the crossroads of technological change and the social, economic, business, and philosophical transformation of our world. The journal aims to provide scholarly contributions that empower decision-makers to thoughtfully and intentionally navigate the decisions shaping this dynamic landscape. A common thread across these fields is the role of technology in society, influencing economic, political, and cultural dynamics. Scholarly work in Technology in Society delves into the social forces shaping technological decisions and the societal choices regarding technology use. This encompasses scholarly and theoretical approaches (history and philosophy of science and technology, technology forecasting, economic growth, and policy, ethics), applied approaches (business innovation, technology management, legal and engineering), and developmental perspectives (technology transfer, technology assessment, and economic development). Detailed information about the journal's aims and scope on specific topics can be found in Technology in Society Briefings, accessible via our Special Issues and Article Collections.