生成式人工智能(GenAI)在研究过程中-研究人员的实践和看法的调查

IF 10.1 1区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL ISSUES
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":"生成式人工智能(GenAI)在研究过程中-研究人员的实践和看法的调查","authors":"Jens Peter Andersen ,&nbsp;Lise Degn ,&nbsp;Rachel Fishberg ,&nbsp;Ebbe K. Graversen ,&nbsp;Serge P.J.M. Horbach ,&nbsp;Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt ,&nbsp;Jesper W. Schneider ,&nbsp;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":"{\"title\":\"Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in the research process – A survey of researchers’ practices and perceptions\",\"authors\":\"Jens Peter Andersen ,&nbsp;Lise Degn ,&nbsp;Rachel Fishberg ,&nbsp;Ebbe K. Graversen ,&nbsp;Serge P.J.M. Horbach ,&nbsp;Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt ,&nbsp;Jesper W. Schneider ,&nbsp;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}","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

摘要

本研究探讨了丹麦大学的研究人员(包括博士生)使用生成式人工智能(GenAI)和对用例的研究完整性评估。该研究于2024年1月至2月向所有丹麦研究人员发送了一项调查,收到了2534份回复,并在五个研究阶段评估了32个GenAI用例:想法产生、研究设计、数据收集、数据分析和写作/报告。受访者报告了他们自己和同事使用GenAI的情况。他们还评估用例中的实践是否被认为是好的研究实践。通过探索性因子分析,我们确定了三个感知集群:“GenAI是一匹骏马”,“GenAI只是一个语言助手”和“GenAI是一个研究加速器”。这些发现进一步显示了对GenAI研究诚信影响的不同看法。语言编辑和数据分析通常被认为是积极的,而实验设计和同行评审任务则面临更多的批评。有争议的领域包括图像创建/修改和合成数据,评论强调需要批判性和反射性地使用GenAI。使用情况因主要研究领域而异,技术和定量科学报告的使用情况略高,评价也更积极。初级研究人员比高级同事更多地使用GenAI,但没有观察到明显的性别差异。该研究强调了在研究中使用GenAI的适应性强的、特定学科的指导方针的必要性,这些指导方针是与专家合作制定的,以便与不同的研究实践保持一致,并最大限度地减少伦理和实践上的偏差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in the research process – A survey of researchers’ practices and perceptions
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
17.90
自引率
14.10%
发文量
316
审稿时长
60 days
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信