Nearly all postgraduate research students in the study used GenAI across multiple research stages, positioning it as a supportive assistant with human oversight retained¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? 27 of 28 PGR participants reported using GenAI across multiple stages of the research process, primarily as a supportive, efficiency-enhancing assistant rather than a substitute for core intellectual work. → Wei Dai and Cecilia Ka Yuk Chan 2026

Evidence¶

Wei Dai and Cecilia Ka Yuk Chan 2026¶

Wei Dai and Cecilia Ka Yuk Chan. (2026). Shaping responsible GenAI use in research through AI literacy-oriented guidelines: insights from postgraduate students. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-026-00609-6

q2 · i? · qualitative · r3

Thematic analysis of seven focus groups with 28 PGR students at the University of Hong Kong. The results section reports that "Nearly all participants (27 out of 28) reported using GenAI across multiple stages of the research process", with GenAI framed as a supportive assistant and human oversight retained.

"Nearly all participants (27 out of 28) reported using GenAI across multiple stages of the research process. Overall, GenAI was primarily positioned as a supportive and efficiency-enhancing research assistant rather than a substitute for core intellectual work, with human oversight consistently retained."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Ethical acceptability of GenAI use varied with disciplinary norms: assistance was more acceptable for supporting or procedural tasks than for core intellectual tasks — related
• Editing and proofreading was the most prevalent category of GenAI use among PGR students, reported by over half of participants — related
• PGR students rejected GenAI generation of research ideas, original arguments, or whole papers as violating authorship norms, while accepting surface-level support — related
• PGR students strongly opposed uploading human-participant or sensitive qualitative data to GenAI platforms or using GenAI to interpret such data — related
• AI-assisted ideation was conditionally acceptable when researchers retained decision-making authority, but problematic when it displaced conceptual labour — related
• Panelists strongly agreed human oversight must remain central in academic decisions involving GenAI, with clear accountability assignments — related
• Interviews indicated flipped learning supported studio readiness while the GenAI module served as a supplementary tool for early-stage visual ideation — related
• Experimental-group students framed AI as a flexible writing scaffold supporting their own composing rather than a substitute for authorship — a narrower finding that bears on this claim