Dissertation 2.0

An Action Research Study on Adapting with AI

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2025.468

Keywords:

Artificial Intelligence (AI), dissertations, doctoral students, ethics, higher education

Abstract

Universal guidelines for AI’s use in the context of higher education remains unestablished. Despite this, doctoral students utilized AI to help in forming research ideas and with editing manuscripts. Thereby, the socialization of doctoral students into ethical AI use became imperative. This action research study had faculty and EdD students test AI tools to then make recommendations for guidelines on AI use for dissertation writing. Results showed AI use needed to be made clear and transparent alongside adopting a flexible approach to AI incorporation, given factors such as differing journal requirements. Furthermore, as doctoral students constituted novice researchers, they needed to realize that they would be responsible for AI’s output. Keeping the doctoral identity at the forefront was core to advising doctoral students into the new era of responsible research. 

References

Alasadi, E. A., & Baiz, C. R. (2023). Generative AI in education and research: Opportunities, concerns, and solutions. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(8), 2965–2971. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00323

Barrett, A., & Pack, A. (2023). Not quite eye to A.I.: Student and teacher perspectives on the use of generative artificial intelligence in the writing process. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00427-0

Bennett, H., & Brunner, R. (2022). Nurturing the buffer zone: Conducting collaborative action research in contemporary contexts. Qualitative Research, 22(1), 74–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120965373

Botelho De Magalhães, M., Cotterall, S., & Mideros, D. (2019). Identity, voice and agency in two EAL doctoral writing contexts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 43, 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.05.001

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Byrne, D. (2022). A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Quality & Quantity, 56(3), 1391–1412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y

Carless, D., Jung, J., & Li, Y. (2024). Feedback as socialization in doctoral education: Towards the enactment of authentic feedback. Studies in Higher Education, 49(3), 534–545. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2242888

Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H., Albashrawi, M. A., Al-Busaidi, A. S., Balakrishnan, J., Barlette, Y., Basu, S., Bose, I., Brooks, L., Buhalis, D., … Wright, R. (2023). Opinion Paper: “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642

Essien, A., Bukoye, O. T., O’Dea, X., & Kremantzis, M. (2024). The influence of AI text generators on critical thinking skills in UK business schools. Studies in Higher Education, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2316881

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (1994). Interviewing: The art of science. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 361-176). Sage Publications.

Fui-Hoon Nah, F., Zheng, R., Cai, J., Siau, K., & Chen, L. (2023). Generative AI and ChatGPT: Applications, challenges, and AI-human collaboration. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 25(3), 277–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228053.2023.2233814

Gao, L. (Xuehui), López-Pérez, M. E., Melero-Polo, I., & Trifu, A. (2024). Ask ChatGPT first! Transforming learning experiences in the age of artificial intelligence. Studies in Higher Education, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2323571

Gardner, S. K. (2008). Fitting the mold of graduate school: A qualitative study of socialization in doctoral education. Innovative Higher Education, 33, 125–138. https://doi-org.usd.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s10755-008-9068-x

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. BasicBooks.

Hall, L., & Burns, L. (2009). Identity Development and Mentoring in Doctoral Education. Harvard Educational Review, 79(1), 49–70. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.79.1.wr25486891279345

Hosseini, M., Resnik, D. B., & Holmes, K. (2023). The ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts. Research Ethics, 19(4), 449–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231180449

Hsin, C.-T., Cheng, Y.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2016). Searching and sourcing online academic literature: Comparisons of doctoral students and junior faculty in education. Online Information Review, 40(7), 979–997. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-11-2015-0354

Khalid, S., Orynbek, G., Lianyu, C., & Tadesse, E. (2023). What goes around comes around: Shedding light on today’s doctoral student’s research socialization and who will be the future faculty. PLOS ONE, 18(5), e0285843. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285843

Khalifa, M., & Albadawy, M. (2024). Using artificial intelligence in academic writing and research: An essential productivity tool. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine Update, 5, 100145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpbup.2024.100145

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1986(30), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1427

Longo, L. (2020). Empowering qualitative research methods in education with artificial intelligence. In A. Costa, L. Reis, & A. Moreira (Eds.), Computer supported qualitative research. WCQR 2019. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (vol. 1068, pp. 1-21). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31787-4_1

Lovera Rulfi, V., & Spada, I. (2023). Guidelines for the use of generative AI in research paper writing. Proceedings of GENerative, Explainable and Reasonable Artificial Learning, co-located with the CHITALY 2023 Conference, Italy, 3571. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3571/short3.pdf

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Meyer, J. G., Urbanowicz, R. J., Martin, P. C. N., O’Connor, K., Li, R., Peng, P.-C., Bright, T. J., Tatonetti, N., Won, K. J., Gonzalez-Hernandez, G., & Moore, J. H. (2023). ChatGPT and large language models in academia: Opportunities and challenges. BioData Mining, 16(1), 20, s13040-023-00339-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13040-023-00339-9

Mitchell, S. N., Reilly, R. C., & Logue, M. E. (2009). Benefits of collaborative action research for the beginning teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2), 344–349.

Morgan, D. L. (2023). Exploring the use of artificial intelligence for qualitative data analysis: The case of ChatGPT. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231211248

Mueller, A. E., & Segal, D. L. (2015). Structured versus semistructured versus unstructured interviews. In R. L. Cautin & S. O. Lilienfeld (Eds.), The encyclopedia of clinical psychology (1st ed., pp. 1-7). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Nguyen, A., Hong, Y., Dang, B., & Huang, X. (2024). Human-AI collaboration patterns in AI-assisted academic writing. Studies in Higher Education, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2323593

Odena, O., & Burgess, H. (2017). How doctoral students and graduates describe facilitating experiences and strategies for their thesis writing learning process: A qualitative approach. Studies in Higher Education, 42(3), 572–590. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1063598

O’Leary, D. E. (2023). Using large language models to write theses and dissertations. Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, 30(4), 228–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/isaf.1547

Ryan, K. E., Gandha, T., Culbertson, M. J., & Carlson, C. (2014). Focus group evidence: Implications for design and analysis. American Journal of Evaluation, 35(3), 328–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214013508300

Stringer, E. T. (2014). Action research (4th ed.). SAGE.

Tang, A., Li, K., Kwok, K. O., Cao, L., Luong, S., & Tam, W. (2024). The importance of transparency: Declaring the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in academic writing. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 56(2), 314–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12938

Tierney, W. (1997). Organizational socialization in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 68(1), 1–16.

Weatherall, R. (2019). Writing the doctoral thesis differently. Management Learning, 50(1), 100–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507618799867

Yang, Y., Luo, J., Yang, M., Yang, R., & Chen, J. (2024). From surface to deep learning approaches with Generative AI in higher education: An analytical framework of student agency. Studies in Higher Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2327003

Zheng, H., & Zhan, H. (2023). ChatGPT in scientific writing: A cautionary tale. The American Journal of Medicine, 136(8), 725–726.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2023.02.011

Zou, M., & Huang, L. (2023). To use or not to use? Understanding doctoral students’ acceptance of ChatGPT in writing through technology acceptance model. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1259531. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1259531

Downloads

Published

2025-02-07

How to Cite

Grichko, V., Schamber, B., Hall, S., Termansen, K., Swank, D., Barker, D., & Lehmann, E. (2025). Dissertation 2.0: An Action Research Study on Adapting with AI. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 10(1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2025.468

Issue

Vol. 10 No. 1 (2025): The Role of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Doctoral Research and Writing

Section

Themed-The Role of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Doctoral Research and Writing

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Vassa Grichko, Betsy Schamber, Shanice Hall, Kari Termansen, David Swank, David Barker, Erin Lehmann

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
    1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
    with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
  4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
  6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
  7. The Author represents and warrants that:
    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
    4. the Work has not previously been published;
    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
  8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.

Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link.