Challenges with the teaching, and learning, of Research Methods have been widely documented, including content complexity and abstractness, staff and student diversity in knowledge and experience, emotional and motivational aspects, and bridging methods and practice (Lundahl, 2008). In tandem, research suggests the need for more technological advancement into Research Methods teaching (Mitchell and Rich, 2020), and opportunities exist for AI tools to bridge a gap in this space. However, there is limited research into the perceptions of students and teaching regarding the use of AI tools in teaching and learning Research Methods.

This research explored perceptions about these tools from the perspective of staff and students to inform future development of AI tools for student support in the learning of Research Methods. Fifteen staff and students from an Arts, Humanities and Social Science background were interviewed using a semi-structured approach. Data outputs were analysed via qualitative inductive thematic analysis by two researchers.

Results from student interviews suggested conflicting negative and positive perceptions. Students were concerned about the accuracy and legitimacy of AI tools for research and described the need for cautiousness, critical thinking and human input in their use. They also emphasised the need to learn research skills themselves rather than outsourcing cognitive development to tools. Conversely, students described AI’s usefulness for identifying literature, summarising knowledge, saving time, and exploratory thinking.

Results from staff interviews revealed similar views regarding potential AI over-reliance impoverishing student learning of foundational research skills and practices. As with students, staff were concerned about the accuracy and legitimacy of AI in research, with several mentioning that ill-prepared students miss the superficial nature of AI outputs or take them at face value, and that this concern has already begun to manifest in the quality of some assessment submissions received. Time saving and efficiency were recurring themes that staff considered to be beneficial aspects of AI usage. Overall, staff perceptions of the use of AI in research were largely bimodal, but cautiously optimistic where AI outputs can be guard-railed or used as prompts for reflection, developing critical thinking or helping students speak confidently about research.

Overlapping thematic areas across student and staff centred on three shared concerns: trust in reliability and quality of AI-generated content; the risk of over-reliance or short-cuts preventing students developing foundational research competencies; and the importance of human-in-the-loop oversight to evaluate AI outputs. However, both groups noted practical benefits in efficiency, literature exploration and orientation, and as an ideation support when practicing new methods. Together, these findings indicate a tentative acceptance of AI in research contexts when framed as a cognitive support within critical practice, but such technologies are seen as problematic when positioned as a substitute for disciplinary skill development, with one staff member noting that students can’t bring their toaster (i.e. technology) to a Viva.

Any design of an AI tool for Research Methods learning should consider these concerns and integrate aligned pedagogical approaches (Constructivism, Cognitive Load Theory, Experiential Learning, Self-Efficacy, Dialogic Pedagogy) to scaffold a meaningful learning experience.

This research contributes a novel understanding of the perceptions of AI tools for Research Methods learning and provides a preliminary scaffold for the development of AI tools in this space.

References

Lundahl, B. W. (2008). Teaching research methodology through active learning. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 28(1-2), 273-288. doi:10.1080/08841230802179373

Mitchell, A., & Rich, M. (2020). Business School Teaching of Research Methods–A Review of Literature and Initial Data Collection for Undergraduate Business School Students. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 18(2), pp100‑114-pp100‑114.