Generative AI: reconfiguring supervision and doctoral research

Boyd, P and Harding, D (2025) Generative AI: reconfiguring supervision and doctoral research. Buildings & Cities, 6(1), pp. 294-309. ISSN 2632-6655

Abstract

The uptake of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools has implications for doctoral research and academic publication practices within both construction management and the wider academic context. Unless these implications are understood, GenAI tools have the potential to disrupt traditional relationships between doctoral researchers and their academic supervisors. Rather than exploring the technical competence and reach of GenAI tools, this study explores the nature of these challenges. GenAI is explored from both supervisor and doctoral perspectives for how its integration into doctoral research processes might shift relationships and affect practice. Informed by structuration theory, the research uses mixed methods to map shifts in agency and structure resulting from the adoption of GenAI tools. Findings highlight that the often-unacknowledged use of GenAI in doctoral research can confer undue agency on the technology that disrupts traditional relationships in an unacknowledged way. The rapid but often unacknowledged uptake of GenAI within doctoral research comes with a lack of consideration of the emotional support ascribed by students to the technology. It is concluded that GenAI tools should be openly incorporated into research and practice in a transparent, integrated approach.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: academia; artificial intelligence; doctoral research; ethics; GenAI; relationships; supervision; teaching and learning
Index terms: competence, artificial intelligence, academia, supervision, supervisor, ethics, publication, agency, integrated approach, integration, mixed method
Subjects: personnel development, artificial intelligence, sociology, educational institutions, data collection methods, practitioner, ethical practice, research dissemination and communication, control systems, contractual arrangements, organizational analysis
Topics: Education, Research Practice, Procurement, Human Resources, Project Management, Information Management, Organizational Design, Roles and Professions, Digital Applications
Descriptive scope: 4 PCTE

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here