ChatGPT and its impact on research supervision: insights from Australian postgraduate research students
Open accessAbstract
As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to evolve, its impact on academic environments, especially in postgraduate research supervision, becomes increasingly significant. This study explored the impact of ChatGPT, an advanced AI conversational model, on five dimensions of research supervision: functional, enculturation, critical thinking, emancipation and relationship development. Using a qualitative approach, we examined the practices and perspectives of 20 postgraduate research students with at least 4 months’ experience of using ChatGPT in research activities in Australia. The study revealed several areas of impact, including accelerated research progress, enhanced research quality, improved scholarly development and professional skills, enhanced critical thinking, increased student confidence and autonomy, and a deeper supervisory relationship. The findings suggest a shift in the roles and responsibilities of supervisors and students: the former provides strategic direction and high-level guidance, while the latter transits from apprentices to autonomous researchers due to the independence fostered by ChatGPT. This shift suggests an evolving model of postgraduate research supervision, with educational technology acting as epistemic tools to enhance the supervisory process. The study also considers the ethical implications of AI-enabled support. Implications for practice or policy: Postgraduate students can be facilitated by ChatGPT in self-directed research for enhanced independence and autonomy. Supervisors can deploy supervisory meetings for high-level guidance and personalized feedback in an AI-enhanced supervision model. Postgraduate programmes can leverage generative AI tools for an AI-enhanced research supervision model. Universities need to develop AI literacy curricula and protocols to guide students towards responsible use of generative AI tools while addressing potential challenges.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
ChatGPT in research can enhance research quality, improve scholarly development and professional skills, enhance critical thinking, and increase student confidence and autonomy.
“Similarly, Dai et al. (2023) noted that ChatGPT in research can enhance research quality, improve scholarly development and professional skills, enhance critical thinking, and increase student confidence and autonomy (Dai et al., 2023).”
From Current trends and future implications in the utilization of ChatGPT in nursing: a rapid review (2024) · cites this paper as Dai et al., 2023
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414 · see citing works
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789 · see citing works
Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis.
(1999) · PubMed Central · Cited by 4,133 · see citing works
Sallam, M. (2023) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare11060887 · Cited by 3,126 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Specifically, ChatGPT may be used to facilitate automated assessments and adaptive feedback , personalise education experiences, stimulate learners’ curiosity and increase their engagement (Moore et al., 2022; Sallam, 2023; Wang et al., 2023).”
MethodChatGPT: five priorities for research
van Dis, E. A. M., Bollen, J., Zuidema, W., van Rooij, R., & Bockting, C. L. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00288-7 · Cited by 1,842 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Some educators argue that the incorporation of ChatGPT into postgraduate research activities may redefine the traditional supervisory process (Van Dis et al., 2023).”
BackgroundChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education?
(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9 · Cited by 1,806 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Educators argue that ChatGPT has been bringing sustainable changes to the teaching, learning and assessment in higher education (Rudolph et al., 2023).”
BackgroundSparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4
Bubeck, S., Chandrasekaran, V., Eldan, R., Gehrke, J., Horvitz, E., Kamar, E., Lee, P., Lee, Y. T., Li, Y., Lundberg, S., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.12712 · Cited by 1,526 · see citing works
Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences
Christiano, P., Leike, J., Brown, T. B., Martic, M., Legg, S., & Amodei, D. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.03741 · Cited by 1,058 · see citing works
Pavlik, J. V. (2023) · Journalism & Mass Communication Educator · doi:10.1177/10776958221149577 · Cited by 972 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In terms of drafting and editing academic papers, ChatGPT has demonstrated its capability to assist in drafting sections of research documents and refining written content (Pavlik, 2023).”
BackgroundStrzelecki, A. (2024) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2023.2209881 · Cited by 807 · cited 1× · see citing works
“A diverse range of students, spanning undergraduate and postgraduate levels, have been leveraging this advanced artificial intelligence (AI) tool to aid their academic pursuits (Strzelecki, 2023).”
BackgroundHow are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision
Lee, A. (2008) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075070802049202 · Cited by 723 · see citing works
ChatGPT for (Finance) research: The Bananarama Conjecture
Dowling, M., & Lucey, B. M. (2023) · Finance research letters · doi:10.1016/j.frl.2023.103662 · Cited by 611 · see citing works
A Conversation on Artificial Intelligence, Chatbots, and Plagiarism in Higher Education
King, M. R., & chatGPT (2023) · Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering · doi:10.1007/s12195-022-00754-8 · Cited by 602 · see citing works
Boscardin, C. K., Gin, B., Golde, P. B., & Hauer, K. E. (2024) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000005439 · Cited by 533 · cited 1× · see citing works
“This change raises a demand for students to possess AI literacy and a deep understanding of how AI can augment their research in a responsible and ethical way (Boscardin et al., 2023; Cardon et al., 2023; Dai et al., 2023).”
BackgroundOpenAI ChatGPT Generated Literature Review: Digital Twin in Healthcare
Aydın, Ö., & Karaarslan, E. (2022) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4308687 · Cited by 391 · see citing works
Retheorizing doctoral supervision as professional work
Halse, C. M., & Malfroy, J. (2009) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075070902906798 · Cited by 301 · see citing works
Reconceptualizing ChatGPT and generative AI as a student-driven innovation in higher education
Dai, Y., Liu, A., & Lim, C. P. (2023) · Procedia CIRP · doi:10.1016/j.procir.2023.05.002 · Cited by 298 · see citing works
Self-citationStimulated Recall Interviews in Ethnography
Dempsey, N. P. (2010) · Qualitative Sociology · doi:10.1007/s11133-010-9157-x · Cited by 282 · see citing works
Postgraduate research supervision: a critical review of current practice
McCallin, A. M., & Nayar, S. (2011) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13562517.2011.590979 · Cited by 279 · see citing works
The Challenges and Opportunities of AI-Assisted Writing: Developing AI Literacy for the AI Age
Cardon, P. W., Fleischmann, C., Aritz, J., Logemann, M., & Heidewald, J. (2023) · Business and Professional Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/23294906231176517 · Cited by 245 · see citing works
Content and context in knowledge production: a critical review of doctoral supervision literature
Bastalich, W. (2015) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1079702 · Cited by 216 · see citing works
Teacherbot: interventions in automated teaching
Bayne, S. (2015) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13562517.2015.1020783 · Cited by 215 · see citing works
Machine Learning and Human Intelligence: The Future of Education for the 21st Century
Luckin, R. (2018) · CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · Cited by 161 · see citing works
Goldberg, S. C. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198793670.001.0001 · Cited by 158 · see citing works
Alvarado, R. (2023) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-023-00451-3 · Cited by 137 · see citing works
What Took Them So Long? Explaining PhD Delays among Doctoral Candidates
van de Schoot, R., Yerkes, M. A., Mouw, J. M., & Sonneveld, H. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068839 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
Using a blended approach to facilitate postgraduate supervision
Beer, M. D., & Mason, R. (2009) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703290902843984 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Assessing the quality of student-generated short answer questions using GPT-3
Moore, S., Nguyen, H. A., Bier, N., Domadia, T., & Stamper, J. (2022) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-16290-9_18 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
New perspectives in online doctoral supervision: a systematic literature review
Gray, M., & Crosta, L. (2018) · Studies in Continuing Education · doi:10.1080/0158037x.2018.1532405 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Developing alternative models of doctoral supervision with online formative assessment
Crossouard, B. M. (2008) · Studies in Continuing Education · doi:10.1080/01580370701841549 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Maor, D., Ensor, J. D., & Fraser, B. J. (2015) · Higher Education Research & Development · doi:10.1080/07294360.2015.1121206 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
ChatGPT Performs on the Chinese National Medical Licensing ExaminationPreprint
Wang, X., Gong, Z., Wang, G., et al. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2584079/v1 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
COVID-19 and beyond: Telesupervision training within the supervision competency.
Phillips, L. A., Logan, J. N., & Mather, D. B. (2021) · Training and Education in Professional Psychology · doi:10.1037/tep0000362 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
When failing is the only option: explaining failure to finish PhDs in Estonia
Vassil, K., & Solvak, M. (2012) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10734-012-9507-6 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Remote doctoral supervision experiences: Challenges and affordances
Wisker, G., McGinn, M. K., Bengtsen, S. S. E., et al. (2021) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2021.1991427 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
The Effects of Online Supervisory Feedback on Student-Supervisor Communications during the COVID-19
Rasool, U., Aslam, M. Z., Qian, J., & Barzani, S. H. H. (2022) · European Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.12973/eu-jer.11.3.1569 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Graduate Students’ Experience on Using Chatgpt in Education: A Narrative InquiryPreprint
Li, M., Gibbons, J., Meng, H., et al. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4452108 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Glaser, B. G. (2016). Open coding descriptions. Grounded Theory Review, 15(2), 108-110. https://groundedtheoryreview.com/2016/12/19/open-coding-descriptions/
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Does ChatGPT enhance student learning? A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies
Deng, R., Jiang, M., Yu, X., Lu, Y., & Liu, S. (2025) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105224 · Cited by 531 · see citing works
The Influence of ChatGPT on Student Engagement: A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda
Lo, C. K., Hew, K. F., & Jong, M. S.-Y. (2024) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105100 · Cited by 392 · see citing works
ChatGPT in the higher education: A systematic literature review and research challenges
Baig, M. I., & Yadegaridehkordi, E. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2024.102411 · Cited by 208 · see citing works
Fu, Y., & Weng, Z. (2024) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100306 · Cited by 195 · see citing works
Sardi, J., Darmansyah, Candra, O., Yuliana, D. F., Habibullah, Yanto, D. T. P., & Eliza, F. (2025) · International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP) · doi:10.3991/ijep.v15i1.53379 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
University policies on generative AI in Asia: promising practices, gaps, and future directions
Dai, Y., Lai, S., Lim, C. P., & Liu, A. (2025) · Journal of Asian Public Policy · doi:10.1080/17516234.2024.2379070 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Self-citationTang, Q., Deng, W., Huang, Y., Wang, S., & Zhang, H. (2025) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.70027 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Current trends and future implications in the utilization of ChatGPT in nursing: a rapid review
Kleib, M., Darko, E. M., Akingbade, O., Kennedy, M., Majekodunmi, P., Nickel, E., & Vogelsang, L. (2024) · International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances · doi:10.1016/j.ijnsa.2024.100252 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Ringo, D. S. (2025) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2025.2475268 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Generative AI: reconfiguring supervision and doctoral research
Boyd, P., & Harding, D. (2025) · Buildings & Cities · doi:10.5334/bc.560 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
- Authors
- Dai, Y., Lai, S., Lim, C. P., & Liu, A.
- Affiliations
- Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Education University of Hong Kong (HK)
- UNSW Sydney (AU)
- Venue
- Australasian Journal of Educational Technology
- Published
- 2023-11-23
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 74-88
- ISSN
- 1449-3098 (ISSN-L)
- 1449-5554
- OpenAlex
- W4388935839
- Cited by
- 85
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 30 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 19.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Australasian Journal of Educational Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Doctoral Education Challenges and Solutions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, generative AI, research supervision, postgraduate research students, supervisory relationship, student independence, critical thinking, AI literacy, ethical implications of AI, supervisory roles
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
