CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 7Library Science and Information LiteracyArtificial Intelligence in EducationDigital literacy in education

Defining and assessing AI literacy for researchers across the research lifecycle

Open access
Parker, Jessica L., Becker, Kimberly P.·2026·Frontiers in Education
DOI 10.3389/feduc.2026.1827603
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is now embedded across the research lifecycle, from question formulation through dissemination. These systems create new opportunities for efficiency and access to knowledge. They also introduce significant risks for research integrity, reproducibility, and scholarly agency. Although existing work on AI literacy provides useful foundations, most frameworks focus on students, citizens, or general digital skills and offer limited guidance for researchers as knowledge producers. Drawing on the concept of cultural intermediaries and an established framework of functional, critical, and rhetorical literacy, this paper conceptualizes AI as a cultural intermediary in research. It argues that AI systems mediate scholarly norms, priorities, and forms of expression not through intentional curation but through structural mechanisms such as pattern reproduction, training data composition, and interface design. This extension reframes the cultural intermediary concept from an actor-centered to a function-centered one, and shifts attention from whether AI intends to shape research to whether it produces intermediary effects. Building on this framing and informed by sustained practitioner engagement with researchers across institutional contexts, we propose a capability map that defines AI literacy for researchers across functional, critical, and rhetorical dimensions and maps these capabilities across stages of the research lifecycle. An accompanying assessment rubric specifies observable behavioral indicators at three performance levels. These contributions position AI literacy as a form of scholarly practice rather than a set of technical skills, providing structured guidance for supporting responsible, transparent, and human-centered research in AI-mediated environments.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/feduc.2026.1827603

Cites

42 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The danger is not that trainees use these tools, but that they use them in place of the foundational practice that develops critical evaluation.

    “The danger is not that trainees use these tools, but that they use them in place of the foundational practice that develops critical evaluation 36 .”

    From Reimagining biomedical science workflows in the age of large language models (2026) · cites this paper as [36]

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Bathaee, Y. (2018). The artificial intelligence black box and the failure of intent and causation. Harv. J. Law. Technol. 31 (2), 889-938. Available online at: https://jolt.law. harvard.edu/assets/articlePDFs/v31/The-Artificial-Intelligence-Black-Box-and-the- Failure-of-Intent-and-Causation-Yavar-Bathaee.pdf
  2. Biagini, G., Cuomo, S., and Ranieri, M. (2024). Developing and validating a multidimensional AI literacy questionnaire: operationalizing AI literacy for higher education', in proceedings of the 22nd international conference of the Italian association for artificial intelligence (AIxIA 2023). CEUR. Workshop. Proc. 3605, 91-101.
  3. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Translated by R. Nice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  4. Chen, Z., Luo, Y., and Sra, M. (2025). Engaging with AI: how interface design shapes human-AI collaboration in high-stakes decision-making. arXiv. Available online at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.16627 · arXiv
  5. Hammerschmidt, T., Passlack, N., Stolz, K., and Posegga, O. (2024) 'AI Narratives: what can they tell US about individuals' AI literacy and emotional attitudes toward AI assistants?', in Proceedings of the 57th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 431-440. doi: 10.24251/HICSS.2024.051 · DOI
  6. Selber, S. (2004). Multiliteracies for a Digital age. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Parker, J. L., & Becker, K. P.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences (US)
  • Midland University (US)
Corresponding author
Parker, Jessica L.
ORCID
Parker, Jessica L.
Venue
Frontiers in Education
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2026-04-28
Volume
11
ISSN
2504-284X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/feduc.2026.1827603
OpenAlex
W7157339500
Cited by
5
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 5
FWCI
81.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital literacy in education
Keywords
AI literacy, generative AI, researchers, research lifecycle, cultural intermediaries, functional literacy, critical literacy, capability map, assessment rubrics, research integrity, reproducibility, responsible AI, human-centered research

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