Across two independent studies of doctoral supervision, hidden GenAI use emerges as the central relational problem: Boyd & Harding 2025 find students "(often covertly) using GenAI tools to support their emotional and discipline specific development," while Lai et al. 2025 trace "conflicting expectations regarding supervisory responsibilities among students, supervisors and peers"—and both conclude that supervision must become transparent and collaborative rather than prohibitive.
Both quotes are verbatim and each study recommends openness/collaboration, but Lai et al.'s cited text never frames hidden or covert GenAI use as the problem (its tensions concern GenAI's dual nature, differing attitudes, and conflicting expectations), and neither study explicitly contrasts its recommendation with a 'prohibitive' approach.
Written by Kimi K3 via Ollama Cloud · checked by GLM-5.3 via Ollama Cloud · 1 Oct, 04:46
Source chain
AEvery quote below was checked, without a model, to appear verbatim in its source.
- 01
“The key finding from this research is that doctoral students are (often covertly) using GenAI tools to support their emotional and discipline specific development.”
Full-text passage · p. 13 · evidence E14
306 Boyd and Harding Buildings and Cities DOI: 10.5334/bc.560• Influence on relationships The use of GenAI tools has the potential to reshape relationships and power dynamics in doctoral research. Researchers can gain greater independence through using GenAI tools, and this can challenge existing hierarchies. The key finding from this research is that doctoral students are (often covertly) using GenAI tools to support their emotional and discipline specific development. This risks blurring the boundaries between supervisory knowledge and surrogate machine-learning support and could lead to presumed knowledge and imperfect understandings. • Influence on practices and processes GenAI tools have the potential to significantly enhance productivity by automating repetitive tasks, allowing users to allocate more time to advanced intellectual or strategic activities. These tools can simultaneously enable autonomy and challenge institutional norms, with participants reflecting on the lack of institutional encouragement or regulation of GenAI use.
Passage read from the curator's PDF in Zotero, which may be a preprint rather than the published version.
- 02
“These tensions further triggered interpersonal tensions over differing attitudes or stances towards GenAI and conflicting expectations regarding supervisory responsibilities among students, supervisors and peers.”
Abstract · no page number · evidence E12
- 03
“It is concluded that GenAI tools should be openly incorporated into research and practice in a transparent, integrated approach.”
Full-text passage · p. 1 · evidence E15
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. PRACTICE RELEVANCE This research has relevance to the academic community both within the built environment disciplines and more general pedagogical implications. The identification of concerns over the reach and rapidity of GenAI adoption exposes potential changes to relationships and practices.
Passage read from the curator's PDF in Zotero, which may be a preprint rather than the published version.