In our study, ChatGPT was prompted with the theoretical meaning of the term using the researcher’s understanding of the concept. The issue you highlight was actually documented in our paper: an initial prompt we used was misinterpreted by ChatGPT as a more general definition than the theoretical definition, necessitating that the researcher revise the prompt. The implicit meaning we found ChatGPT could identify was seen in multiple places, where it interpreted what the person said, connected it to other previous answers, and then saw whether it could reflect something even if it wasn’t explicitly discussed. We agree that the disagreements should definitely be retained, as a way for the researcher to further interrogate the data. This can demonstrate an audit trail of decision-making in the research process. Incorporating the participant in the research process, as we did, further demonstrates a participatory approach to interrogate the GenAI interpretations, which could prompt the participant to challenge GenAI’s analysis or to adapt their own understanding based on new information.

The acknowledgement is only part of the approach used. AI literacy is taught in embedded ways across courses, assessments require different forms of evidence to showcase learning etc. This includes what you are suggesting – for example, in one unit I was involved in, students were required to generate a specific output with GenAI, critique it, and decide which parts to incorporate into their assignment/not incorporate. They also had to submit a reflection on their choices and practically demonstrate this in class. The idea is to develop a verifiable portfolio of evidence of learning with AI, rather than simply acknowledging it. But at the same time, learning how to acknowledge it ethically is part of the process.

Thanks – I’m glad you found the text useful and easy to understand 🙂

Hi Caitlin, I’m glad you found the article helpful. I came up with value-aware and value-driven as terms myself to help distinguish the different types of axiology, but they are reflective of what the literature more broadly says about axiology. Here is the basic description as I conceptualise them:

Value-free: This is usually associated with positivism, where they believe all possible steps should be taken to minimise the researcher’s influence to allow objective observation of empirical evidence, since they are looking for universal laws of cause and effect.

Value-aware: This is usually associated with post-positivism, which still strives to reach objectivity, but also acknowledges that it is ultimately unobtainable because of people’s inherent limitations. As a result, they use strategies to be reflexive and critical of their influence on their research, with the ultimate aim of drawing ever closer to explaining ultimate truth.

Value-laden: This is associated with multiple paradigms (e.g., constructivism, interpretivism, etc.). Researchers with a value-laden axiology not only agree that humans have influence on the research but see this as an inherent strength. They would, for example, use their insider understanding of a particular context to better understand a participant’s interview comment, drawing on their own experiences as a strength.

Value-driven: This is associated with pragmatism as well as several non-canonical paradigms. In essence, these researchers believe that knowledge cannot be separated from who we are or what we care about. They use their values to drive what they research and how they research it, often with the goal of addressing a real-world problem with a practical solution.

In terms of a useful source for further reading, I find this one very good (you can access it through the Sage Research Methods Online database if you don’t have the book itself): Hiles, D., Heron, J., & Reason, P. (2008). Axiology. In The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. SAGE Publications, Inc., https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909.n31

Hi Lynette,

This article has been incredibly helpful as an introduction to research paradigms. Thank you for sharing it.

I was wondering whether you have any recommended reading on axiology, particularly regarding the understanding of research as value-free, value-aware, value-laden, or value-driven.

I am also curious about the terminology itself. Are these labels drawn from an established body of literature, or are they terms that you have developed to help describe the different positions within the debate?

Thanks so much in advance!!
Caitlin

Yes, using the tool to help convey your ideas more effectively is definitely a better approach than getting it to write it for you.