AI, PEERS, AND SUPERVISORS: EPISTEMIC AUTHORITY IN POSTGRADUATE SUPERVISION

Antonius Setyawan Sugeng Nur Agung, Monika Widyastuti Surtikanti, Masfa Maiza, Doni Alfaruqy, Imam Baihaqi, Rizki Ramadhan, Daniel Jesayanto Jaya, Diana Zulita

Abstract


The integration of generative artificial intelligence into higher education has transformed the ways postgraduate students begin and advance their academic work. However, few studies have explored how AI influences epistemic authority in the development of thesis proposals. This study examines how postgraduate students establish and prioritize AI, peers, and supervisors as epistemic authorities within an AI-mediated academic environment. Using a qualitative interpretative methodology, we gathered data from 105 graduate students through questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Reflexive thematic analysis unveiled a stratified epistemic hierarchy. AI was seen as an important authority because it could help people think more clearly and generate new ideas, but it had to be checked. Peers acted as relational authorities, giving emotional support and dialogic assistance. Supervisors maintained the highest epistemic status as institutional authorities owing to their evaluative authority, responsibility, and symbolic capital within academic frameworks. AI reduced uncertainty and increased perceived control in the early stages of proposal creation, without undermining supervisory legitimacy. Authority remained grounded in institutional acknowledgment rather than in the rapid dissemination of knowledge. The findings enhance AI-in-education studies by shifting the emphasis from usage frequency to authority configuration, offering insights for AI governance and postgraduate supervision.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Aoun, J. E. (2017). Robot-proof: Higher education in the age of artificial intelligence. In Robot-Proof: Higher Education in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2018.1500792

Bastalich, W. (2017). Content and context in knowledge production: a critical review of doctoral supervision literature. Studies in Higher Education, 42(7). https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1079702

Bloch, M., & Hutchins, E. (1998). Cognition in the Wild. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.2307/3034455

Bourdieu, P. (2018). The forms of capital. In The Sociology of Economic Life, Third Edition. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429494338

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Qualitative Research in Psychology Using thematic analysis in psychology Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2).

Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches 4th edition. In Sage Publicatons Inc, Thousand Oaks.

Crotty, M., Shakespeare, W., & Henry, V. (2020). THE FOUNDATIONS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH: Meaning and perspective in the research process. In THE FOUNDATIONS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH: Meaning and perspective in the research process. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003115700

Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H., Albashrawi, M. A., Al-Busaidi, A. S., Balakrishnan, J., Barlette, Y., Basu, S., Bose, I., Brooks, L., Buhalis, D., … Wright, R. (2023). “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642

Firat, M. (2023). What ChatGPT means for universities: Perceptions of scholars and students. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.22

Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. In Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001

Gardner, S. K. (2008). Fitting the mold of graduate school: A qualitative study of socialization in doctoral education. Innovative Higher Education, 33(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-008-9068-x

Gillespie, T. (2014). The Relevance of Algorithms. In Media Technologies. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262525374.003.0009

Goldman, A. I. (1999). Knowledge in a Social World. In Knowledge in a Social World. https://doi.org/10.1093/0198238207.001.0001

Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How Many Interviews Are Enough?: An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability. Field Methods, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903

Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., … Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. In Learning and Individual Differences (Vol. 103). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274

Kubler, K. (2016). The Black Box Society: the secret algorithms that control money and information. Information, Communication & Society, 19(12). https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2016.1160142

Kvale, S., & B. (2015). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). In Bloomsbury Academic.

Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802049202

Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 46(1). https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50.30392

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Establishing trustworthiness. naturalistic inquiry. Purpose Meets Execution, 289(331).

Logg, J. M., Minson, J. A., & Moore, D. A. (2019). Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.005

Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies: Guided by Information Power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13). https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444

Manathunga, C. (2007). Supervision as mentoring: The role of power and boundary crossing. Studies in Continuing Education, 29(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/01580370701424650

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Mining data from documents and artifacts. In Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (Vol. 2, Issue 2).

Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice - Michael Quinn Patton - Google Books. In Sage Publication.

Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9

Risko, E. F., & Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive Offloading. In Trends in Cognitive Sciences (Vol. 20, Issue 9). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3). https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331

Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914

Tlili, A., Shehata, B., Adarkwah, M. A., Bozkurt, A., Hickey, D. T., Huang, R., & Agyemang, B. (2023). What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x

Zagzebski, L. T. (2013). Epistemic Authority: A Theory of Trust, Authority, and Autonomy in Belief. In Epistemic Authority: A Theory of Trust, Authority, and Autonomy in Belief. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199936472.001.0001




DOI: https://doi.org/10.31932/jees.v9i1.6211

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 0 times
PDF - 0 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.