Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to explore how andragogical principles can inform instructional decisions and support adult learners’ critical engagement with GenAI as a site of methodological inquiry in graduate qualitative research class. It highlights how instructors can use andragogical principles to raise learners’ awareness and readiness related to GenAI, facilitate experiential learning activities involving GenAI tools across different stages of the research process, and encourage critical reflection on positionality and subjectivity. It demonstrates how adult learning principles can guide meaningful engagement with GenAI, moving beyond tool adoption to include critical reflection on ethical and epistemological concerns.

Keywords

generative AI qualitative research education andragogy graduate education critical reflection

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agbon

(2024). Who speaks through the machine? Generative AI as discourse and implications for management. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 100(2024), Article 102761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2024.102761

Alasadi

E. A.

Baiz

C. R.

(2023). Generative AI in education and research: Opportunities, concerns, and solutions. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(8), 2965–2971. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00323

Bankins

Formosa

(2023). The ethical implications of artificial intelligence (AI) for meaningful work. Journal of Business Ethics, 185(4), 725–740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05339-7

Brookfield

S. D.

(2011). Teaching for critical thinking: Tools and techniques to help students question their assumptions. Wiley.

Chametzky

(2014). Andragogy and engagement in online learning: Tenets and solutions. Creative Education, 5(10), 813–821. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2014.510095

Christou

P. A.

(2023). How to use artificial intelligence (AI) as a resource, methodological and analysis tool in qualitative research? Qualitative Report, 28(7), 1968–1980. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2023.6406

Chubb

L. A.

(2023). Me and the machines: Possibilities and pitfalls of using artificial intelligence for qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231193593

Clemons

(2019). Manifesto for critical andragogy: A liberating critique to adult learning. In Peltz

Clemons

(Eds.), Multicultural andragogy for transformative learning (pp. 73–90). IGI Global.

Conway

P. F.

(2024). Education changes a person’: Exploring student development in a college-in-prison program through critical andragogy. Teaching in Higher Education, 29(8), 2008–2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2023.2172568

10.

Dahal

(2024). How can generative AI (GenAI) enhance or hinder qualitative studies? A critical appraisal from South Asia, Nepal. Qualitative Report, 29(3), 722–733. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2024.6637

11.

Feuston

J. L.

Brubaker

J. R.

(2021). Putting tools in their place: The role of time and perspective in human-AI collaboration for qualitative analysis. Proceedings of the ACM on HumanComputer Interaction , 5(CSCW2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3479856

12.

Forrest

S. P.

Peterson

T. O.

(2006). It’s called andragogy. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5(1), 113–122. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2006.20388390

13.

Holton

E. F.

Swanson

R. A.

Naquin

S. S.

(2001). Andragogy in practice: Clarifying the andragogical model of adult learning. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 14(1), 118–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.2001.tb00204.x

14.

Howard

N.-J.

(2023). Lecturer professional identities in gamification: A socio-material perspective. Learning, Media and Technology, 48(3), 476–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2022.2086569

15.

Jacobson

Mustafa

(2019). Social identity map: A reflexivity tool for practising explicit positionality in critical qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919870075

16.

Kessels

J. W.

Poell

R. F.

(2004). Andragogy and social capital theory: The implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6(2), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422304263326

17.

Kim

Detrick

Lin

(2025). Designing AI-powered learning: Adult learners’ expectations for curriculum and human-AI interaction. Educational Technology Research & Development, 73(6), 3397–3421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-025-10549-z

18.

Kim

S.-W.

(2023). Change in attitude toward artificial intelligence through experiential learning in artificial intelligence education. International Journal of Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology, 13(5), 1953–1959. https://doi.org/10.18517/ijaseit.13.5.19039

19.

Knowles

M. S.

Holton III

E. F.

Swanson

R. A.

(2014). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (8th ed.). Routledge.

20.

(2025). Poetic Vulnerability: A Meta-autoethnography on Arts-based Collaborative Autoethnography. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource. Development, 37(4), 249–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/19394225251339027

21.

Bhattarai

Ding

(2025). n search of humanness: Professional identities of qualitative research educators in the age of generative AI. Learning, Media and Technology, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2025.2521547

22.

Lin

(2024). Exploring the role of ChatGPT as a facilitator for motivating self-directed learning among adult learners. Adult Learning, 35(3), 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/10451595231184928

23.

Lockey

Gillespie

Holm

Someh

I. A.

(2021). A review of trust in artificial intelligence: Challenges, vulnerabilities and future directions. In Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii international conference on System sciences. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2021.664

24.

Marshall

Rossman

G. B.

Blanco

G. L.

(2021). Designing qualitative research. Sage.

25.

Meriläinen

Salmela

Valtonen

(2022). Vulnerable relational knowing that matters. Gender, Work and Organization, 29(1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12730

26.

Merriam

S. B.

Bierema

L. L.

(2014). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. Wiley.

27.

Michel-Villarreal

Vilalta-Perdomo

Salinas-Navarro

D. E.

Thierry-Aguilera

Gerardou

F. S.

(2023). Challenges and opportunities of generative AI for higher education as explained by ChatGPT. Education Sciences, 13(9), 856. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13090856

28.

Moll

(2023). A critique of andragogy in the South African TVET context. Journal of Vocational, Adult and Continuing Education and Training, 6(1), 145–163. https://doi.org/10.14426/jovacet.v6i1.318

29.

Osanami Törngren

Ngeh

(2018). Reversing the gaze: Methodological reflections from the perspective of racial- and ethnic-minority researchers. Qualitative Research, 18(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794116683991

30.

Parfenova

Denzler

Pfeffer

(2024). Automating qualitative data analysis with large language models. In Proceedings of the 62nd annual meeting of the Association for computational linguistics (volume 4: Student research workshop) (pp. 177–185). Association for Computational Linguistics.

31.

Parker

Richard

Becker

(2023). Guidelines for the integration of large language models in developing and refining interview protocols. The Qualitative Report, 28(12), 3460–3474. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2023.6801

32.

Paulus

T. M.

Jackson

Davidson

(2017). Digital tools for qualitative research: Disruptions and entanglements. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(10), 751–756. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800417731080

33.

Paulus

T. M.

Lester

J. N.

(2023). Digital qualitative research workflows: A reflexivity framework for technological consequences. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 27(6), 1–14. OnlineFirst. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2023.2237359

34.

Paulus

T. M.

Marone

(2024). “In minutes instead of weeks”: Discursive constructions of generative AI and qualitative data analysis. Qualitative Inquiry, 31(5), 1–8. OnlineFirst. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004241250065

35.

Shibani

Knight

Buckingham Shum

(2022). Questioning learning analytics? Cultivating critical engagement as student automated feedback literacy [paper presentation]. In LAK22: 12th international learning analytics and knowledge conference (pp. 326–335). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3506860.3506912

36.

St Clair

R. S.

(2024). Andragogy: Past and present potential. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2024(184), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.20546

37.

Wachinger

Bärnighausen

Schäfer

L. N.

Scott

McMahon

S. A.

(2024). Prompts, pearls, imperfections: Comparing ChatGPT and a human researcher in qualitative data analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 35(9), 1–16. OnlineFirst. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323241244669

38.

Wagner

Kawulich

Garner

(2019). A mixed research synthesis of literature on teaching qualitative research methods. Sage Open, 9(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019861488

39.

Zhao

Lester

J. N.

Paulus

(2023). Digital worlds and our folding realities: Implications for qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 29(10), 1064–1074. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004231163157

Fostering Critical Engagement With Generative AI in Qualitative Research Through Andragogy

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References