The Moral Debate Shaping AI Use in Qualitative Research

Prof. Tanisha Jowsey of Bond University

As generative artificial intelligence becomes a regular feature of academic work, a significant ethical debate is unfolding in the global research community. At the centre of this debate is a question that goes beyond technology: Can a machine truly understand human experience? For 416 qualitative researchers from 38 countries, the answer is a firm no.

In a global declaration led by Prof. Tanisha Jowsey of Bond University, the scholars rejected the use of GenAI in reflexive qualitative research—work that involves interviews, focus groups and phenomenological inquiries. They argue that such research requires deep meaning-making, emotional intelligence and human interpretation, qualities they say AI simply cannot possess.

“GenAI is simulated intelligence,” the declaration notes, “driven by statistical prediction without any understanding of the world.” For researchers like Dr Virginia Braun and Dr Victoria Clarke, the fear is that algorithms, trained on dominant narratives, will reproduce those narratives—and quietly silence marginalised voices. In their view, research that should amplify lived experiences could instead flatten them.

Beyond methodology, the scholars highlight a broader moral concern: the hidden cost of AI. They warn of environmental harm from massive data centres, and the health risks faced by poorly paid workers in the Global South who train and moderate AI content. For them, these ethical issues are inseparable from the debate about AI in research.

However, not all institutions are taking a hardline stance. At the University of Lagos (UNILAG), the conversation is less about rejection and more about responsible use. Deputy Vice-Chancellor for Academics and Research, Prof. Bola Oboh, told participants at an ethics workshop that AI is already part of academic life—and pretending otherwise would be unrealistic. UNILAG is finalising a policy on the ethical use of AI to promote critical thinking, curb plagiarism and guide both staff and students.

Workshop facilitator Prof. Russell Porter of Texas A&M University emphasised the need for “preventive measures rather than reactive responses,” urging Nigerian universities to establish ethics committees and adopt frameworks that reflect local realities.

For now, the tension remains as the research industry is torn between those who believe AI threatens the soul of qualitative research and those who see it as a tool that must simply be better governed. As the debate continues, one truth is clear—when it comes to studying human experiences, ethics will remain the compass.