The Role of AI in Modifying the Research Behaviors of Social Sciences Teachers in Ecuador
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/saludcyt20251711Keywords:
Artificial Intelligence, Research Practices, Higher Education, Social Sciences, Academic InnovationAbstract
Introduction: The study examined the influence of artificial intelligence (AI) on research behaviors among social science lecturers in Ecuador, addressing an emerging shift in academic practices driven by digital tools.
Methods: A descriptive quantitative design was employed. A structured questionnaire was distributed to all 81 lecturers of the Faculty of Humanistic and Social Sciences at the Technical University of Manabí. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to assess AI usage, perceived benefits, and obstacles.
Results: Fifty percent of the lecturers reported regular or constant use of AI tools, mainly IBM Watson and Grammarly. Over half believed that AI moderately or significantly improved research quality. However, 60% lacked formal training, and barriers such as resistance to change and limited access persisted. Despite concerns, 70% recommended AI usage to peers.
Conclusions: AI was found to progressively shape academic research behaviors. Nevertheless, uneven adoption highlighted the need for institutional strategies, ethical guidelines, and training to ensure effective and responsible integration of AI in the social sciences.
References
1. Zawacki-Richter O, Marín VI, Bond M, Gouverneur F. Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 28 de octubre de 2019;16(1):39.
2. Gallent-Torres C, Zapata-González A, Ortego-Hernando JL. El impacto de la inteligencia artificial generativa en educación superior: una mirada desde la ética y la integridad académica. RELIEVE Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa [Internet]. 2023 [citado 5 de mayo de 2025];29(2). Disponible en: https://www.redalyc.org/journal/916/91676028011/html/
3. Torres LMG, Castro AEP, Pita ARL, Castro MMP. Innovación educativa: el impacto de la inteligencia artificial en el aprendizaje en la educación en Ecuador.: Educational innovation: the impact of artificial intelligence on learning in Ecuadorian education. Revista Científica Multidisciplinar G-nerando. 17 de noviembre de 2024;5(2):ág. 2172-2188.
4. Memarian B, Doleck T. A review of assessment for learning with artificial intelligence. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans. enero de 2024;2(1):100040.
5. Urbizagastegui-Alvarado R. El modelo de difusión de innovaciones de Rogers en la bibliometría mexicana. Palabra Clave (La Plata). 27 de noviembre de 2019;9(1):e071-e071.
6. Farooq U, Malik SA, Syed AS. REVOLUTIONIZING HIGHER EDUCATION: THE TRANSFORMATIVE IMPACT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ON TEACHING, LEARNING, AND CAREER PREPARATION. ShodhKosh: Journal of Visual and Performing Arts. 31 de marzo de 2024;5(3):789-94.
7. Deroncele-Acosta A, Palacios-Núñez ML, Toribio-López A. Digital Transformation and Technological Innovation on Higher Education Post-COVID-19. Sustainability. enero de 2023;15(3):2466.
8. Hwang GJ, Xie H, Wah BW, Gašević D. Vision, challenges, roles and research issues of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence. 1 de enero de 2020;1:100001.
9. Li N. Ethical Considerations in Artificial Intelligence: A Comprehensive Disccusion from the Perspective of Computer Vision. SHS Web Conf. 2023;179:04024.
10. Ellis V, Correia C, Turvey K, Childs A, Andon N, Harrison C, et al. Redefinition /redirection and incremental change: A systematic review of innovation in teacher education research. Teaching and Teacher Education. 1 de enero de 2023;121:103918.
11. Liu S, Yin H, Wang Y, Lu J. Teacher innovation: Conceptualizations, methodologies, and theoretical framework. Teaching and Teacher Education. 1 de julio de 2024;145:104611.
12. Joshi DR, Khanal J, Chapai KPS, Adhikari KP. The impact of digital resource utilization on student learning outcomes and self-efficacy across different economic contexts: A comparative analysis of PISA, 2022. International Journal of Educational Research Open. 1 de junio de 2025;8:100443.
13. D’Este P, Robinson-García N. Interdisciplinary research and the societal visibility of science: The advantages of spanning multiple and distant scientific fields. Research Policy. 1 de marzo de 2023;52(2):104609.
14. Manterola C, Quiroz G, Salazar P, García N. Metodología de los tipos y diseños de estudio más frecuentemente utilizados en investigación clínica. Revista Médica Clínica Las Condes. 1 de enero de 2019;30(1):36-49.
15. Tumiran MA. The Recent Use of IBM SPSS Statistics in Social Science Research. Asian Journal of Research in Education and Social Sciences. 31 de diciembre de 2023;5(4):461-75.
16. Miranda-Novales MG, Villasís-Keever MÁ, Miranda-Novales MG, Villasís-Keever MÁ. El protocolo de investigación VIII. La ética de la investigación en seres humanos. Revista alergia México. marzo de 2019;66(1):115-22.
17. Casas Anguita J, Repullo Labrador JR, Donado Campos J. La encuesta como técnica de investigación. Elaboración de cuestionarios y tratamiento estadístico de los datos (I). Aten Primaria. 15 de mayo de 2003;31(8):527-38.
18. Mujica-Sequera RM. Clasificación de las Herramientas de la Inteligencia Artificial en la Educación. Revista Tecnológica-Educativa Docentes 20. junio de 2024;17(1):31-40.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Ligia Estela Loor Lino (Translator); Ligia Estela Loor Lino, Tatiana Katiuska Moreira Chica, Eva Margarita Alcívar Medranda, Leila Maria Alava Barreiro, Sandra Auxiliadora Romero Chávez (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
