Are you a journalist who has used AI for work in some capacity but been nervous to tell anyone about it? Worried about how your bosses might see you, or that your work might be discredited?
Well, academics are in the same boat.
A new study, titled “Guidance over guidelines? Unpacking the uses and concerns of generative AI in communication science” and published in Information, Communication and Society, uncovers how communication scholars are using generative artificial intelligence in their academic work.
Researchers from the National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University in Taiwan, the University of Amsterdam, and Utrecht University surveyed more than 1,100 communication scholars from 77 countries about their use of AI, their concerns about AI in the workplace, and the kind of guidance they seek about AI use in their work. They also held four focus group discussions.
: ?
This is the first systematic, field-wide, international empirical investigation of generative AI practices in communication research. We surveyed 1,138 scholars across 77 countries + did 4 focus groups. Small thread with 5 key findings
— Hannes Cools (@hannescools.bsky.social) September 28, 2026 at 6:50 AM
The study reveals a disconnect between researchers’ beliefs about AI and their use of it. Nearly 70% of survey respondents already used generative AI in at least one research-related task, but respondents also mostly considered AI use to be inappropriate for most research-related tasks. While just over half of respondents said that using AI for writing texts (55%) and generating code (50.4%) were appropriate use cases, the study’s authors note that survey participants did not reach a consensus on appropriate or ethical uses of AI in their work.
The lack of institutional guidance on how best to use AI in research means researchers must develop their own ethical standards. This creates a stigma around AI use, according to the study’s authors. Refraining from AI use may put researchers at a disadvantage and slow down their work, but using AI could also be a disadvantage if journals reject research that discloses AI use. “Researchers may recognize an ethical obligation to disclose genAI assistance while fearing that doing so will lead others to perceive their work as less authentic or credible,” the study’s authors write. “This tension has been described as a transparency paradox.”
All of this results in feelings of “AI shame,” the authors say.
“While such hesitation is understandable given that reporting genAI use might reduce the chances of publication, it ultimately hampers open discussion about how these tools can be used ethically and responsibly in research,” the study says. “Transparency is therefore essential, as effective and meaningful guidelines can only be developed when we understand when and how genAI is being used.”
The study’s authors recommend that the communication research community — including individuals, institutions, and journals — create a “disclosure-positive” culture in its field by requiring researchers to disclose the stages of their work at which they used generative AI.
“Simply forbidding the use of genAI — or pretending that it is not being used — is neither sustainable nor constructive,” the authors write. “Instead, acknowledging its presence and defining transparent boundaries for its use will help align ethical standards with actual scholarly practices, fostering honesty, accountability, and trust within the research community.”
Read the full study here.
