Overcoming Fear: Social Scientists’ Perceptions of AI

This case study centers around tensions between social science fields over integrating artificial intelligence into research and education. While technologies like natural language processing and machine learning provide faster analysis and new knowledge, the majority of social scientists are wary of their impact on interpretive rigour, ethical values, and disciplinarity. Controversy ensued at Ridgewood University when junior researchers proposed AI-enabled coding for streamlining qualitative data analysis. Senior academics, worried about losing human-based context, resisted the prospect, dreading algorithmic partiality and the loss of methodological integrity. Early-career academics countered that limiting AI to dissertations would stifle innovation at a disadvantage to them as professionals. A symposium at the university showed that AI can augment and not replace conventional methods with the aid of strong ethical frameworks and human guidance. The case refers to broader concerns: harmonizing innovation and prudence, reducing fears over automation, and ensuring that the adoption of AI advances and does not undermine the values of social inquiry. It calls on social scientists to meaningfully address new technologies and to collaborate in exploring standards allowing responsible, open, and context-sensitive use of AI in research.

Publication Details

Journal
VTechWorks (Virginia Tech)
Published
2025-06-18
Primary Topic
Computational and Text Analysis Methods
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Overcoming Fear: Social Scientists’ Perceptions of AI

VTechWorks (Virginia Tech)
Computational and Text Analysis Methods
article

Overcoming Fear: Social Scientists’ Perceptions of AI

article en

Abstract

This case study centers around tensions between social science fields over integrating artificial intelligence into research and education. While technologies like natural language processing and machine learning provide faster analysis and new knowledge, the majority of social scientists are wary of their impact on interpretive rigour, ethical values, and disciplinarity. Controversy ensued at Ridgewood University when junior researchers proposed AI-enabled coding for streamlining qualitative data analysis. Senior academics, worried about losing human-based context, resisted the prospect, dreading algorithmic partiality and the loss of methodological integrity. Early-career academics countered that limiting AI to dissertations would stifle innovation at a disadvantage to them as professionals. A symposium at the university showed that AI can augment and not replace conventional methods with the aid of strong ethical frameworks and human guidance. The case refers to broader concerns: harmonizing innovation and prudence, reducing fears over automation, and ensuring that the adoption of AI advances and does not undermine the values of social inquiry. It calls on social scientists to meaningfully address new technologies and to collaborate in exploring standards allowing responsible, open, and context-sensitive use of AI in research.

VTechWorks (Virginia Tech)
Industry, innovation and infrastructure
Openalex Percentile: Top 27%
Computational and Text Analysis Methods
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.