Între inovație și provocări etice: impactul utilizării inteligenței artificiale în cercetarea în științele sociale
##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##
Published
Jun 24, 2025
Download
Statistic
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly influencing scientific research by improving the reliability and efficiency of literature reviews, data collection and analysis, as well as of academic writing. While AI offers significant advantages in automating repetitive tasks and streamlining research workflows, it also raises concerns about accuracy, transparency, and ethical integrity. This paper examines the dual impact of AI in social science research, highlighting its potential to improve efficiency while underlining the need for critical oversight of processes and outcomes. Experience to date suggests that researchers need to validate all AI-generated outputs and adopt a critical stance toward the use of AI in the creative stages of scientific endeavor. In addition, academic institutions should establish clear policies to regulate the use of AI, ensuring compliance with international standards and promoting ethical research practices. The future of AI in research depends on balancing the efficiency calculations supported by technological innovation with ethical responsibility and that of upholding the credibility and integrity of scientific knowledge.
##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##
How to Cite
Hatos, A. (2025). Între inovație și provocări etice: impactul utilizării inteligenței artificiale în cercetarea în științele sociale. Sociologie Românească, 23(1), 121-139. https://doi.org/10.33788/sr.23.1.6
References
Albaroudi, E., Mansouri, T., & Alameer, A. (2024). A comprehensive review of AI techniques for addressing algorithmic bias in job hiring, Ai, 5(1), 383-404.
Almasoud, A. S., & Idowu, J. A. (2024). Algorithmic fairness in predictive policing, AI and Ethics, 1-15.
Babeș-Bolyai, Consiliul Științific al Universității (2024). Inteligența artificială în scrierea academică. Punct de vedere al Consiliului Științific al Universității Babeș-Bolyai. Https://socasis.ubbcluj.ro/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Inteligenta-artificiala-in-scrierea-academica.-Punct-de-vedere-al-Consiliului-Stiitific-UBB.pdf. Accesat în 16 martie 2025.
Brodeur, A., Valenta, D., Marcoci, A., Aparicio, J. P., Mikola, D., Barbarioli, B., Alexander, R., Deer, L., Stafford, T., & Vilhuber, L. (2025). Comparing Human-Only, AI-Assisted, and AI-Led Teams on Assessing Research Reproducibility in Quantitative Social Science. (No. 195). I4R Discussion Paper Series.
ByteBridge. (2025). Comparing Elicit, ChatGPT Deep Research, and Kompas AI: UX, Capabilities & Use Cases. Disponibil la https://bytebridge.medium.com/comparing-elicit-chatgpt-deep-research-and-kompas-ai-ux-capabilities-use-cases-3065cd65439a. Accesat în 29 martie 2025.
Caulfield, J. (2025). University Policies on AI Writing Tools | Overview & List. Scribbr. Disponibil la https://www.scribbr.com/ai-tools/chatgpt-university-policies/#:~:text=While%20it’s%20up%20to%20individual,or%20at%20least%20%20135. Accesat în 16 martie 2025.
Cheong, B. C. (2024). Transparency and accountability in AI systems: safeguarding wellbeing in the age of algorithmic decision-making, Frontiers in Human Dynamics, 6, 1421273.
COPE Council (2024). Authorship and AI tools. COPE Position. Disponibil la https://publicationethics.org/guidance/cope-position/authorship-and-ai-tools#:~:text=Ethics%20publicationethics,legal. Accesat în 16 martie 2025.
Davidson, T. (2024). Start generating: Harnessing generative artificial intelligence for sociological research, Socius, 10, 23780231241259651.
DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2001). From the ‘digital divide’to ‘digital inequality’: Studying Internet use as penetration increases, Princeton: Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, 4(1), 4-2.
Hake, J., Crowley, M., Coy, A., Shanks, D., Eoff, A., Kirmer-Voss, K., Dhanda, G., & Parente, D. J. (2024). Quality, Accuracy, and Bias in ChatGPT-Based Summarization of Medical Abstracts, The Annals of Family Medicine, 22(2), 113-120. Https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.3075.
Huang, Y., Wu, R., He, J., & Xiang, Y. (2024). Evaluating ChatGPT-4.0’s data analytic proficiency in epidemiological studies: A comparative analysis with SAS, SPSS, and R, Journal of Global Health, 14, 04070.
Hutson, M., & Mastin, A. (2023). Guinea pigbots, Science, 381(6654), 121-123.
Întorsureanu, I., Voicu-Dorobanțu, R., Nisioiu, C.-F., & Ploae, C. (2024). Generative Artificial Intelligence and the Academic Integrity of Graduation Works in Economics–Exploring Perceptions of Romanian Academia, Economic Computation & Economic Cybernetics Studies & Research, 58(2).
Jalali, M. S., & Akhavan, A. (2024). Integrating AI language models in qualitative research: Replicating interview data analysis with ChatGPT, System Dynamics Review, 40(3), e1772.
Jobeir, B., Alahdal, A., Saner, F., Staubli, S., Broering, D., & Raptis, D. (2024). A new frontier in biostatistics: evaluating the accuracy of ChatGPT-4 vs. R in analysing liver resection data, Journal of Global Health Economics and Policy, 4. Https://doi.org/10.52872/001c.123577.
Kaboudi, N., Firouzbakht, S., Shahir Eftekhar, M., Fayazbakhsh, F., Joharivarnoosfaderani, N., Ghaderi, S., Dehdashti, M., Mohtasham Kia, Y., Afshari, M., Vasaghi-Gharamaleki, M., Haghani, L., Moradzadeh, Z., Khalaj, F., Mohammadi, Z., Hasanabadi, Z., & Shahidi, R. (2024). Diagnostic Accuracy of ChatGPT for Patients’ Triage; a Systematic Revi ew and Meta-Analysis, Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine, 12(1), e60. Https://doi.org/10.22037/aaem.v12i1.2384.
Katsoulakis, E., Wang, Q., Wu, H., Shahriyari, L., Fletcher, R., Liu, J., Achenie, L., Liu, H., Jackson, P., & Xiao, Y. (2024). Digital twins for health: a scoping review, NPJ digital medicine, 7(1), 77.
Konstantis, K., Georgas, A., Faras, A., Georgas, K., & Tympas, A. (2024). Ethical considerations in working with ChatGPT on a questionnaire about the future of work with ChatGPT, AI and Ethics, 4(4), 1335-1344.
Liang, W., Yuksekgonul, M., Mao, Y., Wu, E., & Zou, J. (2023). GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers, Patterns, 4(7). Https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100779.
Mahmoudi, H., Chang, D., Lee, H., Ghaffarzadegan, N., & Jalali, M. S. (2024). A Critical Assessment of Large Language Models for Systematic Reviews: Utilizing ChatGPT for Complex Data Extraction, SSRN Electronic Journal. Https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4797024.
Meo, A. S., Shaikh, N., & Meo, S. A. (2024). Assessing the accuracy and efficiency of Chat GPT-4 Omni (GPT-4o) in biomedical statistics, Saudi Medical Journal, 45(12), 1383-1390. Https://doi.org/10.15537/smj.2024.45.12.20240454.
Ministerul Cercetării, Inovării și Digitalizării și Autoritatea pentru Digitalizarea României (2024). Strategia Națională pentru Inteligență Artificială (2024–2027). Disponibil la https://www.gov.ro.
Moller-Nielsen, T. (2023). European Research Council issues warning on AI’s use in grant applications, Science Business. Disponibil la https://sciencebusiness.net/news/ai/european-research-council-issues-warning-ais-use-grant-applications#:~:text=and%20to%20revise%2C%20translate%20or”.
Negrea-Busuioc, E.A.-M., & Costea, A. Z. (2024). Ghid de utilizare a instrumentelor de inteligență artificială în procesele academice. AI ETHICS: utilizarea etică a tehnologiilor emergente în universitate. Disponibil la https://snspa.ro/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Ghid-de-utilizare-a-instrumentelor-AI-in-procesele-academice.pdf. Accesat în 16 martie 2025.
Nguyen-Trung, K. (2024). ChatGPT in Thematic Analysis: Can AI become a research assistant in qualitative research, OSF Preprint, researchgate. net.
Petersen, K. (2024). Case study identification with GPT-4 and implications for mapping studies, Information and Software Technology, 171, 107452. Https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2024.107452.
Picazo-Sanchez, P., & Ortiz-Martin, L. (2024). Analysing the impact of ChatGPT in research. Applied Intelligence, 54(5), 4172-4188.
Pisica, A. I., Edu, T., Zaharia, R. M., & Zaharia, R. (2023). Implementing artificial intelligence in higher education: Pros and cons from the perspectives of academics, Societies, 13(5), 118.
Research and Innovation, Directorate General (2024). Guidelines on the responsible use of generative AI in research developed by the European Research Area Forum. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Disponibil la https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/news/all-research-and-innovation-news/guidelines-responsible-use-generative-ai-research-developed-european-research-area-forum-2024-03-20_en#:~:text=The%20widespread%20uptake%20of%20generative,across%20countries%20and%20research%20organisations. Accesat în 16 martie 2025.
Sankaran, V. (2023). Japanese universities become latest to restrict use of ChatGPT. The Independent. Disponibil la https://www.the-independent.com/tech/japanese-universities-chatgpt-use-restrict-b2317060.html. Accesat în 16 martie 2025.
Selbst, A. D., Boyd, D., Friedler, S. A., Venkatasubramanian, S., & Vertesi, J. (2019). Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. 59-68. Https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3287560.3287598. Accesat în 16 martie 2025.
Tudino, G., & Qin, Y. (2024). A corpus-driven comparative analysis of AI in academic discourse: Investigating ChatGPT-generated academic texts in social sciences, Lingua, 312, 103838.
Uniunea Europeană (2024). EU Artificial Intelligence Act. Disponibil la https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai. Accesat în 5 martie 2025.
Wachinger, J., Bärnighausen, K., Schäfer, L. N., Scott, K., & McMahon, S. A. (2024). Prompts, pearls, imperfections: comparing ChatGPT and a human researcher in qualitative data analysis, Qualitative Health Research, 10497323241244669.
The Writing Lab (2025). AI IN ACADEMIC WRITING, The Writing Lab. Disponibil la https://www.clemson.edu/centers-institutes/writing/writing-resources/writing-resources/ai-in-academic-writing.html#:~:text=,used%20only%20with%20editor%20permission. Accesat în 16 martie 2025.
Yildiz Durak, H., Eğin, F., & Onan, A. (2025). A Comparison of Human‐Written Versus AI‐Generated Text in Discussions at Educational Settings: Investigating Features for ChatGPT, Gemini and BingAI, European Journal of Education, 60(1), e70014.
Yousaf, M. N. (2025). Practical Considerations and Ethical Implications of Using Artificial Intelligence in Writing Scientific Manuscripts, ACG Case Reports Journal 12(2), p e01629.
Zarouali, B., Araujo, T., Ohme, J., & De Vreese, C. (2024). Comparing chatbots and online surveys for (longitudinal) data collection: an investigation of response characteristics, data quality, and user evaluation, Communication Methods and Measures, 18(1), 72-91.
Zou, Z., Mubin, O., Alnajjar, F., & Ali, L. (2024). A pilot study of measuring emotional response and perception of LLM-generated questionnaire and human-generated questionnaires, Scientific Reports, 14(1), 2781.
Almasoud, A. S., & Idowu, J. A. (2024). Algorithmic fairness in predictive policing, AI and Ethics, 1-15.
Babeș-Bolyai, Consiliul Științific al Universității (2024). Inteligența artificială în scrierea academică. Punct de vedere al Consiliului Științific al Universității Babeș-Bolyai. Https://socasis.ubbcluj.ro/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Inteligenta-artificiala-in-scrierea-academica.-Punct-de-vedere-al-Consiliului-Stiitific-UBB.pdf. Accesat în 16 martie 2025.
Brodeur, A., Valenta, D., Marcoci, A., Aparicio, J. P., Mikola, D., Barbarioli, B., Alexander, R., Deer, L., Stafford, T., & Vilhuber, L. (2025). Comparing Human-Only, AI-Assisted, and AI-Led Teams on Assessing Research Reproducibility in Quantitative Social Science. (No. 195). I4R Discussion Paper Series.
ByteBridge. (2025). Comparing Elicit, ChatGPT Deep Research, and Kompas AI: UX, Capabilities & Use Cases. Disponibil la https://bytebridge.medium.com/comparing-elicit-chatgpt-deep-research-and-kompas-ai-ux-capabilities-use-cases-3065cd65439a. Accesat în 29 martie 2025.
Caulfield, J. (2025). University Policies on AI Writing Tools | Overview & List. Scribbr. Disponibil la https://www.scribbr.com/ai-tools/chatgpt-university-policies/#:~:text=While%20it’s%20up%20to%20individual,or%20at%20least%20%20135. Accesat în 16 martie 2025.
Cheong, B. C. (2024). Transparency and accountability in AI systems: safeguarding wellbeing in the age of algorithmic decision-making, Frontiers in Human Dynamics, 6, 1421273.
COPE Council (2024). Authorship and AI tools. COPE Position. Disponibil la https://publicationethics.org/guidance/cope-position/authorship-and-ai-tools#:~:text=Ethics%20publicationethics,legal. Accesat în 16 martie 2025.
Davidson, T. (2024). Start generating: Harnessing generative artificial intelligence for sociological research, Socius, 10, 23780231241259651.
DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2001). From the ‘digital divide’to ‘digital inequality’: Studying Internet use as penetration increases, Princeton: Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, 4(1), 4-2.
Hake, J., Crowley, M., Coy, A., Shanks, D., Eoff, A., Kirmer-Voss, K., Dhanda, G., & Parente, D. J. (2024). Quality, Accuracy, and Bias in ChatGPT-Based Summarization of Medical Abstracts, The Annals of Family Medicine, 22(2), 113-120. Https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.3075.
Huang, Y., Wu, R., He, J., & Xiang, Y. (2024). Evaluating ChatGPT-4.0’s data analytic proficiency in epidemiological studies: A comparative analysis with SAS, SPSS, and R, Journal of Global Health, 14, 04070.
Hutson, M., & Mastin, A. (2023). Guinea pigbots, Science, 381(6654), 121-123.
Întorsureanu, I., Voicu-Dorobanțu, R., Nisioiu, C.-F., & Ploae, C. (2024). Generative Artificial Intelligence and the Academic Integrity of Graduation Works in Economics–Exploring Perceptions of Romanian Academia, Economic Computation & Economic Cybernetics Studies & Research, 58(2).
Jalali, M. S., & Akhavan, A. (2024). Integrating AI language models in qualitative research: Replicating interview data analysis with ChatGPT, System Dynamics Review, 40(3), e1772.
Jobeir, B., Alahdal, A., Saner, F., Staubli, S., Broering, D., & Raptis, D. (2024). A new frontier in biostatistics: evaluating the accuracy of ChatGPT-4 vs. R in analysing liver resection data, Journal of Global Health Economics and Policy, 4. Https://doi.org/10.52872/001c.123577.
Kaboudi, N., Firouzbakht, S., Shahir Eftekhar, M., Fayazbakhsh, F., Joharivarnoosfaderani, N., Ghaderi, S., Dehdashti, M., Mohtasham Kia, Y., Afshari, M., Vasaghi-Gharamaleki, M., Haghani, L., Moradzadeh, Z., Khalaj, F., Mohammadi, Z., Hasanabadi, Z., & Shahidi, R. (2024). Diagnostic Accuracy of ChatGPT for Patients’ Triage; a Systematic Revi ew and Meta-Analysis, Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine, 12(1), e60. Https://doi.org/10.22037/aaem.v12i1.2384.
Katsoulakis, E., Wang, Q., Wu, H., Shahriyari, L., Fletcher, R., Liu, J., Achenie, L., Liu, H., Jackson, P., & Xiao, Y. (2024). Digital twins for health: a scoping review, NPJ digital medicine, 7(1), 77.
Konstantis, K., Georgas, A., Faras, A., Georgas, K., & Tympas, A. (2024). Ethical considerations in working with ChatGPT on a questionnaire about the future of work with ChatGPT, AI and Ethics, 4(4), 1335-1344.
Liang, W., Yuksekgonul, M., Mao, Y., Wu, E., & Zou, J. (2023). GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers, Patterns, 4(7). Https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100779.
Mahmoudi, H., Chang, D., Lee, H., Ghaffarzadegan, N., & Jalali, M. S. (2024). A Critical Assessment of Large Language Models for Systematic Reviews: Utilizing ChatGPT for Complex Data Extraction, SSRN Electronic Journal. Https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4797024.
Meo, A. S., Shaikh, N., & Meo, S. A. (2024). Assessing the accuracy and efficiency of Chat GPT-4 Omni (GPT-4o) in biomedical statistics, Saudi Medical Journal, 45(12), 1383-1390. Https://doi.org/10.15537/smj.2024.45.12.20240454.
Ministerul Cercetării, Inovării și Digitalizării și Autoritatea pentru Digitalizarea României (2024). Strategia Națională pentru Inteligență Artificială (2024–2027). Disponibil la https://www.gov.ro.
Moller-Nielsen, T. (2023). European Research Council issues warning on AI’s use in grant applications, Science Business. Disponibil la https://sciencebusiness.net/news/ai/european-research-council-issues-warning-ais-use-grant-applications#:~:text=and%20to%20revise%2C%20translate%20or”.
Negrea-Busuioc, E.A.-M., & Costea, A. Z. (2024). Ghid de utilizare a instrumentelor de inteligență artificială în procesele academice. AI ETHICS: utilizarea etică a tehnologiilor emergente în universitate. Disponibil la https://snspa.ro/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Ghid-de-utilizare-a-instrumentelor-AI-in-procesele-academice.pdf. Accesat în 16 martie 2025.
Nguyen-Trung, K. (2024). ChatGPT in Thematic Analysis: Can AI become a research assistant in qualitative research, OSF Preprint, researchgate. net.
Petersen, K. (2024). Case study identification with GPT-4 and implications for mapping studies, Information and Software Technology, 171, 107452. Https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2024.107452.
Picazo-Sanchez, P., & Ortiz-Martin, L. (2024). Analysing the impact of ChatGPT in research. Applied Intelligence, 54(5), 4172-4188.
Pisica, A. I., Edu, T., Zaharia, R. M., & Zaharia, R. (2023). Implementing artificial intelligence in higher education: Pros and cons from the perspectives of academics, Societies, 13(5), 118.
Research and Innovation, Directorate General (2024). Guidelines on the responsible use of generative AI in research developed by the European Research Area Forum. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Disponibil la https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/news/all-research-and-innovation-news/guidelines-responsible-use-generative-ai-research-developed-european-research-area-forum-2024-03-20_en#:~:text=The%20widespread%20uptake%20of%20generative,across%20countries%20and%20research%20organisations. Accesat în 16 martie 2025.
Sankaran, V. (2023). Japanese universities become latest to restrict use of ChatGPT. The Independent. Disponibil la https://www.the-independent.com/tech/japanese-universities-chatgpt-use-restrict-b2317060.html. Accesat în 16 martie 2025.
Selbst, A. D., Boyd, D., Friedler, S. A., Venkatasubramanian, S., & Vertesi, J. (2019). Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. 59-68. Https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3287560.3287598. Accesat în 16 martie 2025.
Tudino, G., & Qin, Y. (2024). A corpus-driven comparative analysis of AI in academic discourse: Investigating ChatGPT-generated academic texts in social sciences, Lingua, 312, 103838.
Uniunea Europeană (2024). EU Artificial Intelligence Act. Disponibil la https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai. Accesat în 5 martie 2025.
Wachinger, J., Bärnighausen, K., Schäfer, L. N., Scott, K., & McMahon, S. A. (2024). Prompts, pearls, imperfections: comparing ChatGPT and a human researcher in qualitative data analysis, Qualitative Health Research, 10497323241244669.
The Writing Lab (2025). AI IN ACADEMIC WRITING, The Writing Lab. Disponibil la https://www.clemson.edu/centers-institutes/writing/writing-resources/writing-resources/ai-in-academic-writing.html#:~:text=,used%20only%20with%20editor%20permission. Accesat în 16 martie 2025.
Yildiz Durak, H., Eğin, F., & Onan, A. (2025). A Comparison of Human‐Written Versus AI‐Generated Text in Discussions at Educational Settings: Investigating Features for ChatGPT, Gemini and BingAI, European Journal of Education, 60(1), e70014.
Yousaf, M. N. (2025). Practical Considerations and Ethical Implications of Using Artificial Intelligence in Writing Scientific Manuscripts, ACG Case Reports Journal 12(2), p e01629.
Zarouali, B., Araujo, T., Ohme, J., & De Vreese, C. (2024). Comparing chatbots and online surveys for (longitudinal) data collection: an investigation of response characteristics, data quality, and user evaluation, Communication Methods and Measures, 18(1), 72-91.
Zou, Z., Mubin, O., Alnajjar, F., & Ali, L. (2024). A pilot study of measuring emotional response and perception of LLM-generated questionnaire and human-generated questionnaires, Scientific Reports, 14(1), 2781.