Taking a human-centered socio-cultural perspective, this study explored the manifold individual and structural processes that contribute to researchers’ AI readiness. Forty-three graduate students and faculty at one university in Qatar took part in this Q methodology study. The results represented participants’ collective perspectives on what they considered relevant to their AI readiness. A 5 + 1-factor solution was accepted, illustrating diverse perspectives and no consensus. The factors were termed based on their main foci, as follows, (F-1) how technical skills are acquired, (F-2) when it is all about ethics, (F-3) when technical skills meet ethical considerations, (F-4a and F-4b) when opposites concede, and (F-5) how collaborations reflect AI readiness. The results revealed the diversity of viewpoints among participants, and the interrelations among some factors. This study recommended a holistic approach to enhance AI readiness. It suggested integrating targeted educational initiatives and developing localized ethical frameworks to promote responsible AI use across various research disciplines.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chaaban et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: