Generative AI is becoming part of the infrastructure of higher education research training, yet little is known about how AI-mediated environments shape early-career researchers’ agency. This study examines AI dependence, defined as reliance on intelligent tools as a primary source of cognitive support in judgement-intensive research tasks, and interprets its educational risk as epistemic delegation: the transfer of problem framing, methodological choice and interpretive authority from the researcher to the intelligent system. Drawing on an AI-mediated research agency formation framework, we examined whether research autonomy and research self-efficacy mediate the association between AI dependence and innovative research behaviour, and whether supervisory support moderates these pathways. An anonymous questionnaire was circulated through peer-based WeChat groups among astronomy doctoral students and postdoctoral researchers in China. After pre-specified data-quality screening, 420 valid responses were retained. Split-sample factor analyses supported a broad one-factor AI-dependence scale, and item-level confirmatory factor analysis supported the five-factor measurement model. AI dependence was negatively associated with research autonomy and research self-efficacy, both of which were positively associated with innovative research behaviour. The indirect association through research autonomy was stronger than that through research self-efficacy. Supervisory support was positively associated with autonomy, self-efficacy and innovation, and weakened the negative associations between AI dependence and research autonomy and innovative behaviour; the interaction predicting self-efficacy was directionally consistent but did not reach statistical significance. The findings shift the debate from AI-enabled productivity to AI-mediated researcher formation and position supervisory support as a relational foundation for epistemic supervision through explanation, verification and reflective AI use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Han et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: