Introduction
As AI tools become more common in research writing, Indian PhD scholars are increasingly asking a difficult but important question: Should I mention AI use in my thesis methodology chapter? Whether it’s using Grammarly for language, ChatGPT for brainstorming, or AI-assisted transcription software for interviews, the role of these tools is growing — even when universities haven’t clearly defined what’s acceptable.
In private universities especially, where flexibility and digital integration are more common, scholars often use a mix of traditional and technological methods to manage time, language barriers, and workload. But with AI-generated content under greater scrutiny, scholars must decide how transparent they need to be — and whether mentioning AI tools in their methodology is helpful, risky, or even necessary.
This blog explores how Indian scholars can approach this decision thoughtfully, based on academic norms, ethical considerations, and institutional expectations.
When Does AI Use Become Methodologically Relevant?
The methodology chapter is meant to explain how you conducted your research. It typically includes research design, data collection, analysis methods, and tools or techniques used in the process. But not all tools need to be mentioned. For instance, nobody lists “Microsoft Word” or “Google Scholar” in the methodology — because they’re assumed to be standard background tools.
The same logic applies to AI — until it becomes part of the research process in a way that influences results, data handling, or analysis structure.
Here are a few examples where AI use may need to be disclosed:
- Transcription software: If you used AI-based tools like Otter.ai or Whisper to transcribe interviews, and those transcripts formed the basis of analysis, it’s best to mention the tool and its accuracy range.
- Data coding or clustering: If AI algorithms were used to assist in content analysis, especially in qualitative research, this becomes a methodological choice and should be explained clearly.
- Survey design: If you used AI tools to generate Likert scale questions or structure a digital questionnaire, you might need to clarify that your instrument was partially AI-assisted.
In such cases, the tool influences the integrity of your method. Omitting this may look like a gap in transparency. But if the AI tool was used purely for grammar, summarising your own notes, or checking formatting — it typically doesn’t warrant mention in the formal methodology section.
Still, the line isn’t always clear, and scholars are often unsure where their usage falls.
Why Indian Scholars Need to Tread Carefully
In India, PhD writing often carries added social and academic pressures — from proving linguistic fluency to defending original thought, especially during viva. The growing presence of AI in higher education has made university departments cautious, with many faculty members expressing concern about scholars presenting AI work as their own.
In this context, transparency is a shield. If your AI tool use was integral to your process, mentioning it briefly — and in context — protects you from accusations of dishonesty later. This is particularly useful during viva voce, where scholars are often asked to explain how their data was collected and analysed. If your answer involves AI and it was never mentioned in the methodology, it can raise doubts about what else was excluded.
However, over-disclosure can also backfire. If you list tools like ChatGPT for “brainstorming” or “writing support,” some evaluators may view that negatively, especially in disciplines where traditional academic effort is highly valued. In Indian research culture, especially among older faculty, there is still suspicion around new technology — and that includes AI.
This means scholars need to balance openness with judgment. Mention only what is central to your process. Don’t include AI tools as a show of modernity — include them only when they shaped the outcome in a meaningful way.
How to Mention AI Use If Needed — Without Raising Red Flags
If you do decide that an AI tool played a role in your research process — and it wasn’t limited to basic writing help — here’s how you can reference it responsibly:
- Be factual, not defensive: Clearly state what the tool did and why it was used. For example, “Audio interviews were transcribed using Otter.ai, with an estimated 85% accuracy. Manual corrections were made post-transcription.”
- Clarify the limits of the tool: Let the reader know that the AI tool supported, but did not replace, your analytical work. For instance: “Topic clusters suggested by AI software were reviewed and modified based on thematic relevance to the research objectives.”
- Keep it brief: Don’t give the AI tool more attention than necessary. A short explanation in the tools or data section is often enough.
- Avoid brand names unless required: If your university has guidelines discouraging promotional language, you can say “AI-powered transcription software” instead of a specific product name — unless it’s important for reproducibility.
- Don’t mention generative tools unless vital: Avoid stating that ChatGPT helped you write or summarise parts of your thesis. Even if true, such a line may create more suspicion than clarity — and is not typically seen as part of the “methodology” in a formal sense.
Ultimately, the goal is to present your process with honesty and academic confidence — not to highlight your use of AI, but to ensure it doesn’t become a hidden liability.
Conclusion
AI tools are quietly reshaping how research is written and managed — especially for Indian scholars facing linguistic and logistical challenges. But when it comes to the methodology chapter of your thesis, clarity about what needs to be mentioned — and what doesn’t — is crucial.
You don’t need to confess every grammar correction or content draft you refined using AI. But if an AI tool actively shaped how you collected, organised, or analysed data, then noting it — briefly and responsibly — protects your academic credibility.
In a world where AI presence is rising but policies are still catching up, scholars who write with thoughtful transparency will be better prepared — both for viva questions and for the evolving norms of ethical research.