Andrés Arias Lizares

Doctoral supervisor training and professional development comprise the formal and informal processes through which academics develop, maintain, and extend the knowledge, judgement, and professional practices used to supervise doctoral researchers. These processes address the multidimensional nature of doctoral supervision, including disciplinary and methodological guidance, research pedagogy and feedback, supervisory relationships and communication, organisation of the doctoral process, responsiveness to candidate diversity and context, and reflective professional practice. Development may occur through initial induction, formal courses, mentoring, peer learning, communities of practice, reflective activities, blended or online provision, and continuing professional development across a supervisory career.

Generative artificial intelligence is increasingly being adopted in doctoral education to support writing, literature synthesis, translation, feedback, research planning, and administrative work. While emerging scholarship has examined generative AI in higher education, academic integrity, and student writing, its specific implications for doctoral supervision remain comparatively underexplored. This review argues that generative AI should not be understood merely as a technical aid, but as a socio-technical force that may reshape ethical boundaries, feedback practices, doctoral student agency, and supervisory relationships. Drawing on literature from doctoral education, supervision studies, academic writing, feedback literacy, and AI-mediated learning, the review examines three interrelated thematic areas of AI-augmented doctoral supervision. First, it considers ethical issues related to authorship, originality, academic integrity, transparency, privacy, confidentiality, bias, data protection, and overdependence. Second, it analyses how generative AI may influence feedback preparation, interpretation, timing, and dialogic use in doctoral writing and research development. Third, it explores implications for supervisory relationships, particularly trust, power, responsibility, emotional support, and autonomy. The review also discusses institutional implications, including AI literacy, supervisor development, doctoral policy, and responsible use guidelines, and positions generative AI as a human-centred support mechanism rather than a substitute for supervisory judgement, ethical responsibility, or relational mentoring.

Digital fatigue is pervasive among university instructors, yet rigorous evidence on whether generative AI improves well-being is scarce. We conducted an eight-week staggered multiple-baseline AB–AB reversal with eight lecturers at a private Peruvian university. In intervention phases, participants replaced full readings with a daily ≤200-word ChatGPT summary plus three discussion questions (“content-curation sprint”). Outcomes were self-reported digital fatigue (FDU-24) and automatically logged screen time; analyses were carried out using trend-corrected Tau-U and paired-phase Cohen’s d. Across two intervention cycles, screen exposure fell by about 122 min per day (~29% of baseline) and digital fatigue scores decreased by ~22%. Effects were large and replicated (aggregate Tau-U = −0.79; d = −1.5 to −2.2). Treatment fidelity averaged 96%, and post-study technology acceptance was high. These findings provide preliminary experimental evidence that a brief, low-friction ChatGPT workflow can simultaneously reduce screen time and alleviate digital fatigue in higher-education faculty, suggesting a dual productivity-and-well-being dividend and positioning generative AI as a Job Demands–Resources “resource” rather than a stressor. Multi-site randomized trials with active controls, longer follow-up, and cost-effectiveness analyses are warranted. Practical implications for faculty development are immediate.

Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT are reshaping educational practice, yet first-year teacher-education students often lack the prompt-engineering skills and confidence required to use them responsibly. This pilot study examined whether a concise three-session clinic on prompt engineering could simultaneously boost AI literacy and reduce technology anxiety in prospective teachers. Forty-five freshmen in a Peruvian teacher-education program completed validated Spanish versions of a 12-item AI-literacy scale and a 12-item technology-anxiety scale one week before and after the intervention; normality-checked pre–post differences were analysed with paired-samples t-tests, Cohen’s d, and Pearson correlations. AI literacy rose by 0.70 ± 0.46 points (t (44) = −6.10, p < 0.001, d = 0.91), while technology anxiety fell by 0.58 ± 0.52 points (t (44) = −3.82, p = 0.001, d = 0.56); individual gains were inversely correlated (r = −0.46, p = 0.002). These findings suggest that integrating micro-level prompt-engineering clinics in the first semester can help future teachers engage critically and comfortably with generative AI and guide curriculum designers in updating teacher-training programs.