In our recent paper From Assistance to Misconduct: Unpacking the Complex Role of Generative AI in Student Learning (published at the 2024 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference), we explore how computing students use tools like ChatGPT—and where they draw the line between help and cheating. The paper is co-authored by Andreas Axelsson, Åsa Cajander, Daniel Tomas Wallgren, Mats Daniels, Udit Verma, Anna Eckerdal (Uppsala University), and Roger McDermott (Robert Gordon University, UK).
Based on interviews with nine students, we found that GenAI is deeply integrated into their workflows: for debugging, quizzing themselves before exams, and even overcoming motivational dips. One student noted they’d started consistently getting top grades thanks to AI-assisted study strategies.
What stood out most was the students’ own ethical reasoning. Most agreed that copy-pasting AI outputs felt like misconduct—but using GenAI for inspiration, feedback, or clarification was generally seen as acceptable. Still, the boundaries were blurry and often context-dependent.
The study raises questions not just about tools, but about pedagogy and policy. As educators, we need to better support students in navigating this grey zone—through clearer guidance and learning designs that promote reflection, not just results.
Nyligen samlades TARA-projektets referensgrupp för att diskutera nästa steg i arbetet med att kartlägga och förbättra arbetsmiljön för flygplatspersonal i samband med införandet av ny teknik. Mötet bjöd på många värdefulla insikter, särskilt kring projektets slutprodukt, enkätdesign och hur vi bäst fångar olika dimensioner av arbetsmiljön.
TARA-projektet fokuserar på att öka kunskapen om hur nya tekniker – exempelvis automation, robotisering och AI – påverkar arbetsmiljön för lastare, flygplatstekniker och tankningspersonal på Sveriges flygplatser. Projektet bedrivs i nära samarbete med TYA (Transportfackens Yrkes- och Arbetsmiljönämnd) inom ramen för ett aktionsforskningsupplägg, där forskare och praktik möts för att tillsammans skapa ny kunskap och lösningar. Genom fältstudier, intervjuer och en enkätstudie syftar projektet till att både förstå nuläget och skapa stöd för framtida implementeringar av teknik, med arbetsmiljö i fokus. Projektet är finansierat av AFA.
Vid vårens referensgruppsmöte diskuterades bland annat den framtida slutprodukten – en möjlig utbildning eller checklista som stöd vid teknikinförande – samt enkätens utformning. Deltagarna betonade vikten av att anpassa materialet till olika roller inom organisationen, och att både teknikanvändningens konsekvenser och införandeprocessen behöver belysas. Diskussionen visade också tydligt att arbetsmiljön bör betraktas ur flera perspektiv: fysiskt, psykosocialt, kognitivt, organisatoriskt, digitalt och emotionellt.
Vi fick också många konkreta tips kring exempelvis hur teknikanvändning kan kategoriseras i enkäten och vad som kan underlätta en hög svarsfrekvens.
Tidigare i veckan presenterade Sofia Ouhbi pågående forskning inom projektet EDU-AI (vilken bedrivs tillsammans med Niklas Humble, Åsa Cajander, Mats Daniels och Lars-Åke Nordén) vid Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga fakultetens Universitetspedagogiska Konferens (TUK 2025) vid Uppsala universitet.
Presentation bygger på en kommande rapport från projektet där pågående forskning om generativ AI i den professionella IT-världen och dess implikationer för högre utbildning sammanfattas och diskuteras.
EDU-AI-projektet (Adapting Computing Education for an AI-Driven Future: Empirical Insights and Guidelines for Integrating Generative AI into Curriculum and Practice), syftar till att undersöka hur generativ AI används av IT-professionella och hur denna teknik påverkar högre utbildning.
Presentation, och rapporten, lyfter följande fynd från den pågående forskningen:
Adoptionsmönster: Generativ AI adopteras i olika takt inom olika sektorer. IT-professionella ligger ofta i framkant och använder AI för att lösa komplexa problem och förbättra effektiviteten.
Fördelar med generativ AI: Fördelarna med generativ AI är många. Den ökar produktiviteten, förbättrar lärande-upplevelser och uppmuntrar till innovativa tillvägagångssätt för problemlösning.
Utmaningar och etiska överväganden: Trots sina fördelar medför generativ AI också utmaningar, inklusive etiska frågor, data-bias och risken för missbruk. Att hantera dessa frågor är avgörande för en ansvarsfull användning av AI-teknologier.
Framtida AI-kompetenskrav: När arbetsmarknaden utvecklas kommer det att finnas ett växande behov av AI-kompetenser. Att förbereda studenter för denna framtid är ett centralt mål för projektet.
Sammanfattningsvis belyser EDU-AI-projektet den transformativa potentialen hos generativ AI inom både professionell IT och högre utbildning. Den fortsatta forskningen i projektet kommer att utforska studenters syn på och användning av AI-teknologier, samt vilka metoder lärare använder för att integrera tekniken i högre utbildning.
Om du har frågor eller vill veta mer, kontakta niklas.humble@it.uu.se
This year, the HTO research group has launched a seminar series on funding applications, led by Åsa Cajander, Sofia Ouhbi, and Jessica Lindblom. This initiative emerged from our annual strategic meeting, where we discuss the research group’s focus, future goals, targeted conferences, collaborations, and social events. A common theme that surfaced during these discussions was the need to strengthen our grant-writing skills, leading to the creation of this seminar series.
The series consists of six interactive seminars, where participants analyze both successful and unsuccessful funding applications. Our goal is to understand what makes an application stand out, recognize potential pitfalls, and refine our own grant-writing strategies. These sessions are designed to be inclusive and beneficial for everyone, from PhD students and postdocs to senior researchers, docents, and professors. Regardless of prior success in securing grants, there is always something new to learn. By engaging in discussions and sharing experiences, we aim to build a stronger, more confident research community equipped to navigate the competitive world of funding applications.
The seminar was attended by over 20 participants, including PhD students, postdocs, researchers, docents, and senior professors. To foster engagement, we began with an icebreaker session, where participants introduced themselves and shared their experiences with funding applications.
Led by Prof. Cajander, the session provided a comparative analysis of different funding bodies, focusing on:
Their core priorities and evaluation criteria
The types of projects they tyoically fund
Key factors that make applications successful
In addition to major grants, we also discussed travel grants for doctoral students and funding opportunities available at the university and national levels.
This was followed by an interactive discussion where attendees reflected on key takeaways. The session provided valuable insights into how to tailor applications for different funding bodies and maximize the chances of success.
Academic Credit Opportunity for PhD Students
PhD students have the possibility to earn academic credits if they attend at least five out of six seminars and actively participate in discussions. This is in discussion with their PhD supervisor. This ensures that participants engage deeply with the material while gaining practical skills in grant writing.
Second Seminar on 25 February
In our second seminar, we explored the application process for FORTE funding by analyzing four real-life applications—three successful and one unsuccessful—along with their corresponding reviews. The session was divided into two parts: an informative presentation followed by group discussions.
Understanding FORTE’s Funding Landscape
The first half of the seminar featured a presentation by Sofia Ouhbi, who outlined the key focus areas of FORTE, the different types of calls, and the various application formats available. She also provided an analysis of the common characteristics of successful applications, offering valuable insights into what FORTE typically prioritizes in its funding decisions.
We were also joined by Magdalena Stadin, a postdoctoral researcher in human-computer interaction and a recipient of FORTE’s starting grant for postdocs. Having contributed to multiple successful FORTE applications, Magdalena shared her firsthand experience of the application process. She provided practical advice on approaching FORTE applications, highlighted key strategies, and emphasized the importance of persistence for early-career researchers.
Group Discussions and Reflections
In the second half of the seminar, Prof. Cajander, a FORTE board member, discussed the organization’s future plans and funding directions. Following this, participants were divided into three groups—doctoral students, postdocs, and senior researchers—to critically analyze the previously shared applications.
Each group examined the strengths and weaknesses of both successful and unsuccessful applications, identifying key takeaways and strategies for improvement. The discussions centered around best practices, common pitfalls to avoid, and essential elements to include in a strong FORTE application.
To conclude the seminar, the groups presented their reflections, sharing insights on how to craft more competitive funding applications. The session was facilitated by Prof. Cajander, ensuring a productive and engaging discussion. Overall, this seminar provided a deeper understanding of FORTE’s application process and valuable peer learning opportunities.
The key takeaway? Successful funding applications require a good idea, strategy, persistence, a good team, and a strong understanding of what the funding body values.
What’s Next?
On 25 March, we look forward to the next seminar which will focus on The Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet, VR). We meet at Theatrum Visuale at Ångström. Please write to Prof. Cajander if you wish to join.
Teknikutvecklingen går snabbt framåt, och flygbranschen är inget undantag. Automatisering, AI och digitala verktyg förändrar arbetsmiljön för markpersonal på flygplatser. Det AFA-finansierade TARA-projektet (Teknik, Arbetsmiljö och Resiliens i Arbetslivet) undersöker hur dessa nya tekniker påverkar arbetsmiljön för lastare, flygplatstekniker och tankningspersonal. Projektet drivs av forskare från Uppsala universitet i samarbete med branschorganisationen TYA (Transportfackens Yrkes- och Arbetsmiljönämnd) och syftar till att identifiera både möjligheter och risker med digitaliseringen.
En viktig del av projektet är att ta fram konkreta rekommendationer för en säker och hållbar implementering av ny teknik. Jonathan Källbäcker har sammanställt en rad praktiska råd som nu finns publicerade på TYAs hemsida (länk här). Dessa riktar sig till flygplatschefer, operativa chefer och personalansvariga samt till fackligt engagerade och skyddsombud.
Rekommendationer för en bättre arbetsmiljö vid införande av ny teknik
För dig som är flygplatschef
Prioritera arbetsmiljö som en central del vid införandet av ny teknik – både fysisk, organisatorisk och social arbetsmiljö.
Dela erfarenheter mellan flygplatser för att lära av varandra.
Kommunicera vikten av en god arbetsmiljö till alla involverade och se till att de förstår dess betydelse.
Involvera och engagera medarbetarna i processen samt planera för relevant utbildning.
Säkerställ att tekniken är användarvänlig genom att låta markpersonalen vara delaktiga i designprocessen.
För dig som arbetar som operativt ansvarig, personalansvarig eller chef för tekniska avdelningar
Håll dig uppdaterad om ny teknik och regelverk och informera markpersonalen kontinuerligt.
Undersök noga hur tekniken används i praktiken och identifiera eventuella behov av anpassningar.
Följ upp hur tekniken påverkar arbetsuppgifter och arbetsbelastning.
Avsätt tid under arbetspassen för personalen att testa och utvärdera tekniken.
För dig som är fackligt engagerad eller skyddsombud
Se till att arbetstagarna får möjlighet att delta i tester av ny teknik.
Håll dig informerad om tekniska innovationer och nya arbetsmiljökrav.
Identifiera när och var det går att ställa arbetsmiljökrav under införandeprocessen.
För en tydlig dialog med chefer, utvecklare och externa aktörer om personalens behov.
Påpeka vikten av att avsätta tid för säker och effektiv teknikanvändning.
Vikten av en genomtänkt implementering
Teknik kan bidra till en mer effektiv och hållbar arbetsmiljö, men det är avgörande att den införs på rätt sätt. Genom att följa dessa rekommendationer kan flygplatser säkerställa att digitalisering blir en positiv förändring för både verksamheten och personalen.
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in the workplace is reshaping how professionals engage with their work. In a recent study, researchers Andreas Bergqvist, Tony Clear, Mats Daniels, Niklas Humble, Marta Larusdottir, Maria Normark, and Sofia Ouhbi explored how AI affects work engagement among IT professionals through the lens of Self-Determination Theory (SDT). Their research provides insights into both the opportunities and challenges of AI-driven work environments.
The Dual Impact of AI on Work Engagement
The study found that AI tools, such as UiPath and GitHub Copilot, improve efficiency by automating routine tasks. This allows IT professionals to focus on more complex and creative aspects of their work, enhancing their perceived competence—a key component of work engagement according to SDT. However, this efficiency gain comes with challenges, particularly the need for continuous learning and adaptation.
Some professionals view AI as an empowering assistant that supports them in their work, while others feel pressure to deepen their AI knowledge to keep up with industry expectations. The researchers highlight that while AI can enhance competence and autonomy, its rapid evolution demands a significant investment in skill development.
Learning and Adaptation: A Necessity in AI-Driven Work
One key theme that emerged from the interviews was continuous learning. Since formal AI training is often lacking, IT professionals rely on self-directed learning through online resources, internal communities, and hands-on experimentation. Many also use AI itself as a learning tool, leveraging it for brainstorming ideas, debugging, or validating their work.
However, the study also found that AI’s accuracy and reliability remain concerns. Professionals hesitate to fully trust AI outputs without verification, indicating that AI should complement—not replace—human expertise.
AI’s Influence on Motivation and Collaboration
The study revealed that AI both enhances and disrupts traditional work dynamics. Some participants felt that AI increased their autonomy, enabling them to solve problems independently before turning to colleagues. Others noted that AI might reduce direct collaboration, as employees increasingly rely on AI-generated insights rather than consulting team members.
The findings suggest that for AI to positively impact work engagement, organizations must balance efficiency with employee well-being. AI should be designed to support human competencies, allowing professionals to grow rather than feel displaced. Companies should also invest in structured AI training to ensure that employees are equipped to navigate this evolving landscape.
Final Thoughts
As AI continues to reshape industries, its impact on work engagement will depend on how well it is integrated into professional workflows. By understanding AI’s effects on competence, learning, and motivation, organizations can better navigate the challenges and opportunities of this transformation.
For those interested in workplace digitalization, this research underscores the importance of human-centered AI design, ensuring that technological advancements enhance—not hinder—professional engagement.
Reference
Cajander, Å., Bergqvist, A., Clear, T., Daniels, M., Humble, N., Larusdottir, M., Normark, M., & Ouhbi, S. (2024). AI and work engagement: A study of IT professionals through the lens of self-determination theory. Uppsala University.
Involving diverse stakeholders—patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals—in research is a cornerstone of participatory health research (PHR). But how do we ensure that everyone, regardless of their background, can actively contribute to meaningful research? A recent study sheds light on Stakeholder Skill Training (SST), highlighting its critical role in empowering participants and fostering mutual learning.
The Challenge: Bridging Knowledge Gaps
Participatory research requires a shift in traditional research roles. Patients and healthcare professionals bring valuable lived experiences, but they may not be familiar with research methodologies. Similarly, researchers may lack experience in co-creation with non-researchers. This creates a knowledge gap that can hinder collaboration.
To address this, SST provides tailored training that equips stakeholders with the skills needed to engage confidently. However, the study reveals that there is no one-size-fits-all approach—training varies widely depending on the project’s goals and the participants’ backgrounds.
Five Key Themes in Stakeholder Skill Training
Through a workshop at NordiCHI 2022, researchers explored what makes SST effective. The discussions led to five crucial themes:
The Terminology Debate: Is “Training” the Right Word? The term training implies a top-down approach, where knowledge is delivered from an expert to a learner. However, participatory research is about mutual learning, where everyone brings expertise. Should we call it collaborative learning instead?
Hierarchy, Power, and Culture Traditional research settings often reinforce power imbalances between researchers and participants. SST should promote equitable partnerships, where different forms of expertise—academic, professional, and lived experience—are equally valued.
Mutual Learning: A Two-Way Street Researchers learn as much from patients and professionals as they do from textbooks. SST should be designed as a dialogue, rather than a unidirectional learning process.
Creating a Common Language Different disciplines and stakeholders may use the same words with different meanings. For instance, the term implementation means something different to health researchers than it does to software developers. Establishing a shared vocabulary is key to avoiding misunderstandings.
Inclusivity: Reducing Barriers to Participation Not all stakeholders have the same access to time, education, or resources. Effective SST must ensure accessibility—from financial compensation to flexible training formats that accommodate diverse needs.
Moving Forward: Making Stakeholder Training Work
The study suggests several best practices for designing effective SST:
Define a common vocabulary together with stakeholders.
Focus on mutual learning rather than one-way instruction.
Create a safe and inclusive learning environment.
Recognize and address power dynamics early in the process.
Adapt training to the time constraints of participants, particularly patients and healthcare workers.
By rethinking how we train stakeholders, we can make participatory health research more inclusive, impactful, and empowering.
You find the full paper here: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-77318-1_33
Vi är stolta över att kunna meddela att DOME-konsortiet har beviljats fortsatt finansiering från Forte för att stärka forskningen kring patienters tillgång till sina journaler och delad hälsodata. Med den snabbt växande digitaliseringen av hälso- och sjukvården och den nya EU-förordningen om ett gemensamt European Health Data Space (EHDS) står vi inför en tid av stora förändringar och möjligheter.
Vad är DOME-konsortiet?
DOME (Deployment of Online Medical Records and eHealth Services) är ett forskningskonsortium som har varit en ledande aktör inom forskning om patienters tillgång till sin journal online och relaterade e-hälsotjänster sedan 2012. Konsortiet har producerat över 130 forskningspublikationer, varav mer än 30 publicerades under de senaste tre åren.
DOME är unikt genom att samla forskare från flera discipliner och olika karriärnivåer – från doktorander till professorer – inom områden som teknik, samhällsvetenskap, medicin och humaniora. Konsortiet har en stark nordisk förankring men verkar också internationellt, med samarbeten i Europa och USA.
Varför är DOME-konsortiet mer relevant än någonsin?
Den nya EU-förordningen om European Health Data Space (EHDS), som införs 2024, kommer att förändra hanteringen av hälsodata i hela Europa. Den syftar till att:
Skapa en gemensam standard för hur hälsodata delas mellan EU-länderna.
Ge patienter ökad kontroll över sin egen hälsodata.
Stärka patientsäkerhet och integritetsskydd.
Men även om Sverige ligger långt fram i digital journalåtkomst via 1177.se, finns flera utmaningar där DOME-konsortiets forskning kan bidra, bland annat:
Ojämlik tillgång till journaler – Alla vårdgivare är inte anslutna, vissa kliniska områden (t.ex. psykiatri) exkluderas fortfarande.
Brist på ombudsfunktioner – Vuxna patienter kan i dag inte ge en anhörig fullständig tillgång till sin journal.
Begränsade möjligheter för patientinvolvering – Patienter kan inte kommentera sin journal, flagga felaktigheter eller tillföra egna hälsodata.
Informationssäkerhet och cyberskydd – Hur skyddar vi patientdata i en tid av ökande digitala hot?
DOME-konsortiet har en unik möjlighet att inte bara bidra med forskning utan också att påverka hur dessa frågor hanteras på både nationell och europeisk nivå.
Vad innebär den nya finansieringen?
Den nya finansieringen från Forte innebär att DOME-konsortiet kan:
Fördjupa och bredda samarbetet med nordiska och europeiska forskare.
Vidareutveckla internationella samarbeten med nya kontakter i Storbritannien, Tyskland, Bulgarien, Kroatien och Georgien.
Bidra till den svenska implementeringen av EHDS genom samarbete med E-hälsomyndigheten och andra aktörer.
Delta i policy- och beslutsprocesser genom internationella konferenser och seminarier.
Vill du veta mer?
Vi ser fram emot att fortsätta dela med oss av våra forskningsresultat och insikter genom seminarier, konferenser och publikationer. Håll utkik på vår webbplats domeconsortium.org för uppdateringar och möjligheter att engagera dig i vårt arbete!
Rose-Mharie Åhlfelth, Maria Hägglund och Åsa Cajander leder DOME-konsotriet.
Tack till Forte för förtroendet – vi ser fram emot tre spännande år av forskning och samverkan!
We recently registered a protocol for a scoping review that we are working on. In our AROA project, we are taking a wide look into what research has been done on the work engagement consequences of digitalisation. As such, we are working on a scoping review rather than a systematic review. While a systematic review is perfect when you want to synthesise the evidence on a specific research question following a structured and rigorous process, it is not what we are trying to do as we instead want to provide an overview of the breadth of the research topic. Through a scoping review, we can thusly identify factors related to digital work engagement, how it has been researched previously, and what research gaps still exist in the collective research on the topic. The registered protocol for the scoping review can be found here.
But what is a research protocol then?
When doing either a systematic or scoping literature review, it is common practice to plan and write a protocol for the study first. The protocol, in its simplicity, is a written research plan covering the aims, the search and selection procedure and how the selected papers will be analysed. The main reasons for beginning with registering or publishing a protocol is that the risk for biased research practices decreases if you have a transparent research plan to follow beforehand. If you have a published protocol that is expected to be referenced when publishing the study itself, you will have to hold yourself to that plan. Another benefit of this is that it makes the literature study more accessible and easy to replicate and verify. Furthermore, the registered protocol highlights for others that this review is already a work in progress and that other researchers do not need to start such a study themselves. Lastly, if it is published, the quality of the planned procedure is likely improved as the peer-review process for the protocol will bring the validity and relevance of suggested method into question. That being said, publishing protocols for literature reviews are not yet common practice outside of research in healthcare and medicine as far as we have been able to find (if you are doing a systematic review relating to human health, you probably want to register it on Prospero or its like). As such, the alternative option is to register the protocol in one of the many registries of research plans (such as OSF.io or figshare.com) which unfortunately lack peer review and the benefits and frustrations that comes with it. So if you are planning to do a literature review, consider beginning with registering a protocol first to help you towards a better end result.
Good luck with whatever work or so you currently have going on and take care of yourselves! Andreas Bergqvist, PhD Student in HCI
ChatBPT seems to be the answer to all of our questions today. Or so it seems, given all the ways people find to use the tool for advice. The last couple of months I’ve heard students talking about writing entire assignments, documentarians writing scripts, and people asking it for dating advice, which for me feels downright borderline dystopic.
Inevitably, this technology is used in academia as well, a topic which was discussed in the course Scientific Writing, examined by Dolly Kothawala, this past December. The course was a faculty wide PhD course, meaning that there were primarily students from STEM subjects, a setting that usually makes me and my colleague Andreas Bergqvist with our dubious qualitative methods approach to scientific research feel a bit out of place. Towards the end of the course, we had a seminar where Sarah Shakil asked a couple of questions about the usage and perception of different AI-based tools in our work and writing. Here, I will admit my prejudice towards my dear co-PhD-students. I thought that the optimism would be overflowing, and that people would break out in song praising the almighty Chat-Mini-Me. The following slide represents the actual direction of the discussion:
I came out of the class quite optimistic and inspired. One reason being that the discussion we had during the class was what I envisioned academia to be, a high tempo discussion that moved between present day realism and future dystopia, tossing and turning the different perspectives back and forth. The fact that two of our research groups’ projects are about how these new technologies affect work environment and work engagement was of course a contributing factor too (Current Research Projects – Human Technology and Organisations Research Group).
The main reason for me leaving the class optimistic was that despite people being somewhat towards the negative side, most people did admit using it regularly, yours truly included. “Hypocrites!” some might say, but to me it showed that my dear co-PhD-students are curious but skeptical, understanding the practical usefulness in the technology, but also the risks and downsides, and having people with this mindset in academia gives me hope for the future. All and all, I do share this curious skepticism. On the one hand, it is really convenient to have a grammar checker, a translator, an email diplomatizer. On the other, using texts that are completely Chat-Hihihi generated is plagiarism, and I’m getting somewhat paranoid reading anything nowadays, always suspecting an AI lurking in the shadows.
One of the final questions during the seminar was: “What role do you think AI should play in the future of scientific writing?”. While many attendees answered things like “spelling” and “rephrasing”, the most popular answer was “none”. I would encourage something in between, a certain restrained (some might say lagom) and reflective usage of these tools, with a consideration what is lost, because yes, it is convenient and perhaps more productive, and there are many other tools that makes the writing process easier, but especially for me as a PhD student, I still think the student part of it includes practicing to write properly, and the learning process is fundamental in order to form novel ideas and communicate them gracefully. At the end of the day, I just wish for once that Chat-Arrow-In-The-Knee would answer “I’m sorry, Jonathan. I’m afraid I can’t do that. You clearly need to practice in order to improve your abysmal sentence structure”.
In our research group, we study the relationships and dynamics of Human, Technology, and Organisation (HTO) to create knowledge that supports sustainable development and utilization of ICT.
