On November 9, 2026 we found no rule from UNT's Toulouse Graduate School on AI in theses and dissertations. The rule this page quotes comes from one program: the Art Education Ph.D. in the College of Visual Arts and Design, in its handbook for 2026-2027 (August 2026). It allows AI for editing in coursework, the proposal, qualifying exams and dissertation research. If AI generates content, you declare that up front and name the tool, and the handbook recommends talking to your advisor before any use beyond editing.
If your AI statement clearly doesn't cover what you describe elsewhere in your thesis, Esmond points it out.
UNT's graduate degrees run through the Toulouse Graduate School, which gives final approval to a dissertation after the committee accepts it. We did not find an AI rule for theses or dissertations from that office. The text below is a program rule, and it applies to doctoral students in Art Education. Other UNT programs may have their own text, or none.
The Art Education handbook has a short section called Policy on AI. Its first sentence sets the scope and the permitted use: “In coursework, proposal writing, qualifying exams, and dissertation research, students are allowed to utilize generative artificial intelligence, AI, for editing.”
A hypothetical example of a commentYour methods chapter says you interviewed 12 museum educators, but the findings chapter quotes participant 14. Are there more participants than the methods report, or is the numbering off?
A first comment on one part of your own draft, right away and without an account.
Get a free previewThe policy draws one line, between editing and generating. Editing is allowed across the stages it lists. Generating content is allowed on one condition: a declaration.
“If using AI for generating content, students need to declare upfront that they have used AI, specifying the name of the AI used, in the writing of a manuscript and/or the creation of images, graphics, tables or their corresponding captions.” For an art education dissertation this reaches further than text. Generated images, graphics and tables count, and so do captions.
The third sentence covers who to talk to: “It is recommended that students using AI for more than editing purposes speak with their advisor and/or the relevant professor ahead of time to clarify when and how AI can best be used given the nature of the project.” The policy calls this a recommendation. It does not set a formal approval step, and it says nothing about penalties.
The handbook takes a doctoral student through several milestones. This table lines the AI policy up with them.
| Stage | What the policy covers | Who to talk to before use beyond editing |
|---|---|---|
| Coursework | Editing allowed; generated content declared | The relevant professor |
| Dissertation proposal | Editing allowed; generated content declared | Your advisor (major professor) |
| Qualifying exams (written and oral parts) | Named in the policy; editing allowed | Your advisor (major professor) |
| Dissertation research and the manuscript | Editing allowed; generated text, images, graphics, tables and captions declared with the tool's name | Your advisor (major professor) |
The handbook says the department's graduate coordinator acts as your first faculty advisor until you choose a major professor. After that, the major professor and your doctoral committee guide the proposal, the qualifying exams and the dissertation. So in year one, a question about AI goes to the graduate coordinator. Later it goes to your major professor.
One gap is worth noticing. The policy names dissertation research and the writing of a manuscript, and it does not mention the final dissertation document by name. If you are unsure whether the same rule covers the version you submit to the Toulouse Graduate School, ask your major professor.
Most UNT graduate students are outside Art Education. To find the rule for your program:
This example is made up. A second-year Art Education doctoral student uses an AI tool to tighten the language of her dissertation proposal. That is editing, which the policy allows. For chapter 2 she also asks an image generator for two scenes of a museum workshop, which she uses as Figure 2.1 to show the setting she plans to study. Her acknowledgments say AI was used for editing. The figure caption names no tool, nothing at the start of the document mentions generated images, and she did not raise the figure with her major professor. Under the policy, the generated images are content. They need a declaration up front with the tool's name, and the handbook recommends a talk with her advisor before using AI this way.
Esmond evaluates every assignment before you submit. It never writes it.
Esmond is an AI tool that doesn't write for you. If your course doesn't allow any AI tools, don't use Esmond for that work. If you're unsure, ask your instructor or advisor.
Esmond evaluates the content of a draft from within your field. It points out factual errors, inconsistencies between chapters and blind spots, as described in how Esmond works and shown in a sample report. The Art Education policy names editing and content generation and does not mention feedback tools. Its comments go further than editing, so the handbook's recommendation applies: speak with your major professor before you use it on the dissertation, and disclose the use in the way your committee prefers. In another UNT program, check its handbook first and see whether you can use Esmond. UNT has not reviewed or approved Esmond.
We found no UNT-wide ban. The Art Education PhD allows AI for editing and allows generated content if you declare it up front and name the tool.
We did not find one on November 9, 2026. That does not mean none exists, so ask your program.
Yes. The policy names images, graphics, tables and their captions, along with text, and asks for the name of the AI used.
For editing, no. For more than editing, the handbook recommends speaking with your advisor or the relevant professor ahead of time.
Read on November 9, 2026.
Get your paper evaluated before you submit