CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 130Artificial Intelligence in EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AIAcademic integrity and plagiarism

AI and its implications for research in higher education: a critical dialogue

Open access
Butson, Russell, Spronken-Smith, Rachel·2024·Higher Education Research & Development
DOI 10.1080/07294360.2023.2280200
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This article weighs in on the developing discourse on AI's role in higher education research through a structured dialogue between two diametrically opposed academics.Utilising a dialectical framework, the discourse transcends surface-level debates to grapple with ethical, methodological, and epistemological questions that are often overlooked, but are paramount to the field's integrity.Russell advocates for AI as an indispensable tool for academic research, while Rachel raises critical questions about AI's potential to undermine the very essence of academic inquiry.Through this disputation, the article reveals the complex tensions between efficiency and ethical concerns, between innovation and integrity.Rather than offer facile solutions, it exposes the intricate challenges and invites the reader to consider the broader implications for academic research practice.The article serves as a catalyst for a more rigorous, nuanced dialogue, aiming to shift the discourse from the technological to the ethical and epistemological.It is an imperative read for anyone committed to understanding the transformational potential and pitfalls of AI in higher education research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/07294360.2023.2280200

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Inquiry and rigour to understand the challenges and benefits of AI updates will remain fundamental and ongoing issues central to academic endeavour and require rigorous scrutiny by institutions and researchers.

    “For example, as AI developers and providers continue to address limitations and challenges related to model capabilities, inquiry and rigour to understand the challenges and benefits of AI updates to models and updates will remain fundamental and ongoing issues that are 'central to academic endeavour and require rigorous scrutiny' by institutions and researchers (Butson & Spronken-Smith, 2024, p.”

    From A university framework for the responsible use of generative AI in research (2026) · cites this paper as Butson & Spronken-Smith, 2024

    The Literature review (page not available in our copy) says AI’s limitations are central to academic endeavour and require rigorous scrutiny. The Concluding comments call for ongoing dialogue as AI evolves. Neither passage specifically discusses updates to AI models or scrutiny of the benefits and challenges of those updates, so the citation supports the general point but not that narrower application. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • As Butson and Spronken-Smith (2024) have highlighted, it is essential that institutions consider contrasting and diverse perspectives related to the integration of AI in research tasks, because this is not merely a technological transition but also a significant ethical and methodological turning point.

    “As Butson and Spronken-Smith (2024) have highlighted, it is also essential that institutions consider contrasting and diverse perspectives related to the integration of AI in research tasks, because 'this is not merely a technological transition but also a significant ethical and methodological turning point' (p.567).”

    From A university framework for the responsible use of generative AI in research (2026) · cites this paper as Butson and Spronken-Smith (2024)

  • Some scholars question the use of AI as infringing independent thought.

    “Given that some scholars question the use of AI as infringing independent thought, there are additional questions needed to ensure the reputation of postgraduate work in this instance, as norms shift (Butson & Spronken-Smith, 2024).”

    From A university framework for the responsible use of generative AI in research (2026) · cites this paper as Butson & Spronken-Smith, 2024

  • Practical disciplinary trends include attaching AI-generated logs and prompts as supplemental materials.

    “Practical disciplinary trends include attaching AI-generated logs and prompts as supplemental materials (e.g., Butson & Spronken-Smith, 2024;Shiferaw, 2024).”

    From A university framework for the responsible use of generative AI in research (2026) · cites this paper as Butson & Spronken-Smith, 2024

    The practice of academic writing section describes iterative prompting, and the Acknowledgements disclose the authors’ use of ChatGPT. Neither passage addresses attaching AI interaction logs or prompts as supplemental materials; searches for supplementary materials, prompt logs, and disclosure found no such practice in our copy. Page numbers were not available. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. Abd-Elsalam, K. A., & Abdel-Momen, S. M. (2023). Artificial intelligence's development and chal- lenges in scientific writing. Egyptian Journal of Agricultural Research, 101(3), 714-717.
  2. Atanassova, I., Bertin, M., & Mayr, P. (2019). Mining scientific papers: NLP-enhanced bibliometrics. Frontiers Media SA. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389frma.2019.00002/full · DOI
  3. Bakken, S. (2019). The journey to transparency, reproducibility, and replicability. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 26(3), 185-187. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ ocz007 · DOI
  4. Beretta, V., Desconnets, J.-C., Mougenot, I., Arslan, M., Barde, J., & Chaffard, V. (2021). A user- centric metadata model to foster sharing and reuse of multidisciplinary datasets in environ- mental and life sciences. Computers & Geosciences, 154, 104807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cageo.2021.104807 · DOI
  5. Bishop, J. M. (2021). Artificial intelligence Is stupid and causal reasoning will Not Fix It. Frontiers in Psychology, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.513474 · DOI
  6. Brooks, R. A. (2021). A human in the loop: AI won't surpass human intelligence anytime soon. IEEE Spectrum, 58(10), 48-49. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSPEC.2021.9563963 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2011). Race against the machine: How the digital revolution is accel- erating innovation, driving productivity, and irreversibly transforming employment and the economy. MIT Press.
  8. Bubeck, S., Chandrasekaran, V., Eldan, R., Gehrke, J., Horvitz, E., Kamar, E., Lee, P., Lee, Y. T., Li, Y., Lundberg, S., Nori, H., Palangi, H., Tulio Ribeiro, M., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4. arXiv:2303.12712. Retrieved March 01, 2023, from https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230312712B · arXiv
  9. Burger, B., Kanbach, D. K., Kraus, S., Breier, M., & Corvello, V. (2023). On the use of AI-based tools like ChatGPT to support management research. European Journal of Innovation Management, 26(7), 233-241. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-02-2023-0156 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Bzdok, D., Nichols, T. E., & Smith, S. M. (2019). Towards algorithmic analytics for large-scale datasets. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(7), 296-306. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019- 0069-5 · DOI
  11. Checco, A., Bracciale, L., Loreti, P., Pinfield, S., & Bianchi, G. (2021). AI-assisted peer review. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599- 020-00703-8 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Chubb, J., Cowling, P. I., & Reed, D. (2021). Speeding Up to keep Up: Exploring the Use of AI in the research process. Ai & Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01259-0 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Dafoe, A. (2013). Science deserves better: The imperative to share complete replication files. PS: Political Science & Politics, 47((01|1)), 60-66. https://doi.org/10.1017/S104909651300173X · DOI
  14. Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1988). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. IEEE Expert, 2(2), 110-111. https://doi.org/10.1109/ MEX.1987.4307079 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Feuston, J. L., & Brubaker, J. R. (2021). Putting tools in their place: The role of time and perspective in human-AI collaboration for qualitative analysis. Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW2), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3479856 · DOI
  16. Fischer, C. C. (2010). A value-added role for reviewers in enhancing the quality of published research. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 42(2), 226-237. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.42.2.226 · DOI
  17. Ganguly, N., Fazlija, D., Badar, M., Fisichella, M., Sikdar, S., Schrader, J. r., Wallat, J., Rudra, K., Koubarakis, M., Patro, G. K., Amri, W. Z. E., & Nejdl, W. (2023). A review of the role of caus- ality in developing trustworthy AI systems. ArXiv, abs/2302.06975. · arXiv
  18. Gardner, A., & Willey, K. (2019). The role of peer review in identity development for engineering education researchers. European Journal of Engineering Education, 44(3), 347-359. https://doi. org/10.1080/03043797.2018.1500526 · DOI
  19. Hassani, H., Silva, E. S., Unger, S., TajMazinani, M., & Mac Feely, S. (2020). Artificial intelligence (AI) or intelligence augmentation (IA): what Is the future? Artificial Intelligence, 1(2), 143-155. https://www.mdpi.com/2673-2688/1/2/8
  20. Hyland, K. (2002). Genre: Language, context, and literacy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22 (1), 113-135. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190502000065 · DOI
  21. Irfan, R., Rehman, Z., Abro, A., Chira, C., & Anwar, W. (2019). Ontology learning in text mining for handling big data in healthcare systems. Journal of Medical Imaging and Health Informatics, 9(4), 649-661. https://doi.org/10.1166/jmihi.2019.2681 · DOI
  22. Juarez-Orozco, L. E., Martinez-Manzanera, O., Storti, A. E., & Knuuti, J. (2019). Machine learning in the evaluation of myocardial ischemia through nuclear cardiology. Current Cardiovascular Imaging Reports, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12410-019-9480-x · DOI
  23. Kitchin, R. (2014). Big data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts. Big Data & Society, 1(1), 205395171452848. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714528481 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Korac-Kakabadse, N., Korac-Kakabadse, A., & Kouzmin, A. (1999). Dysfunctionality in "citizen- ship" behaviour in decentralized organizations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, https://doi. org/10.1108/02683949910292132 · DOI
  25. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. A. (2023). Artificial intelligence to support publishing and peer review: A summary and review. Learned Publishing.
  26. Kusters, R., Misevic, D., Berry, H., Cully, A., Cunff, Y. L., Dandoy, L., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Ficher, M., Grizou, J., Othmani, A., Palpanas, T., Komorowski, M., Loiseau, P., Frier, C. M., Nanini, S., Quercia, D., Sebag, M., Fogelman, F. S., Taleb, S., … Wehbi, F. E. Z. (2020). Interdisciplinary research in artificial intelligence: Challenges and opportunities. Frontiers in Big Data, https:// doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2020.577974 · DOI
  27. Liaw, S.-T., Liyanage, H., Kuziemsky, C. E., Terry, A. L., Schreiber, R., Jonnagaddala, J., & de Lusignan, S. (2020). Ethical use of electronic health record data and artificial intelligence: Recommendations of the primary care informatics working group of the international medical informatics association. Yearbook of Medical Informatics, 29((01|1)), 51-57. https:// doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1701980 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Mahmić-Kaknjo, M., Utrobičić, A., & Marušić, A. (2021). Motivations for performing scholarly prepublication peer review: A scoping review. Accountability in Research, 28(5), 297-329. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1822170 · DOI
  29. Mewburn, I. (2011). Reading like a mongrel. Thesis Whisperer Blog. https://thesiswhisperer.com/ 2011/03/08/reading-like-a-mongrel/
  30. Müller, H., Pachnanda, S., Pahl, F. B., & Rosenqvist, C. (2022). The application of artificial intelli- gence on different types of literature reviews -A comparative study. 2022 International Conference on Applied Artificial Intelligence (ICAPAI), 1-7.
  31. Neyedli, H. F., Hollands, J. G., & Jamieson, G. A. (2011). Beyond identity: Incorporating system reliability information into an automated combat identification system. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0018720811413767 · DOI
  32. Oren, O., Gersh, B. J., & Bhatt, D. L. (2020). Artificial intelligence in medical imaging: Switching from radiographic pathological data to clinically meaningful endpoints. The Lancet Digital Health, https://doi.org/10.1016/s2589-7500(20)30160-6 · DOI
  33. Pal, S. (2023). A paradigm shift in research: Exploring the intersection of artificial intelligence and research methodology. International Journal of Innovative Research in Engineering & Multidisciplinary Physical Sciences, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.37082/IJIRMPS.v11.i3.230125 · DOI
  34. Pividori, M. D., & Greene, C. S. (2023). A publishing infrastructure for AI-assisted academic authoring. bioRxiv.
  35. Ryan, M., Antoniou, J., Brooks, L. D., Jiya, T., Macnish, K., & Stahl, B. C. (2021). Research and practice of AI ethics: A case study approach juxtaposing academic discourse with organisational reality. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00293-x · DOI
  36. Sathya, K. B. S., Jebamani, B. J. A., & Fowjiya, S. (2022). Deep learning. https://doi.org/10.4018/ 978-1-6684-6001-6. · DOI
  37. ch001 · DOI
  38. Sirén, C. (2012). Unmasking the capability of strategic learning: A validation study. The Learning Organization, https://doi.org/10.1108/09696471211266983 · DOI
  39. Sloane, M., & Moss, E. (2019). AI's social sciences deficit. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(8), 330- 331. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0084-6 · DOI
  40. Tauchert, C., Bender, M., Mesbah, N., & Buxmann, P. (2020). Towards an Integrative approach for automated literature reviews using machine learning. https://doi.org/10.24251/hicss.2020.095 · DOI
  41. Xie, T., Pentina, I., & Hancock, T. (2023). Friend, mentor, lover: Does chatbot engagement lead to psychological dependence? Journal of Service Management, https://doi.org/10.1108/josm-02- 2022-0072 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Xu, Y., Liu, X., Cao, X., Huang, C., Liu, E., Qian, S., Liu, X., Wu, Y., Dong, F., & Qiu, C.-W. (2021). Artificial intelligence: A powerful paradigm for scientific research. The Innovation, 2(4), 100179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100179 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Butson, R., & Spronken-Smith, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Otago (NZ)
  • Higher Education Development Centre, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
Corresponding author
Butson, Russell
ORCID
Venue
Higher Education Research & Development
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2024-03-25
Volume
43
Issue
3
Pages
563-577
ISSN
  • 0729-4360 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8366
DOI
10.1080/07294360.2023.2280200
OpenAlex
W4393138990
Cited by
130
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 52 · 2025: 60 · 2024: 18
FWCI
48.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Higher Education Research & Development (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
Keywords
artificial intelligence in research, higher education research, research ethics, epistemology of AI, research integrity, AI-assisted research, scholarly inquiry

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review