Cited by 67Academic integrity and plagiarismArtificial Intelligence in EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

How generative artificial intelligence has blurred notions of authorial identity and academic norms in higher education, necessitating clear university usage policies

Duah, James Ewert, McGivern, Paul·2024·The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology

Abstract

Purpose This study examines the impact of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), particularly ChatGPT, on higher education (HE). The ease with which content can be generated using GenAI has raised concerns across academia regarding its role in academic contexts, particularly regarding summative assessments. This research makes a unique contribution to the literature by examining university student and staff perceptions of current and future issues pertaining to the role of GenAI in universities. Design/methodology/approach A qualitative method involving five one-to-one semi-structured interviews with four students and a lecturer explored the ethical and practical issues of GenAI text generation in academia. An inductive thematic analysis was chosen as it provided nuanced insights aligned with the study’s goals. Findings Use of GenAI was discussed within the context of a range of topics, including perceptions of academic misconduct, authorial integrity and issues pertaining to university policies. Participants universally defined traditional classifications of academic misconduct but were unable to provide clear definitions where the use of GenAI was included for writing summative assessments. Students showed a more open engagement with GenAI, considering it a tool for overcoming obstacles rather than a means to plagiarise. Educators were generally more cautious and less optimistic about the academic role of GenAI. Lack of clear institutional policies surrounding such too…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/ijilt-11-2023-0213

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Research from Australia, Cyprus, Hong Kong, the UK, and Sweden shows that students are generally positive toward using genAI.

    “Research from Australia, Cyprus, Hong Kong, the UK, and Sweden shows that students are generally positive toward using genAI (Chan & Hu, 2023;Duah & McGivern, 2024;Isiaku et al., 2024;Johnston et al., 2024;Malmström et al., 2023;Rana et al., 2025).”

    From Toward Partnership Ethics for Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as Duah & McGivern, 2024

  • Generally, teachers and students want universities to enhance regulation of genAI.

    “Generally, teachers and students want universities to enhance regulation (Duah & McGivern, 2024;Isiaku et al, 2024;Johnston et al., 2024;Nguyen, 2025;Xia et al., 2024;cf. Corbin et al., 2025).”

    From Toward Partnership Ethics for Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as Duah & McGivern, 2024

  • Many genAI applications require paid subscriptions, raising concerns about class and digital divides.

    “Many applications require paid subscriptions, raising concerns about class and digital divides (Duah & McGivern, 2024;Newell et al., 2024).”

    From Toward Partnership Ethics for Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as Duah & McGivern, 2024

  • Existen preocupaciones éticas sobre la posibilidad de reemplazo de la inteligencia humana en la investigación y educación superior.

    “Preocupaciones éticas surgen sobre la posibilidad de reemplazo de la inteligencia humana en la investigación y educación superior (Nam y Bai, 2023; Duah et al., 2024).”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 46 · Cited by 67

Authors
Duah, J. E., & McGivern, P.
Affiliations
Leeds Trinity University (GB)
Corresponding author
Duah, James Ewert
Venue
The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2024-02-19
Volume
41
Issue
2
Pages
180-193
ISSN
2056-4880 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4391906843
Cited by
67
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 9
FWCI
27.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
generative AI, ChatGPT, academic misconduct, authorship, summative assessment, student perceptions, lecturer perceptions, academic ethics, plagiarism, higher education

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