How generative artificial intelligence has blurred notions of authorial identity and academic norms in higher education, necessitating clear university usage policies
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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).”
From Percepciones de estudiantes latinoamericanos sobre el uso de la inteligencia artificial en la educación superior (2024) · cites this paper as 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