PreprintCited by 97Artificial Intelligence in EducationEducational Innovations and ChallengesArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Waiting, Banning, and Embracing: An Empirical Analysis of Adapting Policies for Generative AI in Higher Education

Open access
Xiao, Ping, Chen, Yuanyuan, Bao, Weining·2023·SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract

The study provides a comprehensive examination of the current status and the prevailing trend of ChatGPT policies in universities worldwide, focusing on whether universities have implemented policies regarding ChatGPT usage and, if so, whether they choose to ban or embrace this technology. Additionally, this study aims to identify factors influencing a university’s decision regarding its ChatGPT policy. Analyzing data from the top 500 universities in the 2022 QS World University Rankings, we found significant variation in ChatGPT policy implementation. Less than one-third of these universities had implemented such policies. Among universities with policies, approximately 67.4% allowed ChatGPT, twice the number of universities that banned it. Most universities that allowed the use of ChatGPT provided flexibility for instructors. We observed a dispersed geographic distribution of policy implementation. Our empirical analysis identified factors positively associated with a university’s likelihood of having a ChatGPT policy, including academic reputation, location in an English-speaking country, and public sentiment. The possibility of banning ChatGPT was positively associated with faculty-student ratio, citations, and English-speaking country location, while negatively correlated with peer universities' bans. We also discussed the challenges faced by universities that adopted or banned ChatGPT.

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 · 10.2139/ssrn.4458269

Cites

10 of 10 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?

  • A comprehensive examination in May 2023 identified a dispersed geographic distribution of AI policy implementation in higher education, with European and North American universities showing higher responsiveness.

    “In terms of AI policy for higher education, a comprehensive examination in May 2023 [42] identified a dispersed geographic distribution of policy implementation in that European and North American universities show higher responsiveness to this new technology tool.”
  • The positive perception of GAI as a tool to enhance teaching and learning effectiveness indicated a strategic shift towards leveraging technology to meet educational objectives, highlighting its potential to complement and augment traditional teaching methodologies.

    “The positive perception of GAI as a tool to enhance teaching and learning effectiveness indicated a strategic shift towards leveraging technology to meet educational objectives, highlighting its potential to complement and augment traditional teaching methodologies (Xiao et al., 2023; Cheng and YIM, 2024).”

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: 1

  1. Jo, A. (2023). The promise and peril of generative AI. Nature, 614(1), 214-216.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Xiao, P., Chen, Y., & Bao, W.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • University of Alabama (US)
  • University of Connecticut (US)
Corresponding author
Xiao, Ping
Venue
SSRN Electronic Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023
ISSN
1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4378220797
Cited by
93
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 5
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Innovations and Challenges
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
ChatGPT, generative AI in higher education, AI policy in higher education, artificial intelligence adoption, policy implementation, academic reputation, English-speaking countries, faculty-student ratio, peer effects, public sentiment

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