CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 96Artificial Intelligence in EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

AI Governance in Higher Education: Case Studies of Guidance at Big Ten Universities

Open access
Wu, Chuhao, Zhang, He, Carroll, John M.·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2409.02017arXiv 2409.02017
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Generative AI has drawn significant attention from stakeholders in higher education. As it introduces new opportunities for personalized learning and tutoring support, it simultaneously poses challenges to academic integrity and leads to ethical issues. Consequently, governing responsible AI usage within higher education institutions (HEIs) becomes increasingly important. Leading universities have already published guidelines on Generative AI, with most attempting to embrace this technology responsibly. This study provides a new perspective by focusing on strategies for responsible AI governance as demonstrated in these guidelines. Through a case study of 14 prestigious universities in the United States, we identified the multi-unit governance of AI, the role-specific governance of AI, and the academic characteristics of AI governance from their AI guidelines. The strengths and potential limitations of these strategies and characteristics are discussed. The findings offer practical implications for guiding responsible AI usage in HEIs and beyond.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2409.02017

Cites

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?

  • Prior empirical audits of university AI governance have focused on policy presence among elite or research-intensive samples, examining primarily the pedagogical dimension.

    “Prior empirical audits of university AI governance have focused on policy presence among elite or researchintensive samples [47, 50, 76, 80] (Table 2, Appendix B), examining primarily the pedagogical dimension: how universities communicate expectations about AI use in coursework.”

    From The Due Process Deficit: Auditing AI Governance in U.S. Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as [80]

    The Methods and §3.1 describe a study of AI guidelines at large, research-intensive Big Ten universities, supporting the sample characterization. But the Introduction explicitly says this study extends beyond teaching and learning to examine AI governance at the organizational and community levels; the description of earlier work as focused on guideline publication and pedagogical topics does not fully describe this cited study. The indexed passages have section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The seven link categories correspond to distinct organizational surfaces through which governance is commonly articulated.

    “These categories correspond to distinct organizational surfaces through which governance is commonly articulated [80], initialized by a manual author review of a small set of university policies, and then iterated on during our search process which is detailed in Appendix F.”

    From The Due Process Deficit: Auditing AI Governance in U.S. Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as [80]

    Section 4.1, “Multi-Unit Governance of AI” (page unavailable), reports that different university units publish AI guidance and have distinct roles in governance. That supports the idea of different organizational surfaces, but our copy does not establish that the citing paper’s seven link categories correspond to those units. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 60

  1. Baidoo-Anu, D.; Ansah, L.O. Education in the era of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. J. AI 2023, 7, 52-62. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  2. Chen, L.; Chen, P.; Lin, Z. Artificial intelligence in education: A review. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 75264-75278. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  3. Dehouche, N. Plagiarism in the age of massive Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPT-3). Ethics Sci. Environ. Politics 2021, 21, 17-23. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  4. Smits, J.; Borghuis, T. Generative AI and Intellectual Property Rights. In Law and Artificial Intelligence: Regulating AI and Applying AI in Legal Practice; T.M.C. Asser Press: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 323-344.
  5. Wu, Y. Integrating Generative AI in education: How ChatGPT brings challenges for future learning and teaching. J. Adv. Res. Educ. 2023, 2, 6-10. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  6. Chan, C.K.Y.; Hu, W. Students' voices on Generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2023, 20, 43. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  7. Gunasekara, C. Reframing the role of universities in the development of regional innovation systems. J. Technol. Transf. 2006, 31, 101-113. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  8. Chinen, M. AI developers, associations, and the academic community. In The International Governance of Artificial Intelligence; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2023; pp. 107-137.
  9. Mainzer, K. Responsible Artificial Intelligence. Challenges in Research, University, and Society. In Evolving Business Ethics: Integrity, Experimental Method and Responsible Innovation in the Digital Age; J.B. Metzler: Stuttgart, Germany, 2022; pp. 117-127.
  10. Smith, K.M. Higher education culture and the diffusion of technology in classroom instruction. In Case Studies on Information Technology in Higher Education: Implications for Policy and Practice; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2000; pp. 144-156.
  11. Chan, C.K.Y. A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2023, 20, 38. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  12. Moorhouse, B.L.; Yeo, M.A.; Wan, Y. Generative AI tools and assessment: Guidelines of the world's top-ranking universities. Comput. Educ. Open 2023, 5, 100151. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  13. Adams, R.H.; Ivanov, I.I. Using socio-technical system methodology to analyze emerging information technology implementation in the higher education settings. Int. J. e-Educ. e-Business e-Manag. e-Learn. 2015, 5, 31-39.
  14. Thiebes, S.; Lins, S.; Sunyaev, A. Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence. Electron. Mark. 2021, 31, 447-464. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  15. Felzmann, H.; Fosch-Villaronga, E.; Lutz, C.; Tamò-Larrieux, A. Towards transparency by design for Artificial Intelligence. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2020, 26, 3333-3361. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI · Paper page
  16. Balasubramaniam, N.; Kauppinen, M.; Rannisto, A.; Hiekkanen, K.; Kujala, S. Transparency and explainability of AI systems: From ethical guidelines to requirements. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2023, 159, 107197. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  17. Rismani, S.; Moon, A. What does it mean to be a responsible AI practitioner: An ontology of roles and skills. In Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, Montreal, QC, Canada, 8-10 August 2023; pp. 584-595.
  18. Janssen, M.; Brous, P.; Estevez, E.; Barbosa, L.S.; Janowski, T. Data governance: Organizing data for trustworthy Artificial Intelligence. Gov. Inf. Q. 2020, 37, 101493. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  19. Georgieva, I.; Lazo, C.; Timan, T.; van Veenstra, A.F. From AI ethics principles to data science practice: A reflection and a gap analysis based on recent frameworks and practical experience. AI Ethics 2022, 2, 697-711. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  20. Díaz-Rodríguez, N.; Del Ser, J.; Coeckelbergh, M.; de Prado, M.L.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F. Connecting the dots in trustworthy Artificial Intelligence: From AI principles, ethics, and key requirements to responsible AI systems and regulation. Inf. Fusion 2023, 99, 101896. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  21. Akinrinola, O.; Okoye, C.C.; Ofodile, O.C.; Ugochukwu, C.E. Navigating and reviewing ethical dilemmas in AI development: Strategies for transparency, fairness, and accountability. GSC Adv. Res. Rev. 2024, 18, 050-058. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  22. Diakopoulos, N. Accountability, transparency, and algorithms. Oxf. Handb. Ethics AI 2020, 17, 197.
  23. Rees, C.; Müller, B. All that glitters is not gold: Trustworthy and ethical AI principles. AI Ethics 2023, 3, 1241-1254. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  24. Felländer, A.; Rebane, J.; Larsson, S.; Wiggberg, M.; Heintz, F. Achieving a data-driven risk assessment methodology for ethical AI. Digit. Soc. 2022, 1, 13. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  25. Huriye, A.Z. The ethics of Artificial Intelligence: Examining the ethical considerations surrounding the development and use of AI. Am. J. Technol. 2023, 2, 37-44. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  26. Smuha, N.A. The EU approach to ethics guidelines for trustworthy Artificial Intelligence. Comput. Law Rev. Int. 2019, 20, 97-106. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  27. Safdar, N.M.; Banja, J.D.; Meltzer, C.C. Ethical considerations in Artificial Intelligence. Eur. J. Radiol. 2020, 122, 108768. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI · Paper page
  28. Khan, Z.R. Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in Academia. In Second Handbook of Academic Integrity; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 1551-1582.
  29. Rogers, E.M.; Singhal, A.; Quinlan, M.M. Diffusion of innovations. In An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 432-448.
  30. Hawawini, G. The Internationalization of Higher Education Institutions: A Critical Review and a Radical Proposal; INSEAD: Singapore, 2011.
  31. Liu, Q.; Geertshuis, S.; Grainger, R. Understanding academics' adoption of learning technologies: A systematic review. Comput. Educ. 2020, 151, 103857. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  32. Christensen, C.M.; Eyring, H.J. The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside Out; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011.
  33. Ramdhani, M.A.; Priatna, T.; Maylawati, D.S.; Sugilar, H.; Mahmud, M.; Gerhana, Y.A. Diffusion of Innovations for Optimizing the Information Technology Implementation in Higher Education. In Proceedings of the 2021 9th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM), Bengkulu, Indonesia, 22-23 September 2021; pp. 1-8.
  34. Dintoe, S.S. Technology innovation diffusion at the University of Botswana: A comparative literature survey. Int. J. Educ. Dev. Using Inf. Commun. Technol. 2019, 15, n1.
  35. Baadel, S.; Majeed, A.; Kabene, S. Technology adoption and diffusion in the Gulf: Some challenges. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on E-Education, E-Business, E-Management and E-Learning, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 5-7 January 2017; pp. 16-18.
  36. Rodríguez-Abitia, G.; Martínez-Pérez, S.; Ramirez-Montoya, M.S.; Lopez-Caudana, E. Digital gap in universities and challenges for quality education: A diagnostic study in Mexico and Spain. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9069. [CrossRef] · DOI
  37. O'Dea, X.C.; O'Dea, M. Is Artificial Intelligence really the next big thing in learning and teaching in higher education? A conceptual paper. J. Univ. Teach. Learn. Pract. 2023, 20. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  38. Slimi, Z.; Carballido, B.V. Navigating the Ethical Challenges of Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: An Analysis of Seven Global AI Ethics Policies. TEM J. 2023, 12, 590-602. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  39. Kizilcec, R.F. To advance AI use in education, focus on understanding educators. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 2024, 34, 12-19. [CrossRef] · DOI
  40. Mercader, C. Explanatory model of barriers to integration of digital technologies in higher education institutions. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2020, 25, 5133-5147. [CrossRef] · DOI
  41. Zahra, A.A.; Nurmandi, A. The strategy of develop Artificial Intelligence in singapore, united states, and united kingdom. Iop Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 717, 012012. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  42. Xiao, P.; Chen, Y.; Bao, W. Waiting, banning, and embracing: An empirical analysis of adapting policies for Generative AI in higher education. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2305.18617. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  43. Xie, Q.; Li, M.; Enkhtur, A. Exploring Generative AI Policies in Higher Education: A Comparative Perspective from China, Japan, Mongolia, and the USA. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2407.08986. · arXiv
  44. Wilson, O.W.; Guthrie, D.; Bopp, M. Big 10 Institution Campus Recreation: A Review of Current Values, Policies, and Practices. J. Campus Act. Pract. Scholarsh. 2020, 2, 72-79. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI · Paper page
  45. Bennett, C.I. Enhancing ethnic diversity at a big ten university through project TEAM: A case study in teacher education. Educ. Res. 2002, 31, 21-29. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  46. Clair, R.P. The bureaucratization, commodification, and privatization of sexual harassment through institutional discourse: A study of the big ten universities. Manag. Commun. Q. 1993, 7, 123-157. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  47. Dirks, D.A.D. Transgender people at four Big Ten campuses: A policy discourse analysis. Rev. High. Educ. 2016, 39, 371-393. [CrossRef] · DOI
  48. Wheeldon, J.; Faubert, J. Framing experience: Concept maps, mind maps, and data collection in qualitative research. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2009, 8, 68-83. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  49. Drisko, J.W.; Maschi, T. Content Analysis; Oxford University Press: Cary, NC, USA, 2016.
  50. Volk, M.; Jamous, N. IT-landscape management in the higher educational institutions. In Proceedings of the 2018 Sixth International Conference on Enterprise Systems (ES), Limassol, Cyprus, 1-2 October 2018; pp. 211-216.
  51. Delić, H.; Bećirović, S. Socratic method as an approach to teaching. Eur. Res. Ser. A 2016, 111, 511-517.
  52. Tombros, A.; Ruthven, I.; Jose, J.M. How users assess web pages for information seeking. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2005, 56, 327-344. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  53. Chen, M. Improving website structure through reducing information overload. Decis. Support Syst. 2018, 110, 84-94. [CrossRef] · DOI
  54. Shih, C.W.; Chen, M.Y.; Chu, H.C.; Chen, Y.M. Enhancement of information seeking using an information needs radar model. Inf. Process. Manag. 2012, 48, 524-536. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  55. Korpershoek, H.; Harms, T.; de Boer, H.; van Kuijk, M.; Doolaard, S. A meta-analysis of the effects of classroom management strategies and classroom management programs on students' academic, behavioral, emotional, and motivational outcomes. Rev. Educ. Res. 2016, 86, 643-680. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  56. Wu, C.; Wang, X.; Carroll, J.; Rajtmajer, S. Reacting to Generative AI: Insights from Student and Faculty Discussions on Reddit. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM Web Science Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, 21-24 May 2024; pp. 103-113.
  57. Azevedo, L.; Shi, W.; Medina, P.S.; Bagwell, M.T. Examining junior faculty work-life balance in public affairs programs in the United States. In Work-Life Balance in Higher Education; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 21-41.
  58. Vicsek, L.; Bokor, T.; Pataki, G. Younger generations' expectations regarding Artificial Intelligence in the job market: Mapping accounts about the future relationship of automation and work. J. Sociol. 2024, 60, 21-38. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  59. Abdelwahab, H.R.; Rauf, A.; Chen, D. Business students' perceptions of Dutch higher educational institutions in preparing them for Artificial Intelligence work environments. Ind. High. Educ. 2023, 37, 22-34. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  60. Moon, M.J. Searching for inclusive Artificial Intelligence for social good: Participatory governance and policy recommendations for making AI more inclusive and benign for society. Public Adm. Rev. 2023, 83, 1496-1505. [CrossRef · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wu, C., Zhang, H., & Carroll, J. M.
Affiliations
Pennsylvania State University (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
Volume
16
Issue
10
Pages
354-354
ISSN
1999-5903 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2409.02017
arXiv
2409.02017
OpenAlex
W4402992312
Cited by
96
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 62 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 2
FWCI
36.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Future Internet (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
AI governance, generative AI, higher education, AI guidelines, academic integrity, responsible AI use, academic ethics

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