Editorial: Framing the Future with a Research Agenda for Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education
Open accessAbstract
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is transforming higher education, reshaping assessment, curriculum, pedagogical relationships, and the broader dynamics of teaching and learning. While research on AI in education (AIEd) is expanding, it remains fragmented and often dominated by tool-centric use cases and techno-determinist narratives. In this Editorial, we argue for a new phase of meaningful AI research in higher education, research that is pedagogically grounded, ethically aware, and theoretically informed. We critique the limitations of traditional reflective practice, which, like large language models, can mirror existing assumptions without producing genuinely new insights. Instead, we call for a reframing of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) that acknowledges complexity, examines power, and embraces the entangled nature of human and non-human collaboration. Meaningful research must engage with the long-term consequences of AI for teaching, learning, and academic work and not just its immediate functionality. Drawing on interdisciplinary perspectives across pedagogy, trust, ethics, and institutional change, we outline an agenda for AI research that centres on criticality, sustainability, and inclusion. We contend that meaningful research must go beyond short-term efficiency gains to examine long-term impact, support educator and student agency, and address the structural values shaping AI’s integration in higher education. This agenda is urgent: the foundations laid now will determine how we as educators lead the transformation of academic work, student experience, and the future of knowledge in an AI enhanced era.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
Such dialogues facilitate making purposeful, responsible, ethical and sustainable decisions about genAI (non)use.
“They facilitate making”
From Toward Partnership Ethics for Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as Fitzgerald et al., 2025
In “What Counts as ‘Meaningful’?” (page not provided), the paper calls for supporting students’ capacity to question when AI use is appropriate, ethical, or sustainable. This supports the decision-making aim, but the passage does not say that dialogues facilitate those decisions. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredDecision-making about genAI (non)use in higher education entails ethical deliberation.
“Decision-making about genAI (non)use in higher education entails ethical deliberation (Carrigan, 2024;Fitzgerald et al., 2025;Rana et al., 2025).”
From Toward Partnership Ethics for Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as Fitzgerald et al., 2025
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
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Aladi, M., Ahmed, A., & Obaid, Q. (2024). Determinants of cognitive trust in AI-enabled educational technologies: Evidence from IT faculty. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-11926-3 · DOI
- Ashton-Hay, S., Coleman, B., Sullivan, M., & Toquero, C. M. (2025). The difference in practice papers and scholarship: We publish the latter. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.53761/2qgq0714 · DOI
- Crawford, J. (2025). Systematic literature reviews -Why I rejected your review. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 22(2). https://doi.org/10.53761/10vb5076 · DOI
- Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford University Press.
- Newstead, T., Eager, B., & Wilson, S. (2023). How AI can perpetuate-or help mitigate-gender bias in leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 52(4), 100998.
- Roehrer, E. (2023). Generative AI is here: Time for transnational higher education to step up and embrace the opportunity. In Proceedings of the 26th ANZAM Conference 2023 (p. 707).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Toward Partnership Ethics for Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education
Gillette, M., Wackenhut, A., & Olsson, E. (2026) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/yf2gt848
“Many scholars studying genAI in higher education raise the subject of ethics (e.g., Bearman et al., 2025; Bozkurt, 2024; Dabis & Csáki, 2024; Fitzgerald et al., 2025; Rudolph et al., 2024; Shahzad et al., 2025).”
InfluentialKhlaif, Z. N., Hamamra, B., & Farran, H. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9192785/v1
Gonçalves, A. D. S., Pereira, S., Junior, J. D. O., & Ulfa, S. U. (2026) · International Conference on Educational and Information Technology · doi:10.1109/iceit68991.2026.11521406
Emerging Pedagogy in the AI Era: Lived Experiences of Higher Education Educators (Preprint)Preprint
Khlaif, Z. N., & Hamamra, B. (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.105172
Perona, M. I. J., Jiménez, M. Á. F., de Vicente, D. P., & Olivencia, J. J. L. (2026) · European Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.12973/eu-jer.15.4.1081
Kumar, J. A., Salim, Z., Annamalai, N., Dhaliwal, J., & Singh, A. D. (2026) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-026-02982-w · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Khlaif, Z. N., & Hamamra, B. (2026) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/105172
Yang, J., Öge, K., Pham, H. V., Okorro, C., & Affejee, Y. (2026) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16101707
Self-citationFernández, J. G., Sevilmiş, A., Sánchez, S. A., & Tsitskari, E. (2026) · Sport Business and Management An International Journal · doi:10.1108/sbm-01-2026-0020
- Authors
- Fitzgerald, R., Amantha Kumar, J., Roe, J., Roehrer, E., & Yang, J.
- Affiliations
- The University of Queensland (AU)
- Durham University (GB)
- University of Tasmania (AU)
- University of Warwick (GB)
- Venue
- Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice
- Publisher
- Open Access Publishing Association
- Published
- 2025-09-08
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 4
- ISSN
- 1449-9789 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4414076959
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nd)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital Education and Society
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- generative AI, artificial intelligence in higher education, research agenda, scholarship of teaching and learning, AI ethics, human-AI collaboration, teacher agency, student agency, institutional change, inclusion, sustainability, pedagogy
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