University AI policies ‘promise support but deliver surveillance’

Two-fifths of UK universities do not have a publicly accessible artificial intelligence policy, according to a new report that criticises the lack of a shared approach across the sector.

Many institutional policies that do exist “use the language of education while operating as compliance instruments”, says the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi) paper published on 21 May – something that will be “uncomfortable” for universities.

Author Sam Illingworth, professor of creative pedagogies at Edinburgh Napier University, used AI to scrape the internet for university policies that could be read by prospective students, parents and external bodies such as regulators.

Of the 163 institutions with degree-awarding powers analysed, 96 had publicly accessible AI policies.

The other 67 – 41 per cent – either had no discoverable policy or one that was “locked behind authentication walls”, for example on a university intranet that requires a login.

Illingworth analysed keywords to assess the content of the polices he could find and identified a “systematic gap between what policies say and what they do”.

Many emphasise that they want to “help students use artificial intelligence” but Illingworth says in the report that: “They promise critical thinking but deliver audit trails. They name support yet deliver surveillance.”

For example, the University of Southampton’s policy promises to produce “critically digitally literate’” graduates but actually serves as a “binary list of acceptable and unacceptable uses anchored by an early threat: ‘We will take disciplinary action that may result in penalties on your marks.’”

The report says that the “performative gap may well be unintentional” and a “structural consequence of producing educational guidance within regulatory architectures”.

“The response to AI has been absorbed into existing governance structures, and many of those structures were already organised around detection and punishment.”

Illingworth also found that all the policies appear to have be developed “in isolation”, with universities “producing documents that range from genuine critical literacy resources to one-paragraph additions to misconduct procedures” and no sector body coordinating efforts. 

He identifies four AI policies that do stand up to scrutiny; those of Durham University, the University of Stirling, Canterbury Christ Church University and Arts University Plymouth.

At more than 9,000 words long, Durham’s policy is said to allow “thinking out loud” and “distinguishes explicitly between academic misconduct and ‘unwise or unethical’ behaviour, and refuses to use the misconduct process to police the latter”.

The report sets out principles for more student-centred AI policies, including ensuring that they are shaped by students and “trust should be the default”.

Such variation “has consequences for students”, says Illingworth, who points to examples such as someone transferring between institutions or comparing their experience with friends.

“Every university in the world is wrestling with how to respond to AI. The technological developments of the last few years are causing huge changes for academics, students and managers,” said Hepi director Nick Hillman.

“This report assesses the state of play on guidance for students, nearly all of whom now regularly use AI. It argues some universities still need to hone their response to AI into something that is pedagogically sound and genuinely helpful to students.”

tom.williams@timeshighereducation.com