Papers for

university policy makers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Generative AI often acts yet lacks clear accountability in education

Who Acts, Who Knows, Who Answers? A Corpus-Assisted Discourse Analysis of Agency, Epistemic Responsibility, and Accountability in Generative AI Higher Education Research

Abstract: Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly described in higher education as a tool, collaborator, evaluator, proxy, and infrastructure. These labels are not neutral: they shape who is seen as acting, knowing, and, crucially, being answerable when someone uses AI. This study examines how scholars distribute such responsibility across 366 English-language titles and abstracts published between November 2022 and 14 August 2026. A corpus-assisted discourse analysis combined frequency counts, five-word collocations, actor-predicate associations, obligation-clause coding, and heuristic analysis of passives, nominalisations, and reporting metonymies. The final corpus contained 91,405 tokens, drawn from 8,734 unique records screened after deduplication. AI was the most frequently named actor, appearing 2,050 times and entering 447 predicate associations, most involving action. Students, by contrast, were more often associated with knowing, judging, and verifying, yet no sentence ever made AI explicitly responsible. Responsibility fell largely on educators, institutions, and policy, or disappeared through passive and nominalised constructions. Even frequent phrases such as "responsible AI" and "responsible use" rarely identify who is accountable for what. The findings reveal a persistent gap between giving AI functional agency and assigning normative accountability.

Wed 23 SeptComputers and Society
The gist
The study found that in higher education research, generative AI is frequently described as doing actions but is rarely held responsible for outcomes. Instead, responsibility usually falls on educators, institutions, or policies. The authors looked at thousands of research titles and abstracts to see who is seen as acting, knowing, or accountable when AI is involved. This reveals a gap between what AI does and who is actually answerable for its use.
Open → 2609.27184v1