71% of Australian university staff are using AI. What are they using it for? What about those who aren't? – Phys.org

Click here to sign in with or
Forget Password?
Learn more
share this!
12
Tweet
Share
Email
October 6, 2024
This article has been reviewed according to Science X’s editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content’s credibility:
fact-checked
trusted source
written by researcher(s)
proofread
by Stephen Hay, Abby Cathcart, Alicia Feldman and Paula McDonald, The Conversation
Since ChatGPT was released at the end of 2022, there has been a lot of speculation about the actual and potential impact of generative AI on universities.
Some studies have focused on students’ use of AI. There has also been research on what it means for teaching and assessment.
But there has been no large-scale research on how university staff in Australia are using AI in their work.
Our new study surveyed more than 3,000 academic and professional staff at Australian universities about how they are using generative AI.
Our survey was made up of 3,421 university staff, mostly from 17 universities around Australia.
It included academics, sessional academics (who are employed on a session-by-session basis) and professional staff. It also included adjunct staff (honorary academic positions) and senior staff in executive roles.
Academic staff represented a wide range of disciplines including health, education, natural and physical sciences, and society and culture. Professional staff worked in roles such as research support, student services and marketing.
The average age of respondents was 44.8 years and more than half the sample was female (60.5%).
The survey was open online for around eight weeks in 2024.
Overall, 71% of respondents said they had used generative AI for their university work.
Academic staff were more likely to use AI (75%) than professional staff (69%) or sessional staff (62%). Senior staff were the most likely to use AI (81%).
Among academic staff, those from information technology, engineering, and management and commerce were most likely to use AI. Those from agriculture and environmental studies, and natural and physical sciences, were least likely to use it.
Professional staff in business development, and learning and teaching support, were the most likely to report using AI. Those working in finance and procurement, and legal and compliance areas, were least likely to use AI.
Given how much publicity and debate there has been about AI in the past two years, the fact that nearly 30% of university staff had not used AI suggests adoption is still at an early stage.
Survey respondents were asked which AI tools they had used in the previous year. They reported using 216 different AI tools, which was many more than we anticipated.
Around one-third of those using AI had only used one tool, and a further quarter had used two. A small number of staff (around 4%) had used ten tools or more.
General AI tools were by far the most frequently reported. For example, ChatGPT was used by 88% of AI users and Microsoft Copilot by 37%.
University staff are also commonly using AI tools with specific purposes such as image creation, coding and software development, and literature searching.
We also asked respondents how frequently they used AI for a range of university tasks. Literature searching, writing and summarizing information were the most common, followed by course development, teaching methods and assessment.
We asked staff who had not yet used AI for work to explain their thinking. The most common reason they gave was AI was not useful or relevant to their work. For example, one professional staff member stated: “While I have explored a couple of chat tools (Chat GPT and CoPilot) with work-related questions, I’ve not needed to really apply these tools to my work yet […].”
Others said they weren’t familiar with the technology, were uncertain about its use or didn’t have time to engage. As one academic told us plainly, “I don’t feel confident enough yet.”
Discover the latest in science, tech, and space with over 100,000 subscribers who rely on Phys.org for daily insights. Sign up for our free newsletter and get updates on breakthroughs, innovations, and research that matter—daily or weekly.
Others raised ethical objections or viewed the technology as untrustworthy and unreliable. As one academic told us: “I consider generative AI to be a tool of plagiarism. The uses to date, especially in the creative industries […] have involved machine learning that uses the creative works of others without permission.”
They also also raised about AI undermining human activities such as writing, critical thinking and creativity—which they saw as central to their professional identities. As one sessional academic said, “I want to think things through myself rather than trying to have a computer think for me […].”
Another academic echoed: “I believe that writing and thinking is fundamental to the work we do. If we’re not doing that, then […] why do we need to exist as academics?”
Universities are at a crucial juncture with generative AI. They face an uneven uptake of the technology by staff in different roles and divided opinions on how universities should respond.
These different views suggest universities need to have a balanced response to AI that addresses both the benefits and concerns around this technology.
Despite differing opinions in our survey, there was still agreement among respondents that universities need to develop clear, consistent policies and guidelines to help staff use AI. Staff also said it was crucial for universities to prioritize staff training and invest in secure AI tools.
Provided by The Conversation
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Explore further
Facebook
Twitter
Email
Feedback to editors
12 hours ago
0
12 hours ago
0
12 hours ago
0
Feb 26, 2025
0
Feb 26, 2025
0
4 hours ago
4 hours ago
5 hours ago
5 hours ago
5 hours ago
5 hours ago
5 hours ago
6 hours ago
6 hours ago
6 hours ago
Feb 24, 2025
Feb 4, 2025
Jan 20, 2025
Jan 19, 2025
Jan 19, 2025
Jan 14, 2025
More from STEM Educators and Teaching
Aug 6, 2024
Mar 15, 2024
Sep 18, 2024
Jul 11, 2024
Nov 20, 2023
Dec 22, 2023
10 hours ago
Feb 5, 2025
Feb 5, 2025
Feb 5, 2025
Jan 31, 2025
Jan 31, 2025

This summary was automatically generated using LLM. Full disclaimer
Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form. For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines).
Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request
Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.
Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.
Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient’s address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we’ll never share your details to third parties.
More information Privacy policy
We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X’s mission by getting a premium account.
Medical research advances and health news
The latest engineering, electronics and technology advances
The most comprehensive sci-tech news coverage on the web

source

About The Author

admin

See author's posts