Developing a Generative AI Governance Model in Higher Education and Scientific Research

Khatereh Azimi Kohan; Touran Soleimani Molla Yousef; Hafseh Khanipour Shiraz

Authors

Khatereh Azimi Kohan Department of Education Governance and Human Capital, Ard.C., Islamic Azad University, Ardabil, Iran Author https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9064-5715
Touran Soleimani Molla Yousef Department of Educational Studies and Curriculum Planning, Ard.C., Islamic Azad University, Ardabil, Iran https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7127-3792
Hafseh Khanipour Shiraz Department of Education Governance and Human Capital, , Ard.C., Islamic Azad University, Ardabil, Iran Author https://orcid.org/0009-0009-4419-4306

Keywords:

generative artificial intelligence, higher education governance, academic ethics, strategic policymaking, digital literacy, data security, structural equation modeling

Abstract

Generative AI systems have entered universities fast. In just a few years, large language models and content-generation tools have reshaped how students learn, how researchers work, and how academic institutions manage knowledge. These tools offer real benefits—personalized learning, faster research cycles, and new analytical possibilities. They also raise hard questions about academic integrity, research originality, and data privacy. Yet most national higher education systems still lack a coherent governance framework. Responses tend to be reactive and fragmented. This study asks a simple question: What dimensions shape a generative AI governance model in higher education, and how can such a model be validated? The study is applied-developmental in purpose and uses an exploratory mixed-methods design. In the qualitative phase, ten experts sat for semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis followed Braun and Clarke's six-step framework. Five dimensions emerged: academic ethics and integrity (24.4%), digital literacy and skill development (21.1%), strategic policymaking (20.0%), oversight and evaluation mechanisms (17.8%), and technical infrastructure and data security (16.7%). In the quantitative phase, 200 questionnaires were distributed; 155 valid responses were returned (77.5% response rate). Data were analyzed with PLS-SEM in SmartPLS 4. Construct validity was assessed through factor loadings, composite reliability, AVE, discriminant validity (Fornell-Larcker and HTMT), VIF, f², Q², and overall fit indices (SRMR, NFI). Findings confirm that five dimensions underpin generative AI governance: academic ethics and integrity, strategic policymaking, oversight and evaluation mechanisms, digital literacy and skill development, and technical infrastructure and data security. Academic ethics had the strongest effect (β = 0.364), followed by strategic policymaking (β = 0.302). The model explained 62% of variance in higher education effectiveness (R² = 0.62; Q² = 0.41). All five structural paths were significant. Fit indices (SRMR = 0.062; NFI = 0.912) confirmed good model fit. Multi-group analysis found significant differences between public and non-profit universities in technical infrastructure.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Williamson B, Eynon R. Historical threads, missing links, and future directions in AI in education. Learning, Media and Technology. 2020;45(3):223-35. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2020.1798995.

2. Baker B, Mills KA, McDonald P, Wang L. AI, concepts of intelligence, and chatbots: The "figure of man," the rise of emotion, and future visions of education. Teachers College Record. 2023;125(6):60-84. doi: 10.1177/01614681231191291.

3. Lo CK. What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature. Education Sciences. 2023;13(4):410. doi: 10.3390/educsci13040410.

4. Zhai X. ChatGPT for next generation science learning. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students. 2023;29(3):42-6. doi: 10.1145/3589649.

5. Guan L, Li S, Gu MM. AI in informal digital English learning: A meta-analysis of its effectiveness on proficiency, motivation, and self-regulation. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence. 2024;7:100323. doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100323.

6. Naamati-Schneider L, Alt D. Beyond digital literacy: The era of AI-powered assistants and evolving user skills. Education and Information Technologies. 2024;29(16):21263-93. doi: 10.1007/s10639-024-12694-z.

7. Chiu TKF. Future research recommendations for transforming higher education with generative AI. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence. 2024;6:100197. doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100197.

8. Lund BD, Wang T. Chatting about ChatGPT: How may AI and GPT impact academia and libraries? Library Hi Tech News. 2023;40(3):26-9. doi: 10.1108/LHTN-01-2023-0009.

9. Dwivedi YK. "So what if ChatGPT wrote it?" Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management. 2023;71:102642. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642.

10. Gao CA, Howard FM, Markov NS, Dyer EC, Ramesh S, Luo Y, et al. Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers. NPJ Digital Medicine. 2023;6(1):75. doi: 10.1038/s41746-023-00819-6.

11. Stokel-Walker C, Van Noorden R. What ChatGPT and generative AI mean for science. Nature. 2023;614(7947):214-6. doi: 10.1038/d41586-023-00340-6.

12. Cotton DRE, Cotton PA, Shipway JR. Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 2023;61(2):228-39. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148.

13. Perkins M. Academic integrity considerations of AI large language models in the post-pandemic era: ChatGPT and beyond. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice. 2023;20(2):7. doi: 10.53761/1.20.02.07.

14. Rudolph J, Tan S, Tan S. ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education? Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching. 2023;6(1):342-63. doi: 10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9.

15. Sullivan M, Kelly A, McLaughlan P. ChatGPT in higher education: Considerations for academic integrity and student learning. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching. 2023;6(1):31-40. doi: 10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.17.

16. Williams RT. The ethical implications of using generative chatbots in higher education. Frontiers in Education. 2024;8:1331607. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1331607.

17. Kooli C. Chatbots in education and research: A critical examination of ethical implications and solutions. Sustainability. 2023;15(7):5614. doi: 10.3390/su15075614.

18. Tlili A. What if the devil is my guardian angel? ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learning Environments. 2023;10(1):15. doi: 10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x.

19. Opara E, Mfon-Ette Theresa A, Aduke TC. ChatGPT for teaching, learning and research: Prospects and challenges. Global Academic Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. 2023;5(2):33-40. doi: 10.36348/gajhss.2023.v05i02.001.

20. Grassini S. Shaping the future of education: Exploring the potential and consequences of AI and ChatGPT in educational settings. Education Sciences. 2023;13(7):692. doi: 10.3390/educsci13070692.

21. Rahman MM, Watanobe Y. ChatGPT for education and research: Opportunities, threats, and strategies. Applied Sciences. 2023;13(9):5783. doi: 10.3390/app13095783.

22. Farrokhnia M, Banihashem SK, Noroozi O, Wals A. A SWOT analysis of ChatGPT: Implications for educational practice and research. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 2023;61(3):460-74. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2023.2195846.

23. Miao F, Holmes W. Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO Publishing, 2023.

24. Wang H, Dang A, Wu Z, Mac S. Generative AI in higher education: Seeing ChatGPT through universities' policies, resources, and guidelines. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence. 2024;7:100326. doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100326.

25. Luo J. A critical review of GenAI policies in higher education assessment: A call to reconsider the "originality" of students' work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2024;49(5):651-64. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2024.2309963.

26. Orfanidis C. Moral diversity in institutional policies governing the student usage of generative AI: An international comparison. Higher Education Quarterly. 2025;79(4):e70051. doi: 10.1111/hequ.70051.

27. Jiang Y, Xie L, Cao X. Exploring the effectiveness of institutional policies and regulations for generative AI usage in higher education. Higher Education Quarterly. 2025;79(4):e70054. doi: 10.1111/hequ.70054.

28. Salas-Pilco SZ, Yang Y. Artificial intelligence applications in Latin American higher education: A systematic review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2022;19(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s41239-022-00326-w.

29. Salimi G. University governance in the face of emerging technologies: A structural review. Journal of Higher Education Research. 2023;18(1):33-58.

30. Farajzadeh M. Analysis of macro policies of science and technology for emerging technologies. Journal of Science and Technology Policy. 2024;15(2):45-62.