Aisling Reid | Searcharxiv

arXiv2026

From Novelty to Normalisation: Tracking Changing Perceptions of AI in Higher Education, 2024-2026

The rapid integration of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has reshaped the landscape of higher education. Students have embraced tools such as ChatGPT with striking speed, while teaching staff and institutions have responded with greater caution. Existing research on AI perceptions has mainly been cross-sectional, providing single-point snapshots that view attitudes as stable rather than evolving. This paper presents a longitudinal study of AI perceptions in higher education, tracking undergraduates, doctoral researchers, teaching staff and non-teaching staff at Ulster University across three survey waves between 2024 and 2026 (n=1,665). A quantitative survey design measured familiarity, reported use and perceived risk; results show that students rapidly normalised AI use over the period, moving from tentative experimentation to routine engagement, while staff expressed persistent concerns about academic integrity, assessment design, and critical thinking. Doctoral and non-teaching staff occupied intermediate positions, reflecting both pragmatic adoption and institutional caution. The student-staff gap widened as institutional policy struggled to keep pace with actual practice. By tracking these shifts directly rather than reconstructing them from disconnected studies, the paper moves beyond descriptive accounts of AI attitudes and demonstrates the importance of capturing perceptions in real time. The findings carry significant implications for adaptive institutional policy, AI literacy initiatives, and targeted staff training.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Methodological Variation in Studying Staff and Student Perceptions of AI

In this paper, we compare methodological approaches for comparing student and staff perceptions, and ask: how much do these measures vary across different approaches? We focus on the case of AI perceptions, which are generally assessed via a single quantitative or qualitative measure, or with a mixed methods approach that compares two distinct data sources - e.g. a quantitative questionnaire with qualitative comments. To compare different approaches, we collect two forms of qualitative data: standalone comments and structured focus groups. We conduct two analyses for each data source: with a sentiment and stance analysis, we measure overall negativity/positivity of the comments and focus group conversations, respectively. Meanwhile, word clouds from the comments and a thematic analysis of the focus groups provide further detail on the content of this qualitative data - particularly the thematic analysis, which includes both similarities and differences between students and staff. We show that different analyses can produce different results - for a single data source. This variation stems from the construct being evaluated - an overall measure of positivity/negativity can produce a different picture from more detailed content-based analyses. We discuss the implications of this variation for institutional contexts, and for the comparisons from previous studies.

cs.HC↗