AI Use Stigma Found Among Communication Scholars

A recent international study has uncovered a significant disconnect between the actual use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) by communication scholars and their perceived appropriateness of such tools, leading to feelings of "AI shame." The research, titled “Guidance over guidelines? Unpacking the uses and concerns of generative AI in communication science,” surveyed over 1,100 communication scholars from 77 countries and included four focus group discussions. This marks the first systematic, field-wide, international empirical investigation into generative AI practices within communication research.

The study, published in the journal Information, Communication and Society, found that nearly 70% of the 1,138 surveyed scholars reported using generative AI for at least one research-related task. Despite this widespread adoption, a majority of respondents also considered AI use to be inappropriate for most research-related activities. Specifically, just over half of the participants (55%) believed that using AI for text writing was an appropriate use case, while 50.4% felt the same about generating code. However, the study’s authors noted that there was no consensus among participants regarding the appropriate or ethical uses of AI in their academic work.

Researchers from National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University in Taiwan, the University of Amsterdam, and Utrecht University conducted the survey and focus groups. The findings suggest that the absence of clear institutional guidelines for AI use in academic research forces scholars to develop their own ethical standards. This lack of formal guidance contributes to a stigma surrounding AI adoption, potentially hindering open discussion and responsible implementation of these technologies. The study implies that scholars who refrain from using AI may be at a disadvantage in their research endeavors.

The study highlights a critical need for institutions to develop comprehensive guidelines and frameworks for the ethical and effective use of generative AI in academic research. Such guidance could help alleviate the "AI shame" experienced by scholars, foster more transparent practices, and ensure that AI tools are leveraged to enhance, rather than compromise, the integrity and advancement of communication science. The research team, including Hannes Cools, emphasized the scale of the study, involving 1,138 scholars across 77 countries and four focus groups, to provide a robust understanding of the current landscape of AI in their field.