Ethical Governance of Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: A Systematic Review and a Proposed Socio-Technical Framework for Smart Educational Environments
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61467/2007.1558.2026.v17i4.1298Keywords:
ethical governance of artificial intelligence, artificial intelligence in higher education, socio-technical framework, responsible artificial intelligence, institutional AI governance, gobernanza ética de la inteligencia artificial, inteligencia artificial en la educación superior, entornos educativos inteligentes, gobernanza de la tecnología educativaAbstract
The increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education has intensified debates on academic ethics, authorship, and institutional governance, particularly in intelligent education environments. Although international guidelines for the responsible use of AI exist, they tend to adopt general normative approaches and show limitations when applied to specific institutional contexts. This study proposes a socio-technical framework for the ethical governance of AI in higher education. Through a systematic review, following PRISMA guidelines, of studies indexed in Scopus and Web of Science (2022–2025), normative gaps are identified and five interdependent dimensions are structured. In addition, an operationalization based on indicative variables and indicators is proposed to support institutional diagnosis. The study concludes that the ethical adoption of AI requires dynamic and context-sensitive models that balance technological innovation, academic integrity, and human oversight.
Spanish-language metadata / Metadatos en español
Título en español:
Gobernanza ética de la inteligencia artificial en la educación superior: una revisión sistemática y una propuesta de marco sociotécnico para entornos educativos inteligentes
Resumen:
El uso creciente de la inteligencia artificial (IA) en la educación superior ha intensificado los debates sobre la ética académica, la autoría y la gobernanza institucional, particularmente en los entornos educativos inteligentes. Aunque existen directrices internacionales para el uso responsable de la IA, estas suelen adoptar enfoques normativos generales y presentan limitaciones cuando se aplican a contextos institucionales específicos. Este estudio propone un marco sociotécnico para la gobernanza ética de la IA en la educación superior. Mediante una revisión sistemática, realizada conforme a las directrices PRISMA, de estudios indexados en Scopus y Web of Science entre 2022 y 2025, se identifican brechas normativas y se estructuran cinco dimensiones interdependientes. Además, se propone una operacionalización basada en variables indicativas e indicadores para apoyar el diagnóstico institucional. El estudio concluye que la adopción ética de la IA requiere modelos dinámicos y sensibles al contexto que equilibren la innovación tecnológica, la integridad académica y la supervisión humana.
Palabras Claves:
gobernanza ética de la inteligencia artificial; inteligencia artificial en la educación superior; marco sociotécnico; inteligencia artificial responsable; integridad académica; entornos educativos inteligentes; gobernanza institucional de la IA; supervisión humana; revisión sistemática PRISMA; gobernanza de la tecnología educativa; ética de la IA en la educación; diagnóstico institucional.
Smart citations:
https://scite.ai/reports/10.61467/2007.1558.2026.v17i4.1298
Dimensions.
Open Alex.
References
Acosta-Enriquez, B. G., Arbulú Ballesteros, M. A., Arbulu Perez Vargas, C. G., Orellana Ulloa, M. N., Gutiérrez Ulloa, C. R., Pizarro Romero, J. M., Gutiérrez Jaramillo, N. D., Cuenca Orellana, H. U., Ayala Anzoátegui, D. X., & López Roca, C. (2024). Knowledge, attitudes, and perceived ethics regarding the use of ChatGPT among Generation Z university students. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 20, Article 10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-024-00157-4
Alanzi, T., Alanazi, F., Mashhour, B., Altalhi, R., Alghamdi, A., Al Shubbar, M., Alamro, S., Alshammari, M., Almusmili, L., Alanazi, L., Alzahrani, S., Alalouni, R., Alanzi, N., & Alsharifa, A. (2023). Surveying hematologists’ perceptions and readiness to embrace artificial intelligence in diagnosis and treatment decision-making. Cureus, 15(11), Article e49462. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.49462
Alhwaiti, M. (2023). Acceptance of artificial intelligence application in the post-covid era and its impact on faculty members’ occupational well-being and teaching self efficacy: A path analysis using the UTAUT 2 model. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 37(1), 2175110. https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2023.2175110
Alonso-Prieto, V., Dimitriadis, Y., Villagrá-Sobrino, S. L., Ortega-Arranz, A., Topali, P., & Martínez-Monés, A. (2025). Exploring how teacher agency unfolds within the co-design of a smart learning environment-supported learning activity: A case study. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 24, Article 34. https://doi.org/10.28945/5615
Al-Zahrani, A. M. (2024). Unveiling the shadows: Beyond the hype of AI in education. Heliyon, 10(9), e30696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30696
Ayoubi, K. (2024). Adopting ChatGPT: Pioneering a new era in learning platforms. International Journal of Data and Network Science, 8(2), 1341–1348. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijdns.2023.11.001
Bouteraa, M., Bin-Nashwan, S. A., Al-Daihani, M., Dirie, K. A., Benlahcene, A., Sadallah, M., Zaki, H. O., Lada, S., Ansar, R., Fook, L. M., & Chekima, B. (2024). Understanding the diffusion of AI-generative (ChatGPT) in higher education: Does students’ integrity matter? Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 14, 100402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100402
Cedeño Meza, J. G., Maitta Rosado, I. S., Vélez Zambrano, M. L., & Palomeque Zambrano, J. Y. (2024). Investigación universitaria con inteligencia artificial. Revista Venezolana de Gerencia, 29(106), 817–830. https://doi.org/10.52080/rvgluz.29.106.23
Chai, C. S., Yu, D., King, R. B., & Zhou, Y. (2024). Development and validation of the Artificial Intelligence Learning Intention Scale (AILIS) for university students. Sage Open, 14(2), 21582440241242188. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241242188
Committee on Publication Ethics. (2023, February 13). Authorship and AI tools. https://doi.org/10.24318/cCVRZBms
Dallari, V., Liberale, C., De Cecco, F., Nocini, R., Arietti, V., Monzani, D., & Sacchetto, L. (2024). The role of artificial intelligence in training ENT residents: A survey on ChatGPT, a new method of investigation. Acta Otorhinolaryngologica Italica, 44(3), 161–168. https://doi.org/10.14639/0392-100X-N2806
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Fu, Y., & Weng, Z. (2024). Navigating the ethical terrain of AI in education: A systematic review on framing responsible human-centered AI practices. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100306
Gandhi, A., & Gani, P. H. (2024). Would lecturers use AI-based software to write scientific article? A quantitative approach in Indonesia. Ingénierie Des Systèmes d Information, 29(3), 941–950. https://doi.org/10.18280/isi.290314
Grájeda, A., Burgos, J., Córdova, P., & Sanjinés, A. (2024). Assessing student-perceived impact of using artificial intelligence tools: Construction of a synthetic index of application in higher education. Cogent Education, 11(1), 2287917. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2287917
Haddaway, N. R., Page, M. J., Pritchard, C. C., & McGuinness, L. A. (2022). PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 18(2), e1230. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1230
Ivanov, S., Soliman, M., Tuomi, A., Alkathiri, N. A., & Al-Alawi, A. N. (2024). Drivers of generative AI adoption in higher education through the lens of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Technology in Society, 77, 102521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102521
Jo, H., & Bang, Y. (2023). Analyzing ChatGPT adoption drivers with the TOEK framework. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 22606. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-49710-0
Jordano, P. (n.d.). Coevolución: Patrones y procesos [Course notes]. Universidad de Sevilla–CSIC. http://pjordanolab.ebd.csic.es/pdfs/coevol.pdf
Larsson, S. (2020). On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 7(3), 437–451. https://doi.org/10.1017/als.2020.19
Li, Q., & Qin, Y. (2023). AI in medical education: Medical student perception, curriculum recommendations and design suggestions. BMC Medical Education, 23(1), 852. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04700-8
Luo, J. (2024). A critical review of GenAI policies in higher education assessment: A call to reconsider the “originality” of students’ work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(5), 651–664. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2309963
Mahmud, A., Sarower, A. H., Sohel, A., Assaduzzaman, M., & Bhuiyan, T. (2024). Adoption of ChatGPT by university students for academic purposes: Partial least square, artificial neural network, deep neural network and classification algorithms approach. Array, 21, 100339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.array.2024.100339
Mohd Rahim, N. I., Iahad, N. A., Yusof, A. F., & Al-Sharafi, M. A. (2022). AI-based chatbots adoption model for higher-education institutions: A hybrid PLS-SEM-neural network modelling approach. Sustainability, 14(19), 12726. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912726
Morley, J., Floridi, L., Kinsey, L., & Elhalal, A. (2020). From What to How: An Initial Review of Publicly Available AI Ethics Tools, Methods and Research to Translate Principles into Practices. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(4), 2141–2168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00165-5
Nemt-allah, M., Khalifa, W., Badawy, M., Elbably, Y., & Ibrahim, A. (2024). Validating the ChatGPT usage scale: psychometric properties and factor structures among postgraduate students. BMC Psychology, 12(1), 497. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01983-4
Niloy, A. C., Bari, M. A., Sultana, J., Chowdhury, R., Raisa, F. M., Islam, A., Mahmud, S., Jahan, I., Sarkar, M., Akter, S., Nishat, N., Afroz, M., Sen, A., Islam, T., Tareq, M. H., & Hossen, M. A. (2024). Why do students use ChatGPT? Answering through a triangulation approach. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100208
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence (OECD/LEGAL/0449; amended 2023). https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0449
Okulich-Kazarin, V., Artyukhov, A., Skowron, Ł., Artyukhova, N., & Wołowiec, T. (2024). Will AI become a threat to higher education sustainability? A study of students’ views. Sustainability, 16(11), 4596. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114596
Oyama, K. (1986). La coevolución. Ciencias, (Esp), 64–73. https://www.revistacienciasunam.com/images/stories/Articles/ESP1/CNSE0109.pdf
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). Declaración PRISMA 2020: Una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas. Revista Española de Cardiología, 74(9), 790–799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recesp.2021.06.016
Polyportis, A., & Pahos, N. (2025). Understanding students’ adoption of the ChatGPT chatbot in higher education: The role of anthropomorphism, trust, design novelty and institutional policy. Behaviour & Information Technology, 44(2), 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2024.2317364
Salazar Vargas, C. (2009). La evaluación y el análisis de políticas públicas. Revista Opera, (9), 23–51.
Sallam, M., Salim, N. A., Barakat, M., Al-Mahzoum, K., Al-Tammemi, A. B., Malaeb, D., Hallit, R., & Hallit, S. (2023). Assessing health students’ attitudes and usage of ChatGPT in Jordan: validation study. JMIR Medical Education, 9, e48254. https://doi.org/10.2196/48254
Sobaih, A. E. E. (2024). Ethical concerns for using artificial intelligence chatbots in research and publication: Evidences from Saudi Arabia. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 7(1), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2024.7.1.21
Thomas, R., Bhosale, U., Shukla, K., & Kapadia, A. (2023). Impact and perceived value of the revolutionary advent of artificial intelligence in research and publishing among researchers: A survey-based descriptive study. Science Editing, 10(1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.294
UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386693
UNESCO. (2025, September 2). UNESCO survey: Two-thirds of higher education institutions have or are developing guidance on AI use. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/unesco-survey-two-thirds-higher-education-institutions-have-or-are-developing-guidance-ai-use
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412
Zhu, J., & Liu, W. (2020). A tale of two databases: The use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers. Scientometrics, 123(1), 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03387-8
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of Combinatorial Optimization Problems and Informatics
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
