71% of Australian university staff use AI. What do you employ it for? What about those that aren't?

Since ChatGPT was released in late 2022, there was much speculation in regards to the actual and potential impact of generative AI on universities.

Some studies have focused on students' use of AI. It also explored what it means Teach and assessment.

However, there isn’t any large-scale research into how university staff in Australia use AI of their work.

Our recent study surveyed greater than 3,000 academic and skilled staff at Australian universities about how they use generative AI.

Our study

3,421 university staff took part in our survey, primarily from 17 universities across Australia.

These included academics, sessional academics (employed on a sessional basis) and specialist staff. This also included adjunct staff (volunteer academic positions) and senior staff in management positions.

The academic staff represented a wide selection of disciplines, including health, education, natural and physical sciences, and society and culture. Specialists worked in, amongst other things, research support, student services and marketing.

The average age of respondents was 44.8 years and greater than half of the sample was female (60.5%).

The survey was available online for around eight weeks in 2024.

Most university employees use AI

Overall, 71% of respondents said they’d used generative AI of their university work.

Academic staff were more more likely to use AI (75%) than skilled staff (69%) or meeting staff (62%). Senior employees were the almost certainly to make use of AI (81%).

Among academic staff, those in information technology, engineering, and management and commerce were the almost certainly to make use of AI. Those from the fields of agricultural and environmental sciences in addition to natural and physical sciences were the least more likely to use it.

Professionals in business development and learning and teaching support were the almost certainly to report using AI. Those working in finance and procurement, in addition to legal and compliance, are the least more likely to use AI.

Considering how much attention and debate there was about AI over the past two years, the indisputable fact that almost 30% of university staff haven’t yet used AI suggests that adoption continues to be in its early stages.

Which tools do employees use?

Survey participants were asked which AI tools they’d utilized in the previous yr. They claimed to make use of 216 different AI tools, which was way more than we expected.

About a 3rd of those using AI had used just one tool, while one other quarter had used two. A small variety of employees (around 4%) had used ten or more tools.

General AI tools were by far essentially the most often mentioned. For example, ChatGPT was utilized by 88% of AI users and Microsoft Copilot by 37%.

University staff also commonly use AI tools for specific purposes reminiscent of image creation, coding and software development, and literature searches.

We also asked respondents how often they use AI for various academic tasks. Literature review, writing, and summarizing information were essentially the most common, followed by course development, teaching methods, and assessment.

Why do some employees not use AI?

We asked employees who haven’t yet used AI professionally to elucidate their considering. The commonest reason they gave was that AI was not useful or relevant to their work. For example, one skilled explained:

Although I even have tried a number of chat tools (Chat GPT and CoPilot) with work-related questions, I even have yet to essentially apply these tools to my work (…).

Others reported being unfamiliar with the technology, unsure about methods to use it, or not having had time to get in control with it. As one academic told us clearly: “I don’t feel confident enough yet.”

Ethical objections to AI

Others expressed ethical objections or viewed the technology as untrustworthy and unreliable. As one academic told us:

I consider generative AI to be a tool for plagiarism. Previous possible uses, particularly within the creative industry (…), include machine learning, wherein the creative works of others are used without permission.

They also talked about how AI undermines human activities reminiscent of writing, critical considering and creativity – which they saw as central to their skilled identity. As one session scientist said:

I would like to think things through myself as a substitute of attempting to get a pc to think for me (…).

Another academic reiterated:

I imagine that writing and considering are fundamental to our work. If we don't try this, (…) why do we’ve got to exist as academics?

How should universities respond?

Universities are at an important point on the subject of generative AI. They face uneven adoption of technology by employees in numerous roles and differing opinions about how universities should respond.

These differing views suggest that universities need a balanced response to AI that considers each the advantages and concerns of this technology.

Despite various opinions in our survey, there was still consensus amongst respondents that universities have to develop clear, consistent policies and guidelines to support their employees in using AI. Staff also said it was critical for universities to prioritize staff training and put money into secure AI tools.