Research Article

Embrace or resist? Drivers of artificial intelligence writing software adoption in academic and non-academic contexts

Stavros Papakonstantinidis 1 * , Piotr Kwiatek 2 , Filomachi Spathopoulou 3
More Detail
1 Central College, Pella, IA, USA2 University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria, Steyr, AUSTRIA3 American University of the Middle East, Egaila, KUWAIT* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(2), April 2024, ep495, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/14250
Published Online: 20 February 2024, Published: 01 April 2024
OPEN ACCESS   2302 Views   1609 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

This research investigates the perspectives of using artificial intelligence writing software (AIWS) in professional contexts, focusing on academic and non-academic writers. These two groups, while standing to gain increased productivity through the adoption of AIWS, also express concerns regarding the widespread implementation of this technology. Notably, artificial intelligence (AI) writing tech’s impact on content creation has been profound, with its swift grammatically accurate content generation. This adoption, however, remains controversial. The study employs a quantitative approach, combining technology acceptance model and new computer game attitude scale. This approach allows us to discern implications of using AI-powered writing tools while accounting for possible differences in different domains of use. Through a survey of 219 participants, spanning academia and business, the study explores attitudes and willingness to use AIWS. Findings yield insights into non-academic writers’ readiness and implications of AIWS adoption. Business, non-academic professionals view AIWS as a tool for efficiency and content quality, while writers in academic contexts express concerns about biases, manipulation, and job displacement. The study contributes to AIWS understanding, benefiting developers, educational institutions, and content creators, and elucidates differing attitudes and age dynamics between academics and professionals. The research underscores the multifaceted influence of AIWS, providing a foundation for future exploration in this emerging domain, as well as practical applications for industries and educational institutions.
Keywords: artificial intelligence, chatbots, ChatGPT, education, educational technologies

CITATION (APA)

Papakonstantinidis, S., Kwiatek, P., & Spathopoulou, F. (2024). Embrace or resist? Drivers of artificial intelligence writing software adoption in academic and non-academic contexts. Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(2), ep495. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/14250

REFERENCES

  1. Adiguzel, T., Kaya, M. H., & Cansu, F. K. (2023). Revolutionizing education with AI: Exploring the transformative potential of ChatGPT. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(3), ep429. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13152
  2. Alneyadi, S., & Wardat, Y. (2023). ChatGPT: Revolutionizing student achievement in the electronic magnetism unit for eleventh-grade students in Emirates schools. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(4), ep448. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13417
  3. Anson, C., & Straume, I. (2022). Amazement and trepidation: Implications of AI-based natural language production for the teaching of writing. Journal of Academic Writing, 12(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.18552/joaw.v12i1.820
  4. Atlas, S. (2023). ChatGPT for higher education and professional development: A guide to conversational AI. University of Rhode Island. https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cba_facpubs/548?utm_source=digitalcommons.uri.edu%2Fcba_facpubs%2F548&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
  5. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02723327
  6. Biermann, O., Ma, N. F., & Yoon, D. (2022). From tool to companion: Storywriters want AI writers to respect their personal values and writing strategies. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (pp. 1209-1227). https://doi.org/10.1145/3532106.3533506
  7. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford University Press.
  8. Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2017). The business of artificial intelligence. Harvard Business Review, 7, 3-11.
  9. Campolo, A., & Crawford, K. (2020). Enchanted determinism: Power without responsibility in artificial intelligence. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 6, 1. https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2020.277
  10. Chen, C., Fu, J., & Lyu, L. (2023). A pathway towards responsible AI generated content. ArXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.01325
  11. Cheng, L., Varshney, K. R., & Liu, H. (2021). Socially responsible AI algorithms: Issues, purposes, and challenges. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 71, 1137-1181. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1.12814
  12. Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295-336). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  13. Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189-217. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.14.2.189.16018
  14. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum.
  15. Coley, C. W., Thomas, D. A., Lummiss, J. A. M., Jaworski, J. N., Breen, C. P., Schultz, V., Hart, T., Fishman, J. S., Rogers, L., Gao, H., Hicklin, R. W., Plehiers, P. P., Byington, J., Piotti, J. S., Green, W. H., Hart, A. J., Jamison, T. F., & Jensen, K. F. (2019). A robotic platform for flow synthesis of organic compounds informed by AI planning. Science, 365(6453), eaax1566. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax1566
  16. Colleoni, E., & Corsaro, D. (2022). Critical issues in artificial intelligence algorithms and their implications for digital marketing. In R. Llamas, & R. Belk (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of digital consumption. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003317524-16
  17. Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2023). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148
  18. Dargham, M., Hachimi, H., & Boutalline, M. (2022). How AI is automating writing: The rise of robot writers. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Optimization and Applications. https://doi.org/10.1109/icoa55659.2022.9934723
  19. 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
  20. De Witte, M. (2023). How will ChatGPT change the way we think and work? Stanford News. https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/13/will-chatgpt-change-way-think-work/
  21. Dharmadhikari, S. (2023). AI writing assistant software market report 2023. Cognitive Market Research. https://www.cognitivemarketresearch.com/ai-writing-assistant-software-market-report
  22. Dhiman, Dr. B. (2023). Does artificial intelligence help journalists: A boon or bane? SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4401194
  23. Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H., Albashrawi, M. A., Al-Busaidi, A. S., Balakrishnan, J., Barlette, Y., Basu, S., Bose, I., Brooks, L., Buhalis, D., & Carter, L. (2023). “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, 71(0268-4012), 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
  24. Else, H. (2023). Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00056-7
  25. Gkinko, L., & Elbanna, A. (2022). The appropriation of conversational AI in the workplace: A taxonomy of AI chatbot users. International Journal of Information Management, 69, 102568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102568
  26. Gülen, K. (2023). Artificial intelligence in accounting explained. Dataconomy. https://dataconomy.com/2023/05/09/artificial-intelligence-in-accounting/
  27. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
  28. Halaweh, M. (2023). ChatGPT in education: Strategies for responsible implementation. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(2), ep421. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13036
  29. Haleem, A., Javaid, M., & Singh, R. P. (2023). An era of ChatGPT as a significant futuristic support tool: A study on features, abilities, and challenges. BenchCouncil Transactions on Benchmarks, Standards and Evaluations, 2(4), 100089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbench.2023.100089
  30. Heikkilä, M. (2023). Why detecting AI-generated text is so difficult (and what to do about it). MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/02/07/1067928/why-detecting-ai-generated-text-is-so-difficult-and-what-to-do-about-it/
  31. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
  32. Horn, B., Clark, C., Strom, O., Chao, H., Stahl, A. J., Harteveld, C., & Smith, G. (2016). Design insights into the creation and evaluation of a computer science educational game. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2839509.2844656
  33. Huang, J., & Tan, M. (2023). The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: Writing better scientific review articles. American Journal of Cancer Research, 13(4), 1148-1154.
  34. Hutson, M. (2022). Could AI help you to write your next paper? Nature, 611(7934), 192-193. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-03479-w
  35. Illia, L., Colleoni, E., & Zyglidopoulos, S. (2022). Ethical implications of text generation in the age of artificial intelligence. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, 32(1), 201-210. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12479
  36. Ippolito, D., Yuan, A., Coenen, A., & Burnam, S. (2022). Creative writing with an AI-powered writing assistant: Perspectives from professional writers. ArXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2211.05030
  37. Kim, N. J., & Kim, M. K. (2022). Teacher’s perceptions of using an artificial intelligence-based educational tool for scientific writing. Frontiers in Education, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.755914
  38. Laker, B. (2023). AI at the crossroads: Navigating job displacement, ethical concerns, and the future of work. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/benjaminlaker/2023/05/09/ai-at-the-crossroads-navigating-job-displacement-ethical-concerns-and-the-future-of-work/?sh=4639cc62391c
  39. Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114-121. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.1.114
  40. Liu, E. Z.-F., Lee, C.-Y., & Chen, J.-H. (2013). Developing a new computer game attitude scale for Taiwanese early adolescents. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 183-193.
  41. Liu, I-Fan. (2020). The impact of extrinsic motivation, intrinsic motivation, and social self-efficacy on English competition participation intentions of pre-college learners: Differences between high school and vocational students in Taiwan. Learning and Motivation, 72, 101675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2020.101675
  42. Lussier, B., Chaker, N. N., Hartmann, N. N., & Rangarajan, D. (2022). Lone wolf tendency and ethical behaviors in sales: Examining the roles of perceived supervisor support and salesperson self-efficacy. Industrial Marketing Management, 104, 304-316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.04.015
  43. Makridakis, S. (2017). The forthcoming artificial intelligence (AI) revolution: Its impact on society and firms. Futures, 90(90), 46-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2017.03.006
  44. Malatji, W. R., Eck, R. V., & Zuva, T. (2020). Understanding the usage, modifications, limitations and criticisms of technology acceptance model (TAM). Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, 5(6), 113-117. https://doi.org/10.25046/aj050612
  45. Mhlanga, D. (2023). Open AI in education, the responsible and ethical use of ChatGPT towards lifelong learning. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4354422
  46. Munoko, I., Brown-Liburd, H. L., & Vasarhelyi, M. (2020). The ethical implications of using artificial intelligence in auditing. Journal of Business Ethics, 167, 209-234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04407-1
  47. Nakazawa, E., Udagawa, M., & Akabayashi, A. (2022). Does the use of AI to create academic research papers undermine researcher originality? AI, 3(3), 702-706. https://doi.org/10.3390/ai3030040
  48. Nathan, L. F. (2018). Creativity, the arts, and the future of work. In J. W. Cook (Eds.), Sustainability, human well-being, and the future of education (pp. 283-310). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78580-6_9
  49. Nazari, N., Shabbir, M. S., & Setiawan, R. (2021). Application of artificial intelligence powered digital writing assistant in higher education: Randomized controlled trial. Heliyon, 7(5), E07014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07014
  50. Patel, S. B., & Lam, K. (2023). ChatGPT: The future of discharge summaries? The Lancet Digital Health, 5(3), E107-E108. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2589-7500(23)00021-3
  51. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
  52. Poole, S. (2019). The rise of robot authors: Is the writing on the wall for human novelists? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/mar/25/the-rise-of-robot-authors-is-the-writing-on-the-wall-for-human-novelists
  53. Popenici, S. A. D., & Kerr, S. (2017). Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence on teaching and learning in higher education. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 12, 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-017-0062-8
  54. Qadir, J. (2023). Engineering education in the era of ChatGPT: Promise and pitfalls of generative AI for education. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference. https://doi.org/10.1109/educon54358.2023.10125121
  55. Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., & Henseler, J. (2009). An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(4), 332-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2009.08.001
  56. Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. W. (2012). A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in “MIS Quarterly.” MIS Quarterly, 36(1), iii. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410402
  57. Roscoe, J. T. (1975). Fundamental research statistics for the behavioral sciences. Dryden Press Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
  58. Salvagno, M., Taccone, F. S., & Gerli, A. G. (2023). Can artificial intelligence help for scientific writing? Critical Care, 27, 75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04380-2
  59. Sands, S., Campbell, C. L., Plangger, K., & Ferraro, C. (2022). Unreal influence: Leveraging AI in influencer marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 56(6), 1721-1747. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejm-12-2019-0949
  60. Satariano, A., & Mozur, P. (2023). The people onscreen are fake. The disinformation is real. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/07/technology/artificial-intelligence-training-deepfake.html
  61. Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Computers & Education, 128, 13-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009
  62. Seo, K., Tang, J., Roll, I., Fels, S., & Yoon, D. (2021). The impact of artificial intelligence on learner-instructor interaction in online learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18, 54. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00292-9
  63. Shing, T. (2022). AI content writing tools: Are they productive or pointless? Spiceworks. https://www.spiceworks.com/marketing/ai-in-marketing/guest-article/ai-content-writing-tools/
  64. Simmering, M. J., Fuller, C. M., Richardson, H. A., Ocal, Y., & Atinc, G. M. (2014). Marker variable choice, reporting, and interpretation in the detection of common method variance. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 473-511. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114560023
  65. Sumakul, D. T. Y. G., Hamied, F. A., & Sukyadi, D. (2022). Artificial intelligence in EFL classrooms: Friend or foe? LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 15(1), 232-256.
  66. Tang, Y. (2021). A robot wrote this?: An empirical study of AI’s applications in writing practices. In Proceedings of the 39th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication. https://doi.org/10.1145/3472714.3475817
  67. The Authors Guild. (2023). Survey reveals 90 percent of writers believe authors should be compensated for the use of their books in training generative AI. The Authors Guild. https://authorsguild.org/news/ai-survey-90-percent-of-writers-believe-authors-should-be-compensated-for-ai-training-use/
  68. Wagner, G., Lukyanenko, R., & Paré, G. (2021). Artificial intelligence and the conduct of literature reviews. Journal of Information Technology, 37(2), 026839622110482. https://doi.org/10.1177/02683962211048201
  69. Wu, S-Y., & Yang, K-K. (2022). The effectiveness of teacher support for students’ learning of artificial intelligence popular science activities. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.868623