The arrival of ChatGPT in higher education has provoked a remarkable wave of fascination, anxiety, and debate. Newspapers, policy documents, and digital platforms portray the system alternately as a revolutionary assistant, a threat to academic integrity, or a catalyst for new pedagogical practices. These shifting narratives are not mere commentary; they shape how universities, educators, and students perceive and act upon emerging technologies. Understanding the evolving media discourse surrounding ChatGPT allows us to trace the socio-technical imaginaries—the visions of social futures made possible or threatened by new tools—that influence educational institutions today.
Yet behind the headlines lies a deeper story about how societies imagine the intersection of technology and education. What futures are being promised, and by whom? Whose interests do these narratives serve? By examining media discourse as both a mirror and a producer of collective imagination, we can better grasp how ChatGPT becomes entangled with educational governance, cultural expectations, and academic practice. This article analyzes the socio-technical imaginaries constructed around ChatGPT in higher education, considering their theoretical underpinnings, discursive patterns, and practical consequences across global contexts.
The study of how ChatGPT is imagined in higher education requires a conceptual lens that moves beyond simple accounts of technological adoption or resistance. Rather than treating ChatGPT as a neutral tool whose impact can be objectively measured, this article situates it within the broader tradition of socio-technical imaginaries. Developed within science and technology studies (STS), the concept refers to collectively held visions of desirable futures that are animated by technologies and simultaneously shape governance, policy, and practice (Jasanoff & Kim, 2015). Imaginaries are not merely abstract ideas; they are powerful cultural scripts that organize expectations, mobilize resources, and influence institutional behavior. In the case of higher education, imaginaries around ChatGPT are deeply intertwined with questions of academic integrity, pedagogical innovation, and the role of universities in preparing students for a technologically saturated world.
Socio-technical imaginaries provide a particularly suitable framework because they allow us to interpret media discourse as both reflective and constitutive. On one hand, newspapers and online media echo existing concerns of educators, policymakers, and students. On the other hand, the stories they tell actively shape what higher education might become. For instance, when a news outlet frames ChatGPT as a “plagiarism machine,” it does not only report on anxieties but also reinforces and amplifies them, potentially leading universities to adopt restrictive policies. Conversely, when ChatGPT is celebrated as an enabler of personalized learning, such narratives may encourage investment in new digital pedagogies. Imaginaries thus illuminate how media discourse transforms speculative possibilities into actionable agendas.
Education has long been a central arena for the negotiation of socio-technical futures. From the introduction of the blackboard to the spread of the internet, each new medium has been accompanied by discursive struggles over its implications for knowledge, authority, and equity. As Selwyn (2019) argues, educational technologies are never just “tools”; they are always invested with broader cultural meanings and normative visions of what education should be. ChatGPT enters this lineage as the latest site of contestation, positioned between utopian hopes for efficiency and dystopian fears of automation and fraud.
The concept of socio-technical imaginaries helps capture this tension. Unlike simple narratives of technological determinism, imaginaries stress the co-production of technology and society: technologies embody certain assumptions about human behavior, while social institutions, in turn, regulate and reshape technologies through governance structures. Applied to higher education, this perspective reveals that debates over ChatGPT are simultaneously debates over the future of universities, the value of human labor in teaching, and the legitimacy of traditional academic standards.
Why focus on media discourse? Media serve as both amplifiers and mediators of public imagination. They provide readily accessible texts in which the socio-technical futures of ChatGPT are articulated, contested, and disseminated. News reports, opinion pieces, and policy commentary are more than journalistic accounts; they function as arenas where competing imaginaries clash and sometimes consolidate into dominant frames.
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) offers one methodological path for exploring these imaginaries. CDA examines how language encodes power relations, ideological positions, and social structures (Fairclough, 1995). Applied here, it allows us to identify recurring metaphors—such as “revolution,” “threat,” or “partner”—that shape collective understandings of ChatGPT. Equally important is attention to silences: what is not said, whose voices are absent, and which futures are excluded. For example, while much Western media coverage highlights academic dishonesty, less attention is paid to how AI tools might reduce educational inequalities by supporting students in resource-poor settings.
To operationalize this framework, the article draws on a purposive corpus of media texts published between late 2022, when ChatGPT was first released, and mid-2025. Sources include major newspapers (e.g., The New York Times, The Guardian), higher education news platforms (e.g., Times Higher Education, Inside Higher Ed), and influential blogs or digital forums where academics and students voice opinions. The selection prioritizes outlets with substantial readerships to ensure analysis captures discourses with real social reach.
The method involves thematic coding of these texts using qualitative analysis software. Each article was examined for explicit and implicit references to ChatGPT’s educational role. Codes were developed iteratively, beginning with inductive identification of recurring themes—such as “academic integrity,” “pedagogical innovation,” and “labor displacement”—and then refined into higher-level categories representing distinct imaginaries. This coding scheme enables us to trace not only what is being said but how these statements are situated within broader cultural narratives about technology and education.
It is important to acknowledge the interpretive nature of this approach. Media discourse does not encompass the entirety of public opinion or institutional practice. It is shaped by editorial agendas, journalistic norms, and cultural contexts. Moreover, the focus on English-language media inevitably privileges certain geographic and cultural perspectives, particularly those of the Global North. This is mitigated, where possible, by incorporating comparative materials from other regions, especially Asia, where debates about ChatGPT in higher education often reflect different priorities, such as national competitiveness and digital sovereignty.
Nevertheless, discourse analysis remains a valuable method because it reveals the cultural scripts that condition policy and practice. By examining how ChatGPT is framed in influential media outlets, we gain insight into the narratives that circulate within policymaking circles, university governance, and everyday classroom interactions. As Jasanoff (2004) has argued, imaginaries are not abstract ideals but tangible forces that guide decision-making. Understanding their media articulation is thus essential for assessing how higher education is likely to evolve.
Finally, this article combines the socio-technical imaginaries framework with a comparative institutional perspective. While imaginaries offer a way to analyze discursive visions, institutions—universities, governments, accreditation bodies—translate these visions into policy and practice. Therefore, media discourse is analyzed not in isolation but in relation to its uptake in higher education policies and everyday practices. This dual focus on imaginaries and institutions enables a richer understanding of how ChatGPT is being negotiated: not merely as a technological novelty but as a symbol around which competing visions of higher education’s future are crystallizing.
The media narratives surrounding ChatGPT in higher education are not neutral observations; they are projections of educational futures. These narratives operate by embedding the technology within long-standing debates about what higher education is for, who it should serve, and how it should adapt to societal change. By examining media discourse, we can uncover a set of recurring expectations that revolve around three dominant imaginaries: efficiency and personalization, academic integrity and authenticity, and the redefinition of teacher–student relations. Each of these imaginaries is mobilized through different rhetorical strategies, yet all converge on the broader question of whether ChatGPT should be seen as a partner, a threat, or a catalyst for systemic reform.
One of the most prominent discursive strands presents ChatGPT as a solution to long-standing inefficiencies in higher education. Media stories frequently highlight its ability to summarize complex texts, generate practice questions, or provide instant feedback on student writing. These affordances are often framed as revolutionary tools capable of personalizing learning at scale. The promise of “AI tutors” resonates strongly with the wider educational technology movement, which has long championed the idea that digital platforms can democratize access and tailor instruction to individual needs (Luckin, 2018).
Articles in mainstream outlets emphasize the potential of ChatGPT to reduce the workload of overburdened educators and empower students to learn at their own pace. Headlines proclaim that “AI can free professors to focus on mentorship” or “ChatGPT offers students the personalized tutor they never had.” Such narratives align with a broader cultural imaginary of efficiency: technology as a means of overcoming institutional inertia and delivering more value for money in an era of rising tuition costs and declining public funding.
However, the rhetoric of personalization is not only about student empowerment; it also serves institutional interests. By presenting AI as a cost-effective way to supplement teaching, universities may justify maintaining or even expanding enrollment without proportionate increases in staffing. In this sense, media discourse often glosses over the labor implications of adopting AI in education. While efficiency is presented as an unqualified good, questions about who benefits and who bears the risks are often muted.
Counterbalancing the utopian narrative of efficiency is a pervasive discourse of crisis, centered on concerns about plagiarism, authenticity, and the erosion of academic standards. Since late 2022, headlines such as “AI threatens the essay” or “Professors declare war on ChatGPT cheating” have dominated education sections of major newspapers. This framing situates ChatGPT as an existential threat to the integrity of academic assessment, raising fears that traditional markers of student achievement—essays, problem sets, even examinations—may lose their legitimacy.
This discourse resonates with what cultural theorists describe as the “decline narrative,” a recurring motif in which new technologies are portrayed as catalysts of moral or intellectual decay (Postman, 1992). ChatGPT becomes the latest embodiment of this trope: an external force undermining the authenticity of student work and, by extension, the credibility of universities themselves. Importantly, such narratives are not only descriptive but prescriptive. By foregrounding the specter of widespread cheating, media stories often call for stricter surveillance, new detection technologies, or fundamental rethinking of assessment practices.
Yet the integrity discourse also reveals a deeper anxiety about the purpose of higher education. If students can generate competent essays with minimal effort, what does this say about the value of academic writing as a measure of learning? Critics argue that AI exposes the fragility of assessment methods long taken for granted. Supporters, on the other hand, suggest that the challenge provides an opportunity to redesign pedagogy around critical thinking, creativity, and human–AI collaboration. In this way, the crisis narrative is paradoxically generative: it compels institutions to reimagine what counts as authentic learning in an age of intelligent machines.
A third strand of media discourse concerns the reconfiguration of relationships between teachers, students, and technologies. Some articles depict ChatGPT as a “co-pilot” for educators, capable of generating lesson plans, exam questions, or illustrative examples. Others emphasize its role in supporting students as independent learners. In both cases, ChatGPT is imagined as blurring traditional boundaries of authority: knowledge is no longer transmitted unidirectionally from teacher to student but mediated through an AI intermediary.
The portrayal of ChatGPT as an educational partner carries profound symbolic implications. For centuries, the authority of the teacher has rested on expertise and the ability to guide students through complex material. If an AI can perform some of these tasks, the teacher’s role must be rearticulated. Media discourse alternates between portraying this shift as liberating—freeing educators to focus on mentorship and higher-order skills—and as destabilizing, potentially diminishing the professional identity of teachers.
Students, too, are recast in these narratives. In utopian accounts, they are empowered as active learners, leveraging AI for exploration and creativity. In dystopian accounts, they are portrayed as opportunists seeking shortcuts, driven by instrumental goals rather than intrinsic curiosity. These contrasting depictions are not merely descriptive but normative: they signal to the public what kind of student behaviors are desirable or threatening in the new AI-mediated landscape.
Underlying these discursive strands are recurring metaphors that shape how the public understands ChatGPT’s place in education. Some stories liken it to a calculator—an initially controversial tool that eventually became indispensable in mathematics education. This analogy suggests that initial resistance may give way to widespread acceptance as norms shift. Other narratives compare ChatGPT to “doping in sports,” framing its use as an unfair advantage that undermines the spirit of competition. Each metaphor carries distinct policy implications: calculators suggest integration, doping implies prohibition.
These metaphors also reveal the moral undertones of educational imaginaries. By likening AI use to either responsible augmentation or illicit cheating, media discourse maps the terrain of acceptable versus unacceptable practices. Such framing is crucial because it guides institutional responses: whether universities design inclusive policies that harness AI constructively, or restrictive regimes that attempt to ban its use.
While the dominant narratives revolve around efficiency, integrity, and authority, notable silences persist in media discourse. Less attention is given to equity: how ChatGPT might reduce disparities for students who lack access to private tutoring or extensive academic support. Similarly, the perspectives of students themselves are often underrepresented. Media stories tend to quote administrators, professors, and policy experts, while students’ lived experiences of using AI for learning are only sporadically included.
The absence of these voices matters because it reflects and reproduces hierarchies of authority in educational debate. If students are portrayed mainly as potential cheaters rather than as agents of innovation, their capacity to shape policy discussions is constrained. Likewise, when issues of accessibility and digital divide are marginalized, the imaginaries of AI in higher education risk reinforcing existing inequalities rather than challenging them.
Taken together, these narratives constitute a contested terrain of educational expectations. Media discourse constructs ChatGPT not simply as a tool but as a symbol of broader transformations in higher education. Efficiency narratives imagine universities as leaner, more personalized institutions, while integrity narratives defend traditional standards against perceived threats. Authority narratives grapple with shifting boundaries of expertise and autonomy. Silences around equity and inclusion reveal the partiality of these imaginaries.
What emerges is not a coherent vision but a plurality of competing futures. Media discourse simultaneously promises liberation from bureaucratic inefficiency and warns of moral decline; it elevates students as empowered learners while chastising them as dishonest opportunists. These contradictions are not incidental—they are constitutive of how societies grapple with technological change. By projecting both utopian and dystopian scenarios, media narratives keep the future of higher education open, contested, and politically charged.
The media imaginaries of ChatGPT are not confined to the realm of ideas; they have tangible consequences for educational institutions, teaching practices, and student behavior. While socio-technical imaginaries articulate visions of possible futures, their effects are mediated through the ways universities interpret, internalize, and operationalize these narratives. Media coverage thus functions as a form of indirect governance: by framing what is desirable, permissible, or dangerous, it shapes institutional policies, instructional methods, and learner strategies.
Universities rarely adopt technologies in a vacuum. Administrative decisions are influenced by public opinion, funding considerations, and reputational risk, all of which are shaped by media discourse. For example, when prominent news outlets report on widespread “ChatGPT cheating scandals,” university administrators are pressured to respond with formal policies. These may include prohibitions on AI-generated content, updates to academic integrity guidelines, or the introduction of AI-detection tools.
Several high-profile cases illustrate this dynamic. Following extensive media coverage highlighting ChatGPT’s use in generating assignments, some universities implemented blanket bans on AI tools in coursework. Others took a more nuanced approach, issuing guidelines on appropriate AI use while emphasizing pedagogical integration. In both cases, policy decisions were informed less by the intrinsic capabilities of the technology than by the narratives circulating in public discourse. Media thus act as both a catalyst and a legitimizing force: administrators can justify restrictive or permissive measures by citing widely reported concerns or expectations.
Policy feedback loops are also evident in government-level guidance. National educational authorities have referenced media reports when advising universities on AI adoption, demonstrating how journalistic framing can extend from local campus decisions to systemic governance. This phenomenon underscores the co-constitutive relationship between media discourse and institutional policy: narratives in the press are both a reflection of and a driver for institutional action.
Beyond formal policies, media discourse shapes how educators approach their teaching. The portrayal of ChatGPT as a dual-edged innovation—both a pedagogical assistant and a potential threat to academic standards—encourages teachers to reconsider instructional design, assessment methods, and classroom interaction.
In some cases, teachers have incorporated AI explicitly into their pedagogy. For instance, several instructors now use ChatGPT to demonstrate the limits of machine-generated reasoning, prompting discussions on critical thinking, source evaluation, and ethical use of technology. In other instances, faculty have revised assessment tasks to emphasize creativity, reflection, and iterative problem-solving, reducing reliance on assignments that can be easily automated. These adaptations reflect a proactive engagement with media-driven imaginaries: educators interpret media discourse as signals for potential challenges and opportunities, reshaping their teaching accordingly.
Simultaneously, media narratives emphasizing risk can produce defensive teaching strategies. Some educators may increase proctoring, surveillance, or restrictive submission formats, motivated by fear of reputational damage highlighted in the press. These responses, while protective, may inadvertently undermine trust in the student-teacher relationship or limit opportunities for genuine learning experimentation. Thus, media-driven imaginaries create a tension between innovation and control within pedagogical practice.
Students are also directly affected by media framing. Reports depicting ChatGPT as a powerful tool for completing assignments or improving learning may encourage experimentation, while stories emphasizing academic dishonesty may foster caution or even anxiety. Media coverage, therefore, plays a role in shaping students’ perceptions of acceptable academic behavior, influencing both their strategic choices and ethical considerations.
Empirical observations suggest that students internalize these narratives in complex ways. Some treat ChatGPT as a supplementary learning resource, using it to clarify concepts, generate study prompts, or explore alternative explanations. Others, in response to warnings in the media, adopt more guarded or covert use, careful not to attract scrutiny. In extreme cases, sensationalized coverage can amplify stress and reduce confidence, particularly for students from marginalized backgrounds who feel under heightened surveillance. By highlighting both opportunity and risk, media discourse creates a dynamic learning environment in which students must navigate competing expectations and potential consequences.
The interaction between media discourse and educational practice can be conceptualized as a feedback loop. Media narratives inform policy, pedagogy, and student behavior, which in turn generate new experiences and outcomes that are reported back in the press. For example, a university adopting ChatGPT-inclusive pedagogy may receive media attention praising innovation, which reinforces similar initiatives elsewhere. Conversely, instances of academic misconduct reported in the media may provoke further policy tightening and pedagogical caution. These cycles illustrate how discourse, practice, and institutional culture co-evolve, creating emergent patterns that are not easily reducible to either technological capability or individual choice.
Institutional culture mediates the extent and direction of these feedback effects. Universities with a tradition of pedagogical experimentation may interpret media narratives as opportunities for innovation, while more conservative institutions may prioritize risk mitigation. Faculty attitudes, administrative priorities, and student demographics all interact with media-driven imaginaries to shape how ChatGPT is integrated or resisted. By studying these interactions, we can understand not only the immediate impacts of media discourse but also how they accumulate over time to influence systemic change.
Several factors moderate the influence of media discourse on practice. Institutional prestige, regulatory environment, and local cultural norms affect how seriously media narratives are taken. For instance, elite universities may rely less on sensational media reports and more on internal research when developing AI policies, whereas smaller institutions may be more reactive to publicized scandals. Similarly, national contexts influence how media framing translates into policy: in countries with strong centralized guidance, local media coverage may have limited effect, whereas in more decentralized systems, media narratives can significantly shape institutional responses.
Furthermore, disciplinary differences shape pedagogical reactions. STEM fields, with established traditions of computational tools and algorithmic reasoning, may be more inclined to experiment with AI integration. Humanities and social sciences, where writing and critical analysis are central, may exhibit heightened concern for authenticity and originality, resulting in more cautious implementation. Media discourse interacts with these disciplinary norms to produce diverse responses, highlighting the nuanced and context-dependent nature of feedback between discourse and practice.
In sum, media discourse surrounding ChatGPT generates expectations that feed directly into educational practice. Policy decisions, teaching strategies, and student behaviors are influenced not only by the technology itself but also by the narratives that circulate around it. These narratives create a dynamic environment in which opportunities for innovation coexist with perceived threats to integrity, and where institutional culture, disciplinary norms, and national context mediate the impact. By examining these feedback mechanisms, we gain a richer understanding of how socio-technical imaginaries translate into tangible changes in higher education, revealing the interplay between media, policy, pedagogy, and learner experience.
While the dynamics of media discourse and its feedback into educational practice are evident within single national contexts, these interactions vary significantly across institutional and cultural settings. Differences in governance structures, regulatory frameworks, and media ecosystems shape both the imaginaries circulating about ChatGPT and the ways higher education institutions respond to them. A comparative perspective highlights the contextual contingency of socio-technical imaginaries and underscores the importance of local norms in interpreting technological change.
Media coverage of ChatGPT exhibits notable divergences across regions. In the United States and Western Europe, reporting tends to emphasize debates over academic integrity, student autonomy, and pedagogical innovation. Newspapers and higher education outlets frequently juxtapose utopian and dystopian narratives, framing ChatGPT as both an educational opportunity and a potential threat. This dual framing encourages universities to adopt policies that balance experimentation with caution, reflecting broader societal norms that value innovation while maintaining individual accountability.
In contrast, media narratives in East Asian countries, such as China, Japan, and South Korea, often foreground issues of national competitiveness, societal order, and educational discipline. ChatGPT is frequently framed as a tool for enhancing learning efficiency, preparing students for technologically advanced economies, and supporting government-led educational initiatives. Reports rarely dwell on individual misuse; instead, they emphasize collective benefits and adherence to institutional guidelines. Consequently, universities in these contexts are more likely to implement structured, top-down AI policies aligned with governmental educational priorities.
Emerging economies present yet another variant. In countries with limited access to high-quality educational resources, media narratives emphasize equity and accessibility. ChatGPT is portrayed as a potential equalizer, helping students overcome resource constraints and bridging gaps between elite and under-resourced institutions. Here, policy responses may focus on providing structured access to AI tools rather than enforcing strict prohibitions, reflecting a pragmatic orientation toward inclusion and capacity-building.
Institutional structures also modulate the impact of media discourse. Highly centralized systems, such as those in France or Singapore, allow national guidelines and policy recommendations to strongly influence university-level decisions, often reducing the direct effect of sensationalized media coverage. By contrast, decentralized systems like the United States or the United Kingdom permit individual universities considerable autonomy, making them more sensitive to reputational concerns highlighted in press coverage. In these cases, media narratives can accelerate policy experimentation or prompt reactive measures such as AI bans or mandatory usage guidelines.
Disciplinary cultures intersect with institutional governance to produce further variation. STEM departments, which are often accustomed to integrating computational tools, tend to interpret media discourse as an incentive for innovation. Humanities and social science faculties, however, may respond to the same media narratives with heightened caution, emphasizing textual authenticity, critical reasoning, and ethical considerations. Thus, both institutional and disciplinary contexts shape the pathways through which socio-technical imaginaries influence practice.
Cultural norms regarding authority, individualism, and risk tolerance further differentiate responses. In societies that prioritize individual autonomy and freedom of inquiry, media coverage emphasizing risk can spark debates and experimental pedagogical interventions, reflecting a culture of negotiation and discourse. Conversely, in societies with strong hierarchical norms, media narratives about AI misuse often reinforce existing institutional authority, prompting standardized policy implementation rather than open debate.
Ethical framing of ChatGPT use also varies. Western discourse frequently foregrounds individual responsibility, intellectual honesty, and academic freedom. In East Asian contexts, ethical discourse emphasizes collective responsibility, social harmony, and alignment with institutional and governmental expectations. These divergent ethical lenses influence both media narratives and institutional reactions, shaping how students, faculty, and administrators interpret their roles in AI-mediated education.
Comparative analysis highlights that there is no universal template for integrating ChatGPT into higher education. Media-driven imaginaries are interpreted through the prism of local governance, disciplinary norms, and cultural values, producing diverse policy and pedagogical outcomes. This has important implications for cross-border collaborations, international student mobility, and the transfer of best practices. Institutions seeking to adopt AI-informed pedagogy must consider not only technological capabilities but also the discursive and normative environments in which they operate. Ignoring these variations risks policy misalignment and ineffective implementation.
Cross-institutional and cross-cultural comparisons reveal that media discourse interacts with structural and cultural contexts to shape the expectations, policies, and practices surrounding ChatGPT. While the technology itself is globally accessible, its interpretation, regulation, and integration into educational practice are deeply context-dependent. Recognizing these differences is essential for understanding the global landscape of AI in higher education, ensuring that policies are not merely reactive to media narratives but also culturally informed and institutionally sustainable.
The evolving media discourse surrounding ChatGPT in higher education illuminates the complex interplay between technology, societal expectations, and institutional practice. Across the preceding sections, it has become evident that media narratives do more than report on the introduction of AI tools—they actively shape imaginaries, influence policy formation, guide pedagogical adaptation, and affect student behaviors. By analyzing these dynamics through the lens of socio-technical imaginaries, we can understand ChatGPT not merely as a technological artifact but as a symbol around which educational futures are debated, contested, and enacted.
First, the media constructs multiple, often contradictory imaginaries of ChatGPT. On one hand, it is portrayed as a catalyst for efficiency, personalization, and pedagogical innovation, promising to alleviate administrative burdens and support individualized learning. On the other hand, it is framed as a threat to academic integrity and the traditional roles of teachers, raising concerns about cheating, plagiarism, and the erosion of authentic learning experiences. These competing narratives create a tension that universities must navigate: embracing technological opportunity while safeguarding educational values. The analysis also revealed silences in media discourse, particularly regarding equity, access, and student voices, which risk reinforcing existing inequalities if left unaddressed.
Second, media-driven imaginaries exert concrete effects on policy and practice. Universities have responded to these narratives in diverse ways, from implementing restrictive AI bans to experimenting with integrative pedagogical approaches. Faculty adjust instructional design, assessment strategies, and classroom interactions based on how ChatGPT is framed in the press. Students, in turn, interpret these signals, calibrating their learning strategies in accordance with both perceived opportunities and risks. This feedback loop highlights the co-evolutionary nature of discourse and practice, demonstrating that media narratives function as indirect yet powerful regulators of educational behavior.
Third, comparative analysis shows that the impact of media discourse is highly context-dependent. National governance structures, institutional autonomy, disciplinary norms, and cultural values mediate how imaginaries are interpreted and operationalized. In Western contexts, debates over academic freedom and individual responsibility dominate, whereas East Asian media emphasize collective benefit, societal order, and alignment with institutional priorities. Emerging economies often frame ChatGPT as a tool for enhancing access and equity. These variations underscore the necessity of situating policy and practice within local structural and cultural contexts rather than attempting to apply universal solutions.
Based on these insights, several policy and practice recommendations emerge.
Integrative AI policy frameworks: Universities should move beyond reactive bans or piecemeal regulations. Policies should clearly define acceptable use, encourage transparency, and provide guidance on ethical engagement with AI tools. Frameworks must balance flexibility for innovation with safeguards against misuse.
Pedagogical redesign: Instructors should leverage ChatGPT to complement, rather than replace, critical thinking, creativity, and collaborative learning. Assignments can be restructured to emphasize reflective processes, iterative problem-solving, and human-AI co-production. Integrating AI literacy into curricula equips students to critically evaluate outputs and make informed decisions.
Equity-focused access: Institutions should consider AI tools as instruments for promoting educational equity, ensuring that all students—regardless of socioeconomic background—can benefit from personalized learning opportunities. Media narratives emphasizing risk must be counterbalanced by proactive measures to reduce digital divides.
Stakeholder engagement and transparency: Policy development should include diverse voices, particularly students and faculty from multiple disciplines, to ensure that guidelines reflect practical realities and ethical considerations. Open communication about AI use fosters trust and reduces fear-driven compliance behaviors.
Cross-cultural sensitivity in international collaboration: Global institutions must recognize the cultural and institutional variability in AI discourse and adoption. Policies effective in one context may not transfer seamlessly; collaboration should account for local norms, governance structures, and ethical expectations.
In conclusion, ChatGPT represents both a technological and a socio-cultural phenomenon in higher education. Its media-mediated imaginaries influence how policies are formulated, how pedagogy evolves, and how students engage with learning. Understanding these dynamics is essential for designing interventions that are ethical, equitable, and effective. Universities must navigate the tension between embracing AI’s transformative potential and maintaining the integrity, inclusivity, and critical purpose of higher education. By situating AI adoption within socio-technical imaginaries, educators and policymakers can anticipate challenges, leverage opportunities, and cultivate a responsible, future-oriented educational ecosystem.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Longman.
Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. Routledge.
Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S.-H. (2015). Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. University of Chicago Press.
Luckin, R. (2018). Machine Learning and Human Intelligence: The Future of Education for the 21st Century. UCL IOE Press.
Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. Vintage.
Selwyn, N. (2019). Should Robots Replace Teachers? AI and the Future of Education. Polity Press.
