The perceived ease of use around artificial intelligence (AI) systems like ChatGPT has created an ostensible moral and technological panic around how AI technologies are transforming higher education. This study uses the Technology Acceptance Model to suggest ‘perceived ease of use’ is both a factor in acceptance and panic around emerging technologies. We provide a qualitative analysis of statements, guides, and policies about AI and ChatGPT from 148 U.S. universities to argue that there is not so much a panic happening in higher education as there is a concerted effort to negotiate and integrate artificial intelligence into classroom, research, and daily operations. Across four different categories of statements – university policies, teaching and learning resources, library guides, and professor statements – we find recurring values emphasizing usefulness as well as navigating ethical concerns. ChatGPT’s perceived ease of use has led higher education faculty and staff to avoid panic discourses and focus on problem-solving discourses as they negotiate its institutionalization.
AikatD (2001) Pioneers of the early digital era: innovative ideas that shaped computing in 1833-1945. Convergence7(4): 52–81.
2.
AlghamdiSAlhasawiY (2024) Exploring the factors influencing the adoption of ChatGPT in educational institutions: insights from innovation resistance theory. Journal of Applied Data Sciences5(2): 474–490.
3.
AlkaissiHMcFarlaneSI (2023) Artificial hallucinations in ChatGPT: implications in scientific writing. Cureus15(2): e35179. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.35179.
CainW (2024) Prompting change: exploring prompt engineering in large language model AI and its potential to change education. TechTrends68: 47–57.
10.
Clemson University (n.d.) Artificial Intelligence Research Institute for Science and Engineering (AIRISE). Clemson University College of Engineering, Computing and Applied Sciences. https://www.clemson.edu/cecas/research/airise/index.html
11.
CohenS (1972) Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. London, England: MacGibbon & Kee.
12.
CokleyJCapelC (2004) Remote news delivery down under. Convergence10(4): 55–72.
DavisFD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly13: 319–340.
15.
DavisFD (1993) User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies38(3): 475–487.
16.
De ReuverMNikouSBouwmanH (2015) Enriched presence information on converged communication platforms: a quasi-experiment. Convergence21(2): 228–243.
17.
EdwardsCEdwardsASpencePR, et al. (2018) I, teacher: using artificial intelligence (A) and social robots in communication and instruction. Communication Education67(4): 473–480.
18.
EmaraIH (2024) Knocking on doors: the use of blogging sites by visually impaired people in the USA preliminary study. Convergence(online ahead of print). DOI: 10.1177/13548565241261963.
GarrisonB (2000) Diffusion of a new technology: on-line newspaper newsrooms. Convergence6(1): 84–105.
21.
HallSCritcherCJeffersonT, et al. (1978) Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and Order. London: Macmillan.
22.
HasinoffAH (2015) Sexting Panic: Rethinking Criminalization, Privacy, and Consent. University of Illinois Press.
23.
IngrahamCReevesJ (2016) New media, new panics. Critical Studies in Media Communication33(5): 455–467.
24.
JinqiuZXiamingHBanerjeeI (2006) The diffusion of the Internet and rural development. Convergence12(3): 293–305.
25.
JosephFJ (2024) Streaming forward: adoption considerations for the major recorded music markets in CARICOM. Convergence30(3): 1236–1253.
26.
KellySKayeS-AOviedo-TrespalaciosO (2023) What factors contribute to the acceptance of artificial intelligence? A systematic review. Telematics and Informatics77(101925): 1–33.
27.
KerssensNvan DijckJ (2021) The platformization of primary education in The Netherlands. Learning, Media and Technology46(3): 250–263.
KristensenL-BLüdersM (2023) Convenient and worth the time? Identifying early users and predicting future use of book streaming services. Convergence29(1): 183–200.
32.
KuipersG (2006) The social construction of digital danger: debating, defusing and inflating the moral dangers of online humor and pornography in The Netherlands and the United States. New Media & Society8(3): 379–400.
33.
KwonM-WKwansikMLeeJK, et al. (2017) Is mobile health all peer pressure? The influence of mass media exposure on the motivation to use mobile health apps. Convergence23(6): 565–586.
34.
LeaverTSrdarovS (2023) ChatGPT isn’t magic: the hype and hypocrisy of generative artificial intelligence (AI) rhetoric. M/C Journal26(5): 1–6.
35.
LevinaM (2017) Disrupt or die: Mobile health and disruptive innovation as body politics. Television & New Media18(6): 548–564.
36.
LevineSBeckSWMahC, et al. (2024) How do students use ChatGPT as a writing support?Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy00: 1–13. DOI: 10.1002/jaal.1373.
37.
LundBDOmameITijaniS, et al. (2020) Perceptions toward artificial intelligence among academic library employees and alignment with the diffusion of innovations’ adopter categories. College & Research Libraries81(5): 865.
38.
MarikyanDPapagiannidisS (2023) Technology acceptance model: a review. In: PapagiannidisS (ed) TheoryHub Book. Available at. https://open.ncl.ac.uk
39.
MarwickAE (2008) To catch a predator? The MySpace moral panic. First Monday13(6). DOI: 10.5210/fm.v13i6.2152.
OnalSKulavuz-OnalD (2024) A cross-disciplinary examination of the instructional uses of ChatGPT in higher education. Journal of Educational Technology Systems52(3): 301–324.
44.
OrbenA (2020) The Sisyphean cycle of technology panics. Perspectives on Psychological Science15(5): 1143–1157.
45.
PatnaikPBakkarM (2024) Exploring Determinants influencing artificial intelligence adoption. Reference to Diffusion of Innovation Theory, Available at SSRN: DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.4816644.
RamanRMandalSDasP, et al. (2024) University students as early adopters of ChatGPT: innovation diffusion study. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies2024(3085910): 1–21.
49.
RankinJL (2018) A People’s History of Computing in the United States. Harvard University Press.
50.
Rochester Institute of Technology (n.d.) Generative AI in teaching. In: Rochester Institute of Technology Center for Teaching and Learning. https://www.rit.edu/teaching/generative-ai
51.
RogersEM (1962) Diffusion of innovations. The Free Press.
SlackJDWiseJG (2015) Technology and Culture. Peter Lang: A primer.
58.
StrzeleckiA (2024) Students’ acceptance of ChatGPT in higher education: an extended unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Innovative Higher Education49: 223–245.
59.
TaeihaghA (2021) Governance of artificial intelligence. Policy and Society40(2): 137–157.
van der VlistFHelmondAFerrariF (2024) Big AI: cloud infrastructure dependence and the industrialisastion of artificial intelligence. Big Data & Society11(1). DOI: 10.1177/20539517241232630.
67.
van DijckJPoellTde WaalM (2018) The Platform society:Public Values in a Connective World. Oxford University Press.
68.
VartiainenHKahilaJTedreM, et al. (2024) Enhancing children’s understanding of algorithmic biases in and with text-to-image generative AI. New Media & Society online, ahead of print.
69.
VenkateshVBalaH (2008) Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences39(2): 273–315.
70.
VenkateshVDavisFD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science46(2): 186–204.
71.
WalshJP (2020) Social media and moral panics: assessing the effects of technological change on societal reaction. International Journal of Cultural Studies23(6): 840–859.
72.
WeickKE (2011) Organized sensemaking: a commentary on processes of interpretive work. Human Relations65(1): 141–153.
73.
WershlerDEmersonLParikkaJ (2022) The Lab Book: Situated practices in media studies. University of Minnesota Press.
