AIEd Knowledge Base logoAIEd Knowledge BaseAIEd KB
On this page

Research Article

Purpose Before Policy: Academic Integrity, Generative AI, and Rhetorical Stance

Synthesis: Taylor and LaCroix argue that whether generative AI use constitutes misconduct depends on a prior question: what is the university's purpose? Drawing on an historical and rhetorical account of the Anglo-American university, they analyse mission statements from leading university networks to show that rising GenAI-related misconduct reflects structural incoherence in the neo-liberal university, where technological enthusiasm, corporate influence, and policy enforcement often conflict. They conclude that universities cannot credibly enforce integrity standards in the age of AI without first ensuring coherence between their stated missions, pedagogical practices, and approaches to emerging technologies.

Key Findings

  1. Purpose precedes policy. Whether GenAI use is misconduct cannot be settled in isolation; it depends on an institution's purpose, ranging from knowledge creation and transfer to community/values and societal engagement.
  2. Structural incoherence drives misconduct. Apparent rises in GenAI misconduct reflect misalignment among stated ideals, incentive structures, assessment design, and administrative practice—treating it as individual behavior misdiagnoses the problem.
  3. Mission statements are strikingly uniform. A qualitative rhetorical analysis of the Canadian U15, UK Russell Group, and US Ivy League found a shared vocabulary of "research," "students," "teaching," "community," "knowledge," "learning," and "commitment," organized around three functions: knowledge creation/transfer, community and values, and societal/global engagement.
  4. Ethos overwhelms logos and pathos. Mission statements evidence Booth's "Entertainer's" and "Advertiser's" stances—institutions define value by their own existence or appeal to multiple audiences at once—obscuring structural constraints such as financial precarity and inequitable access.
  5. Use is widespread while policy lags. A 2024 Global AI Student Survey found 86% of students use AI tools while 80% report institutional policies are unclear or inadequate.
  6. Universities simultaneously endorse and police AI. Blanket endorsements of AI's potential coexist with bans and punishment, producing contradictory policy signals and systemic incoherence that erodes institutional credibility.
  7. Governance is shaped by private partners. Policies are increasingly developed with corporate and for-profit actors (e.g., the Digital Education Council), blurring the university's public mission and creating opacity in Governance.
  8. Academic integrity is a collective practice. It is an inherently collective, epistemic undertaking that cannot be credibly demanded while institutions fail to communicate clearly, align practice with mission, or preserve the epistemic norms that underwrite knowledge transfer.

Implications

  • Universities should resolve the rhetorical misalignment between their stated missions, pedagogical practices, and technology approach before and while enforcing integrity—"purpose before policy."
  • Institutional Governance should be reformed to reduce corporate influence on policy formation and to translate aspirational mission statements into concrete, procedurally clear (logos-driven) guidance rather than Ethos/Pathos appeals.
  • Policy-making should end the contradiction of endorsing AI while policing its use, which produces inequity as students adopt AI at uneven rates under unclear expectations.
  • Treat academic integrity as a collective institutional responsibility—aligning curricula, assessment, and incentives—rather than an individual obligation.
  • Mission statements and public-facing commitments should be scrutinized as active rhetorical interventions that both constitute institutional identity and reveal gaps between aspiration and practice.

Connected Concepts

Connected Articles

Citation

Taylor, T. B., & LaCroix, T. (2026). Purpose before policy: Academic integrity, generative AI, and rhetorical stance. Higher Education.

View SourceView ChangesEditChat