Journal of Business and Technical Communication Jul 2024

Comparing Student and Writing Instructor Perceptions of Academic Dishonesty When Collaborators Are Artificial Intelligence or Human

John R. Gallagher ; Kyle Wagner University of Findlay

Abstract

It remains unclear if perceptions of academic dishonesty concerning artificial intelligence writing technologies (AIWTs) present new challenges or if they reflect prior, non-AI concerns. To structure this problem, we used a randomized control survey experiment. We compared student ( n = 603) and instructor ( n = 312) attitudes toward dishonesty in collaborations involving humans versus AIWT in 10 writing-related scenarios. Results suggest similar perception patterns among students and instructors, with both populations expressing significant differences in perceived dishonesty between AI and human collaborators in some scenarios. This experiment structures the problem of AI writing and academic dishonesty for future research in this emerging field.

Journal
Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Published
2024-07-01
DOI
10.1177/10506519241239937
CompPile
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export
BibTeX RIS

Citation context

Cited by in this index (9)

  1. Gray et al. (2026)
    Building DIY Coding Credibility: The Personas, Practices, and Pedagogies of Fem…
    Technical Communication Quarterly
  2. Bryson et al. (2026)
    Cultivating Empathy in the Age of AI: Technical Editing Pedagogy and the Ethics…
    Technical Communication Quarterly
  3. Reifman (2026)
    Categorizing Human Identity in Writing Research: A Case for Participant Self-Id…
    Written Communication
  4. Mallette et al. (2026)
    Preparing to Edit Ethically with and for AI Contexts
    Technical Communication Quarterly
  5. Getto et al. (2026)
    How to Write With GenAI: A Framework for Using Generative AI to Automate Writin…
    Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
Show all 9 →
  1. Saeli et al. (2026)
    Parallel Surveys of GenAI and Writing: Students’ Perspectives and Instructors’ …
    Written Communication
  2. Aguilar (2026)
    Increasing Literacy on the Scams Targeting Latines: Generative Artificial Intel…
    Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  3. Gallagher et al. (2025)
    When collaborating turns into dishonesty: A data-driven heuristic comparing hum…
    Computers and Composition
  4. DeJeu et al. (2025)
    “Don’t Ban, Teach”: Two Pilot Studies on AI Instruction in Business Communication
    Business and Professional Communication Quarterly

References (43) · 10 in this index

  1. Blakeslee A. M. (2001)
    Interacting with audiences: Social influences on the production of scientific writing
  2. Boettger et al. (2013)
    An Overview of Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Research in Technical Commun…
    IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  3. Bonferroni C. E. (1935)
    Studi in Onore del Professore Salvatore Ortu Carboni
  4. Busch F. (2023)
    British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
  5. Byrd A., Flores L., Green D., Hassel H., Johnson S., Kirschenbaum M., Lockett A., Losh E., Mills A. (2023). …
Show all 43 →
  1. 10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8
     ↗
  2. Crown D. F. (1998)
    Journal of Business Ethics
  3. Daiute (1983)
    The Computer as Stylus and Audience
    College Composition and Communication
  4. 10.1017/S1351324921000164
     ↗
  5. 10.1207/s15328023top1901_3
     ↗
  6. 10.5860/crl.65.4.301
     ↗
  7. Ernst D. (2020)
    The android English teacher: Writing education in the age of automation
  8. 10.1007/s00146-022-01397-z
     ↗
  9. Gallagher et al. (2022)
    Project-Oriented Web Scraping in Technical Communication Research
    Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  10. 10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.027
     ↗
  11. 10.1207/s15516709cog1603_3
     ↗
  12. Haas (1989)
    How the Writing Medium Shapes the Writing Process: Effects of Word Processing o…
    Research in the Teaching of English
  13. Hartwell et al. (2023)
    Editorial Introduction – AI, corpora, and future directions for writing assessment
    Assessing Writing
  14. Hawisher (1986)
    Studies in word processing
    Computers and Composition
  15. 10.7551/mitpress/13373.001.0001
     ↗
  16. Howard R. M. (1999)
    Standing in the shadow of giants: Plagiarists, authors, collaborators
  17. Howard (2007)
    Understanding “Internet plagiarism”
    Computers and Composition
  18. Jeffrey T. (2020)
    Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics
  19. 10.1023/A:1025008818338
     ↗
  20. 10.3390/educsci13101056
     ↗
  21. 10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.537
     ↗
  22. Krosnick J. A. (2010)
    Handbook of survey research
  23. Lam et al. (2023)
    An Introduction to Quasi-Experimental Research for Technical and Professional C…
    Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  24. 10.3390/su14137811
     ↗
  25. 10.1007/s10805-019-09328-2
     ↗
  26. McNair M. (2017)
    International Journal of Caring Sciences
  27. Meloncon et al. (2019)
    Empirical Research in Technical and Professional Communication: A 5-Year Examin…
    Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  28. 10.1007/s10639-023-11917-z
     ↗
  29. Mohammadkarimi E. (2023)
    Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching
  30. 10.1207/s15326985ep4103_1
     ↗
  31. 10.4324/9781410607034
     ↗
  32. Paullet K. (2020)
    Issues in Information Systems
  33. 10.1007/s43681-023-00258-9
     ↗
  34. Prior P. (1998)
    Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy
  35. Ritter (2005)
    The Economics of Authorship: Online Paper Mills, Student Writers, and First-Yea…
    College Composition and Communication
  36. 10.1080/00221546.2008.11772118
     ↗
  37. 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3268224
     ↗
  38. Vaswani A. (2017)
    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems
CrossRef global citation count: 8 View in citation network → Build reading path →

Related articles

  1. Assessing Writing Oct 2026
    Modeling the reading-to-writing pipeline: Knowledge graph and LLM-based assessment framework for source-based writing ↗
    Byungyeon Yun; Miranda Moe; Lauren E. Flynn; Püren Öncel; Laura K. Allen
    assessment artificial intelligence
  2. Assessing Writing Oct 2026
    Replicating and expanding a validity argument for eRevise as a formative assessment: Empirical support for theories of conceptual change ↗
    Richard Correnti; Lindsay Clare Matsumura; Elaine Lin Wang; Diane Litman; Zhexiong Liu; Haoran Zhang; Tianwen Li
    argument threshold concepts assessment artificial intelligence
  3. Assessing Writing Oct 2026
    Generative artificial intelligence in writing assessment: University professors’ perspectives and recommendations ↗
    Chenze Wu; Ricky Lam
    assessment artificial intelligence
  4. Prompt: A Journal of Academic Writing Assignments Aug 2026
    Engaging Students in Implementing Generative Artificial Intelligence: Creating Simple Infographics to Reinforce Sustainable Living Concepts ↗
    Teresa M. Crimmins; Kathleen Prudic
    artificial intelligence
  5. Assessing Writing Jul 2026
    Accuracy and fairness of generative AI in automated essay scoring: Comparing GPT-4o, feature-based models, and human raters ↗
    Yue Huang; Corey Palermo; Joshua Wilson
    artificial intelligence