See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/379287181

Drivers of generative AI adoption in higher education through the lens of the

Theory of Planned Behaviour

Article in Technology in Society · June 2024

DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102521

CITATIONS READS

181 832

5 authors, including:

Stanislav H Ivanov Mohammad Soliman

Varna University of Management Sultan Qaboos University
291 PUBLICATIONS 10,610 CITATIONS 102 PUBLICATIONS 2,757 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Aarni Tuomi Nasser Alhamar Alkathiri

Haaga-Helia University of Applied Sciences University of Technology and Applied Sciences, Salalah, Oman
37 PUBLICATIONS 1,228 CITATIONS 18 PUBLICATIONS 468 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Stanislav H Ivanov on 27 March 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Technology in Society 77 (2024) 102521

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technology in Society
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techsoc

Drivers of generative AI adoption in higher education through the lens of

the Theory of Planned Behaviour
Stanislav Ivanov a, b, *, 1, Mohammad Soliman c, Aarni Tuomi d, Nasser Alhamar Alkathiri e,
Alamir N. Al-Alawi f
a
Varna University of Management, 13A Oborishte Str., 9000 Varna, Bulgaria
b
Zangador Research Institute, 9010 Varna, Bulgaria
c
Research and Consultation Department, University of Technology and Applied Sciences, Salalah, Oman & Faculty of Tourism & Hotels, Fayoum University, Fayoum,
Egypt
d
Haaga-Helia University of Applied Sciences, Helsinki, Finland
e
Business Administration Department, College of Economics and Business Administration, University of Technology and Applied Sciences-Salalah, Salalah, Oman
f
University of Technology and Applied Sciences, Ibri, Oman

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Drawing on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), this study investigates the relationship between the
Generative AI perceived benefits, strengths, weaknesses, and risks of generative AI (GenAI) tools and the fundamental factors of
Theory of planned behaviour the TPB model (i.e., attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control). The study also investigates
Higher education
the structural association between the TPB variables and intention to use GenAI tools, and how the latter might
affect the actual usage of GenAI tools in higher education. The paper adopts a quantitative approach, relying on
an anonymous self-administered online questionnaire to gather primary data from 130 lecturers and 168 stu­
dents in higher education institutions (HEIs) in several countries, and PLS-SEM for data analysis. The results
indicate that although lecturers’ and students’ perceptions of the risks and weaknesses of GenAI tools differ, the
perceived strengths and advantages of GenAI technologies have a significant and positive impact on their atti­
tudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control. The TPB core variables positively and significantly
impact lecturers’ and students’ intentions to use GenAI tools, which in turn significantly and positively impact
their adoption of such tools. This paper advances theory by outlining the factors shaping the adoption of GenAI
technologies in HEIs. It provides stakeholders with a variety of managerial and policy implications for how to
formulate suitable rules and regulations to utilise the advantages of these tools while mitigating the impacts of
their disadvantages. Limitations and future research opportunities are also outlined.

1. Introduction of discussions in the media, online forums, and academic communities

[2–8]. As a result, researchers and practitioners are becoming increas­
The revolution in the service industry, including the educational ingly interested in the implications of GenAI applications, especially
sector, began when technology rapidly advanced in terms of intelligence those based on Large Language Models (LLMs), on human learning,
and power while becoming more compact, lightweight, and affordable. knowledge generation, and the nature of employment in the coming
This covers both hardware like smart self-service technologies and years [4]. Ivanov and Soliman [9] indicated that, in the long run,
software and systems like machine learning (ML) and generative artifi­ LLM-based chatbots would revolutionise research and education. If
cial intelligence (GenAI) tools [1]. GenAI is a term used to describe a adopted successfully, they could be used as online instructors, curricu­
class of AI models producing ostensibly novel output such as text, im­ lum developers, markers, and contributors to scholarly publications.
ages, video, music, or other types of media. While GenAI approaches LLMs would also be essential in rethinking education from “teacher-­
have been available for a while, the launch of ChatGPT sparked a flood student” interactions to “teacher-AI-student” co-creation [9], shifting

* Corresponding author. Varna University of Management, 13A Oborishte Str., 9000 Varna, Bulgaria.
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (S. Ivanov), [email protected] (M. Soliman), [email protected]
(A. Tuomi), [email protected] (N.A. Alkathiri), [email protected] (A.N. Al-Alawi).
1
web: http://stanislavivanov.com/.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102521
Received 17 December 2023; Received in revised form 18 March 2024; Accepted 18 March 2024
Available online 25 March 2024
0160-791X/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
S. Ivanov et al. Technology in Society 77 (2024) 102521

the emphasis of lecturers to developing novel tasks and activities with This paper is organised as follows. The next section provides the
GenAI applications. This justifies the growing number of recent publi­ literature review and develops the hypotheses, while the third elabo­
cations about the advantages and drawbacks of using GenAI technolo­ rates on the methodology. The fourth section presents the results, the
gies, such as ChatGPT, in research and education (e.g., Ref. [9–12]). fifth section discusses the theoretical and managerial implications, and
Considering the substantial opportunities for using GenAI, there is a the last section identifies research limitations and future research
crucial need to shift academic focus from lamenting the collapse of ed­ directions.
ucation and research to considering how students and researchers will
and should use such tools [7]. According to Megahed et al. [13], the 2. Literature review and hypotheses development
potential of GenAI models to provide code, explain fundamental con­
cepts, and generate knowledge might revolutionise statistical process 2.1. Theory of planned behaviour
control practice, teaching, and research. These technologies, however,
are still in the early phases of deployment and are susceptible to misuse The Theory of Planned Behaviour, first put forward by Ajzen in the
and misunderstanding. Therefore, a thorough empirical analysis is late 1980s [20,21], offers a useful lens through which to explore the
needed to provide an in-depth overview and comprehension of the po­ dynamics underlying human behaviour in the context of teaching and
tential of using such applications for educational and research purposes. learning, both in general and in the context of technology-use as part of
Prior studies provided valuable insights into the use of GenAI tools in education and research [22,23]. Generally, TPB posits that behaviour is
different settings including the educational and research context shaped by attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural con­
through the lenses of different theories (e.g., Ref. [9,12,14–16]). For trol, which collectively influence the formation of behavioural in­
instance, using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology tentions and subsequent actions [24]. Central to the TPB is the construct
(UTAUT), Strzelecki and ElArabawy [17] demonstrated how social in­ of attitudes, which captures evaluative judgments of various behaviours.
fluence, effort expectancy, and performance expectancy have a major In the context of teaching and learning, positive attitudes, rooted in a
impact on behavioural intention. The actual ChatGPT-using behaviour favourable perception of the outcomes associated with teaching and
of Egyptian and Polish university students was influenced by behav­ learning activities, according to TPB drive the development of intentions
ioural intention when considered along with facilitating conditions. and consequent instructional engagement. The subjective norm exam­
Jaboob et al. [18] investigated how university students’ cognitive ines the influence of societal and peer expectations on behavioural
achievement was affected by GenAI tools and applications in three Arab intention and actual behaviour [25]. The perceived approval or disap­
nations: Yemen, Jordan, and Oman. The findings showed that the proval of fellow students, colleagues, administrators, and the broader
cognitive achievement of students at Arab HEIs was positively and community around higher education acts as a potent motivational fac­
significantly impacted by GenAI approaches and applications. Addi­ tor, steering teachers and learners towards alignment with perceived
tionally, the results demonstrated that student behaviour improved the educational norms.
association between GenAI tools and cognitive achievement. Drawing TPB also introduces the notion of perceived behavioural control,
on the UTAUT2 model and the Technology Readiness Index, Wang and which in the context of teaching and learning refers to encompassing
Zhang’s [19] study assessed the elements and personal traits that beliefs in an ability to effectively execute instructional strategies.
motivated Generation Z to adopt GenAI-assisted design and found that Greater perceived control is anticipated to bolster both the intention to
the intention to use GenAI was positively influenced by effort expec­ engage in specific teaching practices and the subsequent translation of
tancy, price value, and hedonic motivation. Performance expectancy, intentions into actual classroom actions [22]. These intertwined com­
effort expectancy, price value, and hedonic motivation were all strongly ponents collectively contribute to the shaping of behavioural intentions,
influenced by optimism and innovativeness. Optimism and the intention which serve as crucial antecedents to actual behaviours.
to use GenAI were significantly influenced by trait curiosity. Despite TPB’s versatility finds resonance within the context of teaching and
these studies, there is insufficient research investigating how the posi­ learning, as underscored by its widespread adoption in educational
tive and negative aspects of generative AI tools can effectively predict research to study, e.g., the usefulness of massive open online courses
the core constructs of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), such as [26] or mobile learning [27]. Its applications have spanned diverse
attitudes, perceived behavioural control, subjective norms, and behav­ facets of pedagogy, ranging from the integration of innovative teaching
ioural intentions. Consequently, the current article addresses this technologies to the adoption of student-centred educational approaches
research gap by extending the TPB model to the context of generative AI. such as peer learning [28]. In educational psychology, TPB has been
The present study seeks to unveil the key drivers of GenAI adoption used to investigate instructors’ adoption of evidence-based teaching
in higher education. More specifically, this paper aims to (1) examine practices, assessment strategies, and classroom management techniques
the impact of strengths, benefits, weaknesses, and risks of using GenAI [22].
on attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behaviour control (PBC) of By dissecting the connections between attitudes, subjective norms,
students and lecturers; (2) investigate the impact of attitudes, subjective and perceived control, TPB offers a framework for understanding
norms, and PBC of students and lecturers on their intention to use GenAI educational decision-making. Its application underscores its potential
applications; and (3) test the connection between students and lecturers’ not only in explicating teachers’ and students’ behaviours but also in
intention and their actual usage of GenAI applications in their study guiding efforts to design targeted interventions, e.g., the use of gener­
and/or research. ative AI as part of teaching and learning.
In doing so, this paper explores both the advantages and disadvan­
tages that using GenAI technologies in research and educational settings 2.2. Generative AI in teaching and learning
may bring about. As a result, concerned stakeholders (e.g., senior
management and educators at higher education institutions) may design GenAI has emerged as a transformative technology with multifaceted
better guidelines and policies to utilise the advantages of GenAI tools implications for education [2,4]. Within the domain of teaching and
while minimising any potential negatives by developing a thorough learning, GenAI has garnered increasing attention due to its potential to
grasp of the implications and potential difficulties of incorporating them reshape pedagogical approaches and learning experiences in a myriad of
in research and education. Additionally, this research aids in improving fields, e.g., social sciences, mathematics, and engineering [9,29,30]. To
the understanding of human behaviour particularly in relation to address the generative AI elephant in the classroom, both individual
human-computer interaction, making it easier to create interventions educational institutions as well as multinational education organisations
and regulations that are more specifically focused on encouraging such as UNESCO have joined the discussion on how GenAI should best
desired behavioural outcomes in education and research. be used in teaching and learning [31,32]. Most educators and

2
S. Ivanov et al. Technology in Society 77 (2024) 102521

researchers seem to conclude that the advent of GenAI presents a The question of authenticity and originality, part of a broader
double-edged sword, whereby on one hand, the integration of GenAI in discourse on intellectual property law about AI-generated content, re­
education offers a range of potential benefits both for the teacher and the quires addressing [37]. Who should own rights to AI-generated content?
learner, but on the other hand, it also brings forward new challenges and Who is responsible for AI-hallucinated content [40]? Under what con­
potential for misuse [15,16]. ditions user-generated data can and cannot be used for the subsequent
In terms of benefits, Dwivedi et al. [4] highlighted that personalised training of new GenAI models? These questions are yet to receive a
learning experiences, a cornerstone of contemporary educational phi­ definitive answer. In the context of higher education, one of the primary
losophy, might be significantly enhanced through the capabilities of concerns is the advent of new types of plagiarism and academic integrity
generative AI. The technology enables the creation of ultra-tailored [16]. Striking a balance between AI assistance and the cultivation of
learning materials, assessments, and feedback mechanisms, thereby students’ independent critical thinking skills, motivation and learning
catering to individual student’s contextual needs, special requirements effort is a complex matter that requires nuanced approaches and peda­
and learning preferences. This personalisation and the 24/7 availability gogical innovation. Moreover, the pedagogical efficacy of GenAI tools
of a private tutor may foster greater engagement and a deeper under­ also warrants thorough evaluation. While the technology holds promise
standing of the subject matter [10]. However, some students might find in enhancing learning experiences, its alignment with established
AI tutors easier to accept than others, while the data on which the AI has pedagogical principles must be rigorously examined [36]. Educators
been trained to personalise learning material should also be under open play an important role in determining the appropriate contexts for the
scrutiny to improve what Walmsley [33] calls ‘functional transparency’. implementation of AI-generated content and in ensuring that such
For the educator, generative AI presents opportunities to streamline content effectively contributes to educational objectives [10], as defined
and optimise instructional material development [10]. Educators often in learning outcomes (micro-level) and curricula (macro-level). The
invest substantial time and effort in crafting learning resources such as tendency for LLMs to hallucinate [40] also requires educators and
quizzes, tutorials, reading lists and study guides. Generative AI can learners to develop skills related to critical thinking, media criticism and
alleviate this burden by automating the generation of such materials, fact-checking.
allowing educators to allocate more time to direct interactions with GenAI’s integration into teaching and learning represents a signifi­
students [29]. This efficiency in content creation holds the potential to cant advancement with potential benefits that span from personalised
expedite the educational process while maintaining the quality of in­ learning experiences to streamlined content creation and creative
struction, whereby the role of researcher/educator might start to move augmentation [4,9]. However, these potential advantages are accom­
from creator to curator of knowledge, analogous to a shift from being an panied by challenges related most notably to data protection, bias,
author to being an editor of a scientific publication [34]. representativeness and auditability of training data and training process,
As an example of the benefits of GenAI-based personalised learning, the authenticity of AI-generated content vis-à-vis new forms of plagia­
language learning, a complex cognitive endeavour, can benefit from rism, and the pedagogical alignment of teacher-AI-student interactions,
generative AI’s capacity to simulate real-world language interactions (e. e.g. placing a greater emphasis on critically interrogating the model
g., interactive chat). Language learners often struggle to find opportu­ output [16]. GenAI applications may provide wrong information and
nities for immersive language practice. Generative AI, particularly text- invent facts, and the overreliance on AI applications to curate content
generative large language models such as GPT-4 or LLAMA2, can bridge over creating it may lead to the deskilling of students [41]. As educa­
this gap by generating lifelike conversational scenarios, providing tional institutions and stakeholders navigate the incorporation of GenAI,
learners with a dynamically adaptive and personalised platform to refine a judicious and ethically informed approach is imperative [15,32].
their linguistic skills in authentic contexts [16]. This immersive lan­
guage practice – effectively a novel form of human-AI role play [35] – 2.3. Hypothesis development
may contribute to enhanced proficiency and confidence in communi­
cation [36]. The extant literature indicates that GenAI offers various pedagogical
Besides personalised educational experiences and text-editing skills benefits, including but not limited to personalised learning experiences
(e.g., grammar check, proofreading, making arguments more concise, and efficient content creation [4,29]. These perceived advantages are
iterative reasoning), GenAI tools (e.g. text-to-image, text-to-video, hypothesised to positively shape educators’ attitudes toward the adop­
audio-to-animation) offer opportunities for new types of creative tion of GenAI technologies, as positive attitudes are frequently grounded
expression within educational contexts, whereby students’ creative en­ in favourable perceptions of outcomes [20,24]. Concurrently, the
deavours can be catalysed by AI-powered tools that assist in generating perceived strengths of GenAI are likely to influence subjective norms by
novel and imaginative content [37]. This augmentation of creative ca­ aligning with societal and institutional expectations for innovative
pabilities not only broadens the horizons of education but may also teaching methods, thereby serving as a motivational factor for adoption
contribute to the development of problem-solving and critical thinking [25,26]. Furthermore, the efficiencies gained through GenAI are antic­
skills, provided that educators possess the necessary skills to proactively ipated to bolster perceived control over instructional and learning
and confidently introduce new learning technologies to the classroom strategies, aligning with TPB’s emphasis on the role of perceived
[10]. behavioural control in intention formation and eventual behaviour [22].
Despite many potential benefits, the integration of GenAI in higher Therefore, the following hypotheses are put forward.
education is not without its challenges and ethical considerations. For
H1a. Perceived strengths of generative AI have a positive effect on
example, bias in AI-generated content is of paramount concern, whereby
attitude towards using generative AI.
AI models can perpetuate biases present in their training dataset,
potentially reinforcing stereotypes and marginalising certain de­ H1b. Perceived strengths of generative AI have a positive effect on
mographic groups [4]. Safeguarding against bias and ensuring fairness subjective norms.
in AI-generated educational content demands scrutiny and mitigation
H1c. Perceived strengths of generative AI have a positive effect on
strategies. It also requires robust approaches to selecting and acquiring
perceived behavioural control.
training data, whereby the efficacy of large language models is highly
dependent on the availability of high-quality and balanced datasets for Existing research identifies a myriad of potential benefits of GenAI,
model training. As the output of a GenAI system is a direct result of its such as personalised learning experiences and streamlined instructional
training, there is a pressing need for frameworks for auditing the material development [9,29]. According to TPB, these perceived bene­
training process and training data [38] to develop trustworthy AI sys­ fits are posited to positively influence attitudes towards GenAI, as atti­
tems [39]. tudes are commonly linked to an individual’s favourable or

3
S. Ivanov et al. Technology in Society 77 (2024) 102521

unfavourable evaluations of behavioural outcomes [24]. Similarly, if extant literature on TPB [25]. H7 extends this by positing that greater
GenAI’s benefits align with broader educational or societal expectations, perceived behavioural control, which reflects beliefs in one’s capability
they are likely to positively affect subjective norms, thereby serving as a to execute a behaviour, will also positively influence the intention to
motivational driver for technology adoption [25]. Lastly, the anticipated deploy GenAI in educational settings [22]. Finally, H8 concludes the
benefits of GenAI, such as the automation of labour-intensive tasks, behavioural chain by suggesting that intention, as influenced by the
could enhance perceived behavioural control by bolstering beliefs in the aforementioned variables, will positively affect actual usage, which is a
ability to successfully implement this technology in educational settings fundamental tenet of TPB. Thus, we hypothesise that.
[22]. Based on this, we hypothesise that.
H5. Attitude towards using generative AI has a positive effect on the
H2a. Perceived benefits of generative AI have a positive effect on intention to use generative AI.
attitude towards using generative AI.
H6. Subjective norms regarding generative AI have a positive effect on
H2b. Perceived benefits of generative AI have a positive effect on the intention to use generative AI.
subjective norms.
H7. Perceived behavioural control regarding generative AI has a pos­
H2c. Perceived benefits of generative AI have a positive effect on itive effect on the intention to use generative AI.
perceived behavioural control.
H8. Intention to use generative AI has a positive effect on the actual
Besides strengths and benefits, existing literature highlights various use of generative AI.
challenges and ethical considerations related to the deployment of
Collectively, these hypotheses are congruent with the foundational
GenAI in educational settings, including issues of data protection, bias,
principles of TPB and are also substantiated by the specific challenges
authenticity, and pedagogical alignment [16]. TPB suggests that
and opportunities posed by the integration of GenAI in educational
unfavourable perceptions of behavioural outcomes are likely to nega­
contexts. Fig. 1 presents the conceptual model of this research.
tively impact attitudes towards a particular behaviour [20]. Similarly, if
the perceived weaknesses of GenAI do not align with societal or
3. Methodology
educational expectations, this incongruence is expected to exert a
negative influence on subjective norms [25]. Additionally, perceived
3.1. Sampling and data collection procedures
weaknesses such as deskilling or reinforcement of biases could
compromise the sense of perceived behavioural control over successful
Data were collected between April and June 2023 with an anony­
technology implementation, as suggested by TPB’s focus on perceived
mous online questionnaire developed on Google Forms. This period
behavioural control as a determinant of intentions and actions [22]. The
enabled securing the minimum sample size. Non-probability sampling
following hypotheses are thus put forward.
was employed as the total population size was not known since the
H3a. Perceived weaknesses of generative AI have a negative effect on current study targeted lecturers and students around the world who had
attitude towards using generative AI. used GenAI applications. To enhance the response rate and to avoid
nonresponse bias the authors utilised three sampling techniques. First,
H3b. Perceived weaknesses of generative AI have a negative effect on
based on the convenience sampling technique, the link to the ques­
subjective norms.
tionnaire was disseminated to participants through their personal
H3c. Perceived weaknesses of generative AI have a negative effect on emails. Then, self-selection sampling was applied by posting the link on
perceived behavioural control. social media platforms. Finally, based on the snowball sampling tech­
nique the authors shared the link with known individuals in various
Several risks related to the adoption of GenAI in education, such as
countries requesting them to share the link with their networks. In total,
bias perpetuation, ethical concerns around plagiarism, and questions of
543 respondents completed the questionnaire of whom 240 were
academic integrity, have also been raised [4,9,16,37]. According to TPB,
excluded as they declared that they did not use GenAI tools. Out of the
attitudes are influenced by the evaluation of behavioural outcomes, and
remaining 303 responses, 5 were removed as they were not complete.
the risks associated with GenAI could engender negative attitudes to­
Consequently, 298 respondents (130 lecturers and 168 students) from
wards its use [20]. Likewise, if societal and educational expectations are
47 countries were used for further analysis. The use of an international
risk-averse, it is reasonable to presume that perceived risks will nega­
sample contributed to the diversity of respondents and the potential
tively impact subjective norms [25]. Lastly, TPB stipulates that
generalisability of results.
perceived behavioural control is informed by beliefs in one’s ability to
As per prior work, it is important to note that the most popular
perform a behaviour successfully; therefore, perceived risks may un­
method for determining the number of participants for Partial Least
dermine this sense of control, diminishing the likelihood of GenAI
Squares (PLS) prediction is to base the sample size on the number of
implementation in educational contexts [22]. Thus, we hypothesise that:
regressions inside the study framework (Barclay, Higgins, & Thompson,
H4a. Perceived risks of generative AI have a negative effect on attitude 1995). As per the ten-times rule, the minimum sample size has to be
towards using generative AI. more than ten times the largest paths directed to a variable in the model
with a power level of 0.8 and significance level of 0.05 [42]. According
H4b. Perceived risks of generative AI have a negative effect on sub­
to the current study model, the required sample size is 40 meaning that
jective norms.
the collected responses for both groups are sufficient for PLS-SEM
H4c. Perceived risks of generative AI have a negative effect on analysis. The demographic characteristics of the two samples are pre­
perceived behavioural control. sented in Table 1.
Overall, TPB posits that attitude, subjective norms, and perceived
control are antecedent variables that influence behavioural intention, 3.2. Questionnaire design and measures
which in turn leads to actual behaviour [20]. H5 proposes that a
favourable attitude towards using GenAI will positively impact the The questionnaire had three sections. The first section included a
intention to use it, a link that has been empirically established in mul­ filter question that distinguished participants who had already used
tiple contexts within TPB research [23]. Similarly, H6 stipulates that GenAI applications (e.g., Have you used a generative AI application in
societal and peer influences, represented by the subjective norms your research/studies? Yes/No). Participants who had not used these
construct, positively affect behavioural intention, consistent with the tools were not able to fill in the remaining sections. The second section

4
S. Ivanov et al. Technology in Society 77 (2024) 102521

Fig. 1. Conceptual model.

included the statements of the seven variables of this study (measured Appendix 2. All these assessments were clearly within the allowed range
on a 5-point level of agreement scale) namely: strengths of GenAI ap­ of values, indicating that the structural equation models matched their
plications, benefits of GenAI applications, weaknesses of GenAI appli­ data satisfactorily.
cations, risks of GenAI applications, attitude, perceived behavioural
control, subjective norms, intention to use GenAI applications, actual 4. Results
use of GenAI applications. Appendix 1 presents the statements and their
sources [43–45]. The section included two general questions as well: 4.1. Measurements models
names of used GenAI applications and frequency of use of GenAI by
usage directions (measured from 1-never to 5-very often). The last sec­ In PLS-SEM, the first step is to assess the outer model (also called
tion covered the demographic data. ‘measurement model’) which aims to check the reliability and validity of
the proposed model before examining the inner model (also named
‘structural model’) that covers the testing of suggested hypotheses. To
3.3. Data analysis pass this step two reliability conditions and two validity conditions
should be met. The former includes indicator reliability and internal
SEM is a statistical technique that adopts a confirmatory (i.e., testing consistency reliability. In this regard, as shown in Table 2, all items with
hypotheses) strategy for the examination of a structural theory on a loading less than 0.7 were eliminated as suggested by Hair et al. [52].
specific occurrence, as a means of investigating connected relationships This means that the indicator reliability has been attained, enabling the
in a complex model. Two statistical approaches are included in SEM: verification of further measures. Then, the model was run again with all
variance-based SEM (PLS-SEM) and covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM). items with loadings above this threshold. Next, the internal consistency
CB-SEM is a technique of SEM that typically verifies or disproves the was checked to ensure that respondents had an equal understanding of
suggested hypotheses using programmes like AMOS, EQS, LISREL, and the given scales. This is done through testing the composite reliability
MPlus. However, many business researchers prefer to employ PLS-SEM and Cronbach’s alpha in which all values were above 0.7, confirming
since normal distribution may not be obtained in practice, and the CB- that the adopted items measured their respective constructs (see
SEM technique demands a large sample size. Table 2).
PLS-SEM utilising Warp PLS V8 [46] has been used in this research As for the validity, convergent validity and discriminant validity
for the following reasons. First, PLS-SEM is a useful technique for were examined to ensure the validity of the model. The AVE was satis­
evaluating complicated models. The method is deemed appropriate as it factory for all constructs because it had values above the recommended
is suitable for complicated models such as the one of the current study value of 0.5 confirming the convergent validity [52]. This suggests that
that has nine variables with multiple directions that can be tested the items for each variable are capable of clarifying over fifty per cent of
simultaneously [47], it is recommended for estimating behavioural the variation in the variable they relate to. Tables 3–5 present the results
variables [48], and is widely applied in the higher education setting of the discriminant validity via two tests: Fornell and Larcker [53] and
[49–51]. Moreover, unlike covariance-based methods, PLS-SEM can heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) [54] for the three models. The first
address not normal data distribution, a feature that is crucial for the approach is confirmed as the square root of the AVE of each construct is
present study. Additionally, it enables an explanation of the variation higher than the correlations with other constructs. Additionally, all re­
between the study constructs. Two steps in PLS-SEM were carried out, sults of the HTMT test were below the threshold of ≤0.85 highlighted in
namely the measurement model and structural model in which the bold. This shows that the discriminant validity is not compromised
former deals with constructs’ reliability and validity whereas the latter because each variable is unique from the others.
measures the associations between the variables [46]. Furthermore, as the answers were obtained from the same source,
Based on WarpPLS, a series of tests have been conducted to assess the Common Method Variance (CMV) was examined via two tests
model fit of the three structural equation models, which are provided in

5
S. Ivanov et al. Technology in Society 77 (2024) 102521

Table 1 attitude remained insignificant in all three models as the p-values were
Demographics characteristics of participants. above the threshold of 0.05 as shown in Figs. 2–4: total sample (β = 0.05;
Demographics Categories Students Lecturers p = 0.18), lecturers (β = 0.08; p = 0.17), and students (β = 0.05; p =
0.26). Similarly, the impact of the weaknesses of GenAI on subjective
N % N %
norms remained insignificant in all three models: total sample (β = 0.07;
Gender Male 80 47.6 69 53.1 p = 0.13), lecturers (β = 0.07; p = 0.23), and students (β = 0.01; p =
Female 88 52.4 61 46.9
Age 18–30 116 69.1 7 5.4
0.44). In addition, its negative impact on perceived behavioural control
31–40 32 19 41 31.5 was not supported in all three models: total sample (β = 0.09; p = 0.05),
41–50 20 11.9 44 33.8 lecturers (β = 0.06; p = 0.24), students (β = 0.14; p = 0.03) (Figs. 2 and
51–60 0 0 24 18.5 4). Therefore, H3a, H3b, and H3c were rejected.
61+ 0 0 14 10.8
Additionally, the findings indicated that the perceived risks of GenAI
Educational High school or lower 46 27.4 5 3.9
level Bachelor 50 29.7 2 1.5 had a significant impact only on the attitudes in the overall model (β =
Master 43 25.6 22 16.9 − 0.11; p = 0.03) and lecturers’ model (β = − 0.20; p = 0.01); however,
Doctorate 26 15.5 98 75.4 there was no significant relationship in the students’ model (β = 0.11; p
Others 3 1.8 3 2.3 = 0.08). H4a was thus accepted for both the lecturers’ sample and the
Field of study/ Social Sciences (e.g. Business, 134 79.8 110 84.6
research Economics, Tourism and
total sample. In addition, the results did not support the significant and
Hospitality, Psychology, Law, negative relationship between perceived risks of GenAI and the sub­
etc.) jective norms in the three models: total sample (β = − 0.07; p = 0.11),
Technology (e.g. 15 8.9 12 9.2 lecturers (β = − 0.12; p = 0.09), and students (β = 0.20; p = 0.01). Thus,
Engineering, Robotics,
H4b was rejected. The impact of perceived risks of GenAI on perceived
Computer Science,
Mechanics, etc.) behavioural control was significant in the overall model (β = − 0.10; p =
Arts & Humanities (e.g. 12 7.1 4 3.1 0.04) but insignificant for lecturers (β = − 0.04; p = 0.32) and students (β
Architecture, History, = 0.09; p = 0.13). Therefore, H4c was accepted for the whole sample
Literature, Music, only.
Philosophy, etc.)
Life Sciences & Biomedicine 5 3 2 1.5
The empirical results also indicated that the associations between the
(e.g. Biology, Medicine, three core TPB variables (i.e., attitude, subjective norms, and perceived
Agriculture, etc.) behavioural control) and the intention to use GenAI tools were signifi­
Physical Sciences (e.g. 2 1.2 2 1.5 cant and positive in all three models. Thus, H5, H6, and H7 were all
Astronomy, Chemistry,
accepted. Finally, there was a significant and positive link between the
Physics, Mathematics, etc.)
Participants Bulgaria 26 15.5 6 4.6 intention to use and actual use of GenAI in all three models. Thus, H8
country was supported (see Table 6).
Indonesia 20 11.9 8 6.2
Portugal 13 7.7 10 7.7
5. Discussion and conclusions
United States 10 6.0 13 10.0
Finland 15 8.9 5 3.8
Oman 10 6.0 6 4.6 5.1. Discussion and theoretical implications
Poland 10 6.0 4 3.1
United Kingdom 4 2.4 9 6.9 Underpinned by the TPB, the present research examined the nexus
India 5 3.0 5 3.8
between perceived strengths, advantages, weaknesses, and risks of
Pakistan 4 2.4 4 3.1
Spain 0 0.0 8 6.2 GenAI tools and the core variables of the TPB model, namely attitude,
Malaysia 5 3.0 2 1.5 subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control. This paper also
Egypt 4 2.4 3 2.3 investigated how the fundamental variables of the TPB model could
Turkey 2 1.2 5 3.8
impact the intention toward adopting GenAI tools, and how the latter
Greece 2 1.2 4 3.1
Netherlands 2 1.2 4 3.1
could influence the actual usage of GenAI tools by both lecturers and
Sweden 2 1.2 3 2.3 students in higher education institutions (HEIs). Overall, lecturers’ and
Taiwan 3 1.8 1 0.8 students’ attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control
Australia 1 0.6 3 2.3 were significantly and positively affected by the perceived strengths and
Others 30 17.9 27 20.8
benefits of GenAI tools; however, lecturers’ and students’ perceptions of
Total 168 100.0 130 100.0
the weaknesses and risks of these tools vary.
The empirical results indicated that the strengths and benefits of
(Harman’s single-factor approach and full collinearity VIFs) and both GenAI applications had a positive and significant impact on all three of
were met confirming internal consistency as total variance explained by the TPB core components (i.e., attitude, subjective norms, and perceived
a single factor was less than 50% [55] and the VIF values were lower behavioural control) in all three models (overall sample, lecturers, and
than 5, respectively [56]. Thus, the requirements for the measurement students). These findings imply that the more attainable strengths and
model have been met allowing the second step to be checked. benefits of GenAI technologies used in HEIs, the greater the positive
impacts they have on lecturers’ and students’ attitudes, subjective
norms, and perceived behavioural control. These results underscore the
4.2. Structural models importance of showcasing the advantages and attributes of GenAI apps
to promote positive attitudes, subjective norms, and user perceptions of
The path coefficients of the models of the overall sample, lecturers their usability—all of which can eventually result in the acceptance and
and students are presented in Figs. 2–4, respectively. The strengths of effective use of these tools in HEIs. These results support the findings of
GenAI and the benefits of GenAI had positive and significant impacts on prior studies articulating that perceived strengths and benefits of tech­
all three factors of the TPB model (attitude, subjective norms, and nologies could positively shape educators’ attitudes (e.g., Ref. [24]),
perceived behavioural control) with p-values below the threshold of subjective norms (e.g., Ref. [26]), and perceived control (e.g., Ref. [22])
0.05 in all three models (see Table 6). Therefore, H1a, H1b, H1c, H2a, toward the adoption of such tools.
H2b, and H2c are supported in all three models. The empirical findings did not support some of the hypotheses
The results revealed that the impact of the weaknesses of GenAI on related to the connections between the weaknesses of GenAI and the

6
S. Ivanov et al. Technology in Society 77 (2024) 102521

Table 2
Descriptive statistics and assessment results of the measurement models.
Total sample (n = 298) Lecturers (n = 130) Students (n = 168)

Construct/items Indicator Composite AVE Indicator Composite AVE Indicator Composite AVE
loading reliability loading reliability loading reliability
Strengths of Gen-AI 0.876 0.640 0.811 0.799 0.883 0.655
STRN1 0.768 0.794 0.752
STRN2 0.850 0.804 0.840
STRN3 0.826 0.794 0.879
STRN4 0.752 0.804 0.760
Benefits of Gen-AI 0.938 0.791 0.915 0.893 0.938 0.790
BNFT1 0.892 0.916 0.878
BNFT2 0.863 0.839 0.879
BNFT3 0.889 0.902 0.881
BNFT4 0.913 0.915 0.916
Weaknesses of Gen-AI 0.873 0.580 0.866 0.776 0.854 0.593
WEAK1 0.816 0.795 0.782
WEAK2 0.822 0.877 0.766
WEAK3 0.719 0.780 0.770
WEAK4 0.740 0.708 0.762
WEAK5 0.702 0.745 NA
WEAK6 NA 0.739 NA
Risks of Gen-AI 0.918 0.848 0.858 0.936 0.863 0.678
RSK1 0.921 0.936 0.863
RSK2 0.921 0.936 0.857
RSK3 NA NA 0.745
Attitude 0.932 0.697 0.931 0.865 0.933 0.665
ATTD1 0.787 0.747 0.830
ATTD2 0.843 0.856 0.818
ATTD3 0.845 0.882 0.785
ATTD4 0.848 0.924 0.804
ATTD5 0.859 0.872 0.872
ATTD6 0.825 0.896 0.769
ATTD7 NA NA 0.827
Subjective norms 0.930 0.816 0.921 0.929 0.909 0.770
SUBJ1 0.906 0.930 0.882
SUBJ2 0.912 0.928 0.897
SUBJ3 0.891 0.930 0.851
Perceived behavioural 0.893 0.736 0.827 0.862 0.892 0.733
control
PRCV1 0.827 0.817 0.836
PRCV2 0.867 0.884 0.854
PRCV3 0.879 0.884 0.877
Intention to use Gen-AI 0.898 0.747 0.857 0.882 0.887 0.724
INTN1 0.856 0.876 0.843
INTN2 0.872 0.884 0.862
INTN3 0.864 0.886 0.848
Actual use of Gen-AI 0.922 0.855 0.858 0.936 0.909 0.833
ACTU1 0.924 0.936 0.913
ACTU2 0.924 0.936 0.913

three variables of the TPB. Although previous studies have emphasised advantages they give to the students and lecturers in terms of time
GenAI’s weaknesses and opportunities for abuse (e.g., Ref. [15,16]), this savings and productivity, and the significant improvements in the
study found that they were not crucial in determining lecturers’ and quality of GenAI’s outputs over time might be the reasons why the
students’ attitudes, social norms, or perceptions of behavioural control strengths and benefits of GenAI have greater importance for the re­
but the strengths and benefits of GenAI were. Additionally, the analysis spondents than the weaknesses and risks associated with these tools but
produced mixed results regarding the impact of perceived risks of GenAI future research needs to provide a definitive answer to this question.
on attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control (only 3 The findings also depicted that the three core TPB variables (i.e.,
out of 9 hypotheses related to perceived risk were supported in the three attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control) had a
models). It implies that lecturers and students differ in attitudes, per­ positive and significant link with the intention to use GenAI tools by
ceptions of behavioural control, and adherence to social norms when it both lecturers and students. To encourage the use and integration of
comes to how they understand and react to risks around GenAI appli­ GenAI tools in higher education, it is critical to cultivate positive atti­
cations (such as ChatGPT). In this sense, the results provide only partial tudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control toward these
support to prior studies (e.g., Ref. [4,9,16,37]) that have highlighted the tools among both lecturers and students. The intentions of both lecturers
perceived risks related to the adoption of GenAI applications, including and students to utilise these tools may be increased by highlighting the
ChatGPT. Although the existing literature (e.g., Ref. [16]) has outlined advantages, benefits, and efficacy of these tools. This will improve stu­
several difficulties and ethical concerns surrounding the application of dents’ and lecturers’ attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived control.
GenAI in learning environments, such as data security, bias, authen­ These results are consistent with the principles of the TPB, which holds
ticity, and pedagogical coherence, this study showed that these risks are that a person’s intent to engage in a certain behaviour—in this case,
not very important to the lecturers and students. In fact, the perceived utilising GenAI tools—is greatly influenced by these three variables
strengths and benefits of using GenAI in teaching and research are much [20]. The results also showed that there is a strong correlation between
more important drivers of GenAI adoption in educational setting than the intention to employ GenAI technologies and their actual application.
their weaknesses and risks. The novelty of these tools, the potential This finding aligns with the general understanding in behavioural

7
S. Ivanov et al. Technology in Society 77 (2024) 102521

Table 3
Discriminant validity (Total sample).
Construct Fornell and Larcker [53]

STRN BNFT WEAK RSK ATTD SUBJ PRCV INIT ACTU

STRN (0.800)*
BNFT 0.657 (0.889)
WEAK − 0.079 − 0.017 (0.762)
RSK − 0.058 − 0.062 0.334 (0.921)
ATTD 0.554 0.575 − 0.056 − 0.149 (0.835)
SUBJ 0.335 0.458 0.007 − 0.039 0.420 (0.903)
PRCV 0.567 0.591 0.084 − 0.032 0.503 0.379 (0.858)
INTN 0.586 0.668 − 0.009 − 0.095 0.582 0.527 0.709 (0.864)
ACTU 0.398 0.491 0.012 − 0.111 0.472 0.506 0.540 0.684 (0.924)
HTMT ratios
STRN BNFT WEAK RSK ATTD SUBJ PRCV INIT ACTU
STRN
BNFT 0.766**
WEAK 0.168 0.102
RSK 0.075 0.078 0.408
ATTD 0.645 0.631 0.144 0.172
SUBJ 0.394 0.509 0.066 0.053 0.468
PRCV 0.698 0.680 0.166 0.088 0.580 0.442
INTN 0.717 0.767 0.139 0.115 0.670 0.615 0.858
ACTU 0.487 0.564 0.056 0.135 0.543 0.590 0.651 0.823

*Numbers in brackets reflect the square root of average values (AVEs), whereas the other numbers indicate the correlations among factors.
** Bold values HTMT ratio that are lower than 0.90 indicate that: that variable is distinct from other variables confirming its uniqueness.

Table 4
Discriminant validity (Lecturers).
Construct Fornell and Larcker [53]

STRN BNFT WEAK RSK ATTD SUBJ PRCV INIT ACTU

STRN (0.799)
BNFT 0.549 (0.893)
WEAK − 0.112 − 0.009 (0.776)
RSK − 0.167 − 0.187 0.282 (0.936)
ATTD 0.596 0.536 − 0.062 − 0.360 (0.865)
SUBJ 0.451 0.535 0.051 − 0.154 0.416 (0.862)
PRCV 0.516 0.657 − 0.033 − 0.244 0.602 0.638 (0.882)
INTN 0.460 0.586 − 0.013 − 0.251 0.526 0.589 0.806 (0.936)
ACTU 0.297 0.452 0.008 − 0.174 0.426 0.303 0.488 0.527 (0.814)
HTMT ratios
STRN BNFT WEAK RSK ATTD SUBJ PRCV INIT ACTU
STRN
BNFT 0.638
WEAK 0.159 0.088
RSK 0.200 0.211 0.330
ATTD 0.686 0.582 0.127 0.405
SUBJ 0.549 0.610 0.193 0.180 0.472
PRCV 0.618 0.741 0.093 0.285 0.676 0.754
INTN 0.551 0.661 0.094 0.293 0.590 0.695 0.940
ACTU 0.360 0.519 0.098 0.336 0.495 0.353 0.573 0.618

*Numbers in brackets reflect the square root of average values (AVEs), whereas the other numbers indicate the correlations among factors.
** Bold values HTMT ratio that are lower than 0.90 indicate that: that variable is distinct from other variables confirming its uniqueness.

psychology that intentions often serve as a reliable determinant of ChatGPT in HEIs. Additionally, this is one of the first studies to compare
subsequent behaviour. It is a valuable insight for understanding the the views of lecturers and students on the critical elements impacting the
factors influencing the adoption of GenAI tools in practice by both lec­ use of GenAI tools.
turers and students (e.g., Ref. [57,58]).
Theoretically, this work complements earlier research that emphas­ 5.2. Managerial and policy implications
ised the key concerns surrounding the application of GenAI tools in
research and education [9,37]. Previous studies in this area focused on The study presents a set of practical implications for concerned
the main variables influencing the use of these instruments in research stakeholders at HEIs (e.g., students, lecturers and HEI administrators).
and education within various settings (e.g., Ref. [57–59]). However, the The empirical findings reveal that improving lecturers’ and students’
current study is one of the first attempts to incorporate several crucial perspectives of the advantages and benefits of implementing GenAI tools
elements, such as the strengths, benefits, weaknesses, and risks of using could be associated with a more positive attitude, subjective norms, and
GenAI tools within a structural model to measure the most significant perceived behavioural control toward the use of such tools in research
factors influencing the actual utilisation of these tools based on an in­ and education at HEIs. This could be accomplished by developing and
ternational sample of lecturers/researchers and students. Furthermore, deploying efficient procedures and mechanisms to spread knowledge
this study enhances the theory by extending the TPB model to explicitly and awareness about the use of GenAI tools in teaching and research. In
demonstrate the main drivers for deploying GenAI applications such as addition, HEIs need to organise workshops and awareness-building

8
S. Ivanov et al. Technology in Society 77 (2024) 102521

Table 5
Discriminant validity (Students).
Construct Fornell and Larcker [53]

STRN BNFT WEAK RSK ATTD SUBJ PRCV INIT ACTU

STRN (0.712)
BNFT 0.688 (0.889)
WEAK − 0.077 0.002 (0.692)
RSK 0.054 0.077 0.489 (0.663)
ATTD 0.537 0.601 0.004 0.084 (0.816)
SUBJ 0.417 0.457 0.038 0.217 0.388 (0.877)
PRCV 0.605 0.679 0.021 0.111 0.562 0.551 (0.851)
INTN 0.349 0.426 0.044 0.084 0.414 0.457 0.576 (0.913)
ACTU 0.620 0.629 0.115 0.148 0.582 0.448 0.766 0.499 (0.856)
HTMT ratios
STRN BNFT WEAK RSK ATTD SUBJ PRCV INIT ACTU
STRN
BNFT 0.745
WEAK 0.183 0.106
RSK 0.066 0.120 0.569
ATTD 0.560 0.657 0.148 0.096
SUBJ 0.493 0.520 0.158 0.180 0.441
PRCV 0.693 0.791 0.125 0.097 0.652 0.666
INTN 0.341 0.500 0.084 0.113 0.484 0.554 0.715
ACTU 0.691 0.728 0.139 0.137 0.672 0.538 0.941 0.615

*Numbers in brackets reflect the square root of average values (AVEs), whereas the other numbers indicate the correlations among factors.
** Bold values HTMT ratio that are lower than 0.90 indicate that: that variable is distinct from other variables confirming its uniqueness.

Fig. 2. Structural Model (overall sample).

Fig. 3. Structural model (lecturers).

9
S. Ivanov et al. Technology in Society 77 (2024) 102521

Fig. 4. Structural model (students).

Table 6
Summary of the hypotheses results.
Hypothesis Result

Overall sample Lecturers Students

H1a Perceived strengths of generative AI have a positive effect on attitude towards using generative AI. Accepted Accepted Accepted
H1b Perceived strengths of generative AI have a positive effect on subjective norms. Accepted Accepted Accepted
H1c Perceived strengths of generative AI have a positive effect on perceived behavioural control. Accepted Accepted Accepted
H2a Perceived benefits of generative AI have a positive effect on attitude towards using generative AI. Accepted Accepted Accepted
H2b Perceived benefits of generative AI have a positive effect on subjective norms. Accepted Accepted Accepted
H2c Perceived benefits of generative AI have a positive effect on perceived behavioural control. Accepted Accepted Accepted
H3a Perceived weaknesses of generative AI have a negative effect on attitude towards using generative AI. Rejected Rejected Rejected
H3b Perceived weaknesses of generative AI have a negative effect on subjective norms. Rejected Rejected Rejected
H3c Perceived weaknesses of generative AI have a negative effect on perceived behavioural control. Rejected Rejected Rejected
H4a Perceived risks of generative AI have a negative effect on attitude towards using generative AI. Accepted Accepted Rejected
H4b Perceived risks of generative AI have a negative effect on subjective norms. Rejected Rejected Rejected
H4c Perceived risks of generative AI have a negative effect on perceived behavioural control. Accepted Rejected Rejected
H5 Attitude towards using generative AI has a positive effect on the intention to use generative AI Accepted Accepted Accepted
H6 Subjective norms regarding generative AI have a positive effect on the intention to use generative AI Accepted Accepted Accepted
H7 Perceived control regarding generative AI has a positive effect on the intention to use generative AI Accepted Accepted Accepted
H8 Intention to use generative AI has a positive effect on actual use of generative AI Accepted Accepted Accepted

initiatives and training sessions that demonstrate the strengths and manage the application of GenAI in research and education to mitigate
benefits of adopting GenAI applications, including ChatGPT, for teach­ its negative impacts [41] by involving HEIs in the process [60].
ing and research purposes. Furthermore, to support inclusivity and diversity in research and edu­
The findings highlight the role of attitude, subjective norms, and cation public authorities and HEIs need to ensure that GenAI technolo­
perceived behavioural control in shaping the adoption of GenAI tools in gies are available to all lecturers and students to ensure their
education and research. Positive attitudes about GenAI tools among competitiveness and employability, e.g. through institutional accounts
academics and students increase the likelihood that they will use such to GenAI applications.
tools, underscoring the significance of promoting positive attitudes
through educational programmes and emphasising the advantages of
5.3. Limitations and future research directions
such tools in both education and research. Moreover, subjective norms
that are shaped by academic communities’ and peers’ opinions can
Although the current study provides several theoretical and practical
affect how socially accepted GenAI tools are. HEIs ought to cultivate a
contributions, some limitations offer valuable directions for future
cooperative atmosphere that promotes the exchange of knowledge and
research. First, the current research relied on a quantitative approach
highlights the combined benefits of employing GenAI tools in research
using an online questionnaire to collect primary data from the targeted
and teaching environments. Furthermore, perceived behavioural control
respondents (i.e., students and lecturers) from several countries. Future
includes aspects such as perceived ease of use and technical expertise. To
research could adopt a qualitative approach by using interviews or a
improve users’ confidence in using GenAI tools efficiently, HEIs must
mixed-method approach. Second, the current study model builds upon
develop ethical standards for the responsible use of GenAI and provide
the TPB and expands it by including a group of variables (i.e., strengths
relevant training programmes. HEIs need to establish a culture of
of GenAI, benefits of GenAI, weaknesses of GenAI, and risks of GenAI).
acceptance and proficiency among lecturers and students by establish­
Future studies could develop a more comprehensive model by incor­
ing an atmosphere that is favourable to the effective, efficient and
porating other theories such as the Diffusion of Innovation Theory [61],
ethical integration of GenAI tools in teaching and research. HEIs need to
the technology acceptance model [62], or the unified theory of accep­
develop initiatives to encourage lecturers and students to use GenAI
tance and use of technology [63]. Additional variables, such as stress,
responsibly. Policymakers can help by developing legal regulations to
trust, and self-efficacy, can also be incorporated into the existing model.

10
S. Ivanov et al. Technology in Society 77 (2024) 102521

Third, this study focused on higher education. Future research could Declaration of interest statement
focus on the use of GenAI in secondary education to yield insights into
the variables influencing the perceptions and behaviours of high school None.
students and teachers towards the applications of GenAI tools. Addi­
tionally, since the use of GenAI tools is the study’s outcome variable, CRediT authorship contribution statement
further research can examine the effects of this use in a variety of areas,
including levels of creative thinking, academic achievement, scientific Stanislav Ivanov: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
productivity, and research ethics. Furthermore, future research may Visualization, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
delve into the nuances of GenAI use in different countries, allowing for a editing. Mohammad Soliman: Conceptualization, Methodology,
more comprehensive understanding of potential linkages and distinct Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Aarni
patterns across diverse cultural and socioeconomic contexts. Tuomi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing –
original draft, Writing – review & editing. Nasser Alhamar Alkathiri:
Declaration of generative AI in scientific writing Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Visu­
alization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Alamir N.
During the preparation of this work the authors used ChatGPT and Al-Alawi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing –
Grammarly for proofreading and improve the readability of the text. original draft, Writing – review & editing.
After using this tool/service, the authors reviewed and edited the con­
tent as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the Data availability
publication.
Data will be made available on request.

Appendix 1. Measures

Variables Items Source

Strengths of generative AI For the questions below think about the generative AI you mostly used: Developed by authors
I think the generative AI application:
STRN 1*** … understood the nuances of human language
STRN 2 … interacted in a conversational and human-like way.
STRN 3 … could answer follow-up questions,
STRN 4*** … could admit its mistakes.
STRN 5 *** … could reject inappropriate requests.
STRN 6 … could keep track of the ongoing conversation.
STRN 7 … generated content that was useful to me
Benefits of generative AI For the questions below think about the generative AI you mostly used: Hsu et al. [45] and expanded by the
I think the generative AI application: authors
BNFT1 … enhanced the efficiency of my work
BNFT2 … improved the quality of work I do.
BNFT3 … helped me accomplish my tasks faster.
BNFT4 Overall, I find using the generative AI application to be advantageous in my work.
Weaknesses of generative AI For the questions below think about the generative AI you mostly used: Developed by authors
I think the generative AI application:
WEAK1 … was generating false information.
WEAK2*** … was not capable of ethical reasoning.
WEAK3 … lacked reliability about factual knowledge.
WEAK4* … struggled with providing proper referencing to the sources it was using.
WEAK5** … was not able to ask clarifying questions when given ambiguous prompts.
WEAK6 … was not delivering an adequate answer to my questions.
WEAK7 … struggled with generating responses to complex or abstract questions
Risks of generative AI For the questions below think about the generative AI you mostly used: Developed by authors
I think the generative AI application:
RSK1*** … generated responses that may have been biased.
RSK2*** … was using sensitive data I shared with it as training data.
RSK3*** … might replace many research-based jobs.
RSK4 … might decrease the credibility of my work
RSK5 … might decrease other people’s trust in my work
RSK6** … might be banned by my institution
RSK7*** … might be banned by academic journals
Attitude ATTD1- For me, using generative AI is extremely bad [44]
ATTD2- For me, using generative AI is extremely undesirable
ATTD3- For me, using generative AI is extremely unpleasant
ATTD4- For me, using generative AI is extremely foolish
ATTD5- For me, using generative AI is extremely unfavourable
ATTD6- For me, using generative AI is extremely unenjoyable
ATTD7**- For me, using generative AI is extremely negative
Subjective norms SUBJ1- Most people who are important to me think I should use generative AI while doing my research/ [44]
study.
SUBJ2- Most people who are important to me would want me to use generative AI while doing my
research/study
SUBJ3- People whose opinions I value would prefer that I use generative AI while doing my research/
study
(continued on next page)

11
S. Ivanov et al. Technology in Society 77 (2024) 102521

(continued )
Variables Items Source

Perceived behavioural PRCV1- Whether or not I use generative AI while doing my work is completely up to me [44]
control PRCV2- I am confident that if I want, I can use generative AI while doing my work
PRCV3- I have resources, time, and opportunities to use generative AI while doing my work
Intention to use generative INTN1- It is worth it to use generative AI while doing my work [45]
AI INTN2- I will frequently use generative AI while doing my work in the future.
INTN3- I will strongly recommend others to use generative AI
Actual use of generative AI ACTU1- I use generative AI on a daily basis [43]
ACTU2- I use generative AI frequently
*** Removed from all models due to low indicator loading.
** Removed from two models (total sample and students) due to low indicator loading.
*Removed only students model due to low indicator loading.

Appendix 2. Model fit and quality indices

Metric Overall Lectures Students Recommended value

Average path coefficient (APC) 0.251, P < 0.001 0.266, P < 0.001 0.255, P < 0.001 P < 0.001
Average R-squared (ARS) 0.433, P < 0.001 0.474, P < 0.001 0.440, P < 0.001 P < 0.001
Average adjusted R-squared (AARS) 0.426, P < 0.001 0.460, P < 0.001 0.429, P < 0.001 P < 0.001
Average block VIF (AVIF) 1.372 1.273 1.508 ideally ≤ 3.3
Average full collinearity VIF (AFVIF) 1.989 2.104 2.141 ideally ≤ 3.3
Tenenhaus GoF (GoF) 0.568 0.595 0.560 Large ≥ 0.36
Simpson’s paradox ratio (SPR) 0.938 0.938 1.000 Acceptable if ≥ 0.7, Ideally = 1
R-squared contribution ratio (RSCR) 0.998 0.996 1.000 Acceptable if ≥ 0.9, Ideally = 1
Statistical suppression ratio (SSR) 1.000 0.938 0.938 Acceptable if ≥ 0.7
Nonlinear bivariate causality direction ratio (NLBCDR) 0.875 0.844 0.906 Acceptable if ≥ 0.7

References [14] S. Biswas, ChatGPT and the future of medical writing, Radiology 307 (2) (2023)
e223312, https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.223312.
[15] D.R. Cotton, P.A. Cotton, J.R. Shipway, Chatting and cheating: ensuring academic
[1] J. Wirtz, V. Pitardi, How intelligent automation, service robots, and AI will reshape
integrity in the era of ChatGPT, Innovat. Educ. Teach. Int. 61 (2) (2024) 228–239,
service products and their delivery, Ital. J. Market. 2023 (2023) 289–300, https://
https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148.
doi.org/10.1007/s43039-023-00076-1.
[16] E. Kasneci, K. Seßler, S. Küchemann, M. Bannert, D. Dementieva, F. Fischer,
[2] O. Ali, P. Murray, M. Momin, F.S. Al-Anzi, The knowledge and innovation
U. Gasser, G. Groh, S. Günnemann, E. Hüllermeier, ChatGPT for good? On
challenges of ChatGPT: a scoping review, Technol. Soc. 75 (2023) 102402, https://
opportunities and challenges of large language models for education, Learn. Indiv
doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102402.
Differ 103 (2023) 102274, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274.
[3] S.A. Bin-Nashwan, M. Sadallah, M. Bouteraa, Use of ChatGPT in academia:
[17] A. Strzelecki, S. ElArabawy, Investigation of the moderation effect of gender and
academic integrity hangs in the balance, Technol. Soc. 75 (2023) 102370, https://
study level on the acceptance and use of generative AI by higher education
doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102370.
students: comparative evidence from Poland and Egypt, Br. J. Educ. Technol.
[4] Y.K. Dwivedi, N. Kshetri, L. Hughes, E.L. Slade, A. Jeyaraj, A.K. Kar, A.
(2024), https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13425.
M. Baabdullah, A. Koohang, V. Raghavan, M. Ahuja, “So what if ChatGPT wrote
[18] M. Jaboob, M. Hazaimeh, A.M. Al-Ansi, Integration of generative AI techniques
it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of
and applications in student behavior and cognitive achievement in Arab higher
generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy, Int. J. Inf. Manag. 71
education, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. (2024) 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1080/
(2023) 102642, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642.
10447318.2023.2300016.
[5] S. Rice, S.R. Crouse, S.R. Winter, C. Rice, The advantages and limitations of using
[19] Y. Wang, W. Zhang, Factors influencing the adoption of generative AI for art
ChatGPT to enhance technological research, Technol. Soc. 76 (2024) 102426,
designing among Chinese generation Z: a structural equation modeling approach,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102426.
IEEE Access 11 (2023) 143272–143284, https://doi.org/10.1109/
[6] H.S. Sætra, Generative AI: here to stay, but for good? Technol. Soc. 75 (2023)
ACCESS.2023.3342055.
102372 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102372.
[20] I. Ajzen, The theory of planned behavior, Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50
[7] A. Susarla, R. Gopal, J.B. Thatcher, S. Sarker, The Janus effect of generative AI:
(2) (1991) 179–211, https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
charting the path for responsible conduct of scholarly activities in information
[21] I. Ajzen, The theory of planned behavior: frequently asked questions, Hum. Behav.
systems, Inf. Syst. Res. 34 (2) (2023) 399–408, https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2023.
Emerg. Technol. 2 (4) (2020) 314–324, https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.195.
ed.v34.n2.
[22] H. Knauder, C. Koschmieder, Individualized student support in primary school
[8] R. Vogler, 2023 – an AI university space Odyssey, Retrieved 15th February 2024
teaching: a review of influencing factors using the Theory of Planned Behavior
from, ROBONOMICS: J. Autom. Econ. 5 (2024) 55, https://journal.robonomics.
(TPB), Teach. Teach. Educ. 77 (2019) 66–76, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
science/index.php/rj/article/view/55.
tate.2018.09.012.
[9] S. Ivanov, M. Soliman, Game of algorithms: ChatGPT implications for the future of
[23] T. Teo, C. Beng Lee, Explaining the intention to use technology among student
tourism education and research, J. Tourism Futur. 9 (2) (2023) 214–221, https://
teachers: an application of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), Campus-Wide
doi.org/10.1108/JTF-02-2023-0038.
Inf. Syst. 27 (2) (2010) 60–67, https://doi.org/10.1108/10650741011033035.
[10] T.K. Chiu, The impact of Generative AI (GenAI) on practices, policies and research
[24] M. Bosnjak, I. Ajzen, P. Schmidt, The theory of planned behavior: selected recent
direction in education: a case of ChatGPT and Midjourney, Interact. Learn.
advances and applications, Eur. J. Psychol. 16 (3) (2020) 352–356, https://doi.
Environ. (2023) 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2253861.
org/10.5964/ejop.v16i3.3107.
[11] M. Farrokhnia, S.K. Banihashem, O. Noroozi, A. Wals, A SWOT analysis of
[25] M. Conner, C.J. Armitage, Extending the theory of planned behavior: a review and
ChatGPT: implications for educational practice and research, Innovat. Educ. Teach.
avenues for further research, J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 28 (15) (1998) 1429–1464,
Int. (2023) 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2195846.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01685.x.
[12] A. Gilson, C. Safranek, T. Huang, V. Socrates, L. Chi, R.A. Taylor, D. Chartash, How
[26] Y. Wang, C. Dong, X. Zhang, Improving MOOC learning performance in China: an
well does ChatGPT do when taking the medical licensing exams? The implications
analysis of factors from the TAM and TPB, Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 28 (6) (2020)
of large language models for medical education and knowledge assessment,
1421–1433, https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22310.
medRxiv (2022) 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.23.22283901.
[27] J. Cheon, S. Lee, S.M. Crooks, J. Song, An investigation of mobile learning
[13] F.M. Megahed, Y.-J. Chen, J.A. Ferris, S. Knoth, L.A. Jones-Farmer, How generative
readiness in higher education based on the theory of planned behavior, Comput.
AI models such as ChatGPT can be (mis)used in SPC practice, education, and
Educ. 59 (3) (2012) 1054–1064, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.015.
research? An exploratory study, Qual. Eng. 36 (2) (2024) 287–315, https://doi.
org/10.1080/08982112.2023.2206479.

12
S. Ivanov et al. Technology in Society 77 (2024) 102521

[28] K.M. White, I. Thomas, K.L. Johnston, M.K. Hyde, Predicting attendance at peer- [55] P.M. Podsakoff, S.B. MacKenzie, J.-Y. Lee, N.P. Podsakoff, Common method biases
assisted study sessions for statistics: role identity and the theory of planned in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
behavior, J. Soc. Psychol. 148 (4) (2008) 473–492, https://doi.org/10.3200/ remedies, J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5) (2003) 879, https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
SOCP.148.4.473-492. 9010.88.5.879.
[29] D. Baidoo-Anu, L.O. Ansah, Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence [56] F. Kock, A. Berbekova, A.G. Assaf, Understanding and managing the threat of
(AI): understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and common method bias: detection, prevention and control, Tourism Manag. 86
learning, J. AI 7 (1) (2023) 52–62, https://doi.org/10.61969/jai.1337500. (2021) 104330, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104330.
[30] J. Qadir, Engineering education in the era of ChatGPT: promise and pitfalls of [57] T. Gundu, Chatbots: a framework for improving information security behaviours
generative AI for education, in: 2023 IEEE Global Engineering Education using ChatGPT, in: S. Furnell, N. Clarke (Eds.), Human Aspects of Information
Conference (EDUCON), Kuwait, Kuwait, 2023, pp. 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1109/ Security and Assurance, IFIP Advances in Information and Communication
EDUCON54358.2023.10125121. Technology, vol. 674, Springer, Cham, 2023, pp. 418–431, https://doi.org/
[31] Stanford, Responsible AI at Stanford, 2023. Retrieved 16th December 2023 from, 10.1007/978-3-031-38530-8_33.
https://uit.stanford.edu/security/responsibleai. [58] C.S. Shah, S. Mathur, S.K. Vishnoi, Continuance intention of ChatGPT use by
[32] UNESCO, Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education: what Are the students, TDIT 2023, in: S.K. Sharma, Y.K. Dwivedi, B. Metri, B. Lal, A. Elbanna
Opportunities and Challenges, 2023. Retrieved 16th December 2023 from, https:// (Eds.), Transfer, Diffusion and Adoption of Next-Generation Digital Technologies,
www.unesco.org/en/articles/generative-artificial-intelligence-education-what-are IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, Springer, Cham,
-opportunities-and-challenges. 2024, pp. 159–175, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50188-3_14.
[33] J. Walmsley, Artificial intelligence and the value of transparency, AI Soc. 36 (2) [59] A.M. Al-Zahrani, The impact of generative AI tools on researchers and research:
(2021) 585–595, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01066-z. implications for academia in higher education, Innovat. Educ. Teach. Int. (2023)
[34] S. Noy, W. Zhang, Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2271445.
artificial intelligence, SSRN 4375283, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4375283, [60] V. Dubljević, Colleges and universities are important stakeholders for regulating
2023. large language models and other emerging AI, Technol. Soc. 76 (2024) 102480,
[35] M. Shanahan, K. McDonell, L. Reynolds, Role play with large language models, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102480.
Nature 623 (2023) 493–498, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06647-8. [61] E.M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 1983, third ed., The Free Press, London,
[36] L. Kohnke, B.L. Moorhouse, D. Zou, ChatGPT for language teaching and learning, 1962.
00336882231162868, RELC J. (2023). [62] V. Venkatesh, F.D. Davis, A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
[37] I. Carvalho, S. Ivanov, ChatGPT for tourism: applications, benefits and risks, Tour. model: four longitudinal field studies, Manag. Sci. 46 (2) (2000) 186–204, https://
Rev. 79 (2) (2024) 290–303, https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-02-2023-0088. doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
[38] E. Bender, T. Gebru, A. McMillan-Major, S. Shmitchell, On the dangers of stochastic [63] V. Venkatesh, M.G. Morris, G.B. Davis, F.D. Davis, User acceptance of information
parrots: can language models be too big?, in: FAccT ’21: Proceedings of the 2021 technology: toward a unified view, MIS Q. (2003) 425–478, https://doi.org/
ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 2021, 10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
pp. 610–623, https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922.
[39] J. Baker-Brunnbauer, TAII framework for trustworthy AI systems, Retrieved 23rd
June 2023 from, ROBONOMICS: J. Autom. Econ. 2 (2021) 17, https://journal.
robonomics.science/index.php/rj/article/view/17. Dr. Stanislav Ivanov is currently Professor and Vice-Rector
(Research) at Varna University of Management, Bulgaria
[40] Z. Li, The dark side of chatgpt: legal and ethical challenges from stochastic parrots
and hallucination, arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.14347, https://doi.org/10.4855 (http://www.vum.bg) and Director of Zangador Research
Institute (https://www.zangador.institute/en/). Prof. Ivanov is
0/arXiv.2304.14347, 2023.
[41] S. Ivanov, The dark side of artificial intelligence in higher education, Serv. Ind. J. the Founder and Editor-in-chief of two academic journals: Eu­
43 (15–16) (2023) 1055–1082, https://doi.org/10.1080/ ropean Journal of Tourism Research (http://ejtr.vumk.eu) and
02642069.2023.2258799. ROBONOMICS: The Journal of the Automated Economy (https
[42] J.F. Hair, C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt, PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet, J. Market. ://journal.robonomics.science). His research interests include
robonomics, robots in tourism/hospitality, the economics of
Theor. Pract. 19 (2) (2011) 139–152, https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-
6679190202. technology, etc. For more information about Prof. Ivanov please
[43] W.H. DeLone, E.R. McLean, The DeLone and McLean model of information systems visit his personal website: http://www.stanislavivanov.com.
success: a ten-year update, J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 19 (4) (2003) 9–30, https://doi.org/
10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748.
[44] H. Han, L.-T.J. Hsu, C. Sheu, Application of the theory of planned behavior to green
hotel choice: testing the effect of environmental friendly activities, Tourism
Manag. 31 (3) (2010) 325–334, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.03.013.
[45] C.-L. Hsu, H.-P. Lu, H.-H. Hsu, Adoption of the mobile Internet: an empirical study Dr. Mohammad Soliman is currently the Head of Research &
of multimedia message service (MMS), Omega 35 (6) (2007) 715–726, https://doi. Consultation Department at the University of Technology and
org/10.1016/j.omega.2006.03.005. Applied Sciences, Salalah, Oman. He is also a Full Professor at
[46] N. Kock, WarpPLS User Manual: Version 8.0 Scriptwarp Systems: Laredo TX, USA, the Faculty of Tourism & Hotels, Fayoum University, Egypt. He
2022. Retrieved 16th December 2023 from, https://scriptwarp.com/warppls/U has published multiple papers in high-rank journals indexed in
serManual_v_8_0.pdf. WoS and Scopus. Additionally, he sits on the editorial board of
[47] N. Kock, L. Gaskins, The mediating role of voice and accountability in the different academic journals and serves as a reviewer for several
relationship between Internet diffusion and government corruption in Latin top-tier journals. He has successfully supervised and examined
America and Sub-Saharan Africa, Inf. Technol. Dev. 20 (1) (2014) 23–43, https:// several master’s and PhD theses. His research interests include
doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2013.832129. tourism marketing, consumer behaviour, branding, AI-enabled
[48] J. Henseler, G. Hubona, P.A. Ray, Using PLS path modeling in new technology education and marketing, tourism management, PLS-SEM,
research: updated guidelines, Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 116 (1) (2016) 2–20, https:// bibliometrics, and literature review studies.
doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382.
[49] M. Soliman, S. Ivanov, C. Webster, The psychological impacts of COVID-19
outbreak on research productivity: a comparative study of tourism and non-
tourism scholars, J. Tour. Dev. 35 (2021) 23–52, https://doi.org/10.34624/rtd.
v0i35.24616. Dr. Aarni Tuomi is Senior Lecturer at Haaga-Helia University
[50] M. Soliman, R. Sinha, F. Di Virgilio, M.J. Sousa, R. Figueiredo, Emotional of Applied Sciences. His research, teaching and consultancy
intelligence outcomes in higher education institutions: empirical evidence from a projects explore the intersection of emerging technologies and
Western context, 00332941231197165, Psychol. Rep. (2023), https://doi.org/ service business. His research has explored e.g. service ro­
10.1177/00332941231197165. botics, artificial intelligence, digital platforms and food tech­
[51] M.A.Q. Tran, T. Vo-Thanh, M. Soliman, B. Khoury, N.N.T. Chau, Self-compassion, nology, as well as experience design and innovation. His work
mindfulness, stress, and self-esteem among Vietnamese university students: is regularly featured in industry trade magazines and his
psychological well-being and positive emotion as mediators, Mindfulness 13 (10) research has been published in top academic journals, e.g.
(2022) 2574–2586, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-022-01980-x. Annals of Tourism Research, Psychology & Marketing.
[52] J.F. Hair, M.C. Howard, C. Nitzl, Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM
using confirmatory composite analysis, J. Bus. Res. 109 (2020) 101–110, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069.
[53] C. Fornell, D.F. Larcker, Structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error: Algebra and statistics, J. Market. Res. 18 (3) (1981)
382–388, https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800313.
[54] J. Henseler, C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt, A new criterion for assessing discriminant
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling, J. Acad. Market. Sci. 43
(2015) 115–135, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.

13
S. Ivanov et al. Technology in Society 77 (2024) 102521

Dr. Nasser Alhamar Alkathiri is an Assistant Professor and Dr. Al-Amir obtained his bachelor’s degree from the Sultanate
the Deputy Assistant Vice Chancellor for Postgraduate Studies, of Oman and pursued his master’s and doctoral degrees in the
Scientific Research and Innovation, University of Technology United Kingdom. Over the course of 23 years, he held various
and Applied Sciences, Salalah, Oman. Dr. Nasser holds a PhD in positions. He currently holds the position of Assistant Vice
Knowledge Transfer from Plymouth University, the UK. He also Chancellor of the University of Technology and Applied Sci­
holds a Master degree in International Business from Sydney ences in Ibri. Dr. Al-Amir’s area of interest is finance, entre­
University, Australia. His research interests include knowledge preneurship, tourism and artificial intelligence. He succeeded
management, knowledge transfer, international, business, in working on two research projects funded by the Scientific
entrepreneurship and staff localization. He has published Research Council of Oman.
multiple papers in reputed journals indexed in WoS and Scopus
(e.g. Journal of Knowledge Management, International Journal
of Finance & Economics and International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management). He has several par­
ticipations in local and international conferences.

14

View publication stats