Teaching & Learning
- Clarkson does not set a single university-wide rule allowing or banning AI for graded coursework
- Undisclosed AI use can also fall under academic dishonesty when a student submits work that is not their own
- Course-level use is at instructor discretion, and the university provides sample syllabus language ranging from full prohibition to conditional permission with required disclosure and citation
Faculty have the authority to set their own AI policy in the syllabus and to determine whether or not students can use AI in their classes.
No use at all of ChatGPT or other AI software is permitted in this course. Any use of ChatGPT or other AI software in the writing for this course, except for translation, will be considered a violation of the Clarkson University policy on Academic Integrity.
The use of ChatGPT and other AI software is not allowed in this course except in specific contexts approved in writing by the instructor in advance.
The use of ChatGPT and other AI software is generally allowed in this course to aid understanding and brainstorming in all assignments. However, it is not allowed in this course to generate writing that students submit as their own. Any writing generated by ChatGPT or other AI software should not be submitted as your own. Any use must be appropriately documented and cited according to the course citation policy.
The use of ChatGPT and other AI software is generally allowed in this course as a means of brainstorming and producing writing in all assignments. Students must include a written reflection comparing and contrasting ChatGPT generated content from your own writing and discussing your writing process in terms of strengths and weaknesses of your use of ChatGPT. Students also need to appropriately document and cite any use according to the course citation policy.
Plagiarism includes but is not limited to... Submitting as your own work another person’s work or artificial intelligence generated work...
- In courses, whether AI may be used this way still depends on the instructor's syllabus policy
- Clarkson provides educational guidance that students may use AI as a support tool for learning activities such as brainstorming, idea generation, outlining, and review, but they should verify outputs and avoid relying on AI as a substitute for their own work
Faculty have the authority to set their own AI policy in the syllabus and to determine whether or not students can use AI in their classes.
Students can use ChatGPT in a beneficial way as a learning aid or as a brainstorming tool. It can help answer questions, create outlines, get started on a rough draft, provide examples, and offer suggestions.
It is best to think of using ChatGPT as a brainstorming session with a friend. Since the outputs are generated based on prompts, users should verify the information received and avoid relying on it as a source of truth.
- Clarkson provides no university-wide programming-specific AI rule in the provided sources
- Use of AI for coding in coursework would therefore be governed by individual instructor course policies where applicable
Faculty have the authority to set their own AI policy in the syllabus and to determine whether or not students can use AI in their classes.
Research
- Clarkson's provided sources do not establish a research-manuscript-specific AI policy
- The materials focus on classroom writing, citation, and general AI literacy rather than explicit rules for theses, dissertations, or scholarly manuscript preparation
not defined
- For research involving human subjects, Clarkson's IRB states that AI may be used to help with qualitative data analysis and coding
- However, the researcher is fully responsible for validating all AI-generated analysis and must disclose the use of AI in their methods section, detailing how it was used and how outputs were verified
Researchers can use AI to aid in qualitative analysis and coding of data. Note however, that these tools should not replace a researcher’s own work and the researcher is responsible for validating all analysis generated by AI. If AI is used to aid in data analysis, details should be included about what data was entered, how the output from the AI was validated and what safeguards were put in place if any private or identifying information was used.
- Clarkson's IRB guidance states that AI may be used as a tool to support qualitative data analysis, but researchers remain responsible for validating results, reporting the AI's use, and protecting confidentiality
- Researchers must disclose the AI application, model or version, how it was used, what data were entered, how outputs were validated, and what safeguards were used if private or identifiable information was involved
Researchers can use AI to aid in qualitative analysis and coding of data. Note however, that these tools should not replace a researcher’s own work and the researcher is responsible for validating all analysis generated by AI.
Researchers should appropriately report the use of AI in their research methods and include details about the type of AI application used, what model or version if applicable, and precisely how it was used.
If AI is used to aid in data analysis, details should be included about what data was entered, how the output from the AI was validated and what safeguards were put in place if any private or identifying information was used.
Academic Integrity
- Clarkson requires transparency when AI use is allowed by a course policy
- The university writing guidance also says generative AI should be cited when it informs work
- Students may need to document and cite AI use, and one sample policy requires a written reflection about how AI was used
Any use must be appropriately documented and cited according to the course citation policy.
Students must include a written reflection comparing and contrasting ChatGPT generated content from your own writing and discussing your writing process in terms of strengths and weaknesses of your use of ChatGPT. Students also need to appropriately document and cite any use according to the course citation policy.
If you use a chatbot in your writing process and gain information from it, cite the source!
- Clarkson treats unauthorized AI-generated work as potential academic dishonesty under its student regulations
- The provided sources do not state a university policy on AI detection tools, but they do specify that submitting AI-generated work as one's own is plagiarism and that prohibited course use can violate academic integrity rules
Any use of ChatGPT or other AI software in the writing for this course, except for translation, will be considered a violation of the Clarkson University policy on Academic Integrity.
Plagiarism includes but is not limited to... Submitting as your own work another person’s work or artificial intelligence generated work...
Institutional & Administrative
- Clarkson offers faculty-facing AI resources and states that instructors are responsible for setting course AI policies in their syllabi
- The materials encourage instructors to tell students whether AI is allowed, prohibited, or restricted, but the provided sources do not establish university-wide rules for grading, recommendation letters, or administrative communications
Faculty have the authority to set their own AI policy in the syllabus and to determine whether or not students can use AI in their classes.
Discuss AI. If this topic is not brought up by students themselves, it may be wise to discuss it when talking about plagiarism, your expectations, and the methods by which students can work on assignments. If AI use is prohibited, in all contexts or just specific contexts, be clear about that. If AI use is allowed, indicate in which contexts and where the line between acceptable and unacceptable use is for your course. Address whether or not or in what way AI should be cited as a source for the course.
- The provided Clarkson sources do not set an institution-wide approved-platform list or general AI data-classification policy
- For human-subjects research, however, researchers must explain safeguards when AI is used with private or identifying information
If AI is used to aid in data analysis, details should be included about what data was entered, how the output from the AI was validated and what safeguards were put in place if any private or identifying information was used.
- The material emphasizes developing understanding and course-level policy communication rather than a centralized governance policy
- Clarkson provides institutional AI literacy and faculty resource pages that frame AI as an important developing topic and offer guidance materials, but the provided sources do not state a formal university AI governance structure, committee, or strategy roadmap
This guide is intended to help the Clarkson community understand the world of AI and what it means for us as learners, creators, workers, and citizens.
Faculty have the authority to set their own AI policy in the syllabus and to determine whether or not students can use AI in their classes.
DocuMark: Responsible AI Use for Academic Integrity
Knowing your institution's AI policy is step one. DocuMark helps enforce it fairly by empowering universities to manage AI-generated content, prevent cheating, and support student writing through responsible AI use.
Common Questions About Clarkson University's AI Policies
Clarkson University has defined AI policies in 11 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 92%.
Clarkson requires transparency when AI use is allowed by a course policy. Students may need to document and cite AI use, and one sample policy requires a written reflection about how AI was used. The university writing guidance also says generative AI should be cited when it informs work.
Clarkson treats unauthorized AI-generated work as potential academic dishonesty under its student regulations. The provided sources do not state a university policy on AI detection tools, but they do specify that submitting AI-generated work as one's own is plagiarism and that prohibited course use can violate academic integrity rules.
The provided Clarkson sources do not set an institution-wide approved-platform list or general AI data-classification policy. For human-subjects research, however, researchers must explain safeguards when AI is used with private or identifying information.