Teaching & Learning
- Use of AI for coursework is at instructor discretion
- The academic integrity policy also states that using AI tools in academic work is unauthorized unless explicitly permitted by the instructor
- Faculty set course- and assignment-specific expectations for when AI may support learning and when students must do the work without technology, and students are responsible for following those expectations and representing their work honestly
Faculty guide students in deciding when AI supports the goals of a course or assignment and when doing the work without technology is essential to learning. Expectations may differ across disciplines and assignments.
Learning with faculty guidance. Faculty decide how AI can support learning in their courses and communicate their expectations to students. Students are responsible for understanding those expectations, representing their work honestly and examining AI output critically.
Unauthorized use of technology is the utilization of tools in the creation of academic work that are not explicitly permitted by the instructor, with or without citation. This includes, but is not limited to, the use of internet applications, research databases, citation generators, authoritative sources of information, and artificial intelligence (AI) tools.
- The university does not set a separate AI rule specifically for exams and assessments in the provided sources
- However, AI use in academic exercises is unauthorized when not explicitly permitted by the instructor, which would apply where an instructor has not authorized it
Cheating is intentionally using, attempting to use, or providing unauthorized materials, information, study aids, or the ideas or work of another in any academic exercise.
Unauthorized use of technology is the utilization of tools in the creation of academic work that are not explicitly permitted by the instructor, with or without citation. This includes, but is not limited to, the use of internet applications, research databases, citation generators, authoritative sources of information, and artificial intelligence (AI) tools.
- Students are permitted to explore AI as a learning tool, but faculty still determine acceptable use within their courses
- The university says students should critically examine AI output, question its assumptions, protect private information, and use judgment about when to rely on AI and when to set it aside
Lipscomb students will have opportunities to explore AI as a tool for learning and creative work. They will also learn to examine its output, question its assumptions, protect private information and take responsibility for the work they submit.
In every setting, we want students to develop both the ability to use emerging tools and the judgment to know when to set them aside.
Learning with faculty guidance. Faculty decide how AI can support learning in their courses and communicate their expectations to students. Students are responsible for understanding those expectations, representing their work honestly and examining AI output critically.
Research
- Writers may use AI for spelling and grammar unless a course instructor prohibits it, but they must preserve their own voice, avoid copying significant AI-generated text without authorization, and provide full transparency about AI use
- AI may be used in research writing as a supplementary tool for brainstorming and for organizing, editing, and critiquing researcher-created content, but it must not replace the researcher’s critical thinking, originality, creativity, or analysis
While AI can be a supplementary tool in some cases, it should not replace the essential elements of critical thinking, creativity, analysis, and knowledge inherent to research endeavors.
In some scenarios, using AI to brainstorm initial ideas, subjects, or titles may be appropriate. In other scenarios, it may be suitable to utilize AI to organize, edit, and critique researcher-created content or to generate topics, ideas, or perspectives for further investigation. Regardless of how AI is used, research and academic products must represent the unique voice, originality, creativity, and perspective of the researcher.
Guardrails: AI-generated wording must be used cautiously to avoid alteration of the writer’s original ideas and to ensure the researcher’s voice remains prominent and consistent. This does not preclude writers from using AI to check spelling and grammar (unless prohibited by a course instructor); however, caution must be used to not lose the researcher’s personal style, creativity, or originality in the written work.
Researchers must avoid directly copying and pasting significant portions of AI generated text into their written work unless appropriate authorization is obtained, and full transparency is provided.
- Researchers must remain primarily responsible for collecting and analyzing data, and AI use for data analysis is subject to strong privacy and accuracy guardrails
- The university warns that AI analysis can compromise participant data, prohibits uploading confidential or protected personal information to non-IRB-approved generative AI tools, and requires researchers to validate AI-generated information and not treat AI as a reputable source
In all situations, researchers must maintain a primary role in conducting background research, collecting and analyzing data, reporting research findings, and information presented as fact must be verifiable and true.
Using AI tools to analyze data may compromise the security of research participants’ data and protected personal information.
Researchers are prohibited from uploading confidential or protected personal information with non-IRB-approved generative AI tools.
Guardrails: Researchers should not consider AI tools a reputable source of information. Researchers must take full responsibility for the accuracy of material presented in research works. Researchers should fact-check any AI generated information they include in their work using reputable sources.
- AI use in research is governed by ethical and IRB review requirements
- Researchers must describe in their IRB proposal how AI will be used with participants or participant data before collection begins, and the IRB reviews AI use to protect participants’ privacy and welfare
- For Lipscomb-authorized research, all AI tools require a cybersecurity risk assessment, General Counsel approval of tool terms and privacy policies, and documentation of tool approval with the IRB proposal
Researchers are prohibited from uploading confidential or protected personal information with non-IRB-approved generative AI tools. As part of the research proposal to the IRB, researchers must provide a clear description of how AI will be used to engage with participants or participant data, prior to collecting data. Lipscomb’s IRB will review the use of AI to ensure that potential participants will be treated ethically and that their privacy rights and welfare will be adequately protected.
When AI tools are proposed for use in Lipscomb-authorized research, all tools require a risk assessment to be conducted by Information Technology’s Cybersecurity team, and the office of General Counsel must approve any Terms of Service and Privacy policies for the tool.
Step 4: Submit documentation of tool approval with your IRB proposal
Academic Integrity
- The university requires transparency about AI use in research and treats failure to acknowledge AI-generated content in academic work as plagiarism
- The academic integrity policy also states that copying AI-generated content into a paper without quoting or explicitly citing the source is plagiarism
- Researchers must openly disclose how AI was used, keep records of procedures, and provide full transparency when significant AI-generated text is used with authorization
For example, copying a passage straight from a book, website or artificial intelligence (AI) generated content into a paper without quoting or explicitly citing the source is plagiarism.
Researchers must avoid directly copying and pasting significant portions of AI generated text into their written work unless appropriate authorization is obtained, and full transparency is provided.
Researchers are responsible for being fully transparent and openly disclose to users and stakeholders the way AI was used, processes utilized, data used, and the potential limitations of the AI system so that they can understand its impact and make informed decisions about its application.
Guardrails: Researchers must keep careful records and be prepared to fully describe all procedures utilized during the use of AI.
- Enforcement is framed through existing academic integrity categories such as plagiarism, cheating, fabrication, and unauthorized use of technology
- The provided sources define unauthorized AI use as an academic integrity violation, but they do not state a university position on AI detection tools
Below is a non-exclusive list of the key types of academic integrity violations.
Plagiarism is intentionally or knowingly representing the words or ideas of another as one’s own in any academic exercise (i.e., using someone else’s ideas or work without proper or complete acknowledgement). Plagiarism encompasses many things, and is by far the most common example of an academic integrity violation. For example, copying a passage straight from a book, website or artificial intelligence (AI) generated content into a paper without quoting or explicitly citing the source is plagiarism.
Unauthorized use of technology is the utilization of tools in the creation of academic work that are not explicitly permitted by the instructor, with or without citation. This includes, but is not limited to, the use of internet applications, research databases, citation generators, authoritative sources of information, and artificial intelligence (AI) tools.
Institutional & Administrative
- Faculty are given authority to determine how AI may support learning in their courses and to communicate those expectations to students
- The research guidance also applies to faculty and staff as researchers, requiring them to consider AI use carefully in research-related endeavors and research writing
Learning with faculty guidance. Faculty decide how AI can support learning in their courses and communicate their expectations to students.
To this end, Lipscomb researchers, including faculty, staff, and students must carefully consider the use and scope of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in research-related endeavors and research writing.
- Lipscomb provides approved AI tools and requires responsible use with attention to privacy
- The university also prohibits uploading confidential or protected personal information to non-IRB-approved generative AI tools
- For research, all proposed AI tools must undergo a cybersecurity risk assessment, tool terms and privacy policies must be approved by General Counsel, and only Lipscomb-provided accounts are approved
Using tools responsibly. We provide guidance on privacy, appropriate use and access to approved tools so members of our community can explore AI with greater clarity and care.
Approved Tools:
BoodleBox
Copilot
Gemini
Grammarly
Zoom AI
When AI tools are proposed for use in Lipscomb-authorized research, all tools require a risk assessment to be conducted by Information Technology’s Cybersecurity team, and the office of General Counsel must approve any Terms of Service and Privacy policies for the tool.
Step 1: Check if your proposed AI tool is on the pre-approved list below. Note: You must be using a Lipscomb-provided account for each tool for it to be approved.
Researchers are prohibited from uploading confidential or protected personal information with non-IRB-approved generative AI tools.
- Lipscomb has an institution-level AI philosophy and guiding-principles framework centered on Christian values, privacy, equitable access, bias review, transparency, and adaptable guidance
- The university states that its AI practices will continue to evolve and identifies structures supporting this work, including approved tools, faculty fellows, and approval of research guidance by the University Research Council and the Provost's Office
Lipscomb approaches AI through the lens of biblical principles.
Our approach to AI is shaped by the unique values of our scholarly Christ-centered community. Lipscomb created these guiding principles for AI use based on our Core Values.
Respect All: We protect privacy, promote equitable access, examine bias and harm, and affirm the dignity of every person as an image-bearer of God.
Create Solutions: We provide clear, transparent and adaptable guidance so our community can use emerging technologies safely and effectively.
Continuing to learn. Our practices will develop as the technology changes and as we learn from students, faculty, staff and academic leaders. We will keep asking whether our use of AI strengthens learning and serves our mission.
Approved by the University Research Council and The Provosts Office 1/14/25.
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 Lipscomb University's AI Policies
Lipscomb University has defined AI policies in 11 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 92%.
The university requires transparency about AI use in research and treats failure to acknowledge AI-generated content in academic work as plagiarism. Researchers must openly disclose how AI was used, keep records of procedures, and provide full transparency when significant AI-generated text is used with authorization. The academic integrity policy also states that copying AI-generated content into a paper without quoting or explicitly citing the source is plagiarism.
The provided sources define unauthorized AI use as an academic integrity violation, but they do not state a university position on AI detection tools. Enforcement is framed through existing academic integrity categories such as plagiarism, cheating, fabrication, and unauthorized use of technology.
Lipscomb provides approved AI tools and requires responsible use with attention to privacy. For research, all proposed AI tools must undergo a cybersecurity risk assessment, tool terms and privacy policies must be approved by General Counsel, and only Lipscomb-provided accounts are approved. The university also prohibits uploading confidential or protected personal information to non-IRB-approved generative AI tools.