Home⇛Journal of Interdisciplinary Perspectives⇛vol. 4 no. 1 (2026)

Navigating Ethical Boundaries: AI-Driven Data Collection and Analysis in Academic Research

Sesenio B. Sereno Iii | Kristoffer Ian A. Barredo | Terrence A. Lim | John Bosco P. Javellana | Norberto R. Lamano Jr | Apollo Neil R. Duran | Owen Harvey Balocon

Discipline: combined, general or negotiated studies

 

Abstract:

The integration of artificial intelligence into academic research has revolutionized data collection and analysis, yet raises critical ethical concerns about privacy, consent, and data integrity. This study investigates college students' perceptions and experiences regarding ethical boundaries in AIdriven research methodologies in Manila. Employing a mixed-methods research design, the study surveyed 384 college students from selected universities in Manila who had completed at least one research course. Data were collected through a validated researcher-made questionnaire and semistructured interviews conducted over three months. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and inferential tests, while qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify emerging ethical concerns. Results revealed that 78.40% of respondents expressed moderate to great concern about AI-mediated data privacy, with significant differences across academic disciplines (x2 = 24.56, p < .001). Students identified informed consent transparency (M = 4.21, SD = 0.87), algorithmic bias (M = 3.94, SD = 0.92), and data security (M = 4.35, SD = 0.76) as primary ethical considerations. The study concludes that while AI offers unprecedented research capabilities, educational institutions must establish comprehensive ethical frameworks and enhance student awareness of AI-related research ethics to ensure responsible implementation in academic settings.



References:

  1. Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim code. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity Press.
  2. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  3. Chiang, F.-K., Zhu, D., & Yu, W. (2022). A systematic review of academic dishonesty in online learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(4), 907–928. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12656
  4. Commission on Higher Education. (2022). Higher education statistical bulletin. Manila, Philippines: Commission on Higher Education.
  5. Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, United States: Sage Publications.
  6. Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2019). A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1
  7. Hummel, H. G. K., Burgos, D., Tattersall, C., Brouns, F., Kurvers, H., & Koper, R. (2018). Encouraging contributions in learning networks using incentive mechanisms. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(5), 600–609. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12268
  8. Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2
  9. Martinez, R. A., & Santos, L. M. (2021). Artificial intelligence integration in Philippine higher education: Opportunities and challenges. Philippine Journal of Educational Technology, 5(2), 45–62. h
  10. Mittelstadt, B. (2019). Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(11), 501–507. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4
  11. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York, United States: NYU Press.
  12. Reyes, C. P., & Domingo, M. T. (2023). Digital literacy and ethical awareness among Filipino college students: Implications for AI education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 15–34. 
  13. Saltz, J., & Dewar, N. (2019). Data science ethical considerations: A systematic literature review and proposed project framework. Ethics and Information Technology, 21(3), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-019-09502-5
  14. Selwyn, N. (2019). What’s the problem with learning analytics? Journal of Learning Analytics, 6(3), 11-19. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2019.63.3
  15. Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2018). How AI can be a force for good. Science, 361(6404), 751–752. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat5991
  16. Wang, Y. (2020). Artificial intelligence in educational leadership: A symbiotic role of human-artificial intelligence decision-making. Journal of Educational Administration, 59(3), 256–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-10-2020-0216
  17. Whittlestone, J., Nyrup, R., Alexandrova, A., Dihal, K., & Cave, S. (2019). Ethical and societal implications of algorithms, data, and artificial intelligence: A roadmap for research. London, United Kingdom: Nuffield Foundation.
  18. Winfield, A., & Jirotka, M. (2018). Ethical governance is essential to building trust in robotics and artificial intelligence systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 376(2133), 20180085. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0085
  19. Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education: Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(39), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
  20. Zook, M., Barocas, S., Boyd, D., Crawford, K., Keller, E., Gangadharan, S., Goodman, A., Hollander, R., Koenig, B., Metcalf, J., Narayanan, A., Nelson, A., & Pasquale, F. (2017). Ten simple rules for responsible big data research. PLoS Computational Biology, 13(3), e1005399. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005399

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic