# Methodological Variation in Studying Staff and Student Perceptions of AI

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.11158 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.11158/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 6 of its 32 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 22 Dec 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.10084/) (2019)
- [TweetEval: Unified Benchmark and Comparative Evaluation for Tweet Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.12421/) (2020)
- [Students' Voices on Generative AI: Perceptions, Benefits, and Challenges in Higher Education](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.00290/) (2023)
- [Game of Tones: Faculty detection of GPT-4 generated content in university assessments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18081/) (2023)
- [Trust in Generative AI among students: An Exploratory Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.04631/) (2023)
- [AI Across Borders: Exploring Perceptions and Interactions in Higher Education](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.00017/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

In this paper, we compare methodological approaches for comparing student and staff perceptions, and ask: how much do these measures vary across different approaches? We focus on the case of AI perceptions, which are generally assessed via a single quantitative or qualitative measure, or with a mixed methods approach that compares two distinct data sources - e.g. a quantitative questionnaire with qualitative comments. To compare different approaches, we collect two forms of qualitative data: standalone comments and structured focus groups. We conduct two analyses for each data source: with a sentiment and stance analysis, we measure overall negativity/positivity of the comments and focus group conversations, respectively. Meanwhile, word clouds from the comments and a thematic analysis of the focus groups provide further detail on the content of this qualitative data - particularly the thematic analysis, which includes both similarities and differences between students and staff. We show that different analyses can produce different results - for a single data source. This variation stems from the construct being evaluated - an overall measure of positivity/negativity can produce a different picture from more detailed content-based analyses. We discuss the implications of this variation for institutional contexts, and for the comparisons from previous studies.