Academics believe roles are safe from AI, but warned about complacency

University staff generally do not believe their roles will be taken by artificial intelligence, but experts have warned that it could be used as an “excuse” for cuts.

The Times Higher Education’s UK University Redundancy Survey found that while there were widespread concerns among academics about overall job loss, these were only minimally due to the rise of AI.

Only 11 percent of academics agreed with the statement when asked: “Do you fear you will be made redundant within the next three years due to the rise of AI?” Notably, academics were more likely to strongly disagree than professional services staff, at 19 percent compared with 12 percent.

While 13 percent of women strongly disagreed that the rise in AI will cause their redundancy, this number was greater with male respondents (22 percent).

There was also significant difference via department, with a quarter of STEM workers strongly disagreeing, compared with 17 percent of humanities and arts workers, and 16 percent of social sciences.

Academics disagreed more frequently than professional services staff, while no senior management respondents strongly agreed.

Cuts driven by funding pressure, over-hiring corrections and high interest rates are ‘rebadged’ as automation

– Rose Luckin, emeritus professor of learner centred design at UCL

One outreach worker claimed his job “can’t be done by AI”, amidst experts warning that the findings may show overconfidence. Other respondents, while agreeing that AI cannot replace the work they do, still feel an instability in their status, with one academic saying “there’s no accounting for the short-term thinking of senior management” and another saying “I think leadership will use it as an excuse to replace staff”.

Rose Luckin, emeritus professor of learner centered design at UCL, explained that “cuts driven by funding pressure, over-hiring corrections and high interest rates [are] rebadged as automation”. The threat of AI to roles in higher education could hence be that it provides a likely cover story for the financial pressure stripping academics of their jobs.

Patrice Seuwou of University of Northampton said the “complexity of the moment in higher education” means that AI may have an “indirect impact on employment structures”, as it may be used as an “excuse to make staff cuts, merge posts, automate admin or pile work on to staff, with the rationale that technology will fill the gaps”.

Though senior academic roles may be relatively safe, the threat of AI is more keenly felt by professional services staff, junior workers, and contractors.

“Universities need to think seriously about how junior roles develop into senior ones, because those gateway positions are where the future pipeline of expertise is built. If those posts go, the senior expertise that currently looks safe will not be replaced when this generation retires”, Luckin said.