Table 6 Joint display of integrated... | Emerald Publishing

Table 6

Joint display of integrated mixed-methods findings (survey, n = 120; interviews, n = 8)

Domain	Quantitative result	Qualitative result	Relationship	Integrated inference
Perceived usefulness/efficiency	100% agreement on efficiency (M = 4.47); declining agreement across the other six academic tasks (46.7–56.7%)	Informants describe AI as valuable for preparatory, administrative and idea-generation work	Convergent	Usefulness is real but graded by task, not global
Task-selective adoption	Clear graded pattern across seven tasks, from universal agreement on efficiency to lower agreement on scholarly outputs	Informants explicitly distinguished readily acceptable uses, such as presentations and reference searching, from higher-stakes uses requiring strong verification and human control, such as journal articles and research	Convergent	Adoption is best described as task-selective rather than binary acceptance/rejection
Ethical ambivalence	80.0% name a specific concern; 20.0% report none	Informants voice both acute concern and conditional acceptance	Complementary	Ethical ambivalence is real but not universal; qualitative data explain the reasoning behind both the concerned majority and the more accepting minority
Institutional readiness/governance gap	73.3% agreed that institutional regulation was needed, with no significant differences by age, academic rank, or institution type; training needs differed significantly by age and academic rank	Informants across public and private institutions reported unclear AI regulations and limited formal training opportunities	Convergent for governance; complementary for training	The need for institutional regulation is broadly shared, while the intensity of formal training support required varies by age and academic rank

Domain	Quantitative result	Qualitative result	Relationship	Integrated inference
Perceived usefulness/efficiency	100% agreement on efficiency (M = 4.47); declining agreement across the other six academic tasks (46.7–56.7%)	Informants describe AI as valuable for preparatory, administrative and idea-generation work	Convergent	Usefulness is real but graded by task, not global
Task-selective adoption	Clear graded pattern across seven tasks, from universal agreement on efficiency to lower agreement on scholarly outputs	Informants explicitly distinguished readily acceptable uses, such as presentations and reference searching, from higher-stakes uses requiring strong verification and human control, such as journal articles and research	Convergent	Adoption is best described as task-selective rather than binary acceptance/rejection
Ethical ambivalence	80.0% name a specific concern; 20.0% report none	Informants voice both acute concern and conditional acceptance	Complementary	Ethical ambivalence is real but not universal; qualitative data explain the reasoning behind both the concerned majority and the more accepting minority
Institutional readiness/governance gap	73.3% agreed that institutional regulation was needed, with no significant differences by age, academic rank, or institution type; training needs differed significantly by age and academic rank	Informants across public and private institutions reported unclear AI regulations and limited formal training opportunities	Convergent for governance; complementary for training	The need for institutional regulation is broadly shared, while the intensity of formal training support required varies by age and academic rank