Getting Started: How to Begin the Process of Developing an Institutional AI Policy or Guidelines

While the process of developing a policy or guidance will vary across different contexts, the following questions can be helpful for any campus in the very early stages of development:

• Who are the stakeholders? How do we include as many different voices and positions as possible in the conversations about institutional policy? (See next section.)
• What is the campus culture? Around shared governance? Around technology policies? Around communication across units and departments? What are timely events, exigencies, or constraints? (e.g., Are we in the middle of an accreditation process or developing a new strategic plan? Are we managing a financial deficit?)
• What is our institution’s history with policy, with emerging technology, with coalition building? What existing technology policies do we have?

Although these questions may be broad, they can help determine how to proceed with developing an institutional or cross-campus AI policy. Some possible starting points could involve the following:

• Putting together a singular event such as a campus town hall to gather stakeholders, assess some existing areas of consensus, and begin building toward a policy. A singular event is also a good way to identify potential participants for a specific committee or task force. A visible campus event can also elicit communication from people who are not able to attend but who may reach out with interest in future discussions.
• Appointing a task force or campus committee. This could happen at the President’s or Board of Trustees’ level or with input from deans, departments, campus units, and/or campus governance leaders. An appointed committee could also involve external members with interests or expertise with AI. These external members could be representatives of community partnerships or representative members of technology/industry involved in other conversations or committees on campus.
• Organizing an ad-hoc committee. This is the route that SUNY Cortland took in constructing a cross-campus committee that allowed for individual outreach, volunteer participation, and fluid membership from semester to semester. Cortland’s ad hoc committee has been operational from September 2023 to the present. The downsides of an ad-hoc committee (versus a standing committee or appointed task force) could be a lack of consistent representation or confusing workflow. The advantages may involve variable size of the committee, fluidity of membership, and agile decision-making or recommendation-generating (to an established governance body, for instance).
• Integrating AI policy work within existing institutional structures such as standing groups within a Faculty Senate or other campus governance body, the Faculty Senate/campus governance body itself, Teaching and Learning Centers, Faculty Development Committees, or other sites with a large number and broad representation of stakeholders. Some of these sites may also already have policies and practices geared toward feedback loops and inclusive conversations across stakeholder groups.
• Using a research methodology (such as snowball, stratified, or random sampling) to contact a larger group of potential participants across campus. This could be a useful strategy for ensuring representation in “sampling” participants from across campus or useful if those identifying/volunteering for such a group are a very small number of stakeholders.

Regardless of the mechanism for drawing participants together in a cross-campus collaboration on AI policy, there are also some best practices for institutional policy development to keep in mind:

• Create an archive of meeting agenda, minutes, and other materials to ensure transparency and continuity. Follow up on topics and issues raised by constituents and document decisions and actions.
• Design multiple entry points for engagement and participation. For instance, setting standard meeting times may work for institutions that have “common hours” or identified times for campus involvement. However, all institutions should also consider rotating meeting times and locations, as well as offering opportunities for online participation (synchronous and asynchronous) to account for different schedules, family care needs, and positions with different in-person requirements.
• Expect differences and create space for constructive disagreement, difference, diversity, and a range of perspectives. It isn’t necessary (or maybe possible) for all stakeholders to reach the same conclusions. However, it may still be possible to reach some agreements, consensus, and coalition building. Even identifying an important point of disagreement and the range of positions, consequences of disagreement, and future steps is a positive step toward building a transparent and inclusive policy process.

Consider dynamics of power, privilege, and possibly space across the institution. An understanding of people’s positions and perceptions of their roles on campus could influence who chairs a committee or how often/if at all membership should rotate or how communication and feedback is integrated into discussion.

Additional Resources

• Educause Action Plan: AI Policies and Guidelines, by Robert Jenay and Mark McCormick
• How to Craft a Generative AI Use Policy in Higher Education, by Tom Mangan
• Influencing Policy Development, Center for Community Health and Development at the University of Kansas