Descriptive research examines AI awareness, attitudes, and ethics in librarians, suggesting improvements for responsible use.
This study examined librarians’ awareness, attitudes, and ethical use of artificial intelligence (AI) for research purposes in polytechnic libraries in selected states in South-South, Nigeria. Descriptive research design was adopted, involving 71 professional librarians across five polytechnics: Auchi Polytechnic, Auchi; Edo State Polytechnic, Usen; Federal Polytechnic, Orogun; Delta State Polytechnic, Ogwashi-Uku; and Delta State Polytechnic, Otefe-Oghara. Total enumeration sampling was employed, and data were collected using a validated questionnaire. The responses were analysed using mean scores interpreted with a decision rule (VLE = 1.00–1.50; LE = 1.51–2.50; HE = 2.51– 3.50; VHE = 3.51–4.00). Findings revealed a high extent of AI use (x̄ = 2.60), with librarians primarily utilising AI for literature searching (x̄ = 3.00), summarising research materials (x̄ = 2.92), grammar checking and language editing (x̄ = 2.88), and citation generation (x̄ = 2.86). However, level of awareness of ethical AI use was generally low (x̄ = 2.40), particularly regarding institutional policies, copyright issues, and data privacy; attitudes toward ethical AI use was also low (x̄ = 2.42), indicating weak commitment to promoting ethical practices, while adherence to ethical principles was to low extent (x̄ = 2.12), especially in verifying AI-generated content, ensuring transparency, and complying with institutional guidelines. The study concluded that although AI adoption is moderate among librarians, insufficient ethical awareness, weak attitudes, and low adherence to ethical principles pose potential risks to research integrity and credibility. It recommended structured training programmes, clear institutional policies on AI use, and continuous professional development initiatives to strengthen responsible AI integration and ensure ethical research practices in polytechnic libraries.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Okonsukwa et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: