Formación ética en inteligencia artificial  en estudiantes de comunicación:  Un estudio cualitativo desde la antropología  y la responsabilidad social

Daniel de la Rosa Ruiz; Susana Miró López

doi:10.4185/rlcs-2027-2723

Authors

Daniel de la Rosa Ruiz Universidad Francisco de Vitoria https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6351-0302
Susana Miró López Universidad Francisco de Vitoria https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7373-2427

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4185/rlcs-2027-2723

Keywords:

generative artificial intelligence, critical thinking, social responsibility, media literacy, academic writing, digital ethics

Abstract

Introduction: The emergence of generative artificial intelligence in the university setting poses new ethical challenges for the education of future communicators, particularly with regard to critical thinking, social responsibility, and the ethical use of digital technologies. In communication departments, where content production and discourse analysis are central, it is essential to integrate a humanistic education that brings together anthropology, ethics, and digital culture. Methodology: The study adopts an interpretive qualitative design carried out in the School of Communication, within the courses on Anthropology and Social Responsibility. The intervention consisted of students writing academic papers, which were then reviewed using artificial intelligence, followed by a critical analysis of the suggestions generated by the AI. The corrections made by the students were analyzed using qualitative analysis with Atlas.ti, based on a thematic coding process. Results: The results show that critical interaction with artificial intelligence fosters processes of ethical reflection, intellectual autonomy, and professional awareness among future communicators, revealing significant changes in the way students reinterpret, accept, or question automated recommendations. Discussion: The guided use of AI is not merely a technical tool, but rather a pedagogical device for developing critical thinking and social responsibility in digital communication settings. Conclusions: The integration of artificial intelligence from an anthropological and ethical perspective contributes to the well-rounded education of communication professionals, promoting a conscious, reflective, and responsible use of emerging technologies in the university context.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Daniel de la Rosa Ruiz, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria

PhD in Education, with a doctoral dissertation entitled Education for Sustainable Development as a Learning Opportunity for Children in Vulnerable Contexts. He holds one six-year research period (sexenio). He holds degrees in Journalism and Humanities, a Master’s degree in Corporate Social Responsibility, and was awarded a Santander Scholarship (2021).

His research focuses on education for social responsibility, pedagogical innovation, and methodologies for values-based education, promoting a more sustainable and humane society. He has published and presented research on teaching innovation and sustainability, including Innovation in Social Work Classrooms (2024), Foundations of Sustainability in Humanistic Values for University Students (2024), and Measurement and Analysis of Education for Sustainable Development in Vulnerable Environments (2023).

His teaching and research also address servant leadership and the integration of the 2030 Agenda within higher education.

Susana Miró López, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria

PhD in Humanities and Social Sciences from Francisco de Vitoria University (UFV), where she serves as a lecturer in the Department of Humanistic Studies. She holds one six-year research period and participates in several research projects focused on human dignity, values education, and training in vulnerable contexts.

Her doctoral dissertation, The Meaning of Suffering in the Work of Flannery O’Connor (2010), develops a research line that integrates faith and reason to address existential and social questions from a humanistic perspective. Her research focuses on humanistic education, social responsibility, vulnerability, accompaniment, and service-learning methodologies in higher education. She has published on sustainability, dignity-centered education, and the formation of university students in ethical and social values.

References

Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A. y Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? En Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 610-623). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922

Biesta, G. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Routledge.

Braun, V. y Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Caldevilla Domínguez, D. (2024). Usos éticos de la IA en la universidad moderna: Más allá del plagio. EDU REVIEW: International Education and Learning Review / Revista Internacional de Educación y Aprendizaje, 12(1), 57-65. https://doi.org/10.62701/revedu.v12.5184 DOI: https://doi.org/10.62701/revedu.v12.5184

Cohen, L., Manion, L. y Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8a Ed.). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539

Cortina, A. (2013). ¿Para qué sirve realmente la ética? Paidós.

Denzin, N. K. y Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5a Ed.). Sage.

Flick, U. (2015). Introducción a la investigación cualitativa. Morata.

Floridi, L. (2014). The fourth revolution: How the infosphere is reshaping human reality. Oxford University Press.

Floridi, L. (2023). Ethics of artificial intelligence. Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198883098.001.0001

Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., Schafer, B., Valcke, P. y Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689-707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5

Friese, S. (2019). Qualitative data analysis with ATLAS.ti. Sage.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. Basic Books.

Gibbs, G. R. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (2a Ed.). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526441867 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526441867

Han, B.C. (2022). Infocracia: La digitalización y la crisis de la democracia. Taurus.

Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology, and other essays (W. Lovitt, Trans.). Harper & Row.

Holmes, W. y Tuomi, I. (2022). State of the art and practice in AI in education. European Journal of Education, 57(4), 542-570. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12533 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12533

Kvale, S. y Brinkmann, S. (2015). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3a Ed.). Sage.

Lincoln, Y. S. y Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8

Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M. y Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Pearson.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. y Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3ra Ed.). Sage.

Moratalla, A. (2021). Del hombre carnal al hombre digital: Vitaminas para una ciudadanía digital. TEELL.

Nussbaum, M. C. (2010). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton University Press.

Paulus, T. y Lester, J. (2016). ATLAS.ti for conversation and discourse analysis studies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19(4), 405-428. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2015.1021949 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2015.1021949

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4a Ed.). Sage.

Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. Vintage Books.

Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3a Ed.). Sage.

Selwyn, N. (2019). Should robots replace teachers? AI and the future of education. Learning, Media and Technology, 44(1), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2019.1623253

Sierra Sánchez, J., Liberal Ormaechea, S., & Mañas-Viniegra, L. (2020). La formación en materias de tecnología del futuro periodista en España. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 75, 189-206. https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2020-1422 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2020-1422

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.

UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000380455

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press.

Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195117530.001.0001

Woods, M., Paulus, T. M., Atkins, D. P., & Macklin, R. (2016). Advancing qualitative research using qualitative data analysis software (QDAS)? Reviewing potential versus practice in published studies using ATLAS.ti and NVivo, 1994-2013. Social Science Computer Review, 34(5), 597-617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439315596311 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439315596311

Williamson, B. (2021). Education and the algorithmic future: Critical questions for AI in education. MIT Press.

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6a Ed.). Sage.

Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.