AI Ethics as Epistemological Governance: A Systematic Literature Review on Knowledge and Authority in the Age of Generative AI
DOI:
10.70211/ltsm.3026-7196.403Published:
2026-06-01Downloads
Abstract
This Systematic Literature Review (SLR) explores research trends on the ethics of generative AI use and how ethical issues are discussed within it, mapping geographical distribution and examining AI epistemic governance. This systematic literature review employs the PRISMA method, with a literature search conducted through the Scopus database, filtered based on keywords related to generative AI Ethics in Quartiles Q1 and Q2 and limited to the period 2020–2026, resulting in 39 articles for further analysis in this SLR. The research trend has continuously increased from year to year, and 2025 became the year with the highest number of studies addressing the ethics of generative AI use. This indicates a strengthening academic attention to ethical and epistemic issues in AI. The literature is dominated by themes of ethical concerns in the use of generative AI, such as bias, data privacy, transparency, accountability, misinformation, academic integrity, and cognitive dependence on generative AI. This study also finds that generative AI is most frequently positioned as a knowledge generator, while the combination of training data bias and cultural bias constitutes the most dominant epistemic issue. In the dimension of epistemic dependency, human dependence on AI is the most frequently discussed theme. This demonstrates growing concerns regarding the weakening of human autonomy, control, and cognitive capacity. From the perspective of authoritative actors, the scientific community occupies the strongest position, while multi-stakeholder governance emerges as the most widely supported governance model. These findings affirm that AI governance is understood as a complex issue that cannot be resolved by a single actor, but rather requires collaboration.
Keywords:
AI Ethics Epistemological Governance Generative AI AI GovernanceReferences
[1] P. Robles and D. J. Mallinson, “Artificial intelligence technology, public trust, and effective governance,” Review of Policy Research, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 11–28, Jan. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12555
[2] K. Borkowska and D. Jackson, “From moral panic to pragmatic governance: Reframing AI’s societal impacts in employment, education, and ethics,” AI & Society, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-026-02921-1
[3] G. D. Sharma, A. Yadav, and R. Chopra, “Artificial intelligence and effective governance: A review, critique and research agenda,” Sustainable Futures, vol. 2, Art. no. 100004, Jan. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2019.100004
[4] M. Seniutis, A. Sas, and V. Gružauskas, “Exploring more-than-human ethics of large language models in social service delivery,” Ethics and Social Welfare, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2025.2593823
[5] T. Yang, J. Cheon, M. H. Cho, M. Huang, and N. Cusson, “Undergraduate students’ perspectives of generative AI ethics,” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 22, no. 1, Dec. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-025-00533-1
[6] N. Palladino, “A ‘biased’ emerging governance regime for artificial intelligence? How AI ethics get skewed moving from principles to practices,” Telecommunications Policy, vol. 47, no. 5, Art. no. 102479, Jun. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102479
[7] A. Dabis and C. Csáki, “AI and ethics: Investigating the first policy responses of higher education institutions to the challenge of generative AI,” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, vol. 11, no. 1, Dec. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03526-z
[8] P. David, H. Choung, and J. S. Seberger, “Who is responsible? US public perceptions of AI governance through the lenses of trust and ethics,” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 654–672, Jul. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231224592
[9] B. D. Lund, T. Wang, N. R. Mannuru, B. Nie, S. Shimray, and Z. Wang, “ChatGPT and a new academic reality: Artificial intelligence-written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing,” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, vol. 74, no. 5, pp. 570–581, May 2023. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24750
[10] M. Klenk, “Ethics of generative AI and manipulation: A design-oriented research agenda,” Ethics and Information Technology, vol. 26, no. 1, Mar. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-024-09745-x
[11] W. Xu, “Doing thematic analysis in the age of generative AI: Practices, ethics and reflexivity,” International Journal of Qualitative Methods, vol. 25, Jan. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069261425173
[12] M. Sharples, “Towards social generative AI for education: Theory, practices and ethics,” Learning: Research and Practice, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 159–167, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2023.2261131
[13] M. F. Shahzad, S. Xu, and H. Zahid, “Exploring the impact of generative AI-based technologies on learning performance through self-efficacy, fairness & ethics, creativity, and trust in higher education,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 3691–3716, Feb. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12949-9
[14] B. Attard-Frost, A. Brandusescu, and K. Lyons, “The governance of artificial intelligence in Canada: Findings and opportunities from a review of 84 AI governance initiatives,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 41, no. 2, Art. no. 101929, Jun. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.101929
[15] B. Obrenovic, X. Gu, G. Wang, D. Godinic, and I. Jakhongirov, “Generative AI and human-robot interaction: Implications and future agenda for business, society and ethics,” AI & Society, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 677–690, Feb. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-01889-0
[16] N. K. Corrêa et al., “Worldwide AI ethics: A review of 200 guidelines and recommendations for AI governance,” Patterns, vol. 4, no. 10, Art. no. 100857, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100857
[17] T. Hagendorff, “Mapping the ethics of generative AI: A comprehensive scoping review,” Minds and Machines, vol. 34, no. 4, Dec. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-024-09694-w
[18] D. Moher, L. Stewart, and P. Shekelle, “Implementing PRISMA-P: Recommendations for prospective authors,” Systematic Reviews, vol. 5, Art. no. 15, Jan. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0191-y
[19] N. Panic, E. Leoncini, G. de Belvis, W. Ricciardi, and S. Boccia, “Evaluation of the endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses,” PLOS ONE, vol. 8, no. 12, Art. no. e83138, Dec. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083138
[20] A. P. Siddaway, A. M. Wood, and L. V. Hedges, “How to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses,” Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 70, pp. 747–770, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803
[21] M. ter Huurne, A. Ronteltap, R. Corten, and V. Buskens, “Antecedents of trust in the sharing economy: A systematic review,” Journal of Consumer Behaviour, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 485–498, Nov. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1667
[22] E. M. L. Bergman, “Finding citations to social work literature: The relative benefits of using Web of Science, Scopus, or Google Scholar,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 370–379, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2012.08.002
[23] E. Hariningsih, B. Haryanto, L. Wahyudi, and C. Sugiarto, “Ten years of evolving traditional versus non-traditional celebrity endorser study: Review and synthesis,” Management Review Quarterly, vol. 75, no. 3, pp. 1937–1997, Sep. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-024-00425-0
[24] P.-H. Wong, “Cultural differences as excuses? Human rights and cultural values in global ethics and governance of AI,” Philosophy & Technology, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 705–715, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00413-8
[25] E. Seger, “In defence of principlism in AI ethics and governance,” Philosophy & Technology, vol. 35, no. 2, Art. no. 45, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00538-y
[26] S. M. Qadhi, A. Alduais, Y. Chaaban, and M. Khraisheh, “Generative AI, research ethics, and higher education research: Insights from a scientometric analysis,” Information, vol. 15, no. 6, Art. no. 325, Jun. 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/info15060325
[27] K. Yilma, “Ethics of AI in Africa: Interrogating the role of Ubuntu and AI governance initiatives,” Ethics and Information Technology, vol. 27, no. 2, Jun. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-025-09834-5
[28] T. Daly, “A ‘low-tech’ academic virtue ethics in the age of generative AI,” Journal of Academic Ethics, vol. 24, no. 1, Mar. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-025-09683-3
[29] D. Alboaneen et al., “Siyasat: AI-powered AI governance tool to generate and improve AI policies according to Saudi AI ethics principles,” Computers, vol. 14, no. 11, Nov. 2025. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers14110452
[30] J. Jeon, L. Kim, and J. Park, “The ethics of generative AI in social science research: A qualitative approach for institutionally grounded AI research ethics,” Technology in Society, vol. 81, Jun. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.102836
[31] J. Jiao, S. Afroogh, A. Murali, K. Chen, D. Atkinson, and A. Dhurandhar, “LLM ethics benchmark: A three-dimensional assessment system for evaluating moral reasoning in large language models,” Scientific Reports, vol. 15, no. 1, Dec. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-18489-7
[32] L. Goel, Y. El Bouchikhi, and J. Z. Zhang, “Interpretive flexibility of generative AI: Ethics, risk, and technology acceptance,” Journal of Computer Information Systems, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2025.2495334
[33] A. Gamerdinger and J. O. Willers, “Solving AI ethics? Hybrid expertise and professional power in EU ethics governance,” Journal of European Public Policy, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2025.2499113
[34] J. I. Moreira and J. Zhang, “ChatGPT as a fourth arbitrator? The ethics and risks of using large language models in arbitration,” Arbitration International, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 71–84, Mar. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aiae031
[35] C. Dong and M. van den Berg, “Revisiting PR professionalism and ethics in the generative AI era through PR practitioners’ insights,” Public Relations Review, vol. 51, no. 3, Sep. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2025.102582
[36] E. Rodilosso, “Epistemic vs. moral: A differentiated approach to human-centered AI ethics,” Topoi, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-025-10324-y
[37] M. A. Mohamed Eldakar, A. M. Khafaga Shehata, and A. S. Abdelrahman Ammar, “What motivates academics in Egypt toward generative AI tools? An integrated model of TAM, SCT, UTAUT2, perceived ethics, and academic integrity,” Information Development, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 747–765, Sep. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1177/02666669251314859
[38] T. Valdivieso and O. González, “Generative AI tools in Salvadoran higher education: Balancing equity, ethics, and knowledge management in the Global South,” Education Sciences, vol. 15, no. 2, Feb. 2025. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020214
[39] E. Hickman and M. Petrin, “Trustworthy AI and corporate governance: The EU’s ethics guidelines for trustworthy artificial intelligence from a company law perspective,” European Business Organization Law Review, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 593–625, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40804-021-00224-0
[40] V. Tuzov and F. Lin, “Two paths of balancing technology and ethics: A comparative study on AI governance in China and Germany,” Telecommunications Policy, vol. 48, no. 10, Art. no. 102850, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2024.102850
[41] P. Goktas, “Ethics, transparency, and explainability in generative AI decision-making systems: A comprehensive bibliometric study,” Intelligence and National Security, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2024.2410042
[42] T. Pigac, “Transparency in large language model (LLM)-powered digital human twins: The AI ethics perspective,” AI & Society, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02617-y
[43] M. Guillen-Aguinaga, E. Aguinaga-Ontoso, L. Guillen-Aguinaga, F. Guillen-Grima, and I. Aguinaga-Ontoso, “Data quality in the age of AI: A review of governance, ethics, and the FAIR principles,” Data, vol. 10, no. 12, Art. no. 201, 2025. https://doi.org/10.3390/data10120201
[44] X. Huang, T. Kou, and Q. Zhou, “Embedding AI ethics in the data lifecycle: A framework for enterprise AI governance,” Technology in Society, vol. 86, Sep. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2026.103261
[45] S. Porsdam Mann, B. D. Earp, N. Møller, S. Vynn, and J. Savulescu, “AUTOGEN: A personalized large language model for academic enhancement—Ethics and proof of principle,” The American Journal of Bioethics, vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 28–41, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2233356
[46] G. Perboli, N. Simionato, and S. Pratali, “Navigating the AI regulatory landscape: Balancing innovation, ethics, and global governance,” Economic and Political Studies, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 367–397, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1080/20954816.2025.2569584
[47] B. Zhang, “Affective counterpublics under constraint: Emotion, platform governance, and AI ethics discourse on Chinese social media,” AI & Society, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02437-0
[48] K. Huang, “Integrating industry certification into STEM-oriented vocational undergraduate education: Taking the major of financial technology application as an example,” Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 21, no. 9, 2025. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/16770
Author Biographies
Cahyo Prianto, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
School of Postgraduate Studies
.png)
Mumu Komaro, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
School of Postgraduate Studies
Saripudin, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
School of Postgraduate Studies
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Cahyo Prianto, Mumu Komaro, Saripudin
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
