Hi all!
Tiffany here.
This week marks our final Focus Friday before we take a break for the summer.
Rather than bringing in a guest, we’ll be hosting an end-of-year community chat. No presentations, no formal agenda, and no set topic, just an opportunity to connect with colleagues from across the postsecondary sector and talk about what’s on your mind as we head into the summer months.
We’ll use the hour to reflect on the year that was, discuss the challenges and opportunities currently facing our institutions, and explore what people are watching heading into the next academic year. Whether you’re thinking about enrolment, budgets, AI, student success, governance, teaching and learning, institutional strategy, or something entirely different, we’d love to hear what’s occupying your attention right now.
As always, Focus Friday is highly conversational and participant-driven, so bring your questions, ideas, observations, and coffee.
Focus Friday is Friday, June 5 from 12:30-1:30pm Eastern and you can register here: https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/cKgROD9mSQqR0GfvsWxmQg
Looking forward to seeing you there!
Looking Back
Last week on Focus Friday, I was joined by David Hornsby, Vice-Provost (Academic and Global Learning) at Carleton University, to discuss the institution’s recently released AI Framework. The conversation explored why Carleton chose to develop a principles-based framework rather than a formal policy, how the framework was developed through extensive consultation, and what it reveals about the evolving relationship between artificial intelligence and higher education.
One of the strongest themes throughout the discussion was that universities are increasingly moving beyond the question of whether AI should be allowed and toward a more practical conversation about how it can be used responsibly, ethically, and transparently. Hornsby noted that while much of the early discussion around generative AI focused on academic integrity and misconduct, institutions are now grappling with broader questions about teaching and learning, research, operations, privacy, student support, and institutional strategy. In this context, Carleton deliberately chose a framework approach that could evolve alongside the technology rather than attempting to create a rigid set of rules for a rapidly changing landscape.
The conversation also highlighted the complexity of building institution-wide AI guidance. Hornsby reflected on the extensive consultation process behind the framework, which involved students, faculty, researchers, librarians, IT leaders, and administrators. Participants often approached AI from very different perspectives. While some viewed AI primarily through the lens of opportunity and innovation, others raised concerns around academic quality, intellectual property, privacy, environmental sustainability, and the broader social implications of the technology. One of the key lessons from the process was that successful AI governance requires institutions to create space for these competing viewpoints and resist the temptation to frame the discussion as simply “for” or “against” AI.
Another major takeaway was the importance of critical AI literacy. Rather than positioning AI as either an inevitable solution or an existential threat, the framework emphasizes the need for faculty, staff, and students to engage with AI thoughtfully and critically. Hornsby described Carleton’s approach as “AI positive, but not AI uncritical,” arguing that institutions should encourage experimentation and innovation while remaining attentive to issues such as bias, transparency, privacy, security, and the limitations of AI-generated outputs.
Participants also explored the operational challenges associated with AI adoption. Privacy, data governance, and security emerged as recurring themes, particularly as institutions consider integrating AI tools into administrative and decision-making processes. Hornsby cautioned that while there is significant enthusiasm around the potential efficiency gains offered by AI, institutions must first establish strong governance frameworks around data access, ownership, and use. Human judgment, he argued, must remain central to institutional decision-making, even as AI tools become increasingly sophisticated.
The discussion turned to the broader Canadian higher education landscape. Hornsby suggested that while Canada has established itself as a global leader in AI research, institutions are still working to translate that expertise into practical applications that benefit students, communities, and society more broadly. Looking ahead, he encouraged universities and colleges to spend less time debating whether AI should exist within higher education and more time exploring how these technologies can be used to advance teaching, research, public engagement, and institutional impact.
As always, you can catch the full conversation on our YouTube Page: https://www.youtube.com/@HigherEdStrategy/videos
