Leveraging AI for Higher Education Human Resources:A Systematic Literature Review

Maria Veronica; Wendi Usino; Arief Wibowo

doi:10.15408/jti.v19i2.51820

Authors

Maria Veronica Informatic System Study Program, Institut Teknologi dan Bisnis PalComTech, Indonesia
Wendi Usino Computer Science Study Program, Faculty of Information Technology, Universitas Budi Luhur, Indonesia
Arief Wibowo Computer Science Study Program, Faculty of Information Technology, Universitas Budi Luhur, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15408/jti.v19i2.51820

Keywords:

Artificial Intelligence, Knowledge Graph, Policy Recommendation, Higher Education, Human Resource Development, Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Human Resource Development (HRD) policies for academic staff in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) is often constrained by the misalignment between computational capabilities and institutional governance. While HEIs generate substantial datasets through the Tri Dharma (the three pillars of higher education: teaching, research, and community service), this data remains underutilized for proactive policy-making. To map the state-of-the-art and identify existing research gaps, this study conducts a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) and bibliometric analysis of 400 unique peer-reviewed documents, obtained from an initial 485 records retrieved from Scopus (n = 260) and Web of Science (n = 225) after removing 85 duplicates, covering the seven-year period from 2018 to 2024. Visual analysis using VOSviewer reveals a distinct semantic-policy discrepancy, showing that semantic technologies and predictive AI models are researched as isolated technical domains, seldom integrated into comprehensive institutional governance. To bridge this gap, this paper proposes a framework for Higher Education Human Resources for Lecturer Career Development. The proposed framework integrates machine learning classifiers (Naïve Bayes, K-Means, and Apriori association) with a semantic Knowledge Graph layer to transform descriptive academic metrics into explainable, policy-conforming recommendations. Preliminary expert consultation with LLDIKTI Region II highlights the conceptual viability of the Framework for Higher Education Human Resources for Lecturer Career Development in mitigating administrative bottlenecks, supporting objective career path design, and minimizing human subjectivity in lecturer performance evaluations.

References

[1] B. Giesenbauer and G. Müller-Christ, “University 4.0: Promoting the transformation of higher education institutions toward sustainable development,” Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 8, p. 3371, 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12083371.

[2] N. Nurhasan, M. Pramono, M. Martadi, E. Erta, and H. S. C. P. Dewi, “The Strategic Plan of University in Facing Challenges of Industrial Revolution 4.0 (Case Study at Universitas Negeri Surabaya),” Kelola J. Manaj. Pendidik., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2020, doi: 10.24246/j.jk.2020.v7.i1.p1-13.

[3] Kemendikbudristek, Pedoman Operasional Penilaian Angka Kredit Kenaikan Jabatan Fungsional/Pangkat Akademik Dosen (PO PAK). Jakarta: Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi, Riset, dan Teknologi, 2023.

[4] M. R. Istambul, “The impact of i-performance in changing the work culture of lecturers to increase the productivity of three pillars (tri dharma) of higher education in Indonesia,” Univers. J. Educ. Res., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 15–21, 2019, doi: 10.13189/ujer.2019.070402.

[5] P. Tambe, P. Cappelli, and V. Yakubovich, “Artificial intelligence in human resources management: Challenges and a path forward,” Calif. Manage. Rev., vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 15–42, 2019, doi: 10.1177/0008125619867910.

[6] R. J. Torraco and H. Lundgren, “What HRD Is Doing—What HRD Should be Doing: The Case for Transforming HRD,” Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 39–65, 2020, doi: 10.1177/1534484319894385.

[7] V. Kuleto et al., “Exploring opportunities and challenges of artificial intelligence and machine learning in higher education institutions,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 18, p. 10424, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su131810424.

[8] D. Charlwood and N. Guenole, “Can artificial intelligence help mitigate biases in talent management? A socio-technical perspective,” Hum. Resour. Manage. J., vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 88–104, 2024, doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12512.

[9] H. Crompton and D. Burke, “Artificial intelligence in higher education: the state of the field,” Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ., vol. 20, no. 1, p. 22, 2023, doi: 10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8.

[10] S. A. Permana, F. A. Bachtiar, and W. F. Mahmudy, “Evaluation of Higher Education Faculty Performance Using Data Mining Classification Techniques,” J. Inf. Technol. Comput. Sci., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 145–156, 2021, doi: 10.25126/jitecs.202162234.

[11] M. J. Page et al., “The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,” BMJ, vol. 372, p. n71, 2021, doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.

[12] N. J. van Eck and L. Waltman, “Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping,” Scientometrics, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 523–538, 2010, doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3.

[13] L. Waltman and N. J. van Eck, “A systematic empirical comparison of different approaches for detecting research fronts,” J. Informetr., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 715–735, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.04.004.

[14] A. Hogan et al., “Knowledge Graphs,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 71:1–71:37, 2021, doi: 10.1145/3447772.

[15] B. Abu-Salih, “Domain knowledge graph construction: A systematic review,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 493–517, 2021, doi: 10.1177/0165551520932855.

[16] S. Ji, S. Pan, E. Cambria, P. Marttinen, and P. S. Yu, “A survey on knowledge graphs: Representation, acquisition, and applications,” IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 494–514, 2022, doi: 10.1109/TNNLS.2021.3070843.

[17] X. Chen, S. Jia, and Y. Xiang, “A review: Knowledge reasoning over knowledge graph,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 141, p. 112948, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2019.112948.

[18] S. Pan, L. Luo, Y. Wang, C. Chen, J. Wang, and X. Wu, “Unifying Large Language Models and Knowledge Graphs: A Roadmap,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 3554–3574, 2024, doi: 10.1109/TKDE.2024.3352100.

[19] D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, and D. G. Altman, “Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement,” PLoS Med., vol. 6, no. 7, p. e1000097, 2009, doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.

[20] M. Dattner, R. Febbraro, and E. Hedricks, “The legal and ethical implications of using AI in hiring,” Harv. Bus. Rev., vol. 25, pp. 1–9, 2019.

[21] M. Raghavan, S. Barocas, J. Kleinberg, and K. Levy, “Mitigating bias in algorithmic hiring: Evaluating claims and practices,” in Proc. 2020 Conf. Fairness, Accountability, Transpar., Barcelona, Spain: ACM, 2020, pp. 469–481, doi: 10.1145/3351095.3372828.

[22] C. Köchling and M. C. Wehner, “Discriminated by an algorithm: a systematic review of discrimination and fairness by algorithmic decision-making in the context of HR recruitment and HR development,” Bus. Res., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 795–848, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s40685-020-00134-w.

[23] F. Zuiderveen Borgesius, “Strengthening legal protection against discrimination by algorithms,” Int. J. Hum. Rights Const. Stud., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 420–443, 2020, doi: 10.1504/IJHRCS.2020.10034270.

[24] L. Floridi et al., “AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations,” Minds Mach., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 689–707, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5.

[25] A. A. Qutub, A. Almufarreh, A. M. Algarni, and A. S. Alqahtani, “Machine learning for faculty evaluation and predictive career pathing in academic institutions,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 42110–42125, 2023, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3271142.

[26] E. Suryanto, A. Purwanto, and R. S. Dewi, “Development of Decision Support System for Lecturer Performance Assessment Using Analytical Hierarchy Process and Multi-Objective Optimization,” J. Appl. Inf. Technol., vol. 99, no. 14, pp. 3890–3901, 2021.

[27] Y. K. Dwivedi et al., “Artificial Intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy,” Int. J. Inf. Manage., vol. 57, p. 101994, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002.

[28] LLDIKTI Wilayah II, Laporan Kinerja Lembaga Layanan Pendidikan Tinggi Wilayah II Tahun 2023. Palembang: Kemendikbudristek, 2024.

[29] T. Baker, L. Smith, and N. Anissa, “Educ-AI-tion Rebooted: Exploring the future of artificial intelligence in schools and colleges,” Nesta Found. Res. Rep., London, 2021.

[30] W. Holmes, M. Bialik, and C. Fadel, Artificial Intelligence in Education: Promises and Implications for Teaching and Learning. Boston: Center for Curriculum Redesign, 2019.

[31] R. S. J. D. Baker and K. Yacef, “The state of educational data mining in 2009: A review and future visions,” J. Educ. Data Min., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3–17, 2009.

[32] A. G. B. De Carvalho, R. M. C. R. Souza, and B. S. L. P. De Melo, “Information retrieval and bibliometric analysis for systematic literature reviews,” Inf. Process. Manage., vol. 59, no. 3, p. 102924, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2022.102924.

[33] S. Barocas, M. Hardt, and A. Narayanan, Fairness and Machine Learning: Limitations and Opportunities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2023.

[34] D. Gunning et al., “XAI—Explainable artificial intelligence,” Sci. Robot., vol. 4, no. 37, p. eaay7120, 2019, doi: 10.1126/scirobotics.aay7120.

[35] C. Rudin, “Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead,” Nat. Mach. Intell., vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 206–215, 2019, doi: 10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x.