Critical analysis reveals potential harms of generative AI in higher education, suggesting a need for resistance and critical engagement.
The adoption of generative artificial intelligence (gen-AI) in higher education curriculum design is often framed as an inevitable step toward efficiency and innovation. In this paper, I employ critical realism to interrogate the ideological and political dimensions of gen-AI adoption, arguing that it represents a form of technocratic colonialism that reinforces neoliberal and surveillance-driven imperatives. By interrogating who benefits from these technologies and whose interests are marginalised, I problematise gen-AI’s role in shaping knowledge production, academic labour, and epistemic hierarchies. Through a critical education lens, I highlight how universities, in their embrace of gen-AI, risk entrenching structures of control, eroding pedagogical autonomy, promoting epistemic dependence, marginalising educator expertise, and privileging dominant knowledge systems while excluding alternative epistemologies. Urging a shift from techno-solutionism to critical engagement, I advocate for resistance to gen-AI’s unchecked integration in curricula, ensuring that educational transformation remains grounded in equity, ethics, and intellectual agency.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Richard McInnes (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: