Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more embedded in global higher education, its pedagogical value and risks remain contested, especially in resource-constrained, historically marginalised contexts of the Global South. This paper explores how academic developers at two South African Historically Disadvantaged Institutions (HDIs) conceptualise, interpret, and mediate the institutional integration of AI. Drawing on Critical Digital Pedagogy and decolonial perspectives, it frames academic developers not as technical implementers but as digital mediators who bridge pedagogy, ethics, and institutional politics. A thematic analysis of 12 qualitative interviews shows how they translate institutional AI narratives into grounded practice, negotiate shifting professional identities, sustain reflexive and care-oriented pedagogies, and confront the infrastructural inequalities shaping AI adoption in Historically Disadvantaged Institutions. The paper reconceptualises academic development as a form of sociotechnical praxis in which technological change is continually interpreted through ethical, relational, and contextual judgement, advancing debates on AI, academic development, and decolonial digital futures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mashango Phillemon Sithole (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: