In this paper, I introduce the theorising of seven human-generative artificial intelligence (GAI) paradigms, grounded in personal epistemological beliefs. Following a conceptual, theory-building approach, I begin by outlining the construct of personal epistemological beliefs, differentiating among the source of knowledge, certainty of knowledge, organisation of knowledge, control of knowledge acquisition and speed of knowledge acquisition by drawing on Schommer (1994) and Schommer-Aikins and Easter (2008)’s multidimensional model. I contend that these epistemological dimensions offer an understanding of human-GAI engagement. I proceed by introducing the dynamic human-GAI paradigms (guarded, possibility-focused, augmented, pioneering, symbiotic, values-based and equity), outlining each and examining them against the five epistemological dimensions. Rather than fixed traits held by individuals, the paradigms are conceptualised as enacted patterns of engagement that emerge across different disciplinary, socio-technical and institutional contexts. I conclude by arguing that this understanding of human-GAI engagement, as explained through epistemological beliefs, lays the foundation for alternative approaches to teaching and assessment, student interactions, professional development, and AI governance and policy, while noting that the framework remains an exploratory heuristic requiring empirical validation.
In this interview, Stefan Popenici – one of the most prominent critical voices on artificial intelligence in higher education, and author of Artificial Intelligence and Learning Futures (2022) and Higher Education in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (2026) – argues that universities are living through a ‘psychotic episode’: a break with reality that leaves them cheering for technologies designed by financial elites and funded by the military. Tracing GenAI’s origins from an Epstein-funded symposium and the Pentagon’s chequebook to the eugenic roots of Silicon Valley’s culture, Popenici contends that AI is the political project of ‘technofascist’ billionaires rather than a neutral educational tool. He defends his analogy between AI and the lead poisoning of the Roman Empire – pervasive, invisible and cognitively corrosive – dissects the collapse of academic credibility exemplified by a recent AI-generated opinion piece that urged students to do their own work, and portrays the ‘AI-teacher’ as an instrument of indoctrination rather than a mere substitute for human educators. Refusing the ritual language of ‘opportunities and risks’, he explains his decision to write entirely without AI as a political act of resistance to abrutisation and dehumanisation – a stance the interviewers probe in a friendly disagreement over critical AI literacy. The interview closes on an unexpectedly hopeful note: graduates booing AI evangelists at commencement ceremonies signal an emerging resistance, and books – habent sua fata libelli – have their own fate.
The mental health crisis among doctoral students is of pressing concern, with high rates of anxiety, depression, and burnout that severely impact candidates’ academic performance and overall wellbeing. This conceptual narrative reflection on the field offers a novel contribution by reframing doctoral wellbeing as fundamentally relational and translating that lens into actionable recommendations at systemic, community, and individual levels. We synthesize evidence of the multifaceted and interdependent pressures experienced by doctoral students, including academic demands, student-supervisor relationships, financial insecurity, and cultural transitions. We also identify significant barriers to seeking help, the role of stigma, and systemic challenges within academic institutions that exacerbate mental health challenges for marginalized groups. Importantly, we demonstrate how these dynamics operate within institutional and policy environments that are characterized by complex funding models, inequity in access to campus counselling and healthcare, and the variable experiences of marginalized students. We emphasize the importance of supportive networks, intersectional identity considerations, and institutional structures in the experiences of doctoral students, illustrating how our own collaborative writing process enacted the very relational practices for which we advocate. Building on this relational understanding, we provide actionable recommendations to foster a more inclusive, supportive, and mentally healthy academic environment.
The rapid adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has sparked debates on its benefits and risks, yet little is known about its impact on trust and role perception in higher education. This study examined how AI-generated feedback influences students’ trust in instructors and their perceptions of academic integrity. Building on existing research on AI-human interactions, we explored whether students trust AI-generated assessments more or less than human feedback and how this dynamic affects their learning experience. Using a mixed-methods approach, this study analyzed student attitudes toward AI in academic settings. The first phase employed a survey to capture broad student perceptions of AI-assisted feedback, while the second phase involved in-depth interviews to explore themes of trust, ethics, and emotional responses. Reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021) was applied to identify patterns in students’ experiences, highlighting concerns over fairness, depersonalization, and ethical considerations. Participants identified personalized, meaningful feedback as a core instructor responsibility that AI cannot fully replicate. Participants see value in using AI as a supportive tool when its outputs are transparent, guided by educator expertise, and clearly communicated. Findings underscore the need for structured institutional policies that ensure AI complements rather than replaces human engagement. This paper will explore how universities can develop ethical guidelines that balance AI’s efficiency with the critical role of instructor-led mentorship, fostering sustainable and student-centred learning environments.
This article examines the role of intercultural education in creating higher education spaces that affirm and recognise the social identities of transgender and gender-diverse individuals, focusing on Global South and Indigenous perspectives. It explores how Western-centric cisnormative frameworks inform institutional policies and pedagogical practices, often marginalising these identities. Moreover, while there has been a growing awareness of transgender issues, this discourse is predominantly shaped by Global North perspectives, which overlook the diverse ways of knowing and experiencing gender. Through a decolonial lens, the paper introduces the Intercultural Triadic Framework, which integrates Indigenous epistemes, gender diversity, and pedagogical transformation to guide more plural approaches to teaching and learning. Drawing on a qualitative case study of an intercultural competence course at King’s College London, it demonstrates how theory can move into praxis through reflective activities and collaborative learning. For many transgender and gender-diverse individuals, school can be a site of violence, emphasising the pressing need for institutional change. Education should allow spaces for learning but also for affirming humanity. To this end, it emphasises the importance of engaging activists, students, and educators who identify as transgender or gender-diverse in co-creating intercultural competency. This study contributes to ongoing dialogues about inclusion in higher education by amplifying the perspectives of Indigenous and Global South transgender and gender-diverse individuals. It highlights the importance of intercultural competencies in instilling empathy and understanding within educational spaces. Ultimately, it is about creating opportunities for all individuals to thrive and have a sense of belonging.
As higher education institutions (HEIs) increasingly prioritize internationalization, the intercultural competence of lecturers, particularly intercultural sensitivity, becomes a crucial element in fostering inclusive learning environments. Despite its global importance, limited research explores the readiness of faculty in non-English-speaking regions for teaching internationally diverse classrooms. This study examines the intercultural sensitivity and professional development needs of 114 university lecturers in central Serbia to engage with international students. The study employed an explanatory mixed-methods research design, utilizing the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (ISS) (Chen & Starosta, 2000) alongside customized items to assess key variables such as language proficiency, prior international exposure, interactional engagement, and attitudes toward cultural diversity. Key findings indicate that while many respondents recognize the importance of cultural adaptability and inclusivity, there are significant gaps in formal training. Nearly 60% of participants felt inadequately prepared to teach international students, and 72.6% had never participated in any intercultural competence training. The correlation analysis revealed strong positive relationships between English proficiency, intercultural engagement, and confidence, highlighting the critical role of language skills in fostering active participation and self-assurance in diverse environments. Additionally, moderate correlations with travel experience and respect for cultural differences suggest that prior exposure helps cultivate empathy and openness, though to a lesser degree. These findings emphasize the need for targeted professional development and institutional support to address the training gap, with a focus on integrating ICC training, promoting intercultural engagement to better assist lecturers in diverse classrooms.
In acquiring intercultural skills, Global South students face numerous challenges, including limited resources, mobility and limited contact with those from other cultures. This study investigates a COIL (Collaborative Online International Learning) project involving Indonesian English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students and their Japanese and Australian peers. Specifically, it examines the perceived impact of COIL on the development of the Indonesian students’ intercultural skills. Data were drawn weekly group reflections and individual post-program reflections. The findings indicate a decided impact on students’ intercultural skills over a short period of time. Based on these results, we argue that COIL provides a valuable opportunity for the acquisition of intercultural competence among students in the Global South. This study highlights how instructors can enhance the benefits of COIL by implementing instructor-guided scaffolded reflections to support Indonesian students’ experiential learning.
This paper explores what happens when you set out to lead a caring curriculum program design in a range of international contexts over several years with the premise of a shared vision. Through a single composite case approach, we have captured the essence of our learnings by combining our individual accounts of eleven programs across a range of contexts to form a single composite case which sought to capture the macro-, meso-, and micro- factors at play. Employing collaborative autoethnography (CAE) and a metaphorical, three-dimensional personal narrative inquiry framework, the data (as moments and reflections recounted) emerged through close analyses of the experiences of two senior education leaders. We identified in our data the three themes as described in the literature: curriculum, leadership and care. A further sub-theme revealed that we, as leaders, care for others. However, while we enacted transrelational leadership, we were thwarted in our goal at all levels of the system. The study tells the story of how, where and why we failed. Rather than experiencing failure as a source of shame and avoiding it, we grew from the lessons learned. Key to our findings is the creation of the term “curriculum of care in higher education”. This idea is new to curriculum design discourse in higher education. It is defined as advocating for an environment where we are all included, supported, belong and feel safe, brave and care for each other. There is a commitment to asking ‘what happened to you?’ What is integral is the nature of academics’ and students’ agency in their work.
English Medium Instruction (EMI) in Japan exposes persistent tensions between the ambitions of internationalization policy and the realities of classroom implementation. While national frameworks promote global competencies, their emphasis on quantitative outcomes often constrains pedagogical imagination and overlooks the conditions required for meaningful learning. This study positions intercultural competence development as the foundation for achieving policy-driven global competencies, demonstrating how holistic student development can simultaneously serve students' personal growth and national internationalization goals. Drawing on collaborative action research (2020–2023), it addresses six recurring challenges: low self-efficacy, passive learning, collaboration difficulties, critical thinking limitations, research skill gaps, and cultural context influences. The resulting nine-component, student-centered framework integrates transformative learning, socio-cultural theory, communities of practice, and self-efficacy theory to show how content, language, and intercultural competence can develop concurrently. Grounded in teacher agency, the framework offers a flexible, adaptable model for EMI practitioners seeking to move beyond content-language dualism. The study seeks to stimulate dialogue on implementing EMI in more inclusive, reflective, and contextually responsive ways that align Japan's internationalization goals with holistic student development.
The proliferation of Bilingual Education (BE) has emerged as a pivotal strategy for advancing the internationalization of higher education institutions (HEI) globally. While research has predominantly focused on linguistic outcomes, there remains a lacuna in scholarly discourse regarding the exploration of non-linguistic dimensions and implications of BE implementation. To address this gap, the present research studies the relationship between BE, self-perceived intercultural competence and employability. The views of undergraduates have not been sufficiently explored and this could be important, because learning theory posits that motivation and commitment of learners constitute critical determinants of education efficiency. Moreover, it elicits aspects which have been overlooked by research such as the perception of students who have been involved in bilingual programmes, and also of those who have been in traditional mainstream courses. The method used in this study involved a total of 669 students from various Spanish universities, which were collected through a validated multi-dimensional survey. Pairwise comparisons were conducted among students enrolled in three types of degree programmes: bilingual, partially bilingual, and non-bilingual. Additionally, the study investigates other variables, such as the branch of knowledge and the correlation between intercultural competence and employability perceptions, to evaluate their potential significant impact. Results revealed that students in bilingual programmes demonstrated significantly higher levels of self-perceived intercultural competence and employability compared to the other two groups, which did not show significant differences between them. The implications of these findings for higher education students regarding intercultural competence and employability are discussed.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is being deployed in higher education at an unprecedented scale and pace as a silver bullet for the “sick” higher education system. This opinion paper examines whether and to what extent AI is the solution to the problems that make higher education purportedly outmoded and/or dysfunctional in the first place. It begins by identifying two persistent challenges confronting the sector: uneven quality and enduring inequities in access. The discussion then turns to the deeper structural causes of these challenges, before examining four potential roles that AI is commonly assumed to play in addressing them. In doing so, the paper critically explores whether AI can meaningfully remedy higher education’s underlying problems, and concludes by proposing a technology-agnostic, future-proof approach to transforming higher education in more sustainable and principled ways. The position of this paper is that the future of higher education should not hinge on any particular technology, no matter how cutting-edge it may appear. Accordingly, a fundamental principle for the selection and use of technology in higher education is proposed, whereby a technology should be adopted only when it enables educators to do what they otherwise cannot, or when it demonstrably performs better than educators at an affordable cost, or when it performs as well as educators while reducing costs. Higher education should remain open to technological advancement, but it must not allow itself to be defined by it.
This instrumental case study explores college instructors’ perceptions of Generative AI as a potential tool for students to learn writing and their teaching practices under the influence of different power centers. Through inductive analysis, this study identifies four centers that have shaped the college instructors’ perceptions of Generative AI, including the global impact of AI, the university and department, colleagues, and students. In response to these power dynamics, many instructors have updated their teaching practices to make sure that they still retain their authority in class and promote student accountability for their own learning. These changing practices may range from limiting the possibilities of using Generative AI in assignments to actively integrating it into their lesson planning. Findings of this study can inform instructors’ professional development and strategies for responding to the trend of Generative AI in teaching practices.
Canadian higher education instructors, particularly non-full-time instructors, are grappling with increasing challenges from precarious employment, chronic underfunding, and inequitable policy shifts. This paper draws on Harney and Moten’s The Undercommons and Thich Nhat Hanh’s mindfulness philosophy to critique the neoliberal transformation of Canadian higher education, which prioritizes profit over intellectual and social values. It explores the exploitative reliance on international students’ financial contributions and the transformative yet disruptive impact of AI on teaching roles, revealing the detrimental effects of these systems on educators’ well-being. By emphasizing the critical link between educators’ mental well-being and systemic change, the paper advocates for mindfulness as a powerful tool to process strong emotions, promote healing, and inspire the creation of alternative spaces for resistance and meaningful reform.
This interview with Professor Timothy Mitchison from a leading U.S. medical school explores his evolving use of generative artificial intelligence (AI), particularly ChatGPT, in research and doctoral education. The conversation examines how he incorporates AI into literature searches, hypothesis generation, experimental design, coding support, and laboratory communication, while also noting persistent limitations such as inaccurate references and conceptual errors. Beyond technical applications, TM reflects on how AI reshapes cognitive effort, writing practices, and the dynamics of graduate supervision. He highlights both the risks of cognitive offloading, where students may bypass deeper engagement with learning, and the potential for AI to support creativity, accelerate routine tasks, and foster collaborative dialogue between supervisors, students, and AI tools. The discussion also addresses broader questions of knowledge creation, mentorship, and the role of AI in shaping higher education. By situating AI adoption within the everyday practices of scientific research and graduate training, this interview offers valuable insights for academics, supervisors, and students navigating the promises and pitfalls of integrating AI into teaching and learning.
This research aims to explore how English as a Foreign Language learners interact with English-language educational material on Instagram, using the framework of Critical Digital Literacy (CDL). Utilizing a qualitative approach, the study included 13 university students from diverse educational backgrounds, self-identified as English learners following multiple English-teaching Instagram accounts. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and digital diaries, which were gathered in a one-month period. The interviews and digital diaries were analyzed by thematic and content analysis based on key CDL constructs, including authorship awareness, ideological critique, and digital agency. Three prominent themes surfaced: (1) trust, credibility, and the problem of invisible authorship; (2) platform pressures and the influence of performative content; and (3) passive consumption and the limits of motivation. While the participants demonstrated some level of critical awareness, their evaluation and reflection practices were lacking and underdeveloped. The study indicates that it is crucial to explicitly integrate CDL principles into EFL teaching practices. This integration would provide learners with the ability to critically evaluate the credibility and educational value of informal digital learning resources. The research adds to the expanding literature on informal digital language learning and emphasizes the need for further empirical studies into teaching methods that promote reflective and engaged use of social media-based educational platforms.
I came to A Pedagogy of Kindness not through an abstract interest in affective approaches to teaching, but through a moment of professional recognition. While reviewing a draft of my teaching philosophy statement for my HERDSA (Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia) Fellowship portfolio, my mentor observed that much of my teaching and mentoring practice appeared to be grounded in what she depicted as a pedagogy of kindness. At the time, I had not articulated my work in these terms. The comment prompted both curiosity and reflection. I was curious as to whether such a pedagogy had been expressed with conceptual clarity and scholarly rigour, and reflective about why I had long enacted these practices without clearly theorising them. Catherine J. Denial’s book responds directly to this tension. She insists that kindness in higher education is intentional, ethical, and intellectually serious. Kindness, as Denial conceptualises it, is not sentimental softness, but a deliberate pedagogical stance that shapes how educators relate to students, colleagues, and themselves. This positioning is consistent with recent higher education scholarship that argues kindness deserves clearer conceptual definition and stronger empirical attention, as opposed to being treated as an intuitive personal trait (Fox & Aspland, 2024). My own educational practice spans language teaching, TESOL scholarship, and academic development work coaching educators across multiple campuses and disciplines. I often describe myself as a bridge builder in higher education, connecting cultures, disciplines, and levels of expertise through equity, collaboration, and scholarly inquiry, shaped by a career across varied institutional contexts. Reading Denial’s book helped me recognise that what I have framed as bridge building also carries a more precise pedagogical identity, namely, kindness as an enacted ethic, expressed through design choices, discourse practices, and the everyday ways we make learning possible.
The dominance of Global North epistemology in education has resulted in the marginalisation of Indigenous and Global South knowledge systems, reinforcing systemic inequities and epistemic injustice. This study explores the integration of indigenous first nation Blackfoot Values into teacher training and professional development in UK Higher Education as a means to challenge these hierarchies and develop intercultural competencies (ICC) among educators. Drawing on critical discourses of decolonisation, the study interrogates the erasure of Indigenous contributions to mainstream educational theories - most notably, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, which was influenced by Blackfoot philosophy yet remains framed within a Eurocentric paradigm. Through thematic analysis of participant reflections, this research highlights how engaging with non-Western or Global South epistemologies fosters critical thinking, enhances cultural responsiveness, and cultivates reflective educational practices. Findings indicate that exposure to Indigenous frameworks encourages educators to reconsider pedagogical approaches, acknowledge diverse worldviews, and promote more inclusive learning environments. The study underscores the necessity of embedding Indigenous knowledge in higher education curricula, advocating for epistemological plurality to create critically engaged educators and learners.
In this interview, Professor Simon Lindgren – Professor of Sociology at Umeå University, Sweden, and founder of the DIGSUM Centre for Digital Social Research – reflects on the intellectual trajectories, institutional frustrations, and critical theoretical commitments that underpin his recent and forthcoming scholarship on artificial intelligence. Drawing on Critical Theory of AI (2024), the Handbook of Critical Studies of Artificial Intelligence (2023), and the forthcoming Discourse Machines (2026), Lindgren argues that AI functions as an “empty signifier” – a concept sufficiently loose to serve almost any ideological agenda, yet firm enough to reshape policy, power relations, and everyday life. He critiques responsible AI and AI ethics frameworks as structurally insufficient and introduces his concept of “bias bias” to describe the tendency to reduce systemic inequalities, such as racism and sexism, to technical calibration problems. Lindgren addresses the deepening of inequality through corporate concentration of AI development, the marginalisation of minority languages, and the collision between cheating discourse and efficiency discourse within universities. He advocates for a literacy-centred, de-dramatising pedagogical response to generative AI, stressing that domain knowledge remains essential for meaningful human–AI collaboration. The interview concludes with Lindgren’s clarification that critical scholarship is not anti-technology per se but is fundamentally opposed to the capitalist structures and determinist logic that currently govern AI’s development and deployment.
The rapid integration of social media into higher education has transformed pedagogical practices, research dissemination, and academic collaboration, yet the methodological details of studies examining these developments remain underexplored. This systematic literature review addresses this gap by analysing 60 empirical studies (2022–2024) to map research designs used in studies examining social media use in higher education. Guided by the PRISMA framework, the review synthesises methodologies, theoretical frameworks, participant demographics, and emerging trends. Findings reveal a predominance of quantitative approaches, with surveys as the primary method, underscoring a focus on generalisable insights into usage patterns and academic outcomes. Qualitative and mixed-method designs are less prevalent but provide important depth for exploring digital wellbeing and student agency. Geographically, studies from Asia are strongly represented, particularly Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, and India, reflecting regional emphasis on digital pedagogy, while underrepresented regions highlight gaps in global inclusivity. Thematic analysis identifies six emerging trends shaping research design: technology-driven analytics, digital wellbeing frameworks, crisis-responsive methodologies post-COVID-19, theory-guided models, student co-creation paradigms, and cross-cultural comparative studies. Despite these advancements, 38% of studies lack explicit theoretical foundations, limiting conceptual depth. Ethical considerations, particularly regarding AI tools and data privacy, are increasingly salient but inconsistently addressed. The study advocates for methodological diversification, prioritising longitudinal, ethnographic, and participatory designs to capture evolving digital pedagogies.
