Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper analyzes how generative AI in higher education perpetuates epistemic coloniality by marginalizing non-hegemonic knowledge, specifically focusing on the experiences of people with disabilities. It argues that biases in training data, which are predominantly Anglophone and Western-centric, reinforce reductive stereotypes and exclude disabled individuals from design processes. The research explores the potential of researcher-AI hybridization to preserve epistemic plurality, while also acknowledging the limitations of algorithmic correction as a purely palliative strategy.
Generative AI's promise of democratizing knowledge creation masks a troubling reality: it actively silences already marginalized voices, particularly those of disabled individuals in higher education.
Generative artificial intelligence redefines higher education by restructuring the processes through which scientific knowledge is produced and validated. These systems are not neutral; they actively contribute to the marginalization of non-hegemonic epistemologies. This research draws upon educational sciences, critical technology studies, and disability studies to demonstrate that training datasets, which remain predominantly Anglophone and Western-centric, reinforce epistemic coloniality. The situation of persons with disabilities provides a particularly clear illustration of this phenomenon. Technological architectures frequently confine these individuals to reductive stereotypes or exclude them from the design process, leading to a double marginalization. This article examines whether a hybridization between the researcher and the machine might preserve epistemic plurality, while acknowledging the structural limitations inherent in algorithmic correction when used as a purely palliative strategy.