Towards decolonising the ethics of AI in education
Open accessAbstract
This paper seeks to contribute an analysis to the ongoing debate about how international organisations govern education futures through Eurocentric policy initiatives. Using thematic analysis situated within decolonial methodologies to review two foundational documents pertaining to the ethics of AI in education, I argue that these documents are best understood as sites of epistemic production about how governance of AI in education is taking place through the development of a Eurocentric system of values. The main assumption is that discourse constructs reality rather than simply reflecting it. As such, the study of texts in this manner can uncover how social reality is systematically created to govern the behaviour of individuals and groups.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
GenAI tools are often embedded in systems that reproduce colonial legacies of epistemic erasure, algorithmic exclusion, and knowledge extraction.
“While GenAI offers potential benefits for Indigenous communitiessuch as language revitalisation and culturally grounded digital storytellingthese same tools are often embedded in systems that reproduce colonial legacies of epistemic erasure, algorithmic exclusion, and knowledge extraction (Nemorin, 2024).”
From Towards a decolonial AI sovereignty model for indigenous educational settings (2026) · cites this paper as Nemorin, 2024
Nemorin argues that AI ethics frameworks can bury local knowledges (p. 1266), and describes AI-related extractivism and the destruction of Indigenous knowledges (p. 1264). The Introduction also names algorithmic exclusion as an AI concern and includes generative AI among AI technologies. These arguments support the colonial-harms framing, but the paper makes them about AI broadly rather than establishing that GenAI tools specifically are often embedded in such systems. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredCommunities from which Indigenous knowledge originates are often structurally excluded from decision-making, ownership, and benefit-sharing.
“Yet the communities from which this knowledge originates are often structurally excluded from decision-making, ownership, and benefit-sharing (Nemorin, 2024).”
From Towards a decolonial AI sovereignty model for indigenous educational settings (2026) · cites this paper as Nemorin, 2024
Nemorin argues that Indigenous perspectives are absent from the AI-in-education frameworks she examines and that local knowledges are not incorporated into ethics-building (pp. 1266–1267). This supports the decision-making aspect in that setting, but the paper does not establish the broader claim that originating communities are often excluded from ownership or benefit-sharing. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredGenAI's infrastructures frequently extend long-standing dynamics of control-data colonialism-embedding corporate and state authority into systems trained on Indigenous languages and cultural materials.
“These cases reveal that GenAI's infrastructures frequently extend long-standing dynamics of controlwhat Couldry and Mejias (2019) term data colonialismembedding corporate and state authority into systems trained on Indigenous languages and cultural materials (Nemorin, 2024;Nyaaba et al., 2024).”
From Towards a decolonial AI sovereignty model for indigenous educational settings (2026) · cites this paper as Nemorin, 2024
Nemorin links AI to data colonialism and industry’s extraction of data (p. 1264), and discusses political authority and harm to Indigenous knowledges (pp. 1264–1266). The paper does not establish the more specific claim that GenAI systems are trained on Indigenous languages and cultural materials, or that corporate and state authority is embedded in those systems through such training. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines
Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2 · Cited by 6,220 · see citing works
Ethics of AI in Education: Towards a Community-Wide Framework
Holmes, W., Porayska-Pomsta, K., Holstein, K., Sutherland, E., Baker, T., Shum, S. B., Santos, O. C., Rodrigo, M. T., Cukurova, M., Bittencourt, I. I., et al. (2022) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-021-00239-1 · Cited by 1,437 · see citing works
Ethical principles for artificial intelligence in education
Nguyen, A., Ngo, H. N., Hong, Y., Dang, B., & Nguyen, B.-P. T. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-022-11316-w · Cited by 1,228 · see citing works
Translating Principles into Practices of Digital Ethics: Five Risks of Being Unethical
Floridi, L. (2019) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-019-00354-x · Cited by 524 · cited 1× · see citing works
“All told, the ethics of AI has garnered a great deal of attention from scholars around the world (Floridi 2019; Jobin, Ienca, and Vayena 2019) as well as leading initiatives emerging in predominantly Western contexts.”
Schiff, D. (2022) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-021-00270-2 · Cited by 489 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…conversation around the ethics of AIED, there is only now an emerging literature on the ethical principles that should be guiding the design, development and implementation of ethical AI into education (Nguyen et al. 2023; Pomsta-Porayska, Holmes, and Nemorin 2022; Schiff 2022; Holmes et al. 2021).”
Can artificial intelligence be decolonized?
Adams, R. (2021) · Interdisciplinary Science Reviews · doi:10.1080/03080188.2020.1840225 · Cited by 194 · see citing works
Discrimination, artificial intelligence, and algorithmic decision-making
Borgesius, F. Z. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.13465 · Cited by 152 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…and the general public have become aware of various issues pertaining to the deployment of AI into society such as labour displacement (Acemoglu and Restrepo 2019), algorithmic exclusion (Noble 2018), bias and discrimination (Borgesius 2018) and privacy and security management (Li and Zhang 2017).”
Zembylas, M. (2023) · Learning, Media and Technology · doi:10.1080/17439884.2021.2010094 · Cited by 142 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…requires decolonial thinking to be strategic and to be able to locate ways in which one might reveal hierarchies of Western ideals as well as providing alternatives that speak to pluriversalism – acknowledging there are values that emerge from dialogue across a range of spaces (Zembylas 2023).”
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Towards a decolonial AI sovereignty model for indigenous educational settings
Mbah, M. F., & Jarvis, L. (2026) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2026.2626631 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
- Authors
- Nemorin, S.
- Affiliations
- Monash University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Nemorin, Selena
- ORCID
- Nemorin, Selena
- Venue
- Globalisation, Societies and Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2024-04-08
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1260-1272
- ISSN
- 1476-7724 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-7732
- OpenAlex
- W4394615179
- Cited by
- 41
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 31 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 2
- FWCI
- 65.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Globalisation Societies and Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Monash University Research Portal (Monash University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Global Educational Policies and Reforms
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Decolonial Thought and Epistemologies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital Education and Society
- Keywords
- decolonization, AI ethics, educational technology, Eurocentrism, international organizations, AI governance, decolonial methodologies, discourse analysis, epistemic violence, global education governance
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
