Generative AI and training employees with special needs
Abstract
Purpose The viewpoint paper aims to highlight the assistive role that Generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) can play in the design of learning and development programs for employees with special needs. The article discusses the challenges, benefits and reasons why Gen AI should be used to manage diversity, equity and inclusion by creating personalized and customized training and development programs. Design/methodology/approach The viewpoint paper is based on reviewing articles and videos on the application of Gen AI in learning and development. Findings Gen AI offers immense opportunities to design personalized learning solutions for employees with special needs due to disability that can be physical or cognitive. The AI-based solutions support special learners by customizing assistive technology-based solutions and content based on the level of disability and need of the learner. This paper also highlights the importance of synergy between the training department, government and technology solution providers. Originality/value The viewpoint paper fills in an important gap by discussing the role that Gen AI can play by facilitating the learning and development of employees with unique skills.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The possibility of net benefit of generative AI for students with disabilities has been raised but not systematically tested.
“Within this contested terrain, the possibility of net benefit for students with disabilities has been raised but not systematically tested.”
From The Use of Generative AI by Students with Disabilities in UK Higher Education: A Mixed-Methods Survey of 125 Students (2025) · cites this paper as Upadhyay (2024)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The use of generative AI by students with disabilities in higher education
Zhao, X., Cox, A., & Chen, X. (2025) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2025.101014 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Shepherd, N. J. (2025) · Journal of Knowledge Learning and Science Technology ISSN: 2959-6386 (online) · doi:10.60087/jklst.vol4.n4.016
“Upadhyay (2024) extended the argument from learners to employees, framing customised assistive support as one of the technology's clearer commercial value propositions.”
- Authors
- Upadhyay, A. K.
- Affiliations
- Symbiosis International University (IN)
- Corresponding author
- Upadhyay, Ashwani Kumar
- Venue
- Strategic HR Review
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2024-07-22
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 221-224
- ISSN
- 1475-4398 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4400826671
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 4.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Strategic HR Review (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › AI and HR Technologies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Education and Employment
- Keywords
- generative AI, employee training, disability, personalized learning, learning and development, diversity, equity, and inclusion, assistive technology, customized training programs, cognitive disability, physical disability
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