CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 12Ethics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in EducationFeminist Epistemology and Gender Studies

Generative artificial intelligence and epistemic (in)justice: perspectives from higher education students in the global north and south

Open access
Olaniyan, Yusuf Damilola, Martins, Mercy Onyemaechi, Al Maqrashi, Rahab Harib·2026·Frontiers in Human Dynamics
DOI 10.3389/fhumd.2026.1790324
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In this research, we explore how students from the Global North and Global South understand the role of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) in shaping access to knowledge and epistemic (in)justice in higher education. We draw on theoretical logic of epistemic justice and postcolonial framework to explicate how GAI mediates knowledge hierarchies across diverse epistemological contexts. Using a qualitative approach, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 university students, five from the Global North and five from the Global South, to understand their everyday engagements with GAI. We found that students from the Global South often rely on GAI out of necessity to navigate infrastructural and institutional constraints, which limit their epistemic agency to choose whether to engage with such technologies. While GAI enables access to paywalled research and institutional resources, participants expressed concerns about the reliability, authority, and contextual grounding of GAI-generated knowledge. In contrast, students from Global North described GAI as a convenient but non-essential tool and were more critical of its epistemic limitations. Overall, our findings visibilised GAI’s dual role as both a knowledge democratizing resource and a tool with the potential to become a digital colonizer. We therefore recommend improvement beyond prompting or more training data to a new standard of epistemic accountability, where GAI systems are designed to disclose their limits, qualify their claims, and resist the temptation to perform authority where none exists.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fhumd.2026.1790324

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. e30696 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.
  3. Couldry, N., and Mejias, U. A. (2019). The Costs of Connection: How Data is Colonizing Human Life and Appropriating it for Capitalism. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  4. D'Ignazio, C., and Klein, L. F. (2023). Data Feminism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  5. Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.
  6. Falmagne, J. C., Cosyn, E., Doignon, J. P., and Thiéry, N. (2003). "The assessment of knowledge, in theory and in practice, " in IEMC'03 Proceedings. Managing Technologically Driven Organizations: The Human Side of Innovation and Change (IEEE Cat. No. 03CH37502), (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE), 609-615.
  7. Helm, P., Bella, G., Koch, G., and Giunchiglia, F. (2023). Diversity and language technol- ogy: how techno-linguistic bias can cause epistemic injustice, 1-22. doi: 10.48550/ arXiv.2307.13714 · DOI
  8. Kvale, S., and Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
  9. Mhlambi, S. (2020). From rationality to relationality: Ubuntu as an ethical and human rights framework for artificial intelligence governance. Cambridge, MA: Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Harvard Kennedy School. Available at: https://www.readkong.com/ page/from-rationality-to-relationality-ubuntu-as-an-ethical-8122211 (Accessed December 12, 2025).
  10. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. New York University Press.
  11. Settles, B., and Meeder, B. (2016). "A trainable spaced repetition model for language learn- ing, " in Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. 1848-1858.
  12. Sumakul, D. T. Y., Hamied, F. A., and Sukyadi, D. (2022). "Students' perceptions of the use of AI in a writing class, " in 67th TEFLIN International Virtual Conference & the 9th ICOELT 2021 (TEFLIN ICOELT 2021), (Paris, France: Atlantis Press), 52-57.
  13. Winkler, R., and Söllner, M. (2018). "Unleashing the potential of chatbots in education: a state-of-the-art analysis, " in Academy of Management Proceedings Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Olaniyan, Y. D., Martins, M. O., & Al Maqrashi, R. H.
Affiliations
  • University of Bath (GB)
  • Department of Education, University of Bath
Corresponding author
Olaniyan, Yusuf Damilola
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Human Dynamics
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2026-03-27
Volume
8
ISSN
2673-2726 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fhumd.2026.1790324
OpenAlex
W7141322398
Cited by
8
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 8
FWCI
45.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Human Dynamics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
University of Bath
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
Keywords
generative AI, epistemic justice, epistemic injustice, university students, Global North and Global South, postcolonialism, knowledge hierarchies, access to knowledge, epistemic agency, digital colonialism, epistemic accountability, democratization of knowledge

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