Fix Strydom article list numbering; add inline links (faculty-development, ethics, agency, equity, peer-review, assessment, privacy)

Author: edtechdev

articles/strydom-human-gai-paradigms-2026.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
 title: "Framing Human-AI Dynamics: An Epistemological Perspective on Generative AI Practices"
 created: "2026-08-22T17:10:00-04:00"
-updated: "2026-08-22T17:10:00-04:00"
+updated: "2026-08-22T17:25:00-04:00"
 type: article
 tags: [generative-ai, higher-ed, human-ai-collaboration, ai-literacy, educational-theory, ai-education, theory-development-aied, student-ai-interaction]
 sources: ['raw/papers/strydom-human-gai-paradigms-2026.md']
@@ -13,13 +13,9 @@ confidence: high
 ## Key Findings
 
 1. **A theory-building response to the "theory deficit."** The paper argues that educational-technology and GAI research suffers from limited theory development, and responds with a conceptual framework — grounding human-GAI engagement in Schommer's multidimensional model of personal epistemological beliefs rather than in tool-evaluation or common-sense deduction.
-
 2. **Seven enacted paradigms.** The framework theorises seven human-GAI engagement paradigms — **possibility-focused** (Optimist), **pioneering** (Dreamer), **augmented** (Enhancer), **symbiotic** (Collaborator), **guarded** (Guardian), **values-based** (Defender), and **equity** (Advocate) — each examined against the five epistemological dimensions.
-
 3. **Paradigms are enacted, not possessed.** Individuals are not fixed in a single paradigm; they move between them across contexts or adopt hybrid positions. This has direct consequences for practice — shifting engagement requires changing the socio-technical environment, not just beliefs.
-
 4. **A continuum from optimism to caution.** The paradigms span from optimistic (possibility-focused, pioneering) and capability-enhancing (augmented, symbiotic) positions to cautious (guarded), ethical (values-based), and equity-critical (equity) orientations — reflecting the full range of the field's discourse on GAI.
-
 5. **Exploratory and falsifiable by design.** The framework is explicitly untested — it cannot yet establish paradigm prevalence, stability, movement over time, or whether implied interventions work. It is offered as a heuristic and a stimulus for empirical research rather than a complete account.
 
 ## The epistemological grounding
@@ -37,18 +33,18 @@ Strydom contends these dimensions offer a productive lens on how individuals dif
 
 - **Possibility-focused (Optimist):** An optimistic epistemological stance acknowledging GAI's power to synthesise, organise, and identify patterns across large literatures. Uncertainties are viewed as sites of productivity, provided the source of knowledge is appropriately distributed between human and machine, with humans retaining final interpretive judgement.
 - **Pioneering (Dreamer):** Views GAI as a *participant* in knowledge creation rather than a means. Grapples with the philosophical implication that if innovation can be attributed to human-machine co-production, the origin of knowledge becomes an open matter. Associated with accelerating [[peer-review]], but raises speed-vs-rigour trade-offs.
-- **Augmented (Enhancer):** Views GAI as an embedded tool that becomes part of individual reasoning by changing the *organisation* of knowledge. Extends the extended-mind thesis toward an "amplified mind" — individuals actively contribute to a dynamic cognitive space while retaining interpretive agency.
-- **Symbiotic (Collaborator):** A relational, posthumanist orientation viewing human and machine cognition as permeable and entangled; knowledge is co-created via the relationship itself, with agency distributed across the human-machine dyad rather than retained individually.
+- **Augmented (Enhancer):** Views GAI as an embedded tool that becomes part of individual reasoning by changing the *organisation* of knowledge. Extends the extended-mind thesis toward an "amplified mind" — individuals actively contribute to a dynamic cognitive space while retaining interpretive [[agency]].
+- **Symbiotic (Collaborator):** A relational, posthumanist orientation viewing human and machine cognition as permeable and entangled; knowledge is co-created via the relationship itself, with [[agency]] distributed across the human-machine dyad rather than retained individually.
 - **Guarded (Guardian):** Foregrounds epistemic vigilance — interrogation of who makes knowledge claims, on what grounds, and their reliability before acceptance. Reflects concerns about detection accuracy, [[academic-integrity|academic integrity]], authorship, and techno-solutionism; not resistance but deliberate, slower verification.
-- **Values-based (Defender):** Prioritises ethical AI use and the ethics of knowledge creation — fairness, transparency, accountability, [[privacy]]. Asks not just whether claims are true but how they were arrived at responsibly.
-- **Equity (Advocate):** Foregrounds power, ideology, and equity. Recognises GAI's democratising potential while attending to digital inequality and bias — GAI trained on English-language, Western academic sources risks reproducing hierarchies of whose knowledge counts; technology is not neutral.
+- **Values-based (Defender):** Prioritises [[ethics|ethical]] AI use and the ethics of knowledge creation — fairness, transparency, accountability, [[privacy]]. Asks not just whether claims are true but how they were arrived at responsibly.
+- **Equity (Advocate):** Foregrounds power, ideology, and [[equity-in-ai-education|equity]]. Recognises GAI's democratising potential while attending to digital inequality and bias — GAI trained on English-language, Western academic sources risks reproducing hierarchies of whose knowledge counts; technology is not neutral.
 
 ## Implications for AI in education
 
 The framework reframes the human-GAI relationship from a tool-usage question into an epistemological one — how individuals *enact knowledge and learning* within human-GAI assemblages. This connects directly to the wiki's [[human-ai-collaboration]], [[student-ai-interaction]], and [[philosophy-of-ai-in-education|philosophy of AI]] threads. Practically:
 
 - **Teaching and assessment:** paradigms imply differentiated approaches — e.g., pioneering/possibility-focused alignments could be encouraged to experiment with alternative [[assessment]] formats rather than polished-product-only evidence.
-- **Professional development:** guarded orientations are not mere resistance but a coherent epistemological position requiring targeted staff development; the framework offers a diagnostic vocabulary for differentiated development.
+- **Professional development:** guarded orientations are not mere resistance but a coherent epistemological position requiring targeted [[faculty-development|staff development]]; the framework offers a diagnostic vocabulary for differentiated development.
 - **Governance and policy:** the lens can inform [[governance]] frameworks and [[educational-policy-ai|educational policy]] in multidisciplinary and professional contexts, echoing how epistemological stances shape institutional responses.
 
 The framework sits alongside other [[theory-development-aied|theory-building]] work in the corpus (epistemic co-agency, generativism, the absent cognitive baseline) in theorising how learners' relationship to AI-shaped cognition develops, while explicitly positioning itself as an exploratory heuristic requiring empirical validation.

public/llms-full.txt

@@ -45917,13 +45917,9 @@ Mihaylova, T., Logacheva, E., Hellas, A., Fan, J., Castro, F., Akram, B., Norouz
 ## Key Findings
 
 1. **A theory-building response to the "theory deficit."** The paper argues that educational-technology and GAI research suffers from limited theory development, and responds with a conceptual framework — grounding human-GAI engagement in Schommer's multidimensional model of personal epistemological beliefs rather than in tool-evaluation or common-sense deduction.
-
 2. **Seven enacted paradigms.** The framework theorises seven human-GAI engagement paradigms — **possibility-focused** (Optimist), **pioneering** (Dreamer), **augmented** (Enhancer), **symbiotic** (Collaborator), **guarded** (Guardian), **values-based** (Defender), and **equity** (Advocate) — each examined against the five epistemological dimensions.
-
 3. **Paradigms are enacted, not possessed.** Individuals are not fixed in a single paradigm; they move between them across contexts or adopt hybrid positions. This has direct consequences for practice — shifting engagement requires changing the socio-technical environment, not just beliefs.
-
 4. **A continuum from optimism to caution.** The paradigms span from optimistic (possibility-focused, pioneering) and capability-enhancing (augmented, symbiotic) positions to cautious (guarded), ethical (values-based), and equity-critical (equity) orientations — reflecting the full range of the field's discourse on GAI.
-
 5. **Exploratory and falsifiable by design.** The framework is explicitly untested — it cannot yet establish paradigm prevalence, stability, movement over time, or whether implied interventions work. It is offered as a heuristic and a stimulus for empirical research rather than a complete account.
 
 ## The epistemological grounding
@@ -45941,18 +45937,18 @@ Strydom contends these dimensions offer a productive lens on how individuals dif
 
 - **Possibility-focused (Optimist):** An optimistic epistemological stance acknowledging GAI's power to synthesise, organise, and identify patterns across large literatures. Uncertainties are viewed as sites of productivity, provided the source of knowledge is appropriately distributed between human and machine, with humans retaining final interpretive judgement.
 - **Pioneering (Dreamer):** Views GAI as a *participant* in knowledge creation rather than a means. Grapples with the philosophical implication that if innovation can be attributed to human-machine co-production, the origin of knowledge becomes an open matter. Associated with accelerating [[peer-review]], but raises speed-vs-rigour trade-offs.
-- **Augmented (Enhancer):** Views GAI as an embedded tool that becomes part of individual reasoning by changing the *organisation* of knowledge. Extends the extended-mind thesis toward an "amplified mind" — individuals actively contribute to a dynamic cognitive space while retaining interpretive agency.
-- **Symbiotic (Collaborator):** A relational, posthumanist orientation viewing human and machine cognition as permeable and entangled; knowledge is co-created via the relationship itself, with agency distributed across the human-machine dyad rather than retained individually.
+- **Augmented (Enhancer):** Views GAI as an embedded tool that becomes part of individual reasoning by changing the *organisation* of knowledge. Extends the extended-mind thesis toward an "amplified mind" — individuals actively contribute to a dynamic cognitive space while retaining interpretive [[agency]].
+- **Symbiotic (Collaborator):** A relational, posthumanist orientation viewing human and machine cognition as permeable and entangled; knowledge is co-created via the relationship itself, with [[agency]] distributed across the human-machine dyad rather than retained individually.
 - **Guarded (Guardian):** Foregrounds epistemic vigilance — interrogation of who makes knowledge claims, on what grounds, and their reliability before acceptance. Reflects concerns about detection accuracy, [[academic-integrity|academic integrity]], authorship, and techno-solutionism; not resistance but deliberate, slower verification.
-- **Values-based (Defender):** Prioritises ethical AI use and the ethics of knowledge creation — fairness, transparency, accountability, [[privacy]]. Asks not just whether claims are true but how they were arrived at responsibly.
-- **Equity (Advocate):** Foregrounds power, ideology, and equity. Recognises GAI's democratising potential while attending to digital inequality and bias — GAI trained on English-language, Western academic sources risks reproducing hierarchies of whose knowledge counts; technology is not neutral.
+- **Values-based (Defender):** Prioritises [[ethics|ethical]] AI use and the ethics of knowledge creation — fairness, transparency, accountability, [[privacy]]. Asks not just whether claims are true but how they were arrived at responsibly.
+- **Equity (Advocate):** Foregrounds power, ideology, and [[equity-in-ai-education|equity]]. Recognises GAI's democratising potential while attending to digital inequality and bias — GAI trained on English-language, Western academic sources risks reproducing hierarchies of whose knowledge counts; technology is not neutral.
 
 ## Implications for AI in education
 
 The framework reframes the human-GAI relationship from a tool-usage question into an epistemological one — how individuals *enact knowledge and learning* within human-GAI assemblages. This connects directly to the wiki's [[human-ai-collaboration]], [[student-ai-interaction]], and [[philosophy-of-ai-in-education|philosophy of AI]] threads. Practically:
 
 - **Teaching and assessment:** paradigms imply differentiated approaches — e.g., pioneering/possibility-focused alignments could be encouraged to experiment with alternative [[assessment]] formats rather than polished-product-only evidence.
-- **Professional development:** guarded orientations are not mere resistance but a coherent epistemological position requiring targeted staff development; the framework offers a diagnostic vocabulary for differentiated development.
+- **Professional development:** guarded orientations are not mere resistance but a coherent epistemological position requiring targeted [[faculty-development|staff development]]; the framework offers a diagnostic vocabulary for differentiated development.
 - **Governance and policy:** the lens can inform [[governance]] frameworks and [[educational-policy-ai|educational policy]] in multidisciplinary and professional contexts, echoing how epistemological stances shape institutional responses.
 
 The framework sits alongside other [[theory-development-aied|theory-building]] work in the corpus (epistemic co-agency, generativism, the absent cognitive baseline) in theorising how learners' relationship to AI-shaped cognition develops, while explicitly positioning itself as an exploratory heuristic requiring empirical validation.