The AI Turn in Higher Education: From Labour Market to Employment Challenges
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61007/QdC.2026.1.401Keywords:
Intelligenza Artificiale (IA), istruzioneinclusione, disuguaglianza, alfabetizzazione digitaleAbstract
In the contemporary educational landscape, Artificial Intelligence (AI) emerges as both a catalyst for innovation and a potential source of inequality (Boriati e D’Ambrosio, 2025). This study investigates the relationship between the use of AI tools and the processes of studying, writing, and producing knowledge among university students. Grounded in a socio-educational framework, the research aims to explore whether AI functions as an inclusive technology that democratises access to learning, or whether it reinforces existing educational divides and social inequalities (Warschauer, 2004; Couldry e Mejias, 2019; van Dijk, 2020). These perspectives enable a multidimensional understanding of how AI uses intersect with cultural capital, digital competence, and educational-labour opportunity (Archer, 2007; Livingstone, 2009). Preliminary reflections suggest that the integration of AI in education cannot be understood merely in technological terms but must be situated within institutional and social contexts that either promote or limit inclusion. The capacity of AI to enhance learning depends on students’ access to resources, institutional support, and the development of critical digital literacies (DigComp 3.0). Universities and schools are thus called to act not only as sites of technological adoption but also as spaces for the social negotiation of digital responsibility and epistemic justice (Facer e Selwyn, 2021). In conclusion, AI should be viewed not merely as a neutral tool but as a social artifact embedded in power relations (Foucault, 1980; Castells, 1996; Feenberg, 1999), capable of both expanding and constraining educational inclusion. The challenge for educators and policymakers lies in transforming AI from a potential driver of inequality into an instrument of democratic learning and social empowerment.
References
Alvarez, I. M., & Olivera-Smith, M. (2013). Learning in social networks: Rationale and ideas for its implementation in higher education. Education Sciences, 3(3), 314-325. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci3030314.
Beck, U. (1986). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage Publications.
Bertagna, L., & Barone, C. (2021). Digital inequalities in higher education: The Italian case. Sociologia Italiana, 13(2), 45-63.
Boriati, D. (2025). Promoting AI Literacy in Contemporary Society. A Sociological Perspective. Sociology Study, 15(3), 103-110. doi: 10.17265/2159-5526/2025.03.001.
Boriati, D., & D’Ambrosio, M. (2025). Artificial intelligence and literacy. Promoting a human-centric sociological approach to overcome prejudice and foster social inclusion. Community Notebook. People, Education and Welfare in the Society 5.0, 1(1), 183-211. https://doi.org/10.61007/QdC.2025.1.272.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Eds.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). Westport: Greenwood.
Bourdieu, P. (2011). Sul concetto di campo in sociologia. Rome: Armando Editore.
Bourdieu, P. (2021). Sistema, Habitus, Campo. Sociologia generale Vol. 2. Milano: Mimesis.
Brouwer, J., van de Werfhorst, H. G., & de Graaf, P. M. (2020). Social networks, social capital, social support and academic success in higher education: A systematic review with a special focus on ‘underrepresented’ students. Educational Research Review, 29, 100307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100307.
Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society (Vol. 1). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Chaker, R., & Impedovo, M. A. (2020). The moderating effect of social capital on co-regulated learning for MOOC achievement. Educational Information Technologies, 26(1), 899-919. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10293-2.
Chiu, T.K.F., Ahmad, Z., Ismailov, M., Sanus I.T. (2024). What are artificial intelligence, literacy and competency? A comprehensive framework to support them. Computers and Education Open Volume 6, June 2024, 100171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100171.
Corbetta, P. (2014). Metodologia e tecniche della ricerca sociale. Vol. 2: Le tecniche quantitative. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Cortoni, I. (2025). Il capitale sociale. Contesti e pratiche generative nell’era digitale. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
Cosgrove, J., & Cachia, R., DigComp 3.0: European Digital Competence Framework - Fifth Edition, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2025, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/0001149, in https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC144121.
Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Standford: Stanford University Press.
Di Bari, C. (2023). Dal digital divide all’inclusione digitale: compiti pedagogici per ridurre le disuguaglianze sociali con le nuove tecnologie. Studi Sulla Formazione-Open Journal of Education, 26(2), 207-222. https://doi.org/10.36253/ssf-14988.
Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1), 93-106.
Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology. London: Routledge. Floridi, L. (2025). La differenza fondamentale. Artificial Agency: una nuova filosofia dell’intelligenza artificiale. Milano: Mondadori.
Foucault, M. (1975). Surveiller Et Punir. Naissance De la Prison. Paris: Gallimard.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977 (C. Gordon, Ed.; trans. C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Mepham, & K. Soper). New York: Pantheon Books.
García, A. C., Gil-Mediavilla, M., Álvarez, I., & Casares, M. de los Á. (2020). The influence of social networks within educational and social fields: A comparative study between two generations of online students. Sustainability, 12(23), 9941. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239941.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Giddens, A. (1994). Beyond left and right: The future of radical politics. Standford: Stanford University Press.
Goastellec, G. (2011). Measuring inequalities in higher education: a politics of science. London Review of Education, 9(1), 71-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/14748460.2011.550437.
GoStudent. (2025). The future of education: GoStudent Education Report 2025. GoStudent: https://www.gostudent.org/static/documents/en-gb/education-report/2025.pdf.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling society: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. (2009). Introduction. In: S. Livingstone & L. Haddon (Eds.) Kids online: opportunities and risks for children (pp. 1-6). Bristol: The Policy Press.
Lombi, L. (2015). Le web survey. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Standford: Stanford University Press.
Martini, E., Sgambato, M. C. (2025). Digital Inequalities and Access to Technology: Analyzing How Digital Tools Exacerbate or Mitigate Social Inequalities. Societies, 15, 318. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15110318.
Ragnedda, M., & Muschert, G. W. (2023). From digital divide to digital capital: The role of education and digital skills in social media participation. Universal Access in the Information Society, 23, 1657-1669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00961-0.
Robson, K., & Bottausci, C. (2018). The sociology of translation and accounting inscriptions: Reflections on Latour and Accounting Research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 54, 60-75.
Sen, A. K. (1992). Inequality re-examined. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Sen, A. K. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van Dijk, J. (2005). The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Information Society. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Van Dijk, J. (2020). The Digital Divide. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Warschauer, M. (2004). Of digital divides and social multipliers: Combining language and technology for human development. Information and communication technologies in the teaching and learning of foreign languages: State of the art, needs and perspectives (pp. 46-52). Moscow: UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education.
Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121-136. https://doi.org/10.2307/20024652.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Community Notebook. People, Education and Welfare in the Society 5.0

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.




