AI Tools in Higher Education through the Lens of the Social-Institutional Paradigm of Social Intercourse
The paper explores the fundamental characteristics of the socio-institutional paradigm used to study “social intercourse” (“obschenie”) in social philosophy. It also discusses the implications of this paradigm for higher education studies. Within this context, the authors view higher education as a...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Moscow Polytechnic University
2025-07-01
|
| Series: | Высшее образование в России |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://vovr.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/5646 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | The paper explores the fundamental characteristics of the socio-institutional paradigm used to study “social intercourse” (“obschenie”) in social philosophy. It also discusses the implications of this paradigm for higher education studies. Within this context, the authors view higher education as a process of social interactions between faculty and students. The starting point of the paper’s argument is an understanding of social intercourse (“obschenie”) as a multilevel social phenomenon, an adequate philosophical reflection of which implies three research paradigms: information-instrumental, existential-phenomenological, and social-institutional. Taking into account the impulsive expansion of AI instruments into everyday life, the authors promote the social-institutional paradigm for higher education social analytics, highlighting its emphasis on the transformation of university social relations. After a rather short overview of the socio-institutional paradigm within philosophy, the authors then examine promising avenues of contemporary social science research relevant to this paradigm. The authors identify three most promising areas: the development of microsociology and sociology of emotions toward the analysis of social structures and relations (R. Collins, J. Barbalet), institutional ethnography (D. Smith), and philosophical and anthropological rethinking of Marx’s heritage (D. Graeber, P. Virno). For each of the conceptual frames, the authors formulate research questions about higher education in the age of AI. These questions specify further directions for the social analytics of higher education that avoid both techno-optimism and techno-pessimism. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0869-3617 2072-0459 |