Introduction

The use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming how we conduct research, write, and disseminate our findings.1 What is important to note from the outset is that artificial intelligence will not replace human ingenuity and initiative. Human intelligence remains the true owner and controller of AI. Algorithms cannot replace these.

However, if we allow AI to think on our behalf, we risk losing our capacity for curiosity, critical reasoning, originality, and ethical responsibility, which constitute the foundation of scholarship. AI cannot replace the scholar. It cannot replace the scholar. At most, it can only serve as a research tool or an assistant. As social scientists, we live and operate in a laboratory of human interaction and listen to people living in communities. This includes collecting stories of lived experiences and interpreting social realities, using this knowledge to inspire transformation and build peace in our countries. That responsibility cannot be taken up by a machine.

As a Kenyan scholar working at the intersection of climate-smart agribusiness, livelihood resilience, and peacebuilding, I have engaged generative AI tools in my academic writing, communication, dissemination, and postgraduate supervision.

Reflections on AI, Research and Practice

My view on AI is grounded in my work as a researcher. It is a tool that guides in thinking and structuring ideas and information. As an academic, it helps me polish research questions, structure arguments, summarize literature, and enhance clarity of expression. It aids me in outlining and spotting conceptual deficiencies and reworking complicated arguments. Nonetheless, I refrain from employing AI for data generation, reference fabrication, or as an alternative source for theoretical reasoning.

My fieldwork is primarily based on engagement with smallholder crop and agro-pastoral farmers, youth entrepreneurs, and policy actors. This is a deeply human process. Meaning in peacebuilding research comes from the context and everyday experiences of living in post-conflict or conflict-affected settings. This is not automatable.

AI: A Great Opportunity for African Scholarship

Firstly, AI can level the playing field of African scholarship. African researchers at the early stage of their career often work in environments with a high teaching load, but they themselves receive little mentorship or editorial support. AI could help such researchers by offering guidance on how to structure their dissertations or arguments. If used responsibly, AI can assist them with organizing their thoughts, navigating methodological hurdles, surveying relevant literature, and improving the quality of their academic writing.

Secondly, AI speeds up different processes involved in academic research and writing.2 The efficiency can be highly valuable for research on peacebuilding, particularly where timing matters. When communities experience something such as climate stress, land disputes, or youth unemployment, evidence-based research can inform policy interventions and actions promptly. AI can help make the writing of draft papers more efficient, but it cannot replace fieldwork.

Thirdly, AI helps with interdisciplinary translation.3 Various academic disciplines are involved in peacebuilding; these include economics, sociology, political science, environmental studies, and governance analysis.4 Interdisciplinary synthesis is essential in my own research on climate-smart agribusiness and conflict reduction. An AI tool could help clarify unfamiliar methodologies and summarize debates across disciplines. This can strengthen analytical integration.

Fourth, AI may enhance the global visibility of African scholarship. If properly harnessed, AI-assisted editing can polish the quality of academic writing without altering its intellectual substance. This matters because African scholars are sometimes disadvantaged by linguistic presentation rather than conceptual weakness.5

Emerging Ethical Challenges in the Use of AI

One major risk in using AI for research is fabrication or misinformation.6 In my experience, AI can produce plausible but fictitious references. Such inaccuracies may not be obvious to new researchers. However, through credible academic databases, I have learnt to manually verify each source suggested by AI. Scholarly integrity requires vigilance.

Another worrying issue is the high likelihood of plagiarism, as well as intellectual dependency. Over-dependence on AI-generated text can weaken originality and drown out the voice of the scholar. Peacebuilding research requires the researcher’s reflexivity and awareness of positionality and representation. If scholars allow AI to become a substitute for reasoning, their originality, creativity, and innovativeness will either diminish or be significantly undermined. That is precisely what we must avoid.

Another contentious issue in the conversation regarding the risks of using AI for research is the issue of epistemic justice. Most generative AI systems depend primarily on the data from the Global North.7 The adoption of AI-generated frameworks by African scholars, without critical consideration, will perpetuate existing Western narratives regarding conflict, peace, and development, while excluding indigenous African knowledge systems and perspectives. Scholars must understand that African peacebuilding research should prioritize local knowledge, histories, and community experiences.

There is also an issue of unequal access. Advanced AI tools are not affordable to all African institutions. With no policy attention, adoption of this technology may also widen existing knowledge gaps rather than bridge them.

Personal Reflections on the Principles of AI Use

In navigating the foregoing realities, I follow several personal principles.

I view the ethical commitment to intellectual autonomy and accountability as essential when using AI responsibly. In my opinion, AI should only be a research assistant to help with organization, language enhancement, or synthesis, but never actually make final decisions. Theoretical framing, interpretation, and normative positioning should flow from my own critical engagement and fieldwork experience.

I also think that everything AI generates should be fact-checked independently. Specifically, I believe this ethical observance to be particularly important when African scholarship interrogates sensitive socio-political and developmental realities. Without critical scrutiny, AI can reproduce bias, misrepresent local contexts, and dilute indigenous knowledge systems.

African social scientists have the duty not merely to publish but to create knowledge from African perspectives, with a focus on knowledge sovereignty, based on original ideas, transformation, dignity, and peace. Our creativity, ethical judgment, and lived experiences with communities matter. The future of scholarship in Africa will not be about resisting AI or submitting to it, but about governing it.8 If we keep AI use anchored in the realm of human intelligence, creativity, and ethical responsibility, it will enhance our work. If we lose control, we risk the integrity of our scholarship. The use of AI as a tool could make scholarship easier, but it cannot replace moral judgment, context, or intellectual effort.

Endnotes

  1. Wainaina, P. K., & Sun, Y. (2025). Educators’ perceptions and willingness to integrate generative artificial intelligence in teaching and research: Evidence from Kenyan higher education. Discover Education, 4, 347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00820-z
  2. Floris, F. D., & Renandya, W. A. (2025). Artificial intelligence tools for research writing: Practical tips for teachers. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 29(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.29113int2
  3. Shahmerdanova, R. (2025). Artificial intelligence in translation: Challenges and opportunities. Acta Globalis Humanitatis Linguarum, 2, 62–70.
  4. Storch, K., Liening, M. Critical reflections on peace and conflict studies: empirical insights into the self-perception of an interdisciplinary field. Z Friedens und Konflforsch14, 5–26 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42597-025-00150-9
  5. Moshtari, M., & Safarpour, A. (2024). Challenges and strategies for the internationalization of higher education in low-income East African countries. Higher Education, 87, 89–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-00994-1
  6. Park, S., & Nan, X. (2025). Generative AI and misinformation: A scoping review of the role of generative AI in the generation, detection, mitigation, and impact of misinformation. AI & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02620-3
  7. Jadon, A. (2025). Ethical AI development: Mitigating bias in generative models. In C. K. K. Reddy, S. Joseph, H. Joshi, M. Ouaissa, & M. M. Hanafiah (Eds.), Interplay of artificial general intelligence with quantum computing: Sustainable artificial intelligence-powered applications. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-87931-9_10
  8. Ayana, G., Dese, K., Nemomssa, H. D., Habtamu, B., Mellado, B., Badu, K., et al. (2024). Decolonizing global AI governance: Assessment of the state of decolonized AI governance in Sub-Saharan Africa. Royal Society Open Science, 11, Article 231994.