Enterprise AI Analysis
AI for Social Responsibility: Critical Reflections on the Marketization of Education
This analysis critically examines how Artificial Intelligence for Social Responsibility (AI for SR) is enacted within Thai education, a Global South context that highlights universal dynamics of educational marketization. Drawing on critical pedagogy and the theory of lifeworld, the study reveals that AI for SR is often driven by policy compliance, funding agendas, and competitive pressures, transforming responsibility into symbolic capital.
Executive Impact Snapshot
Key insights into the transformation of educational values and roles under marketization, driven by AI for SR initiatives. These figures represent illustrative conceptual shifts.
Ethical Participation
Responsibility to Symbolic Capital
Student Output for Portfolios
Educators as Image Managers
Deep Analysis & Enterprise Applications
Select a topic to dive deeper, then explore the specific findings from the research, rebuilt as interactive, enterprise-focused modules.
Critical Pedagogy
Banking Education
Lifeworld & System
Marketization of Education
Theoretical Framework
Reclaiming Education for Liberation
Rooted in Paulo Freire's work, critical pedagogy advocates for education as a space for liberating learners from structures of power and domination. It emphasizes developing critical consciousness through questioning and dialog, connecting knowledge with real-life experiences, and fostering co-created values among teachers, learners, and communities. This approach challenges the 'banking' model of education, where measurable outcomes often take precedence over genuine ethical understanding and social justice.
The Pitfalls of Knowledge Deposit
Freire's concept of banking education describes a model where teachers "deposit" knowledge into students as if they were empty vessels. This pedagogical arrangement reinforces asymmetrical power relations, conditioning students to accept rather than question existing structures. Applied to AI for SR, this framework highlights how initiatives are incorporated as policy-driven practices, producing images of responsibility and modernity rather than fostering critical inquiry or value generation. It exemplifies the marketization of education, reframing it as a "commodity for economic competition" rather than a public right.
Navigating Societal Logics
Jürgen Habermas's theory distinguishes between the lifeworld (domain of communication, relationships, and shared meaning-making) and the system (logics of the market and state). The "colonization of the lifeworld" occurs when systemic imperatives encroach upon and reduce value-oriented communication to instrumental rationality. In AI for SR education, this framework reveals how initiatives driven by state policy and standardized indicators transform what should be value-based learning into mechanisms for producing institutional images of "responsibility" and "modernity" for market advantage.
Education as a Market Commodity
Marketization describes the shift of education from a public right to a market commodity, primarily driven by modernization and globalization. This process views education as a mechanism for producing human capital and fueling the knowledge economy, leading to curricular reforms, digital technology integration, and standardized assessments. In the Global South, these neoliberal reforms reframe education as a tool for global competitiveness, positioning schools as market actors rather than social institutions, often intensifying inequalities and diminishing equitable provision.
Bridging Critique for Action
This study's theoretical framework integrates Paulo Freire's critical pedagogy and Jürgen Habermas's lifeworld/system theory to analyze how marketization shapes AI for SR education. It highlights how modernization and globalization reinforce power structures, while Freire's concept of critical consciousness and Habermas's lifeworld provide frameworks for resistance. Together, these theories illuminate how AI for SR becomes a site of struggle between systemic control and emancipatory pedagogy, calling for education to be reclaimed as a public good for social justice.
AI for SR: The Commodification Pathway
This pathway illustrates how AI for Social Responsibility in Thai education is transformed from a practice of ethical engagement into a tool for market-driven objectives, shifting its intrinsic value.
Ethical Participation
→
Policy Compliance
→
Funding Agendas
→
Portfolio Competition
→
Symbolic Capital
| Concept | Traditional Aim | Marketized Reality |
|---|---|---|
| Skills Focus |
|
|
| Motivation |
|
|
Social Responsibility as a Strategic Asset
Commodified Performance SR's New Role in EducationThe study finds that SR is increasingly treated not as a moral practice but as a performance-driven activity aligned with institutional image-building and resource mobilization.
| Concept | Original Goal | Current Function |
|---|---|---|
| Project Basis |
|
|
| Outcome Focus |
|
|
Case Study: The 'Award-Winning' Project Dilemma
Projects are increasingly designed to meet external evaluation criteria and secure awards, often at the expense of genuine community impact or critical inquiry, turning learning into a performance for symbolic gain. Thai educational structures compel students and teachers to produce tangible projects that align with institutional and external requirements. Projects are shaped by competition criteria, funding priorities, and institutional strategies, rather than functioning as spaces for questioning, dialog, or reflection. This redefines project-based learning as a compliance-oriented practice, where success is measured by alignment with external benchmarks rather than by ethical inquiry or social relevance. A secondary school student noted, "Our teacher said that if we won awards with the project, we might get scholarships. So, we tried to make it look impressive with academic references, even though we weren't sure if it really helped the community or if people would use it." (secondary school student, personal communication, 14 June 2025). This illustrates how projects are tailored for appearance over authentic impact.
Global South Dynamics: AI & Educational Marketization
Thailand's approach to AI for SR mirrors Global South trends where education is leveraged for national competitiveness, often reproducing dependency structures and prioritizing market alignment over social justice and local epistemologies. The Thai case exemplifies broader patterns in the Global South, where AI and digital education are introduced through developmentalist discourses focused on global competitiveness. This often overlooks local epistemologies and reinforces dependency structures. SR initiatives are integrated to create business value and align with global standards like ISO 26000, turning ethical commitment into a discursive device for legitimizing AI-driven innovation (Boossabong 2017; Biccum 2024). This reflects how global pressures translate into everyday school practices, colonizing the educational lifeworld.
Calculate Your Enterprise AI ROI
Understand the potential financial and efficiency gains by implementing AI solutions tailored to your industry's needs, informed by the dynamics of educational marketization.
Projected Annual Savings
$0
Total Hours Reclaimed Annually
0
Proposed AI Implementation Timeline
Based on our analysis, we recommend a phased approach to integrating AI for social responsibility effectively within your enterprise, moving beyond mere compliance.
Phase 1: Critical Dialogue & Needs Assessment (1-2 Months)
Initiate workshops focused on Freirean critical pedagogy to foster genuine ethical inquiry among stakeholders. Conduct a thorough assessment of community needs, identifying areas where AI can truly serve social justice, rather than merely fulfilling policy mandates or market demands.
Phase 2: Collaborative AI Solution Design (2-4 Months)
Engage cross-functional teams and community partners to co-design AI solutions. Prioritize dialogical and participatory practices, ensuring AI development is driven by shared values from the lifeworld, not solely by system-level performance metrics. Focus on transparent and accountable AI ethics.
Phase 3: Pilot Implementation & Reflective Learning (3-6 Months)
Deploy pilot AI projects in real-world contexts, emphasizing continuous feedback and iterative refinement. Establish mechanisms for reflective learning, where outcomes are evaluated not just for efficiency or awards, but for their genuine social impact and alignment with ethical principles, as advocated by critical pedagogy.
Phase 4: Scaled Integration & Public Good Reaffirmation (Ongoing)
Scale successful AI initiatives, reinforcing their role as public goods that foster social justice and community empowerment. Develop evaluation frameworks that prioritize democratic accountability and ethical reflection over symbolic capital accumulation. Champion AI as a tool for collective meaning-making.
Ready to Reclaim Your AI Strategy?
Transform AI for Social Responsibility from a market commodity into a public good for your organization. Book a free 30-minute consultation to explore a critical pedagogical approach to AI implementation.
Ready to Get Started?
Book Your Free Consultation.
Let's Discuss Your AI Strategy!
Lets Discuss Your Needs
Select a Date
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat