{"resourceId":"shepherd-against-prohibition-disability-genai-2026","versions":[{"version":"external-3a00719833df833a8bd842c6b4cd8c4e8a5b23036ddaecee7aa1f6f25a5d78a6","resource":{"id":"shepherd-against-prohibition-disability-genai-2026","title":"Against prohibition: GenAI bans can harm disabled students; govern instead of detect-and-ban","organization":"Burnley College / International Social Sciences and Education Journal","sector":"Higher education disability inclusion / academic integrity policy","geography":"United Kingdom higher education (conceptual; transferable governance questions)","publishedAt":"29 July 2026","publicationDate":"2026-07-29","eventDate":null,"sourceName":"International Social Sciences and Education Journal (Bluemark Publishers)","sourceLabel":"Shepherd (2026) — Against Prohibition: GenAI, Disabled Students, Critically Governed Inclusion","sourceUrl":"https://bluemarkpublishers.com/index.php/ISSEJ/article/download/963/779/2653","evidenceClass":"academic-research","outcomeClass":"cautionary","topics":["accessibility-workforce","governance-procurement","data-security"],"finding":"Conceptual analysis (social model of disability, Capability Approach, CDF-AIED) argues outright GenAI prohibition redistributes harm toward disabled students by removing assistive affordances (executive function scaffolding, format transformation, communication support, reduced disclosure dependence) while AI-detection enforcement produces discriminatory false positives. Author contends biases justify institutional governance and co-design—not exclusion—because banned systems cannot be audited or redesigned from within. Specifies conditions for governed inclusion including participatory design and disaggregated evaluation.","sledRelevance":"Newly relevant to Pass B disability/integrity gaps after 2026-09-15 archived a narrative disability access review: this July 2026 open article adds the prohibition/detection discrimination and assistive-affordance argument not previously archived for student-success.","evidence":"Source is conceptual/normative analysis citing literatures; not a causal trial of learning or accommodation outcomes. Distinguishes claims: documented detection false-positive risks and assistive use patterns are argued from cited research; recommended governance model is interpretation/proposal.","architectureImplications":"Interpretation: prefer institutionally governed GenAI support channels with accessibility settings, logging for appeals, and alternatives to detector-based policing; avoid brittle detector gatekeeping in LMS workflows.","governanceImplications":"Source finding/argument: govern and co-design rather than prohibit; pair integrity rules with disability services. Interpretation: policy packets should include disclosure-sensitive assistive pathways and detector-use bans or strict limits.","securityPrivacyImplications":"Source links personalisation to surveillance risks in CDF-AIED. Interpretation: governed inclusion still requires data-minimization, optional disclosure, and limits on detector surveillance of writing.","caveats":"Not empirical RCT; UK FE/HE framing; journal is open-access niche—treat normative claims as argumentation. Does not measure learning gains from GenAI for disabled students. Published July 2026 (pre-last-run) but newly archived for integrity×disability gap.","streamIds":["student-success"],"roles":{"sales":"Sales framing: do not position detector-led prohibition as the integrity “solution.” This analysis argues bans and discriminatory false positives can strip disabled students of assistive GenAI uses. Sell governed inclusion packages—accessible tools, clear disclosure rules, human review—rather than blanket blocks. Unsupported: that detectors are fair or that bans are disability-neutral.","engineering":"Engineering framing: replace detector-centric pipelines with governed assistive configurations, appeal logs, and accessibility-tested interfaces. Prerequisites: disability-services requirements gathering and alternatives to forensic AI detection. Constraints: jurisdictional integrity codes; surveillance risks of personalisation. Proof of value: accessibility audits, false-positive monitoring if any detectors remain, co-design sessions.","delivery":"Delivery framing: joint policy work across academic integrity, disability services, and teaching centers. Dependencies: student co-design, staff training on assistive vs misconduct distinctions. Risks: punitive cultures, inequitable enforcement, and privacy harms from monitoring."},"roleDetails":{"sales":{"customerProblem":"Integrity offices push bans/detectors while disability services see GenAI as assistive—creating conflicting campus policies.","stakeholders":["Disability/accessibility services","Academic integrity office","General counsel","Student government"],"discoveryQuestions":["How are detector false positives handled for disabled writers?","What assistive GenAI uses are explicitly permitted?","Who co-designs GenAI policy with disabled students?","Is disclosure required to use assistive AI?"],"valueHypothesis":"Governed, accessible GenAI support can reduce harm versus prohibition while preserving integrity via assessment redesign.","potentialEngagement":"Policy and accessibility co-design workshop producing a governed-inclusion standard and detector-use limits.","unsupportedClaims":["That bans are equity-neutral","Guaranteed integrity from detectors","Measured learning gains for SWD from this paper alone"]},"engineering":{"fit":"Policy/tooling programs needing accessible GenAI support without detector-first enforcement.","architectureIntegration":"Campus AI gateway with accessibility profiles, permissioned tools, appeal workflows; minimize detector hooks in submission pipelines.","prerequisites":["Accessibility requirements","Integrity policy mapping","Logging for appeals","Optional local tools"],"constraints":["UK-centric legal references","Conceptual—not validated product requirements","Surveillance tradeoffs in personalisation"],"security":"Avoid expanding writing surveillance; protect disability-related data; document detector error rates if used.","proofOfValue":["Accessibility conformance tests","False-positive audit sampling","Student co-design evidence log"]},"delivery":{"work":"Rewrite GenAI integrity policy, train instructors, stand up assistive pathways, and retire or tightly gate detectors.","dependencies":["Disability services capacity","Faculty senate approval","Counsel review"],"ownership":"Student affairs/disability services jointly with academic integrity.","skillsAdoption":"Staff must distinguish assistive use from misconduct and avoid disclosure coercion.","governanceCheckpoints":["Equity impact review","Detector sunset decision","Annual co-design refresh"],"acceptanceCriteria":["Published governed-inclusion policy","Documented assistive AI pathway","Detector limits or removal"],"risks":["Punitive backlash","Covert detector use","Privacy harms"]}},"retrievedAt":"2026-09-17T03:08:30Z","enrichedAt":"2026-09-17T03:15:56Z","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"Source argues GenAI can scaffold executive function and reduce disclosure burden; prohibition recreates barriers. Interpretation: workforce training must include disability-aware GenAI support practices.","procurementImplications":"Interpretation: scrutinize detector vendors for bias/false positives; prefer accessibility-validated GenAI tools under institutional governance contracts.","operatingModelImplications":"Interpretation: integrity and disability offices need a shared operating model for GenAI permissions rather than sequential contradictory rules.","sourceVerification":{"responseId":"bluemark-pdf-963-2026-09-16","openedUrl":"https://bluemarkpublishers.com/index.php/ISSEJ/article/download/963/779/2653","referenceExcerpt":"expose disabled students to discriminatory enforcement,","promptVersion":"sled-research-v4.0","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}