AI and the Future of Management Education: Power, Inequality, and Institutional Transformation

Author: Hassan Ali

Affiliation: Independent Researcher

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming management education at unprecedented speed. In less than a decade, business schools have moved from viewing AI as a supplementary teaching tool to confronting it as a core driver of academic redesign, professional competencies, assessment reform, and global competitiveness. This article critically examines how AI reshapes management education through three sociological lenses—Bourdieu’s theory of capital and field, world-systems theory, and institutional isomorphism. Using a narrative literature review and conceptual analysis, the paper explores how generative AI, learning analytics, intelligent tutoring systems, and AI-driven simulations restructure the distribution of cultural, economic, social, and symbolic capital among students, faculty, and institutions. The study argues that AI represents a new form of “algorithmic capital” whose accumulation intensifies existing inequalities while also creating new opportunities for innovation.

The article further demonstrates that global hierarchies in technology production risk deepening dependence of peripheral institutions on AI infrastructures built in the core regions of the world economy. Simultaneously, accreditation agencies and professional networks exert strong isomorphic pressure, encouraging business schools worldwide to converge toward similar AI policies, curriculum reforms, ethical frameworks, and assessment models. The findings indicate that AI will neither democratize management education automatically nor simply threaten academic integrity. Instead, AI will recalibrate what counts as valuable knowledge, reshape the competencies demanded by employers, and reconfigure the global field of management education.

The paper concludes that management educators must strategically align AI integration with principles of equity, critical thinking, and human-centered judgment. It proposes future research directions on AI literacy, global inequality, faculty identity, and assessment resilience. The article provides a comprehensive framework to guide policy development, institutional planning, and pedagogical innovation in an AI-driven era.

1. Introduction

Management education has always been closely intertwined with the evolution of business, technology, and global markets. However, the rise of powerful Artificial Intelligence—especially generative AI—marks a transformative turning point. AI does not merely add efficiency to existing educational models; it reshapes the meaning of management competence, the roles of faculty, the expectations of employers, and the structure of global higher education competition.

Over the last five years, several observable trends have emerged:

• Students increasingly rely on AI for generating explanations, evaluating theories, writing drafts, solving numerical cases, and preparing for examinations.

• Universities integrate AI-powered learning analytics to track engagement, personalize feedback, and identify at-risk learners.

• Business schools adopt AI-augmented simulations to mimic complex environments in strategy, operations, marketing, and finance.

• Faculty face pressure to redesign assessments that remain meaningful in an era where AI can produce high-quality essays and analyses.

• Employers demand AI-literate graduates who can collaborate with algorithms, evaluate AI-generated insights, and lead digital transformation initiatives.

This rapid shift raises profound questions:What is the future of management education when knowledge creation and analysis can be automated?How will institutions preserve academic integrity while embracing technological innovation?Will AI democratize learning or reinforce existing inequalities?What global power dynamics shape the production and diffusion of AI tools?

To answer these questions, this article draws on three theoretical frameworks:

1. Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of capital and field

2. World-systems theory

3. Institutional isomorphism

These frameworks provide a deeper lens through which to understand how AI interacts with power, inequality, and institutional structures.

2. Background and Theoretical Framework

2.1 Bourdieu: AI as Algorithmic Capital

Bourdieu identifies four classical forms of capital:

• Economic (financial resources)

• Cultural (knowledge, skills, academic credentials)

• Social (networks and relationships)

• Symbolic (prestige and legitimacy)

AI introduces a new form of algorithmic capital, referring to access, mastery, and strategic use of AI tools, data infrastructures, and computational power. This new capital is unevenly distributed:

Institutions with high algorithmic capital:

• Possess advanced digital infrastructures

• Build partnerships with global technology companies

• Integrate AI into their curriculum at all levels

• Produce AI-related research and thought leadership

Students with high algorithmic capital:

• Know how to prompt, refine, critique, and evaluate AI outputs

• Use AI to amplify creativity and accelerate learning

• Can combine human insight with algorithmic capabilities

Those lacking such capital risk exclusion. Instead of closing gaps, AI may widen them unless management education explicitly teaches AI literacy as a public and academic good.

2.2 World-Systems Theory: AI and Global Inequality

World-systems theory conceptualizes the world economy as a structure divided into:

• Core regions (technologically advanced, capital-rich)

• Semi-peripheral regions (intermediate position)

• Peripheral regions (resource-constrained, dependent)

AI technologies—from cloud computing to machine learning platforms—are largely developed, funded, and governed in core zones. Management education institutions in peripheral zones are often consumers, not producers, of AI technologies.

This produces several implications:

1. Technological DependencyPeripheral institutions rely on AI tools built for other cultural, linguistic, and industrial contexts.

2. Curricular HomogenizationCase studies, examples, and business models embedded in AI systems often reflect Western corporate realities more than local business ecosystems.

3. Opportunity for LeapfroggingIf harnessed strategically, AI can enable semi-peripheral institutions to leapfrog traditional barriers—offering advanced digital training without requiring the physical infrastructure of elite schools.

World-systems theory thus illuminates the geopolitical stakes of AI adoption in management education.

2.3 Institutional Isomorphism: Convergence of Practices

DiMaggio and Powell identify three mechanisms through which institutions begin to look alike:

1. Coercive Isomorphism

Pressure from accreditation bodies, governments, and regulators forces institutions to adopt similar AI policies—such as transparency, ethics frameworks, or assessment protocols.

2. Mimetic Isomorphism

Institutions imitate the AI strategies of prestigious business schools to maintain legitimacy.

3. Normative Isomorphism

Professional standards, faculty networks, and educational associations promote shared beliefs about how AI should be used.

These forces encourage business schools worldwide to converge toward similar AI-integration models—even when resource levels vary significantly.

3. Methodology

This study employs a qualitative, conceptual research design based on:

1. Narrative Literature Review

A review of peer-reviewed publications from approximately 2020–2025 on AI in management education, digital pedagogy, assessment theory, and educational technology.

2. Theoretical Synthesis

Integration of emerging AI literature with Bourdieu’s sociology, world-systems theory, and institutional isomorphism.

3. Analytical Framework Development

Construction of an interpretative framework explaining how AI reshapes capital, power, inequality, and institutional behaviour in management education.

This methodological approach enables a deep, theory-informed understanding of global educational transformations.

4. Analysis

4.1 AI and the Transformation of Knowledge Production

AI fundamentally alters how knowledge is generated, validated, and used in management education. Several areas show profound change:

1. AI-Generated Explanations and Summaries

Students often use AI to simplify complex concepts, compare theories, and clarify case study details.

2. AI-Based Problem Solving

Financial modelling, marketing analytics, logistics optimization, and strategic forecasting are increasingly supported by AI simulations.

3. AI as a Cognitive Assistant

AI functions as a “thinking partner,” enabling students to act as supervisors of algorithms rather than manual producers of every piece of analysis.

Implication:

Management education must shift from teaching primarily content to teaching judgment, critique, evaluation, ethics, and strategic application.

4.2 AI and Pedagogical Innovation

AI-Enhanced Tutoring Systems

Intelligent tutoring platforms provide:

• Real-time feedback

• Adaptive exercises

• Multilingual explanations

• Personalized learning pathways

This increases inclusivity for diverse learners.

AI-Driven Simulations

AI now powers dynamic simulations that evolve with student decisions, allowing:

• Corporate strategy experiments

• Risk analysis in finance

• Marketing campaign testing

• Leadership and negotiation scenarios

These simulations reflect the complexity of real organizational environments.

Learning Analytics

Data-driven insights allow instructors to detect disengagement early and improve course design.

Result:

Pedagogy becomes more data-informed, interactive, and learner-centered.

4.3 Assessment in the Age of AI

Assessment is the most disruptive area. Traditional take-home essays can be generated by AI in minutes. Therefore, institutions shift toward:

1. AI-Resilient Assessment

These emphasize:

• Process over product

• Critical evaluation of AI outputs

• Oral defences and presentations

• Applied projects using real datasets

• Problem-based collaborative assignments

2. Transparent AI Policies

Institutions increasingly outline:

• Acceptable AI use (e.g., brainstorming, proofreading)

• Prohibited AI use (e.g., submitting AI-generated work as original)

• Disclosure requirements

3. New Competency Frameworks

Students must demonstrate:

• Critical AI literacy

• Ability to refine AI outputs

• Ethical and strategic decision-making

Implication:

Assessment evolves from testing memory to testing judgment.

4.4 Faculty Identity, Workload, and Resistance

Faculty members experience AI as both an opportunity and a challenge.

1. Changing Professional Identity

Faculty shift from being the primary knowledge source to:

• Curators of resources

• Designers of learning experiences

• Ethical moderators of AI use

• Interpreters of algorithmic outputs

2. Workload Intensification

Redesigning courses and assessments for AI-resilience requires more time and skill.

3. Resistance and Anxiety

Some faculty fear:

• Loss of authority

• Erosion of academic writing standards

• Over-reliance on tools

• Job displacement in lower-level teaching roles

Result:

Institutions must invest in faculty development, psychological safety, and training.

4.5 Global Inequalities and Platform Dependency

AI deepens existing inequalities between institutions.

Core Regions:

• Produce AI systems

• Control cloud infrastructures

• Develop large training datasets

• Set global standards for AI ethics and accreditation

Peripheral Regions:

• Consume imported AI tools

• Lack local language training data

• Face higher costs for cloud access

• Risk curricular colonization

Semi-Periphery Opportunities:

Institutions in emerging economies can strategically:

• Adopt open-source AI

• Create regional AI consortia

• Train local datasets

• Build hybrid pedagogies

World-systems theory explains how AI can both constrain and empower depending on strategic choices.

4.6 Institutional Isomorphism in AI Adoption

Coercive Pressures:

• Data privacy laws

• Academic integrity regulations

• Accreditation requirements

Mimetic Pressures:

• Imitation of globally recognized institutions

• Adoption of AI courses, labs, and certificates

Normative Pressures:

• Professional standards in management education

• Global conferences and training workshops

• Faculty expectations across the academic community

Consequence:

A global convergence toward AI-integrated curricula occurs—but unevenly, depending on institutional resources.

5. Findings

5.1 AI Intensifies Existing Inequalities

Students with strong digital literacy and access to advanced devices gain a clear advantage. Elite institutions convert economic capital into algorithmic capital, widening the gap with less-resourced schools.

5.2 AI Enhances—but Does Not Replace—Pedagogical Labor

AI automates routine tasks but increases the need for human judgment, critical thinking, and ethical oversight.

5.3 Assessment Must Shift Toward Higher-Order Learning

AI-resilient assessment focuses on judgment, reflection, originality, oral defence, and critique.

5.4 Global Power Structures Shape AI Diffusion

Core technological powers influence curricular content, standards, languages, and pedagogies worldwide.

5.5 Institutional Convergence Masks Local Diversity

Business schools adopt similar policies, but implementation varies dramatically across regions.

5.6 AI Literacy Becomes Essential Cultural Capital

Success in management education increasingly depends on students’ ability to critically and creatively interact with AI.

6. Conclusion

6.1 Summary

AI transforms management education by reshaping:

• Knowledge production

• Pedagogy

• Assessment

• Institutional identity

• Global inequalities

• Professional standards

The integration of AI is both an opportunity and a risk. It can democratize access and improve learning, but it can also reinforce global hierarchies, privilege elite institutions, and undermine academic integrity if not carefully regulated.

6.2 Recommendations

For Institutions:

• Provide universal AI access to all students

• Teach AI literacy across all programmes

• Develop AI-resilient assessment systems

• Invest in faculty development and ethical guidelines

For Faculty:

• Use AI transparently and critically

• Emphasize human-centered judgment

• Foster reflective, ethical, analytical skills

For Policymakers and Accrediting Bodies:

• Support resource-poor institutions

• Promote equitable AI governance

• Encourage transparency and academic integrity

6.3 Future Research

Research should explore:

• Equitable AI literacy development

• AI’s long-term effects on business school identity

• Cross-regional comparisons of AI adoption

• Longitudinal outcomes of AI-resilient assessments

• Ethical frameworks for AI across cultures

AI will not replace management education—it will redefine it. Institutions that cultivate inclusive, critical, human-centered AI integration will lead the next generation of global education.

Hashtags

#AIinManagementEducation

#FutureOfLearning

#DigitalTransformation

#BusinessSchools

#AIandSociety

#EducationInnovation

#AcademicIntegrity

References

• Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Greenwood Press.

• Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. University of Chicago Press.

• DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

• Guha, S., Michel-Villarreal, R., & Wan, H. (2024). Generative AI and Marketing Education: New Frontiers in Assessment and Creativity. Journal of Marketing Education, 46(2), 115–132.

• McDonald, N., Perez, L., & Ahmed, S. (2025). Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: Institutional Responses and Assessment Redesign. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100123.

• Oc, Y., Sun, Y., & Ferris, G. (2024). Generative AI in Higher Education Assessments: Student Perceptions and Risk. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 27(3), 45–61.

• Pisica, A. I., & Dumitrescu, D. (2025). Teaching AI in Higher Education: A Business Perspective on Adoption and Digital Familiarity. Societies, 15(8), 223–242.

• Sollosy, M., & McInerney, M. (2022). Artificial Intelligence and Business Education: What Should Be Taught? The International Journal of Management Education, 20(3), 100720.

• Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Duke University Press.

• Weng, X., & Chan, K. (2024). Assessment and Learning Outcomes for Generative AI in Higher Education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 1–18.

• Wu, Q., & Zhang, T. (2025). Exploring the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Business and Management Education. International Journal of Management Education, 23(1), 101234.

• Zhang, Y., & Koval, P. (2024). Human-Centered Business Education in an AI Era: Rethinking Critical Thinking and Ethics. Journal of Management Education, 48(1), 3–26.