Currently reading Bryant (2026) on “Rebuilding a Culture of Trust in Teaching and Learning in an Era of Generative Distrust”

Bryant (2026) starts from the premise that “the decline of trust in institutions is the real existential threat for teaching and learning“. Trust in institutions, they say, has been declining for a while, but this has intensified with the availability of GenAI, and the imperfect way in which both teachers, students, and institutions react to it (but remember, it’s a wicked problem…).

When trust collapses, this obviously has catastrophic consequences, so what can we do that this does not happen with trust in teaching and learning (even though, as Bryant seems to imply, we are very close to that point already)?

One approach could be to not put AI at the center of every decision, policy, conversation. As it is now, the focus is on the ends of the spectrum: The end that only sees the opportunities of AI and that pushes the narrative that AI is inevitable and that people have to engage to not fall behind, and that it is such a great tool, and the other end that only sees the threat of disruption of authenticity and integrity as well as of control. Bryant (2026) recommends to instead focus on the “abundant betweenness” in the middle, where the majority probably sits, and to create spaces to experiment, reflect, pause, or get on with their core business, through focussing on human interactions and analogue activities, which I fully agree with (however I doubt that transparency of AI usage is as easy a solution as suggested, as we know that it cannot be enforced and thus introduces a whole bunch of problems when required).

The piece ends with the sentence “We need to trust ourselves to think critically about how we make the case for or against the use of AI in higher education“, and while I agree with needing to trust ourselves to think critically, I think the second part is really a missed opportunity to stress the point of the “abundant betweenness“. Because AI or no AI does not need to, and should really not, be a binary decision. Instead, I think decisions need to be made on individual task level (Brcic & Frljic, 2026), and as a wicked problem where we always have to balance trade-offs (Corbin et al., 2026). Yes, AI has intensified and made visible a lot of challenges in the system. At the same time, the data Rachel and I are currently working with, and many many conversations with colleagues, also show that there is a lot of trust, and a lot of willingness to trust, and to work to build and maintain trust, in the system. So let’s make space in the middle for that!

Bryant, P. 2026. Rebuilding a Culture of Trust in Teaching and Learning in an Era of Generative Distrust. Ubiquity Proceedings, 7(1): 3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/uproc.225

Featured image is clearly a little older already, now it’s fall…