"Will AI Steal My Glory?": Power Relations Perceived by College Instructors When Grappling with Generative AI

Synthesis: Zuo, Xu & Dunning (2026) present an instrumental case study of 33 college instructors (10 interviewed in depth) exploring how their perceptions of Generative AI as a tool for student writing are shaped by four polycentric power centers: the global impact of AI, the university/department, colleagues, and students. Framed by Blommaert's notions of scale and polycentricity, the study shows how instructors navigate multiple, sometimes conflicting, centers of normativity — adjusting their teaching to retain authority and promote student accountability. It offers direct evidence on how instructor perceptions and practices evolve in writing instruction under GenAI, with implications for professional development.

Key Findings

1. Four polycentric power centers shape instructor perceptions. Instructors' views and practices are not uniform but shaped by their orientation to four centers of authority: the global impact of GenAI, the university/department, colleagues, and students — each explored in detail below.
2. The global trend is seen as inescapable. All instructors recognized GenAI as "the reality" — inevitable and "never going away" — motivating them to adjust teaching and "stay a step ahead" of students, though views differed on its effectiveness and ethics.
3. Instructors updated practices to retain authority and promote accountability. Across the four centers, instructors responded by emphasizing the writing process over the final product (reflections, more conferences, multiple revisions), holding open conversations about GenAI's limitations, and clarifying how GenAI may be used in each class.
4. The shift is from detection toward teaching acceptable use. Rather than relying on detection, instructors moved toward guiding responsible GenAI use and promoting student accountability — while flagging persistent equity concerns (the digital divide).

Theoretical framing: scale and polycentricity

The study applies Blommaert's notions of scale and polycentricity, rarely used in GenAI research, to analyze power relations in instructors' AI pedagogical approaches. Scale imagines social phenomena as "hierarchically ranked and stratified," across horizontal (spaces) and vertical (local-to-global) dimensions. Polycentricity holds that multiple "evaluating authorities" or centers coexist at different scales, and individuals adapt their practices to meet these centers' expectations. This explains why instructors' AI perceptions are non-uniform and shaped by conflicting normative centers.

Methodology

An instrumental case study (exploratory approach) at "Palm Tree University," a four-year U.S. liberal-arts institution that had formed a University GenAI Task Force and a Quality Enhancement Plan on information literacy. Data came from a questionnaire (33 of 265 faculty) and in-depth interviews with 10 focal participants across disciplines (English, Psychology, Education, Management, Biology, Medicine) and teaching experiences (3–27 years). Analysis used inductive coding (three rounds), thematic analysis across cases, and categorization/theorization.

The four power centers in detail

• Global trend of GenAI: The highest-level center; instructors felt they could not avoid the trend. Most saw affordances (brainstorming, drafting, support for language learners and students with learning disabilities, an alternative to expensive prep schools, grading time-savings), while some were concerned about limitations and ethical issues. The title's "Will AI steal my glory?" captures an instructor's distress at discovering ChatGPT could generate work meeting all her assignment criteria.
• University and department: Varying policies — some departments required syllabus AI statements while allowing instructor discretion; others had none. Instructors held mixed attitudes toward unified policy (wanting consistency vs. fearing restriction), and adjuncts felt limited by their discourse power.
• Colleagues: Perceptions spanned "absolutely the whole spectrum" — from senior instructors holding back to active advocates who saw ongoing learning as a departmental responsibility.
• Students: The direct stakeholders; instructors felt pressured to learn because "students will use it." Concerns included evaluating real proficiency, over-reliance ("laziness"), the Digital Divide (unequal access to better tools), and ambiguity about whether writing or digital literacy was being assessed.

Implications for AI in education

This study contributes to the wiki's Teacher Role thread by showing how instructor authority and practice are reconfigured under GenAI — and to policy discussions by revealing why institutional policies matter (consistency, adjunct support, disciplinary differences). It reinforces the AI Literacy imperative for both students and faculty, connects to equity concerns (the Digital Divide), and supports Faculty Development focused on process-oriented pedagogy and open departmental dialogue. It complements Academic Integrity work by showing how instructors move from detection toward teaching acceptable GenAI use and promoting student accountability in AI-mediated education.

Connected Concepts

• Teacher Role
• Writing Education
• Faculty Development
• Generative AI
• Higher Ed
• AI Literacy
• Student Experience
• Academic Integrity
• Educational Policy AI
• Equity In AI Education
• Pedagogy

Connected Articles

• GenAI Policies Higher Ed Computing — GenAI policies in higher-ed computing
• Enright Staff Perspectives GenAI 2026 — Staff perspectives on GenAI
• Student Rationalization AI Writing — Student rationalization of AI use in academic writing

Citation

Zuo, Y., Xu, X., & Dunning, L. A. (2026). "Will AI steal my glory?": Power relations perceived by college instructors when grappling with Generative AI. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 9(1).