Difficulty as method: A framework for humanities pedagogy in the age of generative AI

Generative AI poses a distinctive challenge for humanities pedagogy, one that existing AI-in-education frameworks do not fully address. Humanities teaching is organized around interpretive openness, productive ambiguity, close reading, and a conception of evidence as something argued for rather than merely cited. In common classroom use, generative AI favors fluency, plausibility, and resolution in ways that work against those commitments. This article proposes a conceptual framework that treats AI as material for interpretive inquiry rather than as a tool for efficiency. Drawing on rhetorical analysis, dialogic pedagogy, and theories of revision, it develops four instructional roles for AI in the humanities classroom: object of interpretation, rhetorical artifact, revisable draft, and dialogue partner. The article argues that the most productive response to AI in the humanities begins with disciplinary redesign rather than with adoption or prohibition--and that the difficulty the humanities cultivate is not an obstacle to learning but its method.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Arts and Humanities in Higher Education
Published
2026-09-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/14740222261487617
Primary Topic
Digital Humanities and Scholarship
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Difficulty as method: A framework for humanities pedagogy in the age of generative AI

Renuka Gusain
Arts and Humanities in Higher Education
Digital Humanities and Scholarship
article

Difficulty as method: A framework for humanities pedagogy in the age of generative AI

Renuka Gusain
article en

Abstract

Generative AI poses a distinctive challenge for humanities pedagogy, one that existing AI-in-education frameworks do not fully address. Humanities teaching is organized around interpretive openness, productive ambiguity, close reading, and a conception of evidence as something argued for rather than merely cited. In common classroom use, generative AI favors fluency, plausibility, and resolution in ways that work against those commitments. This article proposes a conceptual framework that treats AI as material for interpretive inquiry rather than as a tool for efficiency. Drawing on rhetorical analysis, dialogic pedagogy, and theories of revision, it develops four instructional roles for AI in the humanities classroom: object of interpretation, rhetorical artifact, revisable draft, and dialogue partner. The article argues that the most productive response to AI in the humanities begins with disciplinary redesign rather than with adoption or prohibition--and that the difficulty the humanities cultivate is not an obstacle to learning but its method.

Arts and Humanities in Higher Education
University of North Carolina at Asheville (US)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Digital Humanities and Scholarship
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.