Generative Artificial Intelligence,Interdisciplinarity,and the Global English-Medium Knowledge Economy

Abstract

This State of the Inquiry (SotI) critically investigates the implications of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) for interdisciplinary research and scholarly communication within the global English-medium knowledge economy (GEMKE). Anchored in three guiding questions, the article interrogates (1) the extent to which GAI facilitates genuine interdisciplinary knowledge production versus reinforcing entrenched disciplinary silos; (2) how GAI’s dependence on established academic infrastructures influences the visibility and legitimacy of particular interdisciplinary fields; and (3) the impact of automated cross-disciplinary synthesis on the epistemic agency and intellectual labor of human scholars. While GAI holds potential to enhance research efficiency and foster new forms of interdisciplinarity, the outcomes of its integration depend largely on how scholars employ these tools; without critical and contextually informed use, it may contribute to epistemic homogenization and the marginalization of nondominant knowledge systems. The SotI advocates for a critically reflexive and contextually informed approach to the integration of GAI in academic practice, while also recognizing the capacity of scholars—particularly those on the (semi)periphery—to actively shape, adapt, and resist these tools in ways that foster inclusive and transformative interdisciplinary scholarship.

Introduction

This State of the Inquiry (SotI) aims to offer a critical examination of the implications of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) for interdisciplinary research and scholarly communication within the contemporary global English-medium knowledge economy (GEMKE). It does so by articulating and interrogating three interconnected questions: (1) To what extent does GAI facilitate genuine interdisciplinary knowledge production, as opposed to merely reinforcing existing disciplinary silos—particularly in the context of writing for scholarly publication? (2) How does GAI’s reliance on established academic structures influence which interdisciplinary fields gain prominence, particularly in the context of writing for scholarly publication? and (3) How will GAI’s ability to automate cross-disciplinary synthesis affect the role of human scholars in interdisciplinary research and scholarly writing? These questions are posed with the explicit intent of providing a conceptual and strategic resource for novice and early-career scholars located on the (semi)periphery, whose limited access to scholarly infrastructures and resources may impede their formulatation of research questions that align with dominant academic discourses and agendas. Yet, precisely because of their peripheral positioning, these scholars may also be uniquely positioned to engage GAI tools both strategically and creatively—not only to access dominant scholarly conversations but also to challenge, reframe, and reimagine them in ways that foreground alternative epistemologies and research priorities. To this end, this SotI first delineates the structural and ideological contours of the GEMKE. It then explores the various forms of capital requisite for meaningful participation in its scholarly practices. Ultimately, the analysis focuses on the implications of GAI for interdisciplinarity in the GEMKE in light of the aforementioned inquiries, emphasizing how the deployment and situated use of these emerging technologies are influencing knowledge production, dissemination, and academic labor within this global knowledge system. In short, this SotI seeks to respond to ongoing calls within the field of Writing Studies and Applied Linguistics—and more specifically, English for Research Publication Purposes (ERPP)— to critically investigate and theorize the policy, pedagogical, practical, and ethical ramifications of GAI for research and scholarly communication in the context of today’s GEMKE. It is important to acknowledge, however, that although the primary focus of this SotI is the GEMKE, the ramifications of GAI for interdisciplinary scholarship extend beyond this knowledge system and are mediated by the diverse ways in which scholars and institutions across linguistic and epistemic traditions adopt and adapt these technologies. Other knowledge economies—such as those grounded in Chinese, Spanish, Arabic, and various other linguistic and epistemic traditions—are similarly engaging with the opportunities and challenges presented by GAI, at times in parallel with, and at other times in contrast to, the GEMKE.

The Landscape of Knowledge Production

Recent decades are characterized by the rise of knowledge as a key driver of development. While the global knowledge economy comprises a network of diverse local, regional, and continental economies and knowledge hubs, it is often mistakenly conflated with the English-medium knowledge economy, which currently represents the most dynamic and prosperous sector within this global landscape. In reality, other knowledge economies, such as East Asian and Latin-Iberian knowledge economies, operate in languages other than English (e.g., Chinese and Spanish) and compete with the English-medium knowledge economy for influence and dominance (Demeter, 2020). To distinguish between these systems, this article adopts the term Global English-Medium Knowledge Economy (GEMKE). Given the current prominence and success of the GEMKE, many nations—particularly those on the (semi)periphery—view participation in this economy as a pathway to advancement, development, and scientific and economic growth. These nations increasingly seek to align their local or regional knowledge economies with the GEMKE, anchoring their ambitions to its trajectory. In doing so, they reshape their higher education systems by introducing policies and practices that prioritize, incentivize, and valorize scholarly productivity within the context of the GEMKE (Habibie, 2022a, 2022b; Valero & Van Reenen, 2016). Furthermore, they implement rigorous systems of surveillance and auditing, evaluating academics based on their scholarly output and their contributions to the GEMKE (Habibie & Hyland, 2019; Paltridge et al., 2016; Welch & Li, 2021). In essence, the standing of nations and populations in sustainable development indices is, to a significant degree, determined by their ability to engage with and contribute to the GEMKE (Flowerdew & Habibie, 2022). This emphasis on participation in the GEMKE reflects its central role in shaping the global hierarchy of knowledge production and dissemination.

English-medium scholarly publication is a form of contribution to this economy and participation in its field of power and prestige in Bourdieusian (2011/1986) parlance. One’s position and status in the hierarchical structures, social spaces, and stratifications of the field depend on their habitus and the dynamics of the field (Bourdieu, 2011/1986), that is, different forms of capital (economic, cultural, social) one has (or will) accessed and accumulated in their academic trajectory. There is no doubt that one’s linguistic capital (i.e., literacy in academic English) plays a decisive role in their contribution to the economy. This linguistic capital can be conceptualized as an understanding of formal/structural and socio-rhetorical configurations of valued modes of communication in a community of practice (Gee, 2015; Lave & Wenger, 1991), that is, a knowledge of the discursive and generic patterns of thought of a target discourse community (DC) as well as the ability to efficiently perform in various genre chains and networks (Swales, 1990, 2004) that constitute the socio-rhetorical mechanism of scholarly publication. In other words, in a broader sense, academic literacy in navigating socio-discursive practices such as understanding the aims and scopes of different journals, targeting appropriate venues, (re)fashioning one’s text according to discipline-specific rhetorical expectations and stylistic preferences, and discursively engaging in negotiation with gatekeepers (Habibie & Hultgren, 2022).

It is clear that linguistic capital is a prerequisite for the conceptualization and articulation of the disciplinary knowledge one intends to share with other members of their academic community. However, it is not adequate for such an elite socio-rhetorical practice as writing for scholarly publication. Epistemic capital is another significant and necessary requirement in this respect. It is a knowledge of the epistemologies and methodologies that constitute the scholarly paradigms of one’s DC and shape the imaginaries of one’s discipline(s). This capital is as significant as, and even more significant than, linguistic capital and a pivotal prerequisite for membership in a disciplinary circle. In other words, to prove and constantly renew one’s allegiance to an academic DC, one needs to actively participate in and contribute to its valorized worldviews and discourses. Last but not least, in addition to lingua-epistemic capitals, participation in the GEMKE also requires a good understanding of the mechanics, logistics, and economy of the publishing game, that is, knowledge of the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders (e.g., authors, editors, reviewers, publishers), deploying digital literacy in navigating streamlined editorial management portals (e.g., online submission, tracking, revision), understanding different publication models (e.g., subscription, open access, and predatory publishing), data harvesting (i.e., locating and mining necessary resources using relevant databases), using data management tools (i.e., digital citation management applications), and using data analysis and visualization software (i.e., digital data analysis software).

The emergence, rapid advancement, and increasing adoption of GAI technologies—most notably large language models (LLMs)—are profoundly transforming the processes through which knowledge is produced and disseminated within the contemporary GEMKE. The integration of these technologies into the socio-rhetorical practices of academic communities has prompted both provocative and polarizing debates across a range of disciplines (see Giglio & da Costa, 2023; Huang & Tan, 2023; Jenko et al., 2024; Kuteeva & Andersson, 2024). Within the field of Writing Studies and Applied Linguistics—and more specifically, ERPP—the deployment of GAI has sparked considerable dialogue, eliciting both enthusiasm and apprehension regarding its implications for scientific inquiry and scholarly writing. Against this backdrop, it is imperative to critically examine how the affordances and limitations of GAI intersect with the linguistic, epistemological, and infrastructural conditions that underpin contemporary scholarly knowledge production, especially in domains characterized by interdisciplinary engagement. The following section engages this concern by articulating and exploring three interrelated questions proposed earlier in this SotI, each intended to illuminate the evolving implications of GAI for interdisciplinary scholarship and the reconfiguration of academic labor within the GEMKE.

Shaping Interdisciplinary Scholarship

In recent decades, academia has increasingly moved toward deeper integration and collaboration across academic cultures, disciplines, and fields (Klein, 2005; Moran, 2010). This trend has fostered a rise in interdisciplinarity and the blurring of traditional disciplinary boundaries, giving way to new interdisciplinary practices in scholarly publication. Interdisciplinarity itself has been defined and interpreted in multiple ways. At its core, it refers to “the interaction between two or more disciplines, encompassing a spectrum from the exchange of ideas to the comprehensive integration of organizing concepts, methodologies, procedures, epistemologies, terminologies, and data” (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1972, p. 25). Another definition emphasizes “the synthesis of disciplinary perspectives to generate insights that transcend the mere aggregation of disciplinary knowledge” (Pharo et al., 2012, p. 498). The incorporation of GAI into academic research is now transforming how interdisciplinary knowledge is generated, organized, and shared. As universities, funding agencies, and publishers increasingly turn to GAI-powered tools for discovery and synthesis, these technologies are becoming influential forces in shaping the future of interdisciplinary scholarship. While GAI holds promise for accelerating cross-disciplinary collaboration, it also raises important questions about its influence on the dynamics of knowledge production in the GEMKE. At this juncture, several critical questions need to be considered to better understand GAI’s role in the evolving landscape of interdisciplinary research. It should be noted that since GAI technologies are still in the early stages of development—and our understanding of their capabilities and constraints is likewise emerging—the questions raised here are intended to serve as a heuristic framework for further inquiry and scholarly debate rather than definitive answers or solutions.

1. To what extent does GAI facilitate genuine interdisciplinary knowledge production, as opposed to merely reinforcing existing disciplinary silos—particularly in the context of writing for scholarly publication?

GAI holds considerable potential to support interdisciplinary knowledge production, particularly in relation to scholarly writing and publication. When effectively utilized by scholars, its ability to synthesize vast corpora of research across multiple disciplines, identify thematic and conceptual convergences, and generate integrative overviews can assist scholars in engaging with complex, multifaceted research problems that transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries. For academic writers, GAI may serve as a valuable tool in drafting literature reviews, mapping research landscapes, and generating interdisciplinary research questions and hypotheses that draw on diverse methodological and theoretical traditions. By streamlining the processes of textual synthesis and literature integration, GAI can aid researchers in constructing scholarly arguments that are both more comprehensive and more attuned to the multiplicity of perspectives characterizing contemporary interdisciplinary inquiry (see Giglio & da Costa, 2023; Huang & Tan, 2023; Jenko et al., 2024). However, the role of GAI in facilitating genuine interdisciplinarity must be critically scrutinized. Despite its technical capacity to merge disciplinary discourses, GAI remains fundamentally shaped by the corpora upon which it is trained—i.e., corpora that are predominantly derived from mainstream, Western, Eurocentric, and Anglocentric academic traditions (see Bender et al., 2021; Kung, 2023; Payne et al., 2024)—and the ways in which users deploy it. As such, GAI may inadvertently reproduce dominant paradigms, canonical voices, and established epistemological frameworks, thereby reinforcing rather than disrupting entrenched disciplinary hierarchies. This challenge presents a particular concern in the realm of writing for scholarly publication, in which the inclusion of diverse and marginalized epistemologies is crucial to advancing transformative scholarship. Furthermore, as academic publishing continues to be shaped by evaluative regimes rooted in metrics, citation practices, and field-specific prestige economies (Habibie & Fazel, 2024), there is a growing concern that GAI-generated texts may become subtly attuned to dominant publication norms, thereby privileging conformity over critical innovation (Kuteeva & Andersson, 2024). The resulting lingua-epistemic uniformity reflects a restriction in both the languages through which knowledge is expressed and the epistemological frameworks considered legitimate within academic discourse. This condition—what Habibie (2022a) terms “intellectual monism” and “scholarly hygiene”—is sustained through processes of standardization and homogenization and stands in marked contrast to ongoing efforts to promote diversity, inclusivity, and the decolonization of knowledge production and dissemination. In this context, the integration of GAI into scholarly writing practices risks curbing the emergence of genuinely novel interdisciplinary insights, instead reinforcing institutionally sanctioned modes of knowledge synthesis. Yet this outcome is not inevitable. Scholars, particularly those situated on the (semi)periphery, may adopt GAI strategically and reflexively—not to replicate dominant patterns but to rework them. By critically engaging with algorithmic outputs, these scholars can reframe inherited assumptions, introduce alternative/non-normative perspectives, carve out new interdisciplinary trajectories that challenge/resist prevailing norms, and make space for more pluralistic and critically engaged forms of interdisciplinary knowledge production (Habibie & Flowerdew, 2023). In this sense, GAI’s value lies not in its outputs alone, but in (a) how scholars choose to appropriate and contest them within specific intellectual and sociopolitical contexts and scholarly practices, and (b) the ways in which it enhances the capacity of scholars to engage in the production of scholarly discourse that transcend disciplinary silos and reflect an expanded epistemic reach.

• 2. How does GAI’s reliance on established academic structures influence which interdisciplinary fields gain prominence—particularly in the context of writing for scholarly publication?

GAI technologies, particularly LLMs, operate within and reflect the infrastructures of the existing academic knowledge system. Their training depends on a vast corpora of published research, citation patterns, indexing systems, and the conventions of scholarly discourse (Bender et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2023). In addition to training data based on dominant discourse patterns, the ways these tools are deployed by scholars further mediate which interdisciplinary fields are rendered visible, legitimate, and prominent in academic conversations. GAI algorithms are more likely to draw upon and reproduce interdisciplinary fields that are already well-established within high-impact journals and major databases. As stated above, fields that enjoy a robust presence in English-medium, peer-reviewed journals—particularly those with quantitative, data-driven methodologies—tend to be overrepresented in GAI-generated outputs (Bender et al., 2021). Consequently, when scholars use GAI tools to support research synthesis, generate publication drafts, or formulate research questions, the tools may inadvertently steer them toward mainstream, institutionally endorsed intersections of knowledge (Habibie, 2022a). This result can reinforce disciplinary silos by favoring interdisciplinary configurations that already conform to dominant academic norms. Conversely, interdisciplinary fields that emphasize unorthodox inquiry, indigenous knowledge systems, or emergent methodological approaches may often lack sufficient representation in the training data and citation algorithms (see Mott & Cockayne, 2017). As a result, they are less likely to be recognized or synthesized by GAI tools unless scholars deliberately supplement or counterbalance these limitations through critical and context-conscious use. In practical terms, this means that scholars working in these areas may find fewer algorithmic resources to support their writing and may even struggle against automated outputs that fail to acknowledge or accurately reflect their epistemic frameworks. This limitation has profound implications for scholarly publishing. As GAI tools increasingly mediate how researchers engage with literature and craft manuscripts, there is a risk that certain interdisciplinary voices and perspectives will be systematically devalorized, excluded, or even silenced. If left unchecked, this silence could exacerbate existing injustices and inequities in academic publishing by privileging dominant, well-resourced disciplines and marginalizing deviative, innovative, or critical scholarship that challenges the status quo (Habibie, 2022a). Nonetheless, through what may be understood as a form of critical repurposing—refining prompts, layering human interpretation over machine-generated synthesis, or selectively curating outputs—scholars can begin to mitigate these exclusions and redirect GAI tools toward their own epistemic and intellectual priorities. This activity underscores the need for sustained pedagogical and infrastructural support that enables researchers to approach these technologies with informed agency rather than passive reliance.

• 3. How will GAI’s ability to automate cross-disciplinary synthesis affect the role of human scholars in interdisciplinary research and scholarly writing?

The capacity of GAI to automate cross-disciplinary synthesis carries significant implications for the role of human scholars, though the nature of these implications depends on how scholars integrate and critically engage with these tools in their scholarly practices and situated use. On the one hand, GAI can enhance the research and writing process by efficiently identifying thematic and conceptual linkages across disciplinary boundaries, synthesizing extensive and heterogeneous bodies of knowledge (see Salimi & Saheb, 2023; Salvagno et al., 2023). By delegating certain cognitively demanding and time-intensive tasks to GAI, scholars may be afforded greater capacity to focus on higher-order intellectual endeavors, including critical analysis, theoretical development, and the nuanced articulation of arguments appropriate for specific (inter)disciplinary audiences. This potential for increased efficiency may facilitate broader engagement with interdisciplinary scholarship, particularly among researchers working across unfamiliar epistemological or methodological terrains. However, the automation of integrative synthesis also presents a number of challenges. Chief among these is the potential attenuation of human scholarly agency in the act of writing for scholarly publication. In other words, as GAI tools are increasingly adopted for generating structured and rhetorically coherent scholarly texts (Kuteeva & Andersson, 2024), there exists a risk—if scholars uncritically rely on algorithmically produced content—that scholarly agency including intuition, creativity, and critical judgment may be compromised. Such dependency may lead to a diminished engagement with the foundational epistemological, methodological, and rhetorical questions that underpin rigorous interdisciplinary scholarship. Conversely, when approached reflectively and reflexively, GAI can serve as a generative partner in the ideation and exploratory phases of research, with scholars shaping how and why such tools are deployed in the service of specific intellectual goals. Moreover, should the use of GAI become widespread in the production of scholarly writing, there is a risk that the human scholar may be perceived less as an originator of knowledge and more as a curator, editor, or verifier of machine-generated texts. This shift could result in the undervaluation of intellectual labor that is not readily quantifiable through GAI-driven metrics, particularly if institutional and scholarly communities fail to critically assess the situated uses and limitations of these technologies and the kind of labor that involves the interpretive, speculative, and critical dimensions of scholarly writing. Yet, these same interpretive and critical capacities also equip scholars to challenge and reimagine the functions of GAI in scholarly communication. By using GAI not as a replacement but as a provocation—something to test, critique, and augment—researchers can maintain and even expand their role as active producers of knowledge, rather than passive consumers of algorithmic synthesis.

Conclusion

The integration of GAI into the current GEMKE has introduced both opportunities and challenges, particularly concerning interdisciplinary knowledge production. While GAI has the potential to facilitate novel interdisciplinary connections and enhance research efficiency, it also risks reinforcing existing disciplinary silos and privileging dominant epistemological frameworks, scholarly paradigms, and methodological orientations. Moreover, the increasing automation of cross-disciplinary synthesis raises critical concerns about the evolving role of human scholars in interdisciplinary research and the potential devaluation of intellectual labor. Ultimately, the extent to which GAI will reshape interdisciplinary academic knowledge production and writing for scholarly publication is contingent not on the technology alone but critically on how such technologies are situated within scholarly practice, including the contexts, users, and modes of application, as well as the degree of ongoing critical oversight exercised by the academic community. In other words, if scholars employ these tools judiciously and reflexively, maintaining a commitment to epistemic diversity and rhetorical nuance, and treating GAI as an instrument to augment rather than supplant human intellectual labor, these technologies may serve as catalysts for more inclusive and generative scholarly writing practices that enrich interdisciplinary scholarship. In particular, scholars—especially those navigating institutional, geographic, or linguistic peripheries—may harness GAI’s affordances to open up new intellectual terrains, challenge established boundaries, and craft alternative scholarly imaginaries that would be otherwise inaccessible. Conversely, an uncritical or instrumentalized reliance on GAI—without attention to scholarly context and practice—risks undermining the depth, originality, and epistemic agency that characterize meaningful scholarly contribution and may contribute to the ossification of disciplinary boundaries under the guise of interdisciplinarity, thus limiting the transformative potential of academic publication. Moving forward, it is imperative that researchers, institutions, and policymakers engage in ongoing discourse and debate to ensure that the integration of GAI serves to enhance, rather than constrain, the production and dissemination of interdisciplinary knowledge.