Uncertainty, trust, and the individualisation of risk in contemporary assessment cultures
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21494067 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Kenneth Maxwell (0009-0004-7091-6855, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, corresponding author), Gregor Maxwell (0000-0002-0473-2757, UiT The Arctic University of Norway) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Pages | 1-19 |
| Publication date | 2026-07-03 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0260-2938 • E-ISSN: 1469-297X |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/02602938.2026.2694457 |
| OpenAlex | W7167246871 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 42 |
Contemporary assessment cultures are characterised by increasing uncertainty, as established approaches to authorship, judgement, and integrity are placed under strain by emerging conditions such as generative artificial intelligence (GenAI). Rather than positioning this technology solely as a disruption to be contained, this article conceptualises GenAI as an assessment stress-test that reveals latent fragilities in pedagogical trust and institutional governance. Drawing on three consecutive years of survey data from a Norwegian university (2023–2025, n = 1,365), the study analyses how students navigate assessment under conditions of sustained uncertainty. Findings indicate that instead of diminishing with familiarity, uncertainty has intensified and shifted from ethical caution to strategic risk management and perceptions of structural threat. In the absence of coherent guidance, students describe a fragmented landscape of inconsistent judgement, leading to adopting performative safety and self-imposed micro-ethics as compensatory boundary work. This individualisation of uncertainty creates uneven equity consequences, transforming the digital divide into a gap between those who possess the cultural resources to absorb assessment risk and those who must withdraw to protect themselves. The article concludes that control-oriented responses exacerbate these tensions, revealing both their limitations and the conditions under which pedagogical trust becomes strained
Cultural diversity · Data collection · Ethnic group · Higher education · Qualitative research · Research methodology · Risk assessment · Adventure Sports and Sensation Seeking · Global Educational Policies and Reforms · Risk Perception and Management
Students’ voices on generative AI
Generative AI in Higher Education
Standards of Validity and the Validity of Standards in Performance Asessment
The qualitative content analysis process
How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis
Pressure to Plagiarize and the Choice to Cheat
Ethical Problems in the Use of Artificial Intelligence by University Educators
Historical threads, missing links, and future directions in AI in education
Authentic assessment as relational pedagogy
The GenAI divide among university students
Higher education in Nordic countries
Learning to work with the black box
The more you think you know
Assessment cultures in higher education
‘Where’s the line? It’s an absurd line’
Patterns of resistance in managing assessment change
A critical review of GenAI policies in higher education assessment
Developing evaluative judgement for a time of generative artificial intelligence
Validity matters more than cheating
AI in education influencers
Trust in Educational Settings—What It Is and Why It Matters. European Perspectives
Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |