ArticleAI & society2026
AI ethics through a decolonial lens: what does AI ethics look like if we take seriously the push to decolonise it?
Article in AI & society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Health data sovereignty: pinpointing conceptual ambiguities.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper offers an exploratory examination of the emerging discourse and practices on decolonising AI ethics. Whilst the field of AI ethics has made substantial progress in proposing normative frameworks for responsible innovation, these frameworks remain predominantly grounded in Western epistemological traditions, foundations which have limited the capacity of AI ethics to engage with plural ontologies and non-Western moral traditions, particularly those emerging from the Global South. Drawing from decolonial and critical data studies, this paper interrogates what an alternative, decolonial orientation to AI ethics might entail in both conceptual and practical terms. We contend that mainstream AI ethics frameworks fail to recognise epistemic diversity and to establish dialogical relations with non-Western knowledge systems, thereby reproducing colonial hierarchies of thought and governance within technological design and deployment. An answer to the question of decolonising AI ethics is not simple or straightforward and will, therefore, not be single handedly delivered in this paper, whilst we acknowledge the situatedness and limitations of our study. Whilst we understand that there are many other realms to examine for a decolonial AI ethics (such as critical infrastructure, labour, and political economy), we decide to focus on the following reflections: (1) AI as a means to redress power asymmetries and structural exploitation; (2) AI grounded in local data sovereignty and equitable epistemic participation; and (3) AI conceived as relationally entangled with humans, more-than-humans, and the Earth. These reflections foreground the material and ecological dimensions of data-its extractive infrastructures, environmental externalities, and geo-political inequalities-as central to the ethical assessment of AI. Through a literature-based exploration of these domains, we argue that decolonising AI ethics requires moving beyond the universalist and procedural tendencies of Western ethical paradigms towards pluriversal, situated, and ecologically embedded forms of ethical reasoning. The paper concludes by outlining how these reflections can serve as a theoretical scaffold for rearticulating AI ethics in and from the Global South, resisting the uncritical replication of Northern frameworks and opening pathways for epistemic plurality in global AI governance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.