Configurando la ciudadanía sostenible asistida por IA: Un estudio fsQCA del modelo CAITIZEN
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55965/setp.6.12.a2Palabras clave:
ciudadanía sostenible asistida por inteligencia artificial, modelo CAITIZEN, fsQCA, análisis configuracional, innovación socialResumen
Context. Artificial intelligence increasingly mediates learning, decision-making, creativity, and citizenship formation in higher education, requiring critical, ethical, fair, collaborative, and reflective capabilities for sustainable development and responsible human–AI interaction. Problem. Previous CAITIZEN studies established its qualitative architecture and PLS-SEM relationships, but net effects do not reveal sufficient configurations or asymmetry. Which configurations of critical AI literacy (CAIL), ethical responsibility (EARB), fairness and data justice (AFDJ), human–AI collaboration (HAIC), and metacognitive prompting (MTPP) are sufficient for high versus low CAITIZEN?
Purpose. This study compares these configurations through a multidisciplinary sustainable- innovation perspective informed by the OECD Oslo Manual, primarily aligned with SDG 4 and complementarily with SDG 9.
Methodology. An fsQCA study used data collected from July to December 2025 in Jalisco, Mexico, from 511 higher-education students. Five ten-item conditions and the ten-item CAITIZEN outcome were calibrated using P5, 5.00, and P95. Necessity, sufficiency, coverage, consistency, core/peripheral roles, asymmetry, and robustness were assessed.
Theoretical and Practical Findings. No condition was necessary. Five configurations were sufficient for high CAITIZEN (coverage=.866; consistency=.917), while low CAITIZEN followed a distinct configuration (coverage=.600; consistency=.924). Scientia extends CAITIZEN toward a configurational theory of sustainable AI-assisted citizenship; Praxis provides alternative capability architectures for responsible AI education and sustainable innovation primarily aligned with SDG 4 and complementarily with SDG 9.
Originality. CAITIZEN integrates a multidisciplinary sustainable-innovation perspective with configurational analysis, revealing multiple pathways through combinations of human and technological capabilities.
Conclusions and Limitations. CAITIZEN is configurational, conjunctural, equifinal, and asymmetric. Its cross-sectional, non-probabilistic sample limits generalization and temporal inference, requiring replication to assess stability.
Descargas
Citas
Almatrafi, O., Johri, A., & Lee, H. (2024). A systematic review of AI literacy conceptualization, constructs, and implementation and assessment efforts (2019–2023). Computers and Education Open, 6, 100173.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100173
Archambault, S. G., Ramachandran, S., Acosta, E., & Fu, S. (2024). Ethical dimensions of algorithmic literacy for college students: Case studies and cross-disciplinary connections. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 50(3), 102865.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2024.102865
Auditoría Superior del Estado de Jalisco [ASEJ]. (2025). Poder Ejecutivo del Estado de Jalisco 2024: Apartado desempeño. Auditoría Superior del Estado de Jalisco.
Atchley, P., Pannell, H., Wofford, K., Hopkins, M., & Atchley, R. A. (2024). Human and AI collaboration in the higher education environment:
Opportunities and concerns. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 9, 20.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-024-00547-9
Barenca-Sotelo, C. U., Maciel-Arellano, M. del R., & Larios-Rosillo, V. M. (2026). Toward a sustainable innovation in the faculty evaluation process: A systematic review of AI, data science, and NLP applications in higher education. Scientia et PRAXIS, 6(11), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.55965/setp.6.11.a1
Bond, M., Khosravi, H., De Laat, M., Bergdahl, N., Negrea, V., Oxley, E., Pham, P., Chong, S. W., & Siemens, G. (2024). A meta systematic review of artificial intelligence in higher education: A call for increased ethics, collaboration, and rigour. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21, Article 4.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00436-z
Douglas, E. J., Shepherd, D. A., & Prentice, C. (2020). Using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis for a finer-grained understanding of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(1), 105970.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2019.105970
Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.60263120
Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S., Fiss, P. C., & Aguilera, R. V. (2018). Studying configurations with qualitative comparative analysis: Best practices in strategy and organization research. Strategic Organization, 16(4), 482–495.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127018786487
Hernández-Rodríguez, T. M., & Mora-Pérez, C. O. (2026). Gender, culture of peace, and citizen participation as evidence-based social innovation for sustainable governance. Scientia et PRAXIS, 6(11), 59–85.
https://doi.org/10.55965/setp.6.11.a3
Hornberger, M., Bewersdorff, A., & Nerdel, C. (2023). What do university students know about artificial intelligence? Development and validation of an AI literacy test. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, 100165.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100165
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía [INEGI]. (2025). Encuesta Nacional sobre Disponibilidad y Uso de Tecnologías de la Información en los Hogares (ENDUTIH) 2024. INEGI.
https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/saladeprensa/boletines/2025/endutih/ENDUTIH_24.pdf
Laupichler, M. C., Aster, A., Haverkamp, N., & Raupach, T. (2023). Development of the “Scale for the assessment of non-experts’ AI literacy” – An exploratory factor analysis. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 12, 100338.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2023.100338
Lintner, T. (2024). A systematic review of AI literacy scales. npj Science of Learning, 9, 50.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-024-00264-4
Mejía-Trejo, J. (2023). Análisis cualitativo comparativo. Tomo II. Difuso (fsQCA): Teoría y práctica. Academia Mexicana de Investigación y Docencia en Innovación (AMIDI).
https://doi.org/10.55965/abib.2023.9786075956756
Mejía-Trejo, J. (2025). Innovating sustainable artificial intelligence citizenship: A qualitative study of the CAITIZEN model using ATLAS.ti. Scientia et PRAXIS, 5(10), 126–154. https://doi.org/10.55965/setp.5.10.a5
Mejía-Trejo, J. (2026). Extended CAITIZEN: A PLS-SEM study of sustainable AI-assisted citizenship innovation. Scientia et PRAXIS, 6(11), 86–118. https://doi.org/10.55965/setp.6.11.a4
Miao, F., & Holmes, W. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386693
Misangyi, V. F., Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S., Fiss, P. C., Crilly, D., & Aguilera, R. V. (2017). Embracing causal complexity: The emergence of a neo-configurational perspective. Journal of Management, 43(1), 255–282.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316679252
Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021). AI literacy: Definition, teaching, evaluation and ethical issues. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 58(1), 504–509.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.487
OECD/Eurostat. (2018). Oslo manual 2018: Guidelines for collecting, reporting and using data on innovation (4th ed.). OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304604-en
OECD. (2023). OECD digital education outlook 2023: Towards an effective digital education ecosystem. OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/c74f03de-en
Pappas, I. O., & Woodside, A. G. (2021). Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA): Guidelines for research practice in information systems and marketing. International Journal of Information Management, 58, 102310.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102310
Park, Y. K., Fiss, P. C., & El Sawy, O. A. (2020). Theorizing the multiplicity of digital phenomena: The ecology of configurations, causal recipes, and guidelines for applying QCA. MIS Quarterly, 44(4), 1493–1520.
https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2020/13879
Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. University of Chicago Press.
https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226702797.001.0001
Ragin, C. C., & Davey, S. (2023). fsQCA (Versión 4.1) [Software]. University of California, Irvine. https://sites.socsci.uci.edu/~cragin/fsQCA/software.shtml
Tankelevitch, L., Kewenig, V., Simkute, A., Scott, A. E., Sarkar, A., Sellen, A., & Rintel, S. (2024). The metacognitive demands and opportunities of generative AI. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Article 680, pp. 1–24). Association for Computing Machinery.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642902
Thiem, A. (2022). Beyond the facts: Limited empirical diversity and causal inference in qualitative comparative analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 51(2), 527–540.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124119882463
United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
World Economic Forum. (2025). The future of jobs report 2025.
https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-report-2025/
Yan, L., Sha, L., Zhao, L., Li, Y., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Chen, G., Li, X., Jin, Y., & Gašević, D. (2024). Practical and ethical challenges of large language models in education: A systematic scoping review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(1), 90–112.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2026 Juan Mejía-Trejo, Pascuala Josefina Cárdenas-Salazar, Carlos Omar Aguilar-Navarro, Carlos Gabriel Borbón-Morales

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0.

