Artificial intelligence as academic infrastructure: governance, administrative intelligence, and AI fluency in Kazakhstan’s higher education sector

Rajasekhara Mouly Potluri, Victoria Polozova

Frontiers in Education, 2026

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.3389/feduc.2026.2005440
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly part of higher education's institutional infrastructure, extending beyond teaching and learning to governance, administration, and student support. This study examines how AI Governance Readiness (AIGR) influences Administrative Efficiency through AI (AEAI), AI Fluency Orientation (AIFO), and Student Retention Intentions (SRI), while assessing the mediating roles of AEAI and AIFO and the moderating role of Equity Perception (EPS) in Kazakhstan's higher education sector. Drawing on Dynamic Capability Theory and Sociotechnical Systems Theory, the study develops and empirically tests an institutional capability model using 935 valid responses from students, faculty, academic administrators, and digital administration staff across public and private universities. The scholars analyzed the data using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) in SmartPLS 4.0, supported by RStudio. The measurement model demonstrated satisfactory reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity, while the structural model showed adequate explanatory and predictive performance. We assessed common method bias through procedural safeguards and full-collinearity diagnostics, and identified no substantive concerns. The findings show that AIGR is positively associated with AEAI and AIFO, while both constructs positively influence SRI. AEAI and AIFO also significantly mediate the relationship between AIGR and SRI. However, EPS does not significantly moderate the relationships between AI-enabled institutional capabilities and retention intentions. The findings position AI governance as a strategic institutional capability through which universities can improve administrative responsiveness, develop AI-related competencies, and support student continuity. The study contributes empirical evidence from Kazakhstan to the growing literature on responsible AI governance and digital transformation in higher education.