# Encyclopedic or metagogical? Two postures for AI in a workforce facing a crisis of trust

Published in[Phoenix Scholar](/research/publications/phoenix-scholar.html)  
[Volume 9 Issue 1, Page 101](/research/publications/phoenix-scholar/vol-9-issue-1.html), Fall, 2026

https://doi.org/10.64657/DEXX3859

---

## Author

Mark L. McCaslin, Ph.D.

---

## Abstract

The 2025 Career Optimism Index documents an American workforce in crisis — record-high burnout, autonomy collapse, and an unprecedented turn toward artificial intelligence as a tool for skill development and resilience. This essay argues that the institutional question for 2026 is not whether to adopt AI but in whose service it is held. Two postures are named: encyclopedic, in which the tool replaces practitioner judgment, and metagogical, in which the tool extends it. The article draws on the metagogy framework (McCaslin & Scott, 2012), names the trust-building mechanism that distinguishes the two postures, locates what is at stake for the Scholar-Practitioner-Leader (McCaslin, 2013), and offers a concrete instance from doctoral teaching practice. The argument is that institutional trust is built or eroded at the level of posture, not at the level of adoption. The distinction is defined here as a construct, and the claim is framed so that it can be tested.

[Download PDF](https://www.phoenix.edu/content/dam/edu/research/doc/phoenix-scholar/volume-9-issue-1.pdf)