www.ijcrsee.com

Milojković, B. P., Zdravković, D., & Cvetković, B. N. (2026). Artificial Intelligence, Social Change, and Sociology Education:

Toward Digital Sociology in The age of Deglobalization, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering

and Education (IJCRSEE), 14(1), 49-63.

Original scientific paper

Received: November 09, 2025.

Revised: April 25, 2026.

Accepted: May 04, 2025.

UDC:

37.091.39:004.8

10.23947/2334-8496-2026-14-1-049-063

Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Corresponding author: biljanaprodovic@gmail.com

Abstract: This paper investigates the transformative impact of artificial intelligence (AI) and deglobalization processes

on contemporary society, with a particular focus on redefining the discipline of sociology and educational paradigms. Through

a critical analysis of opposing currents of digital integration and geopolitical fragmentation, and by synthesizing insights

from the sociology of technology, education, and digital transformation theory, the study offers a conceptual framework for

digital sociology as a new theoretical and methodological domain that examines how algorithms, platforms, and intelligent

systems shape social relations. Three key aspects are analyzed: (1) the role of AI in reconfiguring social structures, (2) the

consequences of deglobalization on the development of digital technologies, and (3) the necessity of reforming sociology

education to prepare future researchers for a critical understanding of these processes. The study adopts an interdisciplinary

approach, combining theoretical analysis with case studies. Its primary contribution lies in elaborating strategies for adapting

sociological education to the conditions of digital transformation, fostering ethical reasoning, and promoting social responsibility.

Keywords: Artificial intelligence, digital sociology, social change, sociology education, deglobalization.

Biljana Prodović Milojković

, Danijela Zdravković

, Biljana Novković Cvetković

University of Niš, Pedagogical Faculty, Vranje, Serbia

e-mail: biljanaprodovic@gmail.com; danijelavranje@gmail.com, biljananovkovic74@gmail.com

Artificial Intelligence, Social Change, and Sociology Education: Toward

Digital Sociology in The age of Deglobalization

Introduction

Contemporary society stands on the threshold of profound transformations that are reshaping eve-

ryday life, social relations, and educational paradigms. We are witnessing an era in which artificial intel-

ligence (AI) and transhumanist technologies are no longer confined to the realm of science fiction, but are

increasingly embedded in our daily lives—altering the ways we work, communicate, make decisions, and

engage with culture, media, and education (Selwyn, 2019; Slavković et al., 2023; Petrović, 2019; Ristić

and Marinković, 2019; Shi et al., 2020; Šuvaković, 2024; Zdravković, et. al., 2025)—and even influenc-

ing our understanding of what it means to be human (Masliković, 2025). The magnitude of this impact is

anticipated in the prediction of computer scientist Mark Weiser (1991, pp. 94–105), who foresaw humanity

entering an era of ubiquitous computing, in which digital technology would become so interwoven with

human life that its pervasive presence would largely go unnoticed.

On the other hand, deglobalization processes lead to geopolitical fragmentation and uneven devel-

opment of digital technologies, further complicating this concept (Friedman, 2021).

In this context, sociology faces the challenge of integrating new technologies into its theoretical and

methodological frameworks. Changes in the ways we consume media and create content, accelerated by

the emergence of Web 2.0, have led to the development of computational social sciences—an interdisci-

plinary field combining sociology, psychology, political science, economics, and computational methods to

study social phenomena. AI intersects with this discipline, offering new opportunities for analyzing social

networks, predictive modeling, and simulating interactions within digital communities. This synergy ena-

bles a deeper understanding of how digital systems shape social communication, group integration, and

www.ijcrsee.com

Milojković, B. P., Zdravković, D., & Cvetković, B. N. (2026). Artificial Intelligence, Social Change, and Sociology Education:

Toward Digital Sociology in The age of Deglobalization, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering

and Education (IJCRSEE), 14(1), 49-63.

the dissemination of information, thereby opening avenues for applying digital sociology in teaching and

researching social change in the era of deglobalization.

Digital sociology, as an emerging branch of sociology, focuses on analyzing the impact of digital

technologies on social processes, identities, and institutions (Van Dijck, 2020; Castells, 2010). This dis-

cipline investigates how algorithms, platforms, and intelligent systems shape social relations and how

societies adapt to new digital realities (Zhao and Wang, 2023; Selwyn, 2019a; Skopek, 2023). Jonathan

Wynn shares his experiences with the use of digital technology in sociological research and teaching,

sharply noting that digital technology has introduced new challenges that sociology must examine and

explore in greater depth (Wynn, 2009, pp. 448–456). Digital sociology has developed in response to the

growing influence of digital technologies on social processes (Boyd, 2014), recognizing, as many theorists

argue, that technology is not neutral; rather, it shapes social relations, power structures, and educational

practices (Wajcman, 2017; Floridi, 2019; Skopek, 2023).

One of the key aspects of this transformation is education. The teaching of sociology, as well as other

social sciences, must adapt to the new challenges posed by digitalization. This involves not only the integra-

tion of new technologies into the educational process but also the development of critical thinking that ena-

bles students to understand and analyze the impact of AI and digital technologies on society (Floridi, 2019).

In this cont

ext, the aim of this paper is to investigate how AI and deglobalization affect social com-

munication, group integration, and social inequalities, with a particular focus on sociology education.

Through a critical analysis of existing theoretical frameworks and case studies, the study provides a

conceptual framework for digital sociology as a new theoretical and methodological approach to examin-

ing social change in the digital age. This is done with an attempt to map the rapidly evolving landscape of

our digital and posthuman future (Serpa et al., 2025). The study employs an interdisciplinary theoretical

framework, combining approaches from the sociology of technology, education, and digital transformation.

Methodological support is based on content analysis of the literature and case studies. Since the study is

theoretical and analytical in nature, quantitative methods are not applied; instead, a critical synthesis of

existing research and conceptual frameworks is conducted. The focus is on three key dimensions:

1. Social communication – aimed at exploring how digital technologies and AI shape interactions, dis-

course, and access to information (Van Dijck, 2020).

2. Group integration – analyzing the formation of shared identities and collective networks in digital

environments, with attention to potential segregation (Boyd, 2014).

3. Social inequalities – encompassing approaches to technology, digital literacy, and the reproduction of

social inequalities through algorithmic processes and digital platforms (UNESCO, 2021; OECD, 2022).

This combination of theoretical framework and methodological approach enables an understanding

of how digital technologies and AI are transforming contemporary society and the educational context,

particularly sociology education. Applied in this way, the interdisciplinary approach ensures the integration

of critical theory, empirical studies, and practical implications for educational programs.

The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Transforming Social Structures – Toward the

Transhumanization of Society

As society approaches the threshold of transhuman development, AI becomes a key factor in

transforming social structures, raising new challenges and questions (Orton-Johnson and Prior, 2013;

Lupton, 2015; Marres, 2017; Selwyn, 2019a; Fussey and Roth, 2020). Scholars base their discussion on

the fundamental question of societal transhumanization: are we developing artificial intelligence for the

benefit of humanity, or are we merely shaping humanity through the evolution of intelligent technology?

Today, we are not merely discussing advanced tools but the possibility of a symbiotic relationship between

humans and machines—a concept at the heart of Society 5.0, often described as a “technology-driven,

human-centered” society (Masliković, 2025, p. 42). At the core of these changes lies a fundamental ques-

tion: what does it mean to be human in an era when the boundaries between humans and machines are

increasingly blurred? The social implications of AI and transhumanism extend beyond technical feasibility,

as they touch upon the very essence of democratic values, cultural continuity, and human dignity.

The emergence and development of digital technology represent pivotal moments in the history

www.ijcrsee.com

Milojković, B. P., Zdravković, D., & Cvetković, B. N. (2026). Artificial Intelligence, Social Change, and Sociology Education:

Toward Digital Sociology in The age of Deglobalization, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering

and Education (IJCRSEE), 14(1), 49-63.

of human civilization, as their scope and dynamics have exerted a profound impact on all dimensions of

social life. The rapid advancement of these technologies has marked the onset of a new era—the digital

society—in which not only communication patterns and everyday life are transformed, but deep, systemic

changes in social structures are also set in motion. Digital technology, and AI in particular, no longer

serves merely as a tool for improving social practices; it has become a key agent in reshaping them. As

Helbing (2021) emphasizes, digitalization and intelligent systems will not only shape human discourse

and institutional frameworks but will gradually transform the very foundations of the world, paving the way

toward a new social and ontological horizon of a transhumanist nature. AI redefines social and economic

roles through automation, information personalization, and algorithmic management of interactions. Ac-

cording to Bostrom (2014), algorithmic systems have the potential to transform social structures by in-

fluencing access to resources, education, and employment. Algorithms filter the information individuals

receive, shape public discourse, and often reproduce existing social inequalities (Van Dijck, 2020), as will

be discussed below. As Zeqi Qiu (2022) notes, the digital society, through its networking mechanisms,

penetrates traditional divisions of labor and classical forms of organizational structures, positioning the

individual as a central node within the digital network (Kovačević, 2024). This creates a new social model

in which the individual is simultaneously an independent unit and part of a broader, interconnected whole

(Nesterova et al., 2019, pp. 19–27). Such transformation not only changes the position of the individual

within society but also leads to a redefinition of the relationship between the individual and the collective,

reshaping the logic of social differentiation and reconsidering the fundamental principles underlying social

functioning. As digital platforms and AI algorithms shape contemporary social structures, they influence

behavior, identities, and perceptions of the world, altering social interactions and information flows. At the

same time, the digital divide demonstrates how access to technology and the monetization of personal

data can deepen social inequalities and reshape traditional power relations.

Online communities represent new “public squares” of the internet, ranging from niche forums

to large fandoms, where social ties as well as rivalries are formed and reinforced. These communities

demonstrate how digital spaces enable the construction of identities, collective practices, and new forms

of group dynamics, providing sociology with valuable insights into contemporary social structures. Such

digital spaces also offer support networks, allowing individuals to share feelings and experiences that they

would rarely discuss in real life, offering comfort and solidarity in challenging situations, thereby creating

new forms of social connections and communities. These spaces transform traditional social structures

by expanding access to support and altering the ways in which groups and individuals organize and

connect with one another. Online activist hubs challenge the status quo, reshaping forms of participation

and power relations, but they also highlight the risk of performative activism. At the same time, the digital

divide and algorithmic shaping of information exacerbate inequalities and introduce new challenges to

social structures. Collectively, these phenomena illustrate how digital society changes the ways commu-

nities are built, power relations are reinforced, and social life is organized. They impact online identities,

which can reflect or shape our “true selves,” creating new forms of social ties and interactions. Within

these digital spaces, authentic communities can emerge on one hand, while on the other, performative

avatars may dominate, fundamentally altering traditional social structures and the ways people connect.

As we have seen, digital platforms and algorithms strongly influence the shaping of social relation-

ships, creating new opportunities for connection and participation, but also new forms of inequality, echo

chambers, and risks to privacy and mental health (Bjelajac et al., 2023, pp. 519–531). A central task that

emerges is to study how people can govern digital spaces rather than be governed by them. Research

indicates that the internet has shortened the average human attention span from 12 to just 8 seconds,

reflecting the growing distraction of contemporary individuals. As communication increasingly occurs be-

hind screens, fundamental interpersonal skills—such as reading body language, facial expressions, and

vocal tone—are less frequently developed. Digital sociology, through such examples, demonstrates how

technology reshapes social structures, influencing not only our relationships but also the very ways we

understand one another.

Thus, the challenge of the contemporary era is not only to learn to live with technology, but also

to preserve the capacity for focused, critical thinking despite it. This indicates that digital sociology must

examine how social structures are transformed in online environments and how individuals and groups

position themselves in relation to the complex and often contradictory effects of digital communication.

Consequently, there is a need to develop critical competencies among sociology educators and students

www.ijcrsee.com

Milojković, B. P., Zdravković, D., & Cvetković, B. N. (2026). Artificial Intelligence, Social Change, and Sociology Education:

Toward Digital Sociology in The age of Deglobalization, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering

and Education (IJCRSEE), 14(1), 49-63.

for understanding digital power structures, inequalities, and new forms of social engagement (Prodović

Milojković, 2012, pp. 187–196; Nesterova et al., 2019).

The Consequences of Deglobalisation for the Development of Digital Technologies

The study of social relations and interactions has long been at the core of sociology; however, the

widespread integration of digital technologies is radically transforming their very nature (Skopek, 2023).

Considering that existing definitions of AI may be grouped according to thinking and behaviour processes,

as well as success criteria (Prlja et al., 2021, p. 61), this becomes particularly relevant when analysing

the consequences of deglobalisation for the development of digital technologies and the transformation

of human interaction.

Instead of exclusively direct, face-to-face communication, new forms of mediated interactions are

emerging that blur the boundaries between presence and absence, creating so-called “connected rela-

tionships” (Licoppe, 2004, pp. 135–156). While some authors emphasize that digital media strengthen

and expand social ties (Wajcman, 2015), others point to the risk of superficiality and loneliness despite in-

creased connectedness (Turkle, 2011). The common denominator of these perspectives is the recognition

that digital media not only shape modes of communication, but also transform the very nature of social

relationships (Baym, 2015). Digital platforms and AI enable new forms of social communication and group

integration. Group integration in digital environments depends on access to technology, digital literacy,

and the algorithmic rules of platforms (Van Dijck, 2020). Through the formation of online communities,

users can express their identities in more personalized ways and experience more variable senses of be-

longing, while simultaneously maintaining and reinforcing offline social networks (Robards and Bennett,

2011, pp. 303–317). Boyd (2014) notes that networks facilitate the creation of shared identities, support,

and collaboration within communities. At the same time, algorithmic filtering and recommendation sys-

tems may contribute to the emergence of “echo chamber” effects, in which users primarily interact with

similar viewpoints, potentially leading to social polarization.

In the context of deglobalisation processes, digital technologies have become key mediators of

social relations, as they increasingly shape closed, fragmented, and localised communities rather than

globally integrated networks. Digital sociology suggests that mediated interactions enable new forms of

connectedness and collective identity formation, yet simultaneously carry risks of superficiality and social

isolation. Thus, the consequences of deglobalisation are reflected not only in the economic and political

spheres, but also in the transformation of the very nature of social relations and communication, which is

becoming increasingly dependent on digital media and their inherent limitations. Digital technologies also

transform the boundaries between private and public life. Constant connectivity, the visibility of everyday

activities, and behaviours such as clicking and sharing content lead to the “privatisation of the public and

the public exposure of the private” (Van Manen, 2010, pp. 1023–1032; Boccia Artieri et al., 2021, pp.

223–230). These changes, combined with multitasking and continuous psychological pressure (Tamme-

lin, 2018), are redefining the boundaries of personal identity and collective interaction in digital society.

In addition to social and spatial vulnerability, a new and more subtle form has emerged: cogni-

tive vulnerability rooted in the lack of critical reflection. Excessive reliance on AI may reduce individuals’

capacity for critical thinking, anticipation, and ethical judgement, leading to alienation from social interac-

tions, decreased motivation for learning, and increased exposure to harmful content, particularly among

younger users. In the context of deglobalisation—where access to technology may be limited or uneven—

it is insufficient to address only the social or spatial dimensions of vulnerability; it is also necessary to

consider the cognitive and ethical implications of dependence on digital technologies. Building a resilient

digital society requires technological progress to be guided by human values, the principle of equity, and a

commitment to the common good. Deglobalisation processes are fragmenting technological ecosystems

and producing regional disparities in access to digital resources (Friedman, 2021), which directly affect

access to information, international cooperation, and the reproduction of social inequalities. Countries

with limited technological resources face a widening digital divide, while technologically advanced nations

gain an advantage in global competition (OECD, 2022). Deglobalisation also shapes cultural and social

networks: the regionalisation of information and the use of localised algorithms may strengthen commu-

nity identities, yet simultaneously restrict engagement with global discourse (Castells, 2010).

www.ijcrsee.com

Milojković, B. P., Zdravković, D., & Cvetković, B. N. (2026). Artificial Intelligence, Social Change, and Sociology Education:

Toward Digital Sociology in The age of Deglobalization, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering

and Education (IJCRSEE), 14(1), 49-63.

Social media (Milenkova et al., 2018), in addition to strengthening connectedness, also intensify

polarization through the formation of “echo chambers” and extremist groups (Bail, 2021), which demon-

strates how digital sociology enables the analysis of social networks and identity dynamics within online

communities. Digital technology makes it possible to shape collective identity and consciousness in the

online space—from preserving cultural ties and memorial spaces to generating collective enthusiasm. It

examines how these practices reshape social relations, strengthen the sense of belonging, and connect

individuals with a wider social context in the digital age (Ponzanesi, 2020: 977–993; Recuber, 2021:

684–699; Gong, 2015: 87–103; Lorenzana, 2018). It is important to highlight that digitalization has also

transformed the nature of work by introducing flexible working hours and remote work, which contributes

to a better work–life balance but also raises issues of surveillance, data security (including potential risks

such as identity theft, cyber attacks, and data misuse) and social isolation. In the context of deglobaliza-

tion discussed here, these changes further deepen the fragmentation of the labor market, reduce labor

mobility, and reinforce local inequalities, thereby shaping new patterns of social and economic relations

(Demirci et al., 2023; Kovačević, 2024; Łukasz, et. al., 2019).

All these transformations in social relations and communication clearly demonstrate that the con-

sequences of deglobalization have a crucial impact on the development of digital technologies. The frag-

mentation of networks, regional digital divides, and limited access to technologies shape not only techni-

cal ecosystems, but also social structures, identities, and collective consciousness. Through the analysis

of these processes, digital sociology provides insight into how AI and digital media create new dynamics

of power, connectivity, and vulnerability within society, making it an essential framework for understanding

contemporary social change in the era of deglobalization.

Social Inequalities and Algorithmic Discrimination

Sociology’s attention to social inequalities has been present throughout its history, and digital sociology

continues this tradition by examining the impact of digital technologies on the reproduction and transformation

of social structures, including class, gender, and race (Zhao and Wang, 2023). Particular emphasis is placed on

whether digital technologies amplify existing inequalities or generate new forms of algorithmic discrimination.

The application of digital technologies not only reproduces existing social inequalities but also cre-

ates new forms of social differentiation (Hagerty and Rubinov, 2019). Initially, the concept of the “first-level

digital divide” based on differences in internet access, was introduced (Castells, 2001). The information

society has still not succeeded in bridging the gap in technological access or enabling full participation for

all citizens. Most technological developments neglect underrepresented members of society, particularly

vulnerable groups, thereby deepening existing social inequalities and the risk of algorithmic discrimination

(Wang, 2021). As infrastructure developed, the “second-level digital divide” emerged—based on differ-

ences in skills and technology usage—and the “third-level digital divide,” based on differences in social

outcomes and benefits (Hargittai, 2001; Van Dijk, 2005; Wei et al., 2011, pp. 170–187). This phenomenon

is especially pronounced in areas with less developed infrastructure and among populations with lower

socioeconomic status. These inequalities are further reproduced through algorithmic processes and digi-

tal technologies. UNESCO (2021) emphasizes that the digital divide is not merely a matter of internet ac-

cess but also involves skills, resources, and cultural competencies. Algorithms often reflect existing social

inequalities in education, employment, and economic power (Noble, 2018). Recommendation systems on

social media may favor dominant voices, while marginalized groups remain less visible, further reinforcing

social stratification (Wajcman, 2017).

According to van Dijk (Jan A. G. M. van Dijk), one of the earliest theorists of digital sociology, there

is a clear distinction between access to digital resources, connectivity, developed competencies, and

actual usage skills—revealing deeper layers of the digital divide (Dijk, 2005; Dewey, 2021). Excessive

use of digital media, particularly among young people, can negatively affect mental health and reduce

face-to-face social interactions, thereby limiting the development of social skills. These effects further

exacerbate existing social inequalities, as vulnerable groups are simultaneously more exposed to algo-

rithmic discrimination and have less access to support resources

. Within these divides, new inequalities

emerge: technologically educated users, such as software engineers and tech leaders, constitute a new

As highlighted by the 2018 World Economic Forum report, an average household in the United States can generate data every six sec-

onds. In Mozambique, where approximately 90% of the population lacks internet access, the average household generates zero digital

data (see: Bridging the Gender Gap: Mobile Access and Usage in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, GSMA).

www.ijcrsee.com

Milojković, B. P., Zdravković, D., & Cvetković, B. N. (2026). Artificial Intelligence, Social Change, and Sociology Education:

Toward Digital Sociology in The age of Deglobalization, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering

and Education (IJCRSEE), 14(1), 49-63.

“programmer elite,” whose power depends on control over technology (Burrell and Fourcade, 2021, pp.

213–237), while those without digital devices or skills suffer from digital poverty and social marginalization

(Donaghy, 2021, pp. 54–55). Even individuals with higher socioeconomic status can become vulnerable

due to a lack of digital literacy, including the ability to recognize misinformation and protect privacy (Lee,

2018, pp. 460–466). These processes clearly demonstrate that digital technology and AI are transform-

ing social structures and necessitate that sociology education integrates a digital perspective and critical

understanding of new forms of inequality.

Digital technologies, on the other hand, have the potential to facilitate resource sharing and expand

access to information, for example through educational platforms such as MOOCs, which reduce costs

and provide broader educational opportunities (Bowen, 2013). However, as observed, internet access

and usage are not evenly distributed: individuals with higher levels of education are more likely to use

digital resources for activities that contribute to social advancement, while others remain on the digi-

tal periphery, exacerbating existing social inequalities (Hargittai and Hinnant, 2008: 602–621; Hargittai,

2018). Furthermore, digital algorithms can subtly reproduce racial and gender inequalities. For instance,

in the U.S. healthcare system, predictive models for medical needs favor white patients due to reliance on

healthcare costs rather than the severity of illness (Obermeyer et al., 2019: 447–453). Similarly, advertis-

ing and employment algorithms exhibit gender biases: even when gender neutrality is maintained, men

are more frequently targeted with STEM-related ads, while women are disadvantaged by the “satura-

tion effect” and higher advertising costs (Lambrecht and Tucker, 2019: 2966–2981; Joyce et al., 2021)

Although e-commerce provides economic benefits, certain aspects, such as location-based services,

can deepen the digital divide and contribute to growing inequalities, reinforcing the argument that digital

sociology must investigate how digital technologies not only create new opportunities but also exacerbate

existing social disparities (Kozić, 2023).

As a social aspect of overcoming digital inequality, it is necessary to raise awareness of the im-

portance of acquiring skills—primarily operational, formal, informational, communicative, creative, and

strategic—in the use of new technologies, and to encourage vulnerable groups, such as older adults, to

engage with these technologies (Lupton, 2012: 4). Indeed, some authors define digital inequality specifi-

cally as the gap in possession of these skills (Dijk, 2014, p. 140).

Reducing digital inequality, in turn, contributes to the reduction of broader social inequality (Krištofić,

2007, pp. 165–182).

The Necessity of Reforming Sociology Education

The multidisciplinary nature of AI, stemming from efforts to understand the nature of intelligence

(Prlja et al., 2021: 58), simultaneously opens space for sociological investigations of the dynamic changes

and new challenges that digital technology introduces into social life (Kozić, 2023). In response to these

challenges, digital sociology has emerged, offering new perspectives for studying society. Digital sociol-

ogy finds its research domain precisely in these transformations, as they raise questions about new forms

of social integration, communication, and power in a digitally mediated world. It examines how technology

shapes interactions among individuals and the structure of social networks.

Although the significance of public digital sociology is increasingly recognized, sociologists, overall,

have devoted less sustained and systematic attention to it compared to their colleagues in communica-

tion, media, and cultural studies (Farrell and Petersen, 2010: 114–125). The development of digital soci-

ology is relatively recent—the first scholarly article under this title was published in 2009

(Wynn, 2009:

448–456); the first academic publication entirely devoted to digital sociology appeared in 2013 (Orton-

Johnson and Prior, 2013)

; and the first authored monograph was published in 2015 (Lupton, 2015)

. In

See: Carsten Orwat, Risk of Discrimination through the Use of Algorithms.

The article was published in the journal Sociological Forum—“Digital sociology: emergent technologies in the eld and the classroom”—

and it does not provide a denition of digital sociology; rather, the author examines the ways in which digital technologies can inuence

both sociological research and the teaching of sociology (Wynn, 2009).

Titled “Digital Sociology: Critical Perspectives” and edited by Kate Orton-Johnson and Nick Prior, this publication is an edited collection of

chapters covering a wide range of topics, including theoretical approaches and ideas related to urban spaces, social relations, communi-

ties and intimacy, networked society, and social inequalities in the use of technologies, mediation, and practices in the digital era, as well

as the impact of technologies on education, healthcare, and nance (Orton-Johnson and Prior, 2013).

This refers to the book Digital Sociology by the Australian sociologist Deborah Lupton (Lupton, 2015).

www.ijcrsee.com

Milojković, B. P., Zdravković, D., & Cvetković, B. N. (2026). Artificial Intelligence, Social Change, and Sociology Education:

Toward Digital Sociology in The age of Deglobalization, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering

and Education (IJCRSEE), 14(1), 49-63.

the same year, the first academic conference dedicated to this discipline was held in New York under the

Eastern Sociological Society (Daniels et al., 2015). As a field intersecting with digital humanities and an-

thropological studies and encompassing phenomena such as wearable technologies, augmented reality,

smart objects, and big data (Duggan et al., 2015), digital sociology demonstrates that sociology education

must be reformed to respond to the challenges of contemporary society.

Initially, the cited studies focused primarily on online communities, cyberspace, and issues related

to the redefinition of identity in virtual environments (Lupton, 2012: 4; Petrović, 2009: 23). However, with

the penetration of digital technologies into all segments of social life, the focus of sociologists has broad-

ened to encompass increasingly complex questions concerning the social consequences of digitalization

(Marres, 2017; Petrović, 2018: 557–582; Hristova, 2018, pp. 111–123; Dettano, 2023: 389–398)

. Over

slightly more than a decade, digital sociology has experienced rapid development and growth, accom-

panied by the publication of various specialized works that have significantly expanded its academic and

professional audience (Orton-Johnson and Prior, 2013; Lupton, 2015; Marres, 2017; Selwyn, 2019a). Si-

multaneously, sociological associations in various countries began establishing research branches dedi-

cated to digital sociology, while many universities introduced courses and degree programs related to this

discipline (Zhao and Wang, 2023) (see Figure 1)

Data source: Web of Science Core Collection. Topic = “The digital”, research eld = “Sociology”, publication year = 2001–

2021. A total of 3050 articles were retrieved with a total citation frequency of 39,966. The search was conducted in April

2022. (Zhao and Wang, 2023).

Figure. 1 Distribution of publications and citation frequency related to digital sociology (2001–2021)

Regarding Serbia, the study by Jelisaveta Petrović (2019: 478–496), which reviews the develop-

ment of internet social studies and the potential establishment of digital sociology in the country, shows

that although the domestic sociological community pays relatively little attention to this field, there are

clear advancements and growing trends. These findings, while indicating a certain lag compared to global

developments, confirm the need for reform in sociology education so that digital sociology in Serbia can

develop in line with contemporary social challenges. The way we approach these endeavors today will

shape the future framework of society, its structure, and the very concept of humanity. Over the past

decade, a new theme has emerged in the AI research community called “AI for Social Good” (AI4SG),

where researchers aim to develop AI methods and tools that can address social problems and improve

the quality of life within communities (Shi et al., 2020).

Paul DiMaggio emphasizes that research on the impact of the internet predominantly focuses on ve key areas: inequality, community

and social capital, political participation, organization and economic institutions, as well as cultural diversity (see: Cavanagh, 2007). Thus,

it appears that digital sociology is not limited solely to studying how individuals use digital technologies or analyzing the data produced by

such use. Its scope is considerably broader—it interrogates the very practice of sociology, social research methods, and the position of

sociologists within the digital environment. Simultaneously, it examines the ways in which sociologists employ digital media in their work,

raising questions about the future of the discipline, new research methodologies, and the values and knowledge in contemporary society.

These areas also constitute the foundational frameworks within which digital sociology develops its research.

In 2013, Goldsmiths, University of London, established the world’s rst master’s program in digital sociology, soon followed by the Univer-

sity of Edinburgh, the University of Glasgow, and Virginia Commonwealth University in the United States (Zhao and Wang, 2023).

www.ijcrsee.com

Milojković, B. P., Zdravković, D., & Cvetković, B. N. (2026). Artificial Intelligence, Social Change, and Sociology Education:

Toward Digital Sociology in The age of Deglobalization, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering

and Education (IJCRSEE), 14(1), 49-63.

Manuel Castells’ concept of the “network society” (2000, 2001, 2012), along with the theory of

“networked individualism” developed by Castells (2001) and Barry Wellman (2001: 227–252), provides

a theoretical framework for understanding the changes digital technologies bring to patterns of social

relations. These insights underpin the need for digital sociology to develop as a distinct discipline and for

sociology education to be reformed, enabling future researchers and students to critically assess the dy-

namics of networked social and individual practices in the era of deglobalization. The academic commu-

nity is gradually building a coherent understanding of digital sociology, yet no single definition of its nature

and scope currently exists. Scholars debate two key questions: first, whether digital sociology should be

viewed as a comprehensive transformation of sociology in the digital age or as a new, autonomous branch

of sociological research; and second, how to precisely define the research domain of digital sociology

(Zhao and Wang, 2023). Within the existing debates, some authors emphasize that if sociology aims to

remain relevant in the 21st century, it must develop the theoretical capacity to explain the digital revolu-

tion and societal transformation. Gregory and colleagues (2017) note that digital sociology does not have

a unified agenda and that it is more appropriate to speak of “digital sociologies.” Selwyn (2019a) adds

that digital sociology emerged from the research tradition of sociology but has also enabled a shift away

from the paradigm of the industrial revolution toward contemporary society. In contrast, Lupton’s (2015)

perspective views digital sociology as one branch of sociology, providing a framework for understanding

society without encompassing the entire sociological discipline in the digital age. These differing positions

highlight the dynamic and plural nature of digital sociology, shaped by changes in social communication,

group integration, and the transformation of social structures. Despite these open questions, interest in

research in this field continues to grow worldwide, confirming its significance for understanding social

change in the era of digitalization (Marres, 2013).

Some authors emphasize that digital sociology transcends the binary relationship between technol-

ogy and society, encompassing the dimension of knowledge production (Marres, 2017). In this way, not

only are patterns of social life shaped, but new opportunities arise for connecting academic analysis with

social intervention. In this sense, digital sociology functions not only as a subject of study (Webster, 2013)

but also as a methodological framework and research tool that can be integrated into sociology teaching

(Lupton, 2015). This approach fosters critical thinking while also encouraging active student engagement

in digital environments.

Deborah Lupton identifies four key aspects of digital sociology (Lupton, 2012):

1. The first pertains to professional digital practice, where sociologists, initially reluctant, increasingly

utilize social and other digital media for teaching and research purposes (Carrigan, 2013). Today,

sociological blogs are becoming more common, the presence of sociologists on platforms such as

Twitter is growing, and the importance of open access is emphasized—from self-archiving publica-

tions, to participation in projects like Wikipedia, to shaping new forms of academic communication

(Lupton, 2013). These developments clearly indicate that the reform of sociology education must

also include training students for this type of digital practice.

2. The second aspect pertains to sociological analyses of digital usage, which includes methods for

analyzing “big data,” digital traces, and online communications (Willis and Tranter, 2006: 43–59).

This aspect is based on studying how people use digital media and how this shapes their conscious-

ness, identity, and social relationships (Turkle, 2011a). All of this necessitates reforming sociology

education to familiarize students with new techniques for processing and interpreting digital data.

3. The third aspect relates to digital data analysis and encompasses its use for social research, whether

quantitative or qualitative (such as ethnographic studies, surveys and interviews with technology

users, as well as analyses of data from online interactions and social media) (Murthy and Bowman,

2014). Platforms such as Facebook and Twitter provide researchers with access to demographic and

communication data, facilitating the monitoring of public sentiment, discussions on controversial top-

ics, and “problem mapping.” Tools like MentionMapp and Twitter Streamgraph are used for data visu-

alization, showing the popularity of hashtags and the connections between words over time (Marres

and Gerlitz, 2016: 21–46). This aspect highlights the need to reform sociology education so that stu-

dents are equipped to use contemporary digital tools and methods in researching social phenomena.

4. Finally, the fourth aspect—so-called critical digital sociology—emphasizes the need to reassess

the discipline itself in the context of the digitalization of social relations and academic work (Lupton,

www.ijcrsee.com

Milojković, B. P., Zdravković, D., & Cvetković, B. N. (2026). Artificial Intelligence, Social Change, and Sociology Education:

Toward Digital Sociology in The age of Deglobalization, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering

and Education (IJCRSEE), 14(1), 49-63.

2012; Marres, 2013). The development of a “data culture,” the emergence of “big” and “small” data,

as well as digital metrics, necessitates a reform of sociology education to equip students for the criti-

cal understanding and study of contemporary social processes in a digital environment. At this point,

attention should also be drawn to public digital sociology (Christopher, 2014: 205–224), which plays

a key role in making sociological knowledge accessible to the broader public and fostering social

dialogue in online spaces. By utilizing digital media, it enables faster exchange of ideas, greater vis-

ibility of sociological discourse, and active citizen participation in understanding social processes. In

this context, the reform of sociology education should encourage students to use digital media as a

space for learning, exchanging views, and social engagement, thereby developing competencies for

active participation in public life and promoting sociological literacy.

The concept of contemporary teaching in the 21st century is in constant flux, strongly influenced by

new technologies that are redefining traditional learning models (Prodović Milojković, et al., 2024: 247–

262). Within sociology education, AI, with its transformative potential, enables the reshaping of classical

teaching methods and the orientation of the educational process toward modernization. Modernization

involves integrating intelligent techno-pedagogical knowledge, creating opportunities to combine techno-

logical competencies with teachers’ pedagogical skills in working with AI. The potential for personalized

learning allows educational materials to be adapted to the specific needs and abilities of each student, fa-

cilitating the work of teachers and other educational staff, including administrative personnel. This opens

the door for the introduction of more contemporary curricula and didactic materials, fostering a more crea-

tive and interactive environment for learning sociology. Furthermore, new technologies simplify adminis-

trative tasks at all levels, from secondary schools to universities, allowing instructors to devote more time

to the quality of teaching and student learning in a digital social context. On the other hand, in education,

AI enables personalized lesson plans and tailored resources but can also further marginalize students

who lack adequate access to technology (Selwyn, 2019), as previously noted. The open letter “Pause

Giant AI Experiments” (March 2023)

, signed by numerous global technology leaders and researchers,

including Elon Musk and Steve Wozniak, drew public attention to the risks of uncontrolled AI development

(Nikolić and Vučenović, 2024). For these reasons, digital sociology must analyze not only the positive ef-

fects but also the potential risks and inequalities accompanying AI implementation, highlighting both the

need and opportunity for reform in sociology education.

Contemporary research indicates that digital environments, despite offering new opportunities for

expressing and re-creating identity, reproduce gender inequalities, double standards, and male dominance

(Filipović, 2010: 361–392; Žakelj, 2014: 5–21). At the same time, the emergence of a new pattern of

sociality—‘networked individualism’ (Petrović, 2009: 23–44; Petrović, 2013: 417–438)—demonstrates that

traditional organizations are no longer essential for collective action in the digital age, as their functions are

increasingly assumed by new communication technologies (Petrović and Petrović, 2017: 405–426). These

insights confirm that reforming sociology education is necessary to equip digital sociology with the tools to

critically analyze both the potentials and limitations of digital social practices. Regarding methodological

approaches (Petrović, 2019), traditional sociological methods—such as surveys, interviews, case studies,

and content analysis—still predominate, although in some cases they are applied in digitalized forms (on-

line surveys, interviews via platforms like Skype) or to digital content (website analysis). What is noticeably

lacking, however, is the broader application of innovative methodologies, such as the analysis and visuali-

zation of digitally generated data. Although such practices remain rare even in more developed sociological

communities (Petrović, 2018: 557–582), this very gap highlights the need to systematically integrate digital

sociology into curricula. This would educate a new generation of digital sociologists, capable of applying

contemporary research techniques, including digital network analysis using tools such as Netvizz and

Gephi, and of addressing the new questions posed by digital society to sociology. Only within this context

would digital technologies create new opportunities for learning and education, particularly in higher educa-

tion, where they could provide access to rich information resources and flexible forms of instruction. This

underscores the necessity of reforming sociology education to incorporate digital tools and develop digital

competencies, thereby adapting the educational process to the demands of contemporary society. All of

this is closely aligned with the Strategy for the Development of Artificial Intelligence in the Republic of Ser-

bia for the period 2025–2030, which emphasizes the importance of education both in training AI specialists

See: Future of Life Institute (2023). Open Letter: Pause Giant AI Experiments, available at https://futureoife.org/open-letter/pause-

giant-ai-experiments/, accessed 28 July 2024.

www.ijcrsee.com

Milojković, B. P., Zdravković, D., & Cvetković, B. N. (2026). Artificial Intelligence, Social Change, and Sociology Education:

Toward Digital Sociology in The age of Deglobalization, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering

and Education (IJCRSEE), 14(1), 49-63.

and in adapting to the changes AI brings to the learning environment of students (Official Gazette of RS,

No. 30/18). In this context, as part of the reform of sociology education, it is necessary to develop the abil-

ity for critical analysis of digital processes and their transformative role in society. This involves examining

the relationship between technological and social dimensions, understanding the theoretical foundations of

digital sociology, assessing the consequences of digitalization and surveillance capitalism, and recogniz-

ing the links between the digital divide and social inequalities in both global and national contexts (Davies,

2014, February 25). All of this aims to ensure that education serves as a leading tool for fostering social

cohesion, enabling the prevention of social exclusion and inequality (Nesterova, et al., 2019).

A symbolic turning point in public reflection on the ethics of artificial intelligence was marked by

Pope Francis’s address at the G7 summit in 2024, where he for the first time highlighted the risks of AI

development without clearly defined moral boundaries. On that occasion, he called for the adoption of

an international agreement to ensure its ethical development and application, warning that “technology

devoid of human values—compassion, mercy, morality, and forgiveness—is far too dangerous to develop

without limits” (Nikolić and Vučenović, 2024: 11). The experiences of certain countries (e.g., Cuba, Iran,

North Korea, China, and Saudi Arabia) demonstrate that digital technologies, including AI, can serve

as instruments for content filtering, censorship, and surveillance, further underscoring the necessity of

protecting human rights in the digital age.In this context, the reform of digital sociology gains particular

importance: it must provide a critical framework for understanding the social consequences of AI in the

era of deglobalization and be integrated into contemporary sociology education. Pierre Léna also empha-

sizes the significance of responsible and thoughtful integration of new technologies into the educational

process, highlighting that their effectiveness depends not only on adapting curricula but also on the com-

petence and professional quality of teaching staff (Prlja, et al., 2021).

All of this confirms the need for modern sociology education to develop a critical, ethical, and so-

cially responsible perspective on digital sociology, equipping students to understand and critically reflect

on the consequences of technological transformations in contemporary society.

Conclusions

Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming one of the most influential drivers of contemporary social

change (Skopek, 2023; Hagerty and Rubinov, 2019), thereby creating space for the development of digi-

tal sociology as a subdiscipline that examines the mutual shaping of technology and social structures in

conditions of deglobalization (Prlja, et al., 2021). AI achievements, shaped by interdisciplinary contribu-

tions, demonstrate that it transcends the role of a technological tool and becomes an actor influencing

the transformation of social relations, identities, and power structures (Castells, 2010; Wajcman, 2017).

Literature analysis indicates that the application of AI and digital technologies simultaneously creates op-

portunities for progress and risks of deepening existing inequalities. Algorithms and digital platforms can

either reproduce or mitigate social disparities (Noble, 2018; Van Dijck, 2020), placing digital sociology in

the position of developing critical theoretical frameworks, ethical reflection, and methodological innova-

tions (Bojić, 2022: 1040). In this sense, digital sociology must remain interdisciplinary, research-oriented,

and socially responsible, integrating insights from sociology, philosophy of technology, educational sci-

ences, and ethics (Edelmann, et al., 2020: 61–81).

The reform of sociology education represents a strategic direction of action. In order to prepare

future researchers and students to understand the social consequences of AI, it is essential to incorporate

digital competencies, algorithm analysis, critical reflection on digital processes, and ethical perspectives

on technology into educational programs (Floridi, 2019; Babić and Matović, 2025, pp. 610–634). This

positions education as a key space for developing digital literacy, social responsibility, and the ability to

shape a more just digital society (Eubanks, 2014; 2018).

Sociologists face both a challenge and an opportunity: digital sociology can become a framework

for the thoughtful socio-technical transformation of society (Selwyn, 2019; UNESCO, 2021; OECD, 2022;

Joyce, et al., 2021). Future research should focus on:

1. mapping new forms of digital inequalities and algorithmic discrimination;

2. monitoring the social impacts of AI on different social contexts and vulnerable groups;

3. developing ethical standards and policies for AI application;

www.ijcrsee.com

Milojković, B. P., Zdravković, D., & Cvetković, B. N. (2026). Artificial Intelligence, Social Change, and Sociology Education:

Toward Digital Sociology in The age of Deglobalization, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering

and Education (IJCRSEE), 14(1), 49-63.

4. analyzing educational models that successfully integrate digital sociology into formal education.

Maintaining a balance between technological development and social values will be crucial for the

future (Budić, 2022; Prlja, et al., 2021). To remain relevant and transformative, sociology must actively

participate in shaping technology policies, critically monitor the implications of AI, and promote the devel-

opment of socially sustainable digital solutions (Nikolić and Vučenović, 2024; Dewey, 2021; Kozić, 2023).

As Kissinger (Kissinger, et al., 2022) states, “Humans still control the future. We must shape it with

our values”—reminding us that the development of AI and digital technologies cannot be left solely to techni-

cal or economic forces, but must be guided by social principles and ethics (Harari, 2024). Digital sociology,

therefore, is not only a new field of study but also a mission—to ensure that technology contributes to creat-

ing an inclusive, just, and humane society in the digital era (Serpa, et al., 2025; Grum and Grum, 2020).

As Kate Crawford, principal researcher at Microsoft Research and founder of the AI Now Institute,

explains (Rosenberg, 2017): “Data will always carry traces of its history.”

Acknowledgements

The authors received no specific funding for this work and have no acknowledgements to declare.

Conflict of interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: BPM, DZ, BNC; Methodology: BPM; Investigation: BPM; Formal analysis: BPM;

Data collection: BPM, DZ; Writing — original draft preparation: BPM; Writing — review and editing: BPM,

DZ, BNC; Supervision: DZ, BNC.

All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

References

Babić, J., & Matović, S. (2025). Risks assessment of using articial intelligence in education. Sociološki pregled / Sociological

Review, vol. LIX (2025), 2, 610–634. www.doi.org/10.5937/socpreg59-57266

Bail, C. (2021). Breaking the Social Media Prism: How to Make Our Platforms Less Polarizing. Breaking the Social Media

Prism. Princeton University Press.

Baym, N. K. (2015). Personal Connections in the Digital Age. Malden: Polity Press.

Birt, D., Brkić-Vejmelka, J., & Cvitković Kalanjoš, I. (2023). Digital age gap. Retrieved from https://www.digitclue.net/wp-

content/uploads/HUB/Translations%20Concepts%20-%20PDF/Translations_Digital%20Age%20Gap/Digital%20

Age%20Gap_ENG.pdf

Bjelajac, Ž., Filipović, A., & Stošić, L. (2023). Can AI be evil: The criminal capacities of ANI. International Journal of Cognitive

Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 11(3), 519-531. https://doi.org/10.23947/2334-8496-

2023-11-3-519-531

Bojić, Lј. (2022): Algoritmi za preporuke kao izvor moći u savremenom društvu. Sociološki pregled, 56(3), 1032-1055. Srpsko

sociološko društvo, Beograd.

Boccia Artieri, G., García-Bilbao, P. A., & La Rocca, G. (2021). Rethinking affective polarization and sharing of emotions in

digital platform ecosystems. Theories and research practices. International Review of Sociology 31: 223–230.

Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford University Press.

Boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press.

Bowen, W. G. (2013). Higher Education in the Digital Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Budić, M. (2022): Na šta mislimo kada kažemo… Etika i VI: etika i stavovi javnosti o upotrebi veštačke inteligencije, Beograd:

Institut za lozoju i društvenu teoriju, Univerzitet u Beogradu.

Burrell, J., & Fourcade, M. (2021). The Society of Algorithms. Annual Review of Sociology 47: 213–237.

Cavanagh, A. (2007): Sociology in the Age of the Internet. McGraw-Hill International.

Carrigan, M. (2013), The emergence of sociological media? Is social media becoming mainstream within UK sociology?. Mark

Carrigan.net.

www.ijcrsee.com

Milojković, B. P., Zdravković, D., & Cvetković, B. N. (2026). Artificial Intelligence, Social Change, and Sociology Education:

Toward Digital Sociology in The age of Deglobalization, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering

and Education (IJCRSEE), 14(1), 49-63.

Castells, M. (2000): The Rise of the Network Society (Vol. 1), Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Castells, M. (2001). The Internet Galaxy: Reections on the Internet, Business, and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Castells, M. (2010). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.

Castells, M. (2012): Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age, New York: Wiley.

Christopher J. S. (2014): Social Media and e-Public Sociology. In Ariane Hanemaayer and Christopher J. Schneider, editors,

The Public Sociology Debate: Ethics and Engagement, University of British Columbia Press.

Gong, R. (2015). Indignation, Inspiration, and Interaction on the Internet: Emotion Work Online in the Anti-Human Trafcking

Movement. Journal of Technology in Human Services 33: 87–103.

Gregory, K., Cottom T. M., & Daniels, J. (2017). Introduction. In Jessie Daniels, Karen Gregory & Tressie M. Cottom (eds.),

Digital Sociologies, xvii–xxx. Chicago: Policy Press.

Grum, B., & Grum, D. K. (2020). Concepts of social sustainability based on social infrastructure and quality of life. Facilities,

38(11/12), 783-800. https://doi.org/10.1108/F-04-2020-0042

Davies, H. C. (2014, February 25). Introducing digital sociology. Retrieved April 1, 2015 from http://thesocietypages.org/

sociologylens/2014/02/25/introducing-digital-sociology/

Daniels, J., Gregory, K., & Cottom, T.M. (2015): Digital Sociology, MiniConference, organized in conjunction with the Eastern

Sociological Society meetings, February 27–28, 2015. http://digsoc.commons.gc.cuny.edu/conference-papers-2015/

Dettano, A. (2023): Sociology of the Digital Space, Social Research and Emotions. The American Sociologist, 54(3), 389–398.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-023-09593-0

Demirci, O., Hannane, J., & Zhu, X. (2023). Who Is AI Replacing? The Impact of Generative AI on Online Freelancing Platforms,

SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4602944, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4602944

Dewey, J. (2021): Digital Sociology. EBSCO Knowledge Advantage TM, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/sociology/

digital-sociology.

Donaghy, D. (2021). Dening Digital Capital and Digital Poverty. ITNOW 63: 54–55.

Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2005). The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Information Society. California: Sage Publications.

Duggan, M., Ellison, N. B., LAMPE, C., Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2015, January 9). Social media update. Retrieved April 1,

2015 from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/09/social-media-update-2014/

Edelmann, A., Wolff, T., Montagne, D., & Bail, C. A.. (2020). Computational Social Science and Sociology. Annual Review of

Sociology 46: 61–81. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054621

Eubanks, V. (2014). Want to Predict the Future of Surveillance? Ask Poor Communities. American Prospect Magazine, January

15, 2014. https://prospect.org/article/want-predict-future-surveillance-ask-poor-communities

Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools prole, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin's Press, 2018.

Joyce, K., Smith-Doerr, L., Alegria, S., Bell, S., Cruz, T., Hoffman, S., Umoja Noble, S., & Shestakofsky, B. (2021). Toward

a Sociology of Articial Intelligence: A Call for Research on Inequalities and Structural Change, Socius: Sociological

Research for a Dynamic World, Volume 7: 1–11. http://doi.org/10.1177/2378023121999581

Lambrecht, A., & Tucker, C. (2019). Algorithmic bias? An empirical study of apparent gender-based discrimination in the display

of STEM career ads. Management science, 65(7), 2966-2981. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3093

Lee, N. M. (2018). Fake news, phishing, and fraud: a call for research on digital media literacy education beyond the class-

room. Communication Education 67, 460–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2018.1503313

Licoppe, C. (2004). ‘Connected’ Presence: The Emergence of a New Repertoire for Managing Social Relationships in a

Changing Communication Technoscape. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 22: 135–156. https://doi.

org/10.1068/d323t

Lorenzana, R. (2018). Effervescence, Resonance and Emotive Practice on Social Media: Public Expressions of Heartbreak

Among Young Filipino Twitter Users. In Digital Intimate Publics and Social Media, ed. Amy S. Dobson, Brady Robards,

and Nicholas Carah, 145–160. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97607-5_9

Łukasz, T., Stošić, L., & Cvetković, B. (2019). Digital Literacy in the Area of Digital Safety Among Parents of the Secondary

School Students, Conference: E-Learning Technologies: Solutions, Problems, Prospectsat: Novosibirsk, Russia.

Lupton, D. (2012). Digital Sociology: An Introduction. Sydney: University of Sydney. Dostupno na: https://www.shortcutstv.com/

wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Introducing_digital_sociology.pdf

Lupton, D. (2013). Opening up your research: self-archiving for sociologists. This Sociological Life.

Lupton, D. (2015). Digital Sociology. London: Routledge.

Kisindžer, H., Šmit, E., & Hatenloker, D. (2022). Doba veštačke inteligencije i naša ljudska budućnost [The Age of Articial

Intelligence and Our Human Future], Klub Plus, Beograd.

Kovačević, Lj. (2024). Globalni problemi i izazovi savremenog radnog prava [Global Problems and Challenges to Contempo-

rary Labour Law], Poslovni izazovi, Vol. II, 2024.

Kozić, F. (2023). Sociološki aspekti vještačke inteligencije, 13th Research/Expert Conference with International Participations

”QUALITY 2023“, Neum, B&H, June 19 – 21, 2023.

www.ijcrsee.com

Milojković, B. P., Zdravković, D., & Cvetković, B. N. (2026). Artificial Intelligence, Social Change, and Sociology Education:

Toward Digital Sociology in The age of Deglobalization, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering

and Education (IJCRSEE), 14(1), 49-63.

Krištoć, B. (2007). Digitalna nejednakost. Sociologija i prostor: časopis za istraživanje prostornoga i sociokulturnog razvoja

[Digital inequality. Sociology and space: a journal for research into spatial and sociocultural development], 45(2 (176)),

165-182. https://hrcak.srce.hr/17633

Marres. N. (2013). What is digital sociology? CSISP Online.

Marres, N. (2017). Digital Sociology: The Reinvention of Social Research. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Marres, N., Gerlitz, C. (2016). Interface Methods: Renegotiating Relations between Digital Social Research, STS and Sociol-

ogy (PDF). The Sociological Review. 64, 21—46. S2CID 145741146. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954x.12314

Masliković, D. (ed.) (2025). International scientic conference: Social aspects of the application of articial intelligence and transhuman-

ism, Book of abstracts, Institute of Social Sciences, Research and Development Institute for Articial Intelligence of Serbia.

Milenkova, V. Peicheva, D., & Marinov, M. (2018). Towards dening media socialization as a basis for digital society, In-

ternational Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 6(2), 2018. http://doi.

org/10.5937/ijcrsee1802021M

Murthy, D., & Bowman, S. A. (2014). Big Data solutions on a small scale: Evaluating accessible high-performance computing

for social research. Big Data & Society. 1 (2). S2CID 62670786. http://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714559105

Nesterova, M., Dielini, M., & Zamozhskyi, A. (2019). Social cohesion in education: cognitive research in the university com-

munity, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 7(2), 19-27,

http://doi.org/10.5937/IJCRSEE1902019N

Nikolić, M., & Vučenović, T. (2024). Veštačka inteligencija (VI) u kulturi i medijima – Od distopije do utopije i nazad [Articial

intelligence (AI) in culture and media - From dystopia to utopia and back], Kultura, Beograd. http://doi.org/10.5937/

kultura2484005N

Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. NYU Press.

Obermeyer, Z., Powers, B., Vogeli, C., & Mullainathan, S. (2019). Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the

health of populations. Science, 366(6464), 447-453. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax2342

OECD. (2022). Bridging the digital divide: Policies for equitable access. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Orton-Johnson, K., Prior. N. (2013). Digital Sociology: Critical Perspectives. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Petrović, D. (2009). Internet u funkciji personalnog umrežavanja. Sociologija 51(1), 23–44.

Petrović, D. (2013). Internet kao interpersonalni medij – slučaj Srbije. Sociologija 55(3), 417–438.

Petrović, J. (2018). Veliki podaci – veliki izazov za sociologiju?. Sociologija 60(3), 557–582.

Petrović, J. (2019). Sociološki pristupi izučavanju internet - Ka zasnivanju digitalne sociologije u Srbiji, Sociologija, Vol. LXI

(2019), N° 4, 478-496. https://doi.org/10.2298/SOC1904478P

Petrović, J., & Petrović, D. (2017). Konektivna akcija kao novi obrazac protestnog aktivizma, Sociologija 59(4), 405–426.

Ponzanesi, S. (2020). Digital Diasporas: Postcoloniality, Media and Affect. Interventions 22, 977–993. https://doi.org/10.1080

/1369801X.2020.1718537

Prlja, D., Gasmi, G., Korać, V. (2021). Veštačka inteligencija u pravnom sistemu EU [Articial intelligence in the EU legal sys-

tem], Institut za uporedno pravo, Beograd.

Prodović Milojković, B. (2012). The place of sociological knowledge in contemporary society and professionalization of sociol-

ogy - the Visibility of Sociology as a Discipline. Facta universitatis, Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology ang History,

11(2), 187-196.

Prodović Milojković, B., Stojadinović, A. M., & Tasić Stanojković, E. (2024). The mirror of the modern age - Two Faces of Arti-

cial Intelligence. Proceedings of the 1st International scientic conference Education and Articial Intelligence (EDAI

2024), Pedagogical Faculty in Vranje, University of Niš, Serbia, 247-262. https://doi.org/10.46793/EDAI24.247PM

Recuber, T. (2021). Race, racism and mnemonic freedom in the digital afterlife. Information, Communication and Society 24, 684–

699.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2021.1874474

Ristić, D., Marinković, D. (2019). Lifelogging: Digital Technologies of the Self as the Practices of contemporary biopolitics.

Sociologija, Vol. LXI (2019), N° 4. https://doi.org/10.2298/SOC1904535R

Robards, B., Bennett, A. (2011). MyTribe: Post-subcultural Manifestations of Belonging on Social Network Sites. Sociology 45, 303–317.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038510394025

Rosenberg, S. (2017). Why AI is Still Waiting for its Ethics Transplant. Wired Magazine, November 1, 2017. https://www.wired.

com/story/why-ai-is-still-waiting-for-its-ethics-transplant/

Selwyn, N. (2019). Should robots replace teachers? AI and the future of education. Polity Press.

Selwyn, N. (2019a). What is Digital Sociology? Cambridge: Polity.

Serpa, S., Micic, Lj., Štilić, A., Mastilo, Z. (2025). Sociology of Articial Intelligence for Social Sustainability in the Digital Age.

Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies. 14. 37. https://doi.org/10.36941/ajis-2025-0003

Skopek, J. (2023). Research Handbook on Digital Sociology. Copyright Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789906769

Slavković, M., Pavlović, K., Mamula Nikolić, T., Vučenović, T., & Bugarčić, M. (2023). Impact of digital capabilities on digital

transformation: the mediating role of digital citizenship. Systems, 11(4), 172. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11040172

www.ijcrsee.com

Milojković, B. P., Zdravković, D., & Cvetković, B. N. (2026). Artificial Intelligence, Social Change, and Sociology Education:

Toward Digital Sociology in The age of Deglobalization, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering

and Education (IJCRSEE), 14(1), 49-63.

Strategy for the Development of Articial Intelligence in the Republic of Serbia for the Period 2025–2030. Ofcial Gazette of

the RS No. 30/18. (accessed on 27 January 2025). Available at https://www.media.srbija.gov.rs/medsrp/dokumenti/

strategy_articial_intelligence.pdf

Shi, Z.R., Wang, C., & Fang, F. (2020). Articial Intelligence for Social Good: A Survey. ArXiv, abs/2001.01818. https://doi.

org/10.48550/arXiv.2001.01818. And see: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1901.05406

Tammelin, M. (2018). Family, Work and Well-Being: Emergence of New Issues. SpringerBriefs in Well Being and Quality of Life

Research. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76463-4

Turkle, S. (2011). Life on the Screen. Simon and Schuster.

Turkle, S. (2011a). Alone Together. Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York. Basic Books. 2011.

Farrell, D., & Petersen, J.C. (2010). The growth of internet research methods and the reluctant sociologist. Sociological Inquiry,

80 (1), 114-125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00318.x

Filipović, B. (2010). Internet pornograja i politika seksualnog identiteta [Internet pornography and sexual identity politics].

Sociološki pregled 44(3): 361–392.

Friedman, T. L. (2021). Thank you for being late: An optimist’s guide to thriving in the age of accelerations. Farrar, Straus and

Giroux.

Floridi, L. (2019). The ethics of information. Oxford University Press.

Fussey, P. , & Roth, S. (2020). Digitizing Sociology: Continuity and Change in the Internet Era. Sociology 54, 659–674.

https://doi.org/10.1177/003803852091856

Van Dijk, J. (2014). Digital skills: Unlocking the Information Society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Van Dijck, J. (2020). The platform society: Public values in a connective world (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Van Manen, M. (2010). The Pedagogy of Momus Technologies: Facebook, Privacy, and Online Intimacy. Qualitative Health

Research 20, 1023–1032. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732310364990

Zdravković, V., Zdravković, D., & Stanković, K. (2025). Challenges and opportunities of implementing articial intelligence

in music education: A case study. Proceedings of the 1st International scientic conference Education and Articial

Intelligence (EDAI 2024), Pedagogical Faculty in Vranje, University of Niš, Serbia, 273-281. https://doi.org/10.46793/

EDAI24.273Z.

Zhao, Y., & Wang, M. (2023): Digital sociology: origin, development, and prospects from a global perspective. The Journal of

Chinese Sociology (2023) 10:19, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40711-023-00198-1

Zhang, S., & Zeqi Qiu (2022). What makes rural e-commerce successful? An analytical framework for the realization of technol-

ogy dividends. Sociological Studies 37(2), 114–136 + 228–229.

Žakelj, T. (2014). Internet Dating and Respectable Women: Gender Expectations in an Untraditional Partnership and Marriage

Market – The Case Of Slovenia. Sociologija 56(1):5–21. https://doi.org/10.2298/SOC1401005Z

Wajcman, J. (2015). The Social Shaping of Technology and The Politics of Working Life. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Wajcman, J. (2017). Techno-society: The social shaping of technology. Polity Press.

Wang, N. (2021). The Social Construction of the Sharing Economy. Social Sciences in China (11): 158–179+208.

Webster, A. (2013). Afterword: Digital technology and sociological windows. In Kate Orton-Johnson & Nick Prior (eds.). Digital

Sociology: Critical Perspectives. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137297792_16

Wei, K-K., Hock-Hai. T., Chan, H. C., & Tan, B. C. Y. (2011). Conceptualizing and Testing a Social Cognitive Model of the Digital

Divide. Information Systems Research 22, 170–187. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1090.0273

Weiser, M. (1991). The Computer for the 21st Century. Scientic American 265, 94–105.

Wellman, B. (2001), Physical Place and CyberPlace: The Rise of Personalized Networking. International Journal of Urban and

Regional Research 25(2), 227–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.00309

Willis, S.,

Tranter, B. (2006). Beyond the ‘digital divide’: Internet diffusion and inequality in Australia. Journal of Sociology 42(1),

43—59.

Wynn, Jonathan R. (2009). Digital Sociology: Emergent Technologies in the Field and the Classroom. Sociological Forum 24,

448–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783306061352

Hagerty, A., & Rubinov, I. (2019). Global AI Ethics: A Review of the Social Impacts and Ethical Implications of Articial Intel-

ligence. ArXiv, abs/1907.07892. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1907.07892

Harari, Y. N. (2024). Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI, Fern Press.

Hargittai, E. (2001). Second-Level Digital Divide: Mapping Differences in People’s Online Skills. arXiv: cs/ 01090 68. https://

doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.cs/0109068

Hargittai, E. (2018). The Digital Reproduction of Inequality. In The Inequality Reader, vol. 69, 2nd ed., ed. David B. Grusky

and Szonja Szelényi. New York: Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429494468-69/

digital-reproduction-inequality-eszter-hargittai

Hargittai, E., & Hinnant, A. (2008). Digital Inequality: Differences in Young Adults’ Use of the Internet. Communication Research

35: 602–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650208321782

www.ijcrsee.com

Milojković, B. P., Zdravković, D., & Cvetković, B. N. (2026). Artificial Intelligence, Social Change, and Sociology Education:

Toward Digital Sociology in The age of Deglobalization, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering

and Education (IJCRSEE), 14(1), 49-63.

Helbing, D. (2021). Next Civilization: Digital Democracy and Socio-Ecological Finance - How to Avoid Dystopia and Upgrade

Society by Digital Means. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Hristova, M. (2018). The Digital Sociology as a New Practice and Standard in Teaching of Sociology, (Дигиталната социология

като нова практика и стандарт в обучението по социология). Universitet za nacionalno i svetovno stopanstvo

(UNSS), 1/2018, 111-123.

UNESCO. (2021). Digital literacy and inclusion: Global perspectives. United Nations Educational, Scientic and Cultural Or-

ganization.

Šuvaković, U. (2024). Creator of the present in an attempt to understand the future or what can be counted as, but not reduced

to, Kissinger’s legacy. Napredak – časopis za političku teoriju i praksu, 5(2), 129–150. https://doi.org/10.5937/napre-

dak5-52859

www.ijcrsee.com

Milojković, B. P., Zdravković, D., & Cvetković, B. N. (2026). Artificial Intelligence, Social Change, and Sociology Education:

Toward Digital Sociology in The age of Deglobalization, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering

and Education (IJCRSEE), 14(1), 49-63.