‘Pracademics’ as boundary spanners: utilizing AI-powered tools to enhance the inclusive provincial development plan for Sa Kaeo, Thailand

Introduction Provincial development planning in Thailand often faces a disconnect between top-down bureaucratic requirements and bottom-up local needs. “Pracademics”—academics who simultaneously function as practitioners—are increasingly positioned to bridge this gap, yet their specific role in facilitating local policy processes remains under-researched. Methods This study employs Participatory Action Research (PAR) to investigate the role of pracademics in the review process of the Sa Kaeo Provincial Development Plan (2023–2027). The study encompassed a two-day workshop with 117 government officials and stakeholders ( n = 117). Pracademics served as facilitators employing AI-driven tools (Mentimeter and Gemini) to democratize engagement and process qualitative data. Data was analyzed using inductive thematic analysis of workshop outputs, field notes, and AI-generated word clouds. Results The analysis reveals three principal themes. The Hardware versus Heartware Disconnect first arose as participants emphasized technical infrastructure while voicing desires for “happiness” and “safety”; this was followed by the Silo Effect, where “lack of integration” was identified as a systemic obstacle across all working groups; ultimately, the Budgetary Scapegoat emerged, as financial limitations were frequently referenced to obscure more profound structural rigidities. Anonymous AI tools proficiently exposed sensitive “undiscussable” matters, such as corruption and gray capital. Discussion Pracademics can function as “boundary spanners” by employing technology to reconcile the conflict between emotional local narratives and stringent bureaucratic logic, particularly within the policy workshop. As a result, by establishing a neutral digital platform for discourse, pracademics can convert hierarchical planning meetings into more inclusive, evidence-based policy discussions.