Generative AI + Socio-Rhetorical Views of Writing
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31468/dwr.1159Keywords:
genre theory, writing pedagogy, generative AI, socio-cultural rhetoric, academic writing, epistemology, research writingAbstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) tools increasingly influence writing practices in educational contexts, yet writing studies expertise is too often sidelined in current discussions about writing in the context of generative AI. This paper presents core insights from rhetorical genre theory and genre-based pedagogy as a way to inform the teaching of research and writing in relation to generative AI tools. Our analysis focuses on three key concepts that are of central concern: intention, process, and trust. Attention to these concepts helps us navigate between extreme hype and grave concern about generative AI tools and writing pedagogy. We draw on established theoretical frames and recent empirical research and highlight how longer-standing insights about intention, process, and trust relate to the teaching of research and writing in the presence of generative AI tools. This work contributes to ongoing conversations about the role of AI in writing pedagogy by foregrounding deep disciplinary expertise and recent empirical evidence.
References
Abalkina, A., Aquarius, R., Bik, E., Bimler, D., Bishop, D., Byrne, J., Cabanac, G., Day, A., Labbé, C., & Wise,
N. (2025). ‘Stamp out paper mills’—Science sleuths on how to fight fake research. Nature,
(8048), 1047–1050. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-00212-1
Alexander, J., Lunsford, K., & Whithaus, C. (2020). Affect and wayfinding in writing after college.
College English, 82(6), 563–590. https://doi.org/10.58680/ce202030804
Amell, B. (2022). Getting stuck, writing badly, and other curious impressions: Doctoral writing and
imposter feelings. In M. Addison, M. Breeze, & Y. Taylor (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Imposter
Syndrome in Higher Education (pp. 259–276). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-
-2_16
Amell, B. (2023). Not all who want to, can—Not all who can, will: Extending notions of unconventional
doctoral dissertations [Doctor of Philosophy, Carleton University]. https://doi.org/10.22215/etd/2023-15564
Amell, B., & Thieme, K. (n.d.). What are we saying? A discourse analysis of perceptions of writing +
generative AI. In N. Murray & E. Tersigni (Eds.), The Last Word: The “Death” of the Essay in the Age
of AI. (under review).
Anderson, P., Anson, C. M., Gonyea, R. M., & Paine, C. (2015). The contributions of writing to learning
and development: Results from a large-scale multi-institutional study. Research in the Teaching of
English, 50(2), 199–235. https://doi.org/10.58680/rte201527602
Andre, J.-A. D., & Graves, R. (2013). Writing requirements across nursing programs in Canada. Journal
of Nursing Education, 52(2), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20130114-02
Andrews, M., Smart, A., & Birhane, A. (2024). The reanimation of pseudoscience in machine learning
and its ethical repercussions. Patterns, 5(9). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2024.101027
Artemeva, N. (2005). A time to speak, a time to act: A rhetorical genre analysis of a novice engineer’s
calculated risk taking. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 19(4), 389–421.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651905278309
Artemeva, N. (2006). Approaches to learning genres: A bibliographic essay. In N. Artemeva & A.
Freedman (Eds.), Rhetorical Genre Studies and Beyond (pp. 9–99). Inkshed Publications.
Badenhorst, C., Arif, A., & Quintyne, K. (2022). Doctoral writing and the politics of citation use.
Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie, 32, 262–280. https://doi.org/10.31468/dwr.969
Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54(2), 153–
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/54.2.153
Bagenal, J. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence and scientific publishing: Urgent Questions,
difficult answers. The Lancet, 403(10432), 1118–1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-
(24)00416-1
Bainbridge, L. (1983). Ironies of automation. In G. Johannsen & J. E. Rijnsdorp (Eds.), Analysis, Design
and Evaluation of Man–Machine Systems (pp. 129–135). Pergamon.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-029348-6.50026-9
Bassett, C. (2023). The cruel optimism of technological dreams. In J. Browne, S. Cave, E. Drage, & K.
McInerney (Eds.), Feminist AI: Critical Perspectives on Algorithms, Data, and Intelligent Machines
(pp. 258–273). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192889898.003.0015
Baumvol, L. K., Fitzpatrick, K., & Thieme, K. (n.d.). Toward a dialogic pedagogy? Feedback practices of
writing instructors. Across the Disciplines, under review.
Bedington, A., Halcomb, E. F., McKee, H. A., Sargent, T., & Smith, A. (2024). Writing with generative AI
and human-machine teaming: Insights and recommendations from faculty and students.
Computers and Composition, 71, 102833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2024.102833
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic
parrots: Can language models be too big?
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Katja Thieme, Brittany Amell
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
If this article is selected for publication in Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie, the work shall be published electronically under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA 4.0). This license allows users to adapt and build upon the published work, but requires them to attribute the original publication and license their derivative works under the same terms. There is no fee required for submission or publication. Authors retain unrestricted copyright and all publishing rights, and are permitted to deposit all versions of their paper in an institutional or subject repository.
