Faculty Mentor: Rachel Bryson (Writing & Rhetoric Studies, University of Utah)

Introduction

With the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) in higher education, many people are met with curiosity, confusion, and even fear. The use and conversations surrounding Artificial Intelligence (AI) prompted the 2025 issue of the Undergraduate Journal of Contemporary Issues and Media. Spring of 2024, I took a Technical Editing Course taught by Dr. Rachel Bryson. In this course, students were tasked at editing and collaborating with student-authors that submitted work for the journal. The theme of this year’s issue was on AI and GAI tools. We were brought a very unique opportunity to edit work that was about AI, made from AI, or took perspective on the issue surrounding AI.

Background

The first few weeks of our Technical Editing course began with understanding the fundamentals of editing, the process of editing, and how to edit for audiences. These beginning weeks allowed us to understand editing with care and how to enact care as editors. “Care ethics recognizes that human dependence on others is universal” (Kwan, 2023). Being able to enact care, as editors, is crucial and inherent. Kwan (2023) talks about how care ethics recognizes human dependence on each other. With the rise of AI use, that dependence changes and almost decreases. Understanding those levels of care were crucial as we embarked on our editorial journey. Because our theme for the 2025 issue was on AI, editing with empathy and enacting care were topics we needed to understand. During the editorial process, we [student-editors] were given the freedom on how correspondence would work with our student-authors. Doctor Bryson gave us guidance and information on the best ways to edit and communicate with care. Most memorable for me, was being able to inquire more from my author. This method allows a more collaborative process between authors and editors. Using phrases like, “I’m having a hard time understanding the meaning of this sentence, would you mind adding more context”. Suggesting is also a valuable tool in editing with care— an example would be, “Maybe swapping these sentences would give your audience a better understanding of the topic”.

When our semester of Technical Editing was over, Doctor Bryson presented the class an opportunity to use our experience as research. Because AI and the use of GAI tools are rising in academia, having student perspectives is crucial in understanding AI’s role in education and academia. This research opportunity would also include interviews from student-editors, as well as student-authors. The approach to our research used was autoethnographic— meaning we used our experiences for analysis in enacting care, navigating GAI tools, and communicating feedback.

Methods

This research project, “Cultivating Empathy in the Age of AI”, was two semesters long— beginning in Fall of 2024 and ending after Spring of 2025. The research team consisted of 4 undergraduate students— Thabata Fay, Cora Romero, Emmerson Martin, and me. Our team also consisted of guidance form our Faculty Mentor, Rachel Bryson. Research surrounding care ethics and technical editing pedagogy was crucial before we began the interview process. As we waited for IRB approval, we researched and wrote our submission for publication. Alongside our background research and writing, we applied for the Conference on College, Composition, & Communication hosted in Baltimore, Maryland. With teamwork and ample support from our facilitator, we were accepted into the Conference for College Composition & Communication, as well as the annual Conference of the Utah Academy of Science Arts and Letters. These opportunities were an amazing honor, and further motivated us in our research.

Randall (2023) identifies 14 care values but highlights Four Principles within those care values: Attentiveness, Mutual Concern, Responsiveness, and Trustworthiness. When diving into the four principles of values of care, cheerfulness caught my eye. How we respond can really impact the empathy of literature as well. “Going into interviews, it may be something to remember [cheerfulness]. How we respond to our peers is important”. This quote is a comment I left while reading Randall’s chapter on value ethics. Our research and readings, leading up to interviews, gives us [as researchers] the opportunity to enact care. In our TE course, we enacted care with our comments, but now we must enact a different level of care for our speech.

Our second semester of as a research group is where we began interviewing previous classmates, from TE, and student-authors. The first set of interviews was conducted by Doctor Bryson. Doctor Bryson interviewed our own research group— Thabata, Cora, Emmerson, and I. This allowed us to watch how Doctor Bryson performed interviews and gave perspective on being an interviewee. The interviews— facilitated by student- researchers— were performed in two-on-one meetings. Cora and Tabitha were paired, while Emmerson and I were paired. Each pairing was assigned two student-authors and one student-editor to interview. During interviews, one person was taking notes while the other person asks questions.

Our preliminary results reveal that many student-editors wanted to enact care and were hesitant to approach author. Phrases such as, “cared a lot”, “requires someone with empathy”, or “collaborative” was used when referencing the experience when talking about working in collaboration.

Editorial Philosophy: Gained and Learned

One of the final assignments we had in Technical Editing was writing our editorial philosophy. My editorial philosophy states:

Inclusivity and Language

An editor’s objective is to provide clarity and legibility for the audience. My philosophy is rooted in accessibility and quality performance of written material. An editor must encourage an author to use inclusive language, while also supporting the author in their own writing style. If an author’s writing style contains problematic or inaccessible dialogue, it is essential for an editor to be mindful of the project at hand. If that author consistently aligns themselves with problematic or harmful work, I feel it is best to reconsider the collaboration. Using inclusive language allows for audiences to feel more at ease, and it will also connect the audience to the author. Readers that feel included and relate to written work, tend to consume more of an author’s work. Using inclusive language can also create a safe environment for readers.

Grammar and Punctuation

With grammar and punctuation, their uses are important for providing clarity and cohesion in writing. While they are important, grammar and punctuation aren’t the main priority when it comes to written work. Using “proper” grammar and punctuation is very subjective to the case and type of writing. The goal of grammar and punctuation is to bring clarity and cohesion but shouldn’t overshadow an author’s style of writing or the integrity of the piece. Policing grammar and punctuation is not my preferred method of communicating with an author. Being understanding and exhibiting empathy are methods I prefer. The content and quality of work will always be prioritized over what is “correct”. With this notion, having clarity is important for the audience. Grammar and punctuation should enhance the writing, not overshadow it.

Quality and Style of work

Striving for quality work is my priority as an editor. Assisting an author in creating the best work will benefit not only the author, but also the reader. When editing, I want to work diligently with an author to assure effective communication on both ends. The foundation of cohesive writing is cooperation. Cooperating and adhering to an author’s style is crucial as well.

An author’s style will be protected, so long as it doesn’t fall under harmful or hateful speech. The style of work is what sets it apart, but it should also appeal to an audience. My role, as an editor, would be to advocate for readers and provide honest feedback to an author or company. Providing feedback that is honest, and representative of audiences is helpful to an author, but delivering this in an encouraging way that doesn’t undermine the author’s style.

Conclusion

With all the characteristics mentioned earlier, I want to approach all editorial revisions with empathy and advocacy. Being able to encourage an author to create their best work, while also advocating for reader’s needs is what I aim to do as an editor. The author’s style and quality are always emphasized in editing as well. As an editor, I will do my best to help an author’s writing. Clarity and cohesion are an editor’s objective when working with authors. In my future editorial process, I hope to work with many authors that prioritize quality work with the audience in mind.

Discussions

An editor’s philosophy attempts to share with companies and groups what an editor’s objective is. I feel an editor’s philosophy also extends to understanding our own personal objectives and missions in editing. This entry works to understand how editorial empathy and philosophy created and maintained. Our philosophy is curated through guidance from other Technical Communicators and maintained through working with authors.

As I reflect on my editorial philosophy from then and from now, there’s some differences I want to point out. In my first section on Inclusivity and Language I would like to add the reason for using accessible language is not only for ease, but also for language that is representative of multiple groups and communities. Representation in materials is so important. As an editor, our purpose is to advocate for the audience. This is done by removing harmful language, limiting jargon, and uplifting voices. My stance on Grammar and Punctuation are the same in that their uses are to provide clarity and cohesion. Grammar and Punctuation are used as a tool— not as a defining feature. This is also how many editors feel about using GAI tools. In using GAI tools, editors must determine when to utilize them. Just like collaborating with our authors, we have to collaborate with AI to create ethical and inclusive materials.

Our research not only focused on student’s experience with editing/writing on topics of AI, but also on coding and understanding our research. We found that student-editors used AI for correspondence with authors more than for correcting author materials. Other tools of AI used could have also been grammar-checkers. From my editorial experience, I was especially worried about changing an author’s style or voice. I didn’t want an author to alter their words, so this led to me having trouble with providing feedback. Having ChatGPT as a resource to ask for kind ways to give feedback, allowed me to be an empathetic editor.

Being a novice editor to another student was nerve-wracking. I had a lot of doubt about my ability going into it, but Doctor Bryson had provided us tools for how to be an empathetic and an inclusive editor throughout the semester. Not only did I have support from our faculty advisor, but also from other students in our class as well. Having that support system with one another was so crucial in the editorial process. Especially being novice editors, the more support we had meant the more support we can give to our authors.

The collaboration process between other editors, editors and authors, and with audiences is crucial to creating cohesive and understandable written works. AI is growing in our world whether writers/editors want it— in understanding and ethically using AI, we can create accessible work that advocates for audience understanding.

Bibliography

Kwan, J. (2023, May 5). Care ethics. Markkula center for applied ethics at Santa Clara University. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/care- ethics/care-ethics.html

Randall, T. (2023). Justice, Care, and Value: A Values-Driven Theory of Care Ethics (1sted.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003367734