Drafting defensively, documenting authorship: An analysis of Draftback and Grammarly Authorship

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Maggie Fernandes, Megan McIntyre
{"title":"Drafting defensively, documenting authorship: An analysis of Draftback and Grammarly Authorship","authors":"Maggie Fernandes,&nbsp;Megan McIntyre","doi":"10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102926","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In this piece, we offer critical interface analyses of two process surveillance interfaces, a term we use to describe personal writing tools that track students’ writing process via edits, revisions, and inserted text. Specifically, we examine: Draftback, a Google extension that predates ChatGPT-3, and Grammarly Authorship, a new beta feature for Grammarly users. Situated in scholarly conversations in digital cultural rhetorics, writing studies, surveillance studies, and user experience design, we analyze how these process surveillance interfaces reinscribe normative values for writing as product (rather than process) and facilitate feelings of suspicion, anxiety, and defensiveness for users. This analysis has implications both for instructors seeking to teach with tools like Draftback and Authorship to verify “responsible” GenAI use <em>and</em> instructors seeking to implement punitive anti-AI policies. Though Draftback and Grammarly Authorship are different kinds of process surveillance interfaces, they pose similar threats to writing process instruction when used for academic integrity purposes by either students or instructors. Namely, we find three issues associated with three process surveillance interfaces; namely, these tools promote 1) product over process; 2) normative constructions of embodiment and time; and 3) adversarial student-instructor dynamics.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":35773,"journal":{"name":"Computers and Composition","volume":"76 ","pages":"Article 102926"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers and Composition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S8755461525000131","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this piece, we offer critical interface analyses of two process surveillance interfaces, a term we use to describe personal writing tools that track students’ writing process via edits, revisions, and inserted text. Specifically, we examine: Draftback, a Google extension that predates ChatGPT-3, and Grammarly Authorship, a new beta feature for Grammarly users. Situated in scholarly conversations in digital cultural rhetorics, writing studies, surveillance studies, and user experience design, we analyze how these process surveillance interfaces reinscribe normative values for writing as product (rather than process) and facilitate feelings of suspicion, anxiety, and defensiveness for users. This analysis has implications both for instructors seeking to teach with tools like Draftback and Authorship to verify “responsible” GenAI use and instructors seeking to implement punitive anti-AI policies. Though Draftback and Grammarly Authorship are different kinds of process surveillance interfaces, they pose similar threats to writing process instruction when used for academic integrity purposes by either students or instructors. Namely, we find three issues associated with three process surveillance interfaces; namely, these tools promote 1) product over process; 2) normative constructions of embodiment and time; and 3) adversarial student-instructor dynamics.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Computers and Composition
Computers and Composition Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
审稿时长
25 days
期刊介绍: Computers and Composition: An International Journal is devoted to exploring the use of computers in writing classes, writing programs, and writing research. It provides a forum for discussing issues connected with writing and computer use. It also offers information about integrating computers into writing programs on the basis of sound theoretical and pedagogical decisions, and empirical evidence. It welcomes articles, reviews, and letters to the Editors that may be of interest to readers, including descriptions of computer-aided writing and/or reading instruction, discussions of topics related to computer use of software development; explorations of controversial ethical, legal, or social issues related to the use of computers in writing programs.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信