Fostering Conversation through Disciplinary Documents

Since their publications in October 2024, “Working Paper 3: Building a Culture for Generative AI Literacy in College Language, Literature, and Writing” and its accompanying “Student Guide on AI Literacy” received many responses from readers. We always appreciate feedback on these papers and are encouraged that they have spurred conversations and even articulated critical stances of refusal. 

Among the responses, we noticed that some readers believe the working papers represent views of CCCC and MLA. We understand that the design of these documents may lead to people understandably interpreting them as official statements on behalf of the joint organizations. For that reason, we want to clarify the intent of these working papers. We hope this clarification will help readers understand how they might best use these documents in conversations with colleagues and administrators and in citation practices.

The MLA-CCCC Joint Task Force was established to steer conversations about GenAI use among members and to help them set priorities for themselves, their programs and departments, and their institutions. Across our body of work, we provide our best thinking at the time with regard to these pressing, emergent, and rapidly changing conditions; their publications, however, are not intended to be final conclusions or official stances of either organization.

In general, working papers present ideas in process and differ from position statements, for example, which require a more formal review and approval process. Our working papers are intended to stimulate conversations among readers via engagement with the documents, interaction with Task Force members, and conversations in other formats. Member commentary is critical for helping to further conversations about pressing issues, bringing voices not yet heard to the fore, and shaping how we respond to and even intervene in GenAI. We understand that MLA and CCCC as the broad organizations that have issued our charge brings rhetorical weight to these documents. At the same time, we ask that readers keep in mind that as working papers, the positions reflected within them should be understood as a jumping-off point—as negotiable, unsettled, and in need of further interrogation. 

We believe these working papers will continue to foster conversations and research projects that may later lead to the development of official position statements. We are honored to have contributed to this process, and look forward to reading these position statements from each organization in the future!