This article examines issues of authenticity involved in using generative AI to compose technical and professional communication (TPC) documents. Authenticity is defined through an Aristotelian understanding of ethos, which includes goodwill (eunoia), practical wisdom (phronesis), virtuousness (arete), and Fromm's concepts of true self and pseudo self. The authors conducted an initial analysis of AI affordances that align with TPC concerns—genre, plain language, and grammatical/mechanical correctness. The preliminary results show that these affordances may be limited by issues of inauthenticity. The authors suggest that in order to address AI's limitations, writers should adopt a rhetoric of authenticity via real-world engagement, human centeredness, and personal style.
Aristotle. (1991). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse. (G. Kennedy, Trans.). Oxford University Press. Original work published ca. 350 B.C.E.
2.
Aristotle. (2020). The Nicomachean ethics (L. Brown, Ed.; W. D. Ross, Trans.; Rev. ed.). Oxford University Press. Original work published ca. 350 B.C.E.
3.
Baker-BellA. (2020). Linguistic justice: Black language, literacy, identity, and pedagogy. Routledge.
4.
BazermanC. (2012). Genre as social action. In GeeJ. P.HandfordM. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (1st ed., pp. 226–238). Routledge.
5.
BehizadehN. (2019). Aiming for authenticity: Successes and struggles of an attempt to increase authenticity in writing. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 62(4), 411–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.911
6.
BehizadehN.EngelhardG. (2014). Development and validation of a scale to measure perceived authenticity in writing. Assessing Writing, 21, 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2014.02.001
7.
BrussK. S. (2011). Ghosting authenticity: Characterization in corporate speechwriting. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 25(2), 159–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651910389147
CheungI. W. (2017). Plain language to minimize cognitive load: A social justice perspective. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 60(4), 448–457. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2017.2759639
10.
CocktonG. (2018). Way back to some design futures: Aristotle’s intellectual excellences and their implications for designing. In BardzellJ.BarzellS.BlytheM. (Eds.), Critical theory and interaction design (pp. 287–310). MIT Press.
11.
CollinsH. P. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Unwin Hyman.
12.
ColtonJ. S.HolmesS. (2018). Rhetoric technology and the virtues. Utah State University Press.
13.
CrossleyS. A.SkalickyS.DascaluM. (2019). Moving beyond classic readability formulas: New methods and new models. Journal of Research in Reading, 42(3-4), 541–561. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12283
14.
DannelsD. P. (2011). Relational genre knowledge and the online design critique: Relational authenticity in preprofessional genre learning. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 25(1), 3–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651910380371
15.
D'IgnazioC.KleinL. F. (2020). Data feminism. MIT Press.
16.
DrozP. W.JacobsL. S. (2019). Genre chameleon: Email, professional writing curriculum, and workplace writing expectations. Technical Communication, 66(1), 68–92.
17.
FrommE. (2013). Escape from freedom. Open Road Media. [Original work published 1941).
JindalP.MacDermidJ. (2017). Assessing reading levels of health information: Uses and limitations of Flesch formula. Education for Health, 30(1), 84–88. https://doi.org/10.4103/1357-6283.210517
20.
JonesN. N.MooreK. R.WaltonR. (2016). Disrupting the past to disrupt the future: An antenarrative of technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 25(4), 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2016.1224655
21.
JonesN. N.WilliamsM. F. (2017). The social justice impact of plain language: A critical approach to plain-language analysis. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 60(4), 412–429. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2017.2762964
22.
KillingsworthM. J.GilbertsonM. (1992). Signs, genres, and communities in technical communication. Routledge.
23.
KlingR.StarS. L. (1998). Human-centered systems in the perspective of organizational and social informatics. Computers and Society, 28(1), 22–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/277351.277356
24.
KynardC. (2008). Writing while black: The colour line, black discourses, and assessment in the institutionalization of writing instruction. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 7(2), 4–34. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ832206
MartinezA. (2020). Counterstory: The rhetoric and writing of critical race theory. Conference on College Composition and Communication of the National Council of Teachers of English.
MckoyT. T. (2019). Y’all call it technical and professional communication, we call it #ForTheCulture: The use of amplification rhetorics in Black communities and their implications for technical and professional communication studies [Doctoral dissertation, East Carolina University]. ProQuest.
Plato. (1990). Phaedrus. In BizzellP.HerzbergB. (Eds.), The rhetorical tradition: Readings from classical times to the present (pp. 113–143). Bedford. (Original work published 370 BCE).
36.
RiceJ. (2016). Professional purity: Revolutionary writing in the craft beer industry. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 30(2), 236–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651915620234
37.
SchriverK. A. (2017). Plain language in the US gains momentum: 1940–2015. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 60(4), 343–383. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2017.2765118
38.
SheltonC. (2019). Shifting out of neutral: Centering difference, bias, and social justice in a business writing course. Technical Communication Quarterly, 29(1), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2019.1640287
39.
SimsM. (2022). Tools for overcoming oppression: Plain language and human-centered design for social justice. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 65(1), 11–33. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2022.3150236
40.
SlackJ. D.MillerD. J.DoakJ. (1993). The technical communicator as author: Meaning, power, authority. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 7(1), 12–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651993007001002
41.
ThominetL. (2020). We’ve selected a candidate who more closely fits our current needs: A genre analysis of academic job-refusal letters. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 34(1), 3–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651919874099
42.
WhitneyA. E. (2017). Keeping it real: Valuing authenticity in the writing classroom. The English Journal, 106(6), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.58680/ej201729176
