A Systematic Analysis of Consent, or What Can We Learn from the Past

References

1. Aguilar Gabriel L. “Rhetorically Training Students to Generate with AI: Social Justice Applications for AI as Audience.” Computers and Composition, vol. 71 2024, doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2024.102828.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Alkhatib Ali. Fuck up AI 2024, ali-alkhatib.com/blog/fuck-up-ai.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Banks Adam J.Race, Rhetoric, and Technology: Searching for Higher Ground. Lawrence Erlbaum / NCTE 2006.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Bay Jennifer. “Research Justice as Reciprocity: Homegrown Research Methodologies.” Community Literacy Journal, vol. 14, no. 1 2019, pp 7–25, doi:10.25148/clj.14.1.009053.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Beck Estee N., Crow Angela, McKee Heidi A., Reilly Colleen, Vie Stephanie, DeWinter Jennifer, Gonzales Laura, and DeVoss Dànielle Nicole. “Writing in an Age of Surveillance, Privacy, and Net Neutrality.” Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy, vol. 20, no. 2 2016, kairos.technorhetoric.net/20.2/topoi/beck-et-al.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Beck Michelle, Grohowski Mariana, and Blair Kristine. “Subverting Virtual Hierarchies: A Cyberfeminist Critique of Course Management Spaces.” Making Space: Writing Instruction, Infrastructure, and Multiliteracies, edited by Purdy James and DeVoss Dànielle Nicole, U of Michigan P 2017, press.umich.edu/Books/M/Making-Space.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Benjamin Ludy T. “A History of Teaching Machines.” American Psychologist, vol. 43, no. 9 1988, pp 703–12, doi:10.1037/0003‑066X.43.9.703.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Blair Kristine L. “ Computers and Composition at 40: A Retrospective.” Computers and Composition, vol. 70, doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2023.102807.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Bolter Jay David. Writing Spaces: Computers, Hypertext, and the Remediation of Print. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1991.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Burns Hugh. “A Note on Composition and Artificial Intelligence.” Computers and Composition, vol. 1, no. 1 1983, pp 3–4, doi:10.1016/S8755‑4615(83)80003‑6.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Burtis Martha, and Quinn Jesse. “An Introduction to Designing for Care and toward a Critical Instructional Design.” Hybrid Pedagogy 2022, hybridpedagogy.org/an-introduction-to-designing-for-care-and-toward-a-critical-instructional-design.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Chien Shih. “Cultural Constructions of Plagiarism in Student Writing: Teachers’ Perceptions and Responses.” Research in the Teaching of English, vol. 49, no. 2 2014, pp 120–40.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Christenbury Leila. “A Brief History of English Journal.” English Journal 1911–2001: A Celebration 2001.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Craft Diane. “A Review of Digital Media Revisited: Theoretical and Conceptual Innovation in Digital Domains.” Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy, vol. 8, no. 2 2003, kairos.technorhetoric.net/8.2/reviews/craft.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Dadas Caroline. “Making Sense of #MeToo: Intersectionality and Contemporary Feminism.” Peitho, vol. 22, no. 3 2020.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Hertogh De, Beth Lori, Lane Liz, and Ouellette Jessica. “‘Feminist Leanings’: Tracing Technofeminist and Intersectional Practices and Values in Three Decades of Computers and Composition.” Computers and Composition, vol. 51 2019, pp 4–13, doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2018.11.004.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Dieterle Brandy. “People as Data?: Developing an Ethical Framework for Feminist Digital Research.” Computers and Composition, vol. 59 2021, doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2021.102630.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Duin Ann Hill, and Tham Jason. “The Current State of Analytics: Implications for Learning Management System (LMS) Use in Writing Pedagogy.” Computers and Composition, vol. 55 2020, doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2020.102544.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Fromm Yvonne M., Martin Florence, Gezer Tuba, and Ifenthaler Dirk. “Best Practice for Conducting Systematic Reviews: Perspectives of Experienced Systematic Review Researchers in Educational Science.” Technology, Knowledge, and Learning, vol. 30, 4 Feb 2025, pp 1–28, doi:10.1007/s10758‑025‑09819‑9.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Gangadharan Seeta Peña. “The Downside of Digital Inclusion: Expectations and Experiences of Privacy and Surveillance among Marginal Internet Users.” New Media and Society, vol. 19, no. 4 2017, pp 597–615, doi:10.1177/1461444815614053.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Gilliard Chris. “Pedagogy and the Logic of Platforms.” Educause Review, 3 July 2017, er.educause.edu/articles/2017/7/pedagogy-and-the-logic-of-platforms.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Goggin Maureen Daly. “Composing a Discipline: The Role of Scholarly Journals in the Emergence of Rhetoric and Composition Since 1950.” Rhetoric Review, vol. 15, no. 2 1997, pp 322–48.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Haas Angela. “Race, Rhetoric, and Technology: A Case Study of Decolonial Technical Communication Theory, Methodology, and Pedagogy.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, vol. 26, no. 3 2012, pp 277–310, doi:10.1177/1050651912439539.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Hawisher Gail E., LeBlanc Paul, Moran Charles, and Selfe Cynthia L.. Computers and the Teaching of Writing in American Education: 1979–1994. Bloomsbury 1996.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Hawisher Gail E. and Selfe Cynthia L.. “The Rhetoric of Technology and the Electronic Writing Class.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 42, no. 1 1991, pp 55–65.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Haywood Chante. “Developing a Black Feminist Research Ethic: A Methodological Approach to Research in Digital Spaces.” Methods and Methodologies for Research in Digital Writing and Rhetoric: Centering Positionality in Computers and Writing Scholarship, edited by VanKooten Crystal and Hierro Victor Del, vol. 2, WAC Clearinghouse / U of Colorado P 2022, pp 22–44, doi:10.37514/PRA‑B.2022.1664.2.10.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Hesse Douglas. “Journals in Composition Studies, Thirty-Five Years After.” College English, vol. 81, no. 4, Mar 2019, pp 367–96.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Holmes Ashley J., and Hurley Elise Verzosa, editors. Learning from the Mess: Method/ological Praxis in Rhetoric and Writing Studies. WAC Clearinghouse / UP of Colorado 2025, wac.colostate.edu/books/perspectives/mess.
    [Google Scholar]
29. hooks bell. Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. Routledge 1994.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Hsu Michael J. “Remarks in Support of the 2024 Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Financial Stability: ‘AI Tools, Weapons, and Accountability: A Financial Stability Perspective.’” Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 6 June 2024, occ.gov/news-issuances/speeches/2024/pub-speech-2024-61.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Johnson Gavin P. “Don’t Act like You Forgot: Approaching Another Literacy ‘Crisis’ by (Re)considering What We Know about Teaching Writing with and through Technologies.” Composition Studies, vol. 51, no. 1 2023, pp 169–75.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Krishnan Aarathi, Abdilla Angie, Moon A Jung, Souza Carlos Affonso, Adamson Chelle, Lach Eileen M., Ghazal Farah, Fjeld Jessica, Taylor Jennyfer, Havens John C., Jayaram Malavika, Morrow Monique, et al.Decolonial AI Manyfesto. Manyfesto 2021, manyfesto.ai.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Kynard Carmen. “‘Wanted: Some Black Long Distance [Writers]’: Blackboard Flava-Flavin and Other AfroDigital Experiences in the Classroom.” Computers and Composition, vol. 24 2007, pp 329–45.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Lanham Richard A. The Electronic Word: Democracy, Technology, and the Arts. U of Chicago P 1993.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Lindquist Julie. “2021 CCCC Chair’s Address: Writing and Teaching in a Time of COVID: Uncommon Reflections on Learning and Loss.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 73, no. 2 2021, pp 184–205.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Livingston Violet. The Queer Art and Rhetoric of Consent: Theories, Practices, Pedagogies. U of Michigan P 2015, d.lib.msu.edu/etd/3645/datastream/OBJ/view.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Livingston Violet. “Excerpts from Terms of Play: Poetics on Consent as Method.” Peitho: Journal of the Coalition of Feminist Scholars in the History of Rhetoric and Composition, vol. 23, no. 1 2020, wac.colostate.edu/docs/peitho/article/excerpts-from-terms-of-play-poetics-on-consent-as-method.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Lockett Alexandria L, Ruiz Iris D., Sanchez James Chase, and Carter Christopher. Race, Rhetoric, and Research Methods. WAC Clearinghouse / UP of Colorado 2021, doi:10.37514/PER‑B.2021.1206.
    [Google Scholar]
39. McKee Heidi A. “Ethical and Legal Issues for Writing Researchers in an Age of Media Convergence.” Computers and Composition, vol. 25, no. 1 2008, pp 104–22, doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2007.09.001.
    [Google Scholar]
40. McPherson Tara. “Why Are the Digital Humanities So White? Or Thinking the Histories of Race and Computation.” Debates in the Digital Humanities 2012, U of Minnesota P, dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/projects/debates-in-the-digital-humanities.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Miller Katherine. “The Movement to Decolonize AI: Centering Dignity over Dependency.” Stanford HAI 2022, hai.stanford.edu/news/movement-decolonize-ai-centering-dignity-over-dependency.
    [Google Scholar]
42. MLA and CCCC Joint Task Force on AI. Position Statement on Artificial Intelligence and Writing Instruction. MLA 2023, mla.org/Resources/Research/Position-Statements/AI-andWriting-Instruction.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Moser Ingunn, and Law John, “‘Making Voices’: New Media Technologies, Disabilities, and Articulation,” Department of Sociology and the Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University, Lancaster, comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/Moser-Law-Making-Voices.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
44. NCTE. “About.” NCTE, ncte.org/about.
    [Google Scholar]
45. “There’s a 5% Chance of AI Causing Humans to Go Extinct, Say Scientists.” New Scientist, 1 Mar 2025, newscientist.com/article/2410839-theres-a-5-chance-of-ai-causing-humans-to-go-extinct-say-scientists.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Oleksiak Timothy. “Composing Consent as a Response to the Challenge of Openness.” College English, vol. 84, no. 5 2022, pp 429–46, doi:10.58680/ce202231907.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Palmeri John, and McCorkle Ben. “Topoi: The Intersections of Writing Studies and Digital Media.” Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy, vol. 22, no. 2 2019, kairos.technorhetoric.net/22.2/topoi/palmeri-mccorkle.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Pandey Hem Lal, Bhusal Purna Chandra, and Niraula Sanjeev. “Large Language Models and Digital Multimodal Composition in the First-Year Composition Classrooms: An Encroachment and/or Enhancement Dilemma.” Computers and Composition, vol. 45 2025, doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2024.102892.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Perry Mia. “Pluriversal Literacies: Affect and Relationality in Vulnerable Times.” Reading Research Quarterly, vol. 56, no. 2 2020, pp 293–309.
    [Google Scholar]
50. Poe Mya. “Re-framing Race in Teaching Writing across the Curriculum.” Across the Disciplines, vol. 10, no. 3 2013, doi:10.37514/ATD‑J.2013.10.3.06.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Selber Stuart A. Multiliteracies for a Digital Age. Southern Illinois UP 2004.
    [Google Scholar]
52. Selfe Cynthia L. “Writing in a Digital World: A Pedagogy of Technology and Access.” Literacy in the Digital Age: A Critical Sourcebook, edited by Selfe Cynthia L. and Hilligoss Susan, Bedford/St. Martin’s 1999, pp 3–16.
    [Google Scholar]
53. Smythe Suzanne, André Gwénaëlle, and Sinclair Nathalie. “Consent as ‘Feeling-With’: Everyday Automation and Ontologies of Consent in a Community Technology Centre.” Digital Culture and Education, vol. 14, no. 5 2023, pp 64–82.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Suddekunte Shrikant, Joyee De Sourya, and Chattopadhyay Manojit. “Thematic Exploration of Online Privacy Literacy and Examination of Its Future Agenda.” Behaviour and Information Technology 2023, pp 1–29, doi:10.1080/0144929X.2023.2288285.
    [Google Scholar]
55. Tyna LaToya, and Bishop Matthew. “Decolonizing the Literature Review: A Relational Approach.” Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 29, nos. 3–4 2023, pp 498–508.
    [Google Scholar]
56. Vandenhoek Tim. “Assessing the Accuracy of Plagiarism Detection Systems.” International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, vol. 19, no. 2 2023, pp 72–88.
    [Google Scholar]
57. Varon Joana, and Peña Paz. “Artificial Intelligence and Consent: A Feminist, Anti-Colonial Critique.” Internet Policy Review, vol. 10, no. 4 2023, doi:10.14763/2021.4.1602.
    [Google Scholar]
58. Vee Annette. “When Student Data Is the New Oil.” Substack 2024, annettevee.substack.com/p/when-student-data-is-the-new-oil.
    [Google Scholar]
59. Vie Stephanie. “The More Things Change, The More We Need New Tactics for Resistance, Or: Let’s Not Let the Bastards Grind Us Down.” Computers and Composition, vol. 61 2021, doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2021.102657.
    [Google Scholar]
60. Vie Stephanie. “One Does Not Simply Make Memes and Not Consider Intellectual Property Issues: Social Media, Memetic Circulation, and Writing Studies.” MediaCommons 2016, mediacommons.org/fieldguide/question/what-intellectual-property-challenges-do-you-expect-your-discipline-will-be-confronting—10.
    [Google Scholar]
61. Vie Stephanie. “How Are We Tracked Once We Press Play? Algorithmic Data Mining in Casual Video Games.” MediaCommons 2015, mediacommons.org/fieldguide/question/what-opportunities-are-available-influence-way-algorithms-are-programmed-written-executed-8.
    [Google Scholar]
62. Warnick Barbara. “The Rhetoric of New Media.” Technical Communication Quarterly, vol. 6, no. 2 1997, pp 133–53, doi:10.1207/s15427625tcq0602_2.
    [Google Scholar]
63. Wyburn M., and MacPhail J.. “The Intersection of Copyright and Plagiarism and the Implications for the Monitoring of Student Work.” Free Speech, Privacy and Property Rights in Education: Program and Papers, Promaco Conventions 2005, pp 451–71.
    [Google Scholar]
64. York Erin J. “Digital Surveillance in Online Writing Instruction: Panopticism and Simulation in Learning Management Systems.” Computers and Composition, vol. 62 2021, doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2021.102680.
    [Google Scholar]
65. Zdenek Sean. “Topoi: The Intersections of Writing Studies and Digital Media.” Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy, vol. 23, no. 1 2018, kairos.technorhetoric.net/23.1/topoi/zdenek.
    [Google Scholar]