Session Information

This page shows the session details and the presentations assigned to this session.

Implementing AI in a multilingual newsroom: The role of ethics and creativity

Abstract

Based on research with Laura Delaloye, University of Lausanne & Yulia Kukles, University of Fribourg
Writing tools and practices have developed together, influencing each other on material, cognitive, and social levels. In this co-evolution, the latest landmark is artificial intelligence (AI). AI has disrupted the professions focussing on text mediation, such as translation and interpreting. Now, AI is about to disrupt the professions focused on authoring text, such as journalism (Haapanen & Perrin 2024). In my presentation, I look into how a media company tackles this challenge, with a particular focus on ethics and creativity.
Drawing on document analyses of guidelines for the use of AI in newsrooms and on exploratory findings from progression analyses (Perrin, 2026), I identify and systematize ethical concerns raised and creative solutions explored. Comparing our findings with those from meta-analyses of studies on AI in the newsroom (e.g., Schaetz & Schjott 2025), I locate white spots and avenues of research-based organizational development of media which aim at navigating the storm in ways considered responsible and creative by themselves and their stakeholders.
Findings include a landscape of to-dos, organized into four layers of tools environments (Wasserman et al. 2009): a) instrumental – handling and understanding AI tools; b) operational – using the tools to get and have things done; c) economical – following and setting pace in competition; and d) societal – respecting and developing norms and ethics at the interfaces of the profession of journalism, text production research, and society-at-large. I conclude by highlighting some parallels between doing journalistic writing and doing research on it in an AI-shaped world.
Haapanen, Lauri, & Perrin, Daniel. (2024). Embracing the unexpected. Exploring the role of serendipity in newswriting. Discourse & Communication, 19(1), 25–45.
Perrin, Daniel. (2026). Visualising real-world writing processes with Progression Analysis. In Christophe Leblay, Gilles Caporossi, & Hakim A. Usoof (Eds.), An introduction to data visualisation of the writing process (pp. 178–192): Brill.
Schaetz, Nadja, & Schjott, Anna. (2026). AI hype and its function. An ethnographic study of the local news AI initiative of the Associated Press. Digital Journalism, 14(2), 220–237.
Wasserman, Jason Adam, Clair, Jeffrey Michael, & Wilson, Kenneth L. (2009). Problematics of grounded theory. Innovations for developing an increasingly rigorous qualitative method. Qualitative Research, 9(3), 355–381.

Intercultural encounters in supervising Master Thesis Writing at a Danish Business University

Abstract

Based on hermeneutic analyses (Gadamer 1989) of 30 semi-structured qualitative research interviews with supervisors (Ankersborg 2022) and Master Thesis students (Ankersborg & Pogner 2022) we have developed a three-dimensional “vejledningsmatrix” with the interrelated dimensions of supervision models, supervisor roles, and functions of texts (Ankersborg & Pogner 2026 in prep.).
This matrix serves as analytical framework for our investigation of student-centered supervision in inter-cultural encounters at a Danish Business University by focusing on experiences and expectations, which stem from non-Scandinavian educational backgrounds, in a Danish educational context. We are exploring how novices(students and/or supervisors) in the Danish educational culture (i.e., with non-Scandinavian educational backgrounds) manage student-centered supervision (‘vejledning’) in the context of the local Danish educational culture, when different supervision models are enacted. How do supervisors’ and students’ understandings of supervision enable and constrain supervision spaces when they come from different education-cultural backgrounds?
Our analyses show that Danish teaching and learning philosophies are based on dialogue and equality between student/s and supervisor emphasizing student autonomy. International students’ and supervisors’ ability to adopt this philosophy is essential for students’ learning outcome. Otherwise, differences in education-cultural backgrounds lead to misperceptions of expected behavior in the supervision spaces. Thus, the enacted supervision model has a direct impact on the role of students’ texts in supervision and their ability to acquire academic literacies.
Ankersborg, V. (2022). Specialevejledning fra studenterselvstændighed til vejlederdiktat, Dansk Universitetspædagogisk Tidsskrift 17, 37-52.
Ankersborg, V. & Pogner, K.-H. (2022). Conform, transform, resist: The Scandinavian way of Master’s Thesis supervision and its contribution to acquiring research literacy and practice. In Gustafsson M. & Eriksson. A. (Eds.). Negotiating the Intersections of writing and writing Instruction (pp. 95-231). The WAC Clearinghouse / University Press of Colorado.
Dysthe, O. (2006): Rettleiaren som lærar, partner eller meister? In Dysthe, O. & Samara, A. (red.): Forskningsveiledning på master- og doktorgradsnivå. Abstrakt: 228-248.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1989). Truth and method. 2nd edition. London.
Pogner, K.-H. & Ankersborg, V. (2014). Master’s thesis students’ approaches to writing at Copenhagen Business School, EARLI SIG Writing 2014 Amsterdam, research meeting presentation.
Wirenfeldt Jensen, T. (2018): Det danske universitetsspeciale, Aarhus Universitetsforlag

Negotiating Authority through “Standard English”: Ideology and Voice in Multilingual Writing

Abstract

The discussion section of a postgraduate thesis represents a critical rhetorical space where multilingual writers assert authority while conforming to institutional norms of “Standard English”.In spite of the increasing recognition of multilingualism in academia, multilingual postgraduate writers tend to face pressure to conform to “Standard English” norms in their theses, especially the discussion chapters as they must balance objectivity with personal voice. This constrains their ability to express authority and identity in their writing. Prior research has examined the structural and functional roles of lexical bundles; however, little attention has been paid to how these bundles reflect students’ language ideology and how such insights can inform more inclusive identity-affirming academic writing pedagogy.Through the integration of identity theory (Ivanič, 1998), translingual practice (Canagarajah, 2013), and corpus linguistic perspectives, this study examines how recurrent lexical bundles reveal the ideological pressures that shape multilingual writers’ construction of academic voice and identity. A corpus of 30 discussion chapters from postgraduate theses in social sciences was analyzed using AntConc, identifying three-to five-word bundles occurring at least five times per 100,000 words. Findings show a dominant use of impersonal and cautious bundles such as “It was found that” and “The results suggest that,” contrasted with limited but meaningful use of evaluative bundles like “In this study, we argue that.” These patterns foreground objectivity and deference to disciplinary norms, reflecting internalized ideological expectations of “Standard English” but also subtle acts of resistance where students make deliberate efforts to assert authorial stance and intellectual ownership, illustrating a complex negotiation between conformity and resistance. This study concludes that by translating these insights into supervision and writing-instruction practices, corpus-based training can incorporate into supervisor training and writing instruction to promote critical awareness of language ideology and empower students to claim voice and agency without compromising language.