Content Guide
Effective Date: January 18, 2026
Last Updated: April 23, 2026
Our Editorial Philosophy
Society & AI produces scholarship that bridges rigorous academic inquiry with accessible public discourse. Our work examines the intersections of artificial intelligence, education, and social life — domains that demand both analytical precision and the kind of clarity that reaches readers who do not share a single discipline.
Different forms of knowledge require different modes of expression. A theorist arguing that AI is restructuring epistemic authority writes differently than an educator reflecting on what happened when she introduced generative tools into her classroom. Both contributions are valuable; they are not the same kind of contribution. Our content taxonomy honors that difference explicitly.
A Living Editorial Voice
Our content categories are not fixed. As the field evolves — and as we refine our understanding of how best to serve readers and contributors — we assess and update our editorial categories accordingly. This document reflects our current practice.
Content Types
The table below describes each content type, what distinguishes it, and what kind of author or reader it is designed to serve.
Table 1
Society & AI Content Type Taxonomy
| Content Type | Description | Best For |
|---|---|---|
| Perspectives | An argued position on what AI means for learning, society, or democracy. The author has a point of view on a contested question and makes the case for it — drawing on scholarship, theory, or comparative analysis. The credibility comes from the strength of the argument, not from personal experience alone. Perspectives are not neutral; they are the author's reasoned case, written to be accessible across disciplines. Typically 1,500–3,000 words. | Scholars, theorists, researchers, critics, and policy analysts who have a position to defend and evidence to support it. Ask yourself: if you removed my name, does the argument still stand on its own? |
| Insights | Knowledge earned by doing. The author's authority comes not primarily from citations but from professional experience — what they have witnessed, tested, and learned at the intersection of AI and their field. Insights translate lived practice into knowledge that others can act on. The best Insights pieces are specific: they describe what actually happened, what the author learned from it, and why it matters beyond their own context. Typically 1,500–2,500 words. | Educators, librarians, practitioners, clinicians, technologists, and professionals working directly with AI in real institutional settings. Ask yourself: is my most compelling evidence something I personally observed or did? |
| Commentary | Timely analysis of a current development. Commentary pieces respond to a specific announcement, policy decision, research finding, or event — contextualizing it within broader scholarly and societal frameworks. They are analytical rather than merely descriptive, and they connect what just happened to what it means over time. Typically 1,000–2,500 words. | Analysts, researchers, and engaged scholars who follow the field closely and can situate breaking developments in a larger intellectual context quickly and clearly. |
| Research | Original scholarship with methodological accountability. Research articles present empirical findings, systematic reviews, or theoretical contributions following scholarly conventions: literature review, explicit methodology, evidence-based argumentation, and citation to primary sources. These pieces are the most formally demanding we publish and carry the highest evidentiary expectations. Typically 3,000–6,000 words or longer. | Academic researchers, graduate scholars, and scientist-practitioners who have conducted original work and can account for their methods and findings transparently. |
| Working Papers | Ideas in progress, shared publicly to invite critique. Working papers present developing arguments, preliminary findings, or theoretical explorations that are not yet ready for formal publication but are far enough along to benefit from community engagement. Provisional status is clearly indicated; the expectation is dialogue, not closure. | Researchers and scholars who want to share early-stage work with an engaged audience before submitting elsewhere — contributing to open scholarship while inviting substantive feedback. |
| Fundamental Concepts | Rigorous introductions to ideas that readers need in order to follow the larger conversation. These pieces define and explain core concepts, theoretical frameworks, or foundational debates in AI and society — prioritizing conceptual precision and pedagogical clarity over novelty. They often serve as reference material readers return to. | Authors with genuine expertise in a concept or framework who can explain it accurately to readers without specialist training — and who understand why precision in definition matters for public discourse. |
| Blog | Exploratory thinking, shared openly. Blog posts are conversational in register and provisional in character. They may pose early questions, share preliminary thinking, respond to something in the field, or explore ideas that do not yet fit a more formal genre. They invite dialogue rather than settling questions. | Contributors at any career stage who want to think aloud in public — and readers who want to encounter ideas before they harden into formal positions. |
| Currents | Curated context for a fast-moving field. Currents pieces bring together recent developments, noteworthy publications, and emerging trends in AI and education — with connective commentary that helps readers understand why these items matter together, not just individually. They serve readers who need to stay informed without monitoring every source themselves. | Readers navigating a field that moves faster than any single person can track, and editors and contributors who can synthesize meaningfully across sources rather than simply aggregating them. |
| Inquiry | Questions posed with intellectual seriousness. Inquiry pieces investigate open problems, map contested terrain, or name tensions in the field that other genres tend to paper over. They do not resolve the questions they raise — they make those questions more precise and harder to ignore. This genre models the intellectual humility that careful scholarship requires. | Scholars and thinkers who have identified a genuine problem or tension in the field and can articulate it clearly enough that others can engage it — without needing to have resolved it first. |
| Focus Areas | Thematic hubs organized around Society & AI's four foundational research domains. These are: Systems Complexity, Knowledge Intelligence, Human Flourishing, and Educational Equity. Focus Area content examines how AI systems interact with social structures, how knowledge is produced and distributed in an AI-saturated environment, what human development looks like when cognitive labor is increasingly automated, and how educational access and opportunity can be equitably advanced. Each domain serves as an organizing framework, not a closed topic. | Readers seeking depth on a specific dimension of Society & AI's mission, and contributors whose work fits squarely within one of our four research domains. |
| Young Minds | Scholarship and reflection written for — or with — younger readers. These pieces introduce concepts of AI, society, and technology in age-appropriate ways, supporting intergenerational dialogue about technological futures. They cultivate critical thinking early and take young people seriously as stakeholders in the AI-shaped world they are inheriting. | Educators, researchers in youth development, and contributors who work directly with young people and can write for — and about — them with both accuracy and respect. |
| Photo Stories | Visually led narratives grounded in documentation, observation, and interpretation. Photo stories are structured around photographs or artworks that carry the narrative forward, supported by extended captions and concise scholarly prose. They are especially well suited to documenting community learning, field-based inquiry, youth participation, and public-interest projects where seeing the setting, materials, and interactions is part of understanding what took place. | Researchers, educators, practitioners, and collaborators who need a form that can preserve visual evidence alongside contextual interpretation. This format is particularly appropriate when the image sequence itself conveys educational process, environmental context, or collective participation that would be flattened by prose alone. |
Perspectives vs. Insights: A Quick Distinction
These two types are the ones authors most often ask us to clarify. Here is the clearest way we know to put it:
Table 2
Perspectives vs. Insights: Key Distinctions
| Perspectives | Insights | |
|---|---|---|
| The author's authority comes from… | The strength of the argument | The depth of the experience |
| The primary evidence is… | Scholarship, theory, data, comparative analysis | What the author has personally observed, tested, or done |
| The reader learns… | A reasoned case for a position | What practice at the intersection of AI and their field actually looks like |
| A useful self-test | Could a different expert make this same argument? | Could anyone other than me have written this? |
Both are valuable. Both are rigorous. They answer different questions.
Reading Our Work
Each content type serves distinct purposes within our broader mission of advancing society-centered approaches to artificial intelligence. We encourage readers to:
- Consider the genre when evaluating claims and arguments. A perspective piece operates under different epistemic norms than a research article.
- Engage critically with all content, recognizing that even careful scholarship involves interpretive choices and limitations.
- Provide feedback when our work prompts questions, disagreements, or ideas for future inquiry.
Questions and Feedback
We welcome inquiries about our editorial practices and content taxonomy. Readers who wish to propose new content types, suggest refinements to existing categories, or discuss potential contributions are encouraged to contact us through our contact page.
This Content Guide was last updated on April 23, 2026.