Jennifer Shewmaker & Farida Khalaf: Author Interview #18, AI Everywhere, Volume 1
AI Everywhere, Vol. 1, Ch. 12: Why fear is an invitation to slow down and how hospitality-centered leadership protects the human heart of learning.
Welcome back to the She Writes AI interview series, where we talk with the authors behind AI Everywhere, Volume 1, exploring their personal journeys and professional expertise to understand how we can build a future for AI that is truly ethical, responsible, and human-centered.
This is the 18th episode in our series, and today I am joined by Jennifer W Shewmaker. Her contribution, Chapter 12: Flourishing Through Change, addresses the “existential tension” currently felt across college campuses as the speed of generative AI forces a reconsideration of the nature of human contribution. As the Provost of a mission-centered liberal arts institution, Jennifer has navigated this “transformational threshold” firsthand, helping faculty, staff, and students move through the disorientation of rapid technological change.
Jennifer brings the dual perspective of a senior academic leader and a psychology professor to this conversation. Her work moves past the binary of “early adopters vs. skeptics” to acknowledge the deep emotional reality of change the grief, confusion, and sense of pressure felt by the academic community. She argues that for an institution to truly flourish, it must adopt Hospitality-Centered Leadership, a practice of creating structures that honor human dignity and wisdom over mere algorithmic efficiency.
In this conversation, Jennifer explores the idea of “Fear as Invitation”, and how with the right supports, people can engage in both emotional and professional growth during technological transitions. She discusses how to maintain “Mission-Oriented Formation”, focusing on who students are becoming rather than just what they are producing, and why presence is the most powerful antidote to the isolation of digital disruption. Whether you are a higher education leader, a faculty member at a crossroads, or a student questioning the value of your degree in an automated world, Jennifer’s insights offer a grounded, hopeful scaffolding for the future.
Below is Jennifer W Shewmaker’s full interview response to Farida Khalaf’s questions on Flourishing Through Change from AI Everywhere, Volume 1.
Topic: Flourishing Through Change: Leading Higher Education with Purpose in the Age of AI (Chapter 12)
Intended Audience: For higher education leaders, faculty, and administrators who feel the "existential tension" of the AI era and are seeking a leadership scaffolding that prioritizes human presence, mission-centered ethics, and a clear path from institutional anxiety to communal flourishing.
Part 1: The Professional Path & The Transformational Threshold
The Professional "Why": Jennifer W Shewmaker, as the Provost of a mission-centered institution, you describe the rise of generative AI as a "transformational threshold". What was the specific catalyst that made you realize that leading through this change required more than just technical policy, it required an approach rooted in hospitality?
Jennifer: There was a moment when I realized that the conversations surrounding AI in higher education were becoming almost entirely technical. People wanted policies, detection tools, and quick answers. But underneath those conversations, I kept hearing something else. I heard fear.
Faculty were wondering if their life’s work still mattered. Students were unsure what authentic learning would even look like in this new landscape. Leaders were moving quickly toward implementation without always creating space for reflection, discernment, or trust.
What became clear to me was that this was not simply a technology challenge. It was a human one. Hospitality became essential because hospitality begins by recognizing the humanity of the person standing in front of you. In moments of disruption, people need more than information. They need presence. They need leaders who are willing to listen carefully, make room for uncertainty, and create environments where people can wrestle honestly with change.
Higher education has always been about more than content delivery. At its best, it is about formation, belonging, curiosity, and purpose. If we respond to AI only with policies and procedures, we risk losing the very thing we are trying to preserve, the very thing that makes higher education vital to the future of our society.
The Nature of Contribution: You argue that AI forces us to reconsider the nature of human contribution itself. How do you reconcile the speed and efficiency of AI with the “weight of traditions” in higher education that define human wisdom and compassion?
Jennifer: AI is incredibly efficient. It can summarize, generate, organize, and accelerate. But efficiency has never been the ultimate purpose of education. I like to think of the work of higher education as slower and deeper than that.
Our traditions matter because they remind us that wisdom is not the same thing as information. Wisdom is developed through discernment, relationships, lived experience, ethical reflection, and human struggle. Compassion grows through encounters with ideas, experiences, and one another, and judgment develops over time.
I do not believe the rise of AI diminishes the importance of those things. If anything, it makes them more essential. In many ways, AI forces us to ask a more important question than “What can technology do?” It asks, “What does it mean to be fully human in a world increasingly shaped by machines?”
That is where the liberal arts, mentoring relationships, and mission-centered education become incredibly important. We are not simply preparing students to complete tasks. We are helping them become people capable of wisdom, courage, creativity, empathy, and ethical leadership.
Part 2: Hospitality-Centered Leadership Systems
Defining Hospitality: You note that hospitality in leadership isn’t passive; it’s the practice of creating structures that support flourishing. How does “listen(ing) to those voices even before they have spoken” allow a leader to design a communal environment where everyone feels safe to take risks with new technology?
Jennifer: Hospitality in leadership is the intentional work of creating conditions where people can participate fully, ask honest questions, and take meaningful risks.
One of the most important leadership lessons I have learned is that people often carry concerns long before they voice them. If leaders wait until fear becomes conflict, trust has already begun to erode. That is why listening matters so deeply.
What I’ve seen is that when faculty members feel respected rather than managed, they become more willing to experiment. And, when students feel seen rather than measured, they become more willing to learn. Hospitality creates the kind of communal environment where curiosity can emerge without shame. And in seasons of change, I’ve learned that curiosity is often the bridge between resistance and innovation.
The Four Core Commitments: Your leadership model is built on Presence, Agency, Transparency, and Values. Why is “Presence”, simply being accessible and relational, the most critical antidote to the fear that disruptive technology creates in faculty and staff?
Jennifer: Presence matters because fear isolates people. When technology changes rapidly, people often feel disoriented or left behind. Faculty may worry that they are losing expertise, staff may feel overwhelmed by constant adaptation, and students may feel pressure to perform in systems they do not yet understand.
In those moments, it is vital that leadership not become distant. Presence communicates, “You are not navigating this alone.” I remember standing in front of our faculty at Lipscomb several times in the past two and a half years and saying, “We are on this journey together.”
Sometimes leaders underestimate the power of simply being accessible, of showing up in meetings, answering questions honestly, sitting with uncertainty instead of rushing past it. But I’ve learned that presence builds trust, and trust creates the emotional safety necessary for learning and experimentation. People are much more willing to try something new when they know failure will be met with support rather than shame. I have seen again and again that transformation rarely begins with urgency. It begins with relationships that stand firm in the face of urgency, working together to find a solution.
Formation over Competence: You advocate for “mission-oriented formation,” which educates students for purpose rather than just résumés. In an AI-saturated world, how do we ensure we are still asking who our students are becoming, rather than just what they are producing?
Jennifer: One of my deepest concerns about an AI-saturated culture is that we may begin measuring education primarily through production. But education has never simply been about output. The central question for educators has always been: Who is this student becoming? That’s a question of formation, and ultimately then of transformation.
AI can assist with efficiency, drafting, and problem-solving. But it cannot replace the developmental work of becoming a thoughtful, ethical, reflective human being. That means we must continue designing educational experiences that require students to wrestle with ambiguity, collaborate with others, reflect on meaning, and connect learning to what they see as their purpose in the world.
We need classrooms where students are not only generating products, but also developing judgment. I honestly believe that the future will belong not simply to those who can use AI tools, but to those who can ask wise questions, evaluate responsibly, communicate empathetically, and lead with integrity.
Part 3: Fear as invitation
Fear as an Invitation: You suggest that fear is not a failure, but a signal that can become an invitation to slow down and reflect. "How do you help a faculty move from initial understanding to a place where they can honestly process loss and then move forward effectively?"
Jennifer: When people first encounter AI, the initial reaction is often emotional before it is intellectual. I’ve seen this with faculty, staff, and students at our university. There may be uncertainty about academic integrity, concern about expertise, and sometimes even grief over practices that once worked well.
I think it is important that leaders make room for that reality instead of dismissing it. Too often in higher education we move immediately toward solutions without acknowledging the emotional weight of change. But people cannot move forward authentically if they do not first feel heard.
So, what I’ve learned is that one of the most important things we can do is create spaces for honest conversation. That may look like faculty learning communities, small discussion groups, collaborative workshops, or simply open conversations where people can admit confusion without embarrassment. When people feel psychologically safe, they become more willing to explore. And once exploration begins, fear often gives way to curiosity.
Fear is not a failure. It is a signal that something important is happening. When approached with care, fear can even become an invitation.
Part 4: Institutional Capacity
The Representative Task Force: Step 1 of your model was launching a Task Force that included ethicists, technology leaders, and students. Why was it essential to use Lipscomb’s eight core values, like “Respect All” and “Seek to Learn”, as the foundation for your AI guidelines?
Jennifer: Our team believed that it was essential that our work begin with shared institutional values because technology alone cannot determine what is good for a learning community. We know that the institutional core values create the framework for discernment.
At Lipscomb, principles such as “Respect All” and “Seek to Learn” reminded us that our response to AI needed to reflect our institutional identity, not simply external pressure. Including ethicists, general counsel, faculty, technology leaders, and students ensured that the conversation remained deeply human and broadly representative.
This was important because different groups experience technological change differently. Students often see possibility quickly. Faculty may see pedagogical implications more immediately. Ethicists ask important questions about justice, dignity, and responsibility. Bringing those voices together created a more thoughtful and trustworthy process.
Training Methods: You emphasize the importance of responsive, flexible training that meets people where they are. How does that kind of training help users build confidence and avoid feeling overwhelmed when working with tools that are powerful but still evolving?
Jennifer: One of the challenges with emerging technologies is that they evolve faster than most traditional training models. People become overwhelmed when they feel expected to master everything immediately. Having training available to quickly address new developments works because it responds to real needs in real moments.
Faculty do not necessarily need exhaustive technical expertise on day one. They need practical support connected to the work they are already doing. When training is contextual, collaborative, and immediately applicable, it becomes much more sustainable.
This approach also reduces the exhaustion that often accompanies rapid technological change. Instead of creating pressure to become an instant expert, it creates permission to learn incrementally. That matters because healthy innovation requires curiosity, not panic, which is what we see when folks feel overwhelmed.
Academic Integrity & Transparency: Your guidelines for students emphasize transparency and accountability. How do you coach faculty to create syllabi that treat AI use as a “teachable moment” regarding the technology’s limitations?
Jennifer: I encourage faculty to think about AI conversations as opportunities for formation rather than simply enforcement. Students are already navigating these technologies. Our responsibility is to help them develop ethical judgment around their use.
That begins with clarity. We’ve learned that faculty need to communicate transparently about when AI use is appropriate, when it is limited, and why those distinctions matter. I also encourage educators to talk openly from the very beginning about the limitations of AI itself. Students need to understand that AI systems can hallucinate, reinforce bias, flatten nuance, and generate inaccuracies. All of us need opportunities to practice critical evaluation, source verification, and reflective thinking when it comes to evaluating AI output.
What we’ve learned at Lipscomb is that when syllabi and classroom conversations frame AI as part of an ongoing ethical and intellectual dialogue, students begin to see integrity not merely as rule-following, but as part of becoming responsible participants in a learning community.
Part 5: Interactive Closing & Actionable Awareness
The Final Message: You conclude that “people, not AI, are at the center of this story”. If a higher education leader wants to move their institution toward flourishing this week, what is one “hospitality-centered” action they can take to prove that “presence is more powerful than urgency”?
Jennifer: If a leader wants to move an institution toward flourishing this week, I would encourage them to begin with one simple practice: Create space for honest conversation.
You don’t want these to be performative conversation or rushed communication, so focus on real listening. Gather faculty, staff, or students together and ask: “What concerns you most right now? What possibilities do you see? What support do you need?” And then stay in the conversation long enough to hear the answers.
I’ve seen that in moments of disruption, leaders often feel pressure to move quickly toward certainty. But people rarely thrive when they feel managed by urgency; instead, they do so when they feel seen. This goes back to what I said earlier about the importance of presence. Presence slows us down enough to remember that institutions are ultimately communities of people, not systems to optimize.
AI will continue to evolve and technologies will continue to shift. But the future of higher education will still depend on whether we create environments where people can grow in wisdom, courage, belonging, and purpose together. That work remains profoundly human, and it’s the work that I’m committed to everyday.
"Wisdom is not the same thing as information. Wisdom is developed through discernment, relationships, lived experience, ethical reflection, and human struggle."
Why This Matters
Jennifer W Shewmaker’s perspective is a vital reminder that while AI can accelerate processes, it cannot replace the human wisdom and purpose that are central to the calling of education.
Fear as an Invitation: Jennifer reframes fear not as a failure, but as a signal to slow down and reflect. By naming the emotional reality of AI, including the grief of losing traditional methods, leaders can create the psychological safety necessary for true innovation to begin.
The Power of Presence: She identifies presence as a critical leadership commitment. Simply being accessible and relational communicates care, helping to dissolve the isolation and disorientation that disruptive technology can create in a workforce.
Formation over Production: In an AI-saturated culture, there is a risk of measuring education primarily through output. Jennifer argues that the real work of education remains formation, the deep process of developing a whole person capable of the judgment and empathy that machines cannot replicate.
Thank you, Jennifer W Shewmaker, for your steady and compassionate contribution to this series. For leaders and educators looking to move their communities from anxiety to a place of integration and thriving, her chapter in AI Everywhere, Volume 1, is an essential guide for leading with a steady hand and a “heart of hospitality”.
Don’t miss her weekly thoughts on higher education leadership and institutional transformation in her Substack newsletter on Leading With Purpose. Her work is a powerful reminder that people, not AI, are at the center of this story, and our calling remains to nurture the wisdom and character that allow us to lead meaningful lives. I personally highly recommend her “Fear as Invitation” pathway as a model for any leader navigating the uncertain terrain of the modern workforce.
And if you’re interested in more conversations like this, consider subscribing to She Writes AI. I’ll continue sharing insights from the voices shaping the future of AI, including contributors from AI Everywhere, Volume 1, where 26 women from across five continents explore how artificial intelligence is changing the world we live in, and how we can change it for the better.
References
Book purchasing information
Buy the ebook on Amazon (now also available in paperback and hardcover) - special intro pricing will expire at the end of May, so don’t wait! And look for an abridged audiobook coming soon.
Tips from our publisher on how to buy an Amazon ebook from a non-KDP-marketplace country, and how to read it without a Kindle device (free)
Purchasing and review links (we’re on Amazon, Goodreads, and Storygraph)
For more insights on the book, see aiEverywhereBooks.com - our beautiful book series website created by Blessing Okpala, PhD:
Thanks for reading She Writes AI Community! Subscribe to receive new interviews, weekly digests, & book news and to support our work: