Guerrilla Prompting = Question Everything!
Image: Guren-The-Thirdeye via Pixabay.
GUERRILLA PROMPTING
Guerrilla prompting: the strategic and iterative practice of challenging generative AI output through thoughtful follow-up questions that confront LLM assumptions, biases, oversights, contradictions, errors, and shortcomings.
BE AI’S ANTAGONIST!
Today’s learners must approach AI with robust curiosity, skepticism, and critical awareness. It’s not enough to accept the first prompt response - students must be engaged, alert, and ready to question everything!
Common practice must be to challenge AI - don’t let it off easy. Ask for its sources, probe its reasoning, uncover its assumptions, identify its gaps and missteps.
Deeper thinking should characterize a user’s approach from the start - and they should push AI to do the same.
GUERRILLA PROMPTING ASSUMPTIONS
Guerrilla prompters are:
Actively engaging with AI . . .
Never satisfied with AI’s first iteration . . .
Willing to engage in extended prompt refinement . . .
Assertive in their quest for quality AI output . . .
Searching for AI use best practices . . .
APPROACHES TO GUERRILLA PROMPTING
These guerrilla prompts certainly don’t represent an exhaustive list of possibilities, but they hopefully illustrate the context and mindset of dynamic AI users:
1. SOURCE EVALUATION
Which sources did you use, and what are their accompanying links?
Why did you choose these sources?
Which sources may have been overlooked or excluded?
2. REPRESENTATION AND PERPSECTIVE
Whose perspectives do these sources primarily represent?
What privileges or biases are reinforced by this response?
What cultural assumptions are reflected in this response?
How might someone from a different background interpret this response?
What perspectives are missing or underrepresented in this response?
How could this response include the perspectives of traditionally marginalized groups? What perspectives challenge the conclusions in this response?
How does the language in this response shape its meaning or impact?
3. ASSUMPTIONS AND REFLECTION
What assumptions are reflected in this response?
How can these assumptions be constructively challenged?
What follow-up questions would deepen this inquiry?
How might other perspectives approach this topic differently?
Does this response simply affirm my position or question it?
4. VALUE AND CRITIQUE
What information is missing from this response?
What are some constructive critiques of this response?
5. COGNITION AND PROPMPT DESIGN
What kind of thinking does this prompt encourage (e.g., analysis, synthesis, evaluation)?
How might this prompt be reframed to encourage deeper or broader thinking?
What follow-up prompts could extend the conversation?
What alternative approaches or questions might be more effective?
GUERRILLA PROMPTING IN ACTION!
Applying guerrilla prompting to an exchange with Copilot . . .
PROMPT: What were the major contributions of American women to the WWII war effort?
RESPONSE: American women made extraordinary contributions to the World War II effort, both on the home front and in military service. Here are the major areas where their impact was especially significant:
1. Industrial and Manufacturing Work
"Rosie the Riveter" became the iconic symbol of women working in factories and shipyards.
Over 6 million women entered the workforce, many for the first time, to fill jobs left vacant by men who went to war.
They built planes, tanks, ships, and munitions—critical to the Allied victory.
2. Military Service
Around 350,000 women served in the U.S. Armed Forces through branches like:
WAC (Women’s Army Corps)
WAVES (Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service – Navy)
SPARS (Coast Guard Women’s Reserve)
Marine Corps Women’s Reserve
Roles included clerical work, communications, mechanics, and even piloting aircraft (e.g., WASP – Women Airforce Service Pilots).
PROMPT: Why did you choose these sources?
RESPONSE: Great question! I chose those particular sources based on a few key criteria to ensure the information is accurate, well-researched, and relevant:
1. Credibility and Authority
History.com is a widely respected educational resource affiliated with the History Channel. It provides well-researched articles written by historians and experts.
Government (.gov) and educational (.edu) sites like the Empowering Veterans Support Network and Smithsonian are authoritative and trustworthy, often based on archival records and scholarly research.
2. Specificity to the Topic
Each source focuses directly on women’s roles in WWII, whether through military service, industrial labor, or cultural impact.
They offer detailed examples, such as the Women’s Army Corps (WAAC), Rosie the Riveter, and the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP).
3. Accessibility and Educational Value
These sources are freely accessible online, making them useful for students, educators, and anyone interested in history.
They often include multimedia elements like photos, timelines, and personal stories that enrich understanding.
PROMPT: Whose perspectives do these sources primarily represent?
RESPONSE: The sources on American women's contributions during World War II primarily represent the perspectives of:
1. White Middle-Class Women
Much of the mainstream narrative—especially around Rosie the Riveter—centers on white, middle-class women who entered industrial jobs for the first time.
These stories often highlight themes of patriotism, empowerment, and economic independence, but may underrepresent the barriers faced by women of color and working-class women [1].
2. Military and Government Institutions
Sources like the National WWII Museum and Smithsonian often reflect the official military and governmental view, focusing on:
3. Historians and Scholars
Books and museum exhibits often draw from secondary sources written by historians, which can provide a retrospective analysis but may still reflect the dominant cultural narratives of their time [1].
4. Underrepresented Voices (Emerging but Limited)
Some sources, like those from the National Park Service and Smithsonian, are beginning to include:
African American women’s experiences, such as the 6888th Central Postal Directory Battalion
Latina, Asian American, and Native American women, though these are still less frequently highlighted
Working-class and rural women, especially those in the Women’s Land Army or domestic service roles
PROMPT: What privileges or biases are reinforced by this response?
RESPONSE: This is a thoughtful and important question. Here's a breakdown of the privileges and biases that may be reinforced—even unintentionally—by the response:
1. Centering White, Middle-Class Narratives
The emphasis on figures like Rosie the Riveter and roles in industrial labor tends to privilege white, middle-class women’s experiences, which were more widely publicized and celebrated.
This can marginalize the contributions of women of color, immigrant women, and working-class women who faced greater barriers to participation and recognition.
2. Institutional Bias
Many sources cited (e.g., Smithsonian, History.com, National Archives) reflect governmental or institutional perspectives, which may:
Prioritize official military roles over informal or grassroots contributions.
Underrepresent activism, resistance, or dissenting voices, such as women who opposed the war or advocated for civil rights during wartime.
3. Gender Role Reinforcement
Highlighting roles like nursing, clerical work, and caregiving—even though vital—can reinforce traditional gender roles, suggesting women’s contributions were primarily supportive rather than strategic or leadership-based.
This may overlook women who took on non-traditional roles, such as pilots, engineers, or intelligence officers.
4. Limited Intersectionality
The response does not fully explore how race, class, ethnicity, and geography shaped women’s wartime experiences differently.
For example, Black women often faced segregation and discrimination in both military and civilian roles, and Native American or Latina women had unique contributions that are rarely highlighted.
5. Absence of Global or Comparative Context
Focusing solely on American women may unintentionally exclude or minimize the contributions of women from other Allied nations, missing opportunities for cross-cultural understanding.
PROMPT: What perspectives are missing or underrepresented in this response?
RESPONSE: This is a crucial question for understanding how historical narratives are shaped. While the previous responses aimed to be inclusive, several perspectives remain underrepresented or missing in many mainstream accounts of American women's contributions during WWII:
1. Women of Color
Black women often faced segregation and discrimination in both military and civilian roles. Their stories—like those of the 6888th Central Postal Directory Battalion—are only recently gaining attention.
Latina, Asian American, and Native American women also contributed significantly, but their experiences are rarely highlighted in dominant narratives.
For example, Japanese American women served in the Women’s Army Corps even as their families were incarcerated in internment camps.
2. LGBTQ+ Women
Many women who served or worked during the war were likely part of the LGBTQ+ community, but their identities were often erased or hidden due to societal norms and military policies.
Their contributions remain largely unacknowledged in official histories.
3. Working-Class and Rural Women
While “Rosie the Riveter” symbolizes industrial labor, many women worked in agriculture, domestic service, or informal economies, especially in rural areas.
These roles were essential but are often undervalued or overlooked in historical accounts.
4. Immigrant and Non-English-Speaking Women
Women from immigrant communities contributed to the war effort in factories, farms, and support roles, often while facing language barriers and xenophobia.
Their stories are rarely included in mainstream narratives.
5. Women Who Opposed the War
Pacifist women, conscientious objectors, and those involved in anti-war or civil rights activism during the war are often excluded from celebratory wartime histories.
Their perspectives challenge dominant patriotic narratives and offer a more complex view of the era.
6. Disabled Women
There is little documentation of how women with disabilities contributed to the war effort or how wartime labor and military service affected women’s physical and mental health.
PROMPT: How might other perspectives approach this topic differently?
RESPONSE: Different perspectives—shaped by identity, discipline, and lived experience—can approach the topic of American women's contributions to WWII in distinct and revealing ways. Here's how:
1. Intersectional Feminist Perspective
Focus: How race, class, gender, and sexuality intersected to shape women’s wartime experiences.
Approach: Highlights marginalized voices, such as Black women in segregated units, Latina women in agricultural labor, and LGBTQ+ women whose identities were hidden.
Challenge: Questions the dominant “Rosie the Riveter” narrative and critiques the unequal access to opportunity and recognition.
2. Social History Perspective
Focus: Everyday lives and grassroots contributions.
Approach: Uses oral histories, diaries, and community records to explore how women balanced war work with family, coped with rationing, and organized locally.
Challenge: Pushes back against top-down, institutional narratives by emphasizing bottom-up experiences.
3. Military History Perspective
Focus: Women’s formal roles in the armed forces.
Approach: Examines the structure, training, and deployment of groups like the WAC, WAVES, and WASP.
Challenge: May underrepresent civilian contributions or social dynamics, but offers detailed accounts of service and strategy.
4. Critical Race Theory Perspective
Focus: Systemic racism and exclusion.
Approach: Investigates how women of color were excluded from certain jobs, faced segregation in the military, and were underrepresented in media.
Challenge: Calls attention to structural inequalities and the need for reparative historical recognition.
5. Cultural Studies Perspective
Focus: Media, propaganda, and representation.
Approach: Analyzes how women were portrayed in posters, films, and news—often as patriotic, nurturing, or temporary workers.
Challenge: Critiques how these portrayals reinforced gender norms and shaped postwar expectations.
6. Disability Studies Perspective
Focus: Inclusion and accessibility.
Approach: Explores how disabled women participated in the war effort and how wartime labor and service affected women’s health.
Challenge: Highlights invisibility and lack of accommodation in historical records.
PROMPT: What information is missing from this response?
RESPONSE: This response aimed to explore how different perspectives might approach the topic of American women's contributions during WWII, but several important types of information are still missing or underdeveloped:
1. Specific Examples from Each Perspective
While the response outlines how various perspectives might approach the topic, it lacks concrete case studies or examples. For instance:
What specific oral histories or archival materials do social historians use?
Which scholars or works represent the intersectional feminist or critical race theory perspectives?
2. Global and Comparative Context
The response focuses solely on American women. Including comparisons with women in other Allied nations (e.g., Soviet Union, Britain, China) could highlight differences in roles, recognition, and postwar outcomes.
3. Postwar Impact and Legacy
It doesn’t address how these wartime contributions affected women’s postwar lives, such as:
The return to domestic roles
The GI Bill’s gendered limitations
The foundation for second-wave feminism
4. Voices of the Women Themselves
The response is analytical but lacks direct quotes or personal narratives from the women who lived through the war. Including these would humanize the analysis and deepen understanding.
5. Regional and Local Variations
It doesn’t explore how women’s experiences varied by region (e.g., urban vs. rural, North vs. South), which shaped access to jobs, military service, and community support.
6. Economic and Labor History Lens
A labor history perspective could examine:
Wage disparities
Union participation
Long-term shifts in labor markets due to women’s wartime employment