In those feverishly exciting early years of blogging Liz Lawley (a.k.a. mamamusings) was one of my favorite blogging buddies, and I’m excited to see she’s decided to blog more again, rather than leaving ideas and conversations on Facebook or Twitter. Some obvious problems with having most of our conversations on Facebook or Twitter is the forced brevity, that conversations happen in a non-public forum (good in some cases, bad for research though) and that its hard to search or access old conversations, even one’s own, and certainly other peoples’.

I’m going to blog more often, too. When I make time to blog, I not only feel more engaged with my research and teaching and have more interesting ideas, I also quite simply enjoy my job a lot more. Not too surprising, really…


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

5 thoughts on “blogging more

  1. Rachel Cunliffe

    Hi Jill,

    Have been reading your blog for a while and I wrote along similar lines here:

    http://www.cre8d-design.com/2010/10/the-lifespan-and-depth-of-tweets-vs-blog-posts/

    Thought you might be interested in it?

    Rachel

  2. Jill

    Oh, YES, Rachel – thanks for those excellent, considered links – these are exactly the things I love about blogging. And I liked your birth story too, and you’re right: there’s great satisfaction to both the immediacy of instantly putting it out there and the instant response, but also to actually processing the thoughts, and not least, the more permanent archive.

    For me, Twitter coincided with the arrival of my two youngest kids and a HUGE decrease in the time I am able to spend on thinking about anything other than small kids. So I think I got hit by a double whammy there – my blog archives drop off ridiculously from 2007 on.

  3. Rachel Cunliffe

    Ah so true. The (regular, cough) 5 minute me-time on Facebook or Twitter is mentally much easier than the rare 15 minute dedicated writing time, yet I find the writing much more satisfying in the long run. Thanks for blogging more again!

  4. Joke Beyl

    Dear Jill,

    As a PhD student researching literary writers’ weblogs, I decided a couple of months ago to start blogging myself. I wanted to experience what I was studying, but I also felt the need to let people (and I am still not too sure who I actually intend to reach) know about my work. Up until today I still have mixed feelings about my blog. I read the article you linked to in your post before and I reread it today, and I really relate to it. I like blogging, it helps me to reflect about my work and to get to know myself better. Yet, I doubt. I doubt whether to write in English or in Dutch, I doubt whether to write about my work or also about my personal life and interests. I doubt because of the limited number of responses, because I doubt whether I want more or less public presence.

    Anyway, it is quite intriguing that because I blog, I now think about what it means to blog in our present culture even more and perhaps also in a different way than before.

    Kind regards,
    Joke Beyl

  5. […] and Twitter have not stopped people blogging. In fact, a number of New Year’s resolutions I’ve seen talk about blogging […]

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.