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. […]
torill
May you always be this enthusiastic about the assessment forms the reform brings us. And may your enthusiasm be justified. I think I’ll add that to my daily prayers.
Jill
*grin*
kari
As an American uninitiated in the arcana of European assessment rites, I found your recent entries on student evaluation fascinating. I can’t help but wonder if the Norwegian system, with all its rigour, promotes greater effort on the part of its students than the American system does on its own. Stateside we are afforded a lot of latitude in designing our curricula and developing evaluation criteria, but too often at the cost of rigour. There is a real problem with grade inflation (too many students receiving the highest marks for mediocre work in the absence of real grading standards), and students, for their part, perceiving this laxity on the part of their instructors, often respond to assignments in a lackadaisical spirit. I do hope Norway finds a way to sidestep the shortcomings of the American system in its reform effort. (Which is not to say there aren’t real virtues to our system–there are! I’m constantly inspired by the creativity of my colleagues–just a fair share of pitfalls as well).