I’m going to try to start blogging again, as a way to make myself more accountable to myself. I used to use my blog as a research journal, writing little bits and pieces and saving links and stray thoughts, and often I would use bits of blog posts when writing papers and books. People don’t really use blogs like that any more. Most blog posts are more like polished essays than thinking-while-you-write, or Thinking With My Fingers as Torill titled her blog years ago. Some people used their blogs to document their research process, but I used mine to do my research. And to think about how to organise my days and my time, or how to deal with new responsibilities and tasks. Now I’m nearly 50 and nobody accuses me of looking like a student anymore as they did in 2005 (ha) and that outsider peeking into the ivory tower stance certainly doesn’t work anymore. I’ll have to find a new voice, perhaps, if I start blogging again.

I started today by writing my notes about a novel I just read as a blog post instead of just for myself.

One step at a time.

Maybe trying to write a short blog post every day is a way to get myself back into research, get myself back, after this pandemic slump of a year.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

3 thoughts on “Can I blog my way out of my pandemic slump?

  1. Petter

    Great idea! I grew up reading blogs that where actually discussing with each other through low barrier posts. There was a huge Swedish blog scene on the topics I was interested in. I was thinking doing the same thing – start up a blog to write unfinished stuff too. Maybe I’ll do it now!

  2. Francois Lachance

    Here’s wishing you all the best on the blogging-in-public renewal from an old reader who appreciates your postings. Curious how the renewal might unfold.

  3. Sunday | Morgan's Log

    […] And Jill/txt is back: Can I blog my way out of my pandemic slump? – jill/txt […]

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.