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. […]
tim
In New Zealand we are just waiting for the results of our first “performance based research funding” round. This will give a strong indication of the degree to which our academic culture has accepted online publication.
I’m hoping that the climate is changing and spring is on the way!
Norman
Blogging is like spiders, which covers daddy long legs to funnel webs, and everything in between. Which may not make much sense to non-Australians?
Jill
Oh absolutely. Not all blogging is scholarly, that’s for sure. My secret LiveJournal (if I have one) is unlikely to impress a job search committee.
HÂkon Styri
Jill writes: “Not all blogging is scholarly”
You’re quite right. It would, however, be nice to have some discussions about what makes a blog worth mentioning your academic bibliography.
It’s not a question about format or technology, it’s how you’ve decided to use the blog. A very personal or informal blog may not be of any value at all. A blog used to publish draft papers, asking for comments and critique, is something quite different from an academic point of view.
One important issue is how to treat comments. Can a review board trust that you didn’t carefully edit out selected comments?
colin grant
Please contact me with regards a blogging discussion on BB World Service.
creativity/machine
Blogging for credit?
Sebastien Paquet wonders, along with Andrew Chen, Jill Walker, and Professor Bainbridge about the benefits of research blogs as opposed to formal academic publication. I don’t quite see why it’s an either/or situation – for me, a research blog is a thi…