Myriam Coco giving a presentation on Action Research at EATBergen2010 This is my first week back at work after a half year’s maternity leave, and I’m lucky to be able to attend a few sessions of the Education and Technology summer research school that’s being organised by my colleagues in Digital Culture here at the University of Bergen. I’ll only be working a 16 hour work week for the next eight months, which I think will be a fantastic transition from full time at home to full time at work. This does mean I’m missing a lot of the presentations and discussions, but at least I’m here this morning for Myriam Coco‘s keynote on Action Research (“a way of generating knowledge about a social system while, at the same time, trying to change it” (Lewin)). I’ve brushed against action research many times, but it’s useful to have an overview of it neatly presented.

The summer school is a collaboration between the University of Bergen, Rzeszow University of Technology, Technische Universit‰t in Dresden and the University of Strasbourg, and this is the third time it has been held. Twenty or so PhD students gather with about a dozen professors for two intense weeks of presentations, discussions and extra-curricular activities (this afternoon they’re visiting the leprosy museum. That’s right – you didn’t know it was a Bergener found the cure to leprosy!?).

While I haven’t had the chance to fully immerse myself in the seminar, I’m loving that intense feeling of learning and discovery that exudes from the coffee room! That feeling was what got me hooked on academia – meeting people equally fascinated by the topics your engaged in, learning so many new things, discussions, coffee, late nights.

Academia at 16 hours a week with two tiny ones at home is a little different. But luckily I can still get a lot of that fix in bits and pieces online.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

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.