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. […]
Andyed
Linked to my name is a “project blog” where I’m documenting an exploration of prior art and an implementation of new technology in browser based adaptivity and personalization.
I agree, the gory details of research are rarely sufficient to capture the interest of an audience other than a dedicated research group.
Mark
I have to say that my blog has been invaluable as my own reference point. Particularly trying to rewrite my MA proposal at uni, whilst not having my notebook with me(fool that I am). And it’s great for jotting notes down at work and reading from home later, which I guess is the networked aspect of blogging covered. It certainly beats emailing things to myself.
Jill
I hardly use notes any more. Handwritten notes, I mean. I write them, sometimes, but then I either pull out the good bits and blog them or pull out the good bits and put them into an essay or I ignore them and leave them round for weeks unread. In all cases I end up throwing them out after a while. It’s incredibly liberating, throwing out notes. Last months I threw out boxes and boxes of notes from when I was a student and it was absolutely wonderful.
One glorious thing about blogging is that it takes no room but is searchable from anywhere. Well, anywhere connected to the internet.
Imaginary magnitude
Research collaboration through blogs
“I realised that that’s completely beside the point: research happens in blogs, and in the conversations between blogs. Blogs aren’t
Mathemagenic
Hidden agenda
It’s true that weblogs make idea development visible , but there are other interesting things that are not blogged.
Mathemagenic
PhD: experiential research and everyday grounded theory
[This text was drafted a