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. […]
Elin
Congrats on your thesis, Jill:-)
You know, I’d just ignore that incredible petty comment on the DAC blog. You must have noticed that it went to to say:
“(30 references is fine, but when they include a range of theorists from high french poststructuralism through to pop psychology, you begin to think that too much is being attempted)”
This leaves me a little puzzled. So comments are fine after all? It sounds to me like what was said, was that one of the things to do differently next time, was to make sure that everybody writes perfect papers that do not attempt too much at all. Control freak? Well, the commentator certainly made all “emerging” researchers feel insecure about their work.
One of the things you simply don’t do when you organize a conference, is to make public statements of the validity of other people’s work in a tone that seem to exclude that group. The posting wasn’t addressed to the phd students or “reference sinners” – which makes it difficult to not be offended by it.
In any case, it is possible to say “something” about someone’s work by skimming the references. Just not a whole lot. To understand the issues and determine how much is attempted, you should think you had to read the paper.
Which is why I think you should just ignore the comment, it is not based on proper judgement. And have fun at DAC:-)
And by the way, your picture is SuperSweet:-)
Elin
Liz
I’m with Elin on this one, Jill.
I’ve seen–and enjoyed–plenty of conference papers with significant citations in them.
What matters is the content and the delivery of the paper, not the citation count. I can’t help but think that whoever posted that comment has a lot to learn about what makes an academic conference paper successful and useful.
Lisa
“Things to do differently next time…”
Don’t post the things to do differently until the conference has actually taken place. Better, don’t *post* the things to do differently, just do them differently.
Make every effort to make all participants feel comfortable and welcome, especially in view of shifting collegial and social grounds.
That’s what he should have said.
Hanne-Lovise
First: CONGRATULATIONS WITH THE THESIS!!! I love your picture – hold on to that feeling! 🙂
What a relief! I thought the comment was aimed at me (yes, I’m in the 30+ club…), and since I haven’t presented papers at that many conferences yet (DAC is my second) I immediately felt insecure and thought “oh no, now the other much more experienced researchers at the conference will just by looking at the number of references see that this is one of those PhD students that haven’t got it yet, what an amateur…”
But then I see that you – an experienced and awarded conference participant – have done the same thing and thought more or less as I did about it (I too like finding interesting work from others’ references), so I think I’ll go to DAC with a lifted head after all… (thanks to your post!)
See you there! 🙂
Jill
Thinking about it, lots of citations is kind of like lots of links in blogging, too, isn’t it? And I’m really looking forward to the conference 🙂
Mark Bernstein
I haven’t read the paper yet — I *just* downloaded the proceedings, and I’ve been up for hours and hours and I’m in Holland of all places — but obviously I’m in favor of footnotes and references.
ESPECIALLY at DAC, which attracts practitioners who are not always as interested in history and background as they ought to be.
ESPECIALLY this year, when the exLiterature folks are running around trying to convince people that everything written before 1999 (or whenever *their* first important work appeared) is “endangered” or antique or too hard on their eyes or has too many bristles.
Yes, some people overuse references to impress readers, or to build alliances. But, on the whole, references help.
Lisa
You know, reading the subsequent posts I’m beginning to think the original complaint was a mostly logistic one–perhaps the citations were just one more detail in the galactically irritating task of prepping the papers for mass consumption?
AKMA
Congratulations, Jill! Three cheers on the thesis!
As for the conference blog, it’s not a reflection on you; it’s a heedless comment, evidently made under some stress, which doesn’t even hold up after thought (the writer himself seems to be of two minds on the point). It shouldn’t have been made in the first place; it shouldn’t have been made public at all. And picking on recent graduates for not meeting unstated expectations reflects on the organizer, not on you.
mamamusings
ouch!
Back for long enough to say that I’m _very_ glad I didn’t submit a paper to the Digital Arts and