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. […]
Anne Helmond
That looks a lot like my current reading list, lacking time to √ it all though. I just printed the two following papers that caught my interest:
Renvois of the past, present and future: hyperlinks and the structuring of knowledge from the EncyclopÈdie to Web 2.0
Michael Zimmer
New Media Society 2009;11 95-113
http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/1-2/95
Website history and the website as an object of study
Niels Br¸gger
New Media Society 2009;11 115-132
http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/1-2/115
Bj¯rge Solli
I think that Carl Christian Gr¯ndahl’s master thesis might catch you interest too:
http://carlchristian.net/2009/02/19/masteroppgava-mi/ (in norwegian)
Bj¯rge
Erin
Great list of texts, Jill! Very relevant to my current PhD research – I might have to poach your list and add it to mine! My reading list for the next week involves a 6-inch high pile of articles that I’ve been avoiding for the past six months (in theory. In reality, it will remain unread!).
Chuck
I’m reading Alex’s book now. Between his book and yours, Polity has a nice little series going. Next up for me is probably Dalton Conley’s Everywhere USA, but I may indulge a long-term planned project and read Brian Vaughan’s Pride of Baghdad and Anthony Lappe’s Shooting War, two “docu-comics” about the Iraq War.
Albertine
Takk for tips!
Jill Walker Rettberg
It’s rather nice seeing other peoples’ reading lists too! I’m going to check these out. And I’ve ordered a big pile of books too, so the list will grow…