I’m on the research committee of our huge department, which means that right now I’m going through a thick pile of applications for PhD fellowships. Ten three-year fellowships were advertised for the whole of the Faculty of Humanities, so our department (one of five) will get 2-3 at best. I have 28 applications in my pile.

After the re-organisation, our department consists of Humanistic Informatics, Linguistics, Comparative Literature, Art History, Classics, Computational Linguistics, Theatre Studies and Nordic, which is huge in itself and includes old Norse, grammar and sociolinguistics, Norwegian as a second language and of course Nordic literature, oh, and didactics too.

The pile of applications is interesting – more than half the applications are in literature – comparative or Nordic. The level of competition in this field is remarkable – so many people want to be literature professors!

Also, it’s interesting to see how the applications are at all levels of excellence – and how quite a few are not. Trying to go through them quickly before our first meeting about them I’m frustrated at how few of the cover letters do something as simple as stating what the applicant wants to write their PhD about. When you’re trying to figure out whether this application should be looked at by an art historian or a linguist or a classicist you want, oh, how about simply including the title of your project? After all, you’ve attached a five page project description. I suppose perhaps having done that, many applicants figure we already know – and we do, it’s just that it’s a lot easier to put all the information together when the applicant does it for us in the cover letter.

We still have at least two meetings ahead of us: we have to gather in assessments of the applications from subject experts, fill out forms describing each of them to be sent to the applicants themselves and to the higher level committee that finally selects who will be hired, and finally we have to prepare a prioritised list of up to seven candidates from our pile of 28.

It’s also rather humbling being at this side of the academic system suddenly. It doesn’t feel that long since I was one of the hopeful applicants. Had I realised the huge piles of paper I’d be competing with I might not have dared! But I’m glad that I did.


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.