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. […]
nick
The US$210 price, and lack of free online access, is quite unfortunate.
I noticed that four years ago the Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy was published – 3 vols., US$705. Google Scholar shows that there are no articles on the Web that cite the book, aside from the two that cite the “Subsidies” entry, one that cites the “Bretton Woods System” entry, one that cites the “Inclusive Democracy” entry, and one that cites the “New International Economic Order” entry. (The only other thing that looks like a citation on Google Scholar is a list of “political studies books” from the journal Political Studies that mentions the book.)
Guess what all of these entries all have in common? They were all published on the Web. And since no one gave page numbers in citing these (and most gave URLs), the scholars who referred to them almost certainly only read the Web publications of these entries.
Is there any evidence elsewhere that these sorts of extremely costly, hardback-only encyclopedia publications actually serve the intellectual community? Maybe articles are duplicated for classroom use (which may not even be legal) and don’t get cited because they’re used in teaching rather than research. Or I suppose you could argue that those four entries wouldn’t have been on the Web in the first place unless REIPE was put together … but that seems like a pretty feeble justification.
Jill
Great research, Nick. I guess we’re lucky that the Encyclopedia of Narrative THeory “only” costs $210…
I wonder who does buy these encyclopedias. I certainly can’t afford to, even with the generous 10% contributor’s discount. I will admit though that I wouldn’t have written the weblog definition if Marie-Laure hadn’t asked me to write it for the encyclopedia, and it’s quite likely that part of the reason it’s quoted as much as it is is that it’s got the official Routledge stamp.
But considering that most of the entries in the Encyclopedia AREN’T online it does seem rather a waste. Such a pity, because it’s a wonderful reference work, one I’d love to own.
andy
hmm. presumably the publisher is relying on ‘captive’ institutional (ie university library) sales…it’s hard to see how any other sales model could work.
c’mon Jill, paraphrase that article for the rest of us! (i promise i won’t tell the editor…)
🙂
Jill
Oh, my definition’s definitely online! Of course!
Sbu
Can I go out on a limb and say that perhaps the reason your blog definition is oft quoted is that it’s quite good? I know that I’ve used it a few times and will again for a forthcoming ‘handbook’ – let’s hope it’s not as expensive as ‘RENT’.
When will you begin a revision for the new edition?
andy
i never doubted you for a moment.
Jose Angel
Congratulations, Jill. I guess I’m one of the “unhappy few” who will take a deep breath and buy the book, but I think your solution, always publish online anyway, is quite sensible.
Jill
That’s great that the book will have some real readers, Jose Angel! And Sbu, thank you 🙂