Academic Writing Workshop Journey Key Learning Outcomes
Academic Writing Workshop Journey Key
Learning Outcomes
This task is based on My Academic Writing Workshop Journey Key Learning Outcomes and this task was assigned by Dilip Barad sir.
Introduction
Academic writing isn’t just about grammar and vocabulary it is a discipline, a way of thinking, and a mode of presenting knowledge with clarity, logic, and credibility. Over the course of the Academic Writing Workshop (documented across multiple recorded sessions), I immersed myself in content that reshaped my understanding of academic communication from the foundational elements of writing structure to advanced strategies for critical engagement with scholarly literature.
Below, I share my insights, intellectual reflections, and embedded session videos that highlight the core phases of my workshop experience.
1. Introduction: The Academic Writing "Visibility" Crisis
For many PhD scholars and researchers in the Indian context, there is a disheartening paradox at play: years of rigorous labor and profound thought often culminate in rejection from high-impact international journals. This is not a failure of intelligence, but a failure of "visibility." During Dr. Kalyan Chattopadhyay’s seminal workshop at Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University (MKBU), we dismantled the uncomfortable truth that local academic traditions often flatly contradict global publishing standards. To transition from a degree-seeker to a globally recognized scholar, you must unlearn the habits of the "local student" and adopt the disciplined, authoritative strategies of the international researcher.
2. Stop Writing Your Introduction First
The urge to begin your paper with the introduction is a novice trap that must be avoided. As Dr. Chattopadhyay emphasized, you must write your introduction after you have completed your data interpretation and discussion sections. This allows the introduction to function as a "precise map" of the actual findings rather than a "theoretical hope" that your research might eventually abandon.
By employing "Reverse Outlining" jottings of the main points after the chapters are drafted you ensure that the argument flows logically toward a demonstrated conclusion. If you write the introduction first, you risk a fatal structural mismatch.
"Writing introduction at first is problematic... your introduction will go in one direction and your discussion or data interpretation will go in another direction."
3. The "Authorial I": Reclaiming Your Voice
We must dismantle the lingering reluctance among Indian scholars to use personal pronouns. This hesitation is rooted in a tradition that mistakes the passive voice for humility and the active voice for arrogance. On the global stage, however, the "Authorial I" is a mandate for accountability and visibility. Using "I" or "We" (in co-authored works) allows you to "stage" your presence as a researcher who is confident in their evaluation.
Comparing Academic Voice: Global vs. Local
Ineffective/Passive (Local Habit) | Authoritative/Global Standard |
"It was observed that the data demonstrated an increase..." | "I argue that the data demonstrates..." |
"The present research deals with the study of..." | "In this study, I examine..." |
"The hypothesis is established through..." | "I test this hypothesis by..." |
For the second-language (L2) writer, reclaiming this voice is not about personal bias; it is about professional responsibility. If you do not claim your arguments, you remain invisible in the global repository of knowledge.
4. Research is Testing, Not "Establishing" the Truth
One of the most dangerous linguistic habits in Indian research is the use of the word "establish" as in, "I will establish that these characters are empowered." This choice reveals a fatal bias. Dr. Chattopadhyay utilized a powerful analogy: a researcher claiming they will "establish" a point is like a judge claiming they will "establish a defendant’s guilt" before the trial has even begun. It is not science; it is a foregone conclusion.
International reviewers view the phrase "I will establish" as a major "red flag" because it nullifies the objectivity of the study. Research is not a search for truth to proves oneself right; it is a disciplined process of testing a hypothesis. Finding evidence that nullifies your hypothesis is a valid, high-quality research outcome.
"You have a hypothesis... It is not truth and the purpose of research is not to seek the truth it is to test the hypothesis. You may validate it or not."
5. The "Gatya" Lesson: Methodology and Triangulation
To illustrate the necessity of precise methodology, the workshop utilized the metaphor of "Bhavnagar Gatya" (the local snack). To make a scholarly claim that Bhavnagar has the best Gatya, a researcher cannot rely on intuition. They must establish precise criteria: size, oil content, taste, softness, and color.
Furthermore, valid research requires comparison and triangulation. You must test Gatya from Surat and Ahmedabad to validate your claims against a broader context. This mirrors the academic need for both quantitative data (e.g., preference scores) and qualitative insights (e.g., interviews on texture and taste). Only through such rigorous triangulation can a researcher move from a subjective opinion to a canonical scholarly claim.
6. Bridging the "Visibility Gap": Writing for Global Standards
To bridge the gap between Indian research and global citation, scholars must conform to the standards of high-impact databases like Scopus and publishers such as Taylor & Francis or Springer. This requires more than just better English; it requires a commitment to international ethical standards.
For instance, publishing in a reputable London- or Stockholm-based journal requires explicit ethical consent forms for all participants such as the parents of children featured in photographs. Ignoring these "unspoken rules" ensures your work remains local. Conforming to these canonical conventions is the only way to ensure your research is cited by peers in Toronto, London, or Tokyo.
7. Conclusion: From Novice to Mature Scholar
The journey to becoming a mature scholar rests on four pillars: Formality, Objectivity, Clarity, and Precision. Academic writing is not a mere hurdle to clear for a degree; it is your invitation to join an international conversation. As you move forward, you must ask yourself: Are you writing to satisfy a local requirement, or are you writing to contribute to the global repository of knowledge?
8. Personal Learning Outcome
The most transformative insight from this workshop is the shift from "passive summary" to "active staging." I now recognize that research is not a summary of what others have said, but a disciplined staging of arguments where the researcher takes ownership of the claim. By replacing the biased urge to "establish truth" with the objective discipline of "testing hypotheses," and by reclaiming the "Authorial I," a researcher moves from the periphery of scholarly discourse to its very center.
Session - Dr. Clement Ndoricimpa
Publishing in Indexed Journals
Stop Guessing: 5 Counter-Intuitive Secrets to Crushing Scopus-Level Academic Writing
Takeaway 1: Your Introduction Must Follow a Three-Act Structure (The "Move" Model)
High-impact writing follows a predictable pattern of organization known in applied linguistics as the "Move Model." This is a logical necessity that guides the reader from the general importance of a field to your specific findings. However, a common pitfall is making Move 1 too short; an underdeveloped territory makes the entire paper feel insubstantial and fails to establish the "centrality" required by top-tier editors.
Dr. Clement defines these three essential moves as:
- Establishing Territory: The writer describes the study as central, interesting, and relevant. You must map the literature to prove the topic is worth investigating.
- Establishing a Niche: This is the pivot. You indicate a specific gap, raise a research question, or challenge a counter-claim. This is where you justify your paper's existence.
- Occupying the Niche: You present the purpose and nature of your specific research the "solution" to the gap you just identified.
As Dr. Clement emphasizes:
"The introduction of a research paper is an important section of the paper because it is responsible for the first impression of the paper."
Takeaway 2: The "Free Assertion" Trap and the Recency Requirement
The most frequent critique in Scopus-level submissions is the tendency to make "free assertions." A Free Assertion occurs when a writer claims a "research gap" exists without citing the specific studies that prove what is currently known. This most commonly happens in Move 2. For instance, if you claim "Frankenstein has been examined through various studies" but fail to name those researchers, you have provided zero evidence for your claim.
To avoid a "rejection magnet" response, you must adhere to the Recency Requirement. High-impact journals generally demand citations from the last 3–5 years (2021–2025). Citing sources from 1988 or 1997 to describe the "current state of the field" suggests your scholarship is outdated. To prove your work is original (the "Unknown"), you must first prove you have mastered the most recent 25% of the literature (the "Known").
Takeaway 3: The Visual Secret Bridging the "Known" and the "Unknown"
Dr. Clement uses a powerful visual metaphor to explain the researcher’s role: a circle representing the "Known." Everything inside the circle is established fact; everything outside is the "Unknown." Many researchers fail because they spend too much time restating facts already inside the circle what Dr. Clement calls "talking about what people already know."
Your professional value is measured by your ability to push the boundaries of that circle. Move 2 is the physical bridge between the known and unknown. By identifying a gap whether it is a lack of empirical evidence in rural classrooms or a neglected "indigenous epistemology" in feminist care models you create the space for your contribution.
"There is no point to talk about what is known because people already know that. Your objective is to produce something that will contribute to knowledge to what is known and what is not known."
Takeaway 4: AI is Your Editor, Not Your Ghostwriter
The modern researcher must transition from fearing AI to mastering the "Master Prompt." Within a responsible use framework, AI tools like ChatGPT or Gemini should be used to refine the presentation of your original ideas, not to generate citations (which leads to "hallucinations") or core arguments.
To be effective, a Master Prompt must mimic specific evaluative criteria, including CFR guidelines (Common European Framework of Reference) and BAWE standards (British Academic Written English). A high-level prompt should instruct the AI to analyze your work based on:
- Correctness: Grammar and syntax.
- Content: The depth of the argument.
- Organization: The structural flow of the Three Moves.
The Approved Workflow:
- Human Write: Draft your core ideas and findings first.
- AI Analyze: Use AI to check for coherence and structural gaps.
- Human Refine: Review the AI's suggestions to ensure rhetorical accuracy and integrity.
Takeaway 5: Visibility and the Q1–Q4 Currency
In the global research economy, citation count is the ultimate measure of bibliometric impact. Journals indexed in Scopus and WoS are ranked in quartiles (Q1–Q4) based on their Impact Factor. Understanding these brackets is vital for your career advancement:
- Q1: The top 25% of journals in a category (highest impact/visibility).
- Q2: Between the top 25% and 50%.
- Q3: Between the 50% and 75% mark.
- Q4: The bottom 25% of indexed journals.
If your work isn't visible on platforms like Google Scholar via these ranked journals, you effectively lack a professional voice. Publishing in Q1 or Q2 journals ensures your research reaches a wider audience, which directly correlates to funding, grants, and global recognition.
To institutionalize these habits, stop relying on intuition. Utilize professional tools like Mendeley for rigorous citation management and the Purdue OWL (Online Writing Lab) to master the technical nuances of academic style. Commitment to these standards is the only way to turn the "Black Box" of publishing into a transparent pathway for your career.
Introduction: The Curse of Instant Gratification
The progression from the steam-powered mechanics of Industry 1.0 to the complex, interconnected landscape of Industry 5.0 has fundamentally altered the human cognitive architecture. Historically, knowledge was a matter of shruti and smriti the sacred traditions of listening and memorization. In that era, the teacher or librarian served as the "Gatekeeper," a vital human filter ensuring the integrity of information. Today, however, that gatekeeper has been replaced by a "Cyber-Physical" interface, and we have become "victims of speed."
In a world defined by the instant gratification of services like Blinkit and Zepto, our patience for the truth has eroded. Data indicates that the average attention span for an Instagram reel has shrunk to a mere 14 seconds. This fragmentation of attention drives us toward Large Language Models (LLMs) for immediate answers. We are so starved for time that we increasingly prioritize the speed of a response over its empirical validity, falling into the trap of trusting probabilistic mimicry over factual truth.
The Anatomy of an "AI Hallucination"
In the discourse of digital literacy, an "AI Hallucination" is not merely a "glitch"; it is a byproduct of a model's architectural lack of epistemic humility. AI operates on a probabilistic model rather than a truth-seeking one. In technical logic, this often manifests as a corruption of Modus Ponens (MP) and Modus Tollens (TT). While classical logic dictates that if P \implies Q and P is true, then Q must follow, AI applies this to word sequences. If P is frequently followed by Q in its training data, the AI assumes Q is the "truth," even if the contextual link is non-existent.
This algorithmic bias toward "confidence" is inherently dangerous for researchers. Because the machine is programmed to predict the next likely token in a string, it is fundamentally not trained to admit ignorance.
"AI hallucination is where AI on a probabilistic model answers with lot of confidence because AI is not trained to say no I do not know the answer it has to answer and therefore when it would not have the answer it would create an answer." — Dr. Nigam Dave
The "Hanuman Syndrome" in Academic Writing
In the Ramayana, when the deity Hanuman was tasked with retrieving a specific medicinal herb and could not identify it, he brought back the entire mountain. In modern academia, we see the "Hanuman Syndrome": AI, unable to find a precise empirical answer, provides "reconstructed summaries" mountainous piles of generic, sweeping statements that bury the lack of specific evidence.
This "bluffing" is often masked by specific linguistic markers or "Red Herrings." To maintain academic rigor, one must be vigilant against the following AI-generated phrases that signal a lack of substance:
- "Studies in the last decade show..."
- "Scholars agree that..."
- "It is a widely known fact that..."
- "Latest studies investigate..."
- "Studies reinforce that..."
- "Prior existing research proves that..."
- "Numerous studies demonstrate..."
Citation Fabrication and the "Ego-Googling" Trap
The most egregious form of hallucination is the fabrication of academic citations. AI frequently invents sources that sound plausible but are entirely synthetic. For instance, when queried about Tamil flood temple inscriptions in the Tevaram, AI has been known to provide specific hymn lines, only to admit upon cross-examination that they were "reconstructed summaries" rather than factual text. Similarly, in the context of the Mahabharata, AI has cited the Adi Parva regarding the story of Karna’s armor a narrative that does not actually exist within that specific book.
This phenomenon extends to "Ego-Googling." Dr. Nigam Dave’s own research into the Pakistani fiction of Mohsin Hamid and Kamila Shamsie was discovered on a foreign website without attribution. Without the human verification provided by systems like ShodhGanga, or the critical oversight of a researcher, these "reconstructed" narratives can easily be mistaken for legitimate scholarship. This underscores the absolute necessity of the Human-Cyber-Physical System (HCPS), where the human remains the primary supervisor of the digital process.
AI as a Mirror of Human Bias
It is a dangerous fallacy to believe that AI is a neutral arbiter of information. AI acts as a "reciprocal position," inheriting and magnifying the prejudices found in its training data. In a simulated interaction with Achilles from The Iliad, an AI model once defended the ancient practice of treating women as "war trophies," mimicking the historical bias of the text without any ethical filter or modern contextualization.
When we feed our historical errors into a machine, the machine feeds them back to us with algorithmic authority. We have effectively granted our biases a digital inheritance.
"We have not given our human bias in inheritance to other human beings but we have given bias to check GPT and AI also... to believe that it is beyond bias is wrong." — Dr. Nigam Dave
"AI Policing AI" The Ethical Path Forward
Despite these risks, we cannot "wind the clock back." The path forward lies in "AI Policing AI" using the technology’s own analytical capabilities to detect its hallucinations under the strict supervision of the "H" in the HCPS framework. Ethical use cases include:
- Peripheral Academic Labor: Using AI for mechanical tasks such as converting citations from MLA to APA or generating LaTeX coding to polish a document's professional appearance.
- Simulated Peer Review: Asking an LLM to adopt the persona of a "foreign examiner" to identify logical fallacies, punctuation errors, or gaps in a thesis before submission.
- Authenticity Verification: Using AI to verify if a journal possesses a legitimate EID (Scopus/Elsevier ID). This is a critical defense against "clone journals" that mimic the appearance of prestigious publications to defraud researchers.
- Integrity Checks: Explicitly prompting an AI to check its own previous output for "reconstructed summaries" or factual inaccuracies.
Conclusion: The Human in the Loop
We are currently living through an era of unprecedented acceleration. During the preparation for this very discourse, the "Doomsday Clock"a symbol of global man-made peril was moved from 90 seconds to 85 seconds to midnight. This shift highlights a world moving faster than our ability to regulate it.
In this Cyber-Physical-Human System, we must refuse to be passive consumers of automated "truth." As our attention spans dwindle to 14 seconds and the clock ticks toward its final 85, we must decide: will we allow ourselves to become obsolete as the machine's hallucinations become our reality, or will we reclaim our role as the indispensable "H" the gatekeepers of ethics, logic, and truth?
Session- Dr. kalyani Vallath
From Classroom to an Academic Career
The Academic Ghost in the Machine: Why Your English Degree is Powerless Without the "Wild Plan" Strategy
The Crisis of the "Between-Worlds" Student
Modern humanities students are currently navigating a precarious liminality, perfectly captured by Matthew Arnold’s observation of being "caught between two worlds, one dead and the other powerless to be born." The "dead" world is that of traditional, insular academia an ivory tower that no longer guarantees a sanctuary. The world struggling to be born is a high-velocity, AI-saturated, and skill-centric landscape.
To survive this transition, you must move beyond the role of a passive consumer of theory. You must become the architect of your own Learning Ecosystem. This requires shifting from "Situated Knowledge" knowledge rooted in your specific experience and society to a globalized professional framework where your degree is merely a passport, but your strategy is the engine.
Writing is a Muscle, Not a Mystery
The greatest barrier to academic success is the myth that writing is an innate gift. In reality, academic writing is a skill exactly like driving: it is acquired through consistent, disciplined practice, not inherited intelligence. To master this, you must operate within your Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) that fertile space between what you can do alone and what you can achieve with strategic mentorship.
A critical component of this development is the concept of the "Map." Just as Northrop Frye’s Anatomy of Criticism provides a foundational map for understanding the archetypal structures of literature, you must map your own progress. You must learn to "read as you write." Do not wait for a spark of genius; instead, engage in the disciplined labor of organization. As William Wordsworth articulated:
"Poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings: it takes its origin from emotion recollected in tranquility."
In our context, that "tranquility" is the structured environment of the writing process, where hazy insights are refined into persuasive arguments.
The "Reverse Planning" Strategy for Research
Most students engage in "clueless walking," reading aimlessly and hoping a thesis appears. The Success Architect uses Reverse Planning. Start at the finish line: define your chapters and desired outcomes before you open a single book. This is guided by the Problem-Gap-Question map:
- The Problem: The broad scholarly issue you are addressing.
- The Gap: The specific area within that problem that remains unexplored.
- The Question: The responsible, focused inquiry that emerges from that gap.
Once the map is set, employ the "Coloring" Strategy (Micro-research). When you find a relevant passage, copy-paste it into your draft and color the text (e.g., in red) to clearly mark it as unoriginal. Then, perform "micro-research" on that specific point, writing your original synthesis and interpretation directly over the colored text. Once your original thought is complete, delete the colored portion. This prevents accidental plagiarism and forces original synthesis from the very first draft.
Upskilling: Why You Need More Than a Degree
In the modern machinery of the workforce, you must be a "screw in the right place." A screw lying on the floor is treated as garbage; a screw integrated into the engine is the reason the machine functions. To avoid being "garbage," you must transition from a simple CV to a robust Portfolio a digital evidence-base of your work, projects, and internships.
There are 9 Career Verticals where English students should establish their "Career Circles":
- Writing and Content Creation
- Editing and Publishing
- Media and Communication
- Corporate Training
- English Language Training (ELT)
- Research and Higher Education
- Government Exams
- HR and Management
- Creative Industries
To navigate these, you must adopt a professional mantra:
"Be an impeccable manager a manager of resources, a manager of your time, and a manager of knowledge."
AI as Your Intern, Not Your Boss
The AI revolution is not an enemy to be feared, but an intern to be managed. AI excels at "distractor engineering" and "logic checking." When researching contemporary figures for instance, if you are analyzing the gritty realism of a writer like David Peace you can use AI to "bucket" his major themes or identify his Booker Prize-winning peers to provide context for your own deep reading.
The architect uses a specific Prompt Refinement Tactic:
- Feed the AI your hazy, fluid ideas.
- Ask the AI: "Turn these thoughts into a high-performing prompt for a scholarly analysis."
- Re-run the resulting prompt and then manually insert your "Situated Knowledge" and original interpretations.
This ensures the AI provides the structure while you provide the soul and originality.
Cracking the UGC NET: A Game of Logic
The UGC NET is often perceived as a monster of memory, but it is actually a "childish" game of logic. Examiners use Distractor Engineering, planting absurd options to test your presence of mind. If a question about speech organs includes an option mentioning the "leg and hand," it is a deliberate trap designed to scare the anxious student.
The secret to passing is Analytical Inference and Relative Ordering. Use the following strategic framework:
Memory-Based Testing (Traditional View) | Analytical Inference (Strategic Approach) |
Focuses on memorizing every author and date in isolation. | Focuses on Relative Ordering (who came before whom). |
Intimidated by unknown names or complex jargon. | Uses Elimination of Extremes (discarding "always/never" traps). |
Reads the entire question before looking at the options. | Works backward from the options to filter the data. |
Relies on "mugging up" facts. | Relies on Cognition and maintaining presence of mind. |
The "Wild Plan" and the Growth Mindset
Success is a 40-year vision, not a 2-year sprint. When I began my journey, I had what I called a "Wild Plan" to revolutionize how English literature is studied. My cousins all successful engineers and doctors mocked me, believing English was a path for the clueless and the lazy. They did not see the architect at work.
What you do in your 20s is merely the "food" for your success in your 40s. You must stop waiting to be spoon-fed by a system that is still catching up to the present. The mother bird eventually pushes her young out of the nest. It is a terrifying moment, but it is the only way the bird learns that it was always meant for the sky.
Are you ready to push yourself out of the nest and fly?
Thank You !
Comments
Post a Comment