16 items with this tag.
PhD students are using AI across their doctoral work, but current policies focus on permission rather than specification. Drawing on how software engineers solved a structurally identical problem, this post introduces the research harness: a seven-part operating context that makes AI contributions visible, traceable, and supervisable. The harness addresses drift, offloaded thinking, and attribution failures — not by restricting AI use, but by specifying what the agent can and cannot do within the work.
Current responses to AI use in doctoral research locate the problem either with institutions through policy, or with students through judgement and AI literacy. This essay argues that neither response addresses the structural source of the difficulty. The characteristic problems of AI use in doctoral research are not problems of policy or capability; they are problems of working with an agent in the absence of a defined operating context. Drawing on software engineering practice, it develops the concept of the research harness: a structured specification, negotiated between researcher and supervisor, of what an AI agent is doing in a doctoral project. The harness has seven components — knowledge base, interpretive permissions, tools, authority, scope register, process record, and amendment protocol — and can be entered at a minimal level and developed iteratively alongside the work.
An invited webinar for the Manipulative Association of Chartered Physiotherapists. Explores what AI means for physiotherapy practice across the full information ecosystem of clinical work — from AI-assisted diagnosis and documentation to patient agency and the therapeutic relationship. The central concept is context sovereignty: AI systems work from professional context, and controlling that context is both the distinctive human contribution and the most practical skill for the AI age. The session covers the evidence for AI performance in clinical contexts, strategies for maintaining professional agency, how to actively support patients in using AI well, and how the therapeutic relationship is changing as practitioners and patients develop persistent AI agents.
Developing AI literacy is not skill accumulation but a progressive deepening of engagement — from substitution through adaptation to transformation — requiring authentic use, deliberate reflection, and sufficient foundational orientation.
A keynote for the 44th Annual Conference of the Physiotherapy Research Society. Argues that AI is now in contact with every part of the research process, and that the useful question is no longer whether researchers are using AI, but what they are using it for. Uses the PhD as a worked example to explore the difference between the artefact and the person becoming capable through the process, and argues that as AI becomes more capable, specifically human contributions — research taste, evaluative judgement, and the capacity to set direction — become more valuable, not less.
A keynote for the Royal College of Nursing's Education conference. Examines how generative AI has severed the inferential chain between assessment artifacts and the learning they were meant to evidence, and what nursing education needs to do structurally in response. The argument moves from the current AI landscape, through the premises of nursing formation, to why discursive responses (policies, declarations) cannot address a structural problem.
AI has disrupted doctoral education in two ways: the immediate question of AI-assisted writing, and the deeper question of what the PhD means when AI can conduct research from scratch. This post argues that the thesis was always a proxy for the person; evidence of an identity shift, not the thing being assessed in its own right.
More than 10,000 healthcare professionals have taken the courses I've created for Physiopedia Plus. This post focuses on the AI Masterclass for Healthcare Professionals Programme — a practical introduction to AI in clinical practice, education, and research. Physiopedia Plus members get full access, and a 30% discount code is included for new sign-ups.
Higher education's response to AI has focused on the artefact: detecting it, restricting it, and restoring confidence in what students produce. This essay argues that the structural features of problem-based learning — problem-driven inquiry, collaborative knowledge construction, facilitation over instruction, and metacognitive reflection — are the same conditions under which AI integration becomes educationally productive rather than substitutive. The alignment is structural, not retrospective: PBL was designed around these conditions before AI existed. The argument extends further: AI shifts what category of problem PBL can engage with, expanding access to wicked problems previously beyond students' reach. Investing in PBL's structural conditions is simultaneously investing in AI readiness.
AI assessment scales and similar policies are taxonomies of containment that ask how to protect existing assessment practices from AI, not whether those practices remain fit for purpose. This post argues that they're asking the wrong question, and examines what higher education might be asking instead, with particular implications for health professions education.
Academic offences committees are investigating the wrong party. When AI is integral to authentic professional practice, assessment that excludes it does not protect rigour — it tests performance in a professional context that no longer exists. Valid assessment measures what graduates will actually need to do; for most health professions graduates in 2025, that includes thinking well with AI. The accountability for assessment design lies with educators, not students.
AI-generated text is fluent regardless of whether its content is accurate or well-reasoned. Fluency was once a reasonable trace of genuine thinking — a student who wrote clearly had usually thought clearly. That relationship no longer holds. Worse, the AI literacy response of teaching output evaluation is a temporary fix: as models improve, output quality converges on expert-level across every artefact we care to measure. The question isn't how to spot current failure modes. It's what you'll do when those failure modes are gone.
A presentation for students participating in an EU-funded Blended Intensive Programme at Thomas More Hogeschool in Belgium. Examines how AI separates the production of artifacts from the learning they were meant to evidence, what problem-based learning already does differently, how AI changes group work and inquiry, and three practical shifts students can make in how they use AI within PBL.
The structural features of an information source that enable its knowledge claims to be challenged, traced back to evidence, and evaluated against the source's track record. Traditional sources carry it; generative AI largely does not.
An assessment approach that uses automated verification and longitudinal data to evaluate student competence through the creation of digital artifacts.
An invited presentation at the Lincolnshire LMC Getting It Done Conference exploring how generative AI functions as a virtual business consultant — supporting practice management, strategic planning, and operational efficiency for healthcare practices. The talk covers six use cases: developing online presence, targeting patient groups, enhancing patient experience, strategic service development, ethical implementation, and change management.