12 items with this tag.
The research industrial complex describes the self-reinforcing system of incentives across universities, funding bodies, journals, and publishers that rewards publication volume and impact metrics over meaningful scientific progress. The term draws on Eisenhower's military-industrial complex to highlight how interconnected institutional interests can sustain a system that actively works against its own stated mission.
Academic publishing treats scholarship as a finished, individually owned artefact. This post describes a writing and publishing workflow built on a different premise: that a scholarly corpus could work like an open source project — readable, contributable, forkable, and never permanently owned by anyone.
When AI could write everything I'd ever written, I had to ask: what had I been doing all this time? The answer changed how I understand both writing and AI — and what it means to be a scholar in a world where words are cheap.
A field note on building arguments with AI: the brainstorming command I use to engage with any source, with an excerpt showing what a session looks like — Claude surfacing vault notes and Zotero sources, and why the conversation living in markdown matters.
Most advice on AI effectiveness focuses on prompt engineering. The real leverage comes from somewhere less obvious; knowing your professional commitments clearly enough to turn them into context an AI can work within. This post describes how to build AI personas for professional practice — structured documents that compress your values, frameworks, and evidence into a form an AI agent can actually use.
For the last few months, my screen has been split between Obsidian and a terminal, with two or three AI agents running in parallel tabs. This post describes what that shift in academic workflow looks like and what made it possible. The change is not simply additive: the work has shifted from execution to direction. What that distinction means in practice — and why it matters for those of us working in knowledge-intensive academic roles — is what I try to work out here.
A multidimensional framework for scholarship spanning discovery, integration, application, and teaching.
Academic culture has converged on the peer-reviewed journal article as the default unit of scholarly output, creating a hierarchy that excludes many valuable forms of intellectual work. This post makes the case for essays as a legitimate form of scholarship—not as a lesser alternative to empirical research, but as a distinct mode that enables exploration, synthesis, and engagement with audiences that traditional publishing cannot reach. Drawing on Boyer's model of scholarship, it argues for a more generous conception of what counts as scholarly contribution.
Academic publishing has converged on the written journal article as the dominant form of scholarly output, but knowledge has always been transmitted through conversation, dialogue, and oral communication. This post explores whether audio scholarship—podcasts, recorded dialogues, oral histories—deserves recognition as legitimate scholarly work. Drawing on Boyer's model of scholarship, it argues that format matters less than the rigour, intention, and intellectual contribution behind the work, and considers what it would take for academic culture to broaden its definition of what counts.
Contemporary AI discourse often focuses on 'sanctuary strategies' — defensive attempts to identify uniquely human capabilities — positioning humans and AI as competitors for finite cognitive territory. This essay reframes human-AI relationships as embedded within complex cognitive ecologies where meaning emerges through interaction, and introduces 'taste' as a framework for cultivating contextual judgement: sophisticated discernment about when, how, and why to engage AI in service of meaningful purposes. Unlike technical literacy, taste development involves iterative experimentation and reflection, preserving human agency over value determination. By shifting from 'What can humans do that AI cannot?' to 'How might AI help us do more of what we value?', the essay builds a case for abundance-oriented human-AI partnership.
Language is humanity's first general-purpose technology, developed to extend cognitive capabilities beyond biological limits. Large language models represent the latest evolution in a continuum stretching from spoken language through writing and print to digital text, extending language's capabilities through unprecedented scale, cross-domain synthesis, and cognitive adaptability. For health professions education, this framing shifts priorities from knowledge acquisition toward cognitive partnership and adaptive expertise. It demands a reconceptualisation of AI literacy — moving beyond technical prompting to understand how these tools shape reasoning — and requires assessment to evaluate students' capacity for collaborative problem-solving. Understanding LLMs as language technology offers a middle path between uncritical enthusiasm and reflexive resistance.
The introduction of generative AI into scientific publishing presents both opportunities and risks for the research ecosystem. This essay argues that scientific journals must transform from metrics-driven repositories — prioritising publication volume over meaningful progress — into vibrant knowledge communities using AI to facilitate discourse. AI can support this by surfacing connections between research, making peer review more dialogic, and enabling multimodal knowledge translation. Meaningful change requires coordinated action across institutions, funding bodies, and journals willing to prioritise scientific progress over quantitative metrics. By reimagining journals as AI-supported communities rather than article-processing platforms, the research ecosystem can better serve scientific knowledge development and clinical outcomes.