.png)
This blog discusses the National Seminar organized by the Department of English, Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University, conducted from 27 January to 1 February 2026.
Introduction:
In the academic landscape of 2026, the concept of the “scholar” has undergone a significant transformation, shaped by the growing integration of augmented intelligence and digital methodologies into research and writing practices. Academic writing can no longer be understood merely as the mechanical act of composing text; rather, it has evolved into a complex, reflective, and technologically mediated process that demands critical engagement, methodological awareness, and interdisciplinary adaptability. Within this shifting paradigm, scholarly development increasingly emphasizes not only what is written but also how and why knowledge is produced and communicated.
Against this backdrop, the National Workshop on Academic Writing, conducted from January 27 to January 31, 2026, at the Department of English, Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University, represented a significant intellectual initiative. Organized in collaboration with the Knowledge Consortium of Gujarat, the week-long intensive program sought to transcend conventional notions of writing instruction. Rather than focusing solely on technical proficiency, the workshop engaged participants in exploring the epistemological foundations, rhetorical strategies, and ethical dimensions of academic discourse. In doing so, it functioned not merely as a training exercise but as a site of scholarly renewal—a genuine renaissance in the practice and philosophy of academic writing.
Brochure:
The Final Schedule of the Sessions:
Inauguration Ceremony:
Date: January 27, 2026 | Time: 10:00 AM
The inaugural ceremony of the National Workshop on Academic Writing, hosted by the Department of English at Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University, marked a significant academic occasion that thoughtfully integrated long-standing scholarly traditions with the evolving demands of the digital and technologically mediated age. The gathering cultivated an atmosphere characterized by intellectual seriousness, reflective engagement, and a shared sense of scholarly responsibility. The proceedings commenced with the university song and an invocation, followed by the symbolic presentation of books to the invited dignitaries in place of customary floral tributes—a gesture that underscored the academic ethos guiding the week-long program.
.png)
The ceremony was attended by a distinguished panel of academicians, including the Vice Chancellor, B. B. Ramanuj, and the Head of the Department of English, Dilip Barad. The keynote addresses delivered by Paresh Joshi and Kalyan Chattopadhyay offered critical insights into the evolving relationship between natural intelligence and artificial intelligence, encouraging participants to engage thoughtfully with the ethical and epistemological implications of technological advancement. Their reflections traced the historical development of writing—from early inscriptions and classical linguistic systems such as those associated with Paninian grammar to contemporary practices like prompt engineering—thereby situating present challenges within a broader intellectual continuum. Emphasis was placed on the responsible and judicious use of artificial intelligence tools, ensuring that such technologies augment rather than supplant human cognition, creativity, and critical inquiry.
By the conclusion of the ceremony, marked by a formal vote of thanks, participants were left with a renewed sense of purpose and commitment. The inaugural session articulated the workshop’s central philosophy: to cultivate technical proficiency in academic writing while preserving the humanistic values—critical thinking, aesthetic sensitivity, and ethical integrity—that constitute the foundation of authentic scholarship. In doing so, it reaffirmed the need to balance technological advancement with the preservation of the distinctly human dimensions of knowledge production.
Day 1: Foundations, Logic, and the AI Interface ( 27th January 2026)
Session Report: Academic Writing and Prompt Engineering
The workshop session was delivered by Parish Joshi, an accomplished academician, researcher, trainer, and national speaker with over two decades of experience in higher education. Currently serving in the Department of English at Veer Narmad South Gujarat University, he possesses extensive expertise in English literature, language pedagogy, applied linguistics, phonetics, folk literature, and communication studies. His scholarly credentials include an M.Phil. focused on pronunciation pedagogy and a doctoral study addressing strategies to minimize mother-tongue interference for international intelligibility among Gujarati learners. His professional profile is further distinguished by numerous awards, authorship of several books and research publications, his role as a NAAC assessor, and his contributions as a national resource person on educational policy, research methodology, and outcome-based education.
The session commenced with an engaging introductory interaction that established an atmosphere of intellectual openness and participation. Professor Joshi outlined two central thematic concerns: the foundational principles of academic writing and the emerging domain of prompt engineering as an extension of AI-assisted scholarly practice.
Conceptualizing Academic Writing
The speaker defined academic writing as the formal and systematic mode of communication employed to document and disseminate research through scholarly articles, theses, and dissertations. He emphasized that effective academic writing requires more than the acquisition of technical skills; it demands a thorough understanding of its governing principles, conventions, and epistemological commitments.
To illustrate this distinction, he contrasted two textual forms: the objective, informational style of an encyclopedia entry and the imaginative, subjective qualities of poetic expression, exemplified through a poem by William Wordsworth. This comparison clarified that academic discourse aligns with the “literature of knowledge,” privileging factual accuracy, clarity, and neutrality, while deliberately distancing itself from the emotional and aesthetic orientation characteristic of creative writing. Participants were therefore encouraged to temporarily suspend literary creativity and adopt a scientific and analytical tone when engaging in research writing.
Characteristics and Processes of Academic Writing
The lecture further delineated the essential characteristics of academic discourse, highlighting objectivity, logical coherence, evidentiary support, and conclusion-oriented argumentation. Academic writing, unlike journalism or creative expression, necessitates detachment from personal opinion and relies on verifiable sources and systematic reasoning to establish credibility.
Research writing was conceptualized as an ongoing “academic conversation.” This process involves several interrelated stages: reviewing existing scholarship, synthesizing and evaluating arguments, responding critically to established positions, and ultimately contributing original insights. Such an approach underscores the iterative and cumulative nature of knowledge production.
Ethical considerations were also foregrounded. The speaker stressed the importance of respecting intellectual property rights, avoiding plagiarism, and adhering to responsible citation practices. Participants were advised to engage in careful drafting, peer review, and revision, using digital tools judiciously to enhance accuracy while maintaining intellectual integrity.
Style, Clarity, and Precision
A substantial portion of the session focused on stylistic conventions. Academic writing, it was noted, demands formality, precision, and clarity. Informal vocabulary, colloquial expressions, and emotional assertions must be replaced with specific, measured, and evidence-based statements. The importance of structured sentences, coherent argumentation, and concise phrasing was reinforced through practical examples.
The principle of clarity was encapsulated in the “Keep It Short and Simple” approach, which advocates eliminating redundancy and avoiding unnecessary verbosity. Additionally, the use of hedging language was recommended to prevent sweeping generalizations and to reflect the provisional nature of scholarly claims. Expanding one’s academic vocabulary and utilizing varied transitional phrases were also identified as means of enhancing coherence and rhetorical sophistication.
Introduction to Prompt Engineering and AI in Research
In the latter part of the session, attention shifted to the growing role of artificial intelligence in academic contexts. Professor Joshi introduced prompt engineering as a contemporary skill set involving the design of precise, contextually rich instructions that guide AI systems to generate relevant and structured outputs. With increasing institutional adoption of AI technologies, this competence was presented as an essential extension of modern academic literacy.
Effective prompt design, he explained, rests upon four principles: clarity, contextualization, constraint specification, and explicit formatting. Prompts should define the intended role, task, background information, limitations, and expected output structure. Various techniques—such as zero-shot, one-shot, few-shot, and chain-of-thought prompting—were discussed as strategies for optimizing AI responses.
However, ethical considerations were emphasized throughout. AI tools should assist with repetitive or mechanical tasks, such as proofreading, formatting, or citation management, rather than replace independent critical thinking. Participants were cautioned against uncritical reliance on AI-generated content and were reminded of the necessity of fact-checking, given the potential for inaccuracies or outdated information.
Concluding Reflections
The session concluded with reflections on the importance of balancing technological innovation with enduring scholarly values. Professor Joshi underscored that while AI can enhance efficiency and productivity, authentic scholarship ultimately depends upon human judgment, creativity, and ethical responsibility. The integration of digital tools must therefore complement—not supplant—the intellectual rigor that defines academic inquiry.
Overall, the lecture provided participants with both theoretical insight and practical strategies, equipping them to approach academic writing with greater precision, integrity, and adaptability in an increasingly technology-mediated research environment.
Afternoon Session -Resource Person Prof. Kalyan Chattopadhyay
Session Report: Principles and Practices of Academic Writing
The session on academic writing was conducted by Kalyan Chattopadhyay, an internationally recognized educator, researcher, and teacher trainer whose professional engagements extend across several countries, including Cambodia, China, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, United Kingdom, and Vietnam. He has authored instructional materials for Cambridge University Press and Collins, edited volumes examining the interface between industry and academia, and received several professional recognitions for excellence in education and research. A distinguished alumnus and Global Ambassador of the University of Leeds, he nonetheless foregrounded his primary identity as a teacher, emphasizing that his career has consistently centered on classroom practice and teacher development.
Pedagogical Foundations and Motivation
Reflecting on his early teaching experiences, Dr. Chattopadhyay noted a recurrent challenge: students enrolled in English Honours programmes often lacked foundational linguistic proficiency in spoken and written English despite their exposure to advanced literary texts. This discrepancy prompted him to recognize the necessity of strengthening language competence before introducing complex literary analysis. Given the predominantly literary orientation of his own postgraduate training, he undertook self-directed study in language acquisition, pedagogy, and task design. This process of professional self-education informed his subsequent commitment to applied linguistics and language teaching methodologies.
He further observed the evolving expectations within academia, noting that qualifications once sufficient for teaching have been replaced by heightened research and doctoral requirements. These changing standards have intensified the need for systematic training in academic communication and research practices.
Academic Writing: Challenges and Core Principles
The speaker identified a significant gap between local academic writing practices and international publication standards. While many doctoral theses are completed successfully, only a small proportion meet the stylistic and methodological criteria necessary for publication in reputed journals. Central to this discrepancy are issues of directness, clarity, and rhetorical precision.
To address these concerns, Dr. Chattopadhyay outlined four foundational characteristics of effective academic writing:
Formality requires adherence to conventional structures, avoidance of colloquial expressions and contractions, and the use of grammatically rigorous, professionally appropriate language.
Objectivity emphasizes impersonal presentation and reliance on evidence rather than personal opinion. The focus remains on data, analysis, and logical reasoning, frequently supported through neutral or passive constructions.
Clarity demands coherent organization, well-defined topic sentences, and explicit transitions that guide readers through arguments. Each claim must be logically connected to its supporting evidence.
Precision entails specificity in references to time, context, scholars, and data. Vague or generalized statements are discouraged in favor of exact and verifiable information, with particular attention to current and relevant scholarship.
Illustrative examples from scientific discourse demonstrated how these features operate collectively to produce concise, unambiguous, and replicable research descriptions.
Framing Research Problems and Theoretical Orientation
Moving beyond stylistic considerations, the session addressed the conceptual foundations of research design. Effective scholarship begins with the clear identification of a research problem or gap rather than with a predetermined conclusion. Scholars must analyze issues critically and maintain neutrality, avoiding claims framed as personal assertions. The emphasis lies in problematization, exploration, and interpretation grounded in evidence.
A range of potential research areas—such as diasporic studies, gender perspectives, ecological criticism, mythological reinterpretation, and digital or hypertext narratives—illustrated the diversity of contemporary inquiry within literature and language studies. Participants were encouraged to approach these themes analytically and comparatively rather than ideologically.
Textuality, Hypertext, and Interdisciplinary Awareness
Dr. Chattopadhyay broadened the conventional definition of “text,” arguing that any medium conveying meaning may be treated as a text for scholarly analysis. In this regard, hypertextual and digital formats introduce new modes of reading and interpretation, necessitating familiarity with intertextuality and multimodal analysis. Such developments underscore the need for adaptability in contemporary literary and linguistic research.
Pedagogy, Andragogy, and Learning Contexts
The session also differentiated between pedagogy and andragogy. While pedagogy traditionally addresses child-centered instruction, andragogy recognizes the autonomy, experience, and goal-oriented motivations of adult learners. This distinction is particularly relevant to postgraduate and doctoral education, where learners assume greater responsibility for directing their own intellectual growth.
Research Methodology and Data Analysis
Attention was subsequently directed toward methodological rigor. Research, the speaker emphasized, must privilege systematic data collection and analysis over subjective interpretation. The principle of triangulation—drawing upon multiple sources or methods to validate findings—enhances reliability and credibility. Both qualitative approaches (thematic analysis, interviews) and quantitative techniques (statistical tools such as spreadsheets or analytical software) were presented as complementary strategies.
Clear differentiation between findings and interpretations was highlighted as essential, ensuring that conclusions logically emerge from evidence rather than from conjecture.
Structure and Conventions of Academic Papers
The conventional structure of scholarly articles was reviewed, encompassing the title page, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Particular emphasis was placed on the abstract as a concise summary of purpose, methodology, findings, and implications. The introduction should contextualize the study, articulate the problem, and outline research questions.
Stylistic norms—including impersonal voice, cautious hedging, consistent citation practices, and discipline-specific terminology—were identified as crucial components of professional academic communication. Adherence to recognized citation styles ensures both transparency and ethical integrity.
Developing Academic Arguments
The session concluded with a discussion of argumentation as the core of scholarly writing. Effective academic arguments consist of a clear thesis or claim, relevant evidence, logical reasoning, engagement with counterarguments, and a well-substantiated conclusion. Only evidence that directly supports the central claim should be retained, while extraneous information must be excluded to maintain coherence and persuasiveness.
Concluding Reflections
Overall, the workshop provided a comprehensive framework for understanding academic writing not merely as a technical skill but as an intellectual discipline grounded in clarity, rigor, and ethical responsibility. Participants gained practical strategies for improving stylistic precision, conceptualizing research problems, organizing evidence, and aligning their work with international scholarly standards. The session ultimately reinforced the view that effective academic writing emerges from the integration of pedagogical awareness, methodological discipline, and sustained critical reflection.
Day 2: Structural Integrity and the Global Gaze(28th January 2026) Morning Session - Resource Person: Prof. Kalyan Chattopadhyay
Mastering the Art of Research Argumentation: Personal Reflections
The concluding sessions of the National Workshop on Academic Writing at Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University, led by Kalyan Chattopadhyay, encouraged me to move beyond the technical dimensions of grammar and syntax toward a deeper understanding of the intellectual core of scholarly work—namely, the formulation of a coherent and persuasive research argument. These sessions prompted critical self-reflection on my earlier writing practices, which had often been overly impersonal and cautious. I frequently relied on detached constructions such as “the study shows,” partly due to a cultural hesitation to assert an authorial presence. Through the workshop, I recognized that meaningful participation in the global academic community requires the researcher to articulate claims with clarity and confidence, thereby assuming responsibility for one’s arguments rather than obscuring them behind passive formulations.
Core Themes of the Session
The session underscored that effective scholarly writing is fundamentally structured around logical and rhetorical coherence. A well-developed thesis, I learned, may be constructed through frameworks such as the PIE model (Point, Illustration, Explanation), which guides paragraph development, and the CARe model (Create a Research Space), which shapes the organization of abstracts and introductions. These frameworks emphasize not only clarity but also the necessity of situating one’s research within existing scholarly conversations by identifying and addressing specific gaps.
Considerable attention was also devoted to the question of authorial identity, particularly the challenges faced by second-language (L2) writers who may feel uncomfortable employing first-person pronouns. The discussion clarified that the judicious use of “I” in academic discourse does not compromise objectivity; rather, it enhances precision, ownership, and accountability. Furthermore, the literature review was reconceptualized as a process of thematic synthesis rather than a mere compilation of summaries. By organizing prior studies into conceptual clusters, researchers can more effectively map the field and highlight areas requiring further inquiry.
Learning Outcomes
The workshop contributed significantly to the refinement of my academic writing practices. I developed a more objective and evidence-based narrative style characterized by analytical detachment and methodological rigor. At the same time, I overcame my reluctance to employ the first person, recognizing that clear authorial positioning—through phrases such as “I argue” or “I examine”—strengthens argumentative authority.
I also acquired practical frameworks for structuring research texts: the PIE model for constructing logically coherent paragraphs and the Care model for articulating the significance of research within abstracts. My approach to the literature review evolved from simple description toward thematic synthesis, enabling me to identify and occupy meaningful research gaps.
Additionally, the session introduced strategies for the ethical integration of artificial intelligence tools. By applying the RTCC framework (Role, Task, Context, Constraint), I learned to employ AI selectively for supportive and repetitive tasks, such as editing or error analysis, while preserving independent critical thinking as the foundation of my scholarship. Finally, I adopted the practice of strategic hedging—using measured expressions such as “suggests” or “appears to”—to present claims with appropriate caution and academic integrity.
.png)
Afternoon Session - Resource Person :Dr. Clement Ndoricimpa
Entering the Domain of High-Impact Publishing: A Reflective Account
This reflective account synthesizes the principal insights gained from the National Workshop on Academic Writing conducted at Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University, particularly the sessions facilitated by Clément Ndoricimpa. These sessions illuminated the structural rigor, methodological discipline, and ethical responsibility required for transitioning from locally oriented academic practices to publication in internationally indexed and high-impact databases such as Scopus and Web of Science. The discussions underscored that scholarly visibility within the global research ecosystem depends not merely on the quality of ideas but also on adherence to internationally recognized conventions of presentation, transparency, and research integrity.
Core Themes of the Session
The session emphasized that successful high-impact publishing is fundamentally grounded in three interrelated principles: visibility, impact, and integrity. Central to this objective is the adoption of the IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) structure, presented as the standard organizational framework for empirical and analytical research articles. This format ensures clarity, logical progression, and accessibility for an international academic readership.
Particular attention was devoted to the application of the CARS (Create a Research Space) model for constructing effective introductions. This rhetorical strategy involves three sequential moves: first, establishing a scholarly territory by demonstrating the relevance and significance of the research topic; second, identifying a niche by articulating a specific gap or unresolved issue in the existing literature; and third, occupying that niche by clearly outlining how the present study addresses the identified gap. Through this approach, research is positioned not as an isolated inquiry but as a meaningful intervention within an ongoing academic conversation.
In addition to structural considerations, the session addressed the technical and ethical dimensions of contemporary research practice. Participants were introduced to digital tools such as Mendeley for systematic citation management and ORCID for establishing a stable and verifiable professional identity. Ethical use of artificial intelligence was also discussed, with an emphasis on employing such tools for linguistic refinement and editorial assistance rather than for substantive content generation, thereby safeguarding intellectual authenticity.
Key Learning Outcomes
The workshop significantly enhanced my understanding of the conventions governing international scholarly communication. I have acquired proficiency in structuring research articles according to the IMRaD framework, enabling my work to align with globally recognized standards of organization and clarity. I have also developed the ability to identify research gaps systematically, moving beyond descriptive summaries toward the formulation of focused and original research questions.
Moreover, the session reinforced the centrality of academic integrity. I now recognize that rigorous citation practices and careful attribution of sources are not merely formal requirements but foundational to the credibility and ethical legitimacy of scholarly work. Awareness of plagiarism detection mechanisms has further strengthened my commitment to transparency and responsible authorship.
The importance of cultivating a digital research identity has also become evident. Registering for an ORCID identifier facilitates the discoverability and accurate attribution of one’s publications within global indexing systems. Additionally, familiarity with journal evaluation metrics—such as impact factors and quartile rankings—has enabled me to make informed and strategic decisions regarding appropriate publication venues.
By integrating these principles into my ongoing research, particularly my comparative study of aesthetic theories such as Aristotle’s concept of catharsis and Bharata Muni’s formulation of Rasa theory, I am better equipped to situate my analysis within a clearly defined scholarly niche and contribute meaningfully to international debates in aesthetics and literary theory.
Day 3: The Ethics of Truth in the Age of Hallucination (29th January 2026)
Morning Session - Resource Person: Prof. (Dr.) Nigam Dave
Navigating Red Herrings: A Reflection on AI Hallucination in Academic Research
This reflection consolidates the principal insights gained from the session conducted by Nigam Dave during the National Workshop on Academic Writing at Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University. The session examined the evolving transition toward what the speaker termed “University 4.0,” a technologically mediated academic environment in which artificial intelligence increasingly shapes research practices. Within this context, particular emphasis was placed on the ethical imperative of maintaining a “human-in-the-loop” framework to safeguard intellectual integrity and prevent the proliferation of AI-generated misinformation.
Core Themes of the Session
The central focus of the presentation was the phenomenon of AI hallucination, defined as the tendency of large language models to generate outputs that appear plausible yet are factually inaccurate. Because such systems operate through probabilistic pattern recognition rather than verified knowledge repositories, they may produce fabricated citations, invented quotations, or distorted historical claims. Consequently, reliance on AI without systematic verification poses significant risks to scholarly credibility.
Several recurrent pitfalls—described metaphorically as “red herrings”—were identified in relation to academic uses of AI. One prominent concern is citation hallucination, wherein references are syntactically convincing but non-existent or incorrectly attributed, sometimes misassigned to classical thinkers such as Aristotle or Bharata Muni. Another issue involves what may be termed the “authoritative bluff,” the use of generalized or inflated academic language that projects authority while lacking substantive empirical grounding. Additionally, the session addressed algorithmic bias, noting that AI systems inevitably reproduce and amplify the assumptions embedded within their training data, thereby potentially reinforcing existing inequalities or distortions.
While acknowledging the utility of digital tools, the speaker argued against uncritical dependence on automated systems. Instead, technology should be employed selectively for peripheral or procedural tasks—such as formatting citations, screening journals, or conducting preliminary reviews—while interpretive reasoning, analysis, and argumentation remain firmly under human control. This balanced approach was framed as an exercise in discernment and intellectual responsibility.
Key Learning Outcomes
The session significantly enhanced my awareness of the epistemological and ethical challenges associated with AI-assisted research. I have developed the capacity to identify potential hallucinations by independently verifying all references, quotations, and historical claims against primary or authoritative sources, rather than accepting AI-generated outputs at face value. This practice enables me to detect instances of superficial authority that may conceal inaccuracies.
I have also become more attentive to linguistic cues—such as vague or sweeping assertions—that may indicate unsubstantiated or algorithmically generated content. Such vigilance helps prevent the inadvertent incorporation of unreliable material into scholarly writing and reduces the risk of academic misconduct.
Furthermore, I have adopted a strategy of ethical and strategic AI use, employing digital tools primarily for technical assistance, including editing, formatting, and error analysis, while preserving original interpretation and critical reasoning as distinctly human responsibilities. This approach reinforces the principle of digital integrity and ensures that technological efficiency does not compromise intellectual authenticity.
Finally, I have become more adept at evaluating the legitimacy of publication venues by consulting reliable indexing markers and database identifiers, thereby avoiding predatory or deceptive journals. More broadly, I now view AI not as a substitute for scholarly judgment but as a supplementary instrument within a rigorously supervised, human-centered research process.
Afternoon Session - Resource Person: Dr. Clement Ndoricimpa
Mastering the Research Niche: A Reflective Account of Dr. Clement’s Feedback
The concluding session of the National Workshop on Academic Writing at Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University, facilitated by Clément Ndoricimpa, centered on a critical evaluation of participants’ draft submissions. Unlike earlier sessions that emphasized theoretical models and structural frameworks, this interaction foregrounded the practical challenges encountered in actual research writing. By identifying recurring weaknesses in our introductions and argumentative structures, the session effectively bridged the gap between conceptual knowledge and its disciplined application. A key insight was that rhetorical structures alone are insufficient; without substantive and verifiable scholarly evidence, even well-organized writing lacks academic credibility.
Core Themes of the Session
The primary focus of the session was individualized feedback on research introductions, particularly the implementation of the three-move structure derived from the “Create a Research Space” model: establishing a territory, identifying a niche, and occupying that niche. While most participants demonstrated competence in replicating this structure, Dr. Ndoricimpa highlighted a pervasive shortcoming—the absence of adequate citation support. He emphasized that claims presented without reference to specific scholars or empirical sources risk becoming unsupported assertions, thereby diminishing the rigor expected in indexed or peer-reviewed journals.
This critique underscored the principle that academic arguments must be anchored in identifiable scholarship. Generalized statements such as “researchers have shown” were deemed insufficient unless accompanied by precise attribution. The session concluded with practical guidance from Dilip Barad on employing artificial intelligence as an evaluative rather than generative tool. Participants were introduced to the use of structured prompts to assess their writing against established standards, including reference to the British Academic Written English Corpus, thereby using AI to enhance accuracy and coherence without compromising originality.
Key Learning Outcomes
This session contributed substantially to refining my approach to scholarly writing. I now recognize that identifying a research gap requires explicit engagement with the existing literature, including the citation of specific authors and publication dates. Vague or collective references to unnamed scholars are no longer acceptable within rigorous academic discourse.
I have also developed a heightened awareness of citation integrity. My bibliography must correspond precisely with in-text references, and adherence to disciplinary conventions—such as including publication years in APA style or page numbers in MLA style—is essential for maintaining transparency and accountability. Moreover, I understand the importance of prioritizing recent scholarship to ensure that my research remains relevant to contemporary debates and contributes meaningfully to current knowledge production.
Another significant outcome has been the adoption of a “blended intelligence” workflow. I now begin by articulating my own analytical position and assembling textual or empirical evidence independently. Only after this intellectual groundwork do I employ AI tools for secondary functions such as grammatical refinement, formatting, or logical consistency checks. This approach preserves the primacy of human reasoning while benefiting from technological assistance.
Finally, I have become more attentive to the cultivation of global research visibility. Resources such as the Purdue Online Writing Lab provide reliable guidance on academic conventions, while maintaining a persistent digital identity through ORCID ensures that my scholarly contributions remain discoverable and accurately attributed within international databases.
Day 4: The Evolution of Literary Criticism(30th January 2026)
Morning Session - Resource Person: Dr. Kalyani Vallath
Chronological Foundations of Criticism: Reflections on Day Four
The fourth day of the National Workshop on Academic Writing at Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University was devoted to an intensive exploration of the historical and chronological development of literary criticism. The session, conducted by Kalyani Vallath, adopted an interactive pedagogical approach that privileged dialogue and collaborative reasoning over passive reception. This method transformed complex theoretical frameworks into an intellectually engaging process of discovery, enabling participants to internalize critical concepts through active engagement rather than rote learning.
From Classical Roots to Neoclassical Rigor
The discussion began with a reconsideration of the foundational figures of classical criticism—Plato, Aristotle, Horace, and Longinus—whose theoretical contributions continue to inform contemporary literary analysis.
Particular emphasis was placed on a close reading of Poetics, where we examined the structural principles governing tragedy. A significant conceptual clarification concerned Aristotle’s distinction between “probable impossibility” and “improbable possibility.” This distinction foregrounds the importance of internal coherence and narrative plausibility over strict empirical accuracy, underscoring that aesthetic truth in literature depends upon consistency within the fictional world.
The session then transitioned to the neoclassical period, especially the Augustan age, highlighting the emergence of biographical and comparative criticism. The works of Samuel Johnson and John Dryden were examined as exemplars of critical rigor and historical consciousness. Dryden’s well-known description of Geoffrey Chaucer as embodying “God’s plenty” was interpreted as an acknowledgment of literary abundance and diversity—an insight that encourages scholars to approach texts with attentiveness to multiplicity and richness rather than reductionism.
Learning Outcomes and Intellectual Application
This historical overview significantly refined my analytical framework. I am now able to employ classical structural concepts such as peripeteia (reversal) and anagnorisis (recognition) not merely as theoretical terminology but as practical tools for interpreting character development, narrative progression, and thematic resolution within literary texts.
Furthermore, I have developed a heightened sensitivity to contextual believability. Evaluating a text according to its internal logic rather than external factual standards provides a more nuanced method of interpretation. This insight will be particularly valuable in my comparative research on Aristotelian catharsis and Bharata Muni’s Rasa theory, where emotional authenticity and aesthetic coherence are central concerns.
Inspired by Dryden’s comparative orientation, I also intend to adopt a cross-cultural analytical perspective that brings Indian Knowledge Systems into dialogue with Western critical traditions, thereby recognizing the epistemic plurality inherent in global literary studies.
Afternoon Session - Resource Person: Dr. Kalyani Vallath
Mapping Literary History and Examination Strategy
The afternoon session with Kalyani Vallath further extended this chronological approach by connecting literary history to strategic preparation for competitive examinations such as University Grants Commission NET. What might otherwise have been a factual survey was rendered dynamic through interactive exercises, mnemonic devices, and collaborative problem-solving, demonstrating that sustained engagement is more effective than mechanical memorization.
The session emphasized chronological precision in distinguishing Old, Middle, and Modern English periods, while also encouraging attention to the broader sociocultural forces—such as the Norman Conquest, the French Revolution, and the advent of print technology—that shaped literary production and reception. Additionally, the importance of studying lesser-known works by canonical authors, including D. H. Lawrence’s The Boy in the Bush, reinforced the need for comprehensive rather than selective knowledge.
Learning Outcomes and Intellectual Development
This session enhanced both my academic and strategic competencies. I have learned to conceptualize literary history as an interconnected continuum rather than as isolated dates and movements. Recognizing relative chronology—understanding which authors and periods precede or succeed others—provides a more coherent framework for interpretation and examination readiness.
Ultimately, I now perceive my academic identity as extending beyond that of a student preparing for examinations. I see myself as an emerging researcher and critical thinker who actively synthesizes historical knowledge, theoretical frameworks, and methodological discipline. This integrated perspective will inform my comparative study of Aristotelian and Bharatan aesthetics and enable me to participate more meaningfully in global scholarly discourse.
Day 5: Modernism, Theory, and the "Teacher’s Mindset"(31st January 2026)
Morning Session - Resource Person: Dr. Kalyani Vallath
Day 5: Modernism, Theory, and the Pedagogical Mindset (31 January 2026)
Morning and Afternoon Sessions – Resource Person: Kalyani Vallath
Venue: Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University
The fifth day of the workshop was devoted to a comprehensive survey of modern literary theory alongside the cultivation of a strategic, pedagogically informed approach to examination preparation. Through an interactive and dialogic teaching method, Dr. Vallath presented literary history not as a fragmented set of isolated facts but as an interconnected intellectual continuum. Her approach emphasized conceptual clarity, structural mapping, and logical reasoning, enabling participants to synthesize theoretical knowledge with practical academic skills.
Major Chronological Foundations of Literary Criticism
The morning session offered a systematic traversal of the historical evolution of literary thought, beginning with classical antiquity and progressing toward modern theoretical paradigms.
The classical foundation was established through the critical philosophies of Plato, Aristotle, and Longinus. Their works—particularly Plato’s Republic, Aristotle’s Poetics, and Longinus’s reflections on sublimity—were examined as the conceptual bedrock of Western aesthetics and rhetorical theory.
The discussion then transitioned to the Renaissance and Neoclassical periods, highlighting Philip Sidney’s defense of poetry and the rationalist orientation of John Dryden, Alexander Pope, and Samuel Johnson. These critics collectively foregrounded order, decorum, and reason as guiding aesthetic principles.
Subsequently, Romantic and Victorian criticism signaled a decisive shift toward subjectivity and emotional authenticity. The contributions of William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge emphasized imagination and individual experience, while John Keats’s concept of “negative capability” and Matthew Arnold’s “touchstone method” introduced new evaluative criteria rooted in aesthetic and moral seriousness.
The session culminated in an exploration of Modernism and Formalism, focusing on T. S. Eliot’s principles of impersonality and the “objective correlative,” alongside I. A. Richards’s development of practical criticism and close reading. These approaches underscored textual autonomy and analytical precision as hallmarks of modern literary study.
Contemporary Theoretical Schools
Building upon this historical groundwork, the lecture extended into contemporary theoretical movements that have reshaped critical discourse.
Structuralism and narratology were introduced through Ferdinand de Saussure’s theory of the sign, Roland Barthes’s semiotic analysis, and Vladimir Propp’s morphological study of folktales. These frameworks foregrounded systematic patterns underlying narrative and language.
Post-structuralist thought was examined through Jacques Derrida’s concept of deconstruction and différance, as well as Jacques Lacan’s linguistic interpretation of the unconscious. These perspectives destabilized fixed meanings and emphasized the fluidity of interpretation.
Marxist and cultural materialist approaches were represented by Raymond Williams and Terry Eagleton, whose analyses linked literature to ideological and socio-economic structures.
Finally, feminist and postcolonial theories broadened the critical landscape through the works of Simone de Beauvoir, Elaine Showalter, Edward Said, and Homi K. Bhabha, whose interventions interrogate gendered, colonial, and hybrid identities within cultural production.
Core Learning Outcomes
This session significantly enhanced my methodological and cognitive competencies. I learned to employ mnemonic strategies, narrative anchors, and associative techniques to manage dense theoretical information more effectively. Conceptualizing literary history as a structured “map” rather than a linear chronology enabled me to perceive interconnections among movements and ideas, facilitating deeper comprehension and retention.
Moreover, I developed the ability to identify critical keywords, theoretical binaries, and conceptual markers—skills essential for both academic analysis and competitive examinations.
Afternoon Session: Strategic Reasoning and the Teacher’s Mindset
The afternoon session shifted from theoretical consolidation to pragmatic examination strategy, with particular reference to assessments conducted by University Grants Commission. Dr. Vallath advocated an approach grounded in analytical reasoning rather than exhaustive memorization, encouraging students to adopt the evaluative mindset of a teacher.
Afternoon Session - Resource Person: Dr. Kalyani Vallath
Core Themes
Through the analysis of recent examination questions, the session demonstrated techniques of “intelligent inference,” whereby candidates systematically eliminate implausible options before selecting the most logical answer. Strategies included recognizing obvious factual inconsistencies, distinguishing distractor options, and employing contextual knowledge to infer probable solutions.
The metaphor of the literary “map” was reintroduced as a heuristic tool, enabling students to navigate British, American, and Indian literary traditions with greater confidence and structural awareness.
Learning Outcomes
This training cultivated several practical competencies: the ability to eliminate a majority of incorrect options through logical deduction; familiarity with lesser-known literary schools and movements; increased research literacy through awareness of digital repositories such as Shodhganga and Project MUSE; and, most importantly, the development of analytical composure under examination conditions.
Conclusion:
The National Workshop on Academic Writing conducted at the Department of English, Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University, ultimately functioned not merely as a skills-based training programme but as a comprehensive intellectual reorientation toward the ethics, structures, and responsibilities of contemporary scholarship. Across five intensive days, the sessions collectively transformed my understanding of academic writing from a mechanical exercise into a deliberate, evidence-driven, and critically self-aware practice.
At a foundational level, the workshop clarified that effective research writing is inseparable from argumentative precision, structural coherence, and authorial accountability. Frameworks such as PIE, CARe/CARS, and IMRaD demonstrated that scholarly communication is governed by recognizable rhetorical patterns that enable research to participate meaningfully in global academic conversations. Learning to identify and occupy a research niche, synthesize literature thematically, and substantiate every claim with verifiable evidence has reshaped my approach to constructing knowledge rather than merely reporting it.
Simultaneously, the sessions on high-impact publishing and digital research identity expanded my awareness of the broader ecosystem of global scholarship. Concepts such as citation integrity, journal indexing, research visibility, and tools like ORCID and citation managers revealed that academic work today requires both intellectual rigor and strategic dissemination. Publishing is not an isolated act but an engagement with an international network of standards, ethics, and accountability.
Equally significant was the critical engagement with artificial intelligence. Rather than presenting AI as either a threat or a substitute for human thought, the workshop advocated a balanced “Human-in-the-Loop” model. By recognizing the risks of hallucination, bias, and fabricated citations, I learned to employ AI cautiously as an assistive technology for peripheral tasks while preserving human judgment, interpretation, and originality as the core of scholarly labor. This ethical positioning reaffirmed that technology must enhance—not replace—critical thinking.
The historical and theoretical sessions further situated my learning within a long intellectual tradition. Tracing literary criticism from classical antiquity to contemporary theoretical schools enabled me to perceive scholarship as an ongoing dialogue across centuries. Understanding these chronological and conceptual continuities has strengthened both my analytical skills and my confidence in participating within this tradition. The strategic and pedagogical approaches to examination preparation likewise cultivated logical reasoning, intellectual agility, and what may be described as a “teacher’s mindset”—a disposition that privileges clarity, synthesis, and explanation over rote memorization.
Taken together, these experiences have produced a decisive shift in my academic identity. I now view myself not simply as a student completing assignments but as an emerging researcher responsible for contributing ethically, critically, and confidently to the production of knowledge. The workshop has equipped me with methodological tools, structural discipline, digital literacy, and reflective awareness—competencies essential for navigating the contemporary landscape of higher education.
In this sense, the programme may be understood as a formative scholarly apprenticeship: one that emphasizes preserving the human element—critical judgment, creativity, and integrity—while engaging productively with evolving technologies and global standards. The most enduring outcome is therefore not only improved technical proficiency but a renewed commitment to thoughtful, responsible, and impactful scholarship.
THE RENAISSANCE OF THE SCHOLAR
National Workshop on Academic Writing 2026
Department of English, MKBU & Knowledge Consortium of Gujarat
Jan 27 - Feb 1, 2026
University 4.0: The Shift
The academic landscape of 2026 demands a transformation. We are moving away from mechanical text composition towards Augmented Intelligence. The modern scholar must navigate the intersection of human critical thinking and digital methodologies.
🤖 + ðŸ§
Prompt Engineering & Digital Ethics
Evolution of Learning: Pedagogy vs. Andragogy
Comparing the shift from child-centered instruction to adult, scholar-led research.
Day 1: Foundations & Logic
Before integrating AI, scholars must master the "Literature of Knowledge." Prof. Kalyan Chattopadhyay emphasized four non-negotiable pillars that separate academic discourse from creative writing.
1. Formality
Rigorous language, no colloquialisms. Professional tone.
2. Objectivity
Evidence-based, impersonal (though "I" is being reclaimed), detached analysis.
3. Clarity
Coherent organization. The "Literature of Knowledge" must be unambiguous.
4. Precision
Specific references, exact data, and defined scope.
The AI Interface: Prompt Engineering
Prof. Paresh Joshi introduced the concept of the "Human-in-the-loop." AI is a tool for efficiency, not a substitute for intellect. Mastering prompt engineering is the new literacy.
🎯
Role & Context
Define who the AI is (e.g., "Act as a Research Assistant") and the background of the study.
⚙️
Task & Constraint
Be specific. "Summarize this in 3 bullet points." "Do not use jargon."
🔗
Chain of Thought
Guide the AI through logical steps to ensure the output aligns with academic rigor.
Day 2: Structural Integrity & Global Impact
Dr. Clément Ndoricimpa demystified high-impact publishing (Scopus/Web of Science). The key lies in adhering to international structural standards like IMRaD and the CARS model.
The IMRaD Standard
Standard structure for empirical research articles
The CARS Model (Introductions)
Creating a Research Space: From Territory to Niche
Day 3: Ethics in the Age of Hallucination
Prof. Nigam Dave warned of "Red Herrings"—AI Hallucinations. Large Language Models can generate plausible but fabricated citations and facts.
- ⚠️ Citation Hallucination: Fake references attributed to real authors like Aristotle.
- ⚠️ The Authoritative Bluff: Confident language masking lack of empirical substance.
- 🛡️ Solution: Triangulation. Verify every claim across multiple trusted sources.
The Workshop Timeline
Inauguration
Jan 27, 2026
Books over flowers. Keynote on Tradition vs. Tech.
"AI should augment, not supplant, human cognition."
Foundations & Logic
Resource: Prof. Paresh Joshi
Literature of Knowledge vs. Power.
Structural Integrity
Resource: Dr. Clément Ndoricimpa
Mastering IMRaD, Scopus indexing, and Digital Identity (ORCID).
The "Global Gaze" requires international standards.
Ethics & Verification
Resource: Prof. Nigam Dave
Strategy: Use AI for form, Human for substance.
Video Overview of blog:
Slide deck of this blog:
No comments:
Post a Comment