Reflection on Academic Writing Workshop

 Reflection on Academic Writing Workshop 

This assignment is based on My Academic Writing Workshop Journey and its Key Learning Outcomes, and it was given by Dilip Barad Sir. Click Here.

Academic writing extends far beyond correct grammar and vocabulary; it is a disciplined practice that involves critical thinking, structured reasoning, and the clear and credible presentation of knowledge. Throughout the Academic Writing Workshop, documented through several recorded sessions, I engaged deeply with concepts that significantly transformed my understanding of academic communication. The workshop guided me from the fundamental principles of writing structure to more advanced approaches for critically engaging with scholarly texts.

In the following sections, I present my key insights, reflective observations, and embedded session videos that collectively represent the major stages of my learning journey during the workshop.

INAUGURAL CEREMONY 

The Department of English, Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University (MKBU), in collaboration with the Knowledge Consortium of Gujarat (KCG), organised a National Workshop on Academic Writing. The inaugural session was attended by university officials, invited scholars, faculty members, research scholars, and students, and was smoothly compered by Prakruti Bhatt.

The programme began with a welcome address, the University Song, and a prayer, followed by the traditional felicitation of dignitaries with books. The Honourable Vice-Chancellor, Prof. (Dr.) B. B. Ramanuj, along with other senior officials and invited resource persons, graced the occasion.

Prof. (Dr.) Dilip Barad introduced the aims and structure of the workshop, emphasising the balance between human intelligence and artificial intelligence in academic writing. Plenary lectures by Prof. (Dr.) Paresh Joshi and Dr. Kalyan Chattopaadhyaay focused on the evolution of academic writing, originality, and Indian knowledge traditions. Dr. Kishor Joshi shared insights on research standards and productivity.

The session concluded with the presentation of mementoes and a vote of thanks, marking a successful beginning to the workshop.

Session - Paresh Joshi

Introduction

Academic writing goes far beyond the correct use of grammar and vocabulary; it represents a disciplined approach to thinking, reasoning, and presenting ideas with clarity, coherence, and scholarly credibility. Throughout the Academic Writing Workshop, which was documented through multiple recorded sessions, I engaged deeply with concepts that significantly reshaped my understanding of academic communication. The workshop guided me from fundamental aspects of academic structure to more advanced techniques for critically engaging with scholarly texts.

In the sections that follow, I reflect on my learning experiences, key intellectual takeaways, and conceptual insights gained during the workshop, which collectively represent the core stages of my academic writing journey.

Session by Paresh Joshi: Academic Writing and Prompt Engineering

One of the central ideas discussed in this session was the importance of maintaining objectivity and detachment in academic writing. Research aims to uncover truth, which is universal and independent of individual perception. Since truth does not belong to a single researcher, academic writing must avoid excessive subjectivity. This is why scholars are encouraged to refer to themselves indirectly—using phrases such as “the present study” or “the researcher”—instead of first-person pronouns. Such detachment reflects the understanding that research is never final or absolute; rather, it remains open to reinterpretation and further development by future scholars.

The session also highlighted that academic writing is not an isolated activity but part of a broader scholarly conversation. To participate meaningfully in this dialogue, a researcher must move through a structured four-stage process. The first stage involves listening through a thorough review of existing literature. This is followed by reporting, where ideas from previous studies are summarized and synthesized. The third stage requires responding by organizing arguments, identifying gaps, and evaluating existing positions. Only after completing these stages can a researcher confidently argue and contribute original ideas, thereby becoming a primary source within the academic discourse.

Another important concept discussed was the KISS principle—Keep It Short and Simple. Effective academic writing prioritizes clarity and precision, avoiding unnecessary or decorative language that can obscure meaning. Achieving such clarity requires embracing revision as an essential part of the writing process. Writing is not linear; initial drafts are often rough and require multiple revisions. Constructive feedback from peers and supervisors plays a crucial role in refining academic work, and such feedback should be viewed as a valuable opportunity for improvement rather than criticism.

The session also addressed ethical responsibility beyond writing itself, particularly in relation to intellectual property rights. Academic discipline includes respecting legal and ethical boundaries, such as avoiding the use of pirated software or unauthorized materials. Engaging in such practices undermines the very knowledge systems scholars aim to support and contribute to.

A significant contemporary skill introduced in this session was prompt engineering, which has become increasingly important in the age of artificial intelligence. The effectiveness of AI tools depends largely on the clarity and specificity of the instructions given. Well-designed prompts that clearly define roles, tasks, context, and constraints produce academically useful outputs. This skill enables researchers to navigate vast digital resources efficiently and responsibly.

However, the ethical use of AI was emphasized as equally important. While AI can assist with repetitive and technical tasks such as proofreading, citation formatting, and logical checks, it should not replace human creativity and critical thinking. The generation of original ideas, formulation of arguments, and deep intellectual engagement must remain human responsibilities. Over-reliance on AI risks weakening the very cognitive abilities that academic training seeks to develop.

Personal Learning Outcome

This workshop helped me understand that mastering academic writing requires more than technical proficiency. It demands objectivity, patience in revision, and intellectual humility. Most importantly, it requires discernment—Vivek Buddhi—to use technological tools wisely for efficiency while preserving the integrity and originality of one’s own thinking. This balance between discipline, ethics, and creativity forms the true foundation of academic scholarship.

Session - Dr. Kalyan Chattopadhyay

The two lectures delivered by Dr. Kalyan Chattopadhyay were highly engaging and firmly grounded in research methodology, focusing on how academic knowledge is constructed, communicated, and validated through scholarly writing. Together, these sessions presented academic writing not merely as a formal structure but as a purposeful rhetorical practice that demands careful judgement, ethical awareness, and academic responsibility.

At the outset, Dr. Chattopadhyay outlined four core characteristics of academic writing—formality, objectivity, clarity, and precision—and explained how these qualities appear in research articles through appropriate tone, precise vocabulary, well-structured sentences, consistent citation practices, and an impersonal style. He stressed the importance of clearly articulating research problems, formulating well-defined research questions and hypotheses, and engaging in evidence-based analysis rather than relying on personal opinions. Participants were cautioned against making absolute or overly confident claims such as “I prove” and were introduced to the use of hedging to express claims where certainty is limited.

The discussion then progressed to the structural organisation of research papers, with special emphasis on separating results from interpretation. Dr. Chattopadhyay explained that effective academic writing is built on systematic methodology, arguments supported by evidence, and the triangulation of data. He also highlighted the need for transparency in describing research participants, tools, and procedures. By analysing published research articles and reviewing participants’ thesis proposals, he demonstrated the importance of accurate referencing, logical progression of ideas, and smooth transitions between sections.

A significant part of the sessions focused on the issue of authorial voice in academic texts. Drawing on the work of Ken Hyland on writer identity, Dr. Chattopadhyay clarified that academic writing is not entirely impersonal or invisible. Instead, writers must make conscious choices about how explicitly they present themselves in their work. He illustrated how authors express aims, describe methodologies, and interpret findings, encouraging participants to reflect on the appropriate use of first-person pronouns such as “I” and “we.” He suggested that a carefully managed authorial presence can enhance clarity, responsibility, and scholarly authority while still adhering to academic conventions.

Participants were encouraged to revisit their own drafts and refine how they represented their role as researchers, particularly in abstracts, results, and conclusions. Comparisons between impersonal expressions like “it was found that” and more direct statements such as “we argue” or “I propose” prompted discussion about the impact of writer visibility on academic meaning. The sessions also acknowledged that conventions regarding authorial voice vary across disciplines, and that writers must remain sensitive to the expectations of their specific academic fields.

Considerable emphasis was placed on the practice of hedging. Dr. Chattopadhyay explained that research claims are rarely absolute and therefore require cautious and balanced expression. Using examples from published studies, he demonstrated how words such as “may,” “seems,” “suggests,” and “possibly” help writers maintain academic caution, recognise alternative viewpoints, and avoid exaggerated claims. Participants also examined how the use of hedging varies across different sections of a research paper, and how both excessive caution and unjustified certainty can weaken scholarly credibility.

The sessions further explored citation and referencing as rhetorical tools rather than mechanical requirements. Citation was presented as a way of positioning one’s research within ongoing academic debates. Dr. Chattopadhyay explained the distinction between integral and non-integral citations, discussed the function of reporting verbs, and encouraged participants to synthesise multiple sources instead of presenting them as isolated references. Special attention was given to organising literature reviews in a way that highlights scholarly debates, research gaps, and intellectual perspectives within a discipline.

In the concluding part of the lectures, participants were guided on writing effective conclusions that summarise key findings, highlight the study’s contribution, and responsibly articulate interpretive claims. They were also advised to adapt their writing style and authorial stance to the conventions of particular journals, while maintaining consistency in their academic identity.

Overall, the two sessions significantly enhanced participants’ understanding of academic writing as a rigorous and intellectually demanding practice. They strengthened confidence in developing a scholarly voice, using hedging appropriately, and employing citation strategically, thereby contributing to greater clarity, transparency, and reliability in academic research writing.

Session - Dr. Clement Ndoricimpa

The lecture delivered by Dr. Clement Ndoricimpa focused on developing the practical and ethical competencies required for publishing research articles in journals indexed in Scopus and Web of Science. The sessions were comprehensive and application-oriented, addressing both the technical procedures of academic publishing and the ethical standards scholars must uphold. Key areas of discussion included an understanding of indexing systems, effective article structuring, academic language use, ethical engagement with AI tools, plagiarism prevention, and efficient reference management.

Dr. Ndoricimpa began by explaining the academic importance of Scopus and Web of Science as internationally recognised citation and indexing databases. He pointed out that publishing in journals indexed by these platforms enhances a researcher’s visibility, citation impact, academic reputation, funding opportunities, and career advancement. Since such journals maintain strict quality benchmarks, researchers must ensure that their work meets established scholarly standards.

The lecture then examined the structure of a well-written research article. While acknowledging disciplinary variations, Dr. Ndoricimpa noted that many reputable journals follow the IMRD format—Introduction, Methodology, Results, and Discussion. Special emphasis was placed on the Introduction section, which he described as crucial because it shapes the initial perception of editors, reviewers, and readers.

He explained that an effective introduction usually follows a three-step progression. First, the researcher establishes the broader research context and highlights the significance of the topic through existing literature. Second, a clear research gap is identified by pointing out unresolved issues or limitations in previous studies. Finally, the study’s objectives or focus are stated clearly, positioning the research within that gap. Logical flow and appropriate academic language were stressed as essential for maintaining coherence across these stages.

Throughout the sessions, Dr. Ndoricimpa repeatedly addressed a common weakness found in participants’ drafts: inadequate referencing. General statements such as “research shows” or “studies indicate” must always be supported by proper citations. Unsupported claims, he warned, undermine academic credibility and are unacceptable in indexed journals. He also encouraged the use of current and relevant sources, noting that reliance on outdated literature weakens the scholarly value of a manuscript.

Academic style and language use were another major focus. Dr. Ndoricimpa emphasised clarity, precision, formal tone, and logical progression of ideas. He demonstrated how linking words such as however, therefore, although, and despite help in constructing coherent and persuasive arguments. Participants were advised to avoid vague expressions, overgeneralisation, and ambiguous language, and to follow discipline-specific conventions.

A dedicated segment of the lecture addressed the ethical use of artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT, Gemini, DeepSeek, and Perplexity. Acknowledging ongoing debates, Dr. Ndoricimpa noted that while AI can assist with language refinement and structural improvement, it should not be used to generate original scholarly arguments. The responsibility for intellectual content must remain with the researcher, and effective use of AI requires critical judgement and carefully designed prompts.

Plagiarism was discussed as a serious violation of academic ethics. Dr. Ndoricimpa defined plagiarism as the use of another person’s ideas or words without proper acknowledgment. He reminded participants that indexed journals routinely conduct similarity checks before peer review and that manuscripts with high similarity scores are often rejected outright. Maintaining originality and transparency, therefore, is essential for publication success.

The session also highlighted the importance of accurate citation practices and systematic reference management. Dr. Ndoricimpa introduced Mendeley as a useful tool for organising references and ensuring citation consistency. He reviewed commonly used citation styles such as APA, MLA, Chicago, and Vancouver, and demonstrated how reference management software can simplify formatting tasks. Participants were guided through installation, account creation, and reference importing, with emphasis on checking bibliographic accuracy to avoid technical errors.

Beyond technical guidance, the session held personal academic significance. Dr. Ndoricimpa reflected on earlier academic interactions with participants, recalling how foundational workshops at the undergraduate level focused on objectivity, grammatical accuracy, coherence, and balanced reasoning. At the postgraduate level, this training evolved into deeper engagement with argumentation, theory, and scholarly debates. Reconnecting during AWW 2026 reinforced not only the practical requirements of publishing in indexed journals but also the ethical discipline essential to sustained academic practice.

The lecture concluded with constructive feedback on participants’ draft papers and appreciation for their active involvement. Overall, the sessions provided clear, practical, and ethically grounded guidance on preparing publishable research articles, understanding journal expectations, avoiding plagiarism, using AI responsibly, and managing references effectively—significantly strengthening participants’ readiness for publication in indexed academic journals.

Session - Prof. (Dr.) Nigam Dave

The lecture “Detecting AI Hallucination and Using AI with Integrity” addressed the ethical challenges involved in using artificial intelligence in academic research. Prof. Nigam Dave explained how AI tools operate, why their outputs can sometimes be unreliable, and why human judgment and verification are essential.

He highlighted the problem of AI hallucination, where AI generates information that appears accurate but is factually incorrect, including fabricated references or misleading interpretations. He also pointed out that AI can reproduce biases present in its training data, making blind reliance risky, especially in disciplines like English studies.

While acknowledging AI’s usefulness for tasks such as proofreading, formatting, and draft refinement, Prof. Dave cautioned against using it for generating original arguments or research ideas. He concluded by emphasising that responsible scholarship depends on critical thinking, verification, and ethical use of technology, encouraging researchers to use AI with integrity and awareness.