Inaugural Ceremony
The Department of English, Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University (MKBU) organized a National Workshop on Academic Writing under the Promotion of Higher Education Knowledge Consortium (KCG), Government of Gujarat. The inaugural ceremony was attended by university authorities, invited experts, teachers, research scholars, and students, and was anchored by Prakruti Bhatt, Research Scholar and Visiting Faculty, Department of English.
The programme commenced with a formal welcome, followed by the University Song and Prayer. As a mark of respect and as a symbol of the enduring value of knowledge, the dignitaries were welcomed on the dais through the ceremonial presentation of books.
The dignitaries present included the Honourable Vice-Chancellor, Prof. (Dr.) B. B. Ramanuj; In-Charge Registrar, Dr. Bhavesh Jani; Dean of the Faculty of Arts, Dr. Kishor Joshi; and the invited resource persons Prof. (Dr.) Paresh Joshi and Dr. Kalyan Chattopaadhyaay.
The welcome address was delivered by Prof. (Dr.) Dilip Barad, who explained the concept and objectives of the workshop. He highlighted the contemporary academic challenge of balancing natural intelligence and artificial intelligence, and outlined the structure of the workshop, which focused on academic writing skills, responsible use of AI, research aptitude, NET/JRF guidance, and the development of a digital resource hub for English studies.
The first plenary address was delivered by Prof. (Dr.) Paresh Joshi, who discussed the evolution of writing across different historical phases and emphasised the importance of preserving human creativity and critical thinking in the age of artificial and generative intelligence. He underlined the central role of academic writing for language and literature professionals.
The second plenary address was delivered by Dr. Kalyan Chattopaadhyaay, who traced the tradition of academic writing in India from ancient knowledge systems to contemporary educational frameworks such as NEP 2020 and NCF 2023. He emphasised multilingualism, rooted knowledge systems, and inclusive academic practices.
The Dean of the Faculty of Arts, Dr. Kishor Joshi, shared statistical insights related to research output, publication quality, and research funding in India. He stressed the responsibility of teachers and researchers in strengthening academic writing standards and enhancing the overall quality of research.
The inaugural ceremony concluded with the presentation of tokens of appreciation to the invited speakers by the Honourable Vice-Chancellor, followed by a vote of thanks to all dignitaries, participants, organisers, and student volunteers.
Day One - First Session
Date: 27 January 2026
Resource Person: Prof. (Dr.) Paresh Joshi, Professor, Department of English, Veer Narmad South Gujarat University, Surat
The session focused on Academic Writing and Prompt Engineering. The session began with a formal welcome and introduction of the resource person. Prof. Joshi has more than two decades of teaching and research experience and has contributed extensively to English Language Teaching, Applied Linguistics, Phonetics, and Academic Writing. His academic and professional achievements were briefly highlighted before inviting him to begin the session.
In the first part of the session, Prof. Joshi explained the nature of academic writing. He clearly differentiated between creative/literary writing and academic writing using examples such as an encyclopaedia entry on London and William Wordsworth’s poem. He explained that academic writing belongs to the literature of knowledge and must be objective, factual, logical, and evidence-based, unlike literary writing, which is emotional and imaginative.
He described academic writing as a conversation, where a researcher first listens through a review of literature, then reports existing views, responds through analysis, and finally contributes original ideas supported by evidence. He also explained the process of academic writing, including planning, drafting, peer editing, revising, proofreading, submission, and feedback.
Through simple examples, Prof. Joshi highlighted the key principles of academic writing, such as:
- formal tone instead of informal language,
- clarity instead of vague expressions,
- conciseness instead of wordiness,
- precision instead of generalization,
- logical flow of ideas,
- careful use of claims, and
- strong, clear thesis statements.
In the second part of the session, Prof. Joshi introduced Prompt Engineering as an emerging component of academic writing in the age of Artificial Intelligence. He explained that prompt engineering means writing clear and specific instructions to AI tools in order to obtain accurate and useful outputs. He discussed different prompting techniques, such as zero-shot, one-shot, few-shot, chain-of-thought, role-based, and audience-specific prompting, using simple and accessible examples.
He also emphasized the ethical use of AI, warning against overdependence on AI tools. He stressed the importance of fact-checking AI-generated content, as AI may produce incorrect or misleading information. He encouraged students to use AI for support tasks such as grammar checking, editing, and idea generation, but not as a replacement for human thinking and originality.
The session concluded with student feedback, where participants appreciated the clarity, illustrative examples, and practical approach of the session. The participants highlighted how the session helped them gain a clear understanding of academic writing practices and the responsible and ethical use of AI tools in academic work.
Day One – Second Session | Day Two – First Session
Session Title: Academic Writing in English for Advanced Learners – I & II
Resource Person: Dr. Kalyan Chattopadhyay, Author, ELT Specialist, and UGC Master Trainer from Bankim Sardar College, University of Calcutta, Kolkata.
Dates: 27 January 2026 – 28 January 2026
The two sessions conducted by Dr. Kalyan Chattopadhyay were intellectually rich and methodologically focused, centring on how academic knowledge is constructed, presented, and claimed in research writing. Together, the sessions offered a comprehensive understanding of academic writing as both a formal and rhetorical practice.
At the outset, the sessions outlined four core features of academic writing—formality, objectivity, clarity, and precision—and demonstrated how these features operate in research papers through tone, vocabulary choice, sentence structure, citation practices, and impersonal style. Emphasis was placed on the importance of framing clear research problems, hypotheses, and research questions, and on interpreting data rather than relying on personal opinion. Participants were advised to avoid biased or overly conclusive expressions such as “I establish” and instead employ hedging strategies where certainty is limited.
A detailed explanation of the structure of research articles followed, highlighting the crucial distinction between findings and interpretation. Dr. Chattopadhyay stressed the need for evidence-based argumentation, methodological rigour, and triangulation, along with explicit reporting of participants, instruments, and procedures. Using examples from participants’ thesis ideas and a sample research paper, he emphasised disciplined citation practice, clear signposting, and coherent organisation of arguments.
A significant portion of the sessions focused on authorial representation in academic writing. Drawing on Ken Hyland’s work on authorial identity, Dr. Chattopadhyay explained that academic writing is not entirely impersonal and that researchers must consciously decide how visible they wish to be in their texts. He demonstrated how writers establish research purposes, describe methods, and present findings, and encouraged participants to critically examine the use of first-person pronouns such as I and we. Strategic use of authorial voice was presented as a means of enhancing clarity, responsibility, and scholarly authority without compromising academic formality.
Participants were further guided to revise their own writing to make authorial roles clearer, particularly in abstracts, results, and conclusions. Passive constructions such as “it was found that” were compared with more direct expressions like “I argue” or “we interpret”, prompting reflection on what is gained or lost through writer visibility. Discipline-specific variations in authorial presence were also discussed, acknowledging differing conventions across academic fields.
The sessions devoted considerable attention to hedging in academic writing, underscoring its necessity given that research claims are rarely absolute. Through examples from published research, Dr. Chattopadhyay illustrated how hedging expressions such as may, suggests, appears to, and likely allow writers to present claims cautiously, respect alternative viewpoints, and maintain scholarly balance. Participants learned how hedging practices vary across different sections of a research paper and how both excessive and insufficient hedging can weaken arguments.
Another key focus was academic attribution and citation practices. Citation was presented not merely as a technical requirement but as a rhetorical tool for positioning one’s work within existing scholarship. Dr. Chattopadhyay explained the distinction between integral and non-integral citations, the function of reporting verbs, and the importance of synthesising sources rather than listing them. Special emphasis was placed on mapping the literature review to identify debates, gaps, and scholarly alignments within a discipline.
In the concluding part of the sessions, participants were guided on writing effective conclusions that summarise findings, highlight the significance of the research, and responsibly claim ownership of interpretations. They were also encouraged to adapt their authorial voice to the expectations of specific journals while maintaining a consistent scholarly identity.
Overall, the sessions provided participants with a deeper understanding of academic writing as a disciplined, rhetorical, and intellectual practice. They strengthened participants’ confidence in presenting their research voice, using hedging appropriately, and applying effective attribution strategies, thereby enhancing both the clarity and credibility of their academic work.
Day Two – Second Session | Day Three – Second Session
Session Title: Academic Writing and BAWE Corpus – I & II
Dates: 28 January 2026 – 29 January 2026
Mode: Online
Resource Person: Dr. Clement Ndoricimpa , eacher-Researcher and Lecturer at École Normale Supérieure du Burundi (Burundi Higher Institute of Education), East Africa.
The session conducted by Dr. Clement Ndoricimpa focused on guiding research scholars in writing research papers suitable for publication in Scopus- and Web of Science–indexed journals. The sessions were extensive, practically grounded, and addressed both the technical and ethical dimensions of academic publishing. Key areas covered included understanding indexed journals, structuring research papers, academic language use, ethical use of AI, plagiarism, and reference management.
Dr. Ndoricimpa began by explaining why Scopus and Web of Science–indexed journals matter. He described these databases as among the largest abstract and citation platforms, covering peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings across disciplines. Since not all research publications achieve equal visibility or impact, publication in indexed journals ensures wider readership, higher academic recognition, stronger citation impact, improved funding opportunities, and career advancement. He emphasised that indexed journals follow strict quality standards, and researchers must understand and meet these expectations to succeed in publication.
The session then shifted to the structure of a high-quality research paper. Dr. Ndoricimpa explained that while disciplinary variations exist, most strong research articles follow the IMRD format—Introduction, Methodology, Results, and Discussion. Among these sections, he stressed that the Introduction is the most crucial, as it creates the first impression and often determines whether reviewers and readers continue reading.
- Move One establishes the research territory by presenting the topic as important, relevant, or problematic, supported by a brief review of previous studies.
- Move Two establishes the research niche by identifying gaps, limitations, unresolved debates, or unanswered questions in existing scholarship, explained through the contrast between known and unknown knowledge.
- Move Three occupies the niche by clearly stating the aim, focus, or purpose of the present study. He shared commonly used academic phrases for each move and emphasised the importance of logical progression between them.
Throughout the sessions, Dr. Ndoricimpa repeatedly highlighted a major weakness in participant writing: lack of references. He stressed that statements such as “previous studies show” or “research indicates” must always be supported with citations. Without references, academic writing appears weak, unreliable, and unacceptable for indexed journals. He also advised participants to prioritise recent and relevant sources, noting that outdated references significantly reduce academic value.
Another key focus was academic language and vocabulary. Dr. Ndoricimpa explained that academic writing requires a formal tone, clarity, coherence, and precision. He demonstrated how logical connectors such as however, despite, although, and therefore help build argumentative flow. Participants were advised to avoid vague expressions and unsupported generalisations and instead use clear, discipline-appropriate language.
A separate segment addressed the ethical use of AI tools such as ChatGPT, Gemini, DeepSeek, and Perplexity. Dr. Ndoricimpa acknowledged differing views on AI, noting that some consider it harmful due to plagiarism and academic laziness, while others see it as useful for language improvement. He clarified that AI tools should be used only for revising grammar, structure, and coherence, and never for generating original academic content. Intellectual ownership, he stressed, must always remain with the researcher, and responsible use depends on correct prompting and critical judgment.
The sessions placed strong emphasis on plagiarism, which Dr. Ndoricimpa defined as presenting another person’s ideas, language, or work as one’s own. He described plagiarism as a serious violation of academic integrity and ethical responsibility. He clearly stated that Scopus- and Web of Science–indexed journals conduct plagiarism checks before peer review, and that high similarity scores lead to immediate rejection.
Finally, Dr. Ndoricimpa discussed the importance of accurate citation and reference management. He introduced Mendeley as an effective reference management tool and explained major citation styles such as APA, MLA, Chicago, and Vancouver. He demonstrated how Mendeley helps maintain consistency in citations and guided participants through downloading the software, independent registration, and adding references manually or through PDFs. He also stressed the importance of verifying imported bibliographic details to avoid errors.
Beyond technical instruction, the session carried personal academic significance. The speaker reflected on continuity in scholarly development, recalling first attending Dr. Ndoricimpa’s academic writing workshop as an undergraduate student in February 2019, where the focus was on objectivity, coherence, grammatical precision, and balanced argumentation. During postgraduate studies in 2020–21, the sessions shifted toward structuring arguments, situating research within scholarly debates, and handling theory with greater discipline. Encountering his guidance again at AWW 2026 was both affirming and instructive, reinforcing not only the technical demands of publishing in indexed journals but also the ethical responsibility underlying serious academic work.
The session concluded with comments on participant writing and appreciation for their active collaboration. Overall, the lecture provided comprehensive and practical guidance on writing publishable research papers, understanding journal expectations, avoiding plagiarism, using AI responsibly, and managing references effectively, significantly strengthening participants’ understanding of academic writing for indexed journal publication.
Day Three – First Session
Session Title: Detecting AI Hallucination and Using AI with Integrity
Date: 29 January 2026
Resource Person: Prof. (Dr.) Nigam Dave , Professor, School of Liberal Studies (SLS), Pandit Deendayal Energy University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India
.png)
The session titled “Detecting AI Hallucination and Using AI with Integrity” focused on understanding the risks, limits, and ethical use of Artificial Intelligence in academic and research practices. Prof. Nigam Dave addressed how AI operates, why it can be misleading in scholarly work, and how it can nevertheless be used responsibly and productively with proper human oversight.
The speaker began by establishing a personal and intellectual connection with the department, referring to it as his academic “home.” He emphasised that although Artificial Intelligence is a powerful tool, scholars must clearly recognise its limitations. Drawing on literary wisdom, he reminded the audience that it is “not enough that AI has said so,” stressing the classical scholarly principle of verification over blind acceptance. He noted that contemporary scholars, driven by speed, instant access, and convenience, often neglect reflection, patience, and careful verification.
Prof. Dave then traced the historical evolution of knowledge transmission, beginning with the Shruti and Smriti traditions, oral storytelling, and memorisation, followed by the age of print, libraries, cinema, television, and eventually the internet. He explained how earlier generations were shaped by physical libraries and slow, immersive reading practices, whereas present-day learners exist in an era of information abundance and shrinking attention spans. He highlighted how social media, quick-delivery platforms, and algorithm-driven digital systems have conditioned users to expect instant results, reducing depth, patience, and sustained critical engagement.
The session moved on to the contemporary academic and industrial context, discussing University 4.0 and Industry 5.0, where Artificial Intelligence, cyber systems, and physical systems interact simultaneously. Prof. Dave argued that the current era is best understood as Human–Cyber–Physical Systems (HCPS), in which humans must remain firmly “in the loop.” Technology, he stated, should support and enhance human thinking rather than replace it, just as calculators replaced manual arithmetic without destroying mathematical understanding. Ethical use of AI, therefore, is not optional but essential.
A central focus of the lecture was AI hallucination, which Prof. Dave defined as the generation of synthetic or fabricated information that appears statistically plausible but is factually unreliable. He explained that AI operates through probabilistic models that predict likely sequences of words rather than verify truth. As a result, AI often produces confident but fabricated responses, making it particularly dangerous for academic work, where authority and precision are crucial.
He warned that qualitative disciplines such as English studies are especially vulnerable to AI hallucination. Literary research relies heavily on interpretation, abstract theory, language-based argumentation, and non-empirical claims. AI easily imitates this style by generating fluent, sophisticated, and authoritative-sounding prose, which can mislead scholars into trusting inaccurate or entirely fabricated content. He compared such outputs to generic astrological predictions—statements that appear meaningful but apply broadly without factual grounding.
Prof. Dave identified several warning signs of AI hallucination, including vague formulations such as “scholars agree,” “studies show,” or “it is widely known,” when no verifiable references are provided. He discussed citation hallucination, where AI invents journal articles, fabricates publication details, misquotes scholars, or attributes ideas to authors who never expressed them. Drawing on his own research experience, he demonstrated instances where AI fabricated Sanskrit verses, historical references, literary examples, and song lyrics, acknowledging errors only when directly challenged.
Another major issue addressed was bias in AI systems. Prof. Dave explained that AI reproduces human bias because it is trained on human-generated data. He illustrated how AI reinforces gender, cultural, and historical biases, including portrayals of women as war trophies in epic narratives or probabilistic justifications of unethical actions. This, he argued, clearly demonstrates that AI is not neutral and must always be subjected to critical scrutiny.
Despite these risks, Prof. Dave strongly emphasised that AI cannot be avoided or rejected outright. Instead, it must be used ethically, strategically, and responsibly. He demonstrated several legitimate academic uses of AI, including proofreading manuscripts, formatting citations, testing the novelty and relevance of research ideas, identifying weaknesses before submission, preparing for viva-voce examinations, understanding journal submission procedures, verifying journal authenticity, identifying predatory or cloned journals, and confirming indexing details such as Scopus EID numbers. In these contexts, AI functions as an assistant rather than a substitute for scholarly thinking.
He cautioned that scholars should never use AI to generate core academic arguments, interpretations, or citations. Its appropriate role lies in handling technical, repetitive, and procedural tasks that save time while leaving intellectual responsibility with the researcher. The most important safeguard, he stressed, is human oversight; without it, AI becomes “a storyteller with no editor,” capable of producing persuasive narratives that may be entirely false.
The session concluded with the reminder that knowledge has always required judgment. Quoting Samuel Johnson, Prof. Dave reiterated that true knowledge lies not merely in possessing information, but in knowing where and how to verify it. The lecture ended with interactive feedback from participants, who acknowledged the session’s depth, practical illustrations, and its strong impact on their understanding of ethical and responsible AI use in academic writing.
Overall, the session offered a critical, balanced, and reflective perspective on Artificial Intelligence, urging scholars to combine technological awareness with intellectual responsibility, ethical judgment, and sustained human discernment.
Day Four & Day Five
Session Title: From Classroom to an Academic Career
Resource Person: Dr. Kalyani Vallath , CEO and Founder, Vallath Education, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala
Dates: 30 January 2026 – 31 January 2026
.png)
.png)
The sessions conducted by Dr. Kalyani Vallath over two days were among the most intensive, formative, and integrative components of the workshop programme. Bringing together academic writing, UGC NET preparation, literary understanding, and long-term academic career orientation, the sessions reflected a coherent pedagogical vision aimed at shaping both intellectual competence and academic mindset.
For the participant, the sessions carried deep personal and academic significance. Having first attended Dr. Vallath’s lecture in December 2019 as a postgraduate student, and later engaging with her online courses, handbooks, and encyclopaedic resources, encountering her again during this workshop felt like a continuation of long-term intellectual mentorship. This continuity reinforced not only technical academic skills but also a sustained approach to learning and self-development.
Dr. Vallath began by emphasising that education is not about filling a bucket, but about lighting a fire. Learning, she argued, must ignite curiosity, confidence, and self-belief, rather than merely accumulate information. This guiding idea framed the entire workshop and encouraged participants to take ownership of their intellectual growth and academic journeys.
A significant portion of the sessions focused on academic writing and academic mindset. Dr. Vallath challenged the belief that good writing is a natural talent, clarifying that writing is a skill developed through sustained practice, disciplined thinking, and strategic planning. She presented academic writing as a mode of reasoning that begins with questions, develops through illustration and interpretation, and matures through revision. Participants were encouraged to move away from a fixed mindset that fears imperfection and to adopt a growth mindset that allows writing to begin even with unclear or weak ideas. Writing, she stressed, improves only through the act of writing itself.
Several practical strategies were introduced, including free writing, reverse planning, mind mapping, and goal-setting, presented as concrete tools rather than abstract ideals. Reverse planning, in particular, involved starting from the final academic goal and working backward to identify relevant authors, theories, arguments, and materials. Artificial Intelligence was discussed as a supportive academic tool that can assist in creating outlines and identifying counter-arguments, but never as a substitute for original thinking or intellectual responsibility.
Equally impactful were the sessions devoted to UGC NET preparation. Dr. Vallath demystified the examination by explaining that it is not primarily memory-based. She clarified that only about 20% of the exam relies on factual recall, while the remaining portion tests logical reasoning, inference, analytical ability, and presence of mind. By analysing question patterns, distractor design, and option-based reasoning across Paper I and Paper II, she demonstrated that the exam evaluates conceptual clarity and calm decision-making rather than rote memorisation.
Participants were trained to identify and eliminate distractors, which are deliberately designed to confuse candidates. Dr. Vallath encouraged students to remain calm and logical, showing that even complex-looking questions can be solved through intelligent inference. She also advised students to “think like a teacher” while answering, selecting the most conceptually sound and pedagogically appropriate option rather than the most complicated one.
Another major component of the sessions was a conceptual map of English literature, literary criticism, and theory. Dr. Vallath traced the development of English literature from the Old English Period, marked by runic scripts and epic traditions such as Beowulf, through the Middle English Period, and into the Renaissance, which she described as a rebirth inspired by Greek and Roman classical writers. She further discussed the expansion of English literature beyond Britain to regions such as the USA, Canada, Australia, and eventually to the global framework of World Literature.
Alongside literary history, the sessions introduced key traditions of literary criticism, beginning with Plato and Aristotle and moving toward modern critics such as T. S. Eliot and I. A. Richards. Major literary theories were also explained, including Structuralism with its focus on signs and binary oppositions, Poststructuralism and Derrida’s concept of deconstruction, Feminism across its three waves, and Postcolonialism, including ideas such as mimicry, hybridity, and “the empire writes back.”
The sessions also addressed career planning and personal development in academia. Dr. Vallath highlighted the importance of becoming an effective manager of time, resources, and knowledge. She encouraged participants to consciously build a strong academic portfolio and to cultivate their own authentic writing voices, rather than imitating artificially complex or excessively sophisticated styles. A key psychological concept discussed was the Zone of Proximal Development, which encourages learners to work slightly beyond their comfort zones to ensure continuous intellectual growth.
Day Six
.png)
.png)
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment