This blog is written as a part of my personal learning reflection on the week-long National Workshop on Academic Writing organized by the Department of English at MKBU under the KCG initiative. As I navigate my second semester of the M.A. in English Literature, balancing coursework with the growing responsibility of writing research papers, this workshop arrived at a crucial moment in my academic journey. Rather than merely summarizing what was taught, I aim to reflect on how each of the five days gradually shaped my understanding of academic writing — from behind-the-scenes preparation to active participation and intellectual engagement. The workshop effectively bridged the gap between subjective literary interpretation and objective academic research, helping me refine my critical thinking, structure my arguments more clearly, and approach scholarly writing with greater confidence, ethical awareness, and long-term academic vision. The following day-by-day reflection maps my personal learning outcomes to the sessions conducted by our esteemed speakers.
Day 1: Setting the Paradigm – From Participation to Perspective
27 January 2026 | New Court Hall, Administrative Building, MKBU
The first day of the National Workshop on Academic Writing was not merely the beginning of an event but the establishment of an intellectual framework. As a second-semester M.A. English student at Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University, currently engaged in research writing, I experienced this day as both a reflective learner and a developing scholar seeking clarity about academic expectations.
Inaugural Ceremony: The Changing Landscape of Research
The inaugural session, addressed by respected academic leaders including Prof. Dilip Barad, Dr. K.M. Joshi, Hon’ble Vice-Chancellor Prof. B.B. Ramanuj, situated the workshop within the broader global academic landscape. The discussion offered a macro-level understanding of India’s position in global thesis production and research investment, emphasizing the urgent need for rigorous, high-quality academic output.
A key idea that resonated with me was the need to establish synergy between natural intelligence — human reasoning, ethical judgment, and cultural awareness — and artificial intelligence. The session set a clear mandate: students must evolve from passive recipients of knowledge into responsible, tech-aware contributors who use digital tools strategically without compromising intellectual integrity.
This perspective shifted my mindset from writing merely for submission to writing as contribution.
Academic Writing and Prompt Engineering (Sessions 1)
Speaker: Prof. (Dr.) Paresh Joshi
The morning sessions conducted by Prof. (Dr.) Paresh Joshi fundamentally reshaped my understanding of academic writing. Drawing on Thomas De Quincey’s distinction between the “literature of power” and the “literature of knowledge,” he clarified the transition required when moving from literary studies to research writing. While literature encourages emotional engagement and interpretive freedom, research writing demands objectivity, structured argumentation, and evidence-based reasoning.
The session on prompt engineering was particularly transformative. I learned how to construct precise, context-rich prompts by defining the task, persona, constraints, and expected output format. Rather than using AI casually, I now understand how to strategically delegate mechanical tasks—such as formatting references, refining syntax, or evaluating structural coherence—while reserving my intellectual energy for theoretical analysis and original thought.
This session repositioned AI in my understanding: not as a shortcut, but as a tool that enhances efficiency while keeping human judgment at the center.
Academic Writing in English for Advanced Learners (Sessions 2)
Speaker: Prof. Kalyan Chattopadhyay
The afternoon sessions shifted the focus to stylistic refinement. Prof. Kalyan Chattopadhyay addressed the significant gap between common Indian academic writing practices and the formal expectations of international publishers such as Routledge or Taylor & Francis.
I learned that globally recognized academic writing demands objectivity, lexical density, precision, and syntactic clarity. We were encouraged to avoid conversational tone, descriptive excess, and ornamental language. Instead, emphasis was placed on strong nominalizations, coherent transitions, and eliminating ambiguity.
As someone trained in expressive literary analysis, this session challenged me to adopt a more disciplined and globally aligned academic register. It made me realize that scholarly credibility depends not only on ideas but also on stylistic precision.Day 1 successfully bridged global academic awareness, theoretical clarity, technological literacy, and stylistic discipline. It recalibrated my understanding of academic writing as a distinct intellectual practice — one that requires structure, ethical responsibility, precision, and strategic engagement with digital tools.
📅 Day 2: The Mechanics of International Publishing and Scholarly Precision
28 January 2026
If Day 1 established the intellectual framework of academic writing, Day 2 moved decisively into its mechanics. The focus shifted from conceptual orientation to technical refinement and publication strategy. For me, as an M.A. English students actively working on research papers, this day felt especially crucial because it connected writing skill with academic visibility.
Academic Writing in English for Advanced Learners (Sessions 3 )
Speaker: Prof. Kalyan Chattopadhyay
Continuing from the previous day, Prof. Kalyan Chattopadhyay deepened our understanding of stylistic precision in scholarly writing. While earlier sessions emphasized objectivity and lexical density, these sessions concentrated on epistemic discipline — particularly the art of hedging.
One of the most significant technical takeaways for me was the use of epistemic modality. I learned to avoid absolute and definitive claims such as “this proves” and instead employ cautious formulations like “the evidence suggests” or “it is highly probable that.” This subtle shift reflects the humble, provisional, and peer-reviewed nature of genuine academic inquiry. Research is not a declaration of final truth; it is a contribution to an ongoing conversation.
Another powerful insight was the discussion on authorial presence. We were encouraged to overcome cultural hesitation and confidently use the authorial “I” where appropriate — particularly in abstracts and introductions — to assert methodological choices and research interventions. I realized that intellectual ownership is not arrogance; it is clarity.
These sessions reinforced a crucial understanding: academic maturity lies not only in what we argue, but in how responsibly and strategically we argue it.
Publishing in Indexed Journals (Sessions 4)
Speaker: Dr. Clement Ndoricimpa
The afternoon sessions with Dr. Clement Ndoricimpa shifted the focus toward the practical realities of international publication. He demystified the often intimidating world of indexed databases such as Scopus and Web of Science, explaining the structural and ethical expectations of high-impact journals.
One of the most transformative frameworks introduced was John Swales’ CARS (Create a Research Space) model. The “Three Moves” structure for writing introductions gave me a clear, strategic blueprint:
- Establish a broad research territory to situate the study within existing discourse.
- Identify a specific research gap or unresolved issue in the literature.
- Occupy that niche by outlining the study’s objectives and methodological contribution.
This model clarified something fundamental for me: a strong introduction is not descriptive background information; it is a strategic argument for why the research deserves attention.
We also discussed journal selection, understanding indexing, responding to peer review, and avoiding predatory journals. I realized that writing a research paper is only half the journey; publishing it requires strategic awareness, patience, and strict adherence to ethical standards. Rejection, I learned, is not failure but an integral part of scholarly growth.
Day 2 connected stylistic refinement with publication mechanics. In the morning, I learned how to argue responsibly through hedging and intellectual positioning. In the afternoon, I learned how to position my research strategically within global academic discourse.
Most importantly, I began to see academic writing not as an isolated classroom exercise but as participation in an international scholarly ecosystem. Writing is not merely expression — it is contribution, negotiation, and responsible engagement.
Day 3: Navigating Ethics in the Age of Industry 5.0
29 January 2026
If Day 2 taught me the mechanics of publishing, Day 3 confronted me with its ethical foundation. The focus shifted toward responsible engagement with artificial intelligence and the deeper responsibilities of scholarly production. For me, this was perhaps the most intellectually sobering day of the workshop.
Detecting AI Hallucination and Using AI with Integrity (Sessions 5)
Speaker: Prof. (Dr.) Nigam Dave
Prof. (Dr.) Nigam Dave framed the discussion within the broader context of Industry 5.0, describing it as a Human-Cyber-Physical System (HCPS) in which human morality must regulate algorithmic output. This perspective immediately elevated the conversation beyond mere technical usage of AI tools.
The concept of “AI hallucination” was explained in detail — situations where large language models confidently generate fabricated citations, imaginary authors, or inaccurate qualitative interpretations due to their lack of genuine semantic understanding. The description of AI as a “stochastic parrot” was particularly striking: it predicts patterns without comprehending truth.
As a humanities scholar working with theoretical texts and interpretive arguments, I realized how vulnerable literary studies are to such fabrications. Unlike data-driven sciences, our discipline relies heavily on textual precision and citation authenticity. A single fabricated reference can compromise an entire argument.
I learned concrete strategies to audit AI-generated output: cross-checking citations, verifying journal authenticity, examining publication dates, and being attentive to algorithmic bias. Most importantly, I internalized a crucial principle — AI is a tool, not an epistemic authority. Accountability always rests with the human author.
This session compelled me to critically examine my own usage of AI while drafting research papers. Ethical integration of AI requires conscious supervision, not passive acceptance.
Publishing in Indexed Journals (Sessions 6)
Speaker: Dr. Clement Ndoricimpa
The afternoon sessions with Dr. Clement Ndoricimpa returned to the mechanics of publication, but at a deeper structural level. Instead of focusing only on submission procedures, the discussion emphasized how to construct a literature review that meaningfully intervenes in academic discourse.
I learned that a literature review should not function as a chronological listing of prior studies. Instead, it must map scholarship thematically, demonstrating intellectual engagement and clearly revealing the gap that the new research intends to address. This approach transforms the literature review from summary into argument.
Another essential takeaway was the importance of citation management tools such as Mendeley. Mastering such software is not merely about convenience; it safeguards against accidental plagiarism and ensures systematic organization of references — a necessity when dealing with hundreds of sources in long-term research projects.
The session also highlighted the art of responding to peer reviewers. Publication is not a solitary act but a dialogue between author, reviewers, and the broader academic community. Constructive criticism strengthens scholarship, and professional communication during revision is as important as the original submission.
Day 3 was ethically transformative. It made me aware that academic writing in the digital era demands vigilance, technological literacy, and moral clarity. Writing is no longer just about structuring arguments; it is about safeguarding truth within an increasingly automated environment.As someone actively engaged in research writing, I left this day with a heightened sense of responsibility. Academic contribution is not measured only by publication but by intellectual honesty.
Day 4: Mindset, Competitive Excellence, and Academic Vision
30 January 2026
If the previous days sharpened my technical and ethical understanding of academic writing, Day 4 shifted the conversation toward mindset and long-term academic survival. The focus expanded beyond writing mechanics and publication strategies to the larger architecture of building a sustainable academic career. For me, this day marked a structural shift — from learning how to write to understanding why and for what future I write.
From Classroom to an Academic Career (Sessions 7and 8)
Speaker: Dr. Kalyani Vallath
One of the most powerful theoretical frameworks introduced was Vygotsky’s “Zone of Proximal Development.” Applied to research writing, it encouraged us to embrace productive discomfort. Instead of fearing complex theorists like Foucault or Derrida, we were urged to engage them through structured “free writing” exercises. The idea was clear: intellectual confidence grows through iterative practice, not through waiting for perfect understanding.
The sessions also addressed competitive academic excellence in practical terms. We discussed building a coherent academic profile, presenting papers at conferences, cultivating mentorship, and developing research specializations early. Academic growth, I understood, is cumulative. It requires consistency, strategic planning, and sustained discipline.
Another valuable takeaway was the structured mapping of British literature, literary theory, and cultural studies into chronological frameworks. This approach ensures that literary movements are not studied in isolation but contextualized within socio-political and intellectual histories. Such structural clarity strengthens both teaching and research.
In the afternoon sessions, the focus shifted toward professional preparedness: building an academic CV, maintaining ethical research practices, collaborating across institutions, and balancing teaching with research responsibilities. I realized that academic writing is not an isolated skill; it is central to scholarly identity, classroom pedagogy, and publication credibility.
Day 4 fundamentally altered my academic self-perception. It encouraged me to see my present research papers not as assignments to complete, but as foundational steps toward a long-term scholarly trajectory.The most important realization for me was this: academic success is not accidental. It is constructed through mindset, discipline, resilience, and strategic intellectual positioning.As an M.A. English student navigating early research experiences, this day transformed my anxiety about the future into structured ambition.
Day 5: Synthesis, Strategy, and Academic Commitment
31 January 2026
The fifth and final day of the workshop felt both reflective and forward-looking. After four days of exploring writing structure, international publishing mechanics, AI ethics, and academic mindset, Day 5 functioned as a synthesis. It did not introduce entirely new themes; instead, it consolidated them into a strategic blueprint for long-term academic preparation.
From Classroom to an Academic Career (Sessions 5–8)
Speaker: Dr. Kalyani Vallath
Continuing her intensive focus on career development, Dr. Kalyani Vallath moved from conceptual motivation to practical strategy. The emphasis was on transforming academic preparation into professional readiness.
One of the most valuable insights from these sessions was the shift from rote memorization to intelligent reasoning. Whether preparing for competitive examinations or navigating complex theoretical frameworks, she demonstrated that success depends on inference, logical deduction, and the systematic elimination of distractions. Academic excellence, therefore, is not about storing information but about understanding intellectual movements and epistemological shifts.
By tracing transitions from Romanticism to Modernism and Postmodernism, she illustrated how contextual knowledge enables educated reasoning even when encountering unfamiliar texts. This reinforced a central lesson of the entire workshop: depth of understanding empowers flexibility.
The sessions also emphasized practical professional development — building a strong academic profile, maintaining ethical consistency, balancing teaching and research, and sustaining intellectual curiosity. Academic growth, I realized, is cumulative. It is built through daily reading, disciplined writing, constructive engagement with feedback, and resilience in the face of rejection.
Perhaps the most significant takeaway for me was the normalization of struggle. Rejections, criticism, and intellectual obstacles are not signs of inadequacy but markers of participation in a rigorous academic community. Resilience, therefore, is as crucial as intelligence.
Day 5 encouraged me to see my present research efforts as part of a long-term scholarly trajectory. Writing research papers is not merely about publication or grades; it is about gradually shaping a credible academic identity.The workshop, as a whole, strengthened my technical writing skills, deepened my ethical awareness regarding AI and research integrity, clarified the mechanics of international publication, and broadened my understanding of competitive academic preparation.By the end of the day, I felt less anxious about the future and more strategically prepared for it.
Conclusion: Bridging the Gap Between Student and Scholar
The MKBU National Workshop on Academic Writing was far more than a sequence of academic sessions; it was a structured intellectual transformation. Across five intensive days, the complex terrain of contemporary academia from international publication standards and AI ethics to competitive academic preparation and career strategy was gradually demystified. What once felt abstract now feels actionable.This workshop has clarified my mandate moving forward: to uphold international publication standards, practice disciplined writing, and maintain uncompromising ethical integrity in an era increasingly shaped by digital automation and AI hallucinations. As someone actively engaged in research writing, I now approach my drafts with greater structural awareness, stylistic precision, and critical vigilance.With my goal set on qualifying the NET examination in December 2026 or January 2027, the insights gained during this workshop have validated and strengthened my preparation strategy. Dedicating consistent daily hours to focused study and intensifying that effort during university breaks now feels purposeful rather than overwhelming. The roadmap is clearer.More importantly, the psychological shift is profound. The distance between being a student of literature and becoming a responsible producer of academic knowledge feels significantly smaller. Academic writing is no longer an assignment-driven task; it is a disciplined, ethical, and lifelong scholarly practice.This workshop did not simply teach me how to write, it reshaped how I see myself within the academic world.
0 Comments