My Learnings from the National Workshop on Academic Writing (2026)

The National Workshop on Academic Writing 

I recently had the opportunity to participate in the National Workshop on Academic Writing (2026) organised by the Department of English, Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University, under the Knowledge Consortium of Gujarat. The workshop was an intensive and eye-opening experience that reshaped my understanding of academic writing, research practices, and the responsible use of artificial intelligence in academia.

Here are my key takeaways and reflections from the workshop.

Inaugural Insights: Human Intelligence in the Age of AI

The inaugural session set a thought-provoking tone. One powerful message stayed with me: 'It is important to control AI before AI controls us.'

Speakers highlighted the distinction between natural intelligence and artificial intelligence, emphasising that while AI may simulate intelligence, it lacks human judgment, ethics, and contextual understanding. We were reminded that although India ranks among the top countries in research publication output, the quality of research — reflected in patents and citations — still needs improvement. The Vice Chancellor stressed the disciplined and accountable use of AI as a support tool rather than a replacement for human thinking.

Session by Dr. Paresh Joshi: Developing Academic Writing

Dr. Paresh Joshi clarified that academic writing is the language of research documentation — factual, objective, and evidence-based. Unlike literary writing, academic writing requires detachment from personal emotions and a logical, analytical approach.

He explained the research communication process as:

Listen (Research) → Report (Summarize/Synthesize) → Respond

(Analyze/Evaluate) → Argue (Present Research Claim)

A strong argument, he emphasised, is impossible without a solid literature review.

We also explored the stages of writing:

Plan → Draft → Edit → Revise → Proofread → Submit → Receive Feedback

Important contrasts were discussed:

Formal vs. informal language

Clarity vs. obscurity

Concise vs. wordy

Logical flow vs. repetition

Proper hedging vs. overgeneralization

One key takeaway: Academic writing values precision and reasoning over

decorative language.

Session on Prompt Engineering and AI in Education

This session focused on the growing role of AI in academia. We learnt that there are no universally fixed guidelines yet for AI use in education, making responsible usage even more important.

Effective prompts should:

• Be clear and specific
• Provide context
• Specify format and style
• Include examples where possible

We were introduced to zero-shot, one-shot, and few-shot prompting techniques, along with the importance of iterative refinement and bias awareness in prompt design.

A strong emphasis was placed on fact-checking AI outputs to avoid hallucinations. The message was clear:

👉 AI should assist research, not replace human critical thinking. Accuracy matters more than speed.

Dr. Kalyan Chattopadhyay: Foundations of Academic Writing

Dr. Chattopadhyay explained that writing is cultural, but academic writing must be purposeful and structured. He highlighted four pillars:

• Formality – Focus on argument and evidence
• Objectivity – Logical reasoning supported by citations
• Clarity – Clear structure (Topic sentence → Evidence → Analysis → Link)
• Precision – Accurate vocabulary, data, and references
• 

A memorable technique introduced was the card clustering method for organising literature by themes — an incredibly practical strategy for literature reviews.

He also outlined three stages of research writing:

Pre-writing: Brainstorm, research, outline

Writing: Use structures like PIE (Point–Illustration–Explanation)

Revision: Reverse outline, test logic, read aloud

Dr. Ndoricimpa Clement: Publishing in Scopus & Web of Science

This session focused on writing research papers for indexed journals. Publishing, we learnt, is not only about academic contribution but also about professional recognition and visibility.

The standard structure IMRD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) was discussed in detail. Dr. Clement emphasized the importance of identifying a research niche — a gap that your study uniquely addresses.

A valuable hands-on activity involved drafting an introduction, after which

Participants received individual feedback on:

Citation practices

Title design

Academic vocabulary

Language accuracy

Dr Nigam Dave: AI Hallucinations and Academic Integrity

This session was particularly eye-opening. Dr Dave defined AI hallucination as confidently presented but factually incorrect information generated by AI.

A striking idea shared was, 'It is not enough that AI has said so.'

He explained that AI often produces statistically probable language, not verified truth, making humanities students especially vulnerable due to abstract, theory-heavy writing.

We discussed strategies to:

• Detect hallucinations
• Cross-check information
• Use AI critically rather than blindly

AI, we learnt, should be used as a tool for verification, idea refinement, and process guidance, not as an unquestioned authority.

Final Reflection

This workshop transformed my perspective on both academic writing and AI in research. I realised that good research writing is not about complex language but about clear thinking, strong evidence, structured arguments, and ethical responsibility.

Most importantly, I learnt that AI can support scholarship, but human intelligence must lead it.

The workshop was not just informative but deeply empowering. It strengthened my confidence as a researcher and reminded me that discipline, reading, critical thinking, and integrity remain the foundation of meaningful academic work.