Tag: teaching

Posted on

Could Artificial Intelligence Free Up Valuable Time for Academics?

A busy academic might be sent many requests the peer review papers each month, those involved in teaching will have student marking to contend with too. They may sit on grant awarding committees or editorial boards for journals or be required to decide whether to accept conference presentations for meetings. This will all be on top of the processes they need to go through in order to store their own data appropriately, ensure their projects have appropriate ethical approval and rectify any changes requested of their own work, as they respond to reviewers and editors comments.

All of these processes are not actually research or teaching, they are what research and teaching require to be robust and carefully monitored. As I tell PhD students early in their studies (1) there is not a governing body for academic research, the whole process is self-policing. Peer review is essential for confidence that research processes are robust. Marking students’ work is also a necessity to ensure robust judgements on students’ grades.

However, is everything being done as efficiently and as objectively as it could be? Assuming appropriate ethical approval has been provided and the research work has been considered worthy of funding from some source then it seems a logical extension that the findings should be published. Even if the results are null the academic community should be made aware of the work. Even an experiment that goes nowhere to support the hypothesis being tested may avoid that hypothesis being tested again when null results are provided.

So assuming all research work should be published there is then a question as to why journals choose to accept or reject articles for publication. In the days of hard copy journals this selective process had a genuine practical relevance. Now with journals being almost entirely viewed online there is no real pressure on the number of articles they have to present. A question about the merit or the noteworthiness of the research would seem be a key aspect.  Journals retaining their esteem by selecting research work of a particular standard.

To some extent a judgement on the research question was made before the results are derived, analysed, discussed, written about and published because funders decided whether the research question was worthy of investigation. The concept of pre-registration of studies has been presented on several occasions and is being put into practice, with Prof Marcus Munafò championing this cause (2). So with ways to determine whether research is interesting or worth discussion already in place why should there be a decision after the work has been written.

It might also be expected the work has been conducted ethically, since ethical approval would be required before commencing. It is actually a little ironic that the ethical approval process can be completed without human intervention if no risks are flagged. I would seem reasonable to suggest that studies that are pre-registered would be unbiased in the set-up of the research and the analysis of the data generated.  Then the only question that remains for the peer reviewer is to check whether the paper has been written up in a logical way, with good syntax and that is grammatically sound for the readers to interpret. So why not employ Artificial Intelligence to check the readability of submissions and make suggestions on improvements to the text if required. These are methods that are employed by software packages such as Grammarly.

There could also be a case made for the marking of students’ work using a developing computerised algorithm (or AI). It would probably prove an uncomfortable step for many to replace human markers entirely but it would seem like a reasonable approach to replace one marker of a pair with an AI moderator.  Running numerous previous years’ exam scripts through a developing algorithm should allow the system to be tuned-in to identify the key factors in giving scores. If the AI and human maker disagree then a second human marker could moderate. There are experiments taking place with school students’ work (3) that could help show how well this might work.

It would be a brave step by any University that instigated marking partially by a computerised algorithm and also it would also be a bold move for a publishers that to review articles. However, if they were to do this they may benefit from freeing up the time of their academics to more creative in the research and teaching processes.

References

  1. https://workshops.ncl.ac.uk/fms/integrity/
  2. https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article/19/7/773/3106460
  3. https://ofqual.blog.gov.uk/2020/01/09/exploring-the-potential-use-of-ai-in-marking/
Posted on

20:20 a vision for portfolio careers in academic research

drowning clock

Restricting the time individuals spend on their own research project to twenty hours a week might allow for greater equality and less burn-out.

There’s no such thing as a job for life anymore, has now become an old adage, we have moved on from that, to the point where a more common discussion is whether work-life balance is ‘a thing’ (1). However, much of what is sold to a new generation of academic researchers, starting out on a PhD is exactly that, the idea of a job for life. They are tacitly offered the prospect that they might follow in the footsteps of their academic mentors or supervisors. They are hijacked into thinking their doctorate, their academic papers, their conference presentations and their successful grant applications will lead to a permanent contract in academic research or higher education. The truth is, for some that will happen. It might mean working really long hours, facing countless rejections, reapplications and resubmissions but ultimately it is possible they will end up with a full time position at a University and never leave the academic world. For the majority though, the reality is they will leave academia and will have diverse and potentially more financially fruitful careers elsewhere. Arguments about what could be considered success we can leave to one side, but I am minded of the former PhD student who told me of their lucrative career in Management Consultancy and how the boss of the company had a Nature paper to their name, but had left academia of their own volition. What I really want to consider is how the careers of those who stay in academia develop . A study of Professors in the Netherlands indicated that their time conducting research was down to 17%, and this article suggests anyone who would like to continue in research should probably look outside of academia (2)

So how do we address the existential crisis in academic careers that seems to be at the route of problems in the research environment? Whether researchers have an open or fixed term contract they are always likely to call for more funding to resolve the issue. Whilst I wouldn’t argue with the idea of increasing funding for research, I’d be wary of suggesting this would be a panacea. More research funding is likely to mean more PhD students and more post doc positions, even if it did mean more open contracts they would quickly be filled and the issues of the promise of a career would not materialise for many.

The inequalities in research can be very obvious and policies to address those issues need to be firmly held up. However, some things relate to societal differences that affect people more broadly. Quite simply the 60+ hour working week many Early Career Researchers feel pressured to adhere to  is a much more of a feasible option for someone without the caring responsibilities of children or elderly relatives. It’s also likely to be a good deal easier for those without physical disabilities or mental health issues. Simplistic legislation that demands equality will not be enough to deal with the complex issues that limit what people can do. Whilst some have recognised their own limits and realised that it is only possible to be truly productive for so long (3), there will still be many who are using presenteeism as a proxy for what it takes to be successful.

The answer to several of these issue maybe an acceptance that the development of new research ideas is improved by allowing academics more time to think and with a fairer distribution of the range of other administrative and teaching roles. Requiring a more nurturing environment for those learning from the academics means a greater contribution to research from everyone in the Higher Education system.

Here, I propose limiting the academic research of all research staff to a maximum of 20 hours per week . This might be an entire contract for a working parent. They could then avoid falling behind colleagues with who can devote more time to their research. Of course it would be up to institutions how the other 20 hours were made up. If this was included the support of undergraduate teaching, PhD supervision or technical support for other projects, that would all be good and could help with their own development in the broader sense of their careers. It could also be fairly allocated in order to that researchers could take a strategic approach to their applications for further research funding or to work as a reviewer or editor. As has been identified advancing in academic research tends to lead to growing out of it. Supporting and guiding researchers to longer careers in research with a broader role, encompassing their own development and the development of others, can only be to the long term advantage of the research environment. It may also help early career researchers recognise the importance of the broader aspects of a role in academia. Once more time is required to be devoted outside of the individual’s research project goals then a greater emphasis could be made in assessing their achievements in the broader environment.

With the academic role split more fairly for all on a full time contract covering administrative, teaching, outreach and development roles this could mean broader recognition of those activities. Success across all aspects of the role could then be considered when it came to. Perhaps, this may mean less promotion and fewer Professors, but ultimately if it provided more careers including research with passion and longevity this may create a flatter but happier pyramid of academic careers.