I am Sejad Chokiya, currently pursuing my Master’s in English Literature.This blog is a space to share literary analysis, study
resources, and reflections on texts.Alongside academics, I also engage in creative crafting as a form of artistic expression.
Faith and False Consciousness: A Critical Study of Religion
I am writing this blog as part of a critical thinking task assigned by Dr. Dilip Barad. The purpose of this assignment is to engage seriously with the ideas presented in the videos “God is Power” and “Critique of Religion” and to examine how religion operates not only as a matter of faith but also as a structure of power and ideology. Through this blog, I attempt to reflect on the philosophical arguments discussed in the videos and to connect them with theoretical perspectives studied in class. This task encourages analytical thinking and helps in understanding religion from a socio-political and critical framework rather than a purely devotional one.
Video 1: God is Power
The phrase “God is Power” in Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell appears in Part Three during Winston’s interrogation by O’Brien, and it is central to understanding the ideological core of the Party. In an officially atheistic and dystopian society like Oceania, the reference to “God” is striking. The novel mentions God only a few times, and significantly, the explicit equation “God is Power” is articulated by O’Brien and later internalized by Winston after torture. Here, Orwell is not affirming theology but exposing how political authority replaces divinity. O’Brien declares that the Party members are “priests of power,” suggesting that power itself has become sacred. Just as religion historically demanded faith, obedience, confession, and devotion, the Party demands total submission of both body and mind. Winston’s forced acceptance—writing “Freedom is Slavery,” “2 + 2 = 5,” and finally “God is Power”—marks the complete erasure of independent thought. The phrase therefore signifies that power has assumed the role traditionally occupied by God: it defines truth, shapes reality, controls memory, and demands love. Orwell warns that when power becomes absolute, it turns into an object of worship, and political authority begins to function like religion. The equation of God with power thus exposes the danger of totalitarian systems that seek not only to govern actions but to dominate consciousness itself.
Video 2: Critique of Religion
The video Critique of Religion encourages a reading of Nineteen Eighty-Four beyond its usual interpretation as merely a political satire. While George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four is widely understood as a critique of totalitarian politics, the novel also exposes structural parallels between authoritarian regimes and organized religion, particularly Catholicism. The division of the world into three superstates can be symbolically compared to competing religious systems, suggesting that ideological conflicts—whether political or religious—operate through similar mechanisms of dominance and control.
Big Brother functions as a secular god figure whose omnipresence echoes the idea of an all-seeing deity. The slogan “Big Brother is Watching You” mirrors the theological concept of divine surveillance, but in Orwell’s dystopia this “watching” becomes an instrument of fear rather than protection. Similarly, the ritual of public confession, especially Winston’s torture and forced declaration of love for Big Brother, resembles a distorted sacramental process of sin, penance, and redemption. The Ministry of Love operates like a perverse purgatory where suffering purifies dissent and restores ideological “faith.”
The Party’s hierarchical structure, regulation of sexuality, and demand for absolute devotion further recall religious institutions that value obedience and suppression of individual desire. Orwell’s own skepticism toward organized Christianity, shaped by his experiences during the Spanish Civil War, strengthens this interpretation. Thus, the novel can be read not only as a political warning but also as a critique of any system, religious or political, that transforms power into an object of worship and replaces critical thought with unquestioned belief.
Visualizing the Deification of Power in 1984
📊 SlideDeck: Visual Interpretation of 1984 as a Critique of Religion
The following SlideDeck presents a visual analysis of Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, focusing on the idea that the novel functions not only as a political satire but also as a critique of organized religion. Through structured comparisons, such as Big Brother as a secular deity, the Party as a Church, confession as ritual, and “God is Power” as ideological replacement—the slides illustrate how political authority assumes sacred status in Oceania. This visual presentation supports the argument that Orwell warns against any system that transforms power into an object of worship and replaces critical thinking with blind submission.
Humans in the Loop: AI, Labour, and the Politics of Representation
I am writing this blog as part of a thinking activity assigned by Dr. Dilip Barad after the screening of Humans in the Loop. For this task, he provided a detailed worksheet that guided us through pre-viewing preparation, key points to observe during the film, and post-viewing critical reflection. This blog is my response to that structured task, where I attempt to analyze the film using concepts from film studies and cultural theory, especially focusing on AI, labour, representation, and knowledge systems.
Introduction
In the contemporary digital age, Artificial Intelligence is often presented as neutral, intelligent, and independent. However, Humans in the Loop, directed by Aranya Sahay, challenges this dominant narrative by foregrounding the human labour and cultural knowledge that sustain AI systems. The film follows Nehma, an Adivasi woman from Jharkhand, whose entry into AI data-labelling work reveals the hidden connections between technology, identity, and power.Rather than portraying AI as futuristic spectacle, the film situates it within lived realities,family life, ecological knowledge, and marginalized labour. It raises important questions: Who trains machines? Whose knowledge is recognized in digital systems? And what happens when indigenous epistemologies encounter rigid algorithmic categories?This blog critically engages with the film through a structured worksheet provided as part of an academic task. By applying concepts from film studies, such as representation, ideology, mise-en-scène, and labour theory,the analysis aims to explore how the film connects digital culture with issues of bias, visibility, and socio-political inequality.
Pre-Viewing Reflection: Technology, Power, and the World Nehma Inhabits
Before analyzing the cinematic language of Humans in the Loop,
it is essential to understand the socio-technical environment that shapes the protagonist’s reality. The film does not exist in isolation; it emerges from a world structured by global capitalism, digital economies, and unequal knowledge systems. Nehma’s entry into AI data work is not just a personal journey—it is a window into how technology reorganizes labour, visibility, and power.Director Aranya Sahay places the narrative within the broader logic of techno-capitalism, where innovation is celebrated, but the workers sustaining it remain unseen. This pre-viewing reflection, therefore, focuses on three interconnected concerns: the concealed human infrastructure of AI, digital alienation, and the ideological construction of machine intelligence.
1. The Unseen Human Network Behind Artificial Intelligence
Artificial Intelligence is often marketed as self-learning and autonomous. Popular discourse suggests that algorithms independently analyze data and make decisions. However, machine learning systems depend on vast amounts of manually labelled data. Behind every automated prediction lies repetitive human input.Workers in economically marginalized regions perform tasks such as tagging images, identifying objects, or correcting outputs. This labour is rarely acknowledged in mainstream technological narratives. The geographic distance between global tech corporations and rural workers creates a hierarchy of visibility and value.By situating its story in Jharkhand rather than in corporate technology hubs, the film redirects attention to this hidden infrastructure. It disrupts the illusion that AI is purely computational. Instead, it suggests that technology is deeply human—constructed, trained, and maintained by people whose names rarely appear in discussions of innovation.Thus, before watching the film, one must recognize that AI is not immaterial intelligence; it is structured by global labour relations.
2. Cognitive Labour and Digital Dispossession
From a Marxist perspective, digital labour represents a new stage of capitalist extraction. Traditionally, workers sold physical strength in factories. In contemporary digital economies, workers sell perception, attention, and cognitive effort.Nehma’s role as a data labeller illustrates this shift. She contributes her ability to recognize patterns, interpret images, and apply contextual understanding. Yet she has no ownership over the system she helps refine. The algorithms remain corporate property, and the economic profits circulate elsewhere.This condition reflects alienation in a modern form. The worker becomes separated not only from the product but also from the meaning of her labour. The work is repetitive and abstract, disconnected from immediate community benefit. Human intelligence is reduced to micro-tasks.In this way, the film invites viewers to question whether technological progress simultaneously deepens economic inequality. It suggests that in digital capitalism, even knowledge and perception become commodities.
3. The Manufactured Myth of the Independent Machine
One of the central ideological strategies of the tech industry is the construction of the “autonomous machine.” AI is framed as objective, efficient, and free from human flaws. This narrative increases public trust and market value.However, this autonomy is partly an illusion. The system depends on constant human supervision and correction. If this human presence were made fully visible, the magic of automation would dissolve. Consumers might begin to question the ethical and economic structures supporting these technologies.By foregrounding Nehma’s labour, the film dismantles this myth. It reveals that AI systems are not detached from society but embedded within social hierarchies. The “human in the loop” is not merely a technical necessity—it is evidence of dependency.This reframing transforms AI from a symbol of futuristic advancement into a site of political and ethical debate. The film compels the viewer to confront the reality that behind every smart system lies a network of human lives.
Points to Ponder While Watching
A Close Viewing Guide for Humans in the Loop
While watching the film directed by Aranya Sahay, it is important not to view it only as a story about AI. The film functions on multiple layers—narrative, cultural, visual, and political. The following points help in developing a deeper cinematic and theoretical understanding.
1️⃣ Narrative & Storytelling
🔹 Personal Life Within Algorithmic Systems
The film carefully interweaves Nehma’s domestic world with global technological structures. Her everyday activities—family conversations, rituals, and interactions with nature—are placed alongside repetitive digital labour. This parallel structure shows how global AI systems penetrate intimate spaces.
Notice how narrative shifts occur when labour enters her personal life. Moments that foreground:
Economic pressure within the family
Emotional exhaustion from repetitive tasks
Conflicts between cultural values and algorithmic demands
These narrative turns highlight that AI is not distant or abstract. It directly shapes lived experiences. The storytelling suggests that technological systems are not separate from society; they reorganize it.
🔹 Teaching the Machine: Beyond Technical Language
When Nehma “teaches” AI through data labelling, the film transforms a technical process into a philosophical metaphor. Machine learning appears dependent rather than autonomous.
The “human-machine loop” becomes symbolic:
The machine depends on human perception.
The human adapts her understanding to fit machine categories.
A cycle of negotiation emerges between lived knowledge and programmed structure.
This interaction raises a crucial question: Who is actually learning—the machine or the human adjusting herself to the system?
2️⃣ Representation & Cultural Context
🔹 Depiction of Adivasi Identity
Observe how the film represents Adivasi culture:
Use of native language in dialogue
Representation of rituals without exotic framing
Natural landscapes shown as lived environments, not tourist imagery
The camera does not treat cultural practices as spectacle. Instead, it presents them as part of everyday reality. This grounded representation grants dignity and agency to the community.
🔹 Challenging Dominant Stereotypes
Mainstream media often portrays tribal communities as either primitive or completely detached from technology. The film disrupts this binary.
By placing Nehma at the center of AI production, it suggests:
Technology is not limited to urban elites.
Indigenous individuals are active participants in global digital economies.
Tradition and modernity coexist rather than oppose each other.
Thus, representation becomes a site of resistance against stereotypical narratives.
3️⃣ Cinematic Style & Meaning
Film meaning is not created only through dialogue; it is shaped through visual and auditory language.
🔹 Mise-en-Scène & Cinematography
Pay attention to spatial contrasts:
Forest scenes: Often framed in wide shots with natural lighting, emphasizing openness and continuity.
Computer workspace: Tighter frames, cooler tones, and rigid compositions that suggest confinement.
Ritual scenes: Layered compositions that foreground community and collective presence.
This contrast visually symbolizes two knowledge systems—organic, relational life versus structured, coded digital space.
The placement of screens within frames also matters. Often, Nehma is shown facing the screen, emphasizing the dominance of the technological interface. The framing may create a sense of enclosure, reflecting psychological and economic restriction.
🔹 Sound Design & Editing
Sound plays a crucial role in reinforcing thematic contrast:
Ambient sounds of wind, birds, and community life create a sensory, immersive atmosphere.
Digital sounds—mouse clicks, keyboard typing, notification alerts—interrupt natural rhythms.
Editing patterns may alternate between slow-paced rural life and repetitive, almost mechanical sequences of labelling work. This rhythmic shift reinforces the emotional toll of digital labour.
The juxtaposition of these sonic and visual elements creates tension between analog life and digital abstraction.
4️⃣ Ethical & Political Questions
🔹 Ethical Dilemmas in Training AI
When AI systems require culturally specific data, ethical problems arise:
Can sacred spaces be reduced to neutral categories?
Does standardization erase spiritual or contextual meanings?
Who decides the “correct” label for culturally complex realities?
These dilemmas expose the limits of algorithmic thinking.
🔹 The Metaphor of “Human-in-the-Loop”
Technically, the term refers to human supervision within machine learning systems. However, in the film, it carries deeper significance.
Politically: It reveals how marginalized communities sustain global industries.
Socially: It reflects dependency of machines on human cognition.
Culturally: It emphasizes that knowledge cannot be fully automated.
The metaphor suggests that despite narratives of automation, the human remains central—though often invisible.While watching Humans in the Loop, it is essential to observe not just what is shown, but how it is shown. The film uses narrative structure, representation, visual contrast, and sound design to question the neutrality of AI.It invites viewers to reconsider technology not as an isolated innovation but as a cultural system shaped by power, labour, and knowledge hierarchies.
Post-Viewing Reflective Essay
Knowledge, Power, and the Cultural Politics of AI
A Critical Reading of Humans in the Loop
Directed by Aranya Sahay, Humans in the Loop is not merely a film about artificial intelligence or digital labour. It is a layered and intellectually rich exploration of how knowledge is organized, validated, and controlled within technological systems. The film questions the dominant narrative that AI is objective, neutral, and purely technical. Instead, it reveals AI as socially produced, culturally embedded, and ideologically structured.This essay examines how the film represents algorithmic bias and epistemic hierarchy, using concepts from film theory and cultural critique to unpack the political implications of its narrative and cinematic form.
I. Algorithmic Bias as Cultural Construction
Artificial Intelligence is often described in popular discourse as mathematical and therefore impartial. The assumption is that algorithms operate through logic rather than prejudice. However, Humans in the Loop dismantles this assumption by demonstrating that algorithms do not exist independently of human influence. They are created, trained, and refined within specific socio-cultural environments.Through Nehma’s repetitive data-labelling work, the film exposes how machine learning systems depend on predefined categories. Images must be reduced to simplified labels—“forest,” “road,” “vehicle,” or “obstacle.” These categories appear neutral, yet they are rooted in particular cultural frameworks that prioritize functional, extractive, or utilitarian understandings of the world.When Nehma encounters images that hold spiritual or communal meaning within her Adivasi worldview, her hesitation becomes narratively significant. The algorithm does not possess the conceptual vocabulary to recognize sacredness, relational identity, or ancestral connection. It can only process what it has been programmed to acknowledge.
In this way, bias emerges not as a technical malfunction but as epistemological limitation. The machine reflects the worldview of its designers and the datasets it has been fed. The film subtly suggests that what AI “fails” to recognize is not an error in code, but a consequence of whose knowledge has been prioritized during its construction. Algorithmic bias, therefore, is culturally situated.
II. Epistemic Hierarchies: The Politics of Knowing
At the heart of the film lies a conflict between two knowledge systems: computational rationality and indigenous ecological understanding. Nehma embodies lived, experiential knowledge rooted in land, memory, and community. However, within the digital workspace, she is not treated as a knowledge bearer. She is positioned as a functionary whose role is to feed data into a larger system.This dynamic reflects what scholars describe as epistemic hierarchy—the ranking of knowledge systems according to perceived legitimacy. Scientific and technological knowledge is often framed as universal and superior, while indigenous or oral traditions are marginalized as subjective or localized.
The film visualizes this hierarchy through spatial and visual contrast. Scenes set in the forest are expansive, fluid, and immersive. Natural light and wide frames evoke openness and interconnectedness. In contrast, the digital interface is presented through tight framing, boxed grids, and rigid composition. The screen divides reality into segments, symbolizing the compartmentalization of knowledge.By juxtaposing these visual worlds, the film critiques the assumption that technological classification equals progress. It raises an important question: If innovation demands the erasure of alternative epistemologies, can it still be considered advancement? The emotional conflict experienced by Nehma underscores the human cost of epistemic marginalization.
III. Apparatus Theory and Ideological Mediation
Apparatus Theory offers a powerful lens through which to analyze the film’s representation of technology. According to this theory, cinema is not a neutral medium; it shapes spectators’ perception through framing, perspective, and narrative control. The cinematic apparatus positions viewers in particular ideological relationships to what they see.In Humans in the Loop, this idea is mirrored within the narrative itself. The audience observes Nehma interacting with the computer screen. This creates a layered structure of spectatorship: we watch a character who is herself positioned before another apparatus—the algorithmic interface.
Both cinema and AI function as systems of mediation. They frame reality, select what is visible, and organize meaning. By foregrounding the screen within the frame, the film makes spectators aware of this process. It invites viewers to question how technological systems categorize and interpret the world.The AI interface becomes symbolic of broader power relations. It represents the authority of global technological systems that determine what knowledge is valid and what remains invisible. Through its careful framing and narrative structure, the film exposes how representation itself is shaped by ideology.
Thus, technology in the film is not depicted as detached machinery. It is portrayed as an extension of social structures that privilege certain forms of knowledge over others.
IV. Digital Modernity and the Risk of Cultural Erasure
Another significant dimension of the film is its exploration of cultural erasure in the age of digital modernity. Standardized datasets require uniform categories. However, uniformity often comes at the expense of diversity.Nehma’s world is relational and spiritually grounded. It values interconnectedness between humans, land, and ancestors. The algorithmic world, by contrast, operates through extraction and classification. It transforms complex realities into usable data points.
The act of labelling, therefore, becomes symbolic. Each click of the mouse represents negotiation—between economic necessity and cultural integrity, between survival and selfhood. Nehma’s labour is not simply technical; it is existential. She must decide how to translate her world into a language that the machine can understand, even when that language feels inadequate.This dynamic echoes broader concerns about digital coloniality. Historically, colonial systems imposed linguistic and epistemic dominance upon marginalized communities. In a contemporary context, algorithmic systems risk imposing standardized frameworks that flatten cultural specificity.
The film does not present Nehma as anti-technology. Rather, it portrays her struggle against reduction. Her hesitation reveals the violence embedded in forcing rich cultural realities into rigid computational structures.
Conclusion: Reclaiming the “Human” in the Loop
Ultimately, Humans in the Loop argues that AI cannot be separated from the human values, labour, and cultural contexts that sustain it. The phrase “human in the loop” is more than technical terminology. It signals dependency. Machines require human cognition, perception, and judgment.By centering an Adivasi woman within a narrative about artificial intelligence, the film disrupts dominant representations of technology as urban, elite, and detached from marginalized communities. It foregrounds the reality that global technological systems rely on invisible human labour shaped by unequal power relations.Through its narrative structure, visual contrasts, and ideological framing, the film encourages viewers to rethink technology as a contested cultural space rather than an inevitable future. It reminds us that AI systems reflect the knowledge hierarchies embedded within society.The future of artificial intelligence, therefore, will not be determined solely by code. It will depend on whose knowledge is recognized, whose realities are encoded, and whose voices are allowed to shape the technological imagination.
A Day-by-Day Reflection on the Academic Writing Workshop
This blog is written as a part of my personal learning reflection on the Academic Writing Workshop. Rather than only describing what was taught in the sessions, I want to share what I learned from behind the scenes, how each of the five days gradually shaped my understanding of academic writing. As someone who is currently working on research papers, I experienced this workshop not just as a participant, but as a learner actively applying these lessons to my own academic work. Each day contributed something practical and meaningful, and together, the workshop helped me refine my thinking, structure my arguments more clearly, and approach research writing with greater confidence and responsibility.
🎬 Behind the Scenes: Preparing for the Academic Writing Workshop
Before the Academic Writing Workshop officially began, there was a great deal of preparation happening behind the scenes. As organizers and volunteers, we were not just participants in the academic sessions — we were actively involved in making the workshop possible.This preparation phase itself became a learning experience for me.
Pre-Workshop Planning and Coordination
Even before the first session started, we had meetings and discussions to ensure that everything would run smoothly. Responsibilities were divided among team members.
We worked on:
Planning the schedule
Coordinating with speakers and faculty
Arranging the venue
Managing communication
Through this process, I understood how much teamwork and coordination are required to organize an academic event.
Preparing Food Passes and Participant Management
One of the important tasks was preparing food passes and managing participant entries. Though it may seem like a small responsibility, it required careful organization and accuracy.
We ensured:
Every participant received the correct pass
Lists were properly checked
Distribution was systematic
This taught me the importance of discipline, attention to detail, and responsibility — qualities that are equally important in academic writing.
Setting Up the Venue and Technical Arrangements
We were also involved in setting up the hall, arranging seating, checking microphones, projectors, and other technical equipment.
We made sure:
The space was organized and comfortable
Technical systems were functioning properly
Materials were ready before participants arrived
This experience helped me realize that academic events are not only intellectual spaces but also carefully managed environments.
Teamwork and Responsibility
There were many other small but significant tasks — guiding participants, managing registration desks, and ensuring everything stayed on schedule.
Working as a team taught me:
The value of cooperation
Time management
Leadership and accountability
The behind-the-scene work was not separate from the workshop learning; it was part of it. Preparing for the event made me more connected to it.
As someone who is currently writing research papers, I realized that academic work also requires preparation, organization, and patience — just like organizing a workshop.
Before learning about academic writing in theory, I experienced discipline and structure in practice. And that, in itself, was an important lesson.
📅 Day 1: A Full Day of Learning and Engagement
27/01/2026 | New Court Hall, Administrative Building, MKBU
The first official day of the Academic Writing Workshop was not only academically enriching but also thoughtfully organized. From registration to high tea, every part of the day contributed to my understanding of academic writing in different ways. As someone currently working on research papers, I experienced the sessions with deep personal relevance.
Registration and Breakfast (9:00 AM – 9:45 AM)
The day began with registration at the New Court Hall, Administrative Building of Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University. Participants gathered with enthusiasm and curiosity. As volunteers, we ensured that the registration process was smooth and organized.
Breakfast was arranged simultaneously, creating a welcoming and comfortable atmosphere. It allowed participants to interact informally before the academic sessions began. This beginning itself reflected discipline and planning — qualities that are equally essential in academic writing.
Inauguration (10:00 AM – 11:00 AM)
The inauguration formally marked the beginning of the workshop and emphasized the importance of academic writing in higher education and research. The tone was serious yet inspiring, and it made me realize that the sessions ahead would be deeply connected to my academic journey.
Session 1 : Academic Writing and Prompt Engineering
Speaker: Paresh Joshi Time: 11:00 AM – 1:00 PM
The first two academic sessions were conducted by Paresh Joshi on Academic Writing and Prompt Engineering. These sessions were highly relevant in today’s AI-driven academic environment and set the intellectual foundation for the workshop.
I also had the opportunity to do anchoring for this session. Standing on the stage and introducing the speaker was both exciting and nerve-racking. Anchoring required clarity, confidence, and structured communication. I realized that just like academic writing, speaking in a formal setting demands organized thoughts and precise delivery. This experience made me feel more connected to the workshop, as I was not only a learner but also an active contributor.
During the session, the speaker discussed the structure of academic writing, emphasizing the importance of a clear thesis, logical organization, and coherent arguments. He also addressed the growing role of AI and prompt engineering in research writing. It was explained how the quality of AI-generated responses depends largely on how effectively prompts are structured. However, equal importance was given to the ethical use of AI tools in academic contexts.
As someone who sometimes uses AI tools for assistance, I found this session very eye-opening. It helped me understand that while technology can support writing, it cannot replace critical thinking, originality, and human judgment.
Lunch Break (1:30 PM – 2:30 PM)
Venue Shift: Department of English, Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University
Lunch at the Department of English was not just a break but also a space for informal academic discussions. Conversations with peers and faculty members enriched the learning experience beyond the formal sessions.
Session 2 : Academic Writing in English for Advanced Learners
The post-lunch sessions were conducted by Kalyan Chattopadhyay on Academic Writing in English for Advanced Learners. These sessions focused more on language precision and stylistic refinement.
The discussion covered sentence clarity, paragraph development, maintaining academic tone, and common mistakes in scholarly writing. As an MA English student, this session directly connected with my daily academic work. I realized that even advanced learners must constantly refine their writing style and remain attentive to detail.I learned that precision in language strengthens arguments, simplicity enhances readability, and careful editing is essential for academic excellence.
Final Q&A and High Tea (4:45 PM – 5:15 PM)
The final Q&A session concluded the academic discussions of the day, followed by high tea. The atmosphere was reflective and satisfying, as participants exchanged thoughts about the sessions.The first day was intense yet deeply meaningful. From discussions on AI prompt engineering to advanced academic writing techniques, the sessions balanced modern tools with traditional writing discipline.As someone currently engaged in writing research papers, I felt that this day directly addressed my academic needs. It strengthened my understanding of structure, ethics, clarity, and responsibility in writing.
Day 2: Deepening Understanding and Exploring Publication
28/01/2026
The second day of the Academic Writing Workshop focused on refining advanced writing skills and understanding the process of publishing in indexed journals. Compared to Day 1, which built foundational clarity, Day 2 felt more practical and research-oriented — especially valuable for someone like me who is currently working on research papers.
Session 3 : Academic Writing in English for Advanced Learners
Speaker: Kalyan Chattopadhyay Time: 10:00 AM – 12:45 PM
The morning sessions were conducted by Kalyan Chattopadhyay, continuing the topic Academic Writing in English for Advanced Learners. These sessions moved beyond basic structure and focused more on refinement, depth, and academic maturity in writing.
The speaker discussed how advanced learners must pay attention to coherence, logical flow, and precision in language. He emphasized that academic writing should not only be grammatically correct but also intellectually sharp. We were guided on improving paragraph transitions, maintaining formal tone, and avoiding unnecessary repetition.
What struck me most was the idea that advanced academic writing requires continuous revision. Even experienced writers must revisit their drafts critically. As an MA English student, I realized that improvement in writing is an ongoing process, not a final achievement.
From these sessions, I understood that academic writing demands constant refinement. Precision in language reflects clarity of thought, and strong transitions improve the readability of arguments. I also realized that revision is not a weakness but a strength in scholarly writing.
The afternoon sessions were conducted by Clement Ndoricimpa on the topic Publishing in Indexed Journals. These sessions were extremely important for research scholars and postgraduate students.The speaker explained the process of selecting appropriate journals, understanding indexing, and preparing manuscripts according to journal guidelines. He also discussed peer review, acceptance and rejection processes, and common mistakes that lead to rejection.This session made me realize that writing a research paper is only half the journey; publishing it requires strategy, patience, and adherence to academic standards. The discussion on predatory journals was particularly eye-opening, as it highlighted the importance of checking journal credibility before submission.I learned that publishing in indexed journals requires careful journal selection, strict adherence to formatting guidelines, and academic integrity. Rejection is part of the research journey, and constructive feedback should be seen as an opportunity for improvement. Most importantly, quality research and ethical practice must always remain the priority.
Final Q&A and High Tea (4:45 PM – 5:15 PM)
The final Q&A session allowed participants to clarify doubts about journal indexing and publication ethics. The day concluded with high tea, giving everyone a chance to reflect on the insights gained.Day 2 felt especially significant for me because it connected academic writing directly with research publication. While the morning sessions refined my writing skills, the afternoon sessions expanded my understanding of the research ecosystem.As someone actively working on research papers, this day helped me see the bigger picture — writing is not only about expression but also about contribution to academic discourse.Day 2 strengthened my confidence as a developing researcher and made me more aware of the responsibilities that come with academic publishing.
📅 Day 3: Ethics, AI Awareness, and Research Responsibility
29/01/2026
The third day of the Academic Writing Workshop focused strongly on ethics, especially regarding the use of Artificial Intelligence in academic writing. Compared to the previous days, which emphasized structure and publication, Day 3 made me reflect deeply on responsibility and integrity as a researcher.
Session 5: Detecting AI Hallucination and Using AI with Integrity
Speaker: Nigam Dave Time: 10:00 AM – 12:45 PM
The morning sessions were conducted by Nigam Dave on the topic Detecting AI Hallucination and Using AI with Integrity. These sessions were extremely relevant in today’s academic landscape, where AI tools are widely used by students and researchers.
The speaker explained what AI hallucination means — when AI generates information that appears accurate but is actually incorrect or fabricated. This concept was particularly important because many users rely on AI without verifying sources. We were guided on how to critically evaluate AI-generated content, cross-check references, and maintain academic integrity while using digital tools.
What impacted me most was the emphasis on responsibility. The speaker clearly stated that AI is a tool, not an authority. The accountability of the content always lies with the writer. This made me reflect seriously on my own usage of AI while drafting research papers.
From these sessions, I learned that AI-generated content must always be verified before being used in academic writing. Blind trust in technology can harm credibility. Ethical use of AI means using it as assistance, not as a replacement for independent thinking. Integrity remains the foundation of scholarly work.
During the Q&A session, participants asked practical questions about how to detect fabricated citations and how to responsibly acknowledge AI assistance. The discussion was insightful and helped clarify many doubts regarding academic honesty in the digital age.
Lunch Break (1:15 PM – 2:15 PM)
Lunch provided a brief moment of relaxation before the afternoon sessions. Conversations during this break were more thoughtful, as many of us were reflecting on the ethical responsibilities discussed earlier.
The afternoon sessions were again conducted by Clement Ndoricimpa, continuing the discussion on Publishing in Indexed Journals. These sessions went deeper into the practical aspects of preparing manuscripts, responding to reviewers, and understanding editorial expectations.
The speaker discussed how to revise papers after peer review and how to professionally respond to reviewer comments. This part was extremely valuable because it addressed real challenges faced by researchers during publication.
I realized that research writing does not end with submission. It requires patience, openness to criticism, and willingness to improve. Publication is a process of dialogue between the writer, reviewers, and the academic community.
I learned that constructive criticism from reviewers strengthens research quality. Professional communication during revision is as important as writing the paper itself. Persistence and academic integrity are essential for successful publication.
The final Q&A session wrapped up the discussions of the day, followed by high tea. The atmosphere was reflective and intellectually stimulating. By the end of Day 3, I felt more aware, more responsible, and more prepared for the challenges of academic writing and publishing.Day 3 was perhaps the most ethically significant day of the workshop. It made me think deeply about the responsible use of AI and the seriousness of research publication. As someone currently working on research papers, this day strengthened my commitment to academic honesty and careful verification.It reminded me that writing is not only about producing content but about contributing truthfully and responsibly to the world of knowledge.
📅Day 4: From Classroom Learning to Academic Career Vision
30/01/2026
The fourth day of the Academic Writing Workshop was deeply inspiring because it shifted the focus from writing skills and publication processes to the broader journey of building an academic career. This day made me think not only about writing research papers but also about my long-term academic goals.
Session 7: From Classroom to an Academic Career
Speaker: Kalyani Vallath Time: 10:00 AM – 12:45 PM
The morning sessions were conducted by Kalyani Vallath on the topic From Classroom to an Academic Career. These sessions were highly motivating and practical.
The speaker discussed how academic growth begins in the classroom but extends far beyond it. She explained the importance of developing research interests early, building a strong academic profile, presenting papers at conferences, and publishing in credible journals. She also emphasized the role of consistency, networking, and mentorship in shaping an academic career.
One important point that stayed with me was that academic success is not sudden; it is built gradually through discipline and continuous effort. As someone currently writing research papers, this session encouraged me to see my present work as preparation for future academic opportunities.
I learned that academic writing is not just about completing assignments; it is a step toward building a scholarly identity. Planning, perseverance, and professional development are essential components of an academic career.
Session 8: From Classroom to an Academic Career
Speaker: Kalyani Vallath Time: 2:30 PM – 4:45 PM
The afternoon sessions continued with Kalyani Vallath, focusing more on practical steps toward establishing an academic identity. The discussion included building a strong CV, maintaining academic ethics, participating in research collaborations, and staying updated with current developments in one’s field.
The speaker also highlighted the importance of balancing teaching and research responsibilities. This made me realize that academic writing skills are not isolated abilities; they are central to teaching, publishing, and scholarly communication.
From these sessions, I understood that becoming an academic requires more than knowledge — it requires planning, resilience, and professional discipline. I realized that every research paper I write today contributes to shaping my academic future.
The final Q&A session clarified many doubts about career progression and research opportunities. The parallel lab session provided additional practical exposure, reinforcing the theoretical discussions of the day.The day concluded with high tea, giving everyone a chance to reflect on the inspiring discussions. There was a sense of motivation in the air, as many participants felt encouraged to take their academic aspirations more seriously. Day 4 was deeply motivational for me. It shifted my perspective from focusing only on writing techniques to understanding the larger academic journey. As an MA English student currently working on research papers, I felt inspired to think long-term about my goals.This day reminded me that academic writing is not just a skill — it is a foundation for building a meaningful academic career.
📅Day 5: Concluding with Vision and Academic Commitment
31/01/2026
The fifth and final day of the Academic Writing Workshop felt both reflective and inspiring. After four days of intensive learning about writing, AI ethics, publication, and career pathways, Day 5 brought everything together. It encouraged us to think seriously about how we want to shape our academic futures.
Session 9: From Classroom to an Academic Career
Speaker: Kalyani Vallath Time: 10:00 AM – 12:45 PM
The morning sessions were conducted by Kalyani Vallath, continuing the theme From Classroom to an Academic Career. These sessions focused more deeply on transforming academic preparation into professional identity.
The speaker discussed how young scholars should begin building their academic profiles early by engaging in research projects, attending conferences, and networking within their discipline. She emphasized that consistency, patience, and intellectual curiosity are key to sustaining a long-term academic career.
One important idea that stayed with me was that academic growth is gradual. It is shaped by daily reading, writing, revising, and learning from feedback. As someone currently writing research papers, I felt encouraged to see my present efforts as part of a larger academic journey.
I understood that academic writing is not limited to coursework; it is central to building credibility and scholarly presence. Long-term commitment and disciplined effort are essential for achieving academic goals.
Session 10 : From Classroom to an Academic Career
Speaker: Kalyani Vallath Time: 2:30 PM – 4:45 PM
The afternoon sessions continued with deeper insights into professional development. The speaker discussed maintaining academic integrity, managing time between teaching and research, and staying updated with current scholarship in one’s field.
She also highlighted the importance of resilience. Rejections, criticism, and challenges are part of academic life, but they should not discourage young scholars. Instead, they should motivate improvement and growth.
These discussions felt like guidance not only for research writing but for life as an academic. I realized that writing research papers is not just about publication; it is about contributing thoughtfully to knowledge.
I learned that resilience and ethical practice are as important as intellectual ability. Building an academic career requires both passion and perseverance. Every research paper, presentation, and academic interaction shapes one’s professional identity.
The final Q&A session marked the official conclusion of the workshop discussions. It was followed by high tea, where participants expressed gratitude and shared reflections. There was a sense of accomplishment and inspiration in the room.Day 5 brought the entire workshop to a meaningful conclusion. It encouraged me to think beyond assignments and focus on my long-term academic aspirations. As an MA English student currently engaged in research writing, I felt more confident and motivated.The workshop as a whole strengthened my writing skills, deepened my understanding of ethical research practices, and broadened my vision of an academic career.It was not just a workshop — it was a transformative academic journey.
Conclusion
The five-day Academic Writing Workshop was a deeply transformative experience for me, both academically and personally. Each day added a new dimension to my understanding of structured writing, ethical research practices, responsible use of AI, publication processes, and long-term academic planning. As someone currently working on research papers, I found myself constantly connecting the sessions to my own writing journey. The workshop not only improved my clarity, critical thinking, and revision skills, but also strengthened my sense of academic responsibility and integrity. From behind-the-scenes preparation to actively anchoring a session, my involvement made the experience even more meaningful. Overall, this workshop has reshaped the way I approach academic writing — not just as an assignment requirement, but as a disciplined, ethical, and lifelong scholarly practice.
