Learning Journey at the National Academic Writing Workshop
A Five-Day Experience | 27 January – 1 February 2026
Department of English, Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University (MKBU)
Introduction
This blog is part of an assignment given by Dr. Dilip Barad, Assistant Professor, Department of English, Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University (MKBU), Bhavnagar. The task is based on sessions of the National Workshop on Academic Writing, which was organised by the Department of English, MKBU, in collaboration with the Knowledge Consortium of Gujarat (KCG), Ahmedabad, and to write a blog sharing personal learning from each session.
The workshop took place from 27th January 2026 to 1st February 2026. It was a six-day programme with some of the most experienced and knowledgeable resource persons from across the country. The sessions covered a wide range of topics starting from the very basics of what academic writing is and how it works, going all the way to publishing in international journals, writing research proposals, using AI tools responsibly, and creating digital content for students.
This blog goes through each day, each session, and each resource person sharing what was taught, what was understood, and what will stay for a long time.
About the Workshop
Before going into the sessions day by day, it is important to understand what this workshop was about and why it was organised.
The National Workshop on Academic Writing was not a regular classroom lecture series. It was a carefully planned, intensive programme that brought together scholars, teachers, research students, and professionals from different universities and institutions. The goal was very clear to help people improve the way they write in academic settings.
Academic writing is something that every student and researcher has to do, but very few people are ever properly taught how to do it well. Most students learn by trial and error submitting assignments, getting feedback, and slowly improving over years. This workshop was an attempt to speed up that process by bringing in expert teachers who could explain the principles, the methods, and the practical techniques of good academic writing in a structured way.
The workshop was organised with the support of the Knowledge Consortium of Gujarat (KCG), Ahmedabad, under their scheme for the Promotion of Research in State Universities. This tells something important about the spirit of the workshop it was not just for one university. It was meant to support the broader academic community.
Day 1 27 January 2026 (Tuesday)
Setting the Stage: What is Academic Writing and Why Does It Matter?
Inauguration Ceremony
The workshop began on the morning of 27th January 2026 with the Inauguration Ceremony. It was a formal and respectful beginning, with faculty members, resource persons, and participants all gathered together.
What stood out in the inauguration was not just the formality of the opening but the ideas that were shared right from the start. One message from the inauguration was very powerful and stayed throughout the entire workshop:
"It is important to control AI before AI controls us."
This was said at the very beginning, and it immediately set a serious and thoughtful tone for the days that followed. In today's world, AI tools are everywhere they write, they generate content, they answer questions. But the inauguration reminded everyone that these tools must be used with responsibility, not without thinking.
Another important point raised during the inauguration was about India's pos ition in global research. India is actually among the top countries in terms of the number of research papers published every year. But when it comes to the quality of research how many of those papers are cited by other scholars, how many lead to patents or real-world applications there is still a big gap. This honest observation made the purpose of the workshop very clear: it is not enough to produce research. The research must be well-written, well-argued, and genuinely useful.
The Vice Chancellor and other dignitaries who spoke during the inauguration all shared one common message: AI can support academic work, but human intelligence, human judgment, and human ethics must always be in charge. Writing and thinking are fundamentally human responsibilities.
Session 1 Prof. (Dr.) Paresh Joshi
"Developing Academic Writing"
Resource Person: Prof. (Dr.) Paresh Joshi | Day 1, 27 January 2026
The first proper teaching session of the workshop was by Prof. (Dr.) Paresh Joshi. His session was titled "Developing Academic Writing" and it was the perfect starting point for the whole workshop.
Prof. Joshi began by doing something very important he explained what academic writing actually is. Most students think they already know this. But the truth is, very few people have ever been told clearly and simply what makes writing "academic." Prof. Joshi made it very clear.
Academic writing is the language of research. It is the way researchers communicate their ideas, findings, and arguments to each other and to the world. It is completely different from creative writing, where personal imagination and feelings are important. It is also different from casual writing, like messages or social media posts. Academic writing has one central quality: it must be factual, objective, and evidence-based. Every statement must be supported. Every claim must be precise.
He then explained the research communication process in a very clear four-step model:
Listen (Research) → Report (Summarize and Synthesize) → Respond (Analyze and Evaluate) → Argue (Present the Research Claim)
This four-step process shows the full journey of a researcher. First, you study and understand what already exists on a topic. Then, you bring together and summarize what has been said. Then, you respond to that body of work by analyzing it and evaluating its strengths and weaknesses. Finally, you make your own argument your own original contribution to the conversation.
Prof. Joshi also explained the stages that every piece of writing must go through:
Plan → Draft → Edit → Revise → Proofread → Submit → Receive Feedback
This was a very useful reminder that writing is not a one-step activity. The first draft is never the final product. Editing, revising, and proofreading are where the real quality of academic writing is built. Many students stop at the first draft, which is exactly why their writing feels incomplete.
He also discussed the key differences between good and poor academic writing:
Good academic writing is formal it avoids slang and casual language
Good academic writing is clear it does not try to impress with big words; it tries to communicate
Good academic writing is concise it says what it needs to say without wasting words
Good academic writing has logical flow every paragraph moves the argument forward
Good academic writing uses proper hedging it is careful about how strong its claims are, using phrases like "this suggests" rather than "this proves"
The single most important idea from Prof. Joshi's session: "Academic writing values precision and reasoning over decorative language."
Just because a sentence sounds beautiful does not mean it is academically strong. What matters is logic, evidence, and structure. Paresh Joshi's video recording:
Session 2 Dr. Kalyan Chattopadhyay (Part 1)
"Foundations of Academic Writing"
Resource Person: Dr. Kalyan Chattopadhyay | Day 1, 27 January 2026
The second session of Day 1 was conducted by Dr. Kalyan Chattopadhyay. His session went deeper into the structure of academic writing and gave a very solid, systematic foundation for everything that followed in the next few days.
Dr. Chattopadhyay started with an idea that sounds simple but is actually very profound: writing is cultural. The way we express ideas, the way we structure arguments, the way we address a reader all of this is shaped by the culture, language, and education system we grew up in. But when it comes to academic writing, there are universal standards that go beyond any one culture. Academic writing must be structured, purposeful, and responsible no matter what language it is written in or where the writer is from.
He then explained what he called the four pillars of academic writing:
Pillar 1 Formality: Academic writing is always formal in tone. It focuses on argument and evidence. Personal feelings, casual opinions, and informal language have no place in it. The voice is professional, measured, and serious.
Pillar 2 Objectivity: Arguments in academic writing must be supported by evidence and logical reasoning. Personal bias must be reduced as much as possible. Where a bias or limitation exists, the writer must acknowledge it honestly rather than pretend it does not exist.
Pillar 3 Clarity: Every paragraph must be clear in its purpose and structure. Dr. Chattopadhyay introduced a very useful paragraph structure that can be applied to almost any academic paragraph: Topic Sentence → Evidence → Analysis → Link. The topic sentence tells the reader what the paragraph is about. The evidence provides support for the point. The analysis explains what the evidence means. The link connects the paragraph to the next one or to the overall argument of the paper.
Pillar 4 Precision: The vocabulary, data, and references used in academic writing must be accurate and specific. Vague statements are not acceptable. If a claim is made, it must be as precise and verifiable as possible.
One of the most practical techniques Dr. Chattopadhyay introduced was the Card Clustering Method for organising a literature review. The method is simple and very effective. When reading and collecting sources for a research paper, write the key idea from each source on a separate card. Then, group the cards by theme put all the cards that deal with the same issue together in one group. This helps the researcher see the major themes running through the existing literature, and makes the literature review much easier to write in a thematic, organised way.
He also outlined three stages of research writing:
Stage 1 Pre-Writing: Brainstorm, do the research, and create a clear outline before writing a single sentence.
Stage 2 Writing: Use the PIE Method Point, Illustration, Explanation. Make the point first. Then illustrate it with evidence. Then explain what the evidence means and how it supports the point.
Stage 3 Revision: Go back after the first draft and check the logic. One useful technique is the Reverse Outline read each paragraph after writing and write down in one sentence what it is actually saying. Then compare that to what it was supposed to say. If there is a mismatch, revise the paragraph. Reading the draft aloud is also a very good way to catch problems in flow and logic. Part: 1 Kalyan Chattopadhyay video recording
Day 2: 28 January 2026 (Wednesday)
Going Deeper: Literature Reviews and Writing for International Journals
Session 3 Dr. Kalyan Chattopadhyay (Part 2)
"The Literature Review: Mapping the Field"
Resource Person: Dr. Kalyan Chattopadhyay | Day 2, 28 January 2026
The second session of Dr. Kalyan Chattopadhyay, on the morning of Day 2, focused on one of the most misunderstood parts of any research paper: the Literature Review.
Most students treat the literature review as a summary a place to list what other people have written about a topic, one after another. Dr. Chattopadhyay corrected this misunderstanding directly and clearly.
A literature review is not a list of summaries. It is a map of the academic territory that the researcher is entering. Think of it this way. Before going into any new field of knowledge, a researcher needs to understand what is already known, what is still being debated, what questions have not been answered yet, and where the gaps in knowledge exist. The literature review is the place in the paper where all of this is shown.
A strong literature review does several important things at the same time. It shows that the researcher has read widely and seriously in their field. It identifies the major conversations and debates that have shaped the field. It shows where the current research fits into those conversations specifically, it argues that there is a gap or an unanswered question that the current paper is going to address.
Dr. Chattopadhyay used actual examples from published journal articles to show the difference between a weak and a strong literature review. A weak literature review looks like this: "Scholar A says this. Scholar B says that. Scholar C says something else. Therefore, this paper will argue something new." This is just a list. It shows no real understanding of how ideas relate to each other.
A strong literature review, by contrast, tells a story. It shows how thinking about a topic has developed over time. It shows where scholars agree and where they disagree. It shows what questions remain open. And it places the current research as a natural, necessary next step in that ongoing conversation.
He also made a very important distinction between summarising and synthesising. Summarising means saying what each individual source says. Synthesising means bringing multiple sources together and showing what they collectively tell us where they converge, where they conflict, and what they leave unanswered. Academic writing requires synthesis, not just summary. This is a skill that takes practice, but the Card Clustering Method from the previous session is a direct and practical way to begin developing it. Dr. Kalyan Chattopadhyay Video recording
Session 4 Dr. Clement Ndoricimpa (Part 1)
"Writing for Scopus and Web of Science Journals"
Resource Person: Dr. Clement Ndoricimpa | Day 2, 28 January 2026
Dr. Clement Ndoricimpa is a scholar from Burundi, and his presence in the workshop brought a genuinely international perspective. His first session was about one of the most important practical concerns for any researcher today how to write research papers for indexed journals, specifically Scopus and Web of Science.
He opened the session with a point that is often overlooked by students: publishing is not just about making an academic contribution. It is also about professional recognition and visibility. In the academic world today, a researcher's publication record matters enormously for getting jobs, for career advancement, for receiving research funding, and for being recognised in the field. Writing a good paper and never publishing it is like having a great idea and keeping it completely to yourself.
Dr. Ndoricimpa explained the standard structure used in most research papers in science and social science disciplines: IMRD Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. Even in humanities research, where the structure is often more flexible, understanding IMRD helps a researcher think about their paper more systematically. The Introduction sets up the problem and the context. The Methods explain how the research was done. The Results present the findings. The Discussion interprets the findings and connects them back to the wider field.
One of the most important concepts from this session was the idea of finding a research niche. A research niche is a specific gap in the existing literature a question no one has answered, a method no one has applied to this topic, a perspective no one has brought. This is what makes a paper publishable. Journal editors and peer reviewers are always looking for originality. A paper that simply repeats what is already known will be rejected.
The session also included a hands-on activity. Participants were asked to draft an introduction for a research paper. After drafting, each participant received individual feedback on: citation practices, title design, academic vocabulary, and language accuracy. This practical exercise was extremely useful because it showed, in very concrete terms, the real difference between a rough draft and a polished academic text.
Day 3 29 January 2026 (Thursday)
AI, Integrity, and the Responsibilities of a Researcher
Session 5 Prof. (Dr.) Nigam Dave
"Detecting AI Hallucination and Using AI with Integrity"
Resource Person: Prof. (Dr.) Nigam Dave | Day 3, 29 January 2026
Day 3 had the session that felt the most relevant and urgent for anyone living and working in 2026. Prof. (Dr.) Nigam Dave conducted a session on a topic that every single person who uses AI tools needs to understand: what AI hallucination is, and how to use AI responsibly in academic writing.
Prof. Dave began by giving a clear definition of AI hallucination. AI hallucination happens when an AI tool gives information that is completely wrong but presents it with total confidence, as though it is absolutely true. This is not the AI deliberately lying. AI language tools work by predicting what text should come next, based on patterns in the enormous amount of data they were trained on. They are very good at producing text that sounds correct and authoritative. But they have no actual understanding of whether what they are saying is factually true. They produce statistically probable language not verified truth.
He gave very specific and concrete examples of how AI hallucination appears in academic work:
Fake Citations: AI tools frequently generate references to academic papers that do not exist. The author's name sounds real. The journal title sounds real. The volume, year, and page numbers look real. But the paper itself was never written and never published. Any researcher who submits a paper with such citations is submitting fabricated references a serious form of academic dishonesty.
Made-up Statistics: AI can produce numerical data that looks exactly like real research findings, with percentages and figures but there is no actual study behind these numbers.
Wrong Interpretations: AI can produce explanations of theoretical frameworks or literary texts that sound academically credible but are subtly or seriously incorrect in their content.
The most powerful phrase from this session was:
"It is not enough that AI has said so."
This is a reminder that in academic writing, the source of every claim matters. If the source is an AI tool, that is not a valid academic source. The AI-generated content must be traced back to a real, verifiable, original source before it can be used in any academic paper.
Importantly, Prof. Dave was not saying that AI tools should not be used at all. The message was much more balanced and practical than that. AI can genuinely help researchers when used the right way. It can help brainstorm ideas for a paper. It can suggest different ways of framing an argument. It can help check grammar and structure. It can help a writer get unstuck when they do not know how to start. All of these are legitimate and even helpful uses of AI. The ethical problem comes only when AI output is submitted as the writer's own original thinking without verification, or when AI completely replaces critical thinking instead of just supporting it.
His practical advice for working with AI responsibly:
Always search for and verify every citation that AI provides, independently, before using it
Cross-check any statistics from AI against the original study or dataset
Be especially careful when dealing with abstract theoretical concepts these are the areas where AI errors are hardest to spot
Use AI for the process of writing for brainstorming, outlining, drafting but make sure the final product reflects the writer's own understanding.
I was also there for vote of thanks to sir.
Prof. Nigam Dave video recording
Session 6 Dr. Clement Ndoricimpa (Part 2)
"Academic Integrity: Plagiarism, Paraphrasing, and Referencing"
Resource Person: Dr. Clement Ndoricimpa | Day 3, 29 January 2026
In his second session, Dr. Ndoricimpa focused on academic integrity a topic that connects very naturally with what Prof. Dave had said about AI. His session covered plagiarism, the difference between paraphrasing and summarising, and why proper referencing is a sign of intellectual honesty rather than just a formal requirement.
He explained that plagiarism is not just one single, simple act. It comes in many forms, and students often fall into some of them without even realising it:
Direct Copying: Taking someone else's exact words without putting them in quotation marks and without citing the source. This is the most obvious form and most people know it is wrong.
Paraphrasing Without Attribution: Taking someone else's idea and rewriting it in different words, but not crediting the original author. Even if every single word is different, the idea still belongs to the original author. Not citing them is still plagiarism.
Mosaic Plagiarism: Taking phrases and sentences from multiple sources and weaving them together into new text, without citing where each part came from. The result looks original on the surface, but the ideas and expressions are borrowed.
Self-Plagiarism: Submitting a piece of work that has already been submitted elsewhere, without disclosing this. This is increasingly recognised as a serious form of academic misconduct.
He also made a very clear distinction that many students find confusing the difference between paraphrasing and summarising:
Paraphrasing means rewriting a specific passage or idea from a source completely in your own words, while keeping the meaning the same. A paraphrase is usually roughly the same length as the original text.
Summarising means condensing the main points of a longer piece of writing into a much shorter version in your own words. A summary is always significantly shorter than the original.
Both of these require proper attribution. The idea still belongs to the original author, even if the words are completely different.
The final message of this session was one of the most meaningful of the entire workshop: referencing is not just a formal academic rule. It is a genuine sign of intellectual honesty. When a researcher cites their sources, they are acknowledging the work that came before them, giving credit where it is due, and allowing the reader to trace the chain of knowledge back to its original source. This is one of the things that separates serious academic writing from casual writing. Days 4 and 5 30 and 31 January 2026 (Friday and Saturday)
From Writing to Career: The Full Picture of Academic Life
Session 7 Dr. Kalyani Vallath (Part 1)
"Writing a Research Proposal"
Resource Person: Dr. Kalyani Vallath | Day 4, 30 January 2026
These two days belonged entirely to Dr. Kalyani Vallath, and they were the most practically useful sessions of the entire six-day workshop. Dr. Vallath conducted four sessions across two days, each covering a different but connected aspect of academic writing for career development in English Studies.
Her first session was on how to write a Research Proposal. A research proposal is a document that a researcher submits to a funding body, a doctoral admissions committee, or a university to argue that their proposed research is worth doing and worth supporting. It sounds simple, but writing a good research proposal is one of the most challenging writing tasks in academia.
Dr. Vallath explained the key components of a strong research proposal:
The Problem Statement: What specific problem or question will the research address? This must be stated clearly and precisely. One of the most common reasons research proposals are rejected is that the problem statement is vague or too broad.
The Significance: Why does this problem matter? Who benefits from having this question answered? Funding bodies and admission committees need to believe that the research has real value not just for the individual researcher, but for the field and ideally for a wider audience.
The Literature Review: Even a proposal needs a brief but sharp literature review. It shows that the researcher understands the existing work in the field and can clearly identify the gap that their research will fill.
The Methodology: How will the research be done? What will be studied, how will data be collected, and how will it be analysed? This section needs to be specific and realistic it must show that the research is actually feasible within the proposed time and resources.
The Timeline: Most proposals need a realistic plan showing how the research will be completed step by step within a certain period.
She showed examples of both strong and weak research proposals, and the difference was immediately visible. A strong proposal is specific, logical, and honest about its own limitations. A weak proposal is vague, over-ambitious, and reads as if it has not been seriously planned.
One piece of advice that stood out from this session: the title of a research proposal matters enormously. A good title is specific and descriptive it tells the reader exactly what the research is about. A title that is too general or too vague does not create the right impression. Part:1 Kalyani Vallath video
Session 8 Dr. Kalyani Vallath (Part 2)
"Writing Journal Articles, Abstracts, and Navigating Peer Review"
Resource Person: Dr. Kalyani Vallath | Day 4, 30 January 2026
The second session by Dr. Vallath focused on the full process of taking a research paper from the first draft all the way through to publication in a journal.
She began with abstract writing because she said it is both one of the most important and one of the most underestimated skills in academic writing. An abstract is the first thing a journal editor reads. In roughly 150 to 250 words, it must tell the reader everything essential about the paper what the topic is, what problem it addresses, what method was used, what the main findings are, and what the contribution to the field is. A good abstract is not just a brief introduction to the paper. It is a complete, standalone miniature version of the entire paper, compressed into a single paragraph. Writing a tight and informative abstract takes real practice and skill.
She then talked about choosing the right journal. Submitting a paper to the wrong journal is one of the most common and most preventable causes of rejection. Every journal has an "Aims and Scope" section on its website that explains exactly what kind of research it publishes. Checking this carefully before submitting can save a lot of time and disappointment.
Then came the topic that early-career researchers always dread: peer review and rejection. Dr. Vallath was refreshingly honest about this. Almost every published academic has had papers rejected. Rejection is a normal part of the academic publishing process, not an exception. A rejection does not mean the research is bad. It often means the paper did not fit the journal, or the argument needed more development, or the methodology needed clarification.
She gave one piece of advice on this that was particularly valuable: never throw away a rejection letter. Read the reviewer comments carefully. These are expert opinions from people who read the paper seriously. Their criticisms, even if they are hard to read, are a precise roadmap for improvement. Revise the paper based on those comments, and then resubmit either to the same journal if invited, or to a different one. Part:2 Kalyani Vallath video
Session 9 Dr. Kalyani Vallath (Part 3)
"Writing Academic CVs, Cover Letters, and Conference Abstracts"
Resource Person: Dr. Kalyani Vallath | Day 5, 31 January 2026
The third session by Dr. Vallath moved away from paper-writing and into career writing more broadly. She covered three types of documents that every student in English Studies will eventually need: the Academic CV, the Cover Letter for Academic Positions, and the Conference Abstract.
On the Academic CV, she explained that it is very different from a regular professional resume. A resume is short usually one or two pages and focuses on skills and job experience. An academic CV can be much longer, and it grows throughout a researcher's career. It includes academic qualifications, publications, conference presentations, teaching experience, research projects, fellowships, awards, and any other academic achievements. The important advice here: start building an academic CV early. Even as a student, there are things to include workshops attended, papers presented, articles written, skills acquired.
On Cover Letters for Academic Jobs, she was very clear that a cover letter is not just a polite formality. It is a chance to tell a story about who the researcher is, what their work is about, and why they are genuinely the right person for this specific position. A cover letter that simply repeats what is already in the CV is a wasted opportunity. It should show real engagement with the institution and the position being applied for.
On Conference Abstracts, she explained that these are short proposals typically 250 to 300 words submitted to academic conferences to argue that a particular paper or presentation should be accepted. A good conference abstract, like a journal abstract, must be specific, clear, and compelling enough to make the reviewer want to hear more. Part 3: Kalyani Vallath video
Session 10 Dr. Kalyani Vallath (Part 4)
"Grant Applications and Building a Daily Writing Practice"
Resource Person: Dr. Kalyani Vallath | Day 5, 31 January 2026
The fourth and final session by Dr. Vallath covered grant applications and the bigger question of how to build a writing practice that lasts across an entire academic career.
On grant applications, she explained that writing a grant application requires a very specific skill: persuading a funding body that a research project deserves financial support. Unlike a journal article, which speaks to fellow experts in the same field, a grant application often speaks to a committee that includes people from different backgrounds. So the writing must be both accessible to a non-specialist and rigorous enough to satisfy an expert. The key sections of most grant applications, the project title, abstract, project description, methodology, expected outcomes, timeline, and budget justification each require a different kind of writing, and she gave practical guidance on each.
On building a daily writing habit, she gave one piece of advice that sounds deceptively simple:
"Write something every single day, even if it is just one paragraph."
Writing is a muscle. If it is not used regularly, it weakens. The most productive academic writers are not necessarily the most talented. They are the most consistent. Even one paragraph a day, over a year, adds up to more than three hundred paragraphs which is enough for several research papers or a large portion of a thesis. She also emphasised that reading widely not just within a narrow research area, but across fields and genres is what feeds good writing. Good writers are always deep readers. part: 4 Kalyani Vallath video
Personal Reflection
Six days. Eleven sessions. Five remarkable resource persons. And one workshop that genuinely changed the way academic writing is understood and approached.
Before this workshop, academic writing felt like something one had to do a formal requirement, a hurdle to get past. After going through all these sessions, it feels like something completely different: a skill that can be learned, practised, and steadily improved. Every single resource person in this workshop was proof of that. They had all developed their mastery through years of reading, writing, revising, and learning from feedback.
The most lasting change is in how AI tools are now used. Thanks to Prof. Nigam Dave's session, no AI-generated citation is used without verifying it independently first. No AI-generated statistic is trusted without being traced to an original source. This habit small as it sounds is actually a fundamental shift in how to approach information responsibly.
Dr. Kalyan Chattopadhyay's sessions gave a clear and usable mental framework for writing. The four pillars, the PIE method, the Reverse Outline these are not abstract ideas. They are practical tools that can be applied to any paragraph, any paper, any writing task.
Dr. Kalyani Vallath's four sessions gave something that regular coursework rarely gives: a real picture of what academic life actually looks like from the inside. The proposal writing, the peer review process, the rejection and revision cycle, the daily writing habit all of this made the academic world feel less mysterious and more navigable.+
This workshop was a genuine learning experience. And this blog is an honest attempt to carry that learning forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment