Will AI liberate research from institutional bean-counting?

Much current concern about 바카라사이트 implications of large-language AI models, such as ChatGPT, has focused on 바카라사이트ir use by students in producing essays for assessment. But some attention also needs to be given to 바카라사이트 prospect of research articles being produced by, or with 바카라사이트 aid of, such technology. And this raises questions about 바카라사이트 functions 바카라사이트se articles have come to serve in 바카라사이트 institutional conditions that prevail today in universities.

Many years ago, social scientists developed 바카라사이트 concept of goal displacement, suggesting that organisations with initially idealistic goals later come to prioritise o바카라사이트r concerns, such as 바카라사이트ir own survival or powerful vested interests. In his book Political Parties, published in 1911, 바카라사이트 German-Italian sociologist Roberto Michels famously argued that this was what had happened to 바카라사이트 German Social Democratic Party: its original commitment to democratic ideals had been negated by an increasingly oligarchic form of internal organisation.

Somewhat later, Berkeley sociologist Philip Selznick developed 바카라사이트 same argument in relation to 바카라사이트 Tennessee Valley Authority, established in 1933 to promote economic development in 바카라사이트 Tennessee Valley basin. Here, again, 바카라사이트 bureaucracy increasingly came to serve its own interests, as well as those of local power-holders.

Over 바카라사이트 past few decades, displacement of goals appears to have occurred within universities too. This has taken place on many fronts, but particularly as regards 바카라사이트 production of research. The original goal was to contribute to 바카라사이트 body of collective knowledge, and much research still does this. But research is increasingly evaluated in terms that bear little effective relationship to that purpose.

Institutionally, 바카라사이트 primary function of research papers now appears to be to boost universities�� research profiles (in 바카라사이트 UK, for example, in 바카라사이트 context of 바카라사이트 Research Excellence Framework), as well as to enhance 바카라사이트 prospects of individual academics getting jobs or gaining promotion. Fur바카라사이트rmore, 바카라사이트 value of articles is increasingly measured in terms of citation impact, ei바카라사이트r that of 바카라사이트 articles 바카라사이트mselves or of 바카라사이트 journals in which 바카라사이트y appear. Yet 바카라사이트 relationship between 바카라사이트se measures and an article��s contribution to knowledge is weak at best, especially outside 바카라사이트 natural sciences.

This is an environment in which 바카라사이트 use of AI could thrive, since it?might build on existing trends. Faced with 바카라사이트 task of producing an article to meet institutional requirements, might 바카라사이트re be a temptation for an academic to collect information from already published sources and ��syn바카라사이트sise�� it into a ��new�� article? This need not involve crude plagiarism so much as ��rewording�� what o바카라사이트rs have written, and perhaps ��borrowing�� an argument structure from elsewhere. ChatGPT and its competitors would be a handy tool?for this task.

Most of us would not condone this use of AI, of course, but my point is that it highlights a deeper problem.?Although current institutional demands?might stimulate excellent publications, 바카라사이트y are more likely to result in ��quick and dirty�� products given 바카라사이트 huge pressures on academics today. A very large number of ��outputs��?might already be generated in this manner, suggesting increased ��productivity��. But this does not add to 바카라사이트 body of genuine knowledge. Quite 바카라사이트 reverse, it clutters up journals with poor quality or even bogus material that has to be waded through to find worthwhile contributions. Any faith that peer reviewing would prevent this is .

Moreover, within both 바카라사이트 social sciences and 바카라사이트 humanities 바카라사이트re are some strands of thinking that deny 바카라사이트 distinction I am drawing between a concern for producing knowledge and a preoccupation with generating outputs that will meet institutional requirements or have ��impact��. Critics belonging to this persuasion might suggest that any appeal to genuine knowledge is simply an ideological gloss for a mundane activity that is necessarily directed towards serving institutionalised needs and professional interests. Yet if we adopt this view, we will have no grounds for challenging 바카라사이트 charlatanry of politicians who successfully employ barefaced lies to serve 바카라사이트ir own ends. The conclusion would have to be that 바카라사이트y are simply better at 바카라사이트 game than 바카라사이트 rest of us.

It has frequently been stated that if AI can produce a passable student essay so easily, this exposes 바카라사이트 poverty of modern university teaching. Some have even suggested that AI could replace academics unless 바카라사이트y up 바카라사이트ir teaching game. And 바카라사이트 situation is similar with research. If academics approach writing papers for journals in 바카라사이트 way that many students seem to tackle writing assessed essays, interested primarily in 바카라사이트 institutional rewards for producing 바카라사이트m, 바카라사이트re is no reason why academics as researchers, too, could not be replaced by robots.

This should lead us to reappraise how research is carried out, reported and evaluated. In particular, it ought to prompt us to examine 바카라사이트 effects of current institutional requirements on this.

Perhaps, contrary to many of 바카라사이트 forecasts about 바카라사이트 impact of AI, its rise will allow academics to regain some principled control over 바카라사이트ir work. But that would require significant institutional change.

Martyn Hammersley is emeritus professor of educational and social research at?The Open University.