This was such a kind review from Tom Redshaw. I feel a bit conflicted about this book a year on but Tom’s review reminds me of exactly what I was trying to do:
This is most evident in the final chapter, where Carrigan considers the consequences of widespread adoption in teaching and research. He paints a dystopian picture of where academia may be heading, speculating about a ‘coming crisis of scholarly publishing’ (p. 152) as generative AI accelerates output. He warns of a proliferation of low-value work, including ‘spam books’ and ‘spam articles’, as well as the growth of ‘salami-slicing’, where a single study is fragmented into multiple publications. He also highlights the risk of automating editorial processes, further diluting scholarly standards.
Yet Carrigan insists this future is not inevitable. If academics engage with generative AI critically and reflexively, they can help shape more meaningful norms around its use. He concedes that scholars are not the sole drivers of AI integration, given the broader socio-economic forces pushing adoption. But ‘it is within this ambiguous terrain that the norms developed by academics themselves, independently of university rule and policymaking, become particularly important’ (p. 162).
For sociologists, the interlocutor framing resonates with a long tradition of showing how technologies are socially shaped (MacKenzie and Wajcman, 1999). But the book’s appeal extends well beyond sociology. By reframing generative AI as a dialogue partner and urging scholars to share their reflective practices, Carrigan offers academics across disciplines a way to navigate the uncertainty of higher education today.
This was the point of Social Media for Academics as well really: sociotechnical change provides occasions for scholarly reflexivity. Indeed it necessitates it almost by definition. This isn’t sufficient to solve the ensuing challenges (to put it mildly) but I continue to believe it’s a necessary condition for dealing with them within the sector.
Mark Carrigan 