Academic Coaching Field Notes
The Inside Track is where I share what I'm noticing in my work with academics — the problems that keep appearing, the patterns behind them, and what I think they tell us about writing and academic careers.
Field note 001: AI anxiety is real…and fictional
This week I’ve spent some time with clients across various programmes thinking together about the impact of AI and academic writing, and by that I mean their academic writing. When academics come at this topic, they generally do so from a student perspective - how everyone is using it, and how bad the work is produced by the students who use it. How pervasive it is and how Universities absolutely suck at responding to this - what feels like - an existential threat.
But then when it comes to using AI themselves for research and writing…the tide somewhat shifts. Smart people can sometimes think that smart use will overcome limitations they see in student work. Academics start to ponder if thinking could be easier. Should I be doing it? What are others doing? Am I behind? Are other people writing more because they are using it? (the question should be are other people successfully publishing more using AI, to which the answer is NO). Somehow when the question of AI is raised in relation to academic scholarship, critical thinking departs and the urge for easy answers and quick solutions abound.
There are lots of things I would use AI for in academia, and most of them come under the banner or task management, emails, and admin, planning and other related tasks. Yes, including drafting various internal reports and applications for things, at least as a first draft. Because these things are mundane and do ot deserve the time or energy you are giving them.
But when it comes to rigorous, intellectual, complex research and thinking, AI is your enemy. It’s very plausibility is seductive, but not actually….accurate. It is not a great brainstorming partner - and using it as such lulls you into a feeling that you are thinking when you are actually abdicating the thinking. It is weakening you as an academic and robbing you of skills you really need.
Let the anxiety about AI writing your papers drift by. Some stats for you:
In the 2026 Organization Science study using the journal's complete editorial dataset: 6,957 initial submissions from January 2021–February 2026, i.e. pre-ChatGPT data, post-ChatGPT data, AI-use estimates, and actual editorial outcomes.
Since ChatGPT's launch in November 2022:
submission volume increased 42%; (but noone admits using AI 😂)
writing quality of submissions declined substantially;
the authors attribute nearly all of those trends to manuscripts classified as heavily AI-generated;
papers estimated at 70%+ AI had a 69.6% desk-rejection rate
only 3.2% of the 70%+ with AI use received an R&R
importantly, AI score remained strongly associated with desk rejection even after controlling for measured writing quality
In summation, you still need the skills. You cannot outsource the thinking or even the drafting because AI drifts into banality and inaccuracy. It sounds plausible but is easily knocked over. Skills still matter. Judgment matters and writing for journals is one judgment call after another. That is the skill that you cannot outsource.
If you are interested in my longer thoughts on this you can read them here:
Field note 002: Challenges in book Writing
This week was a monograph live calls week so book writing has been very much on my mind. And I want to share two insights and experiences around book writing, one from clients and one from my own 😄.
Many clients are in one of two scenarios: the first book, generally a PhD -> book scenario, or the second book where you are starting from scratch. A PhD -> brings its own unique sub set of challenges bound up with with the psychological baggage around the PhD itself; the second book is really the first book you do without any prior research or backup and this brings problems of confidence in drawing boundaries around scope and scale, and of decision making more generally.
Regardless of the scenario, book writing brings unique challenges to academics, but mainly we can say these are related to scope (size) and length of time required to execute. Technique in writing (not sentence structure) is the what we emphasise in coaching, alongside developing the fundamental skills of deciding what is in and out and why. Of course lack of accountability is a massive factor that hinders book writers (which is why we have coaching calls), but it is the time scale that exacerbates this: much academic research work comes with little real accountability.
So this week in coaching we spent time on these classic questions - what should be in here, when should I stop working on X and move on, and so on. These are those incredibly important fracture points: does your project move or stall, does it takes 10 years or 1. These are the points when coaching really matters, beyond learning the technique of the writing habit, the structure, the ideation and all the things clients learn through the curriculum itself.
As for myself…
I wrote my own book during the monograph programme and shared data with my clients about how long it took me in hours, and what that process looked like - from ideation to editing, to writing. Because my book is my business, I wanted to self publish so I could keep my copyright and that has been QUITE THE JOURNEY! I have not especially enjoyed it since every single boring question has come down to me, and as an academic publishing books traditionally, all that work has been done by someone else. I don’t enjoy this bit and never did. The words ‘time for proofs’ filled me with absolute dread.
Anyway…what I have re-learned is something I always knew. The longer a project drags on the less interested I am in it…and now, I have no interest in my own book because the post production has dragged on forever!
This is a lesson for all book writers - a longer project does not mean a better quality project, it means decision making stalled, and then motivation slipped. Mercifully my book was written and proofed before I fell out with it, but many academic book writers enter this phase before it is finished.