Castles and Coprolites

Or maybe it is, but it certainly isn’t what I thought it was, a year or so ago. There’s been a lot of attention lately on tools like ChatGPT and Copilot, systems that generate text, answer questions, and increasingly have found their way into academic life. These are examples of what are termed large language models (LLMs), and the term AI in everyday use is usually referring to these LLMs. But as I have come to realise, they represent just one branch of ‘artificial intelligence'. AI has long played a quieter role to help researchers make sense of the vast and complex datasets produced by advanced imaging techniques, environmental modelling, and material analysis.  Since joining Durham in April this year , and working to develop applications of XR-CT (X-ray computed tomography) for heritage science , I’ve become increasingly aware of just how crucial AI is for making sense of this kind of data. XR-CT lets us look inside objects such as pottery, bones, sediments, without breaking t...

Creating an inclusive research culture means thinking not just about what  we discuss, but how and  when  we come together to do it.  One of the challenges of academic life is deciding when  to hold research seminars. These are important events for sharing our ideas, and hearing from researchers based in other institutions. I've worked at lots of different universities which have all had different approaches to this, and it seems to be an area where there is a lot of discussion around what is the most equitable way to organise these. Many places now offer a Teams/remote option as standard, which is brilliant, but often it's not just about listening to the seminar itself, but the opportunity to meet the speaker, and have more in depth and informal discussions after the main event.  A key debate is whether these events should be scheduled at lunchtime, or at the end of the day, and if the latter, how late is too late? A lunchtime slot can feel efficient, but ...

This started as a brief post on an interesting experience, but as I started writing it turned out I had more to say than I thought! As someone with extensive experience in peer review and panel processes, I was really grateful that I recently had the opportunity to observe a Wellcome Trust Medical Humanities advisory group meeting. The experience stood out not only for the quality of the discussion but for the integrity and inclusivity of the process itself. The panel was well selected, with deep expertise across disciplines relevant to the proposals under discussion. What impressed me most was the respectful and rigorous way in which feedback was delivered. Criticisms were thoughtful, clearly grounded in the published assessment criteria, and presented in a way that acknowledged the strengths of each application. It was a model of constructive peer review. The diversity of the panel itself was incredibly refreshing. It included researchers from the global South, minority scholars, a...