https://experimentalhistory.substack.com/p/things-could-be-better
thumbs its nose at the academic #IMRAD paper, reporting a finding,
robust over various conditions, that people when asked how something could be different always say how it could be
better.

What would have happened if people were asked how a narrow escape from a bad situation, like #Jan6, could have turned out differently?

People might say, Trump could have served an extra term.

Which would be bad (or good).

I also wonder to what extent #PhDs may be required to be more creative, multimodal, trans/multilingual, unique and less standardised in terms of #IMRAD and other default conventional structures and linguistic forms.

Somewhere, I read a reflective piece on how #GPT is simply reiterating & perpetuating standardised forms of #AcWri because that is what the internet has been fed with via Turnitin and rules-driven #AcWri.

Greatful for resources and insights on the impacts on GPT on #AcademicWriting