Tag: Reading

Posted on

Carry on Reading

Photo by Siora Photography on Unsplash

“It’s not just that we are somehow morally weaker for using AI to do our work for us, but we will be the lesser for it. On a large human scale, human knowledge will be lesser for it; we are not going to be creating new things because large language models only know about the stuff that is already out there.” Sophie Scott, BBC ‘A Good Read’ podcast. 

This quote was a reaction to people using AI to summarise texts they did not want to read or did not have time to read. It made me think of my earlier blog, Print or digital: that is the question, which I wrote in response to Pat Thomson’s thought-provoking post, “About the unread.” At the time, I was interested in access, format, and abundance, but this quote led me to reflect upon not how we read, but whether we persist in reading at all. 

The issue: Are we justified in stopping reading 

When I was younger, books were expensive, less available, and harder to replace. If I started a book, I tended to finish it, sometimes out of stubbornness, sometimes out of guilt, and sometimes because there was simply nothing else to read. Persevering with a text I did not immediately enjoy was normal, and I was usually able to enjoy what I was reading for some aspect or another anyway. However, as I get older, time has become more precious, and the vast abundance of texts, digital articles, books, reports, and novels means that not finishing feels less like failure and more like selectivity. In fact, when a text does not engage me, I increasingly feel entitled to stop and ask AI to summarise it for me. These summaries are efficient, pragmatic and time-saving. However, Scott argues that creativity is born from texts we struggle with, and that if we bypass that conflict, we lose the most essential part of what makes us human: our personal, unique interpretation. 

Solution 1: AI as a legitimate tool for selective survival 

Firstly, should we accept AI summaries as a rational adaptation to contemporary academic life? Reading everything in depth is no longer feasible, and strategic skimming has long been part of scholarly practice. In this sense, AI simply accelerates an already familiar behaviour, as noted by Baron (2015), who argues that skimming and summarising have always been part of academic practice. From this perspective, AI tools allow readers to manage overload and prioritise what deserves deeper attention. For scholars balancing teaching, research, administration, and care, AI can function as a filter, not a replacement for reading, but a way of deciding what is worth reading and what is not. In this way, and used critically and transparently, AI could help us survive abundance without drowning in it. 

Response 2: Reading as creative misinterpretation 

On the other hand, Scott argues that creativity does not emerge from efficiency but from conflict. She points out that reading is not a neutral act of extraction, but it is interpretative, emotional, and often messy. Indeed, when we misunderstand a text, we read something into it that the author might not have intended. This misinterpretation can be considered creativity (Wolf, 2018). Therefore, when we struggle with unappealing or difficult texts, we are not failing but creating meaning. Additionally, Scott says that when AI summarises a text for us, it not only removes productive misreading but also delivers clarity without confusion, coherence without resistance, and excludes the reader’s imaginative labour. It is this labour where new ideas, connections, and even writing voices are formed.  

A question to readers 

So, my question to you is, in an age where texts are endless and time is not, how do we decide what deserves to be read and what can be safely summarised? And more provocatively, what kind of reader, writer, and thinker are you? 

Blog written by Dr Lesley Fearn

 

Dr Lesley June Fearn is a secondary school English teacher in southern Italy. She is also an affiliate researcher at the Open University’s (UK) Faculty of Well-being, Education, and Language Studies (WELS), where her research centres on linguistics and sociocultural theory. 

Posted on

Print or Digital: that is the question!

bookshelf at dusk
Photo by Lesly Juarez on Unsplash

‘There are more unread and book questions I could ask and answer, of course. Which book have I put down and won’t pick up again? Which books do I most often recommend to students? What books influenced me most? If I had to choose only one book to keep what would it be and why? What books are likely to stay unread?’ (Thompson, 2025).

Anyone reading this blog will agree that reading is a central part of academic life. During our last bloggers’ meeting, we spoke about the books and papers that most influenced us. Although I happily reminisced about many moments that shaped my doctoral thesis, for example, the discovery of Stake’s (2006) Multiple Case Studies and Rogoff’s (2003) Guided Participation, among others. I realised that each was tied to its own time and context. Therefore, instead of revisiting those influences, I want to reflect on a seismic change in my reading life: the shift from print to digital.

I have embraced digital reading with passion. Living in a country where English is not the first language, I appreciate being able to buy an eBook in seconds rather than carrying heavy suitcases of books across borders. A Kindle device stores thousands of texts, spares my eyesight with adjustable font sizes, and avoids the damp that damaged many of my treasured print editions. However, when it comes to proofreading, I still need paper. Indeed, research confirms that printed text encourages slower, more careful reading, provides stable spatial cues, and reduces skimming and eye strain, making it easier to catch mistakes (Baron, 2015). Despite these advantages, research shows that people still prefer print over digital for both study and pleasure (Charry & Roje Tomic, 2023). Therefore, two concerns came to mind.

How Do Academics Balance Convenience with Depth?

Digital formats offer unmatched convenience, speed, portability, and instant access, but print still supports greater focus and accuracy (Singer & Alexander, 2017). The challenge for academics is not choosing one over the other but knowing when to use which. I have found that working to each format’s strengths is the answer: use digital for access and portability and print for tasks that demand deep concentration and precision, such as proofreading. Institutions can support this balance by maintaining resources in both formats and by helping readers develop strategies for enriching digital reading.

Is Digital Disrupting Reading for Pleasure?

Leisure reading remains more immersive and relaxing in print and Kindle devices. In contrast, smartphones, computers and tablets often encourage distraction through scrolling, notifications, and skimming (Quintero & Brennan-Gac, 2024). If these habits replace sustained reading, academics risk losing a key source of curiosity, renewal, and imaginative thought. Therefore, institutions should protect print-based leisure reading by providing quiet, book-friendly spaces and by encouraging the use of dedicated e-readers over multipurpose devices supporting both wellbeing and scholarly creativity.

To conclude, I would like to relaunch Pat Thompson’s questions cited at the beginning of this blog post and add the following: What is your position on digital reading? How do you overcome the issues reported here? Have you embraced it, or do you reject it?

by Lesley Fearn (PGR Blogger Editorial Team)

 

Dr Lesley June Fearn is a secondary school English teacher in southern Italy. She is also an affiliate researcher at the Open University’s (UK) Faculty of Well-being, Education, and Language Studies (WELS), where her research centres on linguistics and sociocultural theory.