The Chula-Global Library Visiting Fellowship Program: A Contribution to AI Literacy in Southeast Asia

Introduction and Background

Fellowship programs at academic libraries often target researchers or postdoctoral scholars[1]. In this regard, the Chula-Global Library Visiting Fellowship Programme at Chulalongkorn University[2] stands out, as it also addresses library professionals. The author’s project proposal was selected for participation and focused on exploring the role of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in academic libraries in Southeast Asia. The fellowship lasted two months from June to July 2025.

These days, artificial intelligence is a subject of highly controversial debate. In particular, GenAI challenges traditional academic skills such as writing, summarising, drawing conclusions, and structuring written work. In this debate, it is sometimes presumed that predominantly Anglo-American companies such as OpenAI, Anthropic and Microsoft[3] hold a dominant position in the field. This raises questions about the representation of resources from other cultural contexts, such as Southeast Asia, and whether these users have different needs to those in North America. Rather than approaching these issues purely on a theoretical level, the project took a hands-on approach through workshops, designed on the basis of a university-wide survey and semi-structured interviews.

The project also resonates with broader efforts within Southeast Asia to integrate GenAI responsibly into academic contexts. Examples include the Framework for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools developed by the Singapore Management University[4], and the National University of Singapore’s AI Guidelines, which are presented in the form of infographics[5]. Other initiatives include direct approaches such as the AI 101 workshop for undergraduates and the AI Tools for Research workshop for postgraduates, both of which are offered by Monash University Malaysia[6]. Together, these efforts illustrate how university libraries in the region are actively working to establish and embed offerings that build AI literacy. What distinguishes the author’s project is its exclusive focus on Chulalongkorn University, allowing the workshops and findings to be closely aligned with local needs—an important consideration given that cultural factors may shape how such offerings are received and used.

This article provides a brief overview of the project, but places particular emphasis on personal learnings, linking its opportunities and challenges to the future development of fellowship programs.

Promoting AI Literacy in Academic Libraries through Workshops

The fellowship aimed to promote AI literacy by delivering workshops to various target groups. Prior to the fellowship, a questionnaire was created to inform their design and distributed to members of Chulalongkorn University. In order to minimize the risk of language acting as a barrier to participation, the questionnaire was prepared in both English and Thai in close collaboration with staff at Chulalongkorn University. While this approach was initially pragmatic, it proved essential in retrospect.

The questionnaire comprised six sections: (1) demographic information; (2) the importance of GenAI tools; (3) the capabilities of GenAI tools; (4) the challenges and risks of GenAI tools; (5) the legal and ethical aspects of GenAI tools; and (6) final questions. Sections 2–5 operationalized the four dimensions of the AI Literacy Framework by Hanke und Tschopp[7]. In these sections, nine items aligned with the research cycle were rated on a 0–10 Likert scale (0 = not relevant; 10 = very relevant). The survey aimed to identify valuable topics and areas of interest for the workshops, rather than to pre-assign priorities. It was publicized via the university website and on Facebook and LinkedIn. A total of 138 responses were received, of which 127 met the inclusion criterion of Chulalongkorn University affiliation. Lecturers formed the largest group (≈30%), followed by students at PhD, Master’s, and Bachelor’s levels (each ≥15%). Researchers and library staff were the least represented.

In addition, 12 semi-structured interviews were conducted either on-site or online with two participants from each of the following target groups: lecturers, researchers, PhD students, Master’s students, Bachelor’s students, and library staff. The interviews were conducted in either English or Thai, according to participant preference, with Chulalongkorn University staff providing support for Thai-language sessions. Each interview lasted approximately 60–90 minutes, covered the same four dimensions as the survey, and allowed participants to share broader perspectives on GenAI. The interviews covered a wide range of topics, reflecting the diverse perspectives of the target groups. One particularly striking contrast emerged: while lecturers shared concerns about emotional attachment and dependency, students and library staff described sharing personal matters with GenAI. This aspect was highlighted in recent public remarks by Sam Altman, who emphasized that ChatGPT does not offer the same confidentiality protections as a lawyer or psychotherapist[8]. Transcriptions were produced using Zoom Transcription and Otter AI.

The survey and interview results did not yield clear-cut priorities. While legal and ethical aspects of GenAI tended to receive higher ratings, the practical significance of an average score of 6 versus 7 remains debatable. The aim was therefore not to establish a definitive ranking, but to gather indicative signals for planning. One question in Section 6 asked which topic participants considered most urgent; nearly a quarter selected Literature Review and Theoretical Background. This led to the development of a workshop on literature searching with AI, intended for PhD, Master’s, and Bachelor’s students on the assumption that all would have touchpoints with the topic. In retrospect, the workshop primarily resonated with PhD and Master’s students. It also addressed the distinction between GenAI and other AI-based tools. Preparing this workshop revealed substantial overlaps with the Legal and Ethical Aspects dimension, specifically bias, data coverage, and privacy. For lecturers, these aspects were explored in relation to specific learning objectives based on Bloom’s taxonomy. For library staff, they were incorporated into a mini framework for evaluating GenAI tools:

• What did the AI tool learn? – addressing bias
• What did the AI tool not learn? – addressing data coverage
• What does the AI tool learn about me? – addressing privacy

All workshops were conceived, delivered, and evaluated; based on participant feedback, their content was revised with the aim of serving as a foundation for future offerings.

Personal Learnings from the Fellowship

The fellowship provided valuable insights that went far beyond the initial objective of promoting AI literacy. Reflecting on the experience, three personal learnings stand out. Each was shaped by practical constraints, cultural encounters and unexpected opportunities to reconsider how I design and deliver educational offerings.

Personal Learning 1 – Iterative and pragmatic development

One key learning from the fellowship was the value of working in an iterative cycle, which—although not intentionally planned—closely resembled a design thinking approach. With only two months available, adopting a pragmatic mindset was essential. Rather than conducting in-depth analysis, I swiftly created a tangible product, presented it to target groups, gathered feedback and revised it accordingly. Although I initially thought the timeline was ambitious, we ultimately succeeded in delivering and analyzing the workshops.

A crucial part of this process was taking time to explore content in depth. In doing so, I examined tools such as Litmaps, Connected Papers, and Research Rabbit—AI-driven but not GenAI tools—which unexpectedly led me back to GenAI itself. This detour sharpened my focus on questions of bias, data coverage, and privacy, and enriched the workshop content for different target groups. What makes this approach valuable is the element of discovery, experimentation, and cross-connection it fosters. This is not only essential for designing effective workshops, but also for advancing my own understanding of AI as a rapidly evolving field.

Personal Learning 2 – Recognizing my own blind spots

A second learning was realizing that blind spots are not exclusive to an AI’s dataset—they are also present in me. I bring them in the form of assumptions, conscious or unconscious, about what teaching should look like. During the fellowship, I became aware of how limited my own perspective can be and how strongly it is shaped by culturally embedded assumptions. For example, in a context where speaking up in front of a group risks losing face, especially with an unfamiliar lecturer, participants are understandably reluctant to contribute openly.

This awareness was sharpened by conversations with Thai colleagues, who at times spoke about “Thai people” and their characteristics. For me, it was challenging not to slip into stereotypes when hearing such generalisations, especially as an outsider unfamiliar with the deeper social fabric. Here, a notable contrast became visible. The role of the individual in relation to the group differs significantly from what I am accustomed to. Recognising this is one step; integrating it meaningfully into educational offerings is a more complex challenge.

In response, I gradually began to incorporate anonymous forms of interaction into the workshops using tools such as Mentimeter, Slido and Padlet. One piece of anonymous feedback read, loosely translated: “I found your presentation style monotonous.” Such a comment would certainly never have been shared in an open discussion or personal conversation. While including the aforementioned tools was not a groundbreaking innovation, it was an adaptation to an environment whose social codes I can only partially grasp. This experience served as a reminder that effective workshop design hinges not only on content expertise, but also on an awareness of the social and cultural dynamics that influence participation.

Personal Learning 3 – The role of shared meals

The third learning may sound like a stereotype, but my experience showed me otherwise: in the context of the fellowship, shared meals played a central role. They created an unforced, personal, and playful space, one that felt less like work and more like family. This stood in sharp contrast to my experience in other contexts, where eating together can sometimes feel mechanical or carry the air of a necessary chore.

In my professional environment, we often address collaboration through formal channels, such as cultural awareness workshops or formal team-building events. In Bangkok, I saw how the simple act of regularly sharing food, without formal agendas, achieved much of the same outcome, perhaps even more effectively. When viewed through a social lens, the Thai approach revealed how such occasions can foster genuine connection and trust. The art, in my view, lies in making these encounters appear not as official–unofficial appointments, but as expressions of authentic interest. Recognising this, I consider it worthwhile to adopt a slice of this approach in my own practice. After all, humans are social beings, whether in Bangkok or in Zurich.

Opportunities for Academic Libraries

The programme offers a unique opportunity to explore a self-chosen topic within a new environment. Freed from daily duties, the fellow can fully immerse in the subject, explore it in depth, and collaborate with others to move it forward. It creates a space to learn outside one’s professional and cultural box. However, this approach requires flexibility, understanding and endurance, but it is well worth the effort.

The fellowship also functions as a reflective space, where one can question personal assumptions and explore the meaning of communication and project work in a new context. This is particularly valuable given that the development of services is a major task of academic libraries. Skills in project management and, to some extent, design thinking can be applied regardless of the scope, whether in information literacy, user services, or cataloguing.

Crucially, the fellowship provides an opportunity to build relationships that can form the basis for future collaboration. This is particularly important when you consider that libraries face many of the same challenges. These may include budget cuts, rapid technological developments, and changes in user behaviour. With limited resources, collaboration becomes an important way to develop solutions together.

These opportunities reflect one side of the fellowship experience; the other side involves challenges that are equally important to recognise.

Challenges and Considerations

One major challenge was language. Neither my colleagues nor I were communicating in our mother tongue, which meant we relied on each other’s English skills or on translation tools such as Google Translate and the Pons Thai–English dictionary. While written communication generally worked better, verbal exchanges were often more limited. This became particularly evident during interviews, where the real difficulty was not the act of translating itself, but the risk of losing depth or oversimplifying participants’ responses.

Informal communication posed an additional challenge. In some situations, casual conversation in English did not develop easily—whether due to limited practice, shyness, or a reluctance to speak in a non-native language. I was equally unable to sustain even a basic exchange in Thai. As a result, opportunities for spontaneous, informal conversations were restricted—something that was felt most directly in the context of the project and its day-to-day coordination.

Regardless of language skills, settling into a new environment takes time. The challenge was not so much that the timeframe was too short to work on the project tasks, but that it was too short to build a shared understanding of how collaboration should evolve. Such a project should not be shaped from a distance without taking institutional needs and individual perspectives into account. Holding discussions about the project’s direction as a team during the program itself can be highly beneficial, allowing for alignment to develop in real time.

The timing of the fellowship within the academic year may influence project outcomes. In this case, the program took place between the second and first semesters, offering both advantages and disadvantages. From a user-centred perspective, holding workshops during the semester could have increased participation and made recruiting interviewees easier.

Taken together, the opportunities outlined earlier, and the challenges discussed here point to several ways these fellowship programs could evolve; the following Outlook and Recommendations section shares ideas for their further development.

Outlook and Recommendations

Based on the opportunities and challenges identified, several considerations emerge for the future development of fellowship programs of this kind:

• Plan project activities during the semester

Scheduling the fellowship so that workshops and other activities take place during the academic semester can facilitate contact with target groups. This increases the likelihood of attracting participants for events and simplifies the recruitment of interviewees.

• Establish regular check-ins or a sounding board

Introducing regular meetings where project members—and, where appropriate, other interested library staff—can exchange ideas and discuss the project’s future direction would strengthen communication and alignment. Drawing from my experience, providing anonymous feedback options can lower the threshold for participation and encourage contributions from those less inclined to speak up in group settings.

• Extend the programme’s duration

Extending the fellowship beyond its current timeframe would allow more room for the shared development of project details. Additional time not only supports collaborative decision-making but also helps establish mutual understanding among all involved.

Together, these measures could help ensure that future fellowships are better positioned to meet institutional needs, enable the fellows to engage meaningfully with the team, and reach the intended target groups—thereby creating a stronger foundation for collaboration. On a personal note, I would gladly participate in the Chulalongkorn University fellowship again, precisely because of the rich learning opportunities it offered.

Contributed by Lukas Tschopp, Liaison Librarian Healthcare Professions, University of Zurich,

References

Hales, A. (2025, August 5). “Unstoppable?” ChatGPT Surges to 700 million Weekly Users as Rivals Race to Compete. Windows Central. https://www.windowscentral.com/artificial-intelligence/chatgpt-is-set-to-hit-700-million-weekly-users-but-can-its-rivals-catch-up

Hanke, U., & Tschopp, L. (2024). AI Literacy Framework (unpublished teaching material).

Monash University Malaysia, Library and Learning Commons. (2025). Library workshops. https://www.monash.edu.my/library/academic-services/library-workshops

National University of Singapore Libraries. (2025). LibGuides: Library Essentials: AI Guidelines (New!). https://libguides.nus.edu.sg/new2nus/ai_guidelines_infographics

Office of International Affairs and Global Network. (2025, January 30). Join the Chula-Global Library Visiting Fellowship Program 2025 at Chulalongkorn University! https://www.inter.chula.ac.th/news/22826/

Perez, S. (2025, July 25). Sam Altman warns there’s no legal confidentiality when using ChatGPT as a therapist. TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/25/sam-altman-warns-theres-no-legal-confidentiality-when-using-chatgpt-as-a-therapist/

ProFellow. (2025, March 4). Library Research Fellowships for Scholars, Historians, Writers and Artists. https://www.profellow.com/fellowships/library-research-fellowships-for-scholars-historians-writers-and-artists/

Acknowledgement

The author used two tools for this article: ChatGPT was used to provide feedback on the draft at several stages, and DeepL was used to correct the grammar. In detail:

• DeepL Write was used with the default settings. (10–12 August 2025)
• ChatGPT (version 5) was used to structure the writing and provide feedback at several stages of the process. (10–12 August 2025)

[1] cf. ProFellow. (2025, March 4). Library Research Fellowships for Scholars, Historians, Writers and Artists. https://www.profellow.com/fellowships/library-research-fellowships-for-scholars-historians-writers-and-artists/

[2] Office of International Affairs and Global Network. (2025, January 30). Join the Chula-Global Library Visiting Fellowship Program 2025 at Chulalongkorn University! https://www.inter.chula.ac.th/news/22826/

[3] Hales, A. (2025, August 5). “Unstoppable?” ChatGPT Surges to 700 million Weekly Users as Rivals Race to Compete. Windows Central. https://www.windowscentral.com/artificial-intelligence/chatgpt-is-set-to-hit-700-million-weekly-users-but-can-its-rivals-catch-up

[4] Centre for Teaching Excellence. (2025). SMU Framework for The Use of Generative AI Tools. https://cte.smu.edu.sg/resources/smu-framework-generative-ai

[5] National University of Singapore Libraries. (2025). LibGuides: Library Essentials: AI Guidelines (New!). https://libguides.nus.edu.sg/new2nus/ai_guidelines_infographics

[6] Monash University Malaysia –  Library and Learning Commons. (2025). Library workshops. https://www.monash.edu.my/library/academic-services/library-workshops

[7] Hanke, U., & Tschopp, L. (2024). AI Literacy Framework (unpublished teaching material).

[8] Perez, S. (2025, July 25). Sam Altman warns there’s no legal confidentiality when using ChatGPT as a therapist. TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/25/sam-altman-warns-theres-no-legal-confidentiality-when-using-chatgpt-as-a-therapist/