Emotion & simulations

Since Chad was kind enough to pick up on the theme of my post last week – emotion’s role in what we do – it’s only polite to return the favour.

Chad’s issue is one that all of us who use simulations encounter. We’re trying to build a more manageable version of the real world, which means selecting particular aspects to focus on, and then our participants go and mess it all up by focusing on some other aspect. Chad’s finding that with the South China Sea, I’m finding it with my parliamentary dynamics game and you’re finding it with something else.

How to deal with this? Basically, in one of three ways. Continue reading

Emotion and politics

The morning after the night before.

But not the night it was going to be.

I was going to write this morning about the black-tie do held by our Politics Society last night, and the importance of building a soft, social ties as part of a communal identity. I was going to write about how me looning about the dance-floor to classic disco tunes was something for you all to try with your students.

Instead, I’m sat in (a very quiet) Department, turning over the other events of last night, the attack in Manchester.

Maybe it was the relative lack of sleep, or maybe it was because my daughter was asking me what had happened, but this attack moved me more than most: the sense of distress and loss of so many parents, siblings, friends is one that I feel all too palpably right now.

In the worst possible way, it underlines the point I was going to be making: emotions matter.

They tie us together and tie us to what we do. When something moves us – for good or bad – then it engages us.

What we need to do is find ways to do more of the good engaging, and less of the bad. Something to write about next week, I think.

Flipping, active learning and the post-truth era

Challenging your view of chemists…

I really like doing L&T work, in part because I get to meet people I’d never otherwise would.

One of those is Simon Lancaster, a Professor of Chemical Education at UEA and a big L&T champion. We crossed paths a while back, discussing new teaching materials and his feed is great for both practical tips and more abstract reflection on what we do in classes.

Yesterday, Simon was tweeting about a conference that was coming up, when he posted this:

When I reposted this to our ALPSBlog feed, he added:

Much as I love debating on Twitter, I thought this was worth expanding on here first, especially since it touches on several debates that have graced these pages over the years. Continue reading

“The internet’s broken…”


Reading this piece of investigative journalism over the weekend, I was struck by the sub-text that if something’s not on the internet, then it doesn’t exist.

The author was investigating the use of micro-targetting of social media in the EU referendum and funding links to the US, and much of it turned on the absence of an online footprint of the various companies and entities.

This struck me as a marginal issue for two reasons: firstly, I’m a digital migrant, so I remember a time of card-filing and dusty archives; secondly, I work in a field where much activity remains resolutely off-line.

However, from the perspective of one of our students, things might look a lot different: we know that many of them seem to struggle to get beyond the first page of whatever Google search they have entered, so how do they cope with this kind of thing?

Three basic elements suggest themselves here. Continue reading

Doing it yourself, or helping others to do it

One of the more common challenges in HE is the “it’s just quicker to do it myself” thing. In the past week, I’ve heard this mentioned in teaching, research and administrative contexts: the idea that it might well be someone else’s role to do something, but it’ll be quicker to do it yourself.

I’ll take a guess that you’ve said this pretty recently. I know that I have.

If we want a justification for it, then we can argue that our professional lives are hectic and there isn’t much slack. As such, the marginal cost of doing it yourself is smaller than the marginal cost of helping someone else learn how to do it. You might take a more refined view of it and say that it’s just something that you’re doing now/this one time, but I’ll also guess you haven’t yet got round to addressing the root issue.

And this root issue is itself a bit complicated. Maybe the other person is new to their role, so simply hasn’t got the necessary experience. Maybe they’ve not done it for a while and have forgotten. Maybe they know but they’re not very good at it. Maybe they haven’t got the time to do.

What are you going to do?

The obvious choice to be made at the offset is whether you’re doing something about this or not. As a general rule, I subscribe to the ‘either do something about it, or put up with it’ school of thinking: if it’s a problem, then try to solve the problem, but if not then you don’t get to grumble about it. Sure, that makes me a bit of a repressed individual at times, but that’s my problem (and I’m not going to complain [sic]).

I appreciate that individuals vary, but in the contexts that we are talking about, bitching has no real value. Despite what we sometimes like to think, there are very few individuals ‘out to get us’ in the sector, just people pursuing objectives shaped by very varied incentives and interests: othering them and grumbling behind their backs isn’t going to change things for the better.

[And please do remind me of this when you catch me grumbling about something next time we meet.]

So if we’re putting up, rather than shutting up, then how to do it?

I’d suggest the way into thinking about it is to see matters as a collective endeavour. I know that treat our work as very personal, but much of it is actually highly transferable and we’re almost never in a situation where there is literally no-one else to be involved in our work.

If you can identify the common purpose that binds you to others, then it becomes easier to motivate yourself and those others to finding more efficient solutions.

Then you have to bite the bullet on dealing with the situation. Assume that this is as good a time as any. Unless there is something very obviously and immediately pressing in, just do it: there’s always going to be some reason not, so things aren’t going to improve. I speak from experience when I say that the mystical time in the future when ‘things are quieter’ doesn’t exist.

If the issue is one of experience or timing, then I’d suggest speaking directly to the person involved: try to understand their situation and their needs and try to help them understand yours. Again, this isn’t the moment for a long ‘you have no idea how busy I am’ tirade – this will just invite an equivalent response – but instead an effort to solve a problem – ‘how can we deal with this situation’. In short, you make it about the problem, not the people. as much as possible.

Of course, sometimes it is the people, in which case you need to get line management involved (especially if your line manager or those you manage are the problem). Again, focus on the solving of the problem as much as possible: management issues are management issues and there’s a whole architecture of policy and procedure to deal with those.

Maybe the key point to take is that the effort is worth it in the longer-run. Yes, it will take longer this time and it will be a faff, but if it leads to an improved situation down the line, then that will pay off for you and the team around you. Handled constructively, it’ll even improve the culture and environment for all of to deal with other things that come up.

And if it doesn’t work, then feel free to grumble to me about it.

Some extensions for the Parliament game

Interestingly, the European Banderwot is much larger than its American cousin

Chad wrote about his use of my parliament game just yesterday, so it’s a good moment to consider how else this basic model can be used. All my materials are here.

For me, the most interesting point is that Chad’s doing something really quite different from my original objective. Indeed, the game is a great one for me to reflect on, because it has undergone one of the more problematic formulation processes of any of my activities.

At heart, it’s a game about the cross-cutting tensions in accumulating power: Chad gives his students their card and another interest, while I have focused just on getting mine to balance ideological coherence with holding a balance of power in the assembly. In both cases, you can see how that can be built on, to illustrate further elements. Continue reading

Designing curricula when you have a blank sheet of paper

Opportunity, or bear-trap?

One of the more challenging challenges in my professional life has been curriculum design. I’m currently on my fifth major project, effectively designing an entire programme from scratch.

For those of you from countries/institutions when you don’t get to handle such things, I offer you a mixed greeting. On the one hand, you’re missing an amazing opportunity to contextualise your teaching within a much bigger picture. On the other, it’s a massive pain in the neck to do.

Here in the UK, we have prescribed degree structures: universities validate a package of modules/courses, which together make a named degree. There are options (some of which might come from other degrees), but there’s almost no mixing-and-matching by students to build a major, in the American style. It’s good in that it provides clearer progress and development (plus shorter time-to-completion), but at the price of the limited options for intellectually-curious (or uncertain) students.

Usually, this is a task undertaken by a team from the lead department, but in my case that’s only happened the first two times. All the rest have been for degrees that the university didn’t offer beforehand,  which opens up a whole new can of worms. Continue reading