I was lucky enough to sit in on a bio-chemistry focused meeting this morning. As my scientific knowledge of bio-chemistry began to make it impossible for me to follow the conversation, I refocused my attention on specifically looking for science capabilities in action!
I sketched this up after the meeting and after a robust debrief with my host; I'm a visual person so this is maybe like a window into how my brain works :) We discussed the nature of science as, and I'm going to use my term from an earlier post, a "fail-based" discipline. To backtrack a little, the purpose of the meeting was to develop a rough plan forward that was built on the knowledge of everyone involved. Without clear answers as to how to go about their research, they needed to use the evidence they had gathered either from personal experience or from the quality research of others'. Names came up as to who in the institute could potentially offer helpful advice to achieve their end goal. They disagreed with each other and each used their evidence to back up their thinking. Phrases like "I think" and "This evidence suggests" and "That won't work because" were common place. The conversation continued until everyone agreed that they had used the most robust evidence to come up with their best possible process to move forward.
The 2 capabilities, using evidence and critiquing evidence were on full display throughout the meeting. Disagreements never became tense as individuals remained objective about the process. After all, they are all working to achieve a collective end goal. That's not to say it was an easy process. As discussed with my host, people can be resistant to being challenged; it requires freedom from the fear of potentially having to change ideas you previously thought were correct. Much like teaching, it all might come down to relationships, or rather the quality of the relationships, of the people who are involved in that process. It is easier to remain objective with a person that you trust than with a person you don't. That's my experience anyway.
Long story short - if I want to develop students' abilities to have robust and challenging discussions, the first step must be in building a trusting relationship. How else can they genuinely critique their own or their peers evidence?
Comments