The Bridge: a Disagreeing Well podcast

UCL

The Bridge: a Disagreeing Well podcast from University College London and Students' Union UCL tackles some of the most hotly debated issues of our time and provides practical techniques to bridge the divide between conflicting views. Each episode, our student hosts Marva Khalid and Diego Lacheze-Beer, along with expert UCL mediator Dr Melanie Garson, dive into a polarising question with informed and passionate guests with contrasting views. Tune in to better understand these critical debates, and equip yourself with the skills to have more meaningful conversations. Find out more at https://www.ucl.ac.uk/about/the-bridge

Episodes

  1. 2d ago

    Does net zero go far enough? With James Dyke and Dr Emma Fieldhouse

    Is the global target of net zero carbon emissions enough to stave off the climate crisis, or has it become a convenient excuse for doing the bare minimum? While the term has galvanised international climate policy, a deeper look reveals a significant tension between the physics of our warming planet and the practical realities of global implementation.    Grounded in host and co-producer Marva Khalid’s firsthand experience of the climate crisis in Pakistan, this episode of The Bridge: A Disagreeing Well Podcast from University College London and Students' Union UCL moves past corporate pledges to ask a fundamental question: are we engineering our actual survival, or simply buying time?  In this thoughtful and urgent discussion, Marva facilitates a nuanced conversation where both environmental experts examine the limitations of our current climate targets and discover unexpected areas of alignment:  James Dyke, Assistant Director of the Global Systems Institute at the University of Exeter, takes a sceptical view of net zero. He argues it has failed because it relies too heavily on unproven, large-scale carbon removal technologies rather than forcing a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels. He cautions that the framework has replaced a difficult political problem with an intractable engineering one, masking the immediate need for aggressive mitigation and adaptation.  Dr. Emma Fieldhouse, Director of Future We Want and sustainability advocate, offers a more pragmatic perspective, viewing net zero emissions targets as a vital, globally agreed-upon starting point established by the 2015 Paris Agreement. While acknowledging it is imperfect and ultimately needs to transition into net negativity, she emphasises its success in instigating global behavioural change and providing a levelled framework for reducing societal emissions. Our resident UCL expert mediator, Dr. Melanie Garson, helps the guests navigate past a rigid, definition-heavy debate to bridge the gap between academic theory and practical climate action. By challenging the guests to reframe the terminology and explore the underlying anxieties driving public perception, she guides the conversation towards a broader, shared vision of planetary survival and climate justice.  Key Takeaways from this Episode:  The Power of Reframing: Getting stuck in a rigid definition like "net zero" can restrict creative problem-solving and polarise a debate. The guests demonstrated that by stepping away from tech-heavy jargon and reframing the goal around a "liveable planet" or "rebalanced economics," you can bypass semantic stalemates and connect on a human level.  Bridge the Spheres of Practice: Friction often arises when people are rooted too deeply in their specific domains, such as academic research versus practical, on-the-ground activism. True progress happens when you bridge these spheres by recognising how high-level data can interplay with and validate localised, everyday implementation.  Harness Agency Over Anxiety: Climate disagreement is frequently driven by underlying fear, anger, and anxiety. Melanie highlights that the minute a conversation flips from overwhelming global systems to tangible, collective human agency, such as localised community energy initiatives, paralysis is replaced with shared hope.  Identify Systemic Agreement: Often, what looks like a fundamental disagreement about a new target is actually a shared frustration with an old system. While the guests clashed on the efficacy of the net zero framework, they found profound alignment in their desire to outmanoeuvre the political and economic structures keeping society hooked on fossil fuels. Listen now to hear how we can look past the political noise and embrace a bit of Emma's "hopeium" to find a collective, transformative path towards a liveable planet.  This production was led by UCL student presenters, Diego Lacheze-Beer and Marva Khalid, who are participants on Students’ Union UCL’s Impartial Chairs Programme. Find out more about the programme and, if you are a UCL student, how you can apply here.     This is a Research Podcasts production.     Episode Credits  Presenter:  Marva Khalid Students’ Union UCL Impartial Chair  Guests:  James Dyke and Emma Fieldhouse   Producer and editor: Research Podcasts  Music: The Investigation by Pixabay   Artwork: Johnson Banks and Indianna Dimmer    Further reading and resources   Dyke, J., Watson, R. and Knorr, W., “Climate scientists: concept of net zero is a dangerous trap”, (22nd April 2021) The Conversation. Dyke, J., Knorr, W., and Watson, R. (2021), “Why net zero policies do more harm than good” in S. Böhm & S. Sullivan (eds.), Negotiating Climate Change in Crisis (pp. 39 - 52). Open Book Publishers. https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0265 Dyke, J., Overshoot (and other lazy plot devices in climate policy) talk, (2024). The Future We Want - science=backed climate education and training

    40 min

  2. May 21

    Is AI destroying education? With Dan Fitzpatrick and John Warner 

    Is the rise of Generative AI a genuine threat to how we learn, or simply the next tool in the educational shed? While it is certainly changing the conversation in staffrooms and lecture halls, there is a lot of nuances to uncover between the headlines and the reality of the classroom.    This episode of The Bridge: A Disagreeing Well Podcast from University College London and Students' Union UCL looks at the tension between the convenience of AI and the "productive struggle" of traditional learning. We explore whether we are at risk of losing something essential in our pursuit of efficiency.    UCL student host Diego Lacheze-Beer facilitates a thoughtful discussion between two experts who, despite their different starting points, find some surprising areas of alignment:  Dan Fitzpatrick, educational strategist and author of The AI Classroom, sees AI as a supportive partner that can help manage the heavy lifting for teachers and provide students with a personalised way to engage with complex ideas. He argues that we should focus on how these tools can be used to augment human potential rather than replace it. John Warner, writer and author of More Than Words, is more cautious about the "frictionless" nature of AI. He suggests that the effort required to write and think for oneself is where the actual education happens, and he worries that outsourcing this work to an algorithm might devalue the human experience of discovery. Our resident UCL expert mediator, Dr. Melanie Garson, helped the guests move beyond a simple pro or anti debate. She used the technique of identifying underlying fears and "drivers" to open up the conversation. By doing so, she helped the guests move from debating the technology itself to discussing the bigger picture: how the education system operates in a world permeated by AI and whether our current models of schooling are still meeting the current and future needs of students.    Key takeaways from this episode:  Identify the "Driver": Melanie highlighted that our stances are often driven by personal roles - such as Dan’s perspective as a parent wanting his children to be ready for the future, versus John’s focus on protecting the creative process. Look for Systemic Agreement: Often, a disagreement about a new tool is actually a shared frustration with an old system. Both guests agreed that the current "transactional" model of schooling often prioritises grades over actual learning. Value the "Friction": In a world that prizes speed, there is a case for "disagreeing well" by defending the slow, difficult parts of learning that lead to genuine human insight and self-formation. Listen now to hear how we can find a sensible path forward for AI in education.    This production was led by UCL student presenters, Diego Lacheze-Beer and Marva Khalid, who are participants on Students’ Union UCL’s Impartial Chairs Programme. Find out more about the programme and, if you are a UCL student, how you can apply here.     This is a Research Podcasts production.     Episode Credits  Presenter: Diego Lacheze-Beer, Students’ Union UCL Impartial Chair  Guests: Dan Fitzpatrick and John Warner  Producer and editor: Research Podcasts  Music: The Investigation by Pixabay   Artwork: Johnson Banks and Indianna Dimmer    Further reading and resources   Fitzpatrick, D., (2025), Infinite Education: The Four-Step Strategy for Leading Change in the Age of Artificial Intelligence Fitzpatrick, D., (2025), The AI Classroom: The Ultimate Guide to Artificial Intelligence in Education Fitzpatrick, D., (2025), The Educators’ AI Guide 2026 Stephenson, R., and Armstrong, C., (12th March 2026) “Student Generative Artifical Intelligence Survey 2026”, Higher Education Policy Institute  Warner, J., (2025), More Than Words: How to Think About Writing in the Age of AI

    30 min

  3. May 14

    Should the UK cap international student numbers? With Jamie Arrowsmith and Jonathan Thomas

    In this episode of The Bridge: A Disagreeing Well Podcast, we tackle a question at the heart of the UK's identity as a global education leader. While the debate often focuses on migration statistics, the human element is frequently lost: the fact that international students are a vital part of the UK’s academic and social fabric.     As the UK navigates new immigration frameworks, we ask: how can the country maintain its reputation as a welcoming destination while ensuring growth is sustainable for local communities?     In this discussion from University College London and Students’ Union UCL, host and co-producer Marva Khalid facilitates a nuanced conversation where both guests agree that international students are welcome and bring immense value to the UK. However, they disagree fundamentally on whether a cap is the right tool to manage that value:     Jamie Arrowsmith, Director at Universities UK International, argues that caps are "blunt tools" used by governments that lack better ideas. He contends that international recruitment is already naturally falling and that adding a cap would be a "disastrous" signal that harms the UK’s reputation and ignores the existing controls already in place.  Jonathan Thomas, Senior Fellow at the Social Market Foundation, believes that because students are so "welcome and important," we must ensure their arrival serves the interests of local communities and infrastructure. He argues that while a general cap is difficult, specific controls or caps in certain circumstances are necessary to manage "externalities" like housing shortages and public perception.  Key Takeaways from this Episode:  Don’t Solve "Yesterday’s Problems": Jamie highlights that international student numbers are already in reverse; he argues that imposing a cap now would be a reactive mistake to a trend that has already shifted.  The "Social License" to Practice: The guests explore whether universities have lost public trust by growing too fast. Jonathan suggests that "aggressive" advocacy from the sector has sometimes ignored legitimate local concerns about housing and infrastructure.  Lessons from Abroad: Both guests look at the "unintended consequences" seen in Canada and Australia. While they agree these examples show that caps can be "too effective" at killing recruitment, they disagree on whether the UK can find a more "nuanced" version of these controls.  Identifying Common Solutions: Despite their disagreement on caps, both guests find common ground in the need for a "compact" - a better partnership between universities, government, and local residents to manage growth sustainably.  The Power of Curiosity: The guests reflect on the importance of approaching "hotly debated" topics with a desire to understand the other’s "strategy source" rather than simply needing to "win."    Listen now to hear how we can bridge the divide and ensure the UK remains a top-tier, welcoming home for international students.     This production was led by UCL student presenters, Diego Lacheze-Beer and Marva Khalid, who are participants on Students’ Union UCL’s Impartial Chairs Programme. Find out more about the programme and, if you are a UCL student, how you can apply here.     This is a Research Podcasts production.     Episode Credits  Presenter: Marva Khalid Students’ Union UCL Impartial Chair  Guests:  Jamie Arrowsmith and Jonathan Thomas  Producer and editor: Research Podcasts  Music: The Investigation by Pixabay   Artwork: Johnson Banks and Indianna Dimmer    Further reading and resources     Universities UK International Social Market Foundation  Dolen, Z. (2024) Too much of a good thing? International students and the financial stability of English higher education Thomas, J. (2024) Crazy for you: What just happened, and where next, for the UK's switchback policy on international students?

    34 min

  4. May 7

    Does Populism threaten democracy? With Marc Froese and Frank Furedi

    Is populism a vital expression of democracy in action, or a method used to undermine it from within? Writing in 1999, political theorist Margaret Canovan described populism as the "shadow of democracy" - an ever-present reflection of the system's own internal tensions. In this episode of The Bridge: A Disagreeing Well Podcast from University College London and Students' Union UCL, we explore how that shadow has lengthened in the decades since. We ask whether modern populism is the inevitable result of a democracy that has stopped listening to its citizens, and whether the real threat comes from these grassroots movements or the "anti-populists" who seek to restrain them.  UCL student host Marva Khalid facilitates a deep dive between two experts with opposing viewpoints who find unexpected common ground on the importance of free debate:  Marc Froese, Professor of Political Science and author of Has Populism Won the War on Liberal Democracy?, views populism as a powerful method of message framing. He argues that while it can rally people against threats, it is often used by elites to create polarisation and insecurity to drive specific electoral outcomes. Frank Furedi, Emeritus Professor of Sociology and author of In Defence of Populism, sees populism as an essential driver of democratic rights that "comes from below". He suggests that "anti-populists" are the true threat to democracy, as they question the moral capacity of citizens to make their own decisions. Our resident UCL expert mediator, Dr Melanie Garson, helped the guests navigate beyond their publicly stated academic positions. By encouraging them to share personal experiences and ask each other non-topic-related questions, she created space for a "grown-up discussion" that moved past standard political caricatures.  Key Takeaways from this Episode:  Humanise the Opponent: Melanie used "off-topic" questions - asking about retirement or past research - to break down academic barriers and establish a personal connection before tackling the main disagreement. Identify the "Double Standard": The guests explored how populist movements are often judged more harshly than liberal or conservative ones, with any mistake seen as a defining feature rather than a simple error. Value the Friction of Debate: Both guests lamented the rise of "bubbles" and self-censorship. They agreed that true education and democracy require the "tension of disagreeing well" - the ability to hold strong, even unpopular opinions while remaining open to learning from opponents. Question the Label: A significant part of the disagreement stems from the fact that "populist" is rarely a self-chosen title; it is often a term of "pathologisation" used by critics to label movements they dislike. Listen now to hear how we can bridge the divide and protect democracy in an age of intense political polarisation.  This production was led by UCL student presenters, Diego Lacheze-Beer and Marva Khalid, who are participants on Students’ Union UCL’s Impartial Chairs Programme. Find out more about the programme and, if you are a UCL student, how you can apply here.     This is a Research Podcasts production.     Episode Credits  Presenter:  Marva Khalid Students’ Union UCL Impartial Chair  Guests:  Marc Froese and Frank Furedi  Producer and editor: Research Podcasts  Music: The Investigation by Pixabay   Artwork: Johnson Banks and Indianna Dimmer    Further reading and resources   Canovan, M. (1999), ‘Trust the People! Populism and the Two Faces of Democracy’, Political Studies, 47(1), pp. 2–16. Drache, D., and Froese, M. (2022) Has Populism Won? The War on Liberal Democracy Furedi, F. (2026), In Defence of Populism Furedi, F. (2024) The war on the past Mouffe, C. (2018) For a left populism Mudde, C. (2004) ‘The populist zeitgeist’, Government and Opposition, 39(4), pp. 541–563

    40 min

  5. Season 2, Episode 1 Trailer

    The Bridge Series 2 Trailer with Diego Lacheze-Beer and Marva Khalid

    How good are you at discussing, debating and disagreeing with people who hold different views to your own? Are you tired of hearing the same well-rehearsed arguments on an important issue without also hearing those involved seek any understanding of their opponent's perspective.  The fact is, if we want to get along better, coexist as communities and find solutions to the challenges we face, we need to learn to disagree better.  I'm Diego Lacheze-Beer and I'm Marva Khalid. We're both University College London students and co-producers of the second series of The Bridge; A Disagreeing Well podcast from UCL and Students' Union UCL.  As you'll know if you've listened to series one, The Bridge tackles hotly debated issues of our time and seeks to provide us with the tools and techniques to disagree about them better.  In series two, we'll be asking more tough questions, including: does the UK do enough for asylum seekers? Does populism threaten democracy? And 10 years on from Brexit, is it time Britain rejoined the EU?  We'll be discussing these and more with the help of UCL based conflict resolution expert, Dr Melanie Garson, who will mediate between our guests using tried and tested communication techniques to find common ground.  We need to have tough debates, but we need to do so in a way that builds mutual respect, not further division. So if you're interested in learning how to disagree better and build consensus, not conflict, make sure you listen to Series 2 of The Bridge.  Episodes will be published weekly from 7th May and will be available wherever you receive your podcasts.   This production was led by UCL student presenters, Diego Lacheze-Beer and Marva Khalid, who are participants on Students’ Union UCL’s Impartial Chairs Programme. Find out more about the programme and, if you are a UCL student, how you can apply here.     This is a Research Podcasts production.     Episode Credits  Presenter:  Diego Lacheze-Beer and Marva Khalid Students’ Union UCL Impartial Chair  Producer and editor: Research Podcasts  Music: The Investigation by Pixabay   Artwork: Johnson Banks and Indianna Dimmer

    2 min

  6. 11/03/2025

    Should we ban social media for children? With Daniel Angus and Jennifer Powers

    Is a blanket social media ban for children the best way to mitigate its harmful impact?  Join host Lea Hofer in the inaugural episode of Disagreeing Well, the podcast from University College London and Students' Union UCL that equips you with tools and techniques to navigate challenging conversations. This episode dives into the hotly debated question of a blanket social media ban for children.  We hear from two guests with sharply contrasting views:  Professor Daniel Angus from the Queensland University of Technology, who argues a social media ban is a "blunt instrument" that won't address the root causes of issues like cyberbullying or body image concerns and could even exacerbate them. His research emphasises a nuanced, evidence-based approach to digital media and society. Jennifer Powers, founder of the Unplugged Coalition, who believes a social media ban for under 16s is a crucial step to protect children from the "addictive by design" nature of platforms and their proven negative impacts on mental health and educational attainment. She highlights a growing parental movement calling for stricter boundaries on internet-enabled devices. UCL's resident expert mediator, Dr. Melanie Garson, guides the discussion, helping to unpack the underlying anxieties and different perspectives on children's agency and responsibility in the digital world. The episode concludes with reflections on the mediation techniques used and tips for disagreeing better. Key takeaways from this episode:  Understanding diverse perspectives: Explore the complex arguments for and against a social media ban, rooted in different research, experiences, and concerns. The role of emotion in debate: Discover how underlying anxieties and emotions can influence how we approach difficult topics and our ability to find common ground. Techniques for constructive disagreement: Learn about the "stepping back" technique used by our mediator to encourage a broader view of the problem and identify shared goals, even amidst strong disagreements. Tune in to gain insights into this critical debate and equip yourself with the skills to engage in more fruitful conversations. This production was led by our student presenters, Lea Hofer and Tara Constantine, who are participants on Students’ Union UCL’s Impartial Chairs Programme. Find out more about the programme and how to apply if you are a student - visit Impartial Chairs Programme. This is a Research Podcasts production for UCL.  Episode Credits Presenter:  Lea Hofer, UCL Impartial Chair Guests: Daniel Angus and Jennifer Powers Producer and editor: Research Podcasts Music: The Investigation by Pixabay Artwork:  Mayuko Yamaguchi, UCL undergraduate student   Further reading and resources    Demystifying the Teen Social Media ban resources from QUT Digital Media Research Centre. Dezuanni, M. et al (2023) “Digital Child Working Paper 2023-11, Manifesto for a Better Children’s Internet”, Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child, Queensland University of Technology. Haidt, J., (2024) The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness.  Unplugged Coalition, unites people and organizations committed to protecting childhood from addictive technology.

    36 min

  7. 11/03/2025

    Can the interests of ethnic minority voters be properly represented by right-wing parties? With Albie Amankona and Nels Abbey

    Can the interests of ethnic minority voters truly be represented by right-wing parties? This episode dives into one of the most polarising questions in modern politics, demonstrating how to navigate deep ideological divides and find common ground for constructive change. Welcome to the latest episode of The Bridge; A Disagreeing Well Podcast from University College London and Students' Union UCL, designed to arm you with the tools needed to navigate the trickiest conversations. Hosted by UCL student Tara Constantine, this episode tackles the complex intersection of identity and political alignment. Our aim isn't just to land on an answer, but to dissect the techniques for having truly productive discussions that push boundaries instead of shutting them down, even when dealing with highly sensitive topics. Tara leads a compelling discussion with two political commentators, each bringing a sharp, contrasting view:  Albie Amankona argues that there's no monopoly on values like fiscal discipline, respecting tradition, patriotism, or strong defences. He suggests that ethnic minority voters can indeed find their interests aligned with right-wing parties based on these shared principles. Nels Abbey challenges this perspective, delving into the historical context and lived experiences that complicate the representation of ethnic minority interests within right-wing political frameworks. His arguments highlight the deep-seated issues that often prevent genuine alignment. Our resident UCL expert mediator, Dr Melanie Garson, guides the conversation by focussing on a critical mediation technique: separating interests from positions. Melanie works to help Albie and Nels articulate their core interests beyond their stated political positions, revealing potential pathways for understanding and collaboration that might otherwise remain hidden. This technique is crucial for moving past sticking points and exploring what truly matters to each party. Key takeaways from this episode:   Distinguishing interests from positions: Learn to identify the core needs and desires (interests) that underpin stated viewpoints (positions), a powerful technique for unlocking seemingly intractable disagreements. Finding common ground in ideological divides: Witness how a skilled mediator can reframe a polarising debate to reveal shared goals and potential areas for collaborative vision, even when fundamental beliefs differ. Embracing disagreement as progress: Understand that true progress isn't always about achieving total consensus, but about deeply understanding the various perspectives and using that insight for constructive change. Listen now to understand this key debate and develop your abilities for richer, more meaningful conversations. This production was led by our student presenters, Lea Hofer and Tara Constantine, who are participants on Students’ Union UCL’s Impartial Chairs Programme. Find out more about the programme and how to apply if you are a student - visit Impartial Chairs Programme. This is a Research Podcasts production for UCL. Episode Credits Presenter: Tara Constantine, UCL Impartial Chair Guests: Albie Amankona and Nels Abbey Producer and editor: Research Podcasts Music: The Investigation by Pixabay Artwork: Mayuko Yamaguchi, UCL undergraduate student Further Reading and resources  Abbey, N. (2019) Think Like a White Man: A Satirical Guide to Conquering the World . . . While Black UK in a Changing Europe. (2024) Minorities report: The attitudes of Britain’s ethnic minority population. London: UK in a Changing Europe.Conservatives Against Racism for Equality (CARFE).

    41 min

  8. 11/03/2025

    Is tourism inherently exploitative and damaging to local communities? With Chris Christou and Mark Worden

    Ever wondered if your photos ‘for the gram’ actually contribute to local problems? This episode tackles a massive question: Is tourism inherently exploitative and destructive to local communities? We enter the debate with the aim of showing you how to disagree better on the pros and cons of mass tourism and globalisation. Welcome to the latest episode from The Bridge; A Disagreeing Well Podcast from University College London and Students' Union UCL, designed to arm you with a range of approaches you can draw on when navigating tricky conversations. Our goal isn't to make people agree but to explore techniques that can be used to have productive conversations, enable deeper understanding and empathy for those with different perspectives.  UCL student host Lea Hofer leads a compelling discussion with two key stakeholders in the tourism industry, each with strong views:  Chris Christou, host of The End of Tourism podcast, argues that while tourism isn't inherently bad, the way we do it often creates major issues. He breaks down how the rise of short-term rentals (think Airbnb) can push locals out of housing, how "culture" can become a frozen spectacle for tourists, and the ecological damage from rapid development. Chris's take is all about giving local communities a real voice and democratic choice in how tourism impacts them. Mark Worden, from MiHi digital and Visit Cornwall, champions a balanced approach to tourism. He highlights its power to create jobs (like for the 30% of people in Cornwall’s hospitality industry) and boost local infrastructure. Mark admits that "overtourism" is a real problem, especially with too many short-term rentals, but advocates for solutions like statutory registration schemes and prioritising sustainable, restorative tourism. He also suggests tourists should make the most of domestic tourism options. Our resident UCL expert mediator, Dr. Melanie Garson, masterfully guides the conversation. Even when Chris and Mark seemed to be on the same page, Melanie used "clarifying questions" to dig deeper, revealing subtle but important differences in their perspectives and visions for the industry. She reflects on how this technique allowed them to understand more what is behind each other's perspectives, proving that understanding how you disagree is key to constructive dialogue. Key takeaways from this episode:   Mastering clarifying questions: Learn how to ask the right questions to genuinely understand someone else's viewpoint, even when their initial statements seem to align with yours. Deconstructing complex debates: See how two experts, with different experiences (one living in a tourist hot spot, the other working in the industry), can hold seemingly opposing views but still seek common ground. Embracing disagreement as progress: Understand that true progress isn't always about achieving consensus, but about deeply understanding the various perspectives and using that insight for constructive dialogue. Dive in to refine your ability to engage in productive disagreement. This production was led by our student presenters, Lea Hofer and Tara Constantine, who are participants on Students’ Union UCL’s Impartial Chairs Programme. Find out more about the programme and how to apply if you are a student - visit Impartial Chairs Programme. This is a Research Podcasts production for UCL. Episode Credits Presenter: Tara Constantine, UCL Impartial Chair Guests: Albie Amankona and Nels Abbey Producer and editor: Research Podcasts Music: The Investigation by Pixabay Artwork: Mayuko Yamaguchi, UCL undergraduate student Further Reading and resources The End of Tourism podcast hosted by Chris Christou Visit Cornwall

    33 min

  9. 11/03/2025

    Should traditional masculine norms and behaviours be celebrated or demonised? With Richard Reeves and Niobe Way

    The question of what it means to be a man has dominated recent conversations in the media and among policymakers. Many have described a "crisis of masculinity" fuelled by concerns over controversial figures like Andrew Tate and the rise of "incel" culture. But what if we've been asking the wrong questions? This episode of The Bridge tackles the tension between how masculinity is discussed and how it's experienced by young men. Our question for today is: Should traditional masculine norms and behaviours be celebrated rather than demonised? UCL student host Tara Constantine leads this compelling and nuanced discussion with two experts, each with a distinct perspective:  Richard Reeves, a social scientist, writer, and president of the American Institute for Boys and Men, argues that traditional masculine norms around protection, providing, and risk-taking should be celebrated. He suggests that demonising these qualities has led to a "pathologisation" of the male experience and created a discourse focused on "what's wrong with men" rather than "what challenges men face". Dr. Niobe Way, a Professor of Applied Psychology at New York University, challenges the idea of gendering human capacities. While she agrees that boys and men are suffering, she argues that "masculine" qualities like courage and stoicism, and "feminine" qualities like empathy and sensitivity, are simply human capacities. She believes we need to value both our "hard and soft sides" to thrive and that focusing on a gendered analysis misses the bigger picture. Our resident UCL expert mediator, Dr. Melanie Garson, challenges the guests to look beyond their own preconceptions and to find common ground in their shared goal of helping boys and men thrive. The conversation becomes a masterclass in productive disagreement as the guests reflect on each other's work and find a shared understanding. Key takeaways from this episode:  Assume good faith: Even when you strongly disagree, assume the other person is trying to get to the same positive outcome as you, just by a different route. Understand personal drivers: By asking how someone came to be involved in a topic, you can humanise the conversation and gain a deeper understanding of their perspective. Let go of minor disagreements: Productive dialogue is not about winning an argument but about finding commonality in goals and leaving less important points of difference on the table. Listen now to better understand the nuances of this debate and learn how to disagree well in a polarised world.     This production was led by UCL student presenters, Lea Hofer and Tara Constantine, who are participants on Students’ Union UCL’s Impartial Chairs Programme. Find out more about the programme and, if you are a UCL student, how you can apply here.  This is a Research Podcasts production.  Episode Credits  Presenter: Tara Constantine, Students’ Union UCL Impartial Chair  Guests: Richard Reeves and Niobe Way  Producer and editor: Research Podcasts  Music: The Investigation by Pixabay  Artwork: Mayuko Yamaguchi, UCL undergraduate student

    33 min

  10. 11/03/2025

    Is it right to eat meat in a prosperous society? With Juliet Gellatley and Nick Zangwill

    Being a vegetarian or vegan has never been more popular, particularly among younger generations. A recent poll showed that 50% of Gen Z planned to be meat-free in 2025. With growing concerns about animal welfare, our changing climate, and personal health driving the move towards plant-based diets, this episode dives into a crucial and often controversial question: is it right to eat meat in a prosperous society?  Welcome to the latest episode of The Bridge: A Disagreeing Well Podcast from University College London and Students' Union UCL. We're here to show you how to disagree better and find common ground on even the most personal and controversial topics.  In this episode, student host Lea Hofer sits down with two experts who don’t pull any punches:  Juliet Gellatley, a passionate animal rights activist and vegan, argues that in a world of abundant food, eating meat is a choice we can no longer afford to make. She confronts the brutal realities of industrial farming and makes a powerful case for a plant-based diet as a moral imperative. Professor Nick Zangwill, philosopher and Honorary Research Fellow at UCL, pushes back with a controversial take: he argues that it is our moral duty to eat meat. He challenges the ethical views of vegans, suggesting that a world without meat consumption would not be better for animals and, in some cases, could be detrimental. Our resident UCL expert mediator, Dr. Melanie Garson, guides the conversation, helping us to differentiate between deeply held ethical beliefs and personal habits.  Key takeaways from this episode:  Grasping the ethical argument: Explore the difference between ethical principles and personal choices, and how to have a reasoned discussion about your values without it becoming a shouting match. Discovering shared goals: See how two experts with seemingly opposite views can find common ground, even on a topic as personal as food. Breaking down big topics: Understand how to split a large, emotional question into smaller, more manageable parts for a more productive and respectful dialogue. Listen now to better understand the nuances of this debate and improve your ability to have debates with those who hold opposing views.    This production was led by UCLour student presenters, Lea Hofer and Tara Constantine, who are participants on Students’ Union UCL’s Impartial Chairs Programme. Find out more about the programme and, if you are a UCL student, how you can apply here.    This is a Research Podcasts production.   Episode Credits  Presenter:  Lea Hofer, Students’ Union UCL Impartial Chairs  Guests: Juliet Gellatley and Nick Zangwill  Producer and editor: Research Podcasts  Music: The Investigation by Pixabay  Artwork: Mayuko Yamaguchi, UCL undergraduate student

    34 min

  11. 11/03/2025

    Is national service good for young people? With Manoj Harjani and Christos Tsoukalis

    With global tensions rising and many countries increasing defence spending, the question of National Service feels more urgent than it has in decades. Supporters argue it provides young people with structure, useful skills, and national pride, but critics warn it limits personal freedom, delays education, and risks promoting a pro-war mindset. This episode enters the debate with the aim of showing you how to disagree better on a policy that frequently sidelines the voices of those it most effects: young people.  UCL student host Tara Constantine facilitates the conversation between two people who share first-hand experience of conscription, but disagree on the extent to which it benefits young people:  Manoj Harjani, who completed National Service in Singapore, frames his experience as mixed but ultimately finds it to be an essential part of the country's security, economic posture, and societal makeup. He notes that the practice is deeply embedded in Singaporean life, affecting everything from employment structure to policy. Manoj is currently a Research Fellow and Coordinator of the Military Transformations Programme at RSIS in Singapore.  Christos Tsoukalis, Senior Analyst of Economic Policy at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, completed mandatory service in Greece and questions the value of conscription. While he acknowledges personal positive moments, he argues that the opportunity cost is too high for young people, and that the nature of modern warfare is increasingly misaligned with mass, non-specialised armies. Our resident UCL expert mediator, Dr. Melanie Garson shaped the conversation to mimic real-life dialogue, where people discuss issues based purely on experience rather than prepared positions. She used a key technique: asking each guest to summarise the other's position before responding, forcing them to genuinely listen and identify areas of commonality, such as the shared goal of building a stronger sense of civic duty.  Key takeaways from this episode:  Master the summary technique: Force yourself to accurately summarise the other person's viewpoint before responding; this ensures you are listening fairly and helps close the gap of what you think you heard versus what was actually said. Dig deeper than policy: Productive conversations often move into identifying feelings - the camaraderie of shared experience versus the emotional burden placed on young people - which is where true understanding is found. Find a wider solution space: Even with opposing views on the military necessity of conscription, the guests found common ground in redesigning service to focus on civic participation and social capital rather than just defence. Listen now to hear the lived experiences behind this debate and to learn how we can all disagree well.     This production was led by UCL student presenters, Lea Hofer and Tara Constantine, who are participants on Students’ Union UCL’s Impartial Chairs Programme. Find out more about the programme and, if you are a UCL student, how you can apply here.    This is a Research Podcasts production.   Episode Credits  Presenter:  Tara Constantine, Students’ Union UCL Impartial Chair  Guests: Manoj Harjani and Christos Tsoukalis  Producer and editor: Research Podcasts  Music: The Investigation by Pixabay  Artwork: Mayuko Yamaguchi, UCL undergraduate student

    34 min

  12. Season 1 Trailer

    The Bridge trailer

    This new show tackles some of the most hotly debated issues of our time and provides practical techniques to bridge the divide between conflicting views.

    2 min

Trailers

About

The Bridge: a Disagreeing Well podcast from University College London and Students' Union UCL tackles some of the most hotly debated issues of our time and provides practical techniques to bridge the divide between conflicting views. Each episode, our student hosts Marva Khalid and Diego Lacheze-Beer, along with expert UCL mediator Dr Melanie Garson, dive into a polarising question with informed and passionate guests with contrasting views. Tune in to better understand these critical debates, and equip yourself with the skills to have more meaningful conversations. Find out more at https://www.ucl.ac.uk/about/the-bridge

Information

More From UCL

You Might Also Like