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 

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 

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 

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.

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. 

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). 

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