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 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.

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 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.

Episode Credits
Presenter: Tara Constantine, UCL Impartial Chairs
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 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.

Episode Credits
Presenter: Tara Constantine, UCL Impartial Chairs
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