36 minute read
Case 1 : Students’ Perception of Discussion Environments in Higher Education
Advertisement
Case 1
Abstract
The study takes into question what the role of universities as political and societal hotspots are, as well as what students think conditions for discussion regarding difficult topics should be, if any. With this, the study will try to provide answers to the following problem: What are students’ views on discussion premises in higher education and their influence on universities’ societal role? This has been done by looking into the issues of safe spaces, development of critical thinking, consequences of political correctness, and regulations of academic freedom. An online survey consisting of questions inquiring as to students’ views on openness in academia, discussion environments, and safe spaces was sent out to students all over the world. I found that especially students residing in countries with lower ranks of democracy and liberalism put high value on the privilege of freedom of speech and keeping discussion environments completely free in order to solve difficult issues. Additionally, most of the students were in favor of the use of safe spaces, reasoned with safe spaces’ effect of activating withheld students who are afraid of potentially experiencing upsetting situations in these discussions. At the same time, a vast majority of the students thought that being exposed to controversial opinions and attitudes stimulate critical thinking, and that they themselves think the curriculums presented at their universities are helping them grow intellectually.
Introduction
Over the last century, the number of students enrolled at universities has increased dramatically, going from 500 000 in the year 1900 to about 100 million in 2000 (Huber, 2016, p. 90). From a historical perspective, students have been the driving force for maintaining democracy, and have initiated political movements regarding, for example, civil rights, feminism, antiracism, and environmental protection (Hitland, Nielsen & Refstie, 2019, p. 237). In a time of increasing social inequality, fatal climate changes, and indications of growing political polarization, it is vital to discuss how students today are participating in discussions regarding controversial topics. This includes acknowledging and examining the effects of the growing trends of safe spaces and trigger warnings. This contributes to understanding how these issues will develop further, and if the current situation really is beneficial to students in developing critical thinking, maintaining student activism, and attempting to solve societal issues.
This topic is especially relevant in these times because recently there have been several examples of lecturers experiencing vocational consequences for their statements in multiple countries. I will illustrate two examples to show the relevance of the topic and paint a picture of the situation. The first is a UCLA professor who was suspended for his email response to a student who requested that he’d postpone the final exam for African-American students due to George Floyd’s death earlier that year (CBS Los Angeles, 2020). A quite challenging email-response was sent, containing “Are there any students that may be of mixed parentage, such as half black-half Asian? What do you suggest I do with respect to them?” and “I am thinking that a white student from there might be possibly even more devastated by this, especially because some might think that they’re racist even if they are not.” (CBS Los Angeles, 2020). The professor was accused of writing a “woefully racist response” (CBS Los Angeles, 2020). Another similar incident was the so-called “Germans joke”, in which a psychology professor in Bergen, Norway made a joke about German tourists, referencing the German invasion during World War II and them “returning” to Norway (Lie, 2020). The university management submitted an apology to the student on behalf of the professor without his consent, which provoked him and many other supporters (Lie, 2020).
In this study, students’ relationship with controversial topics and the premises for difficult discussions in universities will be examined, as well as students’ perspectives on the use of safe spaces and limitations regarding academic freedom. The research question is as follows: What are students’ views on discussion premises in higher education and their influence on universities’ societal role? As mentioned earlier, universities are the hotspot when it comes to activism related to social and political issues, and therefore it is necessary to shed light on different viewpoints concerning the topics in question in order to reflect on the development of universities as a cultural and societal institution. On the basis of a survey I will explore a variety of student perspectives on the relevant topics and try to provide an overview of the current attitudes and opinions which are shaping higher education. First there will be a background chapter which clarifies terms of relevance, as well as the historical context. Then the methodology used to explore the research question will be presented and discussed. Here, it is necessary to take factors such as the participants’ residing countries’ level of democracy and liberalism as well as gender into account. In the analysis and discussion, the data will be presented, taking into account factors such as the participants’ residing countries’ level of democracy and liberalism as well as gender. It will then be used to discuss how beneficial it is to increase cautiousness in discussions involving vulnerable participants, and including safe spaces in higher education when the purpose is to encourage critical and independent thinking.
Background and Theory
In the following chapter, the purpose of higher education will be presented, as well as clarifications of the terms critical thinking, academic freedom, safe spaces, political correctness, and trigger warnings. Defining the terms will narrow down the possible uncertainties due to different definitions, and hopefully give an insight into the research question’s relevance in today’s society.
Societal Role of Higher Education : Critical Thinking, Academic Freedom and Student Activism
Scholar Guy Neave raises the question of what place academia has in the nation, and what purpose the knowledge developed and distributed by universities has in society’s development (Kwiek, 2006, p.2). According to Kwiek (2006, p. 5), academic freedom “is under severe attack” due to the government and corporations intervening in university politics, but also because of the growing popularity of safe spaces, which according to many is a threat to free speech and academic freedom (Callan, 2016, p. 64). According to Campbell & Manning (2018, p. 79), risk-taking among young people continues to decline as safety, and with that safe spaces, becomes increasingly important. Despite this trend, some argue that shielding vulnerable people from triggering material actually is the opposite of how traumatized patients are returned to normality by their therapists (Campbell & Manning, 2018, p. 11 and p. 85).
The german idealist Johann Gottlieb Fichte put it as follows: «the university exists not to teach information but to inculcate the exercise of critical judgement» (Readings, 1996, p. 6). Ever since the inception of universities, they have encouraged debate and critical thinking (Craciun & Mihut, 2017, p. 15). Critical thinking as a term is often used to describe the skills of argumentation, and reasonable, reflective thinking (Pithers & Soden, 2000, p. 239). It is a contrast to creative thinking, meaning critical thinking leans more towards rational and analytical thinking (Pithers & Soden, 2000, p. 239). This involves having an open mind towards information and judging the validity and reliability of statements, as well as showing the ability to form individual opinions and ideas while remaining flexible to re-evaluate and change them if reason implies to do so (Pithers & Soden, 2000, p. 239). This suggests that exposure to opinions and views that challenge fixed ones are the optimal way of intellectual growth.
At the same time, students participating in safe spaces reported in a study that they feel more challenged in terms of awareness and expanding their viewpoints, and they stated that safe spaces have helped them develop their communication skills (Holly & Steiner, 2005, p. 58). Surprisingly, Holley and Steiner (2005, p. 59) found minor differences among gender, ethnicity, and study programmes regarding opinions of the necessity of creating safe spaces. This suggests that not even white men, the group historically recognized to be the most privileged, feel completely safe while participating in discussions involving controversial topics. Further on, the study showed that a majority of students felt they learned more in a class environment that makes use of safe spaces (Holly & Steiner, 2005, p. 61). With that, one can ask oneself to what degree the students should have a say in the premises of discussion environments, and if the acceptance of safe spaces is a mere attempt to shield ourselves from provocative, but potentially necessary, discussion topics. Even more importantly; are students empowered by determining the development of what we consider to be knowledge? To what extent should we take into consideration the risk of students being offended by what they’re exposed to in lectures?
Academic freedom is a widely discussed term and has often been confused with freedom of expression, but they are designed to maintain distinct goals (Future Learn, 2018). Academic freedom is the right to pursue studies and research without interference from institutions or the public (Future Learn, 2018). It is exercised by those who engage in academia and research, but is slightly more indefinite than freedom of expression (Future Learn, 2018). The confusion emerges
when an academic expresses a controversial opinion, and one has to determine whether it is the academic freedom or freedom of expression that protects their opinion (Future Learn, 2018). The reasons for preserving academic freedom are many. Not only is it a fundamental right for an individual academic to have their moral and intellectual integrity protected when pursuing their research and teaching, but “progress toward deeper understanding and new discoveries, in any field, requires a willingness to adopt new perspectives and new approaches” (Karran, 2009, p. 7). Therefore, in order to develop objective and unbiased knowledge, preservation of academic freedom is crucial (Karran, 2009, p. 7-8). In many previous conflicts regarding freedom of speech, academics at universities were the ones targeted, especially due to the knowledge in question being the opposite of what dictatorial governments had announced as absolute facts (Karran, 2009, p. 3). For example, in 2000 an Egyptian professor was unlawfully imprisoned for his involvement in making a documentary film about election inconsistencies (Karran, 2009, p. 3).
Student activists have not only made a tremendous impact on societal issues, but also the structure of higher education (Hitland, Nielsen & Refstie, 2019, p. 242). Even so, while student uprisings in the 1970’s were aimed towards the faculties and the university as an institution, students today seem to be less concerned with university politics (Hitland, Nielsen & Refstie, 2019, p. 238). They no longer question the organization of universities and study programmes or the curriculum they’re exposed to to the same degree as a few decades ago (Hitland, Nielsen & Refstie, 2019, p. 242). In parallel with this change of students’ focus on activism, the popularity of safe spaces has expanded dramatically. Safe spaces are traced back to the 1960’s feminist movement, and were created with the purpose of making protected communities to discuss women’s issues (Campbell & Manning, 2018, p. 79). The idea then extended to the LGBT+ community to make space for sexual minorities without fear of discrimination, and has since been applied to communities of intersectionality (Campbell & Manning, 2018, p. 79). Safe spaces are directly connected to the emerging concept of victimhood culture, which is characterized by a high degree of sensitivity in confrontations with negative attitudes toward people of marginalized groups (Campbell & Manning, 2018, p. 17).
Recent Developments in Academia : Political Correctness, Safe Spaces, and Trigger Warnings
The term political correctness has its roots in the 1960’s counterculture movement in which criticisms of patriarchy, sexism, racism, and imperialism were put forward (Suri, 2009, p. 46). Political correctness involves increasing the focus on changing language and culture as a way of achieving social and political justice (Fairclough, 2003, p. 20). This involves avoiding certain behaviours and language (Fairclough, 2003, p. 20). Thus, in the context of academic freedom in higher education, the phenomenon involves a person having to alter or rephrase their statements and perspectives in order to avoid violating another person’s rights when discussing social or political issues (Morris, 2001). It is a way of preventing offense to people who belong to oppressed groups, meaning they are subject to discrimination and/or prejudice based on their ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation etc. (Hamilton, 2015).
The most common definition of the term “safe space” involves the creation of an environment in
which all participants, in our case students, feel comfortable taking part and expressing themselves freely (Arao & Clemens, 2013, p. 135). This means that the participants feel safe enough not to worry about the fear of ridicule or attacks, and in order to achieve this, the students need basic guidelines and rules (Arao & Clemens, 2013, p. 138). It might also be noted that safe spaces are usually put to use when the discussion topics are discussed in a more provocative than polite way (Arao & Clemens, 2013, p. 135). However, the definition of safe spaces can be quite vague, as it varies from one person to another what they find offensive.
“Trigger warnings” is a term that invokes dispute. Some would define it as a warning that alerts students about distressing material that might trigger past traumas, while others see the concept as a means to shield students from what the “real world” is like, meaning they will never be challenged or stimulated to reconsider their opinions (Spencer & Kulbaga, 2018, p. 108; Godderis & Root, 2016, p. 132). In this study, I will lean towards the middle ground, which means that a trigger warning is an announcement alerting the students that the topic following has a chance of distressing someone, and that it hasn’t gone through the filter of political correctness. Examples could be racist, homophobic, or misogynistic statements, and it is to be noted that the term is defined to the extent that these potentially distressing topics are used for insight and education, and not as an opportunity for someone to express hateful opinions.
Methodology
In this chapter, the method used to analyze the research question will be explained and justified. The survey’s content and distribution will also be described, and the survey in its entirety can be found in the appendix. The quality of the data will then be discussed.
Research Design
Survey The purpose of this study is to examine students’ opinions on specific topics, therefore the most suitable method was found to be via a survey with open and closed questions (Mathiyazhagan & Nandan, 2010). A survey is a research method that consists of systematically collecting data from a population or sample through direct questioning, and more specifically in this study through an online questionnaire (Mathiyazhagan & Nandan, 2010, p. 34). There exists a broad range of arguments for why academic freedom is or is not under threat, and therefore I found it more interesting to explicitly ask the students what their opinions on the topics were. Students are the focal point of these discussions, so gaining insight into their views is an important part of understanding the status and development of the premises of discussion in academia.
Distributing the survey to a large group of students provided an overview of their opinions on the relevant subjects. The survey was sent out to a group of international students located in a variety of countries around the world. As the research question focuses on inspecting students’ opinions, I found it more appropriate to examine the views of a larger group instead of a few individuals, which a survey facilitates effectively in comparison to, for example, in-depth interviews (Mathiyazhagan & Nandan, 2010, p. 42). Additionally, making distinctions between respondents of different study fields, and analyzing the variations of answers is valuable to the study when discussing the qualities of the data. From this, the target audience was determined to be students studying both social and natural sciences. The reason for handing it out to international students was to gain a variety of perspectives as they differ according to demographics and social and political basis. The hope was to reach as many different viewpoints as possible in order to present a nuanced picture of the issue.
Data Collection and Analysis The survey was digital and sent via email to the students participating or published in a closed group on a social media platform. It was divided into three parts: the participants’ general views on openness in academia, their opinions on how the discussion environment should be, and lastly, their views on the use of safe spaces. Most of the questions were closed-ended with the only alternatives being ‘yes’ or ‘no’, while some were open for more feedback in terms of briefly elaborating their viewpoints. One of the questions used a typical five-level Likert scale, which is a type of response scale where the responder can specify their level of agreement to the statements presented to them (Preedy & Watson, 2010, p. 4288).
In order to analyze the data and take into account the social and political factors that could have affected the responses, the different countries have been classified according to Country Scores for the Liberal Democracy Index (LDI) (V-Dem Institute, 2020). This index measures liberal and electoral aspects of democracy based on a range of indicators such as to what degree the country in question can guarantee freedom of association, freedom of speech, protection of individual liberties, as well as the checks and balances between institutions (V-Dem Institute, 2020, p. 30-32). The nationalities represented by the respondents were then categorized according to the LDI into four categories: Liberal Democracy (LD), Electoral Democracy (ED), Electoral Autocracy (EA), and Closed Autocracy (CA). Countries belonging to LD score the highest on the Liberal Democracy Index, while countries of CA score the lowest. The countries are classified into their respective category when the answers are discussed, and the list of countries can be found in the appendix.
When processing material from the survey, I found it appropriate to first take a quantitative approach by using statistics, in order to make generalizations based on the opinions of the majority of the respondents. In order to categorize the different answers according to different factors such as the Liberal Democracy Index, field of study, and gender, a deeper dive into the specific answers was made.
Quality of Data
To assess the quality of the conclusions drawn from this research, we rely on the terms validity, reliability, and generalizability. Validity refers to the logical connection between the questions asked, the method chosen, and the conclusions we reach (Tjora, 2017, p. 231). In simple terms, high validity means that we are measuring the right concepts to answer the questions we ask. Low validity can be a result of problems with research design. Reliability, on the other hand, refers to the more random errors that can occur during a research process (Ringdal, 2014, p. 355). Both validity and reliability affects the generalizability of the research presented. Generalizability refers to the relevance the presented results can have to a broader perspective (Tjora, 2017, p. 231). Do these results speak for other cases than the one investigated? In the following, these dimensions of quality will be addressed.
Validity As mentioned, using a survey to research student’s views on academic freedom and safe spaces is an optimal choice because it allows us to get insight on opinions, but also look at correlations between social and personal characteristics and opinions (Mathiyazhagan & Nandan, 2010, p. 34). The survey being anonymous makes it difficult to consider the seriousness of each individual respondent, but this is necessary in order to protect the respondents’ privacy and anonymity. It was ensured that those contacted were connected to legitimate student networks, and therefore that the survey was restricted to current students. This increases the validity of the study, as well as the fact that previous research on the topic has been extensively covered. This shows that the research question is academically rooted. The methodological and theoretical choices have also been explained, which again increases the study’s validity.
On the other hand, the study does have some weaknesses regarding validity. The survey was
only answered by a certain number of students, and there could always have been a larger variety regarding where the students came from, their field of study and their gender. This will be discussed further when discussing the study’s generalizability. Further, approximately 65 percent of the respondents finished the entire survey, while the remaining only completed about half of the questions. This gives the ones who finished the survey more influence on the results, as their answers make up a larger percentage of the total sum of answers. Also, with the main data collector method being a survey with limited possibilities for elaboration, there is a chance that some of the answers have been misunderstood by my part, and that the assumptions I’ve had to make in order to present the answers and analyze them contribute to withholding their actual opinions. Another noteworthy point is the one involving linguistic problems. The survey was distributed among students residing in diverse countries all over the world with varying levels of English language skills. This, in combination with the lack of chance to elaborate, made it difficult to interpret some answers, which left them open to interpretation and presumptions.
Reliability It is to be noted that I had very little knowledge on the subject matter beforehand, except for the awareness of growing trends of political correctness in the media, and the examples of lecturers and professors being suspended due to statements considered to be inappropriate. With that being said, the sum of the information I had resulted in a slightly biased mindset in favor of those opposed to the use of safe spaces and limiting discussion premises. In order to prevent this from affecting the progress of the study, it was therefore crucial to read enough on the subjects from different perspectives in advance to secure a nuanced overview of the issue. This was helpful in the way that it ruled out some of the assumptions I had beforehand, as well as including other relevant information and facts that were factbased. Nevertheless, it is possible that being in favor of a certain viewpoint beforehand can have resulted in leading questions, as well as presumptions and generalizations of the data material in favor of the viewpoint I had beforehand.
When reflecting on the questions when processing the data material, some of them might appear leading, such as: “Do you think open and boundless discussions could contribute to normalizing hateful and dangerous opinions?”. When reflecting upon the formulation, it clearly makes the suggestion that the topics in question could lead to normalizing dangerous opinions. Another question in mind is: “Do you find the right of your fellow students and lecturers to express their opinions more important than you potentially feeling offended?”. What these questions have in common is that they suggest what the respondent could be thinking if they were to respond ‘yes’, and in turn encouraging them to think so. Implying an answer to the respondent can contribute to weakening the reliability of the survey.
Further, it is to be noted that survey as a data collection method opens up for less mainstream opinions. This means that the respondent has more room to express opinions that normally aren’t expressed. The survey being both digital and anonymous makes it easier for the respondents to be honest, which has a positive effect on the reliability of the study.
Generalizability As the research question is the motivation for the study, the study’s potential for a generalized conclusion is determined by whether the respondents answered the questions accurately or not. We should recognize the main source of generalizability to be the number and range of respondents, as not only students’, but generally people’s views on topics regarding social issues vary immensely according to for example demographics and social status. Considering the survey reached a number of respondents lower than 50, it is unlikely that it provided enough data for us to make assumptions when trying to make this study generalizable for all audiences. In order to identify patterns, the number of respondents has to be large, and the respondents themselves have to be diverse enough for us to make the assumption that any group of respondents within the same category would submit similar answers. As mentioned earlier, the respondents were of a varied range of countries, which provides the study validity regarding diversity in countries. With that being said, approximately 82 percent of the respondents identified as female, which might affect the results, and therefore not necessarily apply to all students. Considering the fact that politically correct is a term mostly used by conservatives to criticize liberals, and the fact that young women tend to be more politically left-oriented, there is reason to believe that the dominance of female respondents might provide more politically correct perspectives (Shorrocks, 2018, p. 136; Sutliff, 2019).
Analysis and Discussion
When analyzing the survey material, four issues stood out as main areas of interest to the students. The analysis will present the respondents’ opinions on these topics and discuss potential implications.
Discussion Environments
The first issue concerns the respondents’ views on open and boundless discussions, and if they are effective in attempting to understand the opposite perspective as a way of coming to an agreement. In regards to this the students’ general views on the use of safe spaces and trigger warnings will be discussed, and what they find more efficient when trying to solve a controversial issue.
Extreme Opinions in Open Discussions “Do you think open and boundless discussions could contribute to normalizing hateful and dangerous opinions and attitudes?” was a question that engaged the respondents. A disagreeing female residing in a country categorized as ED according to the LDI scale argued that open discussions can widen the perspectives of those who have hateful opinions rather than the opposite. Another respondent from an ED country said that as long as there is a basis of mutual respect from the beginning, attitudes and opinions won’t go to extremes. A respondent who agreed with the statement question reasoned that having discussions with those of an opposite mindset leads to a more open mind. However, this respondent specifies that this also includes those who don’t have extreme opinions in the first place. They see open discussions as something that forces us to analyze rather than reject other opinions, which leads to a more normalized and relaxed relationship with provocative opinions. An EA-country resident submitted an answer in the same vein, saying that open discussions lead to listening and understanding others’ opinions. Another respondent from an EA-categorized country who also agreed stated that controversial and provocative opinions should be politely presented and based on facts. Further, a respondent from an LD-country said that boundless discussions could lead to emphasizing dangerous opinions, and that the solution is to attain mutual respect between the participants in order to avoid this problem.
One respondent, from an LD-country, insisted that we shouldn’t reserve all attention to hateful opinions, but at the same time not be scared of them. They argued that “(...) it is important that we reflect upon when and how we address these topics, and how much attention we give it.” I perceive this to mean that hateful and provocative attitudes only are normalized if we choose to give them a certain amount of attention. An ED-country resident continued saying that they are not in favor of hate speech, and believe these attitudes “should be approached in an educational and disapproving way.”
These results show that a majority of the students thought that the best way to approach a controversial and difficult topic is through a discussion environment in which the participants show a certain amount of respect to each other. The students seemed to agree that whether one likes it or not, all opinions that are heard and recognized, are also automatically normalized and destigmatized. Awareness of this is probably the reason for the focus some of the respondents had on how hateful opinions should be addressed and handled by the listeners. From the results there is reason to believe that residents from countries with a low score on the LDI scale seem to lean more towards removal of boundaries regarding provocative opinions rather than limiting them.
Safe Spaces and Trigger Warnings Another question inquired as to what the respondent would find more productive when addressing a difficult issue; boundless discussions or discussions in which the feelings of the vulnerable participants are taken into account. The top three respondents who seemed most supportive of boundless discussions was a man studying social sciences in an EA-country and two women studying social and natural sciences, both residing in an ED-country. Among the reasons were “(...) pretty much everything can be a trigger, because people react differently” and “I believe in people to communicate and discuss freely with no threat imposed (...) on them”.
After analyzing the answers to this question, it appears that approximately 25 percent of the students participating agree that completely free discussions are the optimal option when working with difficult issues. The rest of the respondents lean more towards a compromise between allowing open discussions and retaining a certain amount of respect and tolerance to one another. This could possibly be connected to what was found in the background section of this case study regarding students’ change of focus in terms of activism. As mentioned in the background, the recent spread of safe spaces has occurred in parallel to the decline of students’ engagement in university politics. This confirms the correlation between this tendency with the majority of the respondents being in favor of retaining some respect between participants in a discussion. To show a specific example, a respondent answered that the best option in difficult discussions is “free discussions, based on respect (and) tolerance. With a moderator or group of them to lead the conversation and avoid disrespect.” Another pointed out the importance of talking “about why something is difficult to talk about”. A student reasoned that the solution is “making open and educational speeches (...) without, however, using phrases based on pure and simple hate (...)” and “(...) hate speeches should be identified and exposed reproachfully, without being taken into account.” They also emphasized that “participants must be willing to change their mind during the discussion.” Another summarized their opinion into “talk, respect, tolerance…”, which appears to be the favored opinion among the respondents.
When asked “Do you find the right of your fellow students and lecturers to express their opinions to be more important than you potentially feeling offended?”, approximately 67 percent answered yes. The respondents were then asked if they believe safe spaces can contribute to shielding students from potentially upsetting situations, and here an amount of 73 percent responded yes. This was followed by an open question in which the respondents were asked to elaborate in a few sentences whether they think safe spaces can be helpful to students who withhold from participating in discussions due to fear of being offended. To this, one student answered that safe spaces are a good idea because it facilitates a safe environment in which participants can explain uncomfortable situations as well as have an open place to talk. Another one agreed by saying that safe spaces make people comfortable sharing thoughts without fearing judgement. One more answered that they believe safe spaces ensure that “whatever happens there is private, non-personal and non-offensive”. However, one respondent perceived the issue to be very difficult, as “what offends one may not be offensive to others. (...) it’s really hard to create a safe space for everyone involved. Another supporter of safe spaces, on the other hand, rooted for “(...) more security!”. Further, approximately 64 percent said they would prefer a trigger warning if they were to be exposed to distressing content which may make them feel uncomfortable, which corresponds with the respondents’ general views on safe spaces.
As presented in the background chapter, the growing trend of safe spaces is a threat to academic freedom (Kwiek, 2006, p. 5). If this is found to be true, the survey results suggest a paradox. The reason for this is the 67 percent of the respondents who found a person’s right to express their opinions more important than their right to feel offended, at the same time as 73 percent think safe spaces are a good idea for preventing distressing situations for certain students. This contradiction could be caused by the formulation of the questions, referring to the tendency of leading questions due to my level of knowledge beforehand. It could also be the difference between mine and the respondents’ perception of safe spaces, meaning, based on their answers to previous questions on this topic, that what I have found to be the definition of safe spaces doesn’t match with their understanding of the term. In this manner their answers don’t necessarily need to be contradictory according to themselves.
The results of a question I reviewed as leading in the methodology, revealed surprising numbers. The question was the following: “Do you think participating in safe spaces will make students more reluctant to listen to their opponents’ opinions?”, to which a majority of 58 percent disagreed. This could mean that they are confident in their knowledge of safe spaces, and therefore can clear out what they consider to be incorrect effects of the concept.
The 25 percent of respondents who found completely open discussion environments to be the optimal choice were residing in ED- and EA-countries, which are all ranked relatively low on the LDI scale. This leads to the assumption that the lack of democracy and liberalism could make them desire it even more. It is to be noted that the respondents in favor of boundless discussion environments represented a wide enough range of study programmes and gender for us to not be able to generalize opinions on this topic dependent on these two factors. Therefore, we can conclude that the support of open discussions among the students is independent of gender and study programme, but possibly determined by the social and political conditions they are exposed to in their respective countries. There is reason to believe that there exists certain structural circumstances that contribute to shape the students’ relations to topics involving free speech and limitations of discussion environments.
The students were then asked if they would prefer to discuss difficult topics with people they agreed with, or an opponent. Those who preferred an opponent, were represented by countries categorized as ED and EA, with one exception of LD, which holds up the assumption that supporters of free discussions are residents in areas deficient of democracy and liberalism. In addition, 33 percent of these were males, which is a higher percentage than what the males make up in total of the respondents. Next, the students were challenged to, on a scale from 1 to 5, choose to what degree they would take into account other participants’ feelings when discussing a controversial topic, 1 being the lowest and 5 the highest. Approximately 30 percent chose 5, while the rest were equally distributed between 2, 3 and 4. This indicates that the students are relatively cautious in discussions with one another, which matches their general opinions on how participants should treat each other when debating and discussing.
The survey then inquired who the respondents consider to be responsible for creating a safe discussion environment at universities, which I also will look closer at in conjunction with some other questions. All of the respondents included the lecturers and/or the university as an institution in their answers. A female from an LD-country highlighted the role that schools and lecturers have in teaching how to lead discussions with rationality and a critical mind, as they are the ones with experience in educating students.
Critical Thinking and Academic Freedom
The other issues the students emphasized were what they believe stimulates critical thinking, as well as whose and what responsibility it is to secure this. Lastly I will look at to what extent they feel students and lecturers at their university have academic freedom.
Developing Critical Thinking The students were asked if they think the curriculum they’re exposed to helps them develop critical thinking. Here it is important to keep in mind whether the students study social or natural science, as the understanding of critical thinking may vary according to the field of study. This is confirmed by one of the respondents who studies natural sciences and said “no such curriculum concerning controversial topics have been presented”. There is reason to believe that the students experience the educational system to be stimulating to their critical thinking, as most of the respondents answered yes. However, a student from an EA-country expressed the opinion that the curriculums are often too focused on culture and tradition rather than modern thoughts and ideas. Another respondent argued that they “don’t think that absolute rationality exists”, which I perceive to be implying that it is impossible for us to determine what rational and critical thinking really means, as it is relative. When asked whether or not they believe being exposed to provocative opinions can contribute to more reflective thinking, 82 percent of the students answered yes.
When raising the vital question about whether students in academia are challenged enough to develop critical reasoning and thinking, this study has answered one of the aspects of the question, which is if the students themselves experience a form for intellectual development. As most of the students claimed they receive enough stimuli to challenge their mindset, I can therefore confirm that the target audience of this study feel as if they are intellectually growing at their universities. With that being said, there were still exceptions of certain students who for example claimed that their universities were too focused on cultural traditions rather than modern ideas, referring to the EA-country residing student presented earlier. As we have seen, one respondent from an EA-country stated that their university is too focused on culture and tradition rather than modern ideas, which gives reason to believe that countries of lower scores of democracy and liberalism tend to control their respective institutions more according to the governmental agendas, in opposition to democracies where the universities’ autonomy and the employees’ academic freedom is highly valued. Therefore the mentioned respondent’s answer is a valid reflection of this characteristic.
Freedom to Discuss and Criticize When asked if they experience that students have the freedom to initiate discussions at their university regarding controversial topics, approximately 63 percent of the respondents answered yes. Their reasons were that they perceive universities as open spaces, and that they generally feel free to participate in discussions in class. Among the 37 percent that answered no, one respondent from an EA-country answered that:
“Although the country is democratic, the government practices a close system type (...) where the government and military oversee everything (...). I think students are afraid maybe their discussions on some controversial topics could get to the authorities and land them in trouble.”
One respondent from an LD country said the following: “(...) a lack of experience, knowledge, and respect may result in a bad reputation for the university.” A student from an EA country responded:
“(...) based on their cultures and probably Islamic cultures, students are not much involved in discussions such as homosexuality, gender equality, capitalism, sexual education (...), some would tell it is a sin or beyond our Islamic culture to discuss such sort of topics.”
The exact same numbers were obtained when the students were asked a similar question only regarding lecturers’ instead of students’ freedom to begin controversial discussions. Whatever the respondents answered on the first question, they also answered on the second one.
The respondents were also asked to briefly elaborate whether or not they feel the freedom to criticize the curriculum and/or the lecturers. Most of the respondents agreed that they don’t, reasoned by the perception of not having the same amount of influence as their lecturers, meaning they aren’t on the same intellectual level and therefore don’t have the same authority to put forward their opinions as valid ones. More specifically, a student said “we can file a complaint later, but it doesn’t mean it will mean anything”, as another answered “I would not have an efficient way of changing it”. These two answers suggest that the university environments are organized in a manner which leaves space for criticism of the institution, but that the road there is a long and bureaucratic one. The reason could perhaps be that the universities aren’t as flexible regarding criticism as I assumed, which in turn could be caused by confidence on the university part that the curriculum is optimal. In an Indonesian respondent’s opinion, criticizing the lecturers would be a bad idea because “in my country, we have to respect the elders”. One student located in an EA-country explained they don’t want to be targeted based on their status as an international student if they went as far as criticizing the university. Another one, also residing in an EA-categorized country, answered that if they criticized the curriculum “(...) this would affect the progress of my studies.” Such a perception indicates that their respective country fulfills what there is to expect from an EA-country, referring to limitations of freedom of expression and persecutions of those who intimidate the authorities. Regarding the respondents’ personal experiences, they perceive their universities to be facilitating the same opportunities for both students and lecturers to initiate discussions involving controversial topics.
Conclusion
Generally speaking, most students put a high value on freedom of speech, and prioritize it over someone’s potential of feeling offended by someone using this right. Especially the respondents residing in countries categorized as semi or weak liberal democracies were more clear in believing that discussions should be free in order to secure optimal problem solving. Still, the majority of the students are in favor of a form for arranging safe spaces, as they believe that it is an effective way of securing participation from normally withdrawn students who fear upsetting situations. Disagreements regarding safe spaces boil down to the dilemma of whether we prefer students actively participating in discussions via regulated safe spaces, or feeling more uncomfortable in free discussion environments. Considering the vast majority of students who believed that they are developing critical thinking on the basis of the curriculum they are exposed to, one can conclude that they themselves can sense their intellectual progress, which gives hope to those in support of student uprisings and their effect on the political arena.
That said, it would have been interesting to take a deep dive into some specific views on the matter in order to gain a thorough understanding of certain opinions. But since one of the main purposes of investigating these topics was to collect different views from different perspectives, it was more relevant to put through a survey in order to reach out to a larger quantity of respondents. Another aspect of the issue which, in my opinion, is vital to collecting comprehensive knowledge on the issue is how the use of safe spaces and regulation of freedom of discussion affects students directly, meaning how it affects the development of critical thinking and reflection. With insight into this, it would have been more clear to us what consequences the students’ opinions on the relevant topics have on their intellectual progress, and with that, what sort of academic benefits are being provided by our universities to those who one day will govern the world.
