The transport system is so good here, and my expectations of it, so low, that I arrived at my first meeting over twenty minutes early. I then made the mistake of looking at my map for the building I was heading to, rather than looking around.
Most of the network 30 meetings are in the Engineering faculty, not in Psychology and Educational Sciences. Make of that what you will.
The day began with a meeting of (some of) the EER editorial board. All positive stuff for the journal as it continues to lead the field and is now moving to 8 issues a year. I learned that you can now have video abstracts – for those who find reading a challenge, as many do.
There was a mixed start to the conference with room changes and poor signage. Session one was marked by two really excellent discussants and one clear paper. The other papers (and presenters) irritated me no end. See my tweets for the detail. In fact, I was moved to wonder whether we could have dispensed with the papers all together.
Session 2 was much better: 3 good papers on competenc(i)es – more or less; two from Sweden; one from Germany. This mixing is the benefit of ECER. I have renewed my rule No. 54: don't talk to Germans about competences – or even competencies. I learned they are puzzled why the UK goes on about 'skills' so much. Me too.
The last session of the day, which I chaired, was about whether ESD research has the methodological tools it needs to propose robust suggestions and solutions? This was a question firmly tied to the overall conference theme, and one which all networks were asked to address.
I confess I was frustrated at the end because, after 90 minutes, we had hardly made a dent in the surface of the question, let alone dug into its core.
Of course, 90 minutes were never going to be sufficient to do any of that, but that was the tyranny of the timetable. Conferences which are designed on a 'pile presentations high' principle in order to maximise inputs and therefore attendance are not good spaces for such questions. Much better would be something like a 28 hour format – 1200 Day 1 to 1600 Day 2 – where time is available (formally and informally) for a well-structured approach to issues. So, who's organising it?
As to the question itself, 'Does ESD have the methodological tools it needs to propose robust suggestions and solutions?', it's hard to know where to begin, but here are are a couple of thoughts:
1. The use of 'solutions' suggests that such things are possible, and 'robust' implies that they (the suggestions) might have validity over a reasonable timescale. Both 'suggestions' seem questionable.
2. The brief for the symposium suggested that a problem might be that we (ESD researchers) might be providing poor answers to good questions, or good answers to poor questions. As I look around, both seem likely – as is that we might well also be providing poor answers to poor questions. Those obsessing about 'quality' please note.
Respond