I think that PhD development courses have to be\u00a0tricky things to structure for a number of reasons; foremost, perhaps, is the wide-ranging experiences that participants bring: from the novice setting out, for example, to someone well through the research and thinking of the thesis, or maybe the viva \u2013 if there is one, which is testimony to the various ways in which theses are tested and examined, which is another complicatory factor. \u00a0Then there's the language of discussion where not everyone will likely be confident or necessarily\u00a0fluent, which is a real problem if you think that people need to contribute in order to benefit. \u00a0Finally (for now), there's always a balance to be struck between input and discussion which will be particularly tricky if\u00a0there are expert academics around whose habit is to speak theory as opposed to English. \u00a0Sadly, the Cambridge event, for all its strengths, was not free of the last of these indulgences.<\/p>\n
Although I left before the end, I thought that the programme struck an effective balance across all these needs and notions, and I understand\u00a0that the evaluations were very positive. \u00a0It was helpful I\u00a0felt (though maybe I\u00a0would<\/em>) that we kept returning to the\u00a0Alfie<\/a> question: what's it all about, then? \u00a0What is environmental education (EfS etc) research for? \u00a0Given that\u00a0the world is still heading to hell in a handcart, clearly we should be taking all that rhetoric about environmental education's being the key social strategy to save the world with a large pinch of salt. \u00a0Not even education is that, of course \u2013 just an essential part of a potent mix of strategies. \u00a0So do we need to be more modest in our claims? \u00a0Or just more limited? \u00a0We certainly need to be more careful.<\/p>\n