When university discussions work – and when they don't

As institutions of public education, universities play a crucial role in creating and sharing knowledge that benefits society. Through research and education, new ideas and knowledge spread into the economy, politics, and education, making them widely accessible. A key element in this process is the exchange of ideas through discussion.

At Maastricht University, this takes place through Problem-Based Learning (PBL), in which students apply theoretical knowledge to real-world problems. In tutorial groups, students work together on questions, exchange perspectives, and develop solutions through dialogue.

In this context, the role of the university extends beyond conveying knowledge. It also involves fostering the ability to understand different viewpoints, critically reflect on them, and engage in constructive discussion. These skills are essential for a functioning democracy and enable informed participation in societal discourse.

In practice, however, my own experiences have been mixed. When discussions begin to resemble monologues or participants become hesitant to engage with opposing viewpoints, the exchange of ideas becomes more difficult. At a PBL university, this may affect both the quality of learning and the openness of discussion.

In one tutorial discussion on executive compensation, students debated whether it is justified that top CEOs earn many times more than other employees. The topic raised questions of fairness and social inequality, making it well suited to a discussion involving multiple perspectives.

The discussion was marked by a generally open and inclusive atmosphere. While some participants contributed more actively than others, everyone took part to some extent. It became clear that everyone had developed an opinion and felt comfortable expressing it within the group.

Although certain opinions were repeated, they were often justified from different perspectives. Likewise, participants sometimes reached different conclusions despite starting from similar underlying viewpoints, simply interpreting the same arguments in different ways. This resulted in a broad spectrum of opinions, supported by a wide range of arguments.

Rather than dividing into opposing camps, participants focused on refining and supporting their own viewpoints instead of discrediting those of others. Different opinions were able to coexist, adding nuance to the discussion. Such exchanges are particularly effective when there is genuine diversity in viewpoints, rather than a simple divide between two opposing sides.

What stood out to me most was how the discussion concluded. Throughout the exchange, I could see fellow students questioning their own viewpoints and engaging with new arguments. There was little sense of competition or any need to "win" the argument. Instead, the conversation ended with participants feeling heard and respected, without anyone appearing to have lost. That absence of winners and losers reinforced the constructive nature of the discussion.

Looking back, I found myself asking what made this discussion so different from others. One factor that stood out was the distance between the topic and the participants' own experiences.

It is arguably easier to debate whether it is justified that individuals such as Stephen Schwarzman, CEO of Blackstone, received a total payout of over one billion dollars in 2024, including salary and dividends. For the students in the tutorial, this issue remained largely abstract, as none of the participants were directly affected by such levels of income.

The topic lay far outside their everyday experience. None of the participants knew someone in their immediate environment to whom such figures would apply. This distance made it easier to approach the issue in a more analytical and less emotional way, supporting a balanced and open discussion.

As a result, participants often appeared to speak past rather than with one another. Rather than exploring new perspectives, many returned to arguments they had encountered before, making the discussion feel increasingly repetitive.

This also affected participation within the group. While nearly everyone actively engaged in the discussion on executive compensation, only part of the group participated meaningfully in the discussion on migration. Some students gradually became less active, either remaining silent or avoiding deeper engagement with the topic. The discussion increasingly became dominated by a small number of highly engaged participants whose focus appeared to shift towards "winning" the debate rather than exploring the complexity of the issue.

The key difference with the earlier discussion was not the absence of consensus, but the reduced willingness to engage with different perspectives and critically reflect on one's own position. Rather than examining arguments together, the participants who remained actively involved largely defended their existing beliefs. At times, the tutorial shifted away from shared learning and came to resemble a confrontation between opposing viewpoints.

This made it more difficult for the tutorial to achieve its intended learning goals. Rather than encouraging critical reflection on migration, globalisation and European refugee policy, the discussion increasingly revolved around emotional and familiar political narratives. As a result, the tutorial struggled to create the open and reflective learning environment it was intended to foster.

The contrast between the two tutorials illustrates how strongly the nature of a topic, and the personal proximity participants feel towards it, can shape the quality and direction of academic discussions. The value of the earlier discussion did not lie in reaching consensus, but in participants' willingness to critically examine arguments, reflect on their own assumptions, and seriously engage with perspectives different from their own.

Reflecting on this broader question of political interaction and communication led me to an essay titled Der Gartenzaun ist die Brandmauer ("The garden fence is the firewall") by Maria Fiedler, published in Der Spiegel. The essay discusses how people interact in everyday life with supporters of extreme political parties and refers to a 2023 German study in which strangers were paired and asked to discuss politically polarising topics. The study, conducted by Adrian Blattner and Martin Koenen, examined whether such conversations could reduce affective polarisation.

Interestingly, Blattner and Koenen found that constructive conversations did not necessarily reduce ideological differences. Participants generally maintained their political positions, but many reported a greater understanding of the other person's arguments, motivations, and perspectives. This finding seems particularly relevant to PBL tutorials at Maastricht University, especially when discussions focus on highly polarising topics such as migration.

The value of academic discussions may therefore lie less in reaching consensus or convincing others than in creating an environment where participants are willing to engage seriously with opposing viewpoints while remaining open to reflecting on their own assumptions. In many ways, this reflects the principles of PBL, where learning emerges through discussion, reflection, and engagement with different perspectives, even when no shared conclusion is reached.

My observations from these two tutorials, despite their very different dynamics and outcomes, seem to reflect many of the study's findings. However, it is important to note that these findings were derived from one-to-one conversations. This raises the question of whether the same effects can be expected in tutorial discussions.

Tutorial discussions ask students not only to exchange ideas, but to do so in front of their peers, which may influence how willing they are to reconsider their own views. Are polarised and repetitive debates partly driven by group dynamics? In a one-to-one conversation, participants are not exposed to the same social pressure of being observed by a larger group, and the perceived need to "win" an argument may be less pronounced. As a result, individuals may feel more comfortable reconsidering their views or acknowledging points made by the other person.

This raises a broader question: how can insights from one-to-one conversations be applied within tutorials of approximately 15 students? In the context of PBL, the challenge is to translate these findings into discussion formats that encourage genuine engagement with different perspectives while preventing discussions from developing into polarised monologues.

While there may be no simple solution to this challenge, it is a question worth asking because it touches on one of the fundamental purposes of higher education.

In the end, all students attend university to learn. If meaningful discussions can no longer take place at university, it becomes difficult to imagine where they should happen at all. After all, a monologue leaves us knowing only what we knew beforehand.

By Johannes Kugel, third-year Bachelor's student in International Business at Maastricht University