Week 11 Session: Learning from elsewhere
A debate exercise arguing whether specific overseas findings can be imported, adapted, or set aside for lack of local evidence.
3 May 2027
Before the session#
Read both case cards (Seiler 2005, moose/Sweden; Bissonette & Rosa 2012, deer/Utah) and the Grellan Creek Road scenario in this week’s lecture.
In the session — “The International Evidence Customs Office”#
| Step | Time | Activity |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5 min | Recap the five transfer questions and the outcome-type ladder as a group. |
| 2 | 10 min | Each group is assigned a specific claim (drawn from the case cards or the Grellan Creek scenario) and must argue one of three verdicts: transfer as-is, adapt and test locally, or insufficient evidence to use. |
| 3 | 10 min | Present your verdict and reasoning to another group. |
| 4 | 10 min | The other group cross-questions you: what evidence, if it existed, would change your verdict? |
| 5 | 10 min | Whole-room debrief. Different groups reaching different verdicts on similar claims is an expected, acceptable outcome — there is no forced consensus and no default “cannot transfer” answer to fall back on. |
| 6 | 5 min | Submit the Evidence Passport (see below). |
Evidence Passport (formative)#
For your assigned claim: the verdict your group reached, the reasoning (referencing the five questions), and the specific piece of evidence that would upgrade or downgrade that verdict. This is a formative output for this week’s activity, not a required final-project attachment — though the reasoning pattern is directly reusable if your final project draws on overseas evidence.
Afterwards#
If your final-project intervention leans on a Seiler-, Bissonette-and-Rosa-, or other overseas-sourced finding, the same five questions apply there — be explicit in your proposal about which parts of the evidence you’re treating as a transferable mechanism and which parts you’re treating as a locally-untested parameter.
The spec
What you bring to the session. Written so a reader can tell whether it has been met without asking you.
- you can apply the five transfer questions to a specific claim and reach a defensible verdict, even if your group disagrees with another group's verdict on the same claim
- you can state what additional evidence would change your verdict
Teaching team
- Rowan Achterberg — tutor
- Marisol Quaye — convenor