Slop University publishes a forty-page assessment policy, a thirty-page academic integrity procedure, and a flowchart for appealing a mark. It publishes nothing about how to ask a tutor a question without sounding rude, or how to ask for an extension without sounding like an excuse.
Welcome back from the break. Part III of the course is about negotiating with the protocol, and it starts with the most formal version of it: institutions.
The format has a price#
Institutional messages run on an undocumented register, and getting it wrong has a measured cost. Stephens, Houser and Cowan showed instructors student emails written either casually or formally. The difference accounted for between 48% and 64% of the variance in how the instructors felt about the student, how credible they found them, and their attitude to the message. It also affected whether they agreed to a simple request to meet (Stephens et al., 2009).
The same study asked instructors and students what bothered them. Instructors were bothered more, especially by unsigned emails and shortcuts like “RU”. Students put the problem down to technology; instructors put it down to training. That is what an undocumented expectation looks like: two groups following different rules, each assuming theirs is the obvious one.
It is 2009 data from the US, and email norms drift. The course treats it as evidence that the register matters, not as a ruling on emoji.
Ask directly#
The other half of institutional protocol is whether you ask at all. In Flynn and Lake’s studies, people underestimated how likely others were to say yes to a direct request for help, by as much as 50%. The askers focused on what saying yes cost the helper and underestimated the social cost of saying no (Flynn & Lake, 2008).
Make the request specific enough to answer.
The other fear#
Another concern can keep an email in drafts: they will think less of me for asking.
Brooks, Gino and Schweitzer found that people hold back from asking for advice for fear of appearing incompetent, and then found the fear runs the wrong way: people judged someone who asked for advice as more capable than someone who didn’t (Brooks et al., 2015).
Before leaving the email in drafts, separate those predictions: will they say no? and will they think less of me? What evidence do you have for each?
Three things made the effect stronger, and each one is an instruction:
| What moved it | What it tells you to do |
|---|---|
| the task was difficult rather than easy | ask about the part that is genuinely hard, not the part on page 3 of the course outline |
| advice was sought from them personally | write to the person, not to the room — “I wanted to ask you specifically” |
| the person asked was an expert | ask whoever has the relevant knowledge |
These were experiments on how capable someone looks, mostly in work and decision-making settings. Nobody measured a tutor. The course takes the direction of the effect and the three moderators, and not a promise about your convenor.
The friction is at the interface#
Compared with non-autistic students, autistic students at UK universities reported more challenges with the social side of university life, and also reported academic strengths (Gurbuz et al., 2019). The email, the office door and the group chat can add demands around the academic work. Some of their conventions are learned from family or school; the course writes them down.
The institution knows#
Davies and Bagnall interviewed 11 disability support staff at seven UK universities about supporting autistic students through the transition to university. The staff described that transition as an ongoing process rather than an event, and listed the academic and non-academic support they offer.
They also named their own barriers. Alongside a lack of resources: “relying on students to self-advocate their needs” (Davies & Bagnall, 2024). The paper’s plain-language summary puts it flatly — they “relied too much on students asking for what they need”.
The scripts below make requests specific. A review links self-advocacy with educational and employment outcomes, but calls these “encouraging associations”, not a proven effect of teaching these scripts (Martino et al., 2025).
But the fix those staff recommend is not that you get better at asking. Their three recommendation themes were comprehensive preparation and sustained support, better communication between stakeholders, and an accessible, inclusive university culture — with universal design named as the way to take pressure off individual services. A culture where fewer individual adjustments are needed at all.
Use the scripts where they help. Needing them does not make the system right to require them. The authors note that their study heard from staff only, and that autistic students would give a fuller picture.
In the room — rate your last ask (5 min)#
One minute, alone. Choose a past request to a staff member, or use this fictional case: Alex spent twenty minutes drafting a request for feedback on a report clause, expected refusal, and has not sent it. Mark the case as fictional.
Three minutes. Answer three questions, writing “unknown” where appropriate:
- How long did you spend composing it?
- Did you get what you asked for?
- If you didn’t ask at all — what stopped you?
One minute. Separate what happened from what you predicted would happen. Keep the answers private and bring them to the lab’s test of the specification.
Read the comic as text
“Dear Kevin, I’m sorry it’s taken me two years to reply to your email.”
“I’ve built up so much stress and anxiety around my email inbox; it’s an unhealthy dynamic which is more psychological than technical. I’ve tried one magical solution after another, and as each one has failed, deep down I’ve grown more certain that the problem isn’t email—it’s me.”
“Regardless, these are my issues, not yours; you’re my friend, and I owe you the basic courtesy of a response. I apologize for my neglect and I hope you haven’t been too hurt by my failure to reply.”
“Anyway, I appreciate your invitation to join your professional network on LinkedIn, but I’m afraid I must decline…”
Specimen: the email to a tutor#
The course’s specification, in seven clauses. Use the wording as a template; test the clauses in the lab.
Subject: [NT101] Interoperation Report: feedback on a reply-time clause?
Hi Jonah,
I’m in the Thursday lab and drafting a reply-time clause for the Interoperation Report.
Would “reply by 18:00 on the next weekday” make our clause checkable?
I’ve read the brief’s requirement for a check each partner can use. Our first draft only said “reply promptly”.
We’re reviewing the draft on Monday, so a reply before then would help.
Thanks, Alex Chen (u7654321)
| # | Clause | In the specimen |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | The subject line carries the course code and the request. | “[NT101] Interoperation Report: feedback…” |
| 2 | Greet by name. | “Hi Jonah,” |
| 3 | Give context in one or two sentences, no more. | the Thursday lab, and the draft clause |
| 4 | Make one request, as a question with an answerable shape. | “Would … make our clause checkable?” |
| 5 | Say what you’ve already checked. | the brief’s check requirement and the existing wording |
| 6 | Say when you need it by, and why. | “before Monday” |
| 7 | Sign off with your full name and student number. | “Alex Chen (u7654321)” |
Clause 4 makes it possible to check whether the reply answered your question. Separate requests are the course’s default. A recipient who asks for related questions in one thread has given you a reason to vary it.
Specimen: the extension request#
Ask before the deadline, and ask for a date. The request is the date; the reason is supporting information, and it can be short.
Subject: [NT101] Extension request: Interoperation Report
Hi Wren,
I’d like to request an extension on the Interoperation Report to Wednesday 2 June. I’ve had a health issue this fortnight that’s cost me most of my working time. I’m about half done, and the new date would let me finish it properly.
Thanks, Alex Chen (u7654321)
The body is 43 words. It states the date, a one-line reason, and where the work stands. It doesn’t apologise three times, and it doesn’t disclose more than the request needs. “A health issue” is enough for an extension. Week 10 covers what it means to disclose a need without a label, and this is a small version of it.
Specimen: office hours#
The office-hours visit has an undocumented opening, and it’s easy to write down. Say who you are, what the question is about, and how long it will take:
“Hi, I’m Alex, from NT 101. I’ve got one question about the Protocol Specification feedback. It should take about five minutes.”
Saying how long it’ll take is the easiest move to leave out. It tells the tutor how to budget their attention, and it gives you a natural point to leave: at five minutes, “that’s everything, thanks”.
Group work#
A group’s first meeting sets its protocol, whether or not anyone writes it down. Write it down. The agreement fits on one screen:
- Roles. Who does which part, and who pulls the sections together.
- Channel. Where the group talks, and where decisions get recorded.
- Reply time. “Within a day on weekdays” is a norm the group can check itself against. “ASAP” isn’t.
- Decisions. Majority, consensus, or the person who owns that part.
- Going quiet. What happens when someone disappears for three days. The week 7 message (“I’m going quiet for a few days…”) is what the group agrees to send, and what the others agree to accept.
Agree what silence means before someone goes quiet. Otherwise the group has to guess.
In the room — write the going-quiet clause (6 min)#
One minute. Form a fictional group of three. Its draft says “Reply ASAP; tell us if anything changes.” Nobody has specified what that means.
Two minutes, separately. Each person writes a replacement covering what someone sends before going quiet, how long others wait before checking in, and what they do not conclude from the silence.
Two minutes, together. Read the three versions and negotiate one sentence.
One minute. Check that each person knows what to do after the agreed wait. If you do not agree, keep the competing proposals with their reasons.
In the room — check the reply, then the exception (10 min)#
Two minutes, in pairs. Read this fictional exchange. Sam asks a tutor: “Could we meet Friday? Can I have until 2 June for the report? Are four clauses enough?” The reply is: “I can meet Friday at 11:00.”
Three minutes. Mark what the reply answered and what remains open. Draft one follow-up; do not convert silence about the extension into permission.
Three minutes. New instruction from the recipient: “Please keep related report questions in this one thread.” Revise your message to follow that instruction while making each unanswered request easy to identify.
Two minutes. Compare with another pair. Name the clause you varied and the evidence for the exception. A documented exception is part of a specification; “I couldn’t be bothered” is a different entry in the log.
In the room — cut it to one (6 min)#
Use this prepared draft; no one needs to hand over their inbox:
Hi Jonah, could you check our reply-time clause, send the week 9 question cards, and tell me whether I can attend a different lab next week? Thanks, Alex.
One minute. Read it and choose the request to keep. Three minutes, in pairs. Write one answerable email around that request. List the other two as unsent follow-ups. Two minutes. Swap with another pair and check whether a reply could clearly answer the selected request. Explain why you prioritised it.
If time remains#
Which institutional request should become unnecessary if the institution documented its own protocol properly?
Optional discussion. Finish by 15:55.