Is AI destroying education? With Dan Fitzpatrick and John Warner

Is the rise of Generative AI a genuine threat to how we learn, or simply the next tool in the educational shed? While it is certainly changing the conversation in staffrooms and lecture halls, there is a lot of nuances to uncover between the headlines and the reality of the classroom. 

 

This episode of The Bridge: A Disagreeing Well Podcast from University College London and Students' Union UCL looks at the tension between the convenience of AI and the "productive struggle" of traditional learning. We explore whether we are at risk of losing something essential in our pursuit of efficiency. 

 

UCL student host Diego Lacheze-Beer facilitates a thoughtful discussion between two experts who, despite their different starting points, find some surprising areas of alignment: 

• Dan Fitzpatrick, educational strategist and author of The AI Classroom, sees AI as a supportive partner that can help manage the heavy lifting for teachers and provide students with a personalised way to engage with complex ideas. He argues that we should focus on how these tools can be used to augment human potential rather than replace it. 
• John Warner, writer and author of More Than Words, is more cautious about the "frictionless" nature of AI. He suggests that the effort required to write and think for oneself is where the actual education happens, and he worries that outsourcing this work to an algorithm might devalue the human experience of discovery. 

Our resident UCL expert mediator, Dr. Melanie Garson, helped the guests move beyond a simple pro or anti debate. She used the technique of identifying underlying fears and "drivers" to open up the conversation. By doing so, she helped the guests move from debating the technology itself to discussing the bigger picture: how the education system operates in a world permeated by AI and whether our current models of schooling are still meeting the current and future needs of students. 

 

Key takeaways from this episode: 

• Identify the "Driver": Melanie highlighted that our stances are often driven by personal roles - such as Dan’s perspective as a parent wanting his children to be ready for the future, versus John’s focus on protecting the creative process. 
• Look for Systemic Agreement: Often, a disagreement about a new tool is actually a shared frustration with an old system. Both guests agreed that the current "transactional" model of schooling often prioritises grades over actual learning. 
• Value the "Friction": In a world that prizes speed, there is a case for "disagreeing well" by defending the slow, difficult parts of learning that lead to genuine human insight and self-formation. 

Listen now to hear how we can find a sensible path forward for AI in education. 

 

This production was led by UCL student presenters, Diego Lacheze-Beer and Marva Khalid, who are participants on Students’ Union UCL’s Impartial Chairs Programme. Find out more about the programme and, if you are a UCL student, how you can apply here.  

 

This is a Research Podcasts production.  

 

Episode Credits 

Presenter: Diego Lacheze-Beer, Students’ Union UCL Impartial Chair 

Guests: Dan Fitzpatrick and John Warner 

Producer and editor: Research Podcasts 

Music: The Investigation by Pixabay  

Artwork: Johnson Banks and Indianna Dimmer 

 

Further reading and resources  

• Fitzpatrick, D., (2025), Infinite Education: The Four-Step Strategy for Leading Change in the Age of Artificial Intelligence 
• Fitzpatrick, D., (2025), The AI Classroom: The Ultimate Guide to Artificial Intelligence in Education 
• Fitzpatrick, D., (2025), The Educators’ AI Guide 2026 
• Stephenson, R., and Armstrong, C., (12th March 2026) “Student Generative Artifical Intelligence Survey 2026”, Higher Education Policy Institute 
•  Warner, J., (2025), More Than Words: How to Think About Writing in the Age of AI  

Creators and Guests

Guest

Dan Fitzpatrick

Educational strategist and author of The AI Classroom, sees AI as a supportive partner that can help manage the heavy lifting for teachers and provide students with a personalised way to engage with complex ideas. He argues that we should focus on how these tools can be used to augment human potential rather than replace it. 

Guest

John Warner

Writer and author of More Than Words, is more cautious about the "frictionless" nature of AI. He suggests that the effort required to write and think for oneself is where the actual education happens, and he worries that outsourcing this work to an algorithm might devalue the human experience of discovery. 

What is The Bridge: a Disagreeing Well podcast?

The Bridge: a Disagreeing Well podcast from University College London and Students' Union UCL tackles some of the most hotly debated issues of our time and provides practical techniques to bridge the divide between conflicting views. Each episode, our student hosts Marva Khalid and Diego Lacheze-Beer, along with expert UCL mediator Dr Melanie Garson, dive into a polarising question with informed and passionate guests with contrasting views. Tune in to better understand these critical debates, and equip yourself with the skills to have more meaningful conversations.

Find out more at https://www.ucl.ac.uk/about/the-bridge

Diego Lacheze-Beer 00:01

Hello and welcome to the second series of The Bridge: A Disagreeing Well podcast from University College London and Students' Union UCL that tackles hotly debated issues and provides us with tools and techniques to help us disagree about them better. I'm Diego Lacheze-Beer UCL student and co-producer of The Bridge, and I'm here to find out how we can have conversations that lead to understanding and mutual respect, rather than frustration and friction. Our question for today - os AI destroying education? Within months of ChatGPTs public release in 2022 it rapidly became the fastest growing consumer app. In less than five years generative AI tools have become significant in how many students, research, write and study. And teachers themselves are using these tools to plan lessons and manage workloads. Institutions are still working out how to respond. Some see AI as an opportunity, a means to offer widespread, accessible and personalised learning. Others, one of long term social and cognitive consequences on younger generations. AI is already reshaping education, so how do we best engage with this transformation as students and educators, and what do you risk getting wrong? Joining us to discuss this are Dan Fitzpatrick, an educational strategist who enables schools to innovate in an AI world.

Dan Fitzpatrick 01:31

If we're producing something of artistic value, then clearly we don't want AI to generate that image for us, because it's just superficial fluff. I think we should learn to leverage the technology.

Diego Lacheze-Beer 01:42

And John Warner, writer, educator and author of More Than Words, how to think about writing in the age of AI.

John Warner 01:49

We are here as human beings, to have experiences, in the introduction of this technology has a tremendous potential to distort and deform those experiences in ways that will harm our humanity.

Diego Lacheze-Beer 02:03

We're also joined, as usual, by our resident UCL mediator, Dr Melanie Garson. Melanie, how are you feeling about today's discussion?

Melanie Garson 02:13

Well, today's topic is super exciting for me, because when I'm not mediating on this podcast, my work is focused on tech policy. I guess what I'm looking out for is that we have two experts with those stated positions actually even written the book. And sometimes that can cause you to harden your position and be resistant to new information, particularly when we have an evolving technology with new data, new results, maybe even AI generated ones coming out at the same time. So the question is, how open are we to shifting our positions sometimes when we've actually got almost a reputation state on a particular position. So that's kind of what I'll be interested in exploring. What about you? What you're looking forward to in today's conversation?

Diego Lacheze-Beer 02:59

I think it's going to be highly dynamic. I'm expecting some strong disagreement, of course, but with your help, hopefully, Melanie, we will be able to bring people closer together. A recent study from the Higher Education Policy Institute found that 94% of UK students use AI in some way for their assessed work. So it's a big issue at the moment, and because the future effects of AI usage are so uncertain, I see room for quite a clear divide, but hopefully also potential agreement on the associated risks and the problems that we might face in AI integration. All right, let's get into the discussion. Dan we're asking, is AI destroying education? Can you briefly outline your position on that? Yeah, of course.

Dan Fitzpatrick 03:45

And thank you so much for having me on your podcast. I just want to start by saying I don't think AI is necessarily destroying education. I think what it's doing is it's revealing the parts of education, the parts of our system that were already broken, or at least on the brink of being broken. And for me, the question is whether we seize this moment right now to reimagine and rebuild, or we simply cling to that old system that was failing students long before generative AI came along,

Diego Lacheze-Beer 04:22

Perfect thank you. John, can I ask you to do the same thing?

John Warner 04:25

Well, I hate to agree in a podcast that's primarily about disagreement, but I broadly agree. I think AI is primarily a lens which is shining down or shining us through what I see as a transactional system, right, where students do activities in search of a grade, as opposed to being focused on, God forbid, learning. So whether or not it's destroying education the system as it is, I'm not particularly concerned about that. What I am concerned about is, what is the impact of this technology on what students learn and their attitudes towards learning?

Diego Lacheze-Beer 04:59

Seems like both of you see the current time as an opportunity to reimagine what education is offering people, and AI is going to speed up that process, but I'm interested in hearing where you do disagree. Melanie, over to you to lead us through the discussion.

Melanie Garson 05:16

Thank you so much. So Dan, I'd like you to ask John, you know, dig a little bit more. What is the question you would like to ask him to understand what his point of view is?

Dan Fitzpatrick 05:29

Yeah, when we say the transactional side of education, it'd be great to dig a bit deeper there and see what you mean by that John..

John Warner 05:37

I really mean the difference between schooling and learning. Schooling is sort of a series of discrete tasks students do, and often a kind of strategic way in order to receive the reward, which is externalised at a grade or credential. It narrows the focus of students away from what am I learning, towards how am I performing, and that system has been destroying what I see, particularly as a writing teacher, students attitudes towards writing, that is writing as a form of communication, expression, exploration, these sorts of things. When I say transactional, it's like within this system where the rewards are primarily externalised.

Melanie Garson 06:17

Thank you for that. Did that answer your question?

Dan Fitzpatrick 06:20

John, I read some of your stuff, and so I've been aware of your work for a little while, and around your idea of how writing equates to thinking. And I get it, I completely get it. And as a teacher, I understand it, and as a parent of a five and a six year old, I want them to build those skills and to build those learning capabilities, not just the transactional frameworks and so on, but I think we've also got to think there's more to what we probably should be doing to prepare our kids for this world. And when I invariably do sessions for students, and one of the things I do is I get them to think, let's not think about what AI can't do. And I say this because in my book Infinite Education, I wrote about a scenario called humans of the gaps, where, if we just look at what AI, what technology can do, and then we identify those gaps of what it can't do yet, and we go, right, well, okay, that's what we're going to excel at. Those are the university courses we're going to take. Then I think we put ourselves into gaps that could ultimately be closed in 5-10, however many years, timed by the technology. So I think what we should do is, I think we should learn to leverage the technology. When I talk to students, I talk about this idea of having an entourage. You think anyone of prominence has an entourage. They have a team of people who support what they're doing, who work for them, but ultimately, it's their voice that still drives the show. It's they're still the talent for want of a better term. And I think we've probably got to start looking at AI like that. We're seeing some of the best people who are using these tools, using them to propel their own authentic self. Sometimes that might be writing. I don't think all writing is equal. Writing a personal piece that reflects yourself and reflects your opinion and has warmth and your character embedded in, obviously, you don't want AI to do that for you. But not all writing is equal, some writing is purely functional. If we're producing something of artistic value, then, clearly, we don't want AI to generate that image for us or that poem for us, because it's just superficial fluff really, there's two sides of this coin, I think the first side is, how do we remain authentic, but also, how do we utilise the tools to support our own mission in life.

Melanie Garson 08:41

So what I'm hearing from both of you, is that there may be a place on different proportions for AI in education, but perhaps the approaches to how we limit and interact that at different levels differs. So if the two of you as leading thinkers on this topic were to set forward a set of principles, John, you've talked about values that should be underpinning how we approach this, what might those look like? John.

John Warner 09:16

Well, all AI use is human agentic, that is sought out and deployed, according to the students desire. You know, Dan is talking about the entourage. I'm sitting here thinking like, I don't want to be anybody's boss, including my Chatbot. I don't need an entourage, I need time and space to do my work. Adding those things in would be a lot of noise. So I'm comfortable using the technology in very limited ways, because I have that, so that's my human agency. Another principle I would use in schools is to allow space for student refusal of using the technology on ethical or moral grounds. It's in the same way we would not make a student in a school cafeteria eat meat if they are vegetarian. I think there are principled objections to this technology that students should be allowed and encouraged to hold to if they are principle. Now it doesn't mean they can't do any work. There would be, you know, some some equivalent. And then the third principle would be that it should be used in social ways, as opposed to isolated ways of an individual and a chatbot. One of my worries around this technology is the ways that the reduced friction of exchanging thoughts or impressions or ideas or even your feelings with the Chatbot is long term not healthy for both the individuals who do it and society as a whole. I understand the attraction of working with these bots because they are often more agreeable than human beings. So if I were sort of integrating it into a course, I would want to make sure that it also any interaction with the bot also involves a colleague or perhaps an instructor. But I'm more a fan of sort of co creation with other students.

Melanie Garson 11:04

Dan, would any of these top three be on your top three of principles that you would like to see with the interaction of AI and education?

Dan Fitzpatrick 11:13

I don't think that they'd be some of the first ones that would come into my mind. My worry would be for one of the values there that John mentioned, the ethical right of refusal. I'd be worried if students were being forced to use this technology. I think being curious over fearful this technology, we're still learning about it, and as John says, we still don't have lots of evidence. It's still early days for that. Having a curiosity around it, I think, is okay, being able to explore it and being able to see what it can do. Now, when someone is an adult, I think allowing them to use it with their own mind and their own ideas and thoughts I think, should be encouraged.

Melanie Garson 11:54

John, having heard what you know, Dan's response, and also thinking about the principles of where you align, what would you think Dan's greatest fear is about AI and education as it stands at the moment?

John Warner 12:05

I think his fear is that we're going to miss an opportunity to enhance aspects of our lives and work if we don't have an appreciation and understanding of how this technology works and how we can integrate into the things that matter to us. Dan is not a person who believes that AI is something that's going to be in charge of us. We need to be using it. And so I think his framework would be much more of a we're going to miss a chance or not working directly with it and experimenting in a forward thinking way.

Melanie Garson 12:39

Dan, can you tell me what you think John's greatest fear is about what we're seeing in the system with the use of AI in education.

Dan Fitzpatrick 12:48

It seems to me that John is fearful that we just tack AI onto a system that isn't right anyway. If we do just stick AI onto that schooling model, it will just emphasise the things that don't work or make the bits that don't work more efficient.

John Warner 13:07

Where I do think Dan and I differ some is Dan is concerned about a world in which this technology is going to exist, and young people have to go into that world where they're going to be expected to be able to deploy this technology for the sake of their employment or their jobs or career growth or whatever. I fundamentally don't see education as having that purpose, even as I recognise it is a byproduct of the system we work within. As a writing teacher, I see the work of education as the process of self formation. We are here as human beings to have experiences in the world, and I think the introduction of this technology has a tremendous potential to distort and deform those experiences in ways that will harm our humanity, I think this is already happening. And students deploying this technology to do their homework is one aspect of this. And so I would like to see us use this opportunity to rethink schooling so it's around learning. Because if students can form those selves, if they can have those practices, the use of this technology, I think, will take care of itself, quite honestly, and it will also allow us to be more aware and critical of really the thing I'm most concerned about, which is the big picture imposition of this technology on our society, coming from the companies in the US who are partnered with a budding authoritarian and Donald Trump, who are forming a kind of oligarchy or attempting to. I see that self formation, at least in the US, as a kind of defense for democracy and self determination. So these are sort of bigger concerns than just like, what do we do in school? But it is rude of my my skepticism, not just sort of the nuts and bolts of what we learn in school, but the larger view of what this technology has to say about society and how society is going to operate going forward, I would like a future where this technology is used exactly as much as it should be and no more. And I think we're heading in the opposite direction presently.

Melanie Garson 15:16

So I'm hearing that, Dan, you're coming from the understanding that this technology is here, that unless the education system is reimagined, that every child has the opportunity to learn how to use it, that some children will get left behind, and that will inevitably cause inequity further down the line, as well as an inability to cope with the realities of what the working world may bring. John, your thinking is coming from, we need to strengthen down the core skills, and with those core skills being re emphasised that students would be able to or young people, or whatever point they then begin to interact with the technology would have the fundamental basis to be able to cope with whatever technology would be. Would that be a fair understanding?

Dan Fitzpatrick 16:06

Yeah, I just think we have to be realistic. There was a big study done a couple of years ago by Microsoft of business leaders, 70% odd of them said that they would only hire a graduate now who had these skills. We just saw last summer, especially here in the UK, a crazy amount of graduates not being able to get graduate level jobs. Not all AI, some of it the economy, but a bit of it was down to AI. And I think we're going to start seeing that happen more and more. And I think what is education, I think is probably the crux of all of this, which is huge question in and of itself. Is it self discovery? Is it the human formation? Yes, but I think also success, and that doesn't just mean success is in knowing ourselves and being fulfilled in ourselves, but it also means being able to go out into the world that actually exists, not as we want it to, but as it is, and function in that world and be successful in that world. Because at the end of the day, those graduates are going to need jobs.

Melanie Garson 17:03

You both said that, obviously people need to go into the world and get jobs. But you also, earlier suggested there was a limit, so that there was a baseline, perhaps. So you were saying that, perhaps not in primary schools or not to a certain point, so within your vision, Dan, do you hear John's view that perhaps there should be a period of time before this is introduced?

Dan Fitzpatrick 17:29

Yeah, I suppose, when I think of integrating AI or introducing AI into, let's say, a K12 or a primary-secondary school education, I'm not saying here's ChatGPT go chat to it. It's the skills surrounding it. Okay, I mean, we can analyse what's behind it and how it works, and the probability it's not a human brain, all of that, but essentially, we're chatting to something that talks back to us like a human, and therefore that brings with it so many different skills. And a lot of the research coming out now starting to show us that those who are using this well are those who've got the meta skills, the ability to step back from a conversation, evaluate it. And I think we can teach those skills at a lower level, and maybe point them in the direction of AI and say, right, you know what? This thing out there exists called AI, you've got to be able to analyse it, these are the risks, these are the pitfalls with it, this is what can happen in a beneficial situation with this technology, building those surrounding foundational skills around communication essentially, maybe we just have to point those skills at artificial intelligence.

Melanie Garson 18:36

John, how does that make you feel?

John Warner 18:38

I honestly don't see any need in the early grades to point them towards AI, because I think people who have those skills can adapt to this technology quite readily if you have a good understanding of how the technology works. And again, I sit here, I think a fair bit older than Dan, I have three worthless degrees. I have an undergraduate degree in creative writing, I have a master's in English literature, I have an MFA in creative writing. I've worked across industry for 30 plus years, doing all kinds of different things. I know Dan has a philosophy background, I think these are the things we should be, like some of this is disposition, or I have no interest in the evaluative capabilities of AI, because I know it has no taste, it has no discernment. It has no feelings, I'm interested in the unique intelligences of individuals. And as amazing as this technology is, it is not a unique intelligence. And what I would want students firmly internalising before we point them towards this technology is that they are unique intelligence. This is not even though it knows much more than you do when you ask it questions that what's interesting about you, it's what you know that it doesn't, and what you feel when it can't, and what you experience in the worst of your life. I focus on, again, as a writing teacher, writing is an experience I don't not use flawed to revise my work, not because I think it would do necessarily a bad job. I don't use it because I would deny myself the pleasure of reconsidering the ideas that came from me to begin with. If students haven't had that experience, they don't know what that is, and they can't make that determination for themselves. I want to make sure they have those experiences before the potential for using the technology for that kind of work is introduced.

Melanie Garson 20:27

Thank you. So I'm just going to very quickly, before we wrap up, I give Dan a chance to respond on that. I think, in the way that you're talking to classrooms, and the process by which you think that education can be reimagined, is there any way that you're building in tools for retaining this uniqueness, or do you think it's not necessary?

Dan Fitzpatrick 20:47

I think this is not a zero sum game, we don't just have to do one thing or the other. We don't just have to teach students to discover their unique character and skills or teach them how to use AI, I think we can do both. Like I said, I've got a five and a six year old, and they read a lot, I make sure they read a lot, we read books constantly. But I still throw up ChatGPT, maybe one night a week instead of getting the book out. And I say, right, let's see if we can create a story with this and see what it does, and see is that what you wanted, is that the kind of thing, and we analyze it, we talk about it, we then read the story together that it's come up with. And I think it's not that in this one example that I'm now replacing reading and replacing the discovery of books with AI, it's actually, I want them to be aware that this other intelligent thing exists. And I think for me, I'm just happy at the minute that they're aware of it, that they're aware that that's going on, and that they can question it if they want to question it. I worry that we think we just have to do one thing, and we can't teach multiple things to our students and help them develop skills in one area, but then also apply them when they're in school as well to other areas.

Melanie Garson 22:02

I think you've given us a good example there. How you do this with your child. Is a way that keeping that uniqueness as well as learning how to interact with it, could be a potential model that acknowledges that this is a key basis of what John is talking about, of some of the baseline skills in that interaction. John, do you have any last thoughts before we wrap up?

John Warner 22:25

I just wanted to see that I'm glad that there's people like Dan who are experimenting with these things, because he's considering the values that attach to using this technology. My fear is there's people who are much less thoughtful that are making a lot of headway in our educational spaces, particularly developers themselves. Open AI has a whole arm of education, and they are more than willing to come in and do everything for you, even though I think Dan and I have some differences, if we are going to figure this stuff out, we cannot allow this work to be outsourced to the companies that are developing this technology that truly at their root do want to and need to capture some significant portion of human labour under their umbrella in order to turn a profit on the bet they're making in terms of the development of this technology. So I just wanted to encourage people to have those sorts of experiments and work alongside those who share their values, rather than outsourcing that aspect of it to a corporation or company that does not have the same root desires.

Melanie Garson 23:31

I think that's a great place to leave. And I think you've got an invitation there, Dan, between the two of you, to reimagine an education system that could possibly help mitigate that. Well, thank you very much for that conversation. Diego?

Diego Lacheze-Beer 23:50

Melanie, Dan, John, thank you, that was really great. I particularly found it interesting just how much similarity there was between your perspectives. There did seem to be a deeper, maybe even philosophical difference in how you imagine the purpose of education and the nature of AI in that context. Dan, what will you take away about disagreeing well, around this issue?

Dan Fitzpatrick 24:12

For me, the more I speak to educators and educators like John, we're fundamentally coming from the same point of view, we want the best for our students, we want them to thrive, to get the most out of an education. For me, that's what matters most here. We're never going to get the practices right, of course, we're not the education system as a beast, and it changes from location to grade level. But I think if we can generally agree on the direction of travel and try to work together to get there, talking with John, I think we are facing in the same direction here.

Diego Lacheze-Beer 24:47

Perfect, thank you. And John, the same question for you, what will you take away about disagreeing well, around this issue?

John Warner 24:52

I think one of the most important things to keep in mind is that this is an ongoing journey, there is no end point to these discussions. It is a dynamic space with a changing world where we work under a lot of different contexts, in this case, two different countries, but different can work in different grades, types of institutions, types of students, different backgrounds, different prior experiences. I always saw teaching, and see teaching fundamentally as a problem to be solved in a dynamic space. And so the best way to go about thinking about this technology is to focus on the problem of teaching, that is, what do we want students to learn? Why do we want them to learn it? And to work that problem as best you can under the circumstances you're working under. And then at the same time, to acknowledge when those circumstances are perhaps less than ideal or even unacceptable, and seek to change those things to make the space for the kind of exploration that we would like to be able to do.

Diego Lacheze-Beer 25:55

Dan and John, thank you very much for joining us today, I really appreciated your insights.

John Warner 26:00

My pleasure.

Dan Fitzpatrick 26:00

Thank you.

Diego Lacheze-Beer 26:02

So Melanie, we've taken a moment to reflect on the discussion we've just had. How do you feel the disagreeing well went and how did your techniques play out?

Melanie Garson 26:12

Well, I think this was a really interesting discussion, because you have two very thoughtful, clearly educated people working in education and also quite aware of the audiences they're speaking to and listening to. To me one of the most interesting things as part of this conversation, and what I was trying to dig into a little bit, what I've referred to at the beginning is, if you notice, at the beginning of the conversation, they referred a lot to what they'd written, what they'd written, what they'd written. Towards the end of the conversation, we managed to get that a little bit more into because what they'd written and remembered, they both identified it. We're in a really fast moving field with different evidence coming, different things challenging it, that idea. So I think what was interesting was moving away from the this is what I've written to actually, these are my fears, and these are my concerns, and these are where, you know, we think we need to double down on, and particularly towards the end, being able to get that wider perspective of whether it was that larger corporate fear and these greater concerns of with it, equality, or that sense of being left behind. And to me, that was interesting, and that's why I ask those questions about, what do you think you're afraid of? What do you think the other's afraid of? To try and open up that space a little more to really understand right where they were coming from. But in some ways they were allies, but in some ways that actually fears were deeply different. One is for creative process and that retention of humanity. And another is, really, I have a small child, are they going to be ready and cope with this system? I think to me, that was very interesting. What about for you? What was, what did you pull out of it? What was interesting for you?

Diego Lacheze-Beer 27:57

Yeah, well, I absolutely agree with you that because the field is so dynamic at the moment, it's hard for people to really take an unchanged stance on the subject, especially when they're in dialog with somebody else, but the questions that you got them to ask each other really made them think about where those differences were, and if we're looking to progress as a society, especially on an issue like AI, which is changing so quickly and transforming so much, it is really important that people know where they disagree so they can work out the answers to those disagreements before they come flying at us and we're not prepared.

Melanie Garson 28:36

There'll be a lot more to see on that front I think on this subject, I don't think we're done with it yet.

Diego Lacheze-Beer 28:47

Thank you to our guests, Dan Fitzpatrick and John Warner, and to you for listening. We hope you enjoyed the discussion and picked up some tips for disagreeing well. If you have please let us know how you use them, you can drop us a line at [e-mail]. You can find out more about UCL's Disagreeing Well campaign on the UCL website, or follow UCL on LinkedIn, Facebook and BlueSky using #UCLDisagreeingWell. Please do subscribe wherever you receive your podcasts, to access earlier and forthcoming episodes. And a final thanks to Students' Union UCL and the UCL podcast team, and to Research Podcasts for their production support.