T2 (SC)
Overview and Origins of Structured Controversy
Structured Controversy is an academic assessment methodology designed to facilitate the deepest possible learning regarding complex ethical and social issues.
The methodology did not originate in the social sciences; it was first developed in the United States and Britain during the for nursing training.
It was initially intended to help nurses handle difficult ethical questions, such as those related to palliative care, by forcing them to understand and articulate both sides of a significant medical debate within a small group.
Unlike a standard essay where a student takes a single point of view, or a debate where the goal is to defeat an opponent, structured controversy requires participants to thoroughly learn and present both sides of a "thorny" question regardless of their personal beliefs.
Since its inception, the method has been adopted at the tertiary level globally, most commonly in the social sciences, humanities, and education.
The Core Statement for Analysis
The central statement for the current assessment is: "The aboriginal child removal policies and practices of the Commonwealth and state governments of Australia before and after constitute genocide."
During class discussion, students identified several critical layers to this statement that must be addressed in the research and report:
The Temporal Threshold (): The mention of "before and after " suggests a possible shift or evolution in policy or practice that must be investigated. Students must determine if the nature of child removal changed at this point in history.
Theoretical Definition of Genocide: The concept of genocide is complex and often used loosely in public discourse. For this assignment, it must be defined according to rigorous standards, such as the United Nations (UN) definition.
Policies vs. Practices: The question distinguishes between formal government policies (official rules) and actual practices (what occurred in reality). Both must be teased out.
Intentionality: Within the study of genocide, the intentions behind policies are a major factor and a potential point of debate.
Federalism and Jurisdiction: Australia uses a federal system. The assessment requires an understanding of the actions of the Commonwealth (based in Canberra) as well as various state governments (e.g., New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia).
Essential Academic Resources and Literature
Robert Mann: A retired political scientist from La Trobe University. His "Quarterly Essay" titled In Denial is the primary starting point for research. It provides historical context and details the "history wars" in Australia regarding the Stolen Generations and the charge of genocide. The essay is approximately to pages long.
The Bringing Them Home Report (): also known as the Wilson-Dodson Inquiry. This is the seminal report tabled in the Australian Parliament that first brought the charge of genocide to the public realm.
It is critical for its rich personal testimonies of individuals taken from their families.
The report uses the UN definition of genocide as its baseline.
Dirk Moses: Specifically his works The Problems of Genocide and Genocide and Settler Society. His work is valuable for understanding the theoretical nuances and debates surrounding the definition of genocide.
Hinton: Specifically works from and related to genocide research.
The Journal of Genocide Research: Identified as the premier journal in the field for additional scholarly material.
Keith Windschuttle: Mentioned as a source for the "against" case, though his work can be difficult to find (links provided in learning materials).
Google Scholar: Recommended for finding recently published materials from the last year or two.
Preparation and Phase One: Oral Presentations
Preparation Phase: Students work in pairs to conduct research. Both partners must prepare to argue both sides of the statement.
The "Five-Five" Requirement: Each pair must arrive on the day of the assessment with:
Five minutes of material supporting the statement (that the policies constituted genocide).
Five minutes of material opposing the statement (arguing they do not constitute genocide based on outcomes or lack of specific intent).
Structure of the First Half:
Students are organized into groups of four (two pairs).
Pair A presents their 5-minute case "for" while Pair B listens and practices "silent nodding."
Pair B then presents their 5-minute case "against" while Pair A listens.
The roles are then switched: Pair B presents their case "for," and Pair A presents their case "against."
By the end of the first half, every student has presented both sides of the argument regardless of personal conviction.
Phase Two: Consensus and the Group Report
Consensus Building: Following the oral presentations, the pairs dissolve and the four students work as a single team. They must discuss the evidence to see if a consensus can be reached on where they stand as a group regarding the statement.
Handling Dissent: If one or more members disagree with the majority, the group must embrace the dissenting opinion rather than suppressing it. This is modeled after the US Supreme Court structure:
Majority Decision: The primary view held by the group.
Dissenting Opinion: A separate section at the end of the report where the dissenter(s) justify their differing view.
Split Decision: In rare cases, a group may be split , in which case both sides are represented equally.
The Final Report:
Format: Can be written in a report style (bullet points and subheadings) or an essay style with subheadings.
Length: There is no strict word limit, but reports typically range from to pages.
Content: Must state the group's position, provide a clear rationale, and cite supporting evidence.
Logistics and Submission Details
Attendance: Students must arrive by for a start. Late arrival is considered a serious issue due to the coordinated group nature of the work.
Team Coordinator: One member of each group is designated to keep time and fulfill the final submission.
Break and "Brain Food": A break is mandatory between the first and second halves. The instructor provides "brain food" such as Squiggles and juice to combat the exhaustion of intense peer-listening.
Referencing: The report must use Chicago Style referencing with footnotes. The instructor describes a high-quality report as having a "dense thicket of footnotes" at the bottom of the pages.
Submission Deadline: The final group report is due by (one minute before midnight) on the day of the in-class exercise. This allows groups to use a "sweeper" to polish the text and fix typos after the session ends.
Risk Factors for Assessment Failure
Based on a history of observing over to groups, the instructor identified three primary ways this assessment can go wrong:
Ignoring the Process: Groups that skip the oral position-presentation phase and go straight to writing the report often perform poorly (e.g., getting a "B" grade instead of an "A"). Adhering to the structured process is mandatory for success.
Lack of Preparation: Failing to do the research beforehand makes the in-class session a "nightmare" and lets down peer partners.
Impairment: Arriving to class under the influence (e.g., "stoned" or after a night out) is strictly forbidden and has occurred in the past, resulting in significant issues.
Questions & Discussion
Student (Georgia): Asked if resources beyond the provided links can be found at the university library.
Response: Yes, most are available through the UC library, and Google Scholar should be used for newer materials.
Student: Asked if presentation arguments must be memorized.
Response: No. Students can speak to bullet points, read a prepared piece, or memorize them. The goal is to be engaging to the other three group members.
Student (Elise): Asked if the only job before the assessment day is research and learning.
Response: Yes, but that is the most critical part. Preparation ensures performance; like elite athletes, students cannot hide if they have not done the "work over winter."
Student (Scarlett): Asked about referencing requirements.
Response: Chicago style is mandatory. A short guide will be provided as there is no in-text referencing—only footnotes.