Environmental issues lie at the heart of controversies involving numerous stakeholders (scientists, government agencies, businesses, NGOs, and citizen groups) and where scientific, political, and economic concerns intersect. The goal is to supplement the course with an activity that allows students to analyze a real-world controversy and understand its dynamics.
The tutorial complements the lecture course with 8 hours spread over two months. At the beginning of the semester, instructors propose about fifteen controversies. Students select the controversies that interest them most via Moodle and are then divided into groups of four or five.
Each group investigates a controversy. Students must identify the stakeholders involved, their positions, their arguments, and their methods of action. They also analyze the alliances, oppositions, and issues at stake. A timeline of the debate is constructed to identify key moments and periods of intensity. The course places central importance on visualizing the controversy, inviting students to create networks of actors and to represent their positions on various issues.
The tutorials are organized into four sessions. The first session is devoted to presenting the method, defining the scope of the work, and developing a timeline for the historical controversy assigned to each group. The second session allows for a deeper analysis and discussion of the mapping of key players and issues, as well as progress on creating the timeline. During the third session, the groups present the progress of their work and the timeline they have established and begin preparing their presentation. The teaching team helps generate ideas for staging, guiding the students but allowing them creative freedom between the third and fourth sessions. The fourth session is dedicated to the final presentation.
Students must present their controversy in 10 minutes in the form of a staged performance. The format is open (roundtable, newscast, courtroom, street interviews, etc.) but must clearly convey the complexity of the debate. A discussion with questions follows each presentation.
The grade is split equally between the written course exam and the presentation. An evaluation rubric specifies the expectations (analysis of the actors, understanding of the issues, quality of the presentation).
