Learning & Teaching

The Shared Universe Simulation: Cross-subject simulation design and delivery

The “Shared Universe” simulation is an innovative variation on a role play/crisis game. Two simulations are designed for a pair of classes in separate (but related) disciplines; in this case, Comparative Politics and International Relations. Each simulation occurs within the same “universe”, with teams from one scenario ‘existing’ in the other, but faced with different scenarios and distinct objectives, and operating at different ‘levels’ of politics.

Objectives

Each simulation has its own explicit set of Intended Learning Objectives. The Defending Democracy simulation had three specific goals:

1. to help students learn more about the dynamics of the historical case being simulated (in this instance, accession negotiations between the EU and the government of Turkey from 2011 to 2018);

2. to give students a direct insight into the decision‑making processes and dilemmas of various EU actors in terms of managing the relationship with a key strategic partner; and

3. to encourage students to examine the range of policy options available to governments and political institutions within the EU in their pursuit of peace, security, and democracy on the European continent.

Meanwhile, the Parties and Institutions simulation aimed to solidify understandings of the dynamics of party politics, especially in a semi‑authoritarian setting, and to highlight the importance of political parties as gatekeepers of democracy. These points were facilitated and drawn out both through the process of participating in the game, and through a guided debrief session whereby students were invited by the lecturers to reflect upon the events and outcomes of the simulation.

While these objectives are rooted in Politics and International Relations, they also reflect broader pedagogical principles common across disciplines that make use of simulations. In any field, simulations can be designed to:

• develop substantive knowledge of a particular case, process, or system;
• provide experiential insight into how actors make decisions under constraints;
• allow participants to explore competing strategies or courses of action; or
• support the application of theoretical concepts to practical and/or ambiguous real‑world situations.

These principles guide simulation‑based teaching in areas as varied as business negotiation, legal advocacy, public health planning, and environmental policy analysis.

The Shared Universe simulation also had two implicit (and otherwise unstated) objectives. Firstly, to help students gain an experiential understanding of the ways in which domestic and international politics interact with and shape one another. Secondly (and most importantly), to encourage students to apply their learning from one course to a different subject field, and to draw direct connections between courses in International Relations and Comparative Politics. More generally, integrative learning of this kind - encouraging students to transfer insights across courses, disciplines, or methodological approaches - is a core benefit of simulation‑based pedagogy across the social sciences and beyond. It reinforces students’ ability to recognise patterns, draw comparisons, and synthesise knowledge in a manner that mirrors how actors operate in real-world multi-dimensional environments. This is a principle that is directly applicable to other academic fields, as many of these are also studied at different but interconnected “levels” (e.g. international law and domestic law, macro- and micro-economics, global health policy and public health policy, etc.). As such, the Shared Universe simulation concept is one with direct relevance to a broad array of subjects.

What was done?

Structure:

Originally, the simulation was planned to be held over two days, with each day featuring two 1/1.5-hour sessions and a ten minute debrief at the end of each block (30 minutes for the final debrief). However, due to timetabling problems, we were forced to hold all four sessions in one day.

In terms of staff, four lecturers were present for each session, with two judging and approving/rejecting moves and two others helping and advising students. However, the session could be run with just two faculty members as well.

Location:

The simulation took place in two large, accessible active learning spaces (McIntyre 201 and JMS 639). Each room had a capacity of 90 students, which was necessary given the large number of students participating (up to 70 in each session). However, the simulation can be run in a smaller space if there are fewer participants. The only necessity is that the students have space to move about freely, and the lecturers have a lectern where they can respond to student moves. While we always run the simulation in person, it can easily be amended to run in an online format as well, if preferred/necessary.

Regarding layout, the room was laid out with each team having its own table (five seats at each for the Defending Democracy teams, and eight seats for the Parties and Institutions teams). Students would sit with their teams for joint sessions such as opening plenaries or debriefing sessions but would otherwise be free to move about the classroom.

-McIntyre 201

Equipment:

No specialist equipment is needed outside of a computer with internet access, a screen projector, and a shared document where moves can be uploaded.