Tag: developing

  • High quality learning means developing and upskilling educators on the pedagogy of AI

    High quality learning means developing and upskilling educators on the pedagogy of AI

    There’s been endless discussion about what students do with generative AI tools, and what constitutes legitimate use of AI in assessment, but as the technology continues to improve there’s a whole conversation to be had about what educators do with AI tools.

    We’re using the term “educators” to encompass both the academics leading modules and programmes and the professionals who support, enable and contribute to learning and teaching and student support.

    Realising the potential of the technologies that an institution invests in to support student success requires educators to be willing and able to deploy it in ways that are appropriate for their context. It requires them to be active and creative users of that technology, not simply following a process or showing compliance with a policy.

    So it was a bit worrying when in the course of exploring what effective preparation for digital learning futures could look like for our Capability for change report last year, it was noticeable how concerned digital and education leaders were about the variable digital capabilities of their staff.

    Where technology meets pedagogy

    Inevitably, when it comes to AI, some HE staff are enthusiastic early adopters and innovators; others are more cautious or less confident – and some are highly critical and/or just want it to go away. Some of this is about personal orientation towards particular technologies – there is a lively and important critical debate about how society comes into a relationship with AI technology and the implications for, well, the future of humanity.

    Some of it is about the realities of the pressures that educators are under, and the lack of available time and headspace to engage with developmental activity. As one education leader put it:

    Sometimes staff, they know that they need to change what they’re doing, but they get caught in the academic cycle. So every year it’s back to teaching again, really, really large groups of students; they haven’t had the time to go and think about how to do things differently.

    But there’s also an institutional strategic challenge here about situating AI within the pedagogic environment – recognising that students will not only be using it habitually in their work and learning, but that they will expect to graduate with a level of competence in it in anticipation of using AI in the workplace. There’s an efficiency question about how using AI can reprofile educator working patterns and workflows. Even if the prospect of “freeing up” lots of time might feel a bit remote right now, educators are clearly going to be using AI in interesting ways to make some of their work a bit more efficient, to surface insight from large datasets that might not otherwise be accessible, or as a co-creator to help enhance their thinking and practice.

    In the context of learning and teaching, educators need to be ready to go beyond asking “how do the tools work and what can I do with them?” and be prepared to ask and answer a larger question: “what does it mean for academic quality and pedagogy when I do?”

    As Tom Chatfield has persuasively argued in his recent white paper on AI and the future of pedagogy, AI needs to have a clear educative purpose when it is deployed in learning and teaching, and should be about actively enhancing pedagogy. Reaching this halcyon state requires educators who are not only competent in the technical use of the tools that are available but prepared to work creatively to embed those tools to achieve particular learning objectives within the wider framework and structures of their academic discipline. Expertise of this nature is not cheaply won – it takes time and resource to think, experiment, test, and refine.

    Educators have the power – and responsibility – to work out how best to harness AI in learning and teaching in their disciplines, but education leaders need to create the right environment for innovation to flourish. As one leader put it:

    How do we create an environment where we’re allowing people to feel like they are the arbiters of their own day to day, that they’ve got more time, that they’re able to do the things that they want to do?…So that’s really an excitement for me. I think there’s real opportunity in digital to enable those things.

    Introducing “Educating the AI generation”

    For our new project “Educating the AI generation” we want to explore how institutions are developing educator AI literacy and practice – what frameworks, interventions, and provisions are helpful and effective, and where the barriers and challenges lie. What sort of environment helps educators to develop not just the capability, but also the motivation and opportunity to become skilled and critical users of AI in learning and teaching? And what does that teach us about how the role of educators might change as the higher education learning environment evolves?

    At the discussion session Rachel co-hosted alongside Kortext advisor Janice Kay at the Festival of Higher Education earlier this month there was a strong sense among attendees that educating the AI generation requires universities to take action on multiple fronts simultaneously if they are to keep up with the pace of change in AI technology.

    Achieving this kind of agility means making space for risk-taking, and moving away from compliance-focused language to a more collaborative and exploratory approach, including with students, who are equally finding their feet with AI. For leaders, that could mean offering both reassurance that this approach is welcomed, and fostering spaces in which it can be deployed.

    In a time of such fast-paced change, staying grounded in concepts of what it means to be a professional educator can help manage the potential sense of threat from AI in learning and teaching. Discussions focused on the “how” of effective use of AI, and the ways it can support student learning and educator practice, are always grounded in core knowledge of pedagogy and education.

    On AI in assessment, it was instructive to hear student participants share a desire to be able to demonstrate learning and skills above and beyond what is captured in traditional assessment, and find different, authentic ways to engage with knowledge. Assessment is always a bit of a flashpoint in pedagogy, especially in constructing students’ understanding of their learning, and there is an open question on how AI technology can support educators in assessment design and execution. More prosaically, the risks to traditional assessment from large language models indicate that staff may need to spend proportionally more of their time on managing assessment going forward.

    Participants drew upon the experiences of the Covid pivot to emergency remote teaching and taking the best lessons from trialling new ways of learning and teaching as a useful reminder that the sector can pivot quickly – and well – when required. Yet the feeling that AI is often something of a “talking point” rather than an “action point” led some to suggest that there may not yet be a sufficiently pressing sense of urgency to kickstart change in practice.

    What is clear about the present moment is that the sector will make the most progress on these questions when there is sharing of thinking and practice and co-development of approaches. Over the next six months we’ll be building up our insight and we’d love to hear your views on what works to support educator development of AI in pedagogy. We’re not expecting any silver bullets, but if you have an example of practice to share, please get in touch.

    This article is published in association with Kortext. Join Debbie, Rachel and a host of other speakers at Kortext LIVE on Wednesday 11 February in London, where we’ll be discussing some of our findings – find out more and book your place here.

    Source link

  • Recognising the Value of Teaching-Focused Academics in Developing Student Skills

    Recognising the Value of Teaching-Focused Academics in Developing Student Skills

    This HEPI blog was kindly authored by Chris Featherstone, Hillary Briffa, Madeleine Le Bourdon, Jeremy Moulton, Louise Pears, Anna Plunkett, Sudhir Selvaraj and Jillian Terry. 

    Amid the UK’s ongoing cost of living crisis and wider economic instability, equipping students with the skills they need to enter the workforce is more urgent than ever. The recent HEPI Policy Note 10 trends that will change higher education encapsulates this focus on skills development, arguing that skills development will be the foremost area of value for students, preparing them for modern employment. Employability has become a central concern, not only for students but also for universities, incentivised through league tables and recruitment strategies to demonstrate clear outcomes for graduates. 

    One under-recognised but vital resource in meeting this challenge is the growing group of teaching-focused academics, those appointed on education-centred or ‘teaching and scholarship’ contracts. In Politics and International Relations (IR), this group has expanded significantly over the past two decades. A recent British Academy report found that around 20% of new academic posts in Politics and IR are now teaching track roles. 

    These colleagues are often at the forefront of pedagogic innovation, transforming assessment design, refining marking practices, and integrating technology in ways that directly enhance student learning. Their work is central to helping students develop the transferable, applied skills that employers demand. 

    Innovating for Employability 

    One key area of innovation is the diversification of assessment formats. By moving beyond traditional essays and exams, students are given the opportunity to experiment with different ways of communicating ideas, developing critical skills aligned with real-world careers. This diversification of assessment formats also addresses the diversity of the student body in contemporary HE. There is no longer a typical student, and as such we need to increase the range of typical assessments.  

    At the University of York, Jeremy Moulton and Chris Featherstone offer ‘optionality in assessment’. Jeremy gives students the choice between writing a traditional essay or a policy report, bridging academic and applied outputs. Similarly, Chris enables students to choose between blogs or policy reports, allowing them to explore formats akin to journalism or content creation. This element of student choice encourages self-reflection and strategic skill development. Some students choose to strengthen familiar skills, while others test themselves in unfamiliar formats. 

    Artificial intelligence (AI) is a key challenge for universities, students and employers alike. With reports that 4 out of 5 students admit to using AI in their studies, this is a huge area for higher education. Addressing the challenge that AI has levelled at the sector, Jillian Terry will be one of the first cohort of LSE AI and Education Fellows, developing a strategy for embedding and fully integrating generative AI tools into students’ experiences of learning, researching, and collaborating in the sector-leading interdisciplinary module LSE100. 

    Meanwhile, at King’s College London, Dr Hillary Briffa has worked to reform how diverse assessment types are marked. As a ‘rubric champion’ within the Faculty of Social Science and Public Policy, she is helping to design assessment criteria that accommodate non-traditional outputs, such as podcasts and policy briefs, while maintaining academic rigour.  

    Enhancing Teaching Through Research 

    Teaching and scholarship (T&S) staff are not only innovating in assessment but also contributing to the scholarship of teaching and learning itself. At the University of Leeds, Dr Madeleine Le Bourdon and Dr Louise Pears have conducted research on the role of social media in teaching Politics. Their findings have shaped teaching practices within the School of Politics and International Studies (POLIS), and they have also led workshops to share insights with colleagues across the discipline. Dr Le Bourdon is also leading international research into ethical approaches to global university partnerships, further demonstrating the leadership roles T&S staff are increasingly taking on.  

    The ASPIRE Network 

    To promote and connect these efforts, we established the ASPIRE Network—a community for teaching-focused academics in Politics and IR. We believe that the teaching track makes a vital contribution to educational excellence, enhancing student experience, attainment, and graduate outcomes. 

    ASPIRE exists to share best practices, support professional development, and advocate for the recognition of teaching and scholarship colleagues across UK higher education. But we also seek to go further, calling for structural changes in how universities support and promote teaching track staff, and urging policymakers to better value the contributions these colleagues make to student success and institutional performance. 

    Empowering the Teaching Track 

    Despite their growing presence and impact, teaching track academics often face structural barriers to progression, limited access to research funding, and a lack of visibility in institutional decision-making. If universities are serious about improving student outcomes, enhancing graduate employability, and delivering high-quality teaching, they must do more than simply acknowledge these contributions. They must actively empower teaching-focused staff. This includes creating clear promotion pathways, offering equal recognition in strategic planning, and ensuring that reward structures value pedagogic innovation on par with research achievements. The ASPIRE network is working to address this need, advocating for improvements in progression, recognition, and reward for ‘teaching track’ academics in Politics and IR, but more is needed sector-wide. Empowering the teaching track is not just a matter of fairness; it is essential for sustaining excellence in UK higher education. 

    Conclusion 

    In a sector facing financial pressures, political uncertainty, and heightened expectations around graduate employability, we cannot afford to overlook the contributions of teaching-focused academics. Their work is not peripheral, it is central to ensuring that students leave university not just with knowledge, but with the skills, confidence, and flexibility they need to thrive. 

    Source link

  • Developing a Playbook for Presidents Under Pressure

    Developing a Playbook for Presidents Under Pressure

    After four decades in higher education and now beginning my third presidency, I’ve watched the ground shift dramatically beneath campus leaders. Here in 2025, outrage often outpaces facts, and presidents can sometimes become targets less for their actions than for what they represent.

    Set against that backdrop, churn is high: 55 percent of presidents reportedly expect to step down within five years, and the average stint is 5.9 years, which is 2.6 years shorter than in 2006. Among presidents of color, it’s just over half.

    The criticisms aimed at presidents under fire generally fall into three categories. First, the leader is genuinely ineffective or has made serious missteps. Second, the office itself is the lightning rod because it’s the place where the “buck stops.” Third, presidents are singled out for personal or political reasons, broadly defined, like being new, coming in as an external hire, or being a member of an underrepresented group. Opponents see these presidents as easy targets: less networked, more vulnerable, and therefore more expendable. This piece focuses on the third group: the leaders most vulnerable to attacks rooted in identity or circumstance rather than performance.

    Such attacks are rarely random. They are orchestrated and designed to do harm. Some of these systematic campaigns rise to the level of defamation, attorney Katy Young, managing partner at Ad Astra Law Group, warns. In these moments, the silence of the campus, community, and board is not a strength—it is a surrender.

    What follows is a playbook I wish university leaders and their board members would review and discuss before a sudden media blitz engulfs their president and campus.

    Build early warning systems

    Institutions are rarely blindsided because no one saw trouble coming. They’re blindsided because the right people weren’t talking early enough, or because the early signals were dismissed as noise.

    In today’s hyperconnected environment, the difference between a passing controversy and a crisis often comes down to whether leaders catch the warning signs early. To build an effective early warning system, leaders need to think in three modes: proactive (anticipating), concurrent (tracking), and reactive (responding).

    Before it happens: Run regular simulation exercises with trusted faculty, staff, and students who influence opinion on and off campus. Role-play how the university spokesperson or designated officials would respond to an orchestrated campaign disguised as “concern” or “accountability.”

    As it ramps up: Communications staff must move beyond scanning headlines and Google alerts. They need to monitor social media channels, blogs, templated letters to the editor, alumni Facebook chatter, and local op-eds. Repeated or similar comments on these platforms can be early signals that a coordinated campaign is already underway.

    When it breaks: Establish input and feedback loops with trusted stakeholders. If rumors are circulating, gather information from those who have received the “intel.” Listen carefully, collect details without “killing the messenger,” and thank those who come forward. Their willingness to share may give you just enough time to respond strategically before the game slips out of your hands.

    Align legal and communication responses

    One of the biggest mistakes I’ve seen universities make is allowing the legal and communications teams to develop strategies in isolation, by default rather than design. When this happens, the plays don’t line up, and the institution starts from a confused rather than cohesive position.

    Lawyers for both public and private universities are trained to limit legal exposure. Typically, their instinct is to say—and to have others say—as little as possible. A common legal move is a bland placeholder: “We take this seriously and are looking into it,” or the always popular “Because this issue is under investigation, we cannot comment further at this time.”

    Public institutions face more legal constraints under the First Amendment and state law than do private institutions. While the latter may have more regulatory leeway, both share the reputational risks of silence.

    Communications professionals, by contrast, are trained to frame and guide the narrative. In a 24/7 social media environment, their role is to move quickly to establish context, add examples that illustrate institutional values, and sustain credibility with key audiences. Good communicators also insist on honesty—especially in tough situations—because nothing erodes trust faster than the perception of a cover-up.

    Both approaches—when coordinated early on—can add value. Siloed strategies, by contrast, look like the right hand doesn’t know what the left is doing. Or worse, that the university is running a trick play to hide something.

    Once a false narrative takes hold, it’s nearly impossible to “unring the bell.” That’s why legal and communications strategies must be integrated from day one. Boards must also resist the temptation to rely solely on legal advice. What makes sense in a courtroom may destroy credibility in the court of public opinion.

    Steps for integrating legal and PR strategies

    • Appoint a crisis liaison to help stakeholders weigh the tradeoffs between caution and urgency.
    • Develop and rehearse a communications playbook in advance of a crisis that maps out roles and responsibilities and stresses the need for consistency in messaging for all audiences. You will also want to define who has final authority.
    • Ensure the board has balanced information and recommendations from both professionals.
    • Understand the costs of a communications delay.

    Institutions that opt for silence to reduce legal exposure risk an erosion of trust in both the university and its leaders.

    Train boards to lead, not lag

    Boards can unintentionally make a crisis worse by staying quiet at key moments or by failing to visibly support their leader. (The Association of Governing Boards has found that nearly 40 percent of boards have not done scenario planning or have no plans to do it.) Very few presidents can remain viable or effective in the face of board abandonment or governance silence, or even the perception of abandonment.

    That’s why boards must be trained in modern crisis response and media literacy. Though time consuming, Boards should consider annually run tabletop simulations—simple scenario-based exercises widely available from higher ed associations—so they practice crisis communication and governance before the real test arrives. Hands-on trainings like these remind boards that fiduciary duties are not the only ones that should be addressed in meetings, retreats, and the like.

    In times of calm, not crisis, trustees should think about how their voice—or lack of it—shapes current and ongoing institutional narratives. Timely, confident, values-based statements from boards can reassure stakeholders that the institution is steady and supportive of a leader unfairly under fire.

    Decide when to weigh in and when to wait

    Not every attack requires a megaphone response. But some do. When misinformation is demonstrably false and spreading, the institution must correct the record loudly and clearly.

    When facts are still emerging, it’s appropriate for a trusted spokesperson—not the president or board chair—to acknowledge the situation, commit to transparency, and set expectations for updates. But when the president is the target of personal, vicious, and untrue attacks, the board chair or designee should step forward. Staying under the radar in these cases is read as reticence or hesitancy, not prudent governance. To the targeted president, it can feel like desertion.

    Know when to settle—and when to go to court

    This may be the most contested element in the playbook.

    Too often, the decision between settling and going to court is made strictly as a legal calculation. But in cases of defamation, settling can reinforce false narratives, deepen community skepticism, and leave current and future leaders wondering if the board will have their back when it matters most.

    Timing, the strength of the legal arguments, and reputational harm all matter. Settlement may demonstrate common and financial sense when these conditions are in play: it is very early in the proceedings, the university’s legal position is weak, and little public attention has been drawn to the dispute. By contrast, settlement may be ill-advised when a case has been in the system for years, the filings strongly favor the university, and reputational harm has already been magnified by a media campaign.

    In my own experience at California Lutheran University, both my predecessor Chris Kimball and I were dismissed from a long and highly visible lawsuit just as the university entered serious settlement discussions. As a defendant who had been the target of a vicious four-year media campaign, I was relieved to have my personal name cleared. But as a three-time university president, I was disappointed that the decision to settle prevented the truth from coming fully to light in the court system—through testimony, documents, and rulings.

    The truth is the most powerful play we have, and settlements often keep it on the sidelines. That is the major and lingering downside, especially when settlements occur late in the game that the university is otherwise winning.

    Build coalitions before you need them

    When the contest turns rough, the teammates who step onto the field are the ones you’ve practiced and trained with long before. Effective coalitions aren’t built in the middle of a crisis; they are built in times of calm, long before the crisis hits.

    Engage faculty leaders who understand the complexity and tradeoffs of the issue being contested. Build a cadre of alumni who speak about that issue from experience, not hashtags. Help students see the value of facts over speculation. Coalitions built on trust and mutual respect are the ones most likely to defend their institution and leaders when opponents try to shout them down.

    Final thoughts: Protecting the presidency is protecting the institution and higher education as a whole

    Character assassination doesn’t just harm a leader; it weakens the institution’s ability to attract students, retain donors, recruit faculty, and live out its mission. It also undermines public confidence in higher education at a moment when trust is finally starting to rebound.

    Perhaps most importantly, it sets a dangerous precedent for our students, who may reasonably ask: If the institution won’t back its leader when things get messy, why should we believe it will back us?

    Protecting presidents from orchestrated defamation is not about shielding us from critique. Fair critique is a healthy and vital part of accountability. What we must resist is the conflation of accountability with calculated campaigns of destruction.

    Our opponents already have a playbook. It’s time we write, revise, and share our own. My hope is that this piece serves as one chapter in a larger guide to which many ACE members will contribute—because protecting the presidency is not just about safeguarding one leader. It’s about preserving the integrity and stability of the academy, especially at times like these, when individual leaders, specific institutions, and the whole sector are under fire.

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link

  • Why small talk is a skill worth developing (opinion)

    Why small talk is a skill worth developing (opinion)

    You walk into the conference networking event, feeling alone, aware of the steady chatter throughout the room. You look to find someone you might know, you sense your breath growing faster and you experience that all-too-familiar pit in your stomach. You walk deeper into the room, taking a few grounding breaths, and notice others standing alone. You approach another conference attendee, feeling as if you are stepping outside of your body, and in your friendliest tone you introduce yourself and ask, “Where did you travel in from?”

    You did it! You initiated small talk with a stranger.

    Small talk is a mode of communication that occurs throughout the world, but not every culture engages in small talk to the same degree. In some cultures, it is expected, and in other cultures it can be perceived as inappropriate or rude. In addition to cultural context, one’s perception of small talk and propensity for engaging in it can be influenced by factors including, but not limited to, personality traits, degree of social comfort, mental health and wellness, past experiences, and the setting of the conversation. Small talk can also present specific challenges to language learners, neurodivergent individuals, people who are unaccustomed to talking with strangers and many others.

    Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines small talk as “light or casual conversation: chitchat.” (Seeing the word “chitchat” immediately brought me back to kindergarten, when my teacher, Mrs. Barker, would frequently say, “Kay, stop your chitchat.”) Cambridge Dictionary defines small talk as, “conversation about things that are not important, often between people who do not know each other well.” The emphasis on “not important” can give the impression that small talk is useless, however, within the U.S cultural context, small talk holds great importance in connecting individuals and laying the foundation for more substantial communication. Think of small talk as the gateway to more meaningful conversations.

    When done well, small talk relies on improvisation and adaptability, allowing for a flow of information and often uncovering unexpected insights and mutual interests. When I think of small talk I think of it as jazz, with each person riffing off the other to create a connection and to also make meaning in the moment. Effectively engaging in small talk by establishing commonalities can open a door for a future collaboration, expand your professional network, build rapport leading to a career or academic opportunity, enhance confidence and ease tension in an interview.

    Do you wish that small talk felt less awkward and more meaningful? Apply these strategies to reduce your small talk stress and to contribute to your career success:

    • Get curious. Harness your curiosity as you engage in small talk. Take the scenario we began with: Someone might ask, “Where did you travel in from?” because they are generally interested in meeting people from different parts of the country or world. Someone else might ask this question as a gateway to finding a future collaborator from a specific country or academic institution. Don’t just ask questions for the sake of chatting, but rather ask about topics in which you are genuinely interested. This approach will make engaging in small talk more enjoyable and valuable to you, and your interaction will feel authentic to the person with whom you are speaking.
    • Listen actively. As the other person responds to your question, try to refrain from planning what you will next ask, but rather focus on absorbing what they are sharing. Consider reflecting an aspect of something they mentioned. For example, if in response to “Where did you travel in from?” they say, “I flew in from Greece last night, and this is my first time in the States; I’m a Ph.D. student at the University of Crete,” you might empathize with their journey and ask how long they are visiting. After further discussion, you might feel inclined to offer to host the individual if they plan to travel around. Your one question, the one that initiated the small talk exchange, could even lead to a lifelong professional relationship.
    • Consider the context. The definition of small talk in the Cambridge Dictionary refers to a “conversation about things that are not important.” I would challenge you to not dismiss small talk as trivial but rather leverage it for more meaningful conversation. When thinking about the setting in which you are engaging in small talk, you can guide the conversation toward greater meaning. It would be odd if the individual attending the networking event at the conference opened the conversation with their name and asked, “What do you think about the weather?” This question would seem very disconnected from the event and purpose of the networking session. However, if the individual were waiting outside at an uncovered bus stop, it might be natural to strike up a conversation about the weather. Having an awareness about the context and setting will lead to an authentic conversation.
    • Have go-to questions. While you don’t want to arrive at every occasion with a script of possible questions, it can be a good exercise to reflect on the things about which you are genuinely curious. When attending a conference networking event, you may be interested in hearing about individuals’ career paths, learning about their research, gaining their advice, etc. In developing questions, focus on ones that are open-ended, where the response requires more than a yes or no. You might ask, “Which conference sessions are you most interested in attending?” Maybe that seems unimportant to you or even a bit superficial, but hearing about the other individual’s interest might inspire you to attend a session you would not have initially chosen. As the conversation unfolds, so will the opportunities to guide the conversation toward more meaningful topics, and you might next ask, “What research projects are you currently working on?”
    • Practice. It is likely that you have attended interview preparation and practice sessions but far less likely that you have attended a small talk training. This is not your fault. My plea to my fellow career development practitioners is this: If we know that many individuals approach small talk with feelings of discomfort or dread, and we also recognize that it is an important skill that leads to positive career outcomes, then we need to actively train and create opportunities for our students and postdocs to practice small talk in low-stakes settings. Consider building small talk into your interview preparation offerings, add a small talk learning module to an upcoming campus networking event, collaborate with your campus’s English language learning program to incorporate small talk activities and reinforce the many places and spaces where your students and postdocs are already engaging in small talk. An example would be when a student comes in for an appointment and asks, “How was your weekend?” By asking they might learn, for instance, that you were recently in Miami, a city on the top of their list of places to visit. In this exchange you could draw attention to how the student effectively engaged in small talk, reinforcing that it is a skill they already possess.
    • Know what topics not to lead with. In the U.S. cultural context, it is safe to say that you would not want to lead small talk with questions about politics, religion, finances, health or overly personal topics. Aspects of these topics might be categorized as sensitive or controversial and can create tension and lead to misunderstanding. Through engaging in small talk, you should be building a foundation of connection that can facilitate greater openness toward engaging in more meaningful topics. That said, maybe you are at the American Political Science Association’s annual meeting—in that context, it would be common for the small talk to include politics. The setting and context can serve to guide the topics and direction of the small talk.

    In academia, where emphasis on depth and scope of knowledge is highly valued, small talk can be easily viewed as a burden and overlooked as a necessary competency. But by applying a few small talk communication strategies, you will find that it can open doors and enhance career success. If you have yet to do so, embrace small talk as a skill worth developing, and get out there and chitchat. The effects on your professional life could be both profound and long-lasting.

    Kay Gruder is the associate director of graduate student and postdoc career programs and services at the University of Connecticut. She is a member of the Graduate Career Consortium, an organization providing an international voice for graduate-level career and professional development leaders.

    Source link