Resisting ideological echo chambers: if we are all critical pedagogues, how will we know we are doing LD well?

At the launch of How to be a Learning Developer in higher education (Syska and Buckley, 2024), a common thread emerged during contributor presentations: the need to develop a shared critical approach to position ourselves effectively within higher education. This approach would identify and implement strategies to resist the challenges of neoliberalism, working towards social justice for our students, using critical pedagogy. These themes are relatively common in the LD literature, and the ALDinHE value of ‘embracing […] critical pedagogy’ accompanies the manifesto statement that ‘neutrality is not an option’ (ALDinHE, 2023). These terms carry political connotations and implications for LD practice. Together, these factors suggest a move to develop a ‘signature’ critical LD pedagogy, underpinned by an explicitly ideological vision. Under these circumstances, we risk constructing ‘a bounded, enclosed media space that has the potential to both magnify the messages delivered within it and insulate them from rebuttal’ (Jamieson and Capella, 2008, p.76) — in short, an echo chamber. This raises some important questions: Given the explicitly political nature of critical pedagogy, in recruitment of new LD colleagues, should we test for and limit entry to our critical pedagogy club to those with ‘acceptable’ political views? Critical pedagogy is skeptical of dominant narratives. How will we prevent critical pedagogy from becoming the dominant narrative in our community? What if we are wrong? Even if our diagnosis of the challenges we face is correct, how will we test our solutions in the absence of robust challenges from alternative perspectives?