Out of the Shadows: A one day investigation of the politics of architecture explored through the lens of post-conflict, Belfast

This booklet covers the itinerary and some of the findings of a day-long visit to Belfast on the 7th November 2014 by Peter Oborn; Vice President International of the Royal Institute of British Architects. His visit was in response to a motion submitted to the RIBA council (19.05.2014) calling for the suspension of the Israeli Association of United Architects from the International Union of Architects. Despite members of council speaking against the motion it was carried; 23 members voting for, 16 against, and 10 abstentions. Subsequently the RIBA came under considerable pressure to consider its position in such critical contexts. This visit to Belfast was part of a wider fact-finding mission and evidence taking. At its heart was the question: 'Is it appropriate for the institute (RIBA) to engage with communities facing civil conflict and/or natural disaster and, if so, how it can do so most effectively.' The visit was facilitated by Ruth Morrow, Professor of Architecture, School of Planning, Architecture & Civil Engineering, Queen's University Belfast, and Martin Hare, Royal Society of Ulster Architects (RSUA) president.

Emergence of episodic future though in pre-school aged children

Three experiments examined the development of episodic future thinking: the ability to think ahead about novel future situations (Atance & O’Neill, 2001). Each experiment used three novel tasks, similar to the Blow Football task used by Russell, Alexis, and Clayton (2010). In each, there was a different table top with two sides. Children played a game on one side of a table, and then were asked to choose a tool to play with a similar game on the other side of the table the next day. For example, children used a toy fishing rod to catch magnetic fish on one side of the table; playing the same game from the other side of the table required a different type of fishing rod. At test, children chose between 2 or 3 tools: a) the tool they used today, b) the tool suitable for the other side (correct) and c) a distractor tool which was not suitable for either side. In Experiment 1, 24 four-year-olds selected 1 out of 2 tools for tomorrow. Children selected the correct item above chance level in all tasks (p < 0.001). In Experiment 2, in which children were not allowed to look at the apparatus when choosing, 21 three-year olds selected 1 out of 2 tools for tomorrow. This group also selected the right tool above chance level in all tasks (p < 0.001).The results of Experiments 1 and 2 imply that 3- and 4-year olds might indeed show episodic future foresight. However, they could have also selected the right tool by default. To control for this, a third tool distractor was introduced in Experiment 3. This time, 3-4 year olds did not perform above chance levels, suggesting that there is an alternative explanation as to why they performed so well in the previous two experiments.