Over the past two decades, I’ve had the good fortune to teach across four countries and at every level—from first-year surveys to doctoral methods—mainly in sociology, political science, theology and religious studies, and history. My approach is straightforward: define terms clearly, ground claims in evidence, and help students learn to justify their reasoning in speech and in writing. I’ve enjoyed building curricula—flagship undergraduate and postgraduate modules, intensive methodology courses, and practitioner-oriented teaching—and I try to translate complex traditions and contemporary politics into accessible learning without oversimplifying. Supervision is a particular commitment; I work with students through milestones, drafts, and professional development. In administrative roles, I’ve aimed to support colleagues and align teaching with research strengths.

Here’s how I understand that work now: it begins as an encounter. Students don’t grow because I “deliver” knowledge; they grow when I create space for shared risk, careful listening, and co-presence. In practice, I loosen my grip on pre-set outcomes, clarify concepts and methods, and invite students to test ideas publicly—then insist that every claim be reasoned and justified. Authority should guide without domination, so my first task is to listen before I speak. I’m persuaded by Naeem Inayatullah’s paradox, “teaching is impossible, learning is unlikely,” and I use it to design conditions where attention outruns assertion, dialogue replaces monologue, and form (how we relate to knowledge) matters as much as content. When I do this well, complexity becomes competence, and students (hopefully) leave with habits of clarity, evidence, and ethical courage that travel beyond the encounter.