During election season, teachers may recognise some traits of their own students in the way politicians frequently avoid questions. Theresa May sidestepping questions over the potential negative impact of Brexit or Jeremy Corbyn consistently failing to answer queries over nuclear deterrents has nothing on a 15 year old being asked about homework they have not done.

One academic has had a close look at how and why politicians avoid questions, so we asked him to apply his research to the classroom. Here’s what he came up with.

According to the theory of equivocation, as proposed by Bavelas et al (1990), people typically equivocate when posed a question to which all of the possible replies have potentially negative consequences, but where nevertheless a reply is still expected. Bavelas et al. termed this situation a “communicative avoidance-avoidance conflict”, referred to here as a communicative conflict (CC).

Many everyday situations can be seen to create communicative conflicts. Perhaps the most common involves a choice between saying something false but kind and something true but hurtful. 

For example, a person receives a highly unsuitable gift from a well-liked friend, who then asks directly, “Did you like the gift?”  In responding, the person has two negative choices: saying, falsely, that s/he likes the gift or saying, hurtfully that s/he does not. 

Equivocation

According to equivocation theory, the person will, if possible, avoid both of these negative alternatives - especially when a hurtful truth serves no purpose. What s/he does instead is to equivocate: for example, someone might say “I appreciate your thoughtfulness”, with no mention of what s/he thought of the actual gift. 

Bavelas et al. stressed that although it is individuals who equivocate, such responses must always be understood in the situational context in which they occur. This theory is known as the Situational Theory of Communicative Conflict (STCC).

We have modified this theory in a political context to suggest that a prime cause of communicative conflicts are what we call “threats to face” - that is, responses that may make the politician look bad, or circumscribe their future freedom of action. 

When all the possible principal responses present threats to face, then a communicative conflict is created, where equivocation is not regarded as without face threats, but as typically less face-threatening than the other alternative responses.                                      

The STCC, to my knowledge, has never been applied in an educational context, but seems to work well in the examples below.

1. “Have you done your homework?”

The child might answer: “I was really busy last night”, “It was really difficult” etc.

If they were to answer “Yes”, they might look bad to other pupils, seen as a goody goody/nerd/teacher’s pet.

If they answer “No”, they might look bad to the teacher, and also might be in trouble.

If they answer “Yes” but have not done homework, they might get into trouble for not doing homework, and for lying. 

2. “Did you revise for the test?”

The child may answer: “It doesn’t count to my final grade.”

Same conflict as (1) above.

3.“Did you have a nice breaktime?”

The child may answer: “I sat on the bench” (avoiding mentioning the fact they were sat alone or people were laughing at them, and therefore did not have a nice breaktime).

If the child answers “Yes”, they may not be able to lie convincingly and they might look bad if it is known they sit alone, or get bullied.

If the child answers “No”, is still looks bad (no friends, gets bullied) but might also lead to further unwelcome questions.

4. “Who are your friends at school?”

The child may answer: “I sit next to Annabel in class.”

Similar to (3) above. The child looks bad if they admit to having no friends. They may not be able to lie convincingly and look bad if found out.

5. “Can you read what’s on the board?”

If they can’t, for whatever reason, they may answer: “I’m writing it down,” “I was reading it from the textbook”

They avoid saying “no” in order to avoid admitting to a personal failing.

6. “Did you push another child?”

The child may answer: “S/he pushed me first” (assuming the child did push another child).

If yes, it obviously looks bad and they may get into trouble

If no, they may be found out for lying, which would get lthem into even more trouble.

The response is an implicit answer (ie, accepts that s/he pushed another child), but provides a justification for it.

7. “What’s your favourite subject?”

The child may answer: “Breaktime.”

I find this the hardest one. What is the risk of admitting to a favourite subject? Could it be that it is seen as creeping to the teacher of that subject? Or that it will upset the others?

The lesson, really, is that avoiding the question is almost always telling you something, and that the context of the avoidance is important. So pay attention to the question avoiders and how they do it, be they politicians or students. 

Dr Peter Bull is a Reader at the University of York. 

Want to keep up with the latest education news and opinion? Follow Tes on Twitter and like Tes on Facebook