Hi! I’m Antonella Nonnis, but people call me Ant, a User Experience Design Lecturer and Y2 Lead for the BA UXD students in the Design School at LCC. I hold a (fully funded) PhD in Media and Arts Technology from the School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science of Queen Mary University of London.
My research explores how a more inclusive research and design approach to technology for play could benefit marginalised children, such as non-conventionally verbal autistic children. The focus of design is not just on the technology but on the environment created and the experience and opportunities offered, including neurotypical researchers’ attitudes towards and appreciation of neurodiversity.
My interdisciplinary works have been exhibited nationally (London, UK) and internationally (USA, EU). I have a good publications record, and my research was published and presented at high-level academic international conferences such as the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) and journals such as the ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) and the International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (IJHCS) and other middle-level international conferences such as the Interaction Design and Children (IDC), where the work won the Best Demo Award, and the New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME). I co-authored a workshop exploring design fiction and absurd making for critical NIME design that won the Best Workshop Prize. Finally, I provide peer-reviewed publications submitted to CHI, TACCESS, NIME, TEI, and IDC. In 2021, I received Special Recognition for Outstanding Reviews for CHI 2021 Papers.
I started teaching in HE 7 years ago while doing my PhD at QMUL. I came to LCC in the winter of 2022 where I taught the Interactive Data Visualisation Studio to the Y2 BA UXD students for one winter term. I came back in 2023 to teach Enquiry in Design for User Experience (Y2), the Final Project and the Competition Brief units (Y3) for the whole academic year and ended up staying :). In my previous teaching role as a visiting lecturer at City University, I taught the Inclusive Design module to MSc students and co-taught the Creativity in Design module with the fantastic Dr Alex Taylor and Dr Sarah Heitlinger. I also assisted with lab work and marking for the Understanding User Interactions module with the patient Dr Stephann Makri and the Evaluating Interactive Systems with the amazing Prof Steph Wilson. At Queen Mary University, instead, I was a Lab Demonstrator/Assistant Lecturer for 3 years for Interactive System Design with the fantastic Prof Paul Curzon and Prof Matthew Purver.
In my current and previous teaching roles at LCC, QMUL, and City University, I planned and delivered learning activities for BA and MA/MSc students, focusing on creative, human-centred, critical, ethical, and inclusive approaches to design screen-based, physical, remote, and/or situated experiences. My teaching philosophy centres around fostering a collaborative and inclusive learning environment that encourages students to learn, explore and apply ethical and inclusive human-centred design processes across digital and analogue media.
By doing the PGCert I hope to develop the skills and knowledge needed to create a more inclusive and supportive learning environment where all students can thrive. I aim to foster a space where students feel empowered to be creative, experiment with new ideas, and take risks safely and constructively. Additionally, I want to enhance my teaching practices to not only guide students in their design and research journeys but also to encourage their growth as human beings, independent thinkers, tinkerers and creatives, and to build their critical and analytical skills as well as strengthen their socio-emotional resilience so that they are better equipped to navigate challenges and flourish both academically and personally.
I started drafting the information sheet and consent form for students on the 15th of October, and I sent them to Kwame for revision on the 16th. The feedback was positive, and the documents were ready to be circulated. However, I would like to create an online version of both the information sheet and consent form using Microsoft Forms.
A few (3–5) printed A3 posters will be displayed around the LCC campus to encourage student participation. Each poster will include a brief introduction to the project and a QR code that students can scan to access the Microsoft Form containing the Information Sheet. If they are interested in participating, they can proceed to the next page to provide their consent by responding to each required point.
In my email to Kwame, I also asked how much self-disclosure and positionality the Information Sheet should include, as I felt that some level of personal openness might help students trust me as a staff member. However, while I am a big fan of positionality, I tend to value it more in relation to the research rather than the researcher, since self-disclosure can have serious consequences, though I recognise that being able to choose not to disclose is itself a privilege (for instance, in the case of invisible disabilities, identities, or beliefs that are not immediately apparent). Because of this, I was conflicted and sought Kwame’s advice.
Kwame kindly replied that I should “simplify all your information declarations to be broad. You can point to the fact that you are upholding inclusive teaching and learning to enhance the student experience. This way, it offers a wider context.”
I then decided to include a short self-disclosure note on the Information Sheet, stating exactly what my tutor suggested: “As a newly appointed LCC staff member, I am upholding inclusive teaching and learning to enhance the student experience.”
For the scope of this ARP, the SIG will take place at LCC and will include BA and MA students from the Design school only. Recruitment will encourage participation from those who identify as neurodivergent, queer, disabled, or as supporters/allies committed to fostering inclusive environments, build solidarity and shared understanding across differences. Recruitment will leverage accessible platforms such as MS Forms and Padlet (similar to this Padlet), to ensure broad and inclusive outreach. This inclusive framing aims to build solidarity and shared understanding across differences.
As specified in the Research Questions section of this ARP blog report, the topics will focus on:
Challenges and opportunities faced at LCC across courses and academic stages (from BA students to MA ones)
Explore the role of technology in academia, assessing how it alleviates and exacerbates barriers (AI, Moodle, Canvas, Padlet, SEAtS, etc)
Critically examine how policies and governance within the LCC community impact neurodiversity/gender-inclusion and disability justice.
The session will employ creative participatory methods like show-and-tell, small-group dialogues, and zine co-creation, facilitating self-expression, critical reflection, and community-building (Kara, 2015; Taylor & Robinson, 2009). I will use the below zine (displayed in fig. 1) and anecdotes from personal experience (as recently exploring the possibility of having ADHD and having worked for many years with neurodiverse children, students and colleagues) as an ice-breaker to spark further discussions among students on the three topics of conversation.
Figure 1. Zine used as ice-breaker at our SIG during the CHI Conference in Japan, 2025. Withn permission of Tcherdakoff. Created by Tcherdakoff, N.A. as bite-sized version of “Tcherdakoff, N.A., Marshall, P., Dowthwaite, A., Bird, J. and Cox, A.L., 2025, June. Burnout by Design: How Digital Systems Overburden Neurodivergent Students in Higher Education. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work (pp. 1-18).”
The final output could be a collaborative zine, as exemplified above, that serves as both a tangible representation of student narratives and a potential resource for institutional advocacy by sharing insights with EDI and Disability Services teams – always contingent upon participant consent and control over dissemination. A visual map or a collage of findings could also be stored on a UAL web server. This strategy adopts an intersectional and trauma-informed approach, acknowledging the multiple and overlapping oppression that students face (Crenshaw, 2013).
This strategy embraces an intersectional and trauma-informed praxis, acknowledging the multiple and overlapping oppressions students face (Crenshaw, 2013)
Limiting the intervention to a single session and LCC students reflects pragmatic considerations related to the brief’s timeframe, as well as the necessity of establishing a foundation of trust and shared understanding among participants. Focusing on both BA and MA students in one session enables an inclusive yet manageable scope that honours their often marginalised voices within institutional dialogues.
As seen in the Action Plan section of this blog, this intervention follows Kemmis & McTaggart Participatory Action Research (PAR) cycle (2014).
Step-by-Step SIG’s Schedule and methods used:
Icebreaker (Using Padlet or fallback material). Suggested Prompts for Padlet or Verbal Kick-off:
What does a “typical” learning journey look like for you at LCC?
Can you sketch or describe a moment when you felt fully supported – or completely overlooked?
Where does technology help or hinder you in your creative or academic process?
What would an inclusive learning environment look like to you?
Method: Using visuals, drawings, short notes – anything goes.
SIG OpenDiscussion (90 minutes or 120 with one break) on the 3 Themes with Guiding Questions
Theme 1: Navigating LCC – From BA to MA. Prompting Questions:
What do you wish you had known when you started at LCC?
How do experiences differ between BA and MA levels – in terms of support, freedom, or pressure?
What are some opportunities LCC offers that you’ve been able (or unable) to take up?
What feels like a systemic challenge vs a personal one?
Method: Open discussion – Optional Activity/Prompt: Timeline or storyboard mapping, “Plot a high and a low point in your LCC journey.”
Theme 2: Technology as Bridge or Barrier. Prompting Questions:
Which platforms (Canvas, Moodle, SEAtS, etc.) do you actually use – and how?
Do you find that these tools help you learn, or do they add more administrative tasks?
How does AI show up in your learning? Does it feel like a friend, a threat, or something else?
What’s one digital change you’d make to support creative practice better?
Method: Open Discussion – Optional Prompt: Share an example from CHI 2025 on student interaction with AI for comparison.
Theme 3: Inclusion, Identity, and Institutional Practice. Prompting Questions:
In what ways does LCC feel inclusive or exclusive — in terms of neurodiversity, disability, race, culture or gender?
Have policies or procedures (accommodations, extensions, class participation) helped or harmed you?
What forms of support do you need that aren’t currently available?
How can governance, not just people, become more empathetic?
Method: Open Discussion + Optional Activity: Ask attendees to create a “Policy Wishlist” – a fictional policy that would make them feel more supported or seen.
End: Synthesis + What Next?
What patterns or recurring stories have we heard today?
The following are to be asked in the online Consent Form that participants must complete:
Would you be interested in a follow-up session, a zine, or some other creative output?
Where do we go from here? Can we turn these experiences into action or proposals?
Reflection and Evaluation of process
Responses will be analysed thematically using a mix of affective thematic analysis (Braun, Clarke, & Hayfield, 2023; Wæraas, 2022; Ahmed et al., 2024; Friedman, & Hendry, 2019), visual and embodied methods (Kara, 2015; Wolgemuth, Guyotte, & Shelton, 2024), and participatory sense-making (Ahmed et al., 2024; Redman-MacLaren, Mills, & Tommbe, 2014).
Because I am dealing with affective dimensions (emotions, feelings, mood) and possibly visual/graphic data (drawings/notes) + audio and group interaction (SIGs/focus groups), I’ll want to ensure my analytic method covers:
multimodal data (visual, audio, text)
reflexivity of researcher/participant positioning and affect
focus groups and group dynamic issues (interaction effects, shared meaning)
ensuring rigour in code-book, theme generation, transparency
When coding my data, I have to consider affective codes (e.g., “felt frustrated”, “energised”, “reluctant”, “excited”, “anxious”), and make sure the theme development explicitly handles emotions and affect, not just “what they said they did” (might have to take observational sketches during SIG to not non-verbal comm and/or do ore of an audio analysis – if participants consent to audio rec)
With visual data (drawings/notes): I may use the guidance from the visual-methods papers (Ahmed et al., 2024; Wolgemuth et al., 2024) to interpret colours, shapes, layouts, metaphors, the participant’s commentary on their own drawing/note. I might combine the drawing data with participant remarks (audio) to triangulate.
For the scope, resources and time of this small intervention I aim to conduct an initial analysis of findings to be introduced during the presentation of this ARP project at the end of this unit.
Ideally, success will be evaluated through multiple qualitative indicators, prioritising participant feedback, engagement levels, and the depth of zine contributions. Student reflections will be gathered via anonymous digital whiteboard contributions, Padlet, and informal conversations, emphasising their sense of safety, empowerment, and perceived impact. If students consent to it, I’d like to make an audio recording of the conversations during the SIG, so that I can easily thematically analyse them after – this will also enable me to have more autonomy and presence during the discussion.
Moreover, the intervention will track indicators of sustained engagement, such as voluntary participation in follow-up activities and ongoing community interactions/interest (EDI, Disability Services and ChangeMakers). These measures reflect the intervention’s commitment to processual and relational metrics of success, rather than solely relying on institutional reporting standards (Macfarlane, Bolden, & Watermeyer, 2024).
Should the student SIG demonstrate efficacy in fostering inclusion and voice, the model can inform future iterations incorporating staff-focused groups, designed with equivalent attention to power dynamics and safety. This phased approach recognises the complexities highlighted by tutor feedback and peer critique while maintaining the integrity of student-centred care.
References:
Ahmed, M.F., Ali, K., Mann, M. and Sibbald, S.L., 2024. Thematic analysis of using visual methods to understand healthcare teams. The Qualitative Report, 6(29), p.1.
Braun, V., Clarke, V. and Hayfield, N., 2023. Thematic analysis: A reflexive approach.
Crenshaw, K. (2013) ‘Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color’, in Feminist Legal Theory. Routledge, London.
Friedman, B. and Hendry, D.G., 2019. Value sensitive design: Shaping technology with moral imagination. Mit Press.
Kara, H., (2015). Creative research methods in the social sciences. (Vol. 10). Bristol: Policy Press.
Macfarlane, B., Bolden, R. and Watermeyer, R. (2024) ‘Three perspectives on leadership in higher education: Traditionalist, reformist, pragmatist’. Higher education, 88(4), pp.1381-1402
Redman-MacLaren, M., Mills, J. and Tommbe, R., 2014. Interpretive focus groups: A participatory method for interpreting and extending secondary analysis of qualitative data. Global Health Action, 7(1), p.25214.
Taylor, C. and Robinson, C., 2009. Student voice: Theorising power and participation. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 17(2), pp.161-175.
Wæraas, A., 2022. Thematic analysis: Making values emerge from texts. In Researching values: Methodological approaches for understanding values work in organisations and leadership (pp. 153-170). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Wolgemuth, J.R., Guyotte, K.W. and Shelton, S.A. eds., 2024. Expanding approaches to thematic analysis: Creative engagements with qualitative data. Taylor & Francis.
Proposed collab with EDI, Disability Services and ChangeMakers + EDI Small Grant Application Details
*(As of 29 September 2025) I reached out (Fig. 1) to the EDI and Disability Services and the LCC ChangeMakers to “explore whether there might be an opportunity to connect, collaborate, or share the project’s findings with them and their teams” and received a few replies of interest (Fig. 3).
Figure 2 Email sent out to EDi, disability Services and LCC ChangeMakersFigure 3 Replies received to the above email shown in Fig 2
I completed and sent the LCC EDI Small Grant Application form on 13th October 2025. Although the deadline for application is on the 20th of October, I was kindly confirmed that if successful, I should be able to get the funds on time to run the event on the 26th “If all is well and goes as planned (i.e.. you are successful with your application), it is very likely that you have the funds by mid-November.” Initially the event was planned for the 19th Nov. but due to the tight deadlines for funds I decided to postpone the proposed date of a week.
At first I thought of applying for the School-based Student Enhancement Fund and contacted the contact provided on the website. I was initially encouraged to apply but then told by my Programme Director that it was not the right fund. So I then contacted LCC fund but was told that decisions for the funds will be made around mid-Nov and was told that they were not sure whether “the proposal to pay students via Research Funding is acceptable” and there wee uncertainties “about the PG Cert support through the research funding pot”. Meanwhile I also enquried about the EDI Funds and received a reply encouraging me to apply for EDI Small Grants.
The funds would enable me to:
· Compensate students for the time (using £5 vouchers they can spend at Uni, perhaps?) – = Total of £150 voucher for students’ participation (£5 each).
· Offer coffees/teas/water and light snacks during the SIG – I asked the canteen for a cost estimation for coffee/teas/biscuits for around 30 people and the asked for around: £112.50 for Fairtrade & organic brewed coffee & selection of teas and herb infusion with biscuits (£3.75 each).
· Buy resources to run the SIG (i.e., paper, coloured pens, pencils, post-it notes and perhaps some sensory materials? – Play doh, threads, pins, cotton, glue, balloons, straws, wooden sticks, pipe cleaners, beads and buttons, bubble wrap, pom poms) – should be around £70/80 for resources
The total amount requested is of around £350/£400.
The SIG will evolve around 3 topics of (open) discussion and subsequent RQs development will try to address the following:
Challenges and opportunities faced at LCC across courses and academic stages (from BA students to MA ones)
What are the key academic and institutional challenges faced by students across different levels (BA, MA) at LCC, and how do these challenges evolve over time?
In what ways do interdisciplinary practices at LCC support or hinder student progression across academic stages?
How do students perceive the effectiveness of support systems (academic, technical, emotional) at different stages of their education at LCC?
Explore the role of technology in academia, assessing how it alleviates and exacerbates barriers (AI, Moodle, Canvas, Elements, SEAtS, etc)
How does the use of digital platforms (e.g., Moodle, Canvas, Padlet, Miro, Collaborate, SEAtS etc) impact student engagement and academic performance at LCC?
In what ways does AI integration in academic settings at LCC reduce or reinforce existing barriers to learning and inclusion?
What are the unintended consequences of relying on surveillance-based systems like SEAtS for student attendance and engagement tracking?
How do technological tools support or undermine pedagogical innovation and accessibility within creative education contexts?
Critically examine how policies and governance within the LCC community impact neurodiversity/gender-inclusion and disability justice.
What are the lived experiences of neurodiverse, disabled, and gender-diverse individuals navigating policy structures at LCC?
How inclusive are LCC’s policies and practices in addressing the needs of neurodivergent students?
How effectively does LCC implement disability justice principles in curriculum design, assessment methods, and campus infrastructure?
Since this is for a Special Interest Group (SIG) session with an open discussion format (120 minutes), my aim is to spark participation, encourage sharing of lived experiences, and guide the conversation using open, accessible, but still critical questions/prompts – introduced in the Research Methods section of this ARP blog report.
Professor Arif Ahmed recently claimed that “universities should be neutral to any matter on which there is controversy” (Ahmed, 2023). On the surface, this may appear to safeguard academic freedom. But through the lens of anti-racism, this notion of neutrality is not only flawed—it is dangerous.
As bell hooks reminds us, education is never neutral. Every classroom either reinforces the status quo or challenges it. For hooks, pedagogy must be the “practice of freedom”—a process that invites critical thinking, centres lived experience, and confronts systemic oppression (hooks, 1994). In contrast, Ahmed’s model assumes that controversial issues can be approached without taking a stand, as if power, identity, and experience can be bracketed out of the learning space.
This perspective is not only at odds with hooks, but also with the work of Dr Joy Buolamwini, whose Gender Shades project exposed how commercial facial recognition technologies disproportionately fail to identify Black women (Buolamwini and Gebru, 2018). Her research, which combines technical rigour with poetic activism, shows how data-driven systems inherit and amplify racial bias. For those of us in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), it is clear that technologies are not neutral—and neither is the way we teach them. A curriculum that ignores race, gender, and power produces designers who unknowingly reproduce discrimination.
In my own role as a researcher and lecturer in HCI, I increasingly see the need for what Asif Sadiq calls “localised, holistic training” (Sadiq, 2023). His critique of top-down, corporate-style EDI reflects the failure of decontextualised approaches that seek to check boxes rather than transform culture. Like hooks, Sadiq calls for approaches grounded in real-world contexts and diverse epistemologies—moving from abstract ideals to lived experiences.
Judith Butler’s work further strengthens this view. For Butler, freedom is not simply the ability to speak or think—it is shaped by the norms and structures that determine whose voices are heard (Butler, 2004). An anti-racist pedagogy, therefore, must go beyond free speech rhetoric and ask: Who is speaking? Who is silent? Who feels safe to be fully present in the learning space?
Taken together, these thinkers challenge the myth of neutrality in higher education. In HCI, and across disciplines, we must design and teach with intention. This means acknowledging bias, embracing controversy when it serves justice, and co-creating learning environments that affirm all students—not just those already centred by the system.
Anti-racist education is not about ideological conformity. It’s about courage, context, and care. As bell hooks would argue, it is our responsibility—not to flee from controversy, but to engage it ethically, critically, and humanely.
References:
Ahmed, A. (2023) Revealed: The charity turning UK universities woke [Online video]. Available at: https://youtu.be/FRM6vOPTjuU?t=260 (Accessed: 02/07/2025).
Buolamwini, J. and Gebru, T. (2018) ‘Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification’, Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency, 81, pp. 77–91.
Butler, J. (2004) Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge.
hooks, b. (1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge.
