Plan
The SIG, titled Beyond Neurotypical Norms, will be a single 90–120-minute session open to both BA and MA students as well as allies, intentionally excluding staff to preserve student autonomy and psychological safety. The SIG will take place at LCC and will include LCC only students (unsure whether to focus on Design school only for the scope of ARP). Recruitment will encourage participation from those who identify as neurodivergent, queer, disabled, or as supporters/allies committed to fostering inclusive environments. 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.
Insert Gantt
Before SIG
- Prepare blog for documentation and internal sharing of process
- Plan recruitment
- Contact EDI, Disability Services and Change Makers to discuss potential coll for actionable insights
- Complete Ethics
- Prepare Info Sheet (online)
- Prepare Consent form (online)
- Prepare and Distribute Posters (to be printed)
- Conduct literature + Finalise Intervention
- Plan SIG
- Find a suitable room for the SIG
- Book the room
- Find some funds to compensate students, snack + coffee, resources during 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)
- Inform and confirm meeting point with interested students who have registered
- Debrief students at the venue and before starting the SIG of what they gave consent to
During SIG (Action)
After the SIG
- Collate findings
- Analyse data
- Summarise insights
- Share with EDI, DS and CM (if student consented)
- Share actions taken with students Prepare for publication and/or internal dissemination (if students consented)
*(As of 29 September 2025) I already 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).
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.
Reflection and Evaluation of process
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
Crenshaw, K. (2013) ‘Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color’, in Feminist Legal Theory. Routledge, London.
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
Taylor, C. and Robinson, C., 2009. Student voice: Theorising power and participation. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 17(2), pp.161-175.