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, emails, and physical posters positioned strategically around LCC, 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.
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 Open Discussion (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 and gender and identity?
- 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
Student reflections will be gathered via anonymous digital whiteboard contributions, Mentimeter, Padlet, paper, 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.
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 note embodied/non-verbal comm and/or will have to extract that through audio analysis (tone of voice, pauses, expressive sounds etc) – 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. Moreover, the intervention aims to 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.