Research Methodology

Critical Participatory Action Research

This intervention is grounded in Critical Participatory Action Research (CPAR) as articulated by Kemmis and McTaggart (2014). CPAR (Figure 1) reworks Kurt Lewin’s original action research model (1946) to foreground participation, reflexivity, and social transformation. Rather than focusing solely on problem-solving, CPAR emphasises collaborative inquiry in which participants work together to understand and improve their own practices. Knowledge is produced with participants rather than about them, through iterative cycles of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting.

Although CPAR is often represented as a linear cycle, Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon (2014) stress that, in practice, action research is rarely neat or sequential. The stages frequently overlap, and initial plans evolve in response to learning from experience. They argue that the success of CPAR should not be judged by adherence to prescribed steps, but by whether participants develop an authentic sense of growth in their practices, understandings, and the situations in which they act.

This project adopts this non-linear understanding of CPAR, recognising that early, design-led phases often involve recursive movement between planning, reflection, and re-planning.

Overall Design and ARP Cycles

The ARP is structured across two cycles:

• Cycle 1, which forms the focus of this PGCert submission, centres on formative feedback on the design (resources and materials prepared) of a proposed student workshop.
• Cycle 2, planned for February 2026, will involve the delivery of the workshop itself and subsequent reflection.

This submission therefore documents and analyses Cycle 1 only, while situating the planned workshop as a future iteration informed by the findings of this first cycle.

Planned Intervention (Cycle 2: Context)

Beyond the scope of this submission, the planned intervention will take the form of a single 90–120 minute student-only workshop at London College of Communication (LCC), open to both BA and MA students across the Design, Screen, and Media Schools.

Initially, recruitment was intended to focus solely on Design School students due to limited personal and material resources. However, this was reconsidered, as restricting eligibility risked both excluding students unnecessarily and limiting participation. Opening the call to all BA and MA students at LCC was therefore judged to better support inclusivity and increase the likelihood of meaningful engagement, despite ongoing uncertainty about student appetite for this format.

Participants and Recruitment

Recruitment will explicitly encourage participation from students who identify as neurodivergent, queer, disabled, or as allies committed to fostering inclusive environments. At the same time, the workshop remains open to all BA and MA students, avoiding restrictive or gatekeeping criteria.

Outreach will use accessible, multi-channel methods, including MS Forms, Padlet, targeted emails, and physical posters displayed across LCC. This inclusive recruitment strategy aims to build solidarity and shared understanding across difference while lowering barriers to participation.

Workshop Focus and Participatory Methods (Cycle 2)

As outlined in the updated Research Question(s) post of this ARP blog, the workshop (Cycle 2) will focus on three areas:

1. Challenges and opportunities across courses and academic stages at LCC
2. The role of technology in alleviating and exacerbating barriers (e.g. AI, Moodle, Canvas, Padlet, SEAtS)
3. The impact of institutional policies and governance on neurodiversity, gender inclusion, and disability justice

The session will employ creative and participatory methods, including show-and-tell activities, small-group dialogue, and zine co-creation, to support self-expression, critical reflection, and community-building (Kara, 2015; Taylor & Robinson, 2009). Alongside the proposed discussion topics (with subsequent sub-questions – shown in Research Question(s) post), a previously published zine (displayed in fig. 2) will be used as an icebreaker, along with brief personal anecdotes, to prompt discussion and shared reflection. This is detailed in the Step-by-Step Workshop’s Schedule section proposed below.

Potential outputs include a collaborative zine or visual artefact that represents student narratives and may inform institutional advocacy through EDI or Disability Services, contingent on participant consent and control over dissemination. This approach adopts an intersectional and trauma-informed praxis, recognising the multiple and overlapping oppressions students may experience (Crenshaw, 2013).

Proposed Step-by-Step Workshop’s Schedule (part of resources evaluated in cycle 1):

1 Icebreaker (Using Mentimeter, Padlet or fallback material) (10 mins) 

Suggested Prompts from Mentimeter to upload on Padlet or Verbal Kick-off (chose one or two from below): 

• What does a “typical” learning journey look like for you at LCC? 
• What would an inclusive learning environment look like to you? 
• Can you sketch or describe a moment when you felt fully supported – or completely overlooked? 

Using visuals, drawings, short notes – anything goes. Upload everything on Padlet 

2 Discussion Themes with Guiding Questions 

I’ll keep things flexible. If one topic really resonates, I’ll let it breathe 

Theme 1: Navigating LCC – From BA to MA (20 mins) 

Prompting Questions (using Mentimeter): 

• What do you wish you had known when you started at LCC? 
• 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? 

Optional Activity/Prompt: Timeline or storyboard mapping, “Plot a high and a low point in your LCC journey.” – but again, anything goes – Upload everything on Padlet 

Theme 2: Technology as Bridge or Barrier (20 mins) 

Prompting Questions (using Mentimeter): 

• Which platforms (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? 
• Where does technology help or hinder you in your creative or academic process? 
• (How does AI show up in your learning? Does it feel like a friend, a threat, or something else? – optional, if there’s time left) 

Optional Activity/Prompt: Students answer in text using Mentimeter, or are asked to draw or write about various scenarios in which they use or do not use technology on paper. Then upload to Padlet. On Padlet, share an example from the CHI 2025 Conference on student interaction with AI for comparison. Upload everything to Padlet.

BREAK: 15 MINS 

Theme 3: Inclusion, Identity, and Institutional Practice (20 mins) 

Revise the tables printed on the table showing examples of common policies at universities such as LCC. To know more about it, read and revise the third Talking Point on the Padlet with the list of links to LCC policies.

Prompting Questions (using Mentimeter): 

• In what ways does LCC feel inclusive or exclusive — in terms of neurodiversity, disability, race, culture, or gender? 
• Have policies or procedures (i.e., accommodations, extensions, class participation) helped or harmed you? 
• What forms of support do you need that aren’t currently available?  

I can ask: If you could invent a policy that would make your experience better, what would it be? 

Students could answer in one sentence or bullet point, like: 

• “Let us choose how we’re tracked i.e., SEAtS shouldn’t be automatic.” 
• “Every class should have a sensory-friendly option.” 
• “Make AI literacy a required part of the curriculum.” 
• “Let us submit assessments in creative formats, not just essays/PDFs.” 
• “Give us more agency in accessing the building”

Optional Activity: Ask attendees to create a “Policy Wishlist” – a fictional policy that would make them feel more supported or seen. Again, anything goes. Upload everything on Padlet.

3 End: Synthesis + What Next? (20 mins) 

• What patterns or recurring stories have we heard today? – show results from Mentimeter collected data (mainly wordclouds) 

The following are to be also asked in the online Consent Form that participants must complete: 

• Where do we go from here? Can we turn these experiences into action or proposals? 
• Would people be interested in a follow-up session, a zine, or some other creative output? 

TO BE PRINTED AND LEFT ON TABLE FOR THEME 3 

Policies = rules or guidelines that a university or institution creates to make things fair, safe, and consistent. 

They cover how things are done, like: 

• Who gets access to what (e.g. disabled student accommodations) 
• What happens when something goes wrong (e.g. complaints, misconduct) 
• What students and staff are expected to do (e.g. attendance, deadlines) 

The below examples of policies are included under theme 3 on the Padlet (with links to relevant LCC policies) but might also be printed for students’ easy access. 

Examples of common policies at a university like LCC 

Policy Type	What It’s About (in plain words)
Inclusion policy	Says the uni supports everyone, no matter their gender, race, disability, etc.
Disability policy	Promises access and adjustments for disabled and neurodivergent students.
Assessment policy	Sets out how your work is marked, and what to do if you need an extension.
Attendance policy (e.g. SEAtS)	Tracks who comes to class and what happens if you miss too much.
AI usage policy	Tells you what’s okay (or not) when using AI in your studies.
Complaints policy	Explains how to raise issues if you feel mistreated or something’s unfair.
Gender inclusion policy	Supports trans and non-binary students with names, pronouns, facilities.

Data Generation: Cycle 1 (Formative Feedback)

As already described, given the scope, timeframe, and ethical considerations of the PgCert submission, Cycle 1 focuses on formative feedback rather than the delivery of the workshop itself.

Over several weeks, informal feedback was solicited from colleagues and BA students (Years 1–3) on the workshop concept and materials, including the poster, Padlet prompts, information and consent forms, and the session plan.

As of 19 December, the dataset comprises:

• One Microsoft Teams transcript (discussion-based feedback)
• Three written responses (emails or documents)

The feedback focused on clarity, tone, relevance, accessibility, and engagement. Importantly, this data reflects responses to designed artefacts, not lived experience of the workshop. The evaluation presented in this submission therefore constitutes formative evaluation and design feedback analysis, rather than outcome evaluation.

Analytic Approach

Data from Cycle 1 were analysed using a light qualitative content analysis, informed by reflexive thematic analysis principles. This approach was chosen to ensure ethical proportionality while allowing systematic engagement with participant feedback.

The analysis draws on:

• Affective thematic analysis (Braun, Clarke, & Hayfield, 2023; Wæraas, 2022; Friedman, & Hendry, 2019)
• Visual and embodied methods (Kara, 2015; Wolgemuth et al., 2024; Ahmed et al., 2014)
• Participatory sense-making (Ahmed et al., 2024; Redman-MacLaren et al., 2014)

Given the potential for multimodal data in later cycles, analytic attention was paid to affective expressions, values, and meaning-making, rather than solely to instrumental suggestions.

Reflection and Evaluation of process 

Success in this ARP is understood through processual and relational indicators, rather than predefined outcomes. These include the quality and depth of feedback, perceived accessibility and care in the design, and evidence that participant reflections meaningfully informed revisions.

Longer-term indicators, such as sustained engagement, follow-up participation, or collaboration with EDI, Disability Services, or ChangeMakers, are anticipated in future cycles. This orientation aligns with critiques of instrumental evaluation in higher education and foregrounds care-centred, values-led practice (Macfarlane, Bolden, & Watermeyer, 2024).

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.

Lewin, K., 1946. Action research and minority problems. Journal of social issues, 2(4), pp.34-46.

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.