In order to think about the workshops that I run, I recently attended a talk about artist’s workshops at Eastside Projects in Birmingham. It was led by the artist Verity-Jane Keefe whose work/project was also displayed as a final exhibition/culmination of her role as part of the Wheatley fellowship program there. 

I went there to get inspiration for my PGcert ARP as I was thinking of focusing on the Artist’s workshop as a topic to explore and write about. 

The exhibition and talk left me feeling confused, lost and a bit depressed. 

I want to think through my experience of the exhibition and the talk as a way to reframe my thinking and work through my difficulties with the ARP project and workshops in general, especially, in relation to socially engaged participatory practice within the arts and how that is reflected in the ideology of the PG Cert.

At first reading the Press Release states:

The Artist, The Community, The Council and The Philanthropist is part soap-opera, part community radio play, set within a former Friends Institute now community centre and charity shop which is much loved but crumbling through managed decline. 

This was interesting I thought, as the building in question was three streets away from where I had lived for 4 years and I had occasionally popped into the charity shop there.

The imagery and exhibition centres around a Carara marble bust of Richard Cadbury – the founder of Cadburys in the middle of the room, surrounded by three fabricated sets of the building in question with the radio play as audio playing on loop throughout.

The sets themselves, each a different room within the building, reflected its different social uses: council meeting room, outreach workshop space, charity shop. 

The audio manifested itself as a kind of council officer type voice arguing in multiple ways that there wasn’t any more money to various people wanting social change to then chants of no more money from everyone else.

My initial impression was of a standardly Arts Council funded, socially engaged participatory practice type exhibition that is so prevalent in galleries today. 

It had a dry conceptual visual style, harking back to the kind of institutional critique works made by Hans Haacke but with a kind of British kitchen sink drama flavour sprinkled over the top:

Kids drawings from a workshop hung on a washing line, cups of stagnant tea etc.

As the PR continues:

The episodic work is performed by Verity and a community cast. Recorded in the same studio as BBC Radio 4’s The Archers, and inspired by the long running place based soap, Verity shifts the focus to an urban, pseudo representation of place informed by archival research, conversation, observation and workshops. Connecting Eastside Projects and The Friends Institute on Moseley Road in Highgate, chapters 1–3 will play amongst sculptural scenography as a stage set across the gallery and chapter 4 in situ in the Friends Institute, next to The Philanthropist’s empty plinth.

One section of the PR in particular, confused and angered me, it stated:

The script centres on ‘useful escapism’ to imagine alternative anti-paternalistic neighbourhood models grassroots spaces of speculation and fantasy with one foot in the real. If the community was in charge what would they do? If there was no local authority what could happen? If everything genuinely collapsed into chaos how would we keep things afloat? 

I lived in this area and this is exactly what has happened: The council went bankrupt and has pretty much withdrawn all local support and instead the local area is being held up by various community leaders from various political, religious and ethnic groups, all the while developers move in and eat up the derelict buildings to turn them into expensive flats in speculation for the arrival of HS2.

It also seemed surreal to centre the entire focus of the show around Richard Cadbury given that the Quakers have not had much of a presence in Highgate since the mid 20th Century. 

This confused me, were they trying to critique Richard Cadbury and his paternalism? –

Paternalistic British Socialism (as I understand it from watching too many Adam Curtis Documentaries) founded by Victorian thinkers such as Robert Owen, Cadbury, Rowntree, Dickens and the Salters, then cemented under Clement Atlee in the Post- war consensus, was fully deconstructed 40 years ago at the same time as Birmingham’s industry and financial power.

Isn’t Thatcher then, surely the symbol of anti-paternalistic neighbourhood models in Birmingham?

The very building the exhibition is set in for instance, is falling apart because the council is bankrupt due to the removal of funding for such ‘paternalistic’ neighborhood models of urban spaces.  

It made me think of Claire Bishop’s critique of similar kinds of writing in her book ‘Artificial Hells’ 

participation in society is merely participation in the task of being individually responsible for what, in the past, was the collective concern of the state.

Was the use of ‘grassroots’ a kind of neoliberal exploit to mean the disempowered individual?

(was it) Less about repairing the social bond than a mission to enable all members of society to be self-administering, fully functioning consumers who do not rely on the welfare state and who can cope with a deregulated, privatised word…

Was this inadvertently Thatcherite neoliberal policy writ large?

Or an attempt to have one’s cake and eat it too?

It made me ask myself, am I too thick to understand its satire or is it the exact thing it is trying to critique? Has it done exactly what Bishop stated and just used a load of public money to make an exhibition in an art gallery, to whine about the lack of public money in a deprived neighbourhood somewhere else. As Bishop states:

Even if art engages with ‘real people’, this art is ultimately produced for, and consumed by, a middle-class gallery audience. 

The most powerful community group in Highgate, centres around the Muslim Community and the Highgate mosque, which has actually acted in a grassroots fashion to ease tensions during various EDL marches for instance and has supported the local community irrespective of religion, race, ethnicity etc. As far as I could tell there hadn’t been any interaction with them or an attempt at ‘forming an alternative anti-paternalistic neighbourhood model’. I wonder what is wrong with the paternalistic neighbourhood model of the muslim community given that they seem to be the most powerful holdout against neoliberal development in the area.

Now I am not trying to have a go at the Artist or Eastside and as I will elaborate further on in The Talk section there were redeeming qualities and ideas. But I think the thing that angered me the most was the kind of neoliberal progressive grandstanding – arts council aimed jargon – used by so many institutions to make themselves seem or look or feel to be progressive when in actual fact the image they are making is separate from reality, at best misleadingly stagnant and at worst exploitative.

I think the reality of it is that through the constant grind of doing repeated Arts Council applications to stay afloat – as there is no other feasible source of income – it means that you have to constantly repeat the syntax of critical thinking and decolonisation, so much that it begins to lose its original meaning and instead becomes a mantra to repeat for capital, devoid of any actual material/spiritual reward, like the bell for Pavlov’s dog.

Within Arts education I work between FE and HE where I also work in different faculties and within different academic and technical roles, currently:

I work at Chelsea College of Arts where I am just starting as a BAFA2 writing Tutor, 

I also run a workshop program there which will start in January on kinetic sculpture and the Body in relation to Technology. It is  here, working on and supported by the BA Fine art course that has enabled me to be on the PGCert course. 

I am a freelance Metal and Foundry Technician at City and Guilds Art School London where I teach students a range of processes, ideas and techniques around metal fabrication, metal casting, mould making, material sciences, mechanics, kinetics, sculpture and mount making.

I am a visiting practitioner at Kingston Foundation course where I run a workshop program in performing and kinetic sculpture.

I also run workshop programs within Galleries and Arts institutions that use the making of kinetic sculptures to think about the Body and Politics in relation to Technology.

Recent workshops:

Make your skin crawl, LAS Community space, Deptford London, 2025

Automata, Kingston Foundation 2025

Chaotic Human Simulations, STEAMhouse BCU Birmingham, 2023

Back to the ARP

Thinking about where I can make any form of difference whatsoever I am at a loss, as the only teaching hours I have for the rest of term at UAL are as a writing tutor and to be honest I want to plan and learn from those sessions as much as possible without having to think about their relationship to data or the PG Cert. I want to be humble and learn from my peers within that context as much as possible as it is so new to me. 

The one consistency across the three spaces I work in are my workshop programs.

I always want to improve my Kinetic workshop program, its ability to connect students and artists and to inspire and make more accessible the ideas behind kinetics. However, I have no more teaching time allocated before January to complete this and I already worked on it in the intervention part of my PGcert and I am anxious not to just repeat myself. In the only Group Tutorial I attended it was suggested to focus on an autoethnographic approach – to be honest I am still slightly unsure as to what the means.

Over the last 5 years I have taught myself the basics of electronics, mechanics and coding using open source information on resources such as Github, Arduino, LastMinuteEngineer etc. This has enabled me to begin teaching it to others and I wouldn’t be where I am today without the generosity of so many creatives and thinkers. I am truly inspired by the ideology of open source information.

As discussed in my original blog post 2 (The UK’s relationship to STEM and the Arts), I agree with Ashton H’s assertion that the dichotomy between STEM subjects and the Arts is holding back students from lower SES from participating in the arts. Moreover, as discussed in OG blog post 3 (Foreign experience of Pedagogy)  I agree with the House of Lords Social Mobility Committee report (2014) that the dichotomy between academic and technical teaching needs to be broken down.

In my intervention last year I began implementing new methodologies into my teaching practice for the kinetic workshop; such as the use of padlet as a repository of information, object orientated methodologies  through the expanded use of physical examples and student led narrative generation alongside a focus on improving the pacing and syntax of teaching technical and academic ideas simultaneously.

However, due to the contingent nature of my teaching practice I find my resources spread thin and stuck in different online institutional clouds and physical stores, making it difficult to transfer information between spaces. Moreover, as Kumoshiro states in ‘Toward a theory of anti-oppressive education: 

Anti-oppressive education must be continuous, multifaceted, and embedded in all aspects of practice.

Therefore I will use a conversation with John in the only tutorial I have attended so far as inspiration:

I am not sure if I understood John correctly in reference to Ursula Le Guin’s carrier bag theory of history. However misunderstanding can be as creative as understanding so I shall plow ahead with my ignorance. I want to develop such a carrier bag, explore different materials to make it from, different ideas and objects to fill it with and different places to take it. 

I want to explore the potential of creating a nomadic repository of information that can travel between institutions, galleries and cities: A platform/physical/digital space to contain and share information on performing kinetic sculpture whether that be examples, code, thoughts, suppliers, 

I already have large amounts of this kind of information, however I want to explore the ethics of how and the format with which this information is shared and presented.

Moreover with the rapid development of AI in relation to open source platforms I want to really think about questions of authorship and agency before undertaking this project.

I therefore want to interview peers who have already undertaken or use similar methodologies for their own practices.

I want to ask them questions about:

Why do they do what they do?

Moderation – who decides on what is shared and how?

Authorship – how is the authorship of what share demonstrated/protected/subverted?

Privacy – how do they decide on what to share and respect the privacy of others?

Agency – Both theirs and the people on their platforms

My aspiration would be to create a space or resource for the sharing of ideas about Kinetic sculpture students, artists and educators can share technical and academic thought between different institutions.

Reflective Report – 

Reflection on Implementation and Student Responses

The implementation surfaced both empowering moments and pedagogical tensions.

I was immensely excited by the what the students produced and the conversations they had with each other.

One student created a sculpture that changed colour according to the sounds around it: using colour and musical theories to reflect on subjective relationships to sound.

Another produced a figure that used frantic repetitive movement to signal sensory overwhelmingness and intrasocial misunderstanding.

Another created machines that manifested the surreal imagery used online in social critique of her home country.

Another used their creative writing around environmental and social catastrophe to create semi machine creatures of a post apocalypse

Ruby Leigh

Cinyui Jude Cui

George Aydin

Positive outcomes:

• Deep engagement with critical themes relating to ideas and processes: Students reported feeling more connected to their work, ideas and peers.
• Going beyond the meaning of “technical”: Some students who had previously struggled with coding or mechanics flourished when they could code with others or when techniques were connected directly to their own ideas and activism.
• Emotional honesty: Peer feedback sessions often became emotional, signalling trust and investment.
• At the end of year degree show, students from lower year groups assisted and some of the most confident and even taught students in the final year how to realise their projects.

However, several challenges also emerged:

• Emotional labour and vulnerability: Some students felt exposed when sharing personal ideas and stories. Although participation was voluntary, this tension highlighted the need for stronger emotional scaffolding – especially when running things accessible to multiple year groups.
• Material inequality: Not all students had equal prior experience with electronics. Despite my support, this sometimes led to the increase of gaps in confidence between students, and the withdrawal from asking directly for support in sessions.
• Institutional expectations: There was some pushback from colleagues about whether the project was “rigorous enough”, or that it “was not sustainable”  revealing a devaluation of inclusiveness and bridging art and tech within education.

Critical Reflections and Theoretical Framing

Reflections on Practice and Self

Designing and implementing this intervention taught me that inclusive, intersectional pedagogy is both radical and precarious. The emotional intensity required cannot be underestimated, nor can the institutional resistance to non-normative practices. Yet the power of student-led creativity confirmed the transformative potential of bridging art, technology, and identity.

I have learned:

• The importance of critically interrogating my positionality and shifting away from Eurocentric narratives.
  
• The value of feedback loops with peers, tutors, and students to refine practice.
  
• That inclusive, intersectional pedagogy is ongoing, iterative, and collective — never a one-off intervention.
  

In reflecting on these challenges I am drawn to Boris Groys’ (2009) call for education by infection whereby through communal exchange of ideas a mutual excitement and imagination is generated and that this is then transmitted to other students, shaping and supporting their ideas beyond a purely academic ‘rational’ approach to creativity.

Similarly Bell hooks’ (1994) call for education as the practice of freedom really resonates with me. I really respect the way they encourage students to bring their full selves into the classroom and that this  is not only an act of resistance but a transformative tool for learning. Yet, as hooks also notes, this work is “never easy nor without conflict.”

The intervention offered a form of material storytelling (Gauntlett & Holzwarth, 2006), where physical forms and processes became conduits for social and institutional critique. It allowed for students to decolonise the tech-art space, unsettling norms about who can speak, create, and be seen.

However, the emotional intensity and technical disparity signaled a need to better integrate trauma-informed pedagogy (Carello & Butler, 2015), particularly when inviting students to share vulnerable narratives. Moreover, faculty skepticism suggests that institutional change must accompany pedagogical change. Maybe I would be better placed to run these kinds of workshops at specifically Technology orientated institutions such as the CCI. However I believe in the importance of 

Next Steps and Sustainable Practice

Going forward, I intend to adapt the intervention with the following considerations:

1. Enhanced scaffolding: Introduce preparatory exercises in personal narrative and emotional regulation to support psychological safety.

2. Technical equity: Incorporate more low-tech options and skill-building tutorials to slowly ensure all students can participate meaningfully over time.

3. Community partnerships: Invite artists and technologists from underrepresented groups to co-teach or guest lecture, expanding the epistemic diversity of the course. A close friend of mine, Remi Falowo is doing his PHD on Sound and Technology. We have spoken many times about the importance of technical equity in relation to sound system culture and I would love to find a way to create new networks of support amongst artists and students beyond academic institutions.

This encourages me to pursue embedding interventions within a wider context, rather than treating it as a standalone moment. As Kumashiro (2000) argues, anti-oppressive education must be continuous, multifaceted, and embedded in all aspects of practice.

Conclusion

Designing this intervention revealed both the radical potential and the layered complexity of inclusive practice in teaching and bridging creative technologies. By centering intersectionality and lived experience within the exploration of ideas, the project opened space for new voices, challenged assumptions, and foregrounded the political nature of both art, technology and learning. 

One of the students went on to study at CCI in Camberwell and I am immensely proud and excited for what she can achieve and who she can inspire as she progresses through the rest of her education and life as an artist.

While there were significant emotional and institutional hurdles, these challenges made me more determined to carry on and to truly appreciate the importance of continued reflection, adaptability, and advocacy. 

I will definitely be running the workshops at another institution next year and have been given more hours there to have a more indepth exploration with students. I will see if there is the possibility of doing something similar at UAL and I am in conversation with another educational institution and an Artist run Gallery to do the same.

In moving forward, I remain committed to cultivating a space where fostered group imagination leads to growth, and where every student’s work and ideas can move—literally and metaphorically—in their own direction with confidence, and a sense of belonging.

References

Boler, M. and Zembylas, M. (2003) ‘Discomforting truths: The emotional terrain of understanding difference’, in Trifonas, P. (ed.) Pedagogies of Difference. New York: Routledge, pp. 110-136.

Carello, J. and Butler, L. D. (2015) ‘Practicing what we teach: Trauma-informed educational practice’, Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 35(3), pp. 262–278.

Crenshaw, K. (1989) ‘Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex’, University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), pp. 139-167.

Florian, L. and Black-Hawkins, K. (2011) ‘Exploring inclusive pedagogy’, British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), pp. 813–828.

Gauntlett, D. and Holzwarth, P. (2006) ‘Creative and visual methods for exploring identities’, Visual Studies, 21(1), pp. 82–91.

Groys, B. (2009). “Education by Infection.” In: Madoff, S. H., Art School (Propositions for the 21st Century), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 27

Hooks, b. (1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge.

Kumashiro, K. (2000) ‘Toward a theory of anti-oppressive education’, Review of Educational Research, 70(1), pp. 25–53.

Morozov, E., 2013. To Save Everything, Click Here: Technology, Solutionism, and the Urge to Fix Problems that Don’t Exist. London: Allen Lane.

Rolling, J. H. (2010) ‘A paradigm analysis of arts-based research and implications for education’, Studies in Art Education, 51(2), pp. 102–114.

Rodney, D. (ed. various), 2025. Donald Rodney: A Reader. London: Whitechapel Gallery

Tara J. Yosso (2005), “Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth.”

Zembylas, M. (2015) ‘Pedagogy of discomfort and its ethical implications’, Ethics and Education, 10(1), pp. 163–174.Rodney, D. (ed. various), 2025. Donald Rodney: A Reader. London: Whi

Developing Workshops on Technology and the Body

I want to use what I have learnt from the PG Cert and some of my colleagues to develop and broaden the workshop series I run ‘Technology and its relationship to the Body – The motion of Power in Art and Society’ , especially the Community of Practice club that exists alongside it.  As I have limited amount of teaching hours at UAL as I am an HPL 

As an Artist and Educator working with diverse cohorts across multiple institutions, I have often observed that although contemporary Art curricula is good at focusing on Critical Theory within an academic context, there is a gap in how it is applied to technology or technical teaching. (See my Blog 1 and Case study 2)

I was inspired by the ideology of open source technology on websites such as Github to provide a space for students to meet and discuss their ideas and work together using kinetic sculpture and electronics within a creative educational context. 

Inspired by the work of artists such as Donald Rodney  and the community of technologists that surrounded him, I want to create a space where students are brought together through a mutual interest in technology, then given the dialogical space to express their own complex, intersecting identities—particularly race, gender, ability, and religion. Then to use those intersecting narratives to take a critical look at the systems of power and control that surround them , through a communal interest in movement, circuitry, and sculptural form.

In some of my first workshops I was using primarily euro-centric narratives around technology – focusing on the age of enlightenment as a starting point to critique industrial and post industrial technologies. However, through the influence and kind tutelage of a colleague (thanks Shenece) and critical pedagogical frameworks including intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989), inclusive arts-based practices (Rolling, 2010) and infection (Groys 2009) I decided to develop a new approach to the contents and structure of my teaching sessions.

In this intervention I want to make Kinetic sculpture and physical computing offer material ways of exploring:

• critical theory – The workshops begin with a critical look and group discussion of the history and evolution of technology, how it has been used in Art, Science and Fiction to shape society, its positive and negative attributes and what that even means to the students.
• inclusion – The students then develop ideas from their own work into physical manifestations of performing sculptures, with me acting as a facilitator driving conversation about ideas and technically guiding them through the realisation of their work.
• social justice – One of the key themes we explore in the workshops is the idea of “Technological Solutionism” (Evgeny Morozov, 2013) and the way that Utopian ideas around technology can be masks for systems of control  and oppression facilitating the opposite results to those they espouse.

It is my desire to position technology and sculpture as tools for inclusion and personal storytelling, and to build ‘infective’ communities of practice that will facilitate diverse and continued exchanges of ideas throughout and beyond students’ academic life.

The intervention was tested at the end of the academic year and was open to all Students on a sign-up basis. Learners were invited to create a kinetic or electric sculpture that responded to a personal or social narrative involving an aspect of their identity. They were guided to reflect on how systems of power and control shape that identity, using movement and interactive elements to convey lived experiences.

Key pedagogical decisions included:

• Student-led narratives: Learners chose the idea and aspect(s) most meaningful to them, offering autonomy and avoiding prescriptive categories.
• Material engagement: Use of motors, Arduino boards, LEDs and sensors encouraged students to think about how physical movement could metaphorically represent systemic power structures (e.g., forced movement, resistance, repetition).
• Collaborative critique spaces: We met every week in a group to reflect on work together and provide opportunities for dialogue, peer feedback, and emotional processing.

These decisions aligned with inclusive pedagogies as described by Florian and Black-Hawkins (2011), who advocate for “teaching for everyone” rather than for a mythical average learner.

---

References

Appiah, K. A. (2014) Is religion good or bad?. [Online]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CAOKTo_DOk

Boler, M. and Zembylas, M. (2003) ‘Discomforting truths: The emotional terrain of understanding difference’, in Trifonas, P. (ed.) Pedagogies of Difference. New York: Routledge, pp. 110-136.

Carello, J. and Butler, L. D. (2015) ‘Practicing what we teach: Trauma-informed educational practice’, Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 35(3), pp. 262–278.

Crenshaw, K. (1989) ‘Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex’, University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), pp. 139-167.

Florian, L. and Black-Hawkins, K. (2011) ‘Exploring inclusive pedagogy’, British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), pp. 813–828.

Gauntlett, D. and Holzwarth, P. (2006) ‘Creative and visual methods for exploring identities’, Visual Studies, 21(1), pp. 82–91.

Groys, B. (2009). “Education by Infection.” In: Madoff, S. H., Art School (Propositions for the 21st Century), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 27

Hooks, b. (1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge.

Kumashiro, K. (2000) ‘Toward a theory of anti-oppressive education’, Review of Educational Research, 70(1), pp. 25–53.

Morozov, E., 2013. To Save Everything, Click Here: Technology, Solutionism, and the Urge to Fix Problems that Don’t Exist. London: Allen Lane.

Rolling, J. H. (2010) ‘A paradigm analysis of arts-based research and implications for education’, Studies in Art Education, 51(2), pp. 102–114.

Rodney, D. (ed. various), 2025. Donald Rodney: A Reader. London: Whitechapel Gallery

Tara J. Yosso (2005), “Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth.”

Zembylas, M. (2015) ‘Pedagogy of discomfort and its ethical implications’, Ethics and Education, 10(1), pp. 163–174.Rodney, D. (ed. various), 2025. Donald Rodney: A Reader. London: Whi

I thought that the three very contrasting media representations of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts in the UK were a great selection of videos and perfectly captured the dynamic of contemporary British politics on this subject.

I also think that given the context of contemporary politics it is important to think about the intended audiences of these pieces and the purposes for which they were made – approaching  the different media as outlined by Gillian Rose in Visual Methodologies (p193).

Channel 4’s The School That Tried to End Racism (2020) was very blunt in its portrayal of privilege and identity, and I think it aimed to disrupt perceived norms of racial silence in schools; uncovering in a similar way that Bradbury (2020) describes, racial inequalities being hidden under the guise of neutrality. 

It made me acutely aware of the power of discomfort in provoking thought on the topic of privilege and race. 

However, it also felt like it exemplified many of the critiques Asif Sadiq’s TEDx talk (2023) had about the more surface aspects of DEI training and implementation when they are “biased and built with stereotypes” 

Moreover, from briefly reading the comments below (not always the best idea) it seemed to more succeed in Sadiq’s suggestion that “many times it (DEI initiatives)  do(es) the opposite of inclusion” creating a backlash, especially if not embedded in a broader context.

The Telegraph’s documentary by Jamie Orr (2022) embodied this exact reactionary backlash against anti-racism.Its Panorama style ‘uncovering of a conspiracy at the heart of education’  implied that DEI threatens academic freedom and imposes conformity. He framed educational equity as a threat to “neutrality,” reinforcing the myth that racism is an individual failing rather than a structural one. 

One thing I found entertaining was that even after the edit, the students he found to interview did not really share the mood or opinion he so seeks to portray.

I have been reading Ash Sarkah’s Minority Rule a lot recently, and I am persuaded by her opinion that contemporary Liberal focus on difference can foster competitive identity hierarchy rather than solidarity, allowing media such as Orr’s to stoke right wing and potentially white suprematist ideologies, something exemplified in a documentary I watched on ‘How US Neo-Nazism Actually Works, whereby an ex white suprematist explains that “The first step was to get this kid to identify as white” – as different and other to those around them.  

I completely agree with Sadiq’s ideas that for DEI to be successful it must not be just used for standalone sessions but woven into the pedagogical fabric of institutions.That involves finding and incorporating diverse narratives and creating welcoming spaces of conversation where all learners can share and be heard and a new positive narrative of solidarity can be constructed.

Sadiq, A. (2023) Diversity, Equity & Inclusion. Learning how to get it right. TEDx [Online}. Youtube. 2 March. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR4wz1b54hw 

Orr, J. (2022) Revealed: The charity turning UK universities woke. The Telegraph [Online]. Youtube. 5 August. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRM6vOPTjuU

Channel 4. (2020) The School That Tried to End Racism. [Online}. Youtube. 30 June. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I3wJ7pJUjg 

Rose, G., 2023. Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to Researching with Visual Materials. 5th ed. London: SAGE Publications.

Insider, 2025. How US Neo‑Nazism Actually Works [YouTube video], 6 March. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-g3Z8IWsdU (Accessed: 10 May 2025).

Sarkar, A. (2025) Minority Rule: Adventures in the Culture War. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

I recently attended a lecture by the artist Faisal Hussein in Birmingham. I have known him for a couple of years and I thought that the talk that he gave was both inspiring and incredibly insightful into the way Muslims have been treated within the UK’s  educational system.

His work looks at how the use and introduction of Prevent and its treatment of Muslim children in the education system not only oppressed but exacerbated division between children of different faiths and races. He talked about how muslim children were singled out as potential Islamic terrorists for such normal, teenage things as changing their appearance or being more adventurous. 

This then created a situation similar to that described In Islam, Women and Sport (Jawad, 2022) whereby Muslim children in the face of an increasingly oppressive state would use Islamic dress not simply as a personal expression of faith but as a site of resistance. The visibility of Muslim identity becoming a marker of pride in the face of marginalisation. 

This then reciprocally exemplifies the preexisting inadequacies and inherent structural bias of the State and educational system: Exemplified by Jawad when she describes the lack of appropriate spaces and provisions in schools for Muslim girls.

Moreover, the stoking of fear through policies like Prevent further sets students apart from each other and increases the frequency of racial and religious stereotyping as described, in Challenging Race, Religion and Stereotypes in the Classroom (Trinity University, 2016), Where one student spoke about being assumed to be Muslim because of their skin tone—highlighting not only racial stereotyping but also a flattening of religious diversity.

I really appreciated the way Appiah encourages us to resist essentialist views of religion. Having witnessed first hand the anger and dogmatic entrenchment of religious and political sectarianism, I believe that it is the simplification, stereotypical portrayal and focus on difference that is the biggest barrier.

In an art and design context, faith may not be explicitly visible, but it deeply informs themes, aesthetics, and motivations. As an educator, recognising this means making space—literally and metaphorically—for faith within creative learning without exoticising or erasing it.

An experience from the previous group tutorial changed what I planned to write about for this blog post.

In a discussion on how digital media can be used as a way to increase accessibility for disabled students I was told I was ‘silencing’ the conversation because I made a point that, by prioritising only digital solutions for access to technical spaces rather than investing in making actual workshop spaces more accessible, the university may be prioritising profit over actual access – to make a space more accessible doesn’t increase the number of consumers who can use it during any given time, whilst a digital resource increases the potential consumers exponentially.

This perspective comes from previous experiences as a metal tech where conversations asking for investment in height adjustable welding tables were seen as an extravagance, whereas the expectation to produce ‘how to vlogs’ in metalworking to advertise and draw in more students was seen as a priority even the actual workshop space couldn’t physically facilitate that many students. 

I fully understand the potential of digital media in reaching a wider audience, and its potential to increase accessibility: I am not some luddite set against using digital technology: My entire practice is centred around technology and its relationship to the body in Art, Politics and Society. 

However, I am against the way the University functions like some kind of financial ad agency, using whatever is fashionable in tech as a way to cram in more students to increase profit margins whilst white washing the exercise as an example of increasing access.

Will the students accessing these new digital only resources actually be from disabled, poor and intersectional backgrounds or will it just be a way for UAL to reach further Globally in its exchange of certification for capital (Groys)

Moreover, I am very disappointed when the language of Crenshaw and Critical Theory is used as a way to close down conversation or critical perspectives of the university, especially in a peer to peer pedagogical environment. I would much rather have had a deeper conversation about finding the balance between physical and digital resources and how they can be used to supplement each other in increasing access. 

“By making a virtue of marginalisation, breaking ourselves down into ever smaller and mutually hostile groupings, we make it impossible to build a mass movement capable of taking on extreme concentrations of wealth and power.” ​ Sarkar, A., 2025. Minority Rule: Adventures in the Culture War. London: Bloomsbury.

From my own experience trying to create situations of equity and equality within a learning environment, it  always comes down to resources, space and time. No one ever visibly tries to prevent intersectional support, like Ade Adeptian said “the harder progress is systemic”  as Crenshaw outlined, exclusions can render individuals invisible, enabling the absence, or allocation of resources to elsewhere.

I believe that the increased exposure and discussion of work by Artists like Christine Sun Kim, or Donald Rodney (One of my favorite Kinetic artists) bring a deeply personal lens to this conversation. Their use of humor and subtle discomfort not only highlight how language, race, gender, social norms can be barriers but also through art a medium to bring people together.

Rodney, D. (ed. various), 2025. Donald Rodney: A Reader. London: Whitechapel Gallery.

Groys, B. (2009). “Education by Infection.” In: Madoff, S. H., Art School (Propositions for the 21st Century), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 27–?

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.

Blog Blog post 4 a critique of Blogs and summary so far.

I find the format of WordPress blog posts very difficult to work with and a little out of date: when I was a student 10 years ago we had to submit assessments in the same format and I really struggled with the inability to change the order of posts, manipulate images and fonts and the imposed linear structure that is difficult to edit. Similarly to when I was a student this has meant that I have produced all of my work separately to the blog and then collated it last minute to fit into the blog structure. I am not very good and have never been very good at fitting ideas into a codified Learning Outcome unit orientated structure Addison, N. (2014), as I mainly work with text that meanders, cuts through itself and exists continually rather than in broken formulaic chunks: Originally Blogs 2,3, case studies 1 and 2 and the observations were a continuous text that I formulated whilst teaching, attending workshop sessions and conversing with peers. This felt more like an actual Blog as it mapped the ‘Journey’ Macfarlane, B. and Gourlay, L. (2009) of my experience and research rather than now where bits have been broken up and edited to try to fit into a more Checklist structure. Moreover, whereas normally I am predominantly a visual communicator, the stilted way to use images on the blog has meant that I have found it very difficult to use images fluently and so have used far less than I would normally. 

It is ironic that the pedagogical principles we are encouraged to use with our students don’t seem to have been taken into account for the method used for assessing our own enacting of those principles. 

I apologise if that was a bit of a rant.

 I have enjoyed many aspects of the PgCert particularly meeting so many others and the peer to peer feedback, exchanging of ideas and observations with colleagues have been truly enlightening to my teaching practice.

References:

Addison, N. (2014) ‘Doubting learning outcomes in higher education contexts: from performativity towards emergence and negotiation’, International Journal of Art & Design Education, 33(3), pp. 313–325. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jade.12063 (Accessed: 19 March 2025).

Macfarlane, B. and Gourlay, L. (2009) ‘The reflection game: enacting the penitent self’, Teaching in Higher Education, 14(4), pp. 455–459. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510903050244 (Accessed: 19 March 2025).

Record of Observation or Review of Teaching Practice  

Session/artefact to be observed/reviewed: Offsite Crits

Size of student group: 4-10

Observer: Kwame Baah

Observee: Michael McShane

Note: This record is solely for exchanging developmental feedback between colleagues. Its reflective aspect informs PgCert and Fellowship assessment, but it is not an official evaluation of teaching and is not intended for other internal or legal applications such as probation or disciplinary action.

Part One
Observee to complete in brief and send to observer prior to the observation or review:

What is the context of this session/artefact within the curriculum?

The culmination of the first half of their Unit 7. Whereupon they organise  an Off-Site Project, exhibition, presentation or event  as part of a self-selecting group of fellow students. As a group they will have also produced a collective publication to accompany your project. This can take the form of a pamphlet, catalogue or  other distributable media. 

How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?

I have worked with their year group during exhibition periods: Providing tutorials as an HPL in how to present, install and curate their work. I have also run workshops with them in performing sculpture.

What are the intended or expected learning outcomes?

• Provide constructive feedback to students about their exhibition.
• Facilitate discussion and sharing of ideas relating to 
  • the students work as individuals
  • the students work as a group
  • the students work in creating an exhibition
  • the students work in creating a publication
  • All processes relating to the creation of an exhibition
  • The students plans for the second half of Unit 7

What are the anticipated outputs (anything students will make/do)?

• Discussion about student work in exhibition
• Discussion about the process of exhibiting as a group
• Discussion about the publication accompanying the project
• Discussion about how this process will affect what they are thinking of producing for the end of Unit 7 when they will be exhibiting as individuals on site

Are there potential difficulties or specific areas of concern?

Students may be hung over from their private view the previous night.

Student numbers are unknown.

How will students be informed of the observation/review?

Students have already been emailed

What would you particularly like feedback on?

Pacing of discussion and the use of space in dialogue with students

How I explain ideas to students and make them accessible

Do I have any information bias 

How will feedback be exchanged?

Part Two

Observer to note down observations, suggestions and questions:

Kwame Baah

This was a very interesting art exhibition crit in which there were two students, one could not attend but their work was hung up and supported by their peers. I had the opportunity to chat with the students about their artwork and the directions they are looking to take. Your suggestion of work collation in digital format was a very supportive one that would mean they could use that format as a catalogue that preserves the original works. Additionally, it would offer the chance of engaging in digital exhibitions. Either way they had made a useful step outside of the university to experience a space of difference.

You critiqued quite extensively and at times overlapped your conversations between the students specifically, which then helped me understand that the three student artists, whose work was on show, have been working together for some time. Some of the other interesting suggestions you presented were 3D rendering of the collective artwork, and improvisation of the collaborative art as a performance with instruction. In addition, a lot of supported referencing was offered to the students for them to use as points for their writing about the themes of their work.

Encouraging them to write a proposal for a show was a very good way of getting them to step outside of their comfort zone and engage with wider audiences to enhance their practice. This will also support their continuous development and as their tutor I commend you for supporting them through encouragement. Your approach to critiques was different but has exciting newness of being multidirectional. There was considerable scaffolding in your critiques and questioning, and I could see them thinking deeply. It was a good example of scaffolded crits in an art space that I experienced for the first time and I commend you for the amount of detailed thinking you used to empower the students to consider.

Part Three

Observee to reflect on the observer’s comments and describe how they will act on the feedback exchanged:

Thank you Kwame for such useful feedback and for being so accommodating and making it out to the gallery to see the students.

I am really flattered with your comments on the provision of scaffolding for students to develop ideas with support as this is something I really try to create in sessions. Lev Vygotsk’s writing’s on scaffolding in education is a big influence retrospectively – I was not aware of it’s academic description as a process. I am now ready some of his texts and those that reference him a lot – such as Critiquing the Crit, (Margo Blythman, Susan Orr Bernadette and Blair 2007) which are now enriching and developing my understanding and approach to teaching using scaffolding.

The way that I have always tried to approach students learning has been to use structuralist interpretations of their ideas Barthes, R. (1977) to provide three points of view simultaneously on their work:

Their idea as an image or symbol,

Their idea as a physical material object #

Their idea as text – contextually relational

These gradually develop in complexity during a session as they think and discuss ideas with me and the group. In this way students can have a framework with which to explore their own and each other’s ideas within a defined structure, and I can add prompts when necessary to lead them into discussing ideas with each other, which I believe, as I now know, was Lev Vygotsk’s aims.

References

Barthes, R. (1977) Image, Music, Text. Translated by S. Heath. London: Fontana Press.

Margo Blythman, Susan Orr Bernadette and Blair called Critiquing the Crit, (Final report, August 2007)

Providing a space for all kinds of feedback

Context:

Sometimes, I am invited to run exhibition crits with students when they do exhibitions. One of the problems of these crits is that students are not used to giving or receiving peer feedback and don’t realise the importance of it for their time on the course but also for their continuing personal practices.

Evaluation:

Crits can be experienced as intimidating or boring by students, in a lot of them students expect a teacher to assess and critique their work as opposed to engage in the group discussions. In the report issued by Margo Blythman, Susan Orr Bernadette and Blair called Critiquing the Crit, (Final report, August 2007) there were a lot of factors mentioned by students that made them dislike crits and a lot of them were concerned with student-teacher relationships rather than peer to peer.

In my crits, I try to encourage peer to peer engagement that comes from a place of genuine interest as opposed to feeling like one has to say something to fill the silence or because of being prompted by the teacher. When working with a group of students, I try to draw out common ideas or series of ideas to connect them into a network of linked concepts. In this way students can have group discussions without feeling prompted and each bringing their own perspective to a wider topic. Therefore having a shared entry point leading to better continuous engagement.

When such discussions start taking place, I can step down as a teacher and allow more space for peer to peer feedback. When such interactions take place they aid students building a network between each other and learning to talk about their work in a less formal way with me only bringing in relevant references and occasionally stirring the conversation to different dimensions.

From my observation with Kwame I have learnt about the concept of scaffolding from Vygotsky (1978) and am enriching my understanding of how teaching methodologies can be used to support student in the generation of ideas.

From the workshops I have run at Kingston with Shenece and the feedback Katriona provided in my observation, (see case study 2 and observation respectively) I have learnt greatly about the importance of the pacing of interactions with students and also the necessity for building structures of support and reflection into a lesson plan. This will be a very important way for me to ensure that students gain and have access to understanding the ideas discussed in a session. Using different types of group and individual working, discussion and feedback during a session, I plan to build kind of structural safety net of understanding into my lesson plans: Enabling me better assess if all students are able to understand and engage with the concepts, processes and materials discussed and used.

References

Margo Blythman, Susan Orr Bernadette and Blair called Critiquing the Crit, (Final report, August 2007)

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Edited by M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner and E. Souberman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.