Please Note: I applied for an EC, therefore I have completed this report for the deadline of 5th August 2022.
Word count: 1582
Further information about my Artefact
Introduction
In this report I will describe, discuss and reflect on how I have updated a learning activity to be more diverse and inclusive in content, but also importantly, to also facilitate student’s consideration of diversity and intersectionality in relation to personal practice.
In order to adopt a reflexive approach, I will state my own positionally. I’m a white English woman of 45. I grew up in the North of England and went to Catholic state schools, but as an adult I don’t practice a religion. I’m also gay and came out when I moved to London in the mid-90s.
The Artefact and its Academic Setting
I have chose modify an existing research activity, that students are invited to undertake in the first week of the 14-week Graphic Design Portfolio Course at UAL.
Each student is randomly given the name of an ‘influential or notable’ designer or artist to research for one week. I give them a few prompts to encourage them to critically engage with the designer’s work. A week later, they give a short presentation about the designer and a specific piece of the designer’s work.
When I first became Lead Tutor on this course, I began to diversify the ‘pool’ of designers and artists I invited the students to research. The current list is a lot more diverse than the list I inherited in 2018, featuring more women, more people of colour and non-heterosexual designers. However, the Inclusive Practices Unit has given me the opportunity to reflect on the importance of inclusivity and representation further. I believe there’s scope for greater diversity and also an opportunity for students to consider their own positionality in relation to their practice.
This intervention is valuable as it diversifies the canon of influential and notable designers, achieving greater representation and visibility for designs of colour, female designers, non-binary and queer designers, non-western designers and designers with disabilities.
Finnigan and Richards (2016) suggest that ‘Art and Design students studying a more diverse curriculum and experiencing a more inclusive pedagogy should succeed at a higher level and reach their full potential’ (Finnigan and Richards, 2016, p. 19)
Bourdieu (1993) defines cultural capital as ‘a form of knowledge, an internalised code or a cognitive acquisition which equips the social agent with empathy towards, appreciation for or competence in deciphering cultural relations and cultural artefacts’ (Bourdieu, 1993 p7).
My redesigned artefact relates to objective cultural capital in two significant ways. Firstly it supports students in acquiring knowledge of historical and contemporary designers, which will enrich their practice, portfolios and support them in their future BA applications. Bourdieu (1984) discussed how the lack of, or difference in cultural capital can be a significant barrier to accessing higher education and attainment in higher education.
Secondly, and simultaneously, it is diversifying what is considered ‘valued’ cultural capital.
Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital suggests that, ‘the cultural capital of the working classes, and certain ethnic groups, is devalued and delegitimised’ (Bourdieu 1984). My intervention is intended to further legitimise and give value to the work of a diverse group of designers and artists.
The importance of my artefact within the institution
In the wake of the murder of George Floyd and the subsequent global actions led by the Black Lives Matter movement, UAL published an Anti-Racism Plan. Within that plan, Decolonising the curriculum is cited as one of 10 core objectives, calling to ‘Audit and review existing collections and resources, and encourage students to suggest resources reflecting their social and cultural backgrounds.’ (Purnell & Patel, 2021 p.11)
The Indian-American Theorist and Professor at Columbia University, Gayatri Spivak (1990) states that, ‘Canons are the condition of institutions as the institutions secure canons’ (Spivak, 1990, p785 ) She advocates that as educators we should ‘make room for the coordinated teaching of the new entries into the canon’.
Through the further diversification of the list of notable and significant designer, I am promoting more inclusive learning at UAL and making room for new entries into the canon as Spivak advocates.
After their presentations, I plan to invite the students to suggest and share with the group other designers whose work resonates with them, effectively co-creating a resource of designer references. This can be hosted in a shared online space, a padlet would work well, allowing students to keep adding and referring to the resource as the course progresses. I will refer to these designers when I update the pool of designers in future years. Through this I am actively encouraging the students ‘to suggest resources reflecting their social and cultural backgrounds’ (Purnell & Patel, 2021 p.11) and they are directly feeding into the creation of the curriculum.
How my own lived experience influenced my choice of artefact and my rationale
Deciding on this artefact, I reflected on my own experience as a Graphic Design undergraduate, over 15 years ago in London.
The designers I was introduced to were almost all white, male European and North American designers. Johnathon Barnbrook, Massimo Vignelli, Peter Savile, Saul Bass, Ken Garland, Milton Glaser, Stephan Sagmeister, David Carson.. I could go on.
I remember questioning my own validity as a woman in this field. Looking back, I consider how woman of colour would have felt, even more alienated and far less valid than me I’m sure. I know first hand, that representation is crucial in education. As Marian Wright Edelman stated, ’you can’t be what you can’t see’.
Today as a design educator, when I consider who writes the canon, I can say, in a small but significant way, I do.
How will the artefact be used?
My objective is to, ‘make room’ for more diverse identities in my pool of influential and notable designers and artists, as Gayatri Spivak (1990) advocates. The revised list includes, more designers of colour, more queer designers, Asian designers and designers who have a disability. For a full list see my Artefact blog page.
I will also include an additional research prompt for students: Do you think this designers identity influences their practice in any way? If so how? This invites students to consider how identity and lived experience affect how we experience the world, which in turn can influence and shape our creative practice.
The following week, I will introduce a second session where students will be invited to introduce a piece of their work and to discuss their own positionally in relation to their practice. Through doing this, I would like them to feel confident about bringing themselves into their practice.
I want to invite them to think about how their own practice and identity can be intrinsically related. As Sue Tangney states, ‘the piece of work is inevitably how the artist sees the world and their place within it’. (Tangney 2013, p. 270)
In this second session, I will also share my own positionally with them and a piece of my work, becoming a participant in the session myself. I will do this to help establish an equal exchange and foster reciprocal learning, breaking down the hierarchical tutor-student dynamic, akin to the banking model of teaching that Paulo Freire so strongly opposes in Pedagogy Of The Oppressed (Freire 2005, p.72).
I strive to create a space in which, ‘through dialogue, the teacher-of-the-students and the students-of-the-teacher cease to exist and a new term emerges: teacher-student with students-teachers… and they become jointly responsible for a process in which all grow’ (Freire 2005, p.80).
Evaluation
I will have the opportunity to introduce and text this re-designed activity in October 2022, when the next portfolio course begins. I did have the opportunity to share my ideas and proposed artefact with my PG Cert working group. I presented my idea to them and asked them; how I could best facilitate the student’s engagement in the diversity / intersectionality of these designers?
My peers suggested it would be impactful if identity and positionally be an explicit part of the activity. As a result of this discussion I decided to introduce the new research prompt, inviting students to consider the designer’s identity and also to introduce a follow-up activity where the students shared some of their own work and were invited to talk about their own positionality, in relation to their practice.
I will evaluate both parts of this activity; the research exercise and the follow-up session, through gaining student feedback and reflecting on my own experience.
Conclusion
One of the key recommendations from Finigan & Richards report; Retention and attainment in the disciplines: Art and Design is to, ’take a more inclusive approach to the curriculum by identifying more diverse reading lists and key visual references and more inclusive pedagogies, review and/or audit the inclusion of embedded diversity and student-centred learning in the curriculum and create greater opportunities for students to have a sense of ownership over their environment. (Finnigan & Richards, 2016 p.19) This is what I am attempting to put into practice through the re-design of this artefact.
On my journey through the Inclusive Practices unit, I’ve gained knowledge and crucially had the time to reflect on my own experience, and practice, as a student and as a teacher.
While I recognise that my own positionally has hindered my understanding of some of the topics discussed throughout the unit, I strive to listen and to learn from those with different lived experience, of inequality and racism in institutions and society.
________________________________________________________________________
Bibliography
Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
Bourdieu, P., (1993). ‘The field of cultural production: essays on art and literature’. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Burke, P. and McManus, J. (2010) Art for a Few; Exclusion and Misrecognition in Art and Design HE Admissions [Internet]. Available from: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/art-few-exclusion-and-misrecognition-art-and-design-higher-education-admissions [Accessed 15/07/22]
Design Thinking Foundations (2012) Eddie Opara on Self-Identity [online video] Available at: https://vimeo.com/36535415 [Accessed 15/07/22]
Dubois, Michel. “Ideology, Sociology of.” International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioural Sciences 2nd ed., edited by Wright, J.D., Elsevier, 2015, pp. 573-587.
Finnigan, T. & Richards, A. (2016) Retention and attainment in the disciplines: Art and Design. York, Higher Education Academy.
Freire, Paulo. (2005) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 30th anniversary ed. New York: Continuum
Holmes, Andrew Gary Darwin. “Researcher Positionality – A Consideration of Its Influence and Place in Qualitative Research – A New Researcher Guide.” Shanlax International Journal of Education, vol. 8, no. 4, 2020, pp. 1-10.
Hongxkim.com. 2022. Eunjoo Hong and Hyungjae Kim. [online] Available at: <http://hongxkim.com/> [Accessed 1 August 2022].
hooks, bell. (2003) Teaching Community: A Pedagogy of Hope. Oxon: Routledge.
Purnell, J. & Patel, N. (2021) UAL Anti-racism Action Plan, London, UAL.
Spivak, G. C.,(1990) The Making of Americans, the Teaching of English, and the Future of Culture Studies. New Literary History, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 781–98. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/469185. Accessed 17 Jul. 2022.
Tangney, S. (2013) Student-Centred Learning; A Humanist Perspective. Teaching in higher Education, 19 (3) 266–75.