Investigating the Relationship between LGBTQ+ / Queer Subjectivity, Teaching and Learning at UAL
Research Question
In what ways and to what extent does LGBTQ+ / Queer Subjectivity relate to teaching and learning at UAL?
Researcher Biography
Hourly Paid Lecturer in Cultural and Historical Studies. Working across many courses to guide academic work, often for practice based students at BA (all years) and MA levels. Also, Unit Leader for Fashion Histories on MA Fashion Cultures and Histories (an academic MA), at LCF. Predominantly based at LCF, with dissertation supervision at CSM.
Action Research and Social Justice in Higher Education
I focus on the first two stages of the Action Research Cycle proposed by McNiff and Whitehead (2009), which identify and define a ‘problem’, frame a research question and then collect data before deciding how to act in response. This outline and my research design, adapt Brown’s (1994) approach to rationale development, which justifies and defends actions.
Briffett Aktaş summarises social justice in education as ‘ensuring the ability of students to participate meaningfully in their education’ (2024, p. 162). I wanted to find out if and how far LGBTQ+ status affected student experience, especially as gender and ‘sexual orientation’ are ‘protected characteristics’ (gov.uk) and considering recent rulings on the definition of ‘sex’ made by the UK Supreme Court (National Centre for Diversity). UAL has removed policy pertaining to trans and non-binary identities (UAL Trans and Non-Binary Inclusion Policy), in response to apparent breaches of free speech at the University of Sussex (OfS). UAL’s Chief Social Purpose Officer has also departed (UAL canvas).
I was motivated by the lack of substantial address to queer experience in the Inclusive Practices unit. This prompted reflection on the visibility and intelligibility of such identities and the particular challenges of trying to serve and account for queer minorities, when these are diverse, in flux and potentially unseen.
I wondered if PgCert aversion to queer discussions reflected institutional uncertainty and/or responded to assumption that as an arts institution, UAL is queer friendly and queer students face no challenges. The latter has been challenged in relation to trans and nonbinary students (McHenry-Sorber and Zalman, 2025), while the lack of self-like mentors has a negative impact on queer students (Graham, 2019). Queer identity emerges differently to other identities, often involving ‘coming out’ to a supportive other, such as a tutor (McGill and Joslin, 2021). UCAS-Stonewall’s (2021) report also highlights a correlation between queer identity and economic disadvantage.
Observations, Motivations and Decisions: Demographics and Spaces
I research queer histories and my teaching relates to fashion, which has historically been a feminised discourse (Breward, 1999). This is reflected in the student body at LCF. Most research on HE and PGcert discussions, also rely on the assumption that students are young. Reflecting on the significance of intersectional marginalised identities (Crenshw, 1991), I was interested in the intersection of gay male identity with mature student status. I was open to unpredicted findings, particularly as politico-cultural climates and individual queer subjectivities are in constant flux (Butler, 1999).
While existing research has focused on LGBTQ+ students in ‘heterogendered’ institutions ‘which perpetuate unwelcoming environments for LGBTQ communities’ (Pryor, 2018, p. 32) and ‘heteroprofessionalism’ which regulates LGBTQ+ faculty in some institutions (Davies and Neustifter, 2023), I was motivated to examine LGBTQ+ experience in arts/design HE.
UCAS-Stonewall’s (2021) report notes that ‘LGBT+ students are most likely to enter creative courses’ (p. 4) and that UAL was in the top 5 LGBT+ recruiting universities in the UK in 2020 (p. 23). The report also highlights higher reporting of mental health issues for LGBT+ students and a trans student awarding gap, suggesting significant challenges.
I originally wanted to interview gay male, mature students, responding to my observations both as a student and tutor on an MA course at LCF. This was quickly complicated by ethical reflection on my ‘reading’ of the gender and sexual identity of the students and targeting them as potential participants. I realised this was inappropriate and too limiting as a recruitment strategy. I progressed to open the recruitment call to all LGBTQ+ identities and to focusing on staff experience (see Ethical Action Plan and Methodology).
Bibliography
Briffett Aktaş, C. (2024) ‘Enhancing social justice and socially just pedagogy in higher education through participatory research’, Teaching in Higher Education: Critical Perspectives, 29(1) pp. 159-175
Breward, C. (1999) The hidden consumer: masculinities, fashion and city life 1860-1914. Manchester: Manchester University Press
Butler, J. (1999) Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge
Crenshaw, K. (1991) ‘Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of colour’, Stanford Law Review, July 43(6) pp. 1241-1299
Davies, A. W. J. and Neustifter, R. (2023) ‘Heteroprofessionalism in the academy: the surveillance and regulation of queer faculty in higher education’, Journal of Homosexuality, 70(6) pp. 1030-1054
Graham, B. E. (2019) ‘queerly unequal: LGBT+ students and mentoring in higher education’, Social Sciences, 8(6) p. 171
McGill, C. M. and Joslin, J. E. (2021) Advising lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer college students. Sterling: Stylus Publishing
McHenry-Sorber, E. and Zalman, P. (2025) ‘The “traditional queer safe space” or “kinda, not really?”: Experiences of transgender, nonbinary and androgynous college students in the creative arts’, Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 18(5) pp. 581-593
McNiff, J. and Whitehead, J. (2009) You and your action research project. Oxfordshire: Taylor and Francis.
Pryor, J. T. (2018) ‘Visualizing queer spaces: LGBTQ students and the traditionally heterogendered institution’, Journal of LGBT Youth, 15(1) pp. 32-51
I realised that recruiting LGBTQ+ students with open call-outs to small cohorts could seem targeted at individuals. No LGBTQ+ student organisation exists but there is an LGBTQ+ staff network, so I decided to focus on LGBTQIA+ tutors, who could reflect on their teaching and memories of student experiences. This had the collateral benefit of widening my network and lessening my isolation as an HPL.
A call-out for interview participants on the LGBTQ+ staff network offered an ethical way to access people self-defining as LGBTQ+ at UAL. The three responding participants were sufficient to allow identification of coherence and difference across their testimonies. This qualitative method corresponded with precepts of grounded theory, which is apt for investigation of social justice, roots analysis in social realities, accords with my small sample and anchors ‘agendas for future action’ (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005, p. 512). Participants were: two gay men and one non-binary trans person.
I conducted semi-structured interviews with the only three respondents. These were online, which was convenient, retained visual cues absent from telephone interviews (Irvine et al, 2012), allowed participants to control their privacy and facilitated automatic transcription. Pre-prepared questions were checked for ethical sensitivity, kept proceedings on track and ensured capture of particular experience (see below). It would have helped to pilot questions (Braun and Clarke, 2022, p. 28), but this wasn’t feasible. The interviews were hybrid in Kvale and Brinkmann’s (2009) categorisation, aiming for ‘conceptual clarification’ (p. 151), but also being ‘narrative’, focused on ‘the stories subjects tell’ (p. 153) and ‘discursive’ (p. 155) because of attention to power relations, comparison between responses and the informality of ‘conversational exchanges’ (Potter and Wetherall, 1987, p. 165).
I teach research methodologies but specialise in other methods. I wanted to engage with a key text on student reading lists (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009) and experience interview practices, to further inform my support of students. Oral history methods have also been significant in establishing queer histories (Porter and Weeks, 1991; Cole, 2000; Brighton OUR Story; Making Gay History; The Hall-Carpenter Archives).
One-to-one interviews were most appropriate for this sensitive topic. Participants may not have wanted to share their feelings in a focus group context (Braun and Clarke, 2022, p. 20) and been inhibited by professional relationships. A survey might have elicited freer responses, but the time between the call-out and our meeting also allowed for participant reflection. While the recruitment forum obscures the experience of less motivated LGBTQ+ staff, it was feasible and offered an outlet for participants to be and feel heard.
To analyse transcriptions,I deployed Reflexive Thematic Analysis, which evolves from deep familiarisation with material and the topic, through coding, to identifying and interpreting themes (Braun and Clarke, 2022). This allowed for my inductive participant centred approach, while acknowledging queer conceptual framing, which borders on deductive approaches.
I began coding my first interview transcription using tracked comments, but this micro-level detail became unfeasible (see fig. 1). I summarised participant statements, printed, cut up and muddled them, to disassociate them from the interview schedule and participant (fig. 2), before reorganising them into themes. I replicated this digitally, highlighting key words, which both evidenced semantic and implicit meaning (Braun and Clarke, 2022). Several re-writings ended with the summarised findings below.
Bibliography
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2022) Thematic analysis: a practical guide. Los Angeles: Sage
Cole, S. (2000) Don we now our gay apparel: gay men’s dress in the twentiethcentury. Oxford: Berg.
Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2005) The Sage handbook of qualitative research methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
Irvine, A., Drew, P. and Sainsbury, R. (2012) ‘“Am I not answering your questions properly?” Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews’, Qualitative Research, 13(1) pp. 87-106
Kvale, S. and Brinkmann, S. (2009) Interviews: learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. London: Sage
Fig. 1. Micro-level coding of Participant A interview transcriptionFig. 2. (in three parts). Summarising Statements – Separating and Disassociating Statements – Identifying Common Themes
I was initially motivated to highlight cultural and historical studies at UAL and the experience of mature students. This reflects my own experience and these factors were sidelined in dominant PgCert discussion that presumes studio-based practice and youth. I also wanted to focus on gay male student experience.
I had wanted to focus on a specific MA with which I am most closely involved. I had specific students in mind from the past and current cohorts, that I wanted to ask about their experience. It became clear that contacting student alumni and even making an open recruitment call-out for LGBTQ+ students within the small MA cohort, would be too targeted, made presumptions about student identity and potentially risked ‘outing’ students, even if indirectly and without this intention. Students may be unclear about their identities, which might also be in stages of flux, contributing to anxieties I did not want to exacerbate.
In the scope of the ARP timeframe and participant recruitment, this level of focus wasn’t possible, but remains apt for future study. I instead, recruited staff from the UAL LGBTQ+ Staff Network.
Below is a summary of findings under themes I identified across three interviews. Participant A identifies as a gay man and ‘ally for all other parts of the rainbow’. Participant B identifies as a non-binary trans person. Participant C, identifies as a cisgender gay man and person of colour.
I did not ask about age or nationality, but it emerged that Participants A and C are in unit or course leading roles and did not grow up in the UK, while Participant B is a technician.
Attached as an Appendix is a selection of related ‘cleaned’ excerpts from interviews organised thematically. The full original interview transcriptions are also attached.
Queer Identity and Student Work
All participants noted the significance of storytelling and queer themes in student work. Participant C made his personal queer history central in course materials to establish an environment of safe personal sharing, noting ‘I showcase a picture of me as a drag queen’. Participant A included queer content but did not centre themselves. Participant B does not shape course content or stress their identity in a technical role, but observes queer themes in student work.
Tutor Visibility
Participant C consciously renders their queer identity visible through appearance. Participant A established themselves as a queer point of contact for both staff and students, making themselves known as a queer advocate verbally and through signals such as their e-mail signature. Participant B did not consider themselves a beacon for queer students in a majority queer space. They rather struggled for recognition of their gender identity by staff, students and in administration.
Teaching Strategies
Participant A noted that queer students often ‘came out’ to him and practices inclusive representation in course materials and encourages student criticality. Participant C discussed ‘compassionate pedagogy’, seeing himself in a ‘parenting role’, whereas Participant A stressed the supplying information, which ranged from counselling to sexual health. Participant B did not link their queer identity to most student interactions. They didn’t note observation of queer student identity struggle but made practical interventions, such as de-gendering class materials, discussing pronouns and diverse bodies with students.
Communities and Networks
Participant C remembered the psychological-emotional significance of a supportive tutor and queer community, which they tried to emulate for students. Participant A stressed productive overlap between queer sociality and ‘networks of practice’, encouraging students to bond and participate in social-professional networks outside university. Both foregrounded student life as what Participant A described as ‘a formative time’. As a technician, Participant B rather witnessed than encouraged, the intense bonding of queer students. They also remembered that being told their peers would be future colleagues, had inhibited their early identity expression.
Tutor Identities, Histories and Contexts
Participant B hadn’t anticipated the necessity of discussing pronouns and related this to the international cohort. While not a significant barrier, ‘to reveal an alternative sexuality [or gender identity] to cross-cultural cohorts is also an inherently political act’ (Bennet et al, 2015, p. 717). It is similar to the Participant C’s resistance through self-presentation, which they described as ‘claiming space’.
Participant C emphasised widespread homophobia in his youth. Participant A reflected that his formal distance, especially with gay male students, relates to his early internalisation of suspicion associated with gay men in education. While both participants are not from the UK, the infamous Section 28 is emblematic of state-sanctioned queer silencing in a period in which many current teaching staff were themselves educated (Gaian, 2023; Lee, 2023; Blue Jean, 2022).
Participant A and C’s comments suggest they regard themselves as gay elders (Rosenfeld, 2003), relating empathetically to queer student struggles. Participants A and C are gay men in senior roles, whose early identities formed in relation to the AIDS crisis and institutionalised homophobia but whose gay identity is now widely recognised, unlike continuing public discourse on trans and non-binary gender identities. Participant C acknowledged this privilege, which does not apply to Participant B.
Bibliography
Bennett, R., Hill, B. and Jones, A. (2015) ‘In and out of the cross-cultural classroom closet: Negotiating queer teacher identity and culturally diverse cohorts in an Australian university’, Higher Education Research and Development, 34(4) pp. 709-721
Blue Jean (2022) Directed by G. Oakley [Feature film]. Altitude Films.
Gaian, K. (2023) Twenty-eight: Stories from the Section 28 generation. Southampton: Reconnecting Rainbows
Lee, C. (2023) Pretended: schools and Section 28: Historical, cultural and personal perspectives. London: John Catt
Rosenfeld, D. (2003) The changing of the guard: Lesbian and gay elders, identity and social change. Philadelphia: Temple University Press
Following Participants A and B, I aim to be a compassionate listener, meeting students where they are and suppling information. McGill and Joslin (2021) stress understanding stages of student identity development, their diverse personal circumstances and the importance of making information available and connecting students with expert advice and community networks. I aim to be better informed about available services within and outside UAL, while newly understanding that queer students may see me as a point of contact in the absence of other information, networks or mentors.
Following Participant B’s practical interventions, the recent removal of UAL guidance and the lack of LGBTQ+ student group, I aim to establish and circulate a bank of resources within departments and possibly through the LGBTQ+ staff network. Relevant information about LGBTQ+ sexual/gender identities and wellbeing could also be made available in libraries. I will add queer texts to course reading lists and suggest new acquisitions to the library.
I will continue to include queer lecture content. This corresponds with advice that ‘LGBTQ+ students deserve to see LGBTQ+ people, our families and our histories represented throughout their education’ (Kelly, 2021). This indicates the value of my potentially contributing to LGBTQ+ History Month (UAL: LGBTQ+ History Month). I won’t follow Participant C’s way of centring tutor identity, but following Participant B, I will highlight pronoun use and like Participant A, consider discrete signalling that positions me as approachable.
My ARP has impressed upon me the importance of understanding the specific challenges associated with different identities in the LGBTQ+ spectrum in relation to shifts in culture and law, notably the particular discrimination of trans and gender non-conforming people. I aim to include a greater and more consistent spread of identities and intersectional discussion in course materials. I also aim to decentre cisgendered heteronormativity, highlighting pervasive heterosexual cisgendered assumptions to students and staff.
Participants B and C prompted reflection on the/my privilege of purported identity stability and its social recognition, considering the potential effects/affects of identity flux for staff and students. I was reminded that queer identities might not be visible, making me alive to unexpected needs from unexpected students. This also points to the nature of queer subjectivity, the closet, the open secret and ‘passing’ (Kosofsky Sedgewick, 1994 [1990]). Unlike my participants, my cohorts are not predominantly queer, but I have seen student interest in exploring queer topics. Without making assumptions about their identities, I aim to prompt critical and ethical student reflection.
I will consider circulating findings in the LGBTQ+ staff network as a form of ethical reciprocity, the project ‘giving back’ (Tubaro, 2021). Dissemination is an ethical issue, but participants would be newly contacted and given advanced access to documents before circulation, which would be within a supportive network. I will consider communicating my findings in an academic journal article and/or conference paper. This would maximise the impact of my ARP and add to my portfolio of expertise. However, as an HPL, this is an additional burden characteristic of a neoliberal system in which I feel the pressure to produce academic research which benefits the institution, in what has been termed ‘mission creep’ (Henderson, 2009), while also experiencing employment precarity (Rogler, 2019). To address the lack of sufficient attention to LGBTQ+ identities in PgCcert content, I will offer feedback to influence its future direction in course reapproval.
Bibliography
Henderson, B. B. (2009) ‘Mission creep and teaching at the master’s university’, College Teaching, 57(4) pp. 185-187
Kosofsky Sedgwick, E. (1994 [1990]) Epistemology of the closet. London: Penguin.
McGill, C. M. and Joslin, J. E. (2021) Advising lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer college students. Sterling: Stylus Publishing
Rogler, C. R. (2019) ‘Insatiable greed: performance pressure and precarity in the neoliberalised university’, Social Anthropology: Special Issue on Politics of Precarity: Neoliberal Academia Under Austerity Measures and Authoritarian Threat, 27 pp. 1-117
Tubaro, P. (2021) Whose results are these anyway? Reciprocity and the ethics of “giving back” after social network research, Social Networks, 67, pp. 65-73.
Ahmed, S. (2012) On being included: Racism and diversity in institutionalised life. North Carolina: Duke University Press
Ahmed, S. (2021) Complaint!. North Carolina: Duke University Press
Almilla Boyd, N. and Roque Ramirez, H. N. (2012) Bodies of evidence: the practice of queer oral history. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Armstrong, J. and Sullivan, A. (2024) ‘LGBT+ representation in higher education in England and Wales’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 45(6) pp. 875-891
Banks, S. (2016) ‘Everyday ethics in professional life: social work as ethics work’, Ethics and Social Welfare, 10(1), pp. 35-52
Bennett, R., Hill, B. and Jones, A. (2015) ‘In and out of the cross-cultural classroom closet: Negotiating queer teacher identity and culturally diverse cohorts in an Australian university’, Higher Education Research and Development, 34(4) pp. 709-721
Blue Jean (2022) Directed by G. Oakley [Feature film]. Altitude Films.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2022) Thematic analysis: a practical guide. Los Angeles: Sage
Breward, C. (1999) The hidden consumer: masculinities, fashion and city life 1860-1914. Manchester: Manchester University Press
Briffett Aktaş, C. (2024) ‘Enhancing social justice and socially just pedagogy in higher education through participatory research’, Teaching in Higher Education: Critical Perspectives, 29(1) pp. 159-175
Butler, J. (1999) Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge
Chan, C. D., Erby, A. N. and Ford, D. (2017) ‘Intersectionality in practice: moving a social justice paradigm to action in higher education’, in Johnson, J. M. and Javier, G. (eds.) Queer people of color in higher education. North Carolina: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Cole, S. (2000) Don we now our gay apparel: gay men’s dress in the twentiethcentury. Oxford: Berg.
Crenshaw, K. (1991) ‘Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of colour’, Stanford Law Review, July 43(6) pp. 1241-1299
Cyrus, K. (2017) ‘Multiple minorities as multiply marginalized: Applying the minority stress theory to LGBTQ people of color’, Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health, 21(3) pp. 194-202
Davies, A. W. J. and Neustifter, R. (2023) ‘Heteroprofessionalism in the academy: the surveillance and regulation of queer faculty in higher education’, Journal of Homosexuality, 70(6) pp. 1030-1054
Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2005) The Sage handbook of qualitative research methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage
Duran, A. (2021) The experiences of queer students of colour at historically white institutions: navigating intersectional identities on campus. New York: Routledge
Formby, E. (2017) ‘How should we “care” for LGBT+ students within higher education?’, Pastoral Care in Education, 35(3) pp. 203-220
Gaian, K. (2023) Twenty-eight: Stories from the Section 28 generation. Southampton: Reconnecting Rainbows
Graham, B. E. (2019) ‘queerly unequal: LGBT+ students and mentoring in higher education’, Social Sciences, 8(6) p. 171
Henderson, B. B. (2009) ‘Mission creep and teaching at the master’s university’, College Teaching, 57(4) pp. 185-187
Irvine, A., Drew, P. and Sainsbury, R. (2012) ‘“Am I not answering your questions properly?” Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews’, Qualitative Research, 13(1) pp. 87-106
McGill, C. M. and Joslin, J. E. (2021) Advising lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer college students. Sterling: Stylus Publishing
McHenry-Sorber, E. and Zalman, P. (2025) ‘The “traditional queer safe space” or “kinda, not really?”: Experiences of transgender, nonbinary and androgynous college students in the creative arts’, Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 18(5) pp. 581-593
McNiff, J. and Whitehead, J. (2009) You and your action research project. Oxfordshire: Taylor and Francis
McNiff, J. (2013) Action research: principles and practice. London: Routledge
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E. and Moules, N. J. (2017) ‘Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), pp. 1-13
Porter, K. and Weeks, J. (1991) Between the acts: lives of homosexual men 1885-1967. London: Routledge
Potter, J. and Wetherall, M. (1987) Discourse and social psychology. London: Sage
Pryor, J. T. (2018) ‘Visualizing queer spaces: LGBTQ students and the traditionally heterogendered institution’, Journal of LGBT Youth, 15(1) pp. 32-51
Rapley, T. (2011) ‘Interviews’, in C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium and D. Silverman (eds.) Qualitative Research Practice. London: Sage
Rosenfeld, D. (2003) The changing of the guard: Lesbian and gay elders, identity and social change. Philadelphia: Temple University Press
Rogler, C. R. (2019) ‘Insatiable greed: performance pressure and precarity in the neoliberalised university’, Social Anthropology: Special Issue on Politics of Precarity: Neoliberal Academia Under Austerity Measures and Authoritarian Threat, 27 pp. 1-117
Scott Winkler, B. (1996) ‘Straight teacher/queer classroom: teaching as an ally’, in Katherine J. Mayberry (ed.) Teaching what you’re not: identity politics in higher education. New York: New York University Press
Slater, T., Simms, D. and Formby, E. (2025) ‘Untangling hope labour from care labour: LGBT+ people navigating equality, diversity and inclusion work in higher education’, Journal of Gender Studies, June pp. 1-21
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., & Esquilin, M. (2007) ‘Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice’, American Psychologist, 62, 271–286
Tubaro, P. (2021) ‘Whose results are these anyway? Reciprocity and the ethics of “giving back” after social network research’, Social Networks, 67, pp. 65-73
Valentine, G., Wood, N. and Plummer, P. (2009) The experience of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans staff and students in higher education. London: Equity Challenge Unit
Queer status is significant, being strongly implicated in course content and pastoral care. It was implicit that staff and students gravitated to UAL as a perceived supportive queer environment, reflecting findings that ‘LGBT students…tended to find university a “safer space” than the rest of society’ (Formby, 2017, p. 205). This does not negate queer struggle. University and personal lives are inextricable, some tutors centring identity in the classroom.
University is a formative time in which students may attempt to reconcile and express queer identity away from home networks. This can be emancipatory, leading to ‘coming out’ (Valentine et al., 2009), but can be isolating. Queer staff respond empathetically, voluntarily enacting Formby’s (2017) call to address the individual, ‘course content’, ‘service provision’ and ‘a continuum of experiences’. This can represent the burden of ‘hope labour’, ‘EDI labour’, ‘emotional labour’ and ‘care labour’ (Slater, Simms and Formby, 2025).
Drawing on Sarah Ahmed’s (2012) understanding that diversity is ‘a hopeful performative’ and noting institutional ‘strategic inefficiency’ (Ahmed, 2021), Slater et al (2025) reflect Participant B’s scepticism about queer visibility and administration at UAL. They also highlight ‘the importance of community and workplace solidarity’ (Slater et al, 2025, p. 4), something no participant mentioned, but which the LGBTQ+ staff network fulfils.
I was originally curious about gay male experience in spaces and courses culturally associated with gay men, but in which they are minoritised (e.g. LCF). This wasn’t accomplished, but the broader spectrum of participants uncovered the specificity of needs, especially relating to queer gender. This would not have surfaced in a homogenous group and prompted reflection on my cisgendered privilege.
The small sample remains a limitation and the queer dominance in the practice-based cohorts discussed, does not reflect my experience. Queer status was already significant to respondents, obscuring other queer and ‘normative’ staff who need to teach ‘as an ally’ (Scott Winkler, 1996) and practice LGBTQ+ inclusivity to unconditionally support students (McGill and Joslin, 2021). I realised I had met one participant socially a decade ago, which I communicated ahead of their interview. This might have impacted on the participant’s responses.
I could not access contemporary queer students, but interviewing tutors allowed for their reflection over typically longer life-courses. This uncovered queer struggle shaped by diverse politico-cultural discourses. This was implicated in the significance of identity to professional practice, which was more evident than expected, possibly because I’m an HPL for academic courses.
Participants were alert to self-like queer students, while other queer identities remained undetected. This reminds me not to make presumptions, while acknowledging what ‘everyone already knows’ (Kosofsky Sedgwick, 1993, p. 221), in order to avoid replicating the cultural silences that obscure queer lives.
My subjectivity shaped the interview schedule, my engagement with participants and my identifying and analysis of themes (Braun and Clarke, 2022, p. 5). Findings reflect my knowledge of queer histories, my sexual and gender identity, and my experience a student and tutor in UK HE. Participant B made me realise I had been centring queer sexuality at the expense of queer gender, a reflection that directs my future lecture development and engagement with students.
Participants felt marginalised in staff teams. Two disclosed feeling stressed. Participant testimony correlates with Sue et al’s (2007) subcategories of ‘mircroassaults’, ‘microinstults’ and ‘microinvalidations’. Queer staff and students likely experience ‘minority stress’, possibly compounded by intersectional marginality (Participant C), which has been linked to resilience, although this is contested (Cyrus, 2017). I could not interrogate intersectionality or language skills within the scope of the project, but this is apt for further investigation (e.g. see Duran, 2021).
Bibliography
Ahmed, S. (2012) On being included: Racism and diversity in institutionalised life. North Carolina: Duke University Press
Ahmed, S. (2021) Complaint!. North Carolina: Duke University Press
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2022) Thematic analysis: a practical guide. Los Angeles: Sage
Cyrus, K. (2017) ‘Multiple minorities as multiply marginalized: Applying the minority stress theory to LGBTQ people of color’, Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health, 21(3) pp. 194-202
Duran, A. (2021) The experiences of queer students of colour at historically white institutions: navigating intersectional identities on campus. New York: Routledge
Formby, E. (2017) ‘How should we “care” for LGBT+ students within higher education?’, Pastoral Care in Education, 35(3) pp. 203-220
Kosofsky Sedgwick, E. (1993) Tendencies. North Carolina: Duke University Press
McGill, C. M. and Joslin, J. E. (2021) Advising lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer college students. Sterling: Stylus Publishing
Scott Winkler, B. (1996) ‘Straight teacher/queer classroom: teaching as an ally’, in Katherine J. Mayberry (ed.) Teaching what you’re not: identity politics in higher education. New York: New York University Press
Slater, T., Simms, D. and Formby, E. (2025) ‘Untangling hope labour from care labour: LGBT+ people navigating equality, diversity and inclusion work in higher education’, Journal of Gender Studies, June pp. 1-21
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., & Esquilin, M. (2007) ‘Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice’, American Psychologist, 62, 271–286
Valentine, G., Wood, N. and Plummer, P. (2009) The experience of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans staff and students in higher education. London: Equity Challenge Unit
I am Unit Leader and Lecturer for Fashion Histories, on MA Fashion Cultures and Histories at LCF. Although an HPL, I lead this unit, communicating with guest speakers, giving two lectures and taking students on external visits. The Unit promotes critical thinking about historical narratives. I have a co-tutor who assists at intervals. I am present at all lectures, liaising with speakers in advance. Students produce a cultural review and an essay. See proposal and figure 1 for additional context.
I have been the Unit Leader for three years and completed an iteration of the MA ten years ago as a mature student. This positionality helps me empathise with students. Additionally, my position as an intermediary between staff, the course leader and students, and HPL status, impact on my intervention. This acknowledges limitations, as well as small windows of opportunity (Shen and Sanders, 2023). I have greater involvement with this cohort than my other teaching and some input in the scheme of work and session framing.
I will develop lecture slides with greater consideration for diverse representation and inclusive formatting. This model will be communicated to guest lecturers. I will plan external visits and the space of the classroom with inclusivity in mind. Students are asked to think critically about historical research, who is represented and who is missing.
As in figure 1, I was given freer rein last year and considered diversity and inclusion in themes and speakers, drawing the latter from outside the university. This appeared to be successful judging by positive student engagement with each other and activities (see PGcert Unit 1 Case Study 2), post-lecture discussion with guests, student independent use of archives in their assignments and positive comments from colleagues.
However, my intervention responds to recent changes and feedback from the student survey, course committee and the external examiner’s report. Comments indicate that students were unclear of the unit purpose and found multiple speakers and visits overwhelming. This has been hard to reconcile with my positive observations and may relate to students seeing themselves as consumers (Flodén, 2017). Flodén (2017) advocate that feedback prompts change but is also guided by experience and the maintenance of academic integrity.
This overlaps with changes in LCF policy on the use of external speakers. As a result, the course leader has reshaped a brief, written the scheme of work and selected speakers, who now all come from LCF.
Inclusive Learning: Actions and Reasons
Diversity of representation (Hall, et. al. 2013), as well as forward planning (blog 1) and prompts to critical thinking, promote inclusivity for an international cohort (fig. 1) that includes mature students. It accounts for student disabilities, which are often not visible (blog 1 and UAL EDI Report, 2024). I aim consider all abilities in advance to construct a learning experience best for everyone, without singling students out, pre-empting and removing barriers to learning (blog posts; Garrett, 2024; UAL 2018). This includes anticipating access, stairs/elevators and travel time for external visits.
Intersectional factors may disadvantage students, producing awarding gaps (see blog posts; Crenshaw, 1991). UAL data is dominated by undergraduate performance and practice-based courses, making it hard to assess the impact of gender bias, LGBTQ+ and mature status for my MA. See figure 1 for typical demographics. The UAL EDI Data Report (2024, p. 17) highlights a slight increase in homeundergraduate mature students to 14%, while 76.2% of students are female identifying (p. 28) and 23% now identify as LGBTQ+. How these factors intersect on the academic MA remains unclear.
I am predominantly informed by formal and informal student feedback, assessment grades and my closer relationship with this small group. On the Unit, there have been no significant gaps, students overwhelmingly attain A or B grades.
As guest lecturers now come only from within the department, opportunities for students to experience diverse authoritative positionalities, are limited. Diversifying speakers can work towards overcoming epistemic injustice (Rekis, 2023), increasing potential for students to feel represented, while potentially introducing discordant views (Henderson, 2019). The limitation to home speakers places additional significance on lecture content as the site of inclusive representation (Hall et. al., 2013).
I aim to ask lecturers to consider broadening represented identities in slides and/or discuss why some groups are missing, in order to embed an inclusive approach across the Unit (Maloney, 2020). This is directed by PGcert materials and the ‘protected characteristics’ enshrined in law (Gov.uk), but I acknowledge that what is considered a marginalised group depends on my positionality and that of speakers. This approach more specifically addresses the groups who have frequently been excluded from the white, female, western framing of fashion history.
I want students to understand that their identities and experiences are relevant and welcomed, both in the classroom and as subjects of study. I also remain aware that factors of identity may significantly shape how students think about the world and interpret assignments (blog 2). Attempting diverse representation risks stereotyping and tokenism, but I am reassured by peer feedback (fig. 2 and verbal comments). While I can guide lecturers, I cannot control their content.
While I have some misgivings about positionality statements (blog post 3), this is implicit in week 1, in which my co-tutor and I discuss who we are and how we came to study and teach fashion history. I am also mindful of my positionality in terms of my role as facilitating the student experience and the relative power I hold within the classroom as a more experienced guide (Bayeck, 2022; Addison, 2014). The discussion of positionality is embedded in prompts for students to think critically about history and themselves as researchers. As across the blog posts, I reflect on my privileges, noting as in critical race theory, that my work will include biases, which I work to surface, while drawing this to the attention of students as a way to think about their own research.
Feedback and Reflective Responses
Tutorial feedback suggested including a reflective student exercise to gauge the impact of my intervention, drawing on Gibbs’ (1988) model. I may progress with this, but am tentative. The external examiner suggested a written student reflection but this hasn’t been included in the scheme of work or metnioned by my Course Leader. Multiple avenues for feedback exist and the challenge is rather in responding. I will consider introducing a simplified reflective exercise in the final group tutorial, depending on my reading of students needs at this time. I don’t want students to confuse this with a brainstorming session and they need to focus on imminent submissions. It was also suggested that I make students co-learners and alternate in my role as a facilitator and practitioner. I will keep this in mind, especially in my contributions to guest sessions, seminar activities, group discussion and off-site visits.
Tutorial feedback suggested ways slide material could be made more inclusive. This was useful, specifically in noting resources about Alt text (Harvard online). While I aim to make my slide material as inclusive as possible, I am tentative about being too prescriptive for other staff and offering a template. As they are senior staff with PGcert and PhD training, a level of trust is warranted. I intend to summarise key aspects (e.g. font size and background colour) and include a link to further guidance (Harvard and Oxford websites; LCC Teaching Hub). I will formulate a template for this instructive e-mail to lecturers, which will need to be agreed with the Course Leader.
Tutor feedback made me newly situate my actions in light of institutional and national frameworks and policies. I will further investigate and critique policy and my alignment, such as those of Advance HE and UAL’s Access sand Participation Plan. Section 3D of the Plan links to my intervention in aiming at ‘decolonising teaching and learning, belonging and compassionate pedagogy and assessment for social justice’ (p. 17).
Peer feedback suggested that I include videos and activities to overcome restrictions in speakers (fig. 3). My Course Leader now requests that all speakers include one key reading and 5-6 suggested readings. I am wary of overloading students and the need to encourage their engagement with academic sources. I do see opportunities for developing class activities to promote more active engagement with resources and I will review the course reading list. Prompted by peer comments I discovered Bellet’s (2023) text, which may inform my future approach to teaching fashion history. Comments also made me more conscious of who has written the resources we suggest to students (fig. 2 and verbal comments)
Evaluation, Future Actions and Conclusions
I intend to roll out most of these ideas, although I will consider the extent to which some notes on supporting materials and additional opportunities for feedback can be put into action. Guidance for speakers is circumscribed by my Course Leader. My position as an intermediary can sometimes be difficult to manage and my intentions can’t always be exercised. Based on recent communication and planning, some guest speaker guidance may be limited to verbal suggestion.
Given that these actions respond to changes in the unit and student feedback, it will be interesting to hear responses to these changes in formal ways (e.g. course committee meeting) and through my observation of the classroom. I will continue to think about other ways I can collect evidence of the intervention’s impact.
Responding to speakers from the previous PGcert cohort, I will also focus on the organisation of seating of the classroom (Nehyba, 2021) and perhaps explicitly introduce the idea of discomfort in historical research (Zembylas, 2020).
Having now met with my co-tutor, I may draw ideas from them and generate a more discursive atmosphere in the classroom. They can also be a source of feedback for the intervention.
I will think more about how I manage slides, notably, the amount of text on slides and how this functions in class but also as a resource on Moodle.
Overall, the Inclusive Pracitces Unit has supported my pre-existing activities and thinking. Specifcally, it promted me to consider disability more boradly in how this is difined and how barriers are mitigated where possible for the benefit of all. It was also enlightening to consider the impact of faith in the way students understand the world and prcoess ideas. I found the practical advice on slide presentation especially useful, clarifying the need for such practices as well as techniques.
Bibliography
Addison, N. (2014) ‘Doubting learning outcomes in higher education contexts: from performativity towards emergence and negotiation’, in The International Journal of Art & Design Education, 33(3) pp. 313-325
Crenshaw, K. (1991) Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color, Stanford Law Review, 43(6) pp. 1241-1299
Flodén, J. (2017) ‘The impact of student feedback on teaching in higher education’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(7) pp. 1054-1068.
Garrett, R. (2024) ‘Racism shapes career: career trajectories and imagined futures of racialised minority PhDs in UK higher education’, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 23(3) pp. 683-697
Gibbs, G. (1988) Learning by doing: a guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford: Oxford Polytechnic
Nehyba, J. (2023) ‘Effects of seating arrangement on students’ interaction in group reflection practice’, The Journal of Experimental Education, 91(2) pp. 249-277.
Rekis, J. (2023) ‘Religious identity and epistemic injustice: an intersectional account’, Hypatia, 38, pp. 779-800
Shen, Y. and Sanders, E. B. N. (2023) ‘Identity discovery: small learning interventions as catalysts for change in design education’, vol. 9, Design and Interdisciplinarity, pp. 127-144.
