Following two focus group workshops, six semi-structured interviews with first-year students, and an exploratory conversation with my previous-year students, I engaged in reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2022): coding transcripts for moments when students articulated shifts in understanding, expressed emotional responses, or grappled with tensions. I also analysed documentation (Bowen, 2009) of free-writing samples and student notes during the workshops for changes in critical thinking across sessions.
My analysis must account for participant self-selection: all students volunteered themselves and demonstrated existing interest in inclusive design. This self-selection created conditions for learning that must be acknowledged when interpreting these findings.
Three interconnected themes emerged: pedagogical environments that enable brave spaces, the transformative potential of role-play for systems thinking, and the shift from compliance-based to consciousness-driven understanding of inclusive design.
Small group size proved fundamental. Student 1 articulated: “You can’t be passive… you’re always thinking of a response to try and put into the conversation,” contrasting with lectures where, as Student 3 noted, “everyone’s just silent.” The format created what Arao and Clemens (2013) term a “brave space” where students felt simultaneously safe and gently obligated to contribute. Previous year students reinforced this: in lectures, “no one wants to be that person who starts a discussion,” whilst in smaller settings, genuine dialogue was possible without performance anxiety.
The workshops took place between 5.30 – 6.30 pm, and I made a conscious effort to provide snacks for the students, acknowledging that it would be after a long studio day and hoping this would create a more comfortable environment. Student 4 confirmed this in their interview, expressing, ” because [you] gave us like snacks and made it really, I’d say more relaxed and more like at ease… it felt like there was space to reflect. ” This affirms the need to curate the relevant environments for students to feel comfortable and for learning to take place.
Role-play emerged as a powerful tool for developing systems-level thinking. Student 1’s extended reflection on the developer role revealed a sophisticated understanding: ‘you can’t blame a person… it’s the whole system that we’ve built and the way that the planner communicates with the developer than the architect… that system doesn’t enable inclusive design.’ This shift from individualising responsibility to recognising structural constraints embodies what critical pedagogy seeks (Hooks, 1994). Student 5 gained ‘an understanding as to how architects actually feel when they’re being pressured from all directions,’ demonstrating how the exercise-built empathy for positions students might otherwise judge harshly. Stevens (2015) argues that role-play enables students to ‘try on’ perspectives they might otherwise dismiss; here, students developed what De Zoysa et al. (2024) identify as cognitive empathy through inhabiting positions beyond their own, moving from blame to systemic analysis.
The third theme represents the intervention’s core achievement: fundamental reconceptualisation of inclusive design itself. Students entered using language of “accessibility” and “ramps and lifts,” understanding inclusive design as compliance-driven additions. Student 2 articulated this reconceptualisation in their interview: “At first I was thinking of inclusive design is just to add on things on top of something that’s already been built… I’ve learned that the point of inclusive design is to think about the design from the very start of the design process instead of just making it something that you slap on towards the end.” This shift from retrofit thinking to integrated design philosophy represents exactly the consciousness transformation this intervention sought. Case study videos proved catalytic here. Student 4 reflected that they would “never forget” the video about beauty and tactility, describing what they heard in the video as “sound like poetry.” Student 5 explained the videos’ power: “hearing from people firsthand… we only have such a shielded view of what it can be.” The authenticity of disabled people speaking for themselves created what Wilson (2021) describes as disorienting moments, prompting transformative learning.
I took the opportunity to speak with three of my previous first-year students, all now second-year students. Our conversation was a semi-structured group interview and discussion in which I asked several questions to prompt and gauge their understanding of inclusive design. Our conversation revealed consequences when this consciousness shift doesn’t occur. One student stated bluntly, “I hate accessibility,” whilst another explained, “I don’t understand why I have to consider any of the other possible users” when designing for specific clients. Their resistance positioned inclusive design as a constraint rather than an ethical commitment, precisely the consciousness gap this intervention sought to address. They identified a lack of pedagogical support: “we didn’t actually have a proper sit-down… explaining how to make a place accessible,” leading them to “dismiss and consider it a constraint.”
please see the appendix to this blog post for further details
The data demonstrates that developing inclusive design consciousness requires more than information transmission. It demands pedagogical environments that combine brave space conditions, authentic encounters with lived experience through case studies, and opportunities for embodied perspective-taking through role-play. Students demonstrated the capacity for sophisticated ethical reasoning when provided appropriate scaffolding. The contrast with the previous year’s students’ resistance reveals what happens without such support: inclusive design remains positioned as a technical burden rather than fundamental to socially just architectural practice.
References
Arao, B. and Clemens, K. (2013) ‘From Safe Spaces to Brave Spaces: A New Way to Frame Dialogue Around Diversity and Social Justice’, in Landreman, L. M. (ed.) The Art of Effective Facilitation: Reflections From Social Justice Educators. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, pp. 135–150.
Bowen, G. A. (2009) ‘Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method’, Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), pp. 27–40.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2022) Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide to Understanding and Doing. London: SAGE.
De Zoysa, R., Male, S. and Chapman, E. (2024) ‘Motivation and the role of empathy in engineering work’, Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 29(1), pp. 55–65.
Hooks, B. (1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge.
Stevens, R. (2015) ‘Role-Play and Student Engagement: Reflections from the Classroom’, Teaching in Higher Education, 20(5), pp. 481–492.
Wilson, J. (2021) A Contemplative Pedagogy: Reflection and Presence in Learning. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.