This action research project began with a troubling observation documented in Blog 1: my first-year architecture students dismissed accessible design features as elements that “ruined” their designs, revealing a fundamental consciousness gap between the BA Architecture course’s stated commitment to social justice and students’ emerging design practice. Now, having facilitated two focus group workshops and interviews with six students and conducted comparative conversations with three previous year students, I can conclude that small-scale pedagogical interventions can create meaningful shifts in how students understand inclusive design, but only when specific conditions are met.
The research question asked how ethically led debates, grounded in lived experience and case study reflection, might support students in developing greater awareness of inclusive approaches to design. The findings demonstrate that consciousness development requires three interconnected pedagogical conditions: brave spaces created through small-group formats, authentic encounter with lived experience through relevant case study material, and embodied perspective-taking through role-play. Each methodology served distinct purposes. Small groups enabled every voice to contribute, creating environments where students feel simultaneously safe and gently obligated to engage (Arao and Clemens, 2013). Case study videos featuring disabled people speaking for themselves provided what Wilson (2021) terms disorienting moments that challenged students’ compliance-based understanding of accessibility. Role play proved transformative, moving students from individualising blame to recognising structural constraints, the systems-level thinking critical pedagogy seeks to develop (Hooks, 1994).
what was and was not successful, and where more testing is required.
What surprised me most was not simply that these methods worked, but that students themselves articulated the demand for this learning. During interviews, they compared these sessions favourably to large lectures, identifying precisely what the format afforded them: space for reflection, an obligation to formalise opinions, and exposure to perspectives beyond their own. Previous year students reinforced this, describing how the lack of pedagogical support led them to “dismiss and consider it a constraint.” This isn’t my assumption about what students need; their voices validate both the gap in current provision and their hunger for deeper engagement with inclusive design as ethical practice rather than technical requirement.
My research has highlighted the disconnect between institutional intentions and pedagogical reality. The BA Architecture manifesto explicitly centres social justice, yet students described inclusive design as being “grouped in with other things” during time-pressured lectures, positioned as secondary rather than fundamental. What this intervention demonstrated is that holding space, deliberately creating conditions for brave conversations, uncomfortable perspective-taking, and genuine encounter with difference, can bridge that gap. Boys (2014) argues that conventional approaches to accessibility reinforce ableist assumptions by treating disability as a deviation from a norm. The consciousness shift documented here suggests students can move beyond this when given appropriate scaffolding.
Critically, this study’s limitations must be acknowledged. Participants volunteered, indicating existing openness that created conditions more conducive to transformation than might be found with resistant students. The small scale and compressed project timeframe limit generalisability. Future iterations must address how to reach students who, like some previous year participants, actively resist inclusive design discourse or view it cynically. The challenge becomes: how do we scale these intimate, time-intensive methods while preserving their transformative potential?
My next steps involve embedding these pedagogical approaches more systematically within studio teaching and testing whether role-play and case-study methods can be integrated into project briefs rather than existing as separate interventions. I aim to work with students, including those who view inclusive design as a constraint, to understand whether brave space conditions can create openness even among the resistant. The action research cycle continues: this intervention has proven that consciousness can shift, but the work of making such shifts systematic and sustainable has only just begun.
The limitations in my role as an hourly-paid lecturer are apparent. Therefore, I have begun conversations with the stage 1 leader and some fellow tutors to gauge peer reflection. The response to my research has been positive, and the stage 1 leader is keen to help me develop an approach to take to senior teams to explore how we can create space to hold these conversations throughout the course.
McNiff (2002) reminds us that action research is iterative, each cycle informing the next. Whilst my ARP cycle diagram addresses opportunities for iteration, it also looks at an aspirational vision, and I say, why not?! After all, it’s big thinking that makes the radical change our course manifesto desires!
just needs to be splashed onto a page.
This project concludes by opening new questions about scalability and reaching beyond the already convinced. What remains clear is that students have both the capacity and the desire for this learning; our responsibility as educators is to hold space for it to happen.
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.
Boys, J. (2014) Doing Disability Differently: An Alternative Handbook on Architecture, Dis/ability and Designing for Everyday Life. London: Routledge.
Hooks, B. (1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge.
McNiff, J. (2002) Action Research for Professional Development: Concise Advice for New Action Researchers. 3rd edn. Available at: http://www.jeanmcniff.com/ar-booklet.asp (Accessed: 1 December 2025).
Wilson, J. (2021) A Contemplative Pedagogy: Reflection and Presence in Learning. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.