Focus Group workshop 2 (17th November 2025) returned to the same six students, building on workshop 1 through structured debate and role play. This workshop tested whether perspective-taking activities could deepen critical engagement with tensions inherent in designing inclusively within real-world constraints.
Workshop Structure and Pedagogical Intent
The 60-minute session began with free-writing, using the exact prompt text as workshop 1 to ensure an even measure of comparison in my analysis. We then progressed through two debate scenarios. Stevens (2015) argues that role play enables students to “try on” perspectives they might otherwise dismiss, whilst debate formats require articulating and defending positions, essential skills for forming and challenging their positions on topics.
Tool One: Debate
The first debate posed a hypothetical: ‘Should a £5 million park prioritise inclusive features for marginalised groups even if reducing space for a basketball court and running track advocated by community groups?’ Students discussed freely, immediately challenging the false binary. Student 4 noted “it can be both,” whilst Student 6 advocated “compromise” rather than elimination. Crucially, Student 3 warned that redirecting funds “might direct anger towards the people who were meant to be being serviced”, demonstrating awareness that design decisions can instrumentalise marginalised communities in political conflicts.
When I introduced the context of basketball courts historically excluding women, students grappled with how to address systemic exclusion without creating new divisions. Student 2’s insistence on demographic research, “if it’s such a low percentage… maybe that isn’t necessary”, revealed tension between universal design and resource allocation, whilst Student 1 countered that designing only for existing majorities “is reductive”.
Tool Two: Role-play
The second debate elevated complexity through role-play, assigning roles: Architect, Developer, Planning Officer, Disabled Resident, Elderly Resident, and Young Person, each with distinct values and pressures. The scenario pitted inclusive design against climate-resilience requirements, forcing negotiation between competing goods rather than rights versus wrongs.
Discussion became notably animated. Student 3 (Disabled Resident) challenged budget claims directly: “profit needs to be a conversation”, critiquing how “cost” masks ideological resistance. Student 2 (Young Person) and Student 6 (Elderly Resident) clashed over safety, with Student 2 pointing out perceived threats from “disabled people”, exposing how inclusive design rhetoric can be weaponised.
Particularly striking was Student 5’s (Architect) visible discomfort: “I’m just hard to work within these constraints… I have one to my right saying this design is not going to be for them”. This observation crystallised the students’ understanding that the architect’s position can feel like that of a negotiator rather than an autonomous designer. As Arao and Clemens (2013) note, brave spaces require tolerating discomfort; here, that discomfort became pedagogically productive.
Student prepping for Role-play
Students reviewing role-play debate topic
Critical Observations
The role-play generated qualitatively different discourse than open debate. Students moved from abstract principles to embodied advocacy, personalising their arguments to reveal both empathy and blind spots. Notably, students who strongly advocated for universal inclusion in Debate 1 found themselves defending exclusionary positions when role-playing as stakeholders with narrow interests.
The 60-minute time limit felt constraining again, although I acknowledge we had a lot on the agenda, and I therefore decided to continue the initial role-play for longer, rather than squeeze in switching roles, although this may have strengthened learnings.
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.
Stevens, R. (2015) ‘Role-Play and Student Engagement: Reflections from the Classroom’, Teaching in Higher Education, 20(5), pp. 481–492.