Observing Colleague Teaching: Practising Ethics
To better understand how ethics and critical thinking around social justice are taught within the BA Architecture course, I observed my colleague Adriana Cobo Corey deliver a session on Tuesday, 14th October 2025 (10 am–1 pm) as part of Unit 1: Practising Ethics. The three-hour lecture, titled “Gender and Public Space,” provided valuable insight into both the opportunities and limitations of engaging a full-year group of 118 students with complex social justice themes.
The session was lecture-based, with Adriana presenting various references on gender and public space, interspersed with moments of conversation and reflection. Towards the final 30 minutes, she introduced a real-world scenario on screen, inviting students to discuss and share their positions. Five students volunteered their perspectives before Adriana revealed the actual outcome, connecting their responses to the real consequences of design decisions.
What I Observed: Engagement and Limitations
Throughout the session, approximately nine students actively participated, a small fraction of the cohort. Student engagement peaked when Adriana invited opinion sharing and peer discussion, demonstrating their willingness to engage when given explicit permission. However, engagement dropped significantly when pre-lecture reading tasks were introduced, and the lecture format, with rows of seating, created a spatial hierarchy in which front-row students were more forthcoming, whilst others remained quiet, despite Adriana moving around the entire space to engage with students.
What was encouraging: students from different backgrounds shared perspectives, and several were willing to disagree or bring alternative viewpoints. I witnessed glimpses of critical thinking developing through peer dialogue. What was concerning: quieter students never came forward; many spent time on their phones or withdrew from conversation; and the same confident voices dominated throughout. With 118 students, there was ample room to disengage, and many did.
The large group format made it difficult to create what Arao and Clemens (2021) term a “brave space,” an environment where students feel safe to share perspectives, take risks, and be vulnerable in their learning. The question emerged: whose perspectives are centred in large-scale group discussions? Whose lived experiences remain invisible?
Shaping My Methodological Approach
This observation crystallised several key decisions for my action research. Whilst I valued Adriana’s use of factual scenarios and invitation to student opinions, I recognised the need for a smaller format where every student would have both the opportunity and the gentle expectation to contribute. A focus group of six students, rather than 118, could create conditions for genuine brave space without the pressure of performing before a large audience. Barbour (2018) argues that smaller focus groups enable a more profound exploration of sensitive topics and ensure that all voices are heard, rather than being dominated by the most confident participants.
I also wanted to expand methodologies beyond reading tasks and images. Rather than solely presenting references on inclusive design, I aimed to create experiential learning opportunities that engaged students through their own lived experiences, structured debates that required them to inhabit different perspectives, and case study reflections that connected theory to practice.
My approach led to my research question: “How can ethically led debates, grounded in lived experience and case study reflection, support architecture students in developing more conscious awareness about inclusive approaches to design?”
Ethical Planning and Participant Care
Given the sensitive nature of discussions around lived experience and inclusive design, ethical planning will be paramount. Working through the Ethical Action Plan process has helped me consider several critical dimensions.
Power dynamics: My dual role as tutor and researcher requires careful navigation. As BERA (2024) emphasises, researchers have a responsibility to ensure voluntary participation and to protect participants from coercion, particularly given the power imbalance inherent in teacher-student relationships. I am using opt-in recruitment outside studio time, emphasising that participation would not affect teaching or assessment, and developing anonymous data-collection methods.
Creating brave spaces: Following Arao and Clemens (2021), I have established ground rules for respect, confidentiality, and “right to pass” at any stage. Sessions will include content notes in advance and signposting to UAL wellbeing support.
Data protection: Minimising data collection to field notes, optional anonymous reflections, and audio recordings (with consent) stored on encrypted UAL systems, with clear retention and deletion timelines.
The complete Ethical Action Plan and participant-facing documents are attached as appendices.
References
Arao, B. and Clemens, K. (2021) ‘From Safe Spaces to Brave Spaces: A New Way to Frame Dialogue Around Diversity and Social Justice.’ In: Landreman, L. (ed.) The Art of Effective Facilitation: Reflections from Social Justice Educators.2nd ed. Sterling, VA: Stylus, pp. 135–150.
Barbour, R. (2018) Doing Focus Groups. 2nd ed. London: SAGE.
British Educational Research Association (2024) Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. 5th ed. Available at: https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-fifth-edition-2024 (Accessed: 26 October 2025).