Translating Observation into Methodological Choices
Observing students in lectures and studio sessions crystallised a critical insight: developing empathy and critical consciousness around inclusive design cannot be achieved through passive information transmission. My students’ challenge of accessible design features revealed not just a knowledge gap, but a consciousness gap. They need opportunities to examine their assumptions, engage with new and diverse perspectives, and develop what Boys (2014) describes as an understanding that disability and access are fundamental questions about bodies, space, and belonging, rather than technical problems to solve.
This realisation has shaped my methodological approach. I need methods that facilitate active knowledge construction, enable perspective-building, and create space for reflection and dialogue. This post outlines some of the methods I’m exploring.
Focus Groups: Creating Brave Spaces for Dialogue
The limitations of large-group teaching are evident: 118 students create ample opportunities for disengagement, with the same confident voices dominating whilst quieter perspectives remain invisible. Barbour (2018) argues that smaller focus groups enable deeper exploration of sensitive topics and ensure that all voices are heard.
Targeting a focus group of six students will create the conditions for what Arao and Clemens (2021) term as “brave space,” an environment where students feel safe to share perspectives, take risks, and be vulnerable in their learning without the pressure of performing before a large audience. This intimate setting will be essential for exploring the emotionally charged territory of inclusive design, where students may need to confront their own biases and assumptions.
Role Play and Debate: Perspective Building
Stevens (2015) demonstrates that role play is an effective active learning strategy that encourages participation, adds dynamism to learning, and promotes retention of material. More critically for my research question, role play requires students to inhabit perspectives beyond their own, developing what De Zoysa et al. (2024) identify as cognitive empathy: recognising and understanding another individual’s emotions by putting oneself in their position.
Kennedy (2007) argues that debate formats cultivate critical thinking by requiring students to articulate and defend positions. This aligns with Shaffer et al.’s (2017) concept of deliberative pedagogy teaching approaches that prepare students for democratic engagement through structured dialogue about contested issues. By structuring debates and role play, where students are required to argue from perspectives other than their own, I aim to disrupt their default assumptions about whose needs matter in design. This approach builds on Stevens’ (2015) finding that role play helps students appreciate that there are multiple sides to complex issues and that one’s background shapes experience. In the context of social justice, students need to understand how different embodiments, cultures, and backgrounds shape people’s relationships with the built environment. Shaffer et al. (2017) emphasise that deliberative pedagogies are particularly powerful when addressing ethical questions where multiple legitimate perspectives exist, precisely the territory of inclusive design decision-making.
Self-Reflection and Case Study Videos: Learning from Lived Experience
Tjora (2006) argues that fresh observation of familiar practices can reveal patterns and possibilities that might otherwise remain invisible. I will incorporate self-reflection activities in which students consider their lived experiences of space, using guided prompts to examine moments when physical environments have shaped them positively or negatively. This approach aligns with contemplative pedagogy (Wilson, 2021), which emphasises reflection and presence in learning.
Crucially, I am choosing to present case studies through video content rather than written materials or my own narration. This decision is deliberate: I want students to hear directly from people whose experiences differ from their own, rather than having those experiences mediated through my interpretation. Jokela and Huhmarniemi (2018) note that art-based and creative methods can facilitate deeper engagement with complex social issues by making abstract concepts tangible and personal.
Semi-structured Interviews: Capturing Individual Learnings and Reflections
Irvine et al. (2012) highlight that semi-structured interviews allow for clarification and deeper exploration of participants’ responses whilst maintaining consistency across interviews through core questions. Utilising semi-structured interviews will provide space for individual reflection on what students feel they have learned and will enable me to understand how the focus group’s experiences have shaped each student’s thinking about inclusive design.
Methods Considered and Discounted
I am deliberately avoiding quantitative approaches such as questionnaires or surveys. Whilst these might provide measurable data on attitude change, they will not capture the nuanced process of consciousness development I seek to understand. As Barbour (2018) notes, quantitative methods risk reducing complex social phenomena to simplified metrics. Similarly, I am discounting approaches that position students as passive recipients of information, such as lectures followed by individual written reflections. Whilst self-reflection has value, relying solely on individual reflection would miss the critical element of peer dialogue and perspective sharing that emerged as so valuable in Adriana’s session. Students need to encounter diverse viewpoints through interaction, not just introspection.
An Integrated Approach
The combination of focus groups, role play debates, case study engagement, self-reflection, and semi-structured interviews creates a research design that positions students as active constructors of knowledge. Each method serves a distinct purpose: focus groups create brave spaces for dialogue; role-play disrupts default assumptions; case studies ground learning in lived experience; self-reflection encourages personal connection; and interviews capture individual learning.
This multi-methodological approach, grounded in active and transformative learning theories, aims to create the conditions for students to develop the empathy, reflexivity, and critical consciousness necessary for socially just architectural practice.
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.
Boys, J. (2014) Doing Disability Differently: An Alternative Handbook on Architecture, Dis/ability and Designing for Everyday Life. London: Routledge.
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.
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.
Jokela, T. and Huhmarniemi, M. (2018) ‘Art-based action research in the North’, International Journal of Education Through Art, 14:2, pp. 14:2, pp. 145–160.
Kennedy, R. (2007) ‘In-Class Debates: Fertile Ground for Active Learning and the Cultivation of Critical Thinking and Oral Communication Skills’, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19(2), pp. 183–190.
Shaffer, T. J., Longo, N. V., Manosevitch, I. and Thomas, M. S. (eds.) (2017) Deliberative Pedagogy: Teaching and Learning for Democratic Engagement. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
Stevens, R. (2015) ‘Role-play and student engagement: reflections from the classroom’, Teaching in Higher Education, 20:5, pp. 481–492.
Tjora, A. H. (2006) ‘Writing small discoveries: an exploration of fresh observers’ observations’. Qualitative Research, 6:4, pp. 429–451.
Wilson, J. (2021) A Contemplative Pedagogy: Reflection and Presence in Learning. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.