This project underwent a significant shift in both subject knowledge and methodology as it progressed. What began as a structured intervention centred on positionality gradually became a more open, collective inquiry into how students locate themselves not only within their own narratives, but within the institution itself. This change was largely driven by students’ responses. Their willingness to engage, question, and reframe positionality revealed a strong need for it to be embedded at the core of their practice, rather than treated as a collateral exercise.
One of the most unexpected outcomes concerns the format. While digital tools did not always amplify nuance as I initially hoped, the use of written chat-based contributions enabled students who were less comfortable speaking to participate. However, the limitations of these formats also became visible. The intervention would benefit from further experimentation with more sophisticated and creative forms of data visualisation, ideally informed by students’ own subjects and skills. There is clear potential in exploring non-digital or hybrid approaches, such as knitting, painting, mapping, and other material translations of data, to deepen engagement and amplify complexity.
This project is grounded in action research as a cyclical and reflexive methodology, in which knowledge is produced through situated action, critical reflection, and iterative revision rather than through fixed or extractive research designs. That being said, I’m also reframing whether I can consider the Action Research process as a spiral or a cycle, as the ‘Revised Plan’ was actually informed by context – the three interventions have been tested very close to each other. I’d now rather frame it as a cycle that will inform a separate spiral once I develop an in-depth Revised Plan.
My dual role as teacher and researcher shaped both the design and the ethical limits of the intervention. Being embedded within the structures I was interrogating required ongoing reflexivity around authority, care, and consent. This positionality informed my decision to prioritise abstraction, anonymity, and choice, recognising that my responsibility was not only to generate insight but to minimise harm within an uneven power relationship.
What brought me the most joy was students’ openness to understanding positionality as a collective experience. Their ability to hold space for perspectives that differed from, or even conflicted with. Students consistently approached one another’s experiences with care, recognising them as something to be welcomed rather than judged.
The fact that the exercise resonated emotionally, rather than remaining a purely intellectual exercise, felt like the project’s most meaningful success.
At the same time, this raised important ethical considerations. A key challenge moving forward is finding ways to amplify different forms of engagement without over-engineering the intervention or over-extracting personal information from students. This project has reinforced my commitment to a balanced, mindful approach to experimentation, one that values depth, consent, and reciprocity over scale or technical complexity.
Through this process, I have developed skills in collaborative data collection and analysis, reframing data analysis as a participatory and communal practice rather than a solitary one. Looking ahead, I aim to expand this approach as a core aspect of my pedagogical practice, continuing to explore the intersection of the personal, social, collective, and institutional dimensions of identity within teaching and learning.
This phase of the research examines two further iterations of the intervention delivered in distinct institutional, spatial, and temporal conditions: an in-person, voluntary session with BA Critical Practice in Fashion Media Year 3 students at London College of Fashion, and an online session delivered during class hours with BA UX/UI Design Year 2 students at Ravensbourne University.
Intervention 2
BA Critical Practice in Fashion Media, Year 3 – London College of Fashion 4 students, in person, voluntary participation, close to the assessment period
Step 1
Step 2
Pros
The small group created a highly intimate setting, with most participants already part of a close group of friends.
Discussions were extremely personal, layered, and nuanced, allowing students to articulate complex emotional trajectories.
All participants actively contributed, resulting in sustained and in-depth dialogue.
The in-person format supported attentiveness, care, and responsiveness to others’ contributions.
Cons
The small number of participants weakened agency around privacy and disclosure.
Because sharing became the dominant mode, students may have felt an implicit pressure to disclose personal information.
This tension felt particularly pronounced given that choice around exposure is a core ethical concern of the intervention.
Participation was limited by timing, excluding students with work, caring, or other extra-curricular responsibilities.
Data analysis
The dataset is small, limiting comparative depth and variation.
Emotional fluctuations appear milder, with fewer sharp drops in sentiment.
Despite this, the overall emotional trajectory follows a pattern consistent with previous interventions.
In Step 2, Roots once again emerges as the most populated category, suggesting a recurring emphasis embedded within the DEI monitoring framework itself.
Intervention 3
BA UX/UI Design, Year 2 – Ravensbourne University 18 students, online, delivered during class hours
Step 1
Step 2
Pros
Most students were able to participate, resulting in a dataset of appropriate scale.
Time management was more effective within a timetabled session.
The chat function enabled participation without requiring verbal contribution, lowering barriers for some students.
The larger cohort allowed for greater variation in emotional scoring across stages.
Cons
Anonymity was partially compromised, as student identifiers were assigned individually via private chat.
Discussion felt more limited, with students requiring additional time before sharing reflections.
The online format felt in tension with the deeply personal nature of the exercise.
Moderation was more challenging, and many embodied or affective cues were lost.
Subtle forms of engagement or disengagement were difficult to perceive.
Data analysis
The dataset is sufficiently large and more nuanced than in smaller-scale iterations.
Emotional variation is clearer across stages, allowing for more reliable comparative analysis.
Once again, in Step 2, Roots dominates responses, reinforcing questions around the framing and weighting of the monitoring tool.
Final reflection
Dataset size significantly affects both analytical depth and ethical dynamics.
Delivering the intervention during class hours increases accessibility and participation.
In-person settings better support emotionally reflective and relational work.
A key unresolved question remains: how can the intervention continue to include those uncomfortable with verbal or visible self-disclosure?
Data analysis is often positioned as a neutral, technical process, yet it is deeply shaped by historical, political, and epistemic power structures. Contemporary data cultures frequently prioritise scale, speed, and prediction, reinforcing forms of abstraction that strip knowledge from its social and relational context. As Warren Neidich argues through the concept of the “Statisticon”, predictive technologies reduce future possibilities into probabilities, encouraging cultural habituation to standardised narratives that resist complexity and uncertainty (Neidich, 2018).
Ch’ixinakax utxiwa: On Practices and Discourses of Decolonization by Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui
This logic mirrors extractivist models more commonly associated with land and resource exploitation. Walter Rodney’s analysis of colonial extractivism demonstrates how underdevelopment is produced through the systematic extraction of labour and resources for external gain (Rodney, 1972). When applied to research and data practices, extractivism describes situations in which knowledge is taken, decontextualised, and repurposed without reciprocity, disproportionately benefiting institutions or researchers while disempowering those from whom the knowledge originates.
Leanne Betasamosake Simpson (photograph). Source: University of Melbourne – Australian Centre for Indigenous Knowledge Systems.
Leanne Betasamosake Simpson extends this critique through the notion of cognitive extractivism, describing the extraction of Indigenous ideas into economic or symbolic capital while severing them from the relationships that give them meaning (Simpson, 2017). Similarly, Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui highlights how epistemic extractivism operates through academic citation economies, where Indigenous and decolonial knowledge is consumed in “regurgitated” forms that reinforce hierarchical structures of legitimacy (Rivera Cusicanqui, 2012).
Within data analysis, these dynamics are intensified by big data paradigms that privilege pattern recognition over situated meaning. As Giorgia Lupi notes, the dominance of quantitative abstraction risks producing data systems devoid of humanity, where uncertainty, subjectivity, and lived experience are systematically excluded (Lupi, 2017).
My work is positioned as a critical response to these extractive tendencies. Rather than treating data as a raw material to be mined, I approach it as relational and narrative, foregrounding emotional trajectories, positionality, and context. By resisting purely extractive logics, my practice seeks to reframe data analysis as an ethical, situated act of storytelling rather than a neutral process of reduction.
14 students from the MA Applied Imagination, CSM, Creative Enterprise programme 3-hour session: 1.5-hour lecture, 15-minute break, 1 hour 15 minutes for the intervention
The session was structured in two parts: a lecture on data analysis, followed by an intervention designed to translate theoretical concepts into an experiential exercise.
Part One: Lecture on Data Analysis
The lecture introduced key conceptual frameworks around data, analysis, and representation. It roughly included:
Data reflects complex realities, but is often reduced and oversimplified when analysed and visualised.
Predictive technologies and big data standardise information and shape behaviour.
Big Data prioritises patterns over individual meaning or context.
Common data visualisation practices favour speed and clarity over nuance and complexity.
Extractivism in data and research reproduces unequal power relations by taking knowledge without reciprocity.
This theoretical grounding set the critical angle for the intervention that followed.
The data analysis began optimistically; the lowest score for the snapshot opener was 2.
The turning point emerged as overall negative.
Between ‘Now’ and ‘Forward glance’ Scores shifted notably, for example from 5 → 0 and 0 → 5. Hopes and anxiety for the future?
These early patterns highlighted emotional trajectories that were not immediately visible prior to the exercise. It also contextualised their story within other people’s.
Second Stage of Data Analysis
Observations from students
DEI forms do not reflect much personal information.
What remains is largely focused on past life. This information is crucial, but it does not represent complexity.
My identity feels flattened.
Roots refers to where you are coming from, not where you are headed.
We do not necessarily consider our starting point as something that permeates our lives at all times.
I want to have a sense of agency; I can turn things around.
There is a sense of otherness when filling in a DEI form. Often I have to add “other” because my ethnicity is not listed.
I feel like I am looking at myself the way I am being looked at.
These reflections revealed tensions between lived experience and institutional modes of categorisation.
Why is there such an emphasis on background?
These forms act as a benchmark for and from the government.
Background defines you.
Only 17 Iranian students are recorded when there are over 80 million people; the success rate feels low.
Background checking.
Motivations for Selecting “Prefer Not to Say”
Privacy.
To avoid rejection.
When there is no straightforward answer, it is sometimes the quickest decision.
Often I go back and forth about whether I am comfortable disclosing certain information.
When there is no other option.
Selecting “white man” might exclude me from an opportunity.
Revised Plan: Adjustments
Following reflection on the intervention, several revisions were identified:
Some students experienced difficulty accessing the spreadsheet on their phones; ensuring all participants have access to a laptop is necessary.
If a student does not have a laptop, they should borrow one from a peer or from me, ensuring they are not sharing personal data.
Further consideration is needed on how to collect data from those not participating in the discussion without over-engineering the intervention.
It is also important to avoid over-extracting information from students.
My PGCert action research project adopts a qualitative, practice-based methodology that foregrounds lived experience, reflexivity and institutional critique. The research design combines creative and collaborative autoethnography, document analysis and field notes, allowing different layers of experience, policy and observation to be examined in relation to one another.
Creative Autoethnography
The first phase of the intervention draws on creative autoethnography, positioning personal narrative as a legitimate site of knowledge production. Students write a personal narrative and translate their own life stories into data visualisation using structured prompts, moving from formative experiences to present identity and future orientation. The focus is on their emotional trajectory. This method aligns with creative autoethnography’s emphasis on embodied, evocative storytelling as a way of making sense of experience within wider cultural and educational contexts (Ellis and Bochner, 2006).
Collaborative Autoethnography
The second phase employs collaborative autoethnography, shifting from individual reflection to collective sense-making. This dialogic process reflects collaborative autoethnography’s capacity to surface shared tensions and institutional constraints through collective reflection (Arnold and Norton, 2021). Students collectively compare their narrative infographics with the information requested in a UAL Equality, Diversity and Inclusion monitoring form. By removing elements of their stories that were not represented in the form, they identified gaps between lived experience and institutional categorisation.
Document Analysis
Document analysis is used to critically examine the DEI monitoring form as an institutional artefact. Treating the document as a social text enables questions of representation, omission and standardisation to emerge, situating personal narratives in relation to policy language and bureaucratic structures (Bowen, 2009).
Field Notes and Post-Intervention Reflection
Finally, field notes are used after the intervention to record observations, affective responses and emerging tensions. These notes function as a reflexive account of the research process, acknowledging the partial, situated and interpretive nature of observation in educational settings (Jones et al., 2010).
Bibliography
Arnold, L. and Norton, L. (2021) ‘Problematising pedagogical action research in formal teaching courses and academic development: a collaborative autoethnography’, Educational Action Research, 29(2), pp. 328–345.
Bowen, G.A. (2009) ‘Document analysis as a qualitative research method’, Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), pp. 27–40.
Ellis, C. and Bochner, A.P. (2006) ‘Analyzing analytic autoethnography’, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), pp. 429–449.
Jones, L., Holmes, R., MacRae, C. and MacLure, M. (2010) ‘Documenting classroom life: how can I write about what I am seeing?’, Qualitative Research, 10(4), pp. 479–491.
Action research is often described as a spiral, foregrounding the ongoing relationship between action, observation, reflection and revision. In this blog post, I draw a parallel between this methodological structure and my own research process, questioning where the spiral meaningfully begins and how its stages overlap in practice. Here, observing and acting are often entangled, and each revised plan emerges as both an outcome and a new point of departure.
What is my starting point in the Action Research Spiral?
In my experience, both O’Leary and Kemmis & McTaggart’s elements are relevant: first, the breakdown of act and observe (even though both are present in the testing of the intervention). From the latter, I found it helpful to embed the ‘Revised Plan’ within the spiral to separate reflection from consequential planning.
My own action research spiral:
1st Intervention
Observe (research / data collection)
Positionality is often not supported in ways that allow students to participate without exposing themselves in the classroom, and it’s not necessarily contextualised within the institution in which they’re situated.
Data: UAL Equality Diversity and Inclusion Data report 2024
Reflect (critical reflexivity)
IP Reflective Report
Intervention Aims:
To promote inclusive learning by validating lived experience as an important site of academic inquiry, particularly for those navigating intersecting identities and systems.
To address the choice of exposure when discussing one’s own positionality, and take into consideration the emotional labour implied.
To reframe how DEI data is being collected and analysed.
Plan ( strategic action plan)
In-depth development of the workshop
Outline of methods/methodology of research
Outline of data collection strategy
Setting up the session with the course team
Comms to share with students beforehand
Act (implementation)
Students will translate their personal narratives into heatmaps shared in real time with the whole class.
Observe (research/data collection)
Students will delete from the heat map the parts that the DEI monitoring form doesn’t cover.
Reflect (critical reflexivity)
Students will collectively reflect on their own experiential knowledge and the context of institutionalised education.
Researcher’s input
Post-workshop data collection on students’ experience
Data visualisation + analysis
Reflection on overall process and students and staff’s feedback and testimonies.
— Revised Plan
2nd Intervention
Plan
Act
Observe
Reflect
— Revised Plan
3rd Intervention
Plan
Act
Observe
Reflect
— Revised Plan
I then developed a draft of the mapping of my Action Research Spiral:
This blog post isn’t part of summative submission.
The Intervention Information Sheet was sent to students one week before testing the intervention. It provides an overview of the purpose of the study, what participation involves (including right to withdraw), how data will be anonymised at the point of collection, wellbeing considerations, and the use and dissemination of findings.
As part of this intervention, participants were provided with a consent form outlining the scope of the research, their role within it, and their rights as contributors. The form ensures that participation is fully informed and voluntary, clarifying how data will be used, anonymised, and disseminated, as well as participants’ right to withdraw at any stage without disadvantage.
Following feedback from my ARP tutor, I further developed the Ethical Action Plan. These were the main points addressed:
I moved content relating to the intervention into earlier sections to provide greater clarity on my actions.
Defined the working title.
Referenced relevant UAL documents.
Mapped my actions against the stages of the action research cycle.
Clarified whether participants can opt in or opt out, whether participation is voluntary or part of the curriculum, and the implications of opting out, such as attendance.
Included more information about the student cohort and proposed participant numbers.
Identified practical UAL resources, links, and support services to signpost participants to.
Clarified the collection of physical data such as paper questionnaires and digital data such as interview recordings, including how data will be stored securely and destroyed after use.
Reflected on the ethical considerations related to my role as the researcher.
The development of the Ethical Action Plan further consolidated the framing of my research question:
How might choice-based and abstracted approaches to positionality enable students to engage critically without being compelled into disclosure within institutional DEI frameworks?
Diversity work could be described as a phenomenological practice: a way of attending to what gets passed over as routine or an ordinary feature of institutional life.
Ahmed, Sara. On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life
Introduction
What gets lost in translation when a multidimensional being encounters an institution that is doing DEI work that needs to be quantified and measured? What are the opportunities, challenges and risks?
My focus on storytelling spans from self-narration to investigative journalism, the individual in relation to one another, and the individual in relation to the collective. My teaching is across institutions, courses, and modules. In what are all either non- or multidisciplinary contexts, there’s an inevitable emphasis on students leading the direction of their own journey, exploring not only who they are but who they could become. Facilitating this self-exploratory journey is an honour and an immense responsibility.
I’m a white person with no physical disability, and I’m fairly comfortable with the gender assigned to me at birth. I’m also queer, neurodivergent, with another condition classified as a disability (which I’m not comfortable disclosing), and I grew up in a low-income household with little to no access to financial support. All these factors shaped challenges, but also the unquantifiable privilege of being invisible. I have had, at times, the possibility of trading anonymity for safety. I am aware that not everyone is being presented with this choice.
We are asking students to locate their practice often based on proximity to narratives, to interrogate their work with their own positionality. A necessary exercise, it is often not facilitated in a way that allows students to participate without exposing themselves in the classroom, and it’s not necessarily contextualised within the institution they’re in. The intervention can’t be a solution to infrastructure, it’s a heartfelt attempt to open questions and foster reflection in the classroom that are as nuanced as the demographics I have the pleasure of working with. Positionality stories must be practiced critically and carefully; they are not casual attempts at empathy or identification (Cedillo & Bratta, 2019).
Context
The proposed intervention is part of a lecture and workshop I will be holding at the MA Applied Imagination (Creative Enterprise Programme), where I’m Associate lecturer. Students will be approaching the last unit of the course, it will be an opportunity for self-narration and contextualisation now that they will be presenting their work, and their relationship to their work, to teaching staff, their peers, and relevant industry professionals, both during their showcase and final summative assessment.
The workshop is planned to be part of a three-hour session:
15 mins: welcome and introduction
45 mins: lecture
15 mins break
1h: workshop
45 mins: discussion & feedback
The utility of the intervention is to promote inclusive learning by validating lived experience as an important site of academic inquiry, particularly for those navigating intersecting identities and systems. It addresses the choice of exposure (whenever possible) when discussing one’s own positionality, and takes into consideration the emotional labour implied. It also reframes how DEI data is being collected and analysed. The design of the intervention is also deeply informed by Data Humanism, a movement led by Giorgia Lupi, emphasising the need to include more qualitative and nuanced aspects of data. Jheni Arboine and Siobhan Clay’s Data Workshop’ also has been enlightening.
Inclusive Learning
I actively engage students in debates surrounding identity, socio-political contexts, and emerging forms of critical creativity. The intervention foregrounds storytelling and dialogue as technologies of reflection, allowing students to surface learning edges and explore how their identities are negotiated across social contexts. Ultimately, the workshop encourages a more nuanced understanding of self-narration, highlighting its vulnerability, ethics, and potential for collective insight.
Selfhood can be understood as narrative—we perceive ourselves as protagonists in our own stories, stories we long to share and have reflected back to us. Our identities, are not constructed in isolation but emerge relationally (Cavarero, 2000). These narratives, however, are profoundly influenced by the social norms and conditions within which we exist. Ethical reflection involves critically examining how these norms and conditions inform our sense of self and our responsibilities toward others (Butler, 2025). Personal narratives within academic discourse serve as a powerful method of addressing the lived realities of marginalised, racialised, and gendered groups, ensuring that these experiences are represented and validated (Green, 2025). Storytelling is not only about understanding one’s identity but also about actively engaging in the politics of representation and visibility (Jones & Harris, 2019).
This process needs to be contextualised within an institution’s diversity work. Education’s shift to an efficiency model has involved a cultural and technical shift: the introduction of a set of disciplinary technologies for judging the efficiency and accountability of educational organisations. (Lyotard, 2005). An efficiency model implies measurement of equality, inclusion and diversity. As Sara Ahmed puts it, ‘What are the political implications of this shift? What does it mean to be good at equality or diversity, or for equality or diversity to be a measure of the good?’ (Ahmed, 2012).
Sexual orientation: 19% to 21% students (Home and Overseas), declared ‘Prefer not to say’ under this section. Should we expand the vocabulary? Is it something they’re currently exploring? Do they feel unsafe or uncomfortable sharing their sexual orientation?
Disability. There is a substantial difference between the proportion of Home and International students who declare they are disabled. 25% to 30% for Home students, and 5% to 7% for International students. Is this difference due to lack of access, or lack of diagnosis?
Disability breakdown: 34% of students with a disability declare ‘other or multiple impairments’. Should we ask more nuanced questions? What prompts a student to choose ‘other’, when aware of a disability?
Reflection
I’ve already delivered the first part of the intervention, which is now revised. Students, after a lecture on self-narration, completed the task of writing text, scoring the different points and developing an arc of narration as an infographic. When I asked this group of students whether they’d be more comfortable sharing the text they wrote or the line resulted, they overwhelmingly preferred the second option. Only one student out of 23 said they would prefer the first option.
I’ve received positive feedback from my colleagues, but they have also flagged risks and challenges (addressed below). Most of the feedback I received has been on expanding and clarifying the practical aspects of this intervention, and how this sits within the course curriculum and the programme (Creative Enterprise). Those who shared feedback with me have had the occasion to work with me already, so I will further include feedback from a range of professionals who have a less biased perspective.
Equality and inclusion monitoring collect the very data that makes progress visible and quantifiable. It is of immense value to signpost what needs to be addressed and whether policies and strategies have impact. But intersectionality isn’t a sum of all factors; it’s to acknowledge the unrepeatable essence in which identity and experience meet one another.
Challenges:
This intervention is heavily reliant on a visual process and output. I should be aware of students with visual impairment beforehand, but not all students with a visual impairment are diagnosed.
I’m asking students to rate events from 0 to 6, which is presenting a challenge for students who have dyscalculia.
This isn’t an occasion for pitting students against the institution they’re in, as it ultimately is holding space for this conversation and interrogation to happen.
Risks:
Students will be asked to look back and look forward in their journey. This is still opening up reflections on what could be negative feelings or potentially traumatic memories. I will remind students that this needs to be an event that fostered positive growth in them. I will also share an outline of the session beforehand, including an outline of the tasks they will be asked to work on and the subjects covered.
Action
I propose embedding this intervention systematically at strategic reflective points within the curriculum, specifically at moments when students are preparing for external critique or assessment. While initially developed for MA Applied Imagination students, the flexibility and emphasis on personal narrative and qualitative data mean it could adapt well across other teaching contexts. In integrating this into my ongoing practice, it reinforces my commitment to a humanistic approach to data collection, aligning institutional DEI objectives with authentic student experiences (Ahmed, 2012; Lupi, 2017).
Evaluation
Through this intervention, I’ve deepened my understanding of the complexities around intersectional identity work within education, particularly how visibility can simultaneously empower and risk student exposure. To evaluate effectiveness, I will utilise anonymous feedback, observational notes, and reflective journals to track changes in students’ confidence and criticality around positionality over time. Success indicators might include enhanced clarity in students’ reflective writing and presentations, increased peer dialogues on positionality, and positive self-assessments from students on their comfort level in engaging in positionality work.
The overall result of the intervention will need to be critically analysed. I found Alice Bradbury Critical Race Theory Framework For Education Policy Analysis helpful, especially ‘Context of practice’, which would be framed not for policy, but for the data collection process:
What is the impact of the *data collection process* on pedagogy and practice? How does the *data collection process* produce practices that result in disparities through seemingly neutral practices? (..)
Conclusion
My understanding of the delicate balance between exposure and empowerment has deepened significantly. My positionality, navigating privilege, marginalisation, visibility, and invisibility, has enhanced the understanding of my responsibility in creating spaces where identity exploration is voluntary, critical, and supportive. Ahmed’s critique of diversity performance profoundly informed my reflection and will inform my outlook on reaffirming the need to advocate for meaningful, nuanced approaches within institutional frameworks. This isn’t about trying to provide anonymity, but choice — when this is possible, and to investigate to what extent choice can be provided and exposure is institutionalised. Exposure can be empowering when informed by a conscious decision rather than enforced.
Moving forward, I will commit to iteratively revisit this intervention, pursuing deeper engagement with critical DEI literature and professional dialogues. I know my lack of experiential knowledge is not something I can replace with literature, and I will carry this awareness in empathetic dialogue and openness to critique.
References
Ahmed, S. (2012) On being included: Racism and diversity in Institutional Life. Durham: Duke University Press.
Cedillo, C.V. and Bratta, P. (2019) ‘Relating our experiences: The practice of positionality stories in student-centered pedagogy’, College Composition & Communication, 71(2), pp. 215–240. doi:10.58680/ccc201930421.
Holman Jones, S.L. and Harris, A.M. (2019) Queering autoethnography. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cavarero, A. (2014) Relating narratives: Storytelling and Selfhood. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.
Butler, J. (2025) Giving an account of oneself. New York: Fordham University Press.
Green, M. (2025) Narrating self, narrating us: Autoethnography in Black Women’s Storytelling, BERA. Available at: https://www.bera.ac.uk/blog/narrating-self-narrating-us-autoethnography-in-black-womens-storytelling (Accessed: 27 May 2025).
Lupi, G. (2017) Data humanism, giorgialupi. Available at: https://giorgialupi.com/data-humanism-my-manifesto-for-a-new-data-wold (Accessed: 15 July 2025).
Lyotard, J.-F. et al. (2005) The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. New York: Manchester University Press.
Del Rosso, E. (2024) Imagining a new journalism: EUROPEAN PRESS FUTURE AT THE UAL, European Press Prize. Available at: https://www.europeanpressprize.com/imagining-a-new-journalism-european-press-future-at-the-ual/ (Accessed: 15 July 2025).
University of the Arts London (2024) EDI Data Report 2024. London: University of the Arts London. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0030/472836/UAL-EDI-data-report-2024-PDFA.pdf (Accessed: 15 July 2025).
Bradbury, A. (2019) ‘A critical race theory framework for education policy analysis: The case of bilingual learners and assessment policy in England’, Race Ethnicity and Education, 23(2), pp. 241–260. doi:10.1080/13613324.2019.1599338.
