Popular in Professional

Culture and Society

The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place

New York University Harvey Moltoch

Education

The Role of Education in Reducing Racial Inequality

University of Southern California Pedro A. Noguera

Law

Diversity and Social Mobility in the UK legal profession

Law Society I. Stephanie Boyce

Internet Law

The Law of AI for Good

University of San Diego Orly Lobel

Pharmacy

Cytotoxic Activity and Anti-Migratory Effect of Berberine-Phytantriol Liquid Crystalline on Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

University of Technology Sydney Kamal Dua

Human Rights Law

Transforming Restorative Justice for Transitional Settings

University of Nottingham Kerry Clamp

Education

Student-staff partnerships at work

View more insights in Professional - Education - Rights, Equality & Justice in Education

View more figures from University of Nottingham

View the page of Charlie Davis

Read the Study

Charlie Davis discusses a participatory action research (PAR) approach as part of student-staff collaboration aimed at co-producing a research-engaged pedagogy to provide vocational students with access to curricular opportunities to develop their academic capabilities.

Image courtesy of interviewee. June 19, 2024

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

This video is a transcript of a presentation discussing a study aimed at addressing issues surrounding widening participation and access to higher education, particularly focusing on students who enter academia through vocational routes such as BTECs in the UK. The presenters, including a mentor from Nottingham Trent University, highlight the misconceptions regarding the academic capabilities of BTEC students, who are often stereotypically viewed as less capable than their A-level peers.

The concept of epistemic injustice, introduced by philosopher Miranda Fricker, is central to the discussion. This video injustice occurs when individuals are perceived as lacking credibility due to stereotypes, leading to testimonial and hermeneutic injustices, which inhibit their ability to access knowledge. The study emphasizes the importance of recognizing and challenging these perceptions to support underrepresented groups, particularly BTEC students, in higher education.

The project involved participants designing a research initiative to explore belonging among students within their institution, utilizing creative, participatory methods. The approach facilitated deeper engagement and helped participants develop confidence in their academic abilities, ultimately fostering a sense of belonging and challenging institutional narratives.

Future research directions proposed include further exploring the use of creative methods to promote understanding among diverse social groups and combat stereotypes that position underrepresented groups against each other. The emphasis remains on building reciprocal relationships, trust, and enabling participants to express their experiences and identities in educational contexts.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.025 --> 00:03.645
The context of the study was that my, my colleague

00:03.645 --> 00:05.285
and I look, our mentor

00:05.435 --> 00:09.645
that works at Nottingham Trent University, we,

00:09.905 --> 00:13.565
we were very much interested in this, the, the, the context

00:14.065 --> 00:17.955
of, widening participation,

00:18.655 --> 00:20.715
and access to higher education.

00:20.975 --> 00:25.935
And the concept of there being a traditional route into,

00:25.935 --> 00:28.335
higher education, which is in the United Kingdom,

00:29.115 --> 00:32.975
is very much associated with, A levels,

00:33.065 --> 00:36.655
which are seen as an academic qualification.

00:38.195 --> 00:41.645
Besides those in the uk we have more vocational

00:42.045 --> 00:44.605
qualifications that can give you access to higher education.

00:45.225 --> 00:48.205
And one of the most common ones is, a BTech,

00:48.205 --> 00:50.885
which is Business and Technology Education Council.

00:51.975 --> 00:54.995
And Luke and I, we're very much,

00:55.295 --> 00:58.115
and Luke's role in particular was very much

00:58.635 --> 01:00.835
involved in thinking about widening access

01:00.855 --> 01:04.715
to higher education for people that are, are seen

01:04.715 --> 01:06.675
as coming from underrepresented social groups

01:06.735 --> 01:10.315
and maybe not having the, the same opportunities

01:10.335 --> 01:13.075
to enter higher education as more privileged individuals.

01:13.735 --> 01:16.435
And one of the things that, that as a part of this

01:16.435 --> 01:19.155
that we were interested in was the, the perceptions

01:19.155 --> 01:23.955
that people had of the academic capabilities of

01:24.515 --> 01:27.635
students that entered academia through BTES.

01:28.075 --> 01:29.235
I did A BTE myself.

01:30.345 --> 01:32.005
Um, and one of the things

01:32.005 --> 01:34.845
that really prompted this work was we would, we would go

01:34.865 --> 01:38.245
to events and we would go to events

01:38.935 --> 01:42.325
where people from certain courses that took in,

01:42.615 --> 01:45.565
large numbers of BTech students would refer

01:45.625 --> 01:47.725
to these students as practical.

01:48.705 --> 01:52.565
The assumption being that they, this, this notion

01:52.765 --> 01:54.805
of them being practical, the assumption was

01:54.805 --> 01:57.845
that they weren't academic, therefore not being academic.

01:58.795 --> 02:03.485
They were somehow to, to us that communicated this idea

02:03.545 --> 02:07.125
of them being less epistemically credible.

02:07.505 --> 02:09.605
Um, that, and what I mean by that is the sense

02:09.605 --> 02:12.925
that the knowledge that they had lack a sense

02:12.925 --> 02:16.165
of academic credibility because they did a B Tech.

02:16.385 --> 02:19.005
And this constant referring to them

02:19.065 --> 02:21.765
as practical students not interested in theory,

02:22.325 --> 02:25.725
reproduced these, these stereotypes I think of, of, of,

02:25.725 --> 02:30.485
of students that couldn't engage with

02:30.875 --> 02:34.045
what was deemed academic study in the same way that students

02:34.075 --> 02:35.285
that had done A levels.

02:35.905 --> 02:38.125
And we started looking at the work of people like,

02:38.155 --> 02:41.245
like Monica McLean from the University of Nottingham.

02:41.705 --> 02:44.805
Um, and we, we started looking at work that she'd done

02:44.805 --> 02:48.605
with various colleagues in various contexts around this idea

02:48.605 --> 02:51.525
of epistemic credibility in relationship to access

02:51.525 --> 02:52.565
to higher education.

02:53.065 --> 02:56.765
And particularly looking at institutions that,

02:57.785 --> 03:02.505
where we used the term post 92 institutions

03:02.845 --> 03:04.705
to refer to institutions that prior

03:04.705 --> 03:08.065
to 1992 were polytechnics in the United Kingdom.

03:08.925 --> 03:11.825
The assumption, again, being that within polytechnics,

03:11.825 --> 03:14.025
the emphasis was on very vocational knowledge.

03:14.505 --> 03:17.425
Vocational knowledge, not being seen as episte, credible

03:17.605 --> 03:19.705
as academic knowledge, whatever that might be.

03:20.405 --> 03:24.065
Um, so Monica's work then got us thinking about this concept

03:24.205 --> 03:29.135
of epistemic injustice that, that we, see

03:29.135 --> 03:32.815
as originating primarily from our perspective in the,

03:32.815 --> 03:35.455
in the work of, of philosopher Miranda Fricker.

03:35.455 --> 03:37.055
And that was certainly through Monica's work

03:37.055 --> 03:38.255
that we came across this.

03:38.715 --> 03:41.975
And it's the idea that in, in certain situations,

03:41.975 --> 03:43.055
people are,

03:43.605 --> 03:46.455
because of stereotypical characteristics around their,

03:46.585 --> 03:49.415
their identity, that often

03:50.295 --> 03:54.695
speakers will look upon certain individuals as,

03:55.155 --> 03:57.175
as not being credible

03:57.355 --> 03:59.175
or lacking credibility in terms

03:59.175 --> 04:00.615
of the knowledge that they have.

04:01.655 --> 04:04.715
And also, and referring to this as testimonial injustice,

04:04.895 --> 04:07.275
but also there's this idea of hermeneutic injustice,

04:07.365 --> 04:08.915
which is the sense that

04:09.025 --> 04:12.595
because people are perceived in a certain way according

04:12.655 --> 04:14.475
to stereotypes and prejudices,

04:14.505 --> 04:18.895
they're excluded from the possibilities of accessing types

04:18.915 --> 04:21.775
of knowledge to, to understand their situation

04:21.775 --> 04:25.935
and contribute to those pools of knowledge that we draw on

04:25.955 --> 04:29.175
to, to make sense of why people act, think,

04:29.195 --> 04:31.055
and are the way that they seem to be.

04:31.715 --> 04:34.375
And this really resonated with us in terms of,

04:34.475 --> 04:35.735
of BTech students.

04:36.015 --> 04:39.335
'cause we felt that if you look at the, the, the data

04:39.335 --> 04:40.455
around BTech students,

04:41.515 --> 04:44.775
and I as again, just to reemphasize I'm one myself,

04:44.885 --> 04:48.135
there's a likelihood that they're going to come from,

04:48.395 --> 04:50.815
social backgrounds where they haven't had access

04:50.815 --> 04:54.695
to certain types of resources that allow them to partake in,

04:55.885 --> 04:58.545
more privileged forms of education.

04:58.575 --> 04:59.745
It's not always the case,

05:00.045 --> 05:01.665
but there's certainly enough data out

05:01.665 --> 05:02.745
there to show that it is.

05:03.405 --> 05:06.345
And therefore, we felt that by,

05:08.145 --> 05:11.565
by constantly referring to them at this sense of practical,

05:11.625 --> 05:16.095
it was reinforcing these senses that, you know, they, they,

05:16.205 --> 05:19.135
they were deficit in terms of the knowledge that they had,

05:19.595 --> 05:22.415
and it was potentially excluding them from the possibilities

05:22.595 --> 05:24.415
of, of expressing themselves

05:24.515 --> 05:27.295
and knowing themselves in, in, in ways that had to,

05:27.295 --> 05:28.695
they they hadn't come upon.

05:29.745 --> 05:31.485
And another thing subsequently

05:31.485 --> 05:36.045
after this study coming across work, excuse me,

05:36.585 --> 05:41.405
by people like a, Alex Steers Macron in the US that

05:41.965 --> 05:45.165
develops Miranda Riker's idea of epistemic injustice

05:45.225 --> 05:49.855
to include this idea of people being spoken

05:50.035 --> 05:51.815
for by more powerful others.

05:52.825 --> 05:55.125
And every time that we went into one of those sessions

05:55.125 --> 05:57.045
where people were saying, these are our students are

05:57.085 --> 05:58.485
practical, that yeah, we,

05:58.505 --> 06:01.685
we just get 'em hands on practical, we felt

06:02.155 --> 06:06.525
that this was a, this sense, it was academics

06:07.325 --> 06:09.165
speaking for students without asking them whether

06:09.165 --> 06:10.845
or not they saw themselves in that way.

06:11.305 --> 06:14.085
So for us, this, this sense

06:14.085 --> 06:18.405
of epistemic injustice was very much tied up with the way

06:18.405 --> 06:21.325
that that certain groups of students, in this case,

06:21.445 --> 06:24.085
BTH students were represented in the social imagination

06:24.105 --> 06:28.275
and the impact that had on them when they went to try

06:28.275 --> 06:29.435
and access higher education.

06:29.495 --> 06:30.595
And also the, the impact

06:30.595 --> 06:33.635
that had on their experiences in higher education when

06:34.595 --> 06:36.915
possibly people went, those are the BTech students.

06:37.065 --> 06:38.875
They can't do this, they can't do that.

06:38.875 --> 06:43.275
Therefore, we've got to as, as,

06:43.415 --> 06:45.195
one study that Monica was involved in,

06:45.545 --> 06:48.675
they talked about dumbing down the curriculum to, to,

06:48.675 --> 06:50.715
to make it easier in many respects for them,

06:51.185 --> 06:52.395
what I think our work says

06:52.815 --> 06:57.425
and shows is that research engaged

06:57.945 --> 07:01.305
approaches like those that we took have the possibility

07:01.605 --> 07:04.385
to provide, groups of students to

07:06.085 --> 07:09.895
develop knowledge about themselves as well

07:09.895 --> 07:13.375
as the subjects that, that they're studying

07:14.045 --> 07:16.495
through co-production approaches and,

07:16.495 --> 07:18.655
and through collaboration in a way that,

07:19.165 --> 07:23.055
that maybe other approaches, more istic, modularized

07:23.775 --> 07:27.615
approaches that emphasize outcomes possibly don't.

07:27.715 --> 07:30.295
Now, I, you know, I say that with a caveat that

07:31.285 --> 07:35.625
I'm not saying that, that, that that's, absolutely

07:35.685 --> 07:36.985
how things are because I,

07:37.105 --> 07:38.985
I recognize it in different contexts.

07:39.855 --> 07:43.665
Certain situations will affect the extent

07:43.965 --> 07:45.945
to which students experience learning

07:46.255 --> 07:48.105
what they learn, et cetera.

07:48.325 --> 07:49.585
And I also acknowledge that

07:49.585 --> 07:53.105
what we did may possibly not replicate itself

07:53.105 --> 07:54.225
in another situation.

07:54.605 --> 07:57.865
But what I do think that this project showed was,

07:58.085 --> 07:59.345
if I think about the literature,

07:59.345 --> 08:02.465
and particularly the literature around co-production,

08:02.685 --> 08:05.745
so thinking about the work that we drew on heavily for,

08:05.845 --> 08:09.865
people like Sarah Banks, at the University of, of,

08:09.865 --> 08:12.985
of Durham, and particularly the work that she did

08:12.985 --> 08:14.825
with the Imagine Project, which was going out

08:14.825 --> 08:16.785
and working in communities with people.

08:16.885 --> 08:18.665
And I think that's the key to this, is

08:18.665 --> 08:20.665
that you are working with people.

08:20.805 --> 08:25.145
So you, you're, you're in many respects, you, we,

08:25.325 --> 08:28.985
we sought to on set that traditional sort

08:28.985 --> 08:32.105
of teacher student dynamic to try

08:32.105 --> 08:35.385
and create, a space where it was,

08:36.155 --> 08:39.425
where people felt comfortable to, in a, a very simple way

08:39.425 --> 08:44.105
to get, get things wrong, and to explore,

08:44.365 --> 08:47.465
and develop a sense of curiosity around things.

08:48.245 --> 08:50.385
And again, to really emphasize that,

08:50.905 --> 08:52.745
I think the key thing in all this idea about

08:52.745 --> 08:54.905
co-production is the width. So you working

08:55.215 --> 08:59.345
With people, so it was given them, wasn't, wasn't just

08:59.345 --> 09:02.105
that they were given an opportunity to explore something

09:02.105 --> 09:03.745
and potentially learn something about it,

09:03.765 --> 09:06.635
but they were given opportunities to

09:07.185 --> 09:09.475
take the process in the direction that they wanted

09:09.475 --> 09:10.715
to take it in as well,

09:11.135 --> 09:15.985
and become comfortable with the uncertainties that, that

09:15.985 --> 09:18.625
that brought and the uncertainties that, that

09:19.485 --> 09:21.385
the subjects they were looking at brought

09:21.385 --> 09:22.665
and the uncertainties around

09:22.665 --> 09:24.705
what was happening to them as people.

09:25.205 --> 09:27.745
So the ethical dimensions of this were, were massive.

09:28.485 --> 09:32.185
Um, and that was something that I think it contributes to,

09:32.885 --> 09:34.785
to, to work around,

09:34.935 --> 09:37.625
co-production, participatory approaches.

09:38.895 --> 09:40.835
Um, particularly thinking about ethics,

09:40.835 --> 09:43.115
because we were dealing with people's everyday lives.

09:43.255 --> 09:45.515
We were asking them to delve into their memories.

09:46.095 --> 09:47.955
We were asking them to deal with subjects

09:47.955 --> 09:50.475
that were quite personal, like belonging,

09:50.775 --> 09:52.795
and what that actually meant to them.

09:53.215 --> 09:55.515
Um, and as we saw on several occasions

09:55.545 --> 09:58.115
that it prompted people to, to go back

09:58.215 --> 09:59.435
to episodes in their lives

09:59.435 --> 10:04.155
and to visit places that were quite, yeah, it,

10:04.155 --> 10:05.795
unsettling is the right word to use

10:05.795 --> 10:07.995
because it, it, it brought back things

10:08.105 --> 10:09.355
that they hadn't thought about,

10:09.895 --> 10:14.065
but it also, through the project,

10:16.645 --> 10:19.725
prompted them to reimagine it in different ways as well.

10:19.985 --> 10:22.405
So they were developing knowledge about concepts

10:22.405 --> 10:25.205
and about ideas, and it was making them look at things

10:25.715 --> 10:28.375
that they possibly taken for granted in different ways.

10:28.635 --> 10:32.375
And I've seen in subsequent work that I've done using,

10:32.375 --> 10:36.255
similar approaches that that, that that can happen

10:36.315 --> 10:39.655
and will, will happen when you are situating people's

10:39.975 --> 10:42.735
everyday lives as sites of critiquing analysis.

10:42.875 --> 10:43.935
So that, I think that's a

10:43.935 --> 10:45.495
major contribution that the work made.

10:46.725 --> 10:49.945
Um, I also think a major contribution that it,

10:49.945 --> 10:53.665
that it made was that we did see the group of people,

10:53.665 --> 10:55.785
when I have to emphasize the, the, the students

10:55.785 --> 10:57.865
that we worked with were not BTE students.

10:57.935 --> 10:59.825
They were designing the process

11:00.045 --> 11:02.425
for B Tech students while being immersed in a social

11:02.705 --> 11:03.705
research context.

11:04.045 --> 11:06.785
So they were learning how to do social research,

11:06.845 --> 11:08.985
and as they were learning how to do the social research,

11:09.135 --> 11:12.105
they were developing the similar program for, for the btex.

11:13.175 --> 11:15.945
What we saw with that group of people was that

11:16.565 --> 11:18.985
in different ways,

11:19.205 --> 11:22.105
and there was seven, seven participants each, each one

11:22.105 --> 11:24.905
of them in different ways developed what we,

11:24.925 --> 11:28.065
we might call intellectual confidence, epistemic confidence

11:28.885 --> 11:31.785
to, to actually think of themselves in a way

11:31.785 --> 11:33.705
that they hadn't thought of before the project.

11:34.085 --> 11:38.755
So for example, at least two of them

11:39.855 --> 11:42.825
pointed out that doing the project prompted them to,

11:43.325 --> 11:47.225
to think about postgraduate study, as something

11:47.225 --> 11:49.385
that was within their, their grasp,

11:49.525 --> 11:53.025
of their capabilities, rather in a, in a way that possibly

11:53.045 --> 11:54.925
before the project, they'd never thought of that,

11:55.105 --> 11:58.045
or as being something they could do or,

11:58.145 --> 12:02.285
or even something seemingly sort of every day is

12:03.205 --> 12:04.325
contributing to seminars or,

12:04.345 --> 12:06.485
or making presentations for, for some of the groups.

12:06.485 --> 12:07.765
That was something that they struggled with.

12:08.345 --> 12:13.265
Um, and they said that they felt through the project

12:14.685 --> 12:17.655
that they actually had something that was worth listening

12:17.755 --> 12:19.975
to in terms of what they had to say.

12:20.395 --> 12:22.735
And again, and another person as well was the,

12:23.135 --> 12:25.215
'cause we worked with undergraduates at different points

12:25.555 --> 12:28.605
and their, their, degrees,

12:29.225 --> 12:30.725
and they were all different degrees.

12:30.945 --> 12:33.605
And we had one, one post grad that was moving into

12:33.785 --> 12:37.805
to employment and a very prestigious,

12:38.995 --> 12:41.565
area, of, of law.

12:42.305 --> 12:45.405
And they came from, again,

12:45.405 --> 12:47.405
an underrepresented background

12:47.785 --> 12:51.565
or, in terms of their social class and their ethnicity,

12:51.565 --> 12:52.965
and they were really, really worried about

12:52.965 --> 12:54.045
getting into that environment.

12:54.155 --> 12:55.205
It's, you know, I think it's fair

12:55.205 --> 12:59.405
to say in the social imagination, the, the law courts,

12:59.405 --> 13:02.405
in particularly the bar somewhere that's associated with,

13:02.665 --> 13:06.205
privilege, and we've, we've seen it on TV recently.

13:06.905 --> 13:08.165
We read about it all the time.

13:08.545 --> 13:09.725
But this person felt

13:09.725 --> 13:12.045
that doing the project had given them a, I think the,

13:12.105 --> 13:13.885
the expression they used was a greater sense

13:13.885 --> 13:17.685
of belonging in themself to go into that environment and,

13:17.705 --> 13:19.405
and, and thrive potentially.

13:19.785 --> 13:22.965
So I, I, I think, that is, that is where

13:23.545 --> 13:25.205
con contributions lie.

13:25.385 --> 13:28.965
And I think it's always with a caveat that, that

13:29.625 --> 13:33.605
the po the potential outcomes of this were very much to do

13:33.605 --> 13:35.165
with the, the time the space

13:35.165 --> 13:36.525
and the people that were involved.

13:36.585 --> 13:39.085
And I've seen with other projects that I've done that

13:39.795 --> 13:43.005
time space, and people are, will actually

13:43.835 --> 13:45.685
play a major factor and the,

13:45.825 --> 13:49.125
and the extent to which something can be sort of deemed,

13:49.605 --> 13:51.405
I don't, I don't wanna use the word successful,

13:51.405 --> 13:53.005
but whether it plays out the way that you,

13:53.065 --> 13:54.605
you thought it was going to play out.

13:54.705 --> 13:57.725
And I think in with this group of people,

13:57.755 --> 14:00.845
they were genuinely, really, really committed to,

14:01.345 --> 14:03.245
to the project because they were all

14:03.955 --> 14:07.725
working in widening access context as student,

14:07.985 --> 14:09.045
ambassadors.

14:09.625 --> 14:12.885
Um, but a very, very different group in terms of,

14:13.225 --> 14:14.805
backgrounds.

14:15.625 --> 14:16.765
Um, and to,

14:16.905 --> 14:19.245
and thinking about identity characteristics as well.

14:19.265 --> 14:22.085
So it was an all female group, different ages,

14:22.085 --> 14:25.085
different courses, different years, different,

14:25.155 --> 14:26.805
ethnicities within, in the groups,

14:26.805 --> 14:28.725
different social class backgrounds as well.

14:28.985 --> 14:32.485
But the commonality that they had was a commitment to,

14:32.965 --> 14:34.765
widening access work.

14:35.345 --> 14:36.765
The, the project was a bit,

14:36.785 --> 14:38.165
it was a bit like a research project

14:38.165 --> 14:39.405
within a research project.

14:39.515 --> 14:43.165
Yeah. So it was a, an immersive participatory approach.

14:43.265 --> 14:46.525
So essentially what we, we, we asked the, the participants

14:46.625 --> 14:50.725
to do it was to engage in a piece of research,

14:51.145 --> 14:54.005
Social research that they came up with.

14:54.425 --> 14:57.005
Yep. And as they were doing that social research,

14:57.045 --> 15:01.405
thinking about how they would develop a similar process

15:02.505 --> 15:04.165
to support BTech students.

15:05.655 --> 15:08.835
Now, I think maybe one of the group, maybe two,

15:09.055 --> 15:11.875
had done anything resembling social research before.

15:11.895 --> 15:15.195
So we had somebody from fashion, somebody from law,

15:16.385 --> 15:18.945
somebody from education, somebody,

15:20.335 --> 15:21.435
was from social work.

15:21.735 --> 15:23.995
So they, they all came from very different backgrounds,

15:23.995 --> 15:27.035
very little experience, certainly no experience doing

15:27.555 --> 15:28.995
participatory work of this nature.

15:29.575 --> 15:32.635
So again, thinking about Sarah Banks's work, we embraced

15:32.705 --> 15:35.475
what they refer to as a spirit of, of research.

15:35.775 --> 15:40.235
So what we didn't want was to replicate a method,

15:40.495 --> 15:42.475
course that they would get on their degree.

15:42.895 --> 15:44.035
We didn't have time for that.

15:44.375 --> 15:48.875
So we, we set up a series of five, six evening,

15:49.735 --> 15:50.835
sessions.

15:51.375 --> 15:52.875
We brought everybody in.

15:53.375 --> 15:56.155
Um, first session was about

15:56.985 --> 16:00.555
outlining expectations we had of the project of each other,

16:00.695 --> 16:02.195
how we were going to work, et cetera,

16:02.465 --> 16:03.635
what we needed them to do.

16:04.015 --> 16:09.005
And then I think the sec, the second session was around,

16:09.985 --> 16:12.985
you know, looking at,

16:13.165 --> 16:16.905
at different studies that were doing similar things

16:16.965 --> 16:19.785
and thinking about what, what they said about the,

16:19.805 --> 16:21.105
the project,

16:21.485 --> 16:26.175
and how they could actually work with those sources to,

16:26.235 --> 16:27.375
to form their own project.

16:27.375 --> 16:30.015
Project. What I should say, sorry, at this point is

16:30.015 --> 16:34.815
that the focus of their project was, developing,

16:35.115 --> 16:38.615
a sense of what belonging meant

16:38.915 --> 16:42.135
to different students in the institution that they,

16:42.285 --> 16:45.095
they were all situated within, which was in the,

16:45.675 --> 16:48.255
the Midlands of, England.

16:48.435 --> 16:51.375
And again, it was a, a post 92 institution.

16:51.375 --> 16:54.495
And the reason for that idea around belonging was it's,

16:54.495 --> 16:57.895
it's it, and now it's, it's still a, a, a very, very,

16:58.405 --> 17:01.495
very popular topic and higher education.

17:01.555 --> 17:03.055
And, and then it was as well,

17:03.315 --> 17:06.695
but there was a sense that sometimes maybe institutions,

17:06.715 --> 17:10.335
the, the representation of belonging that they shared

17:10.365 --> 17:11.855
with the outside world,

17:11.995 --> 17:16.295
and that image of student belonging maybe wasn't actually

17:16.595 --> 17:19.095
how some students were experiencing belonging.

17:19.715 --> 17:20.855
So that was the idea.

17:21.115 --> 17:24.535
So their project was to get at, in a way,

17:25.195 --> 17:27.895
how different students felt about their sense

17:27.895 --> 17:29.375
of belonging in the institution.

17:29.435 --> 17:31.735
So they looked at literature, they looked at studies

17:31.735 --> 17:34.855
that did this, and then they came up with a way

17:34.915 --> 17:36.415
of generating data.

17:38.005 --> 17:40.385
Um, and we went through the ethics process.

17:41.005 --> 17:45.465
And their way of generating data was very creative,

17:46.285 --> 17:49.065
in the sense that they created,

17:49.435 --> 17:53.725
what they called initially graffiti walls, which turned out

17:53.785 --> 17:57.485
to be, walls that they created in parts

17:57.485 --> 17:59.605
of the institution where there's a lot of footfall.

18:00.225 --> 18:02.845
And they asked students, what does it mean to belong?

18:02.865 --> 18:05.605
And students posted their answers.

18:05.705 --> 18:08.605
And for the students that weren't comfortable putting it up

18:08.605 --> 18:10.485
on the board, they put it into to boxes.

18:10.795 --> 18:12.965
Once that was done, we had a session around,

18:12.965 --> 18:15.765
how are you going to anana, analyze this data?

18:16.345 --> 18:17.565
So they looked at all the data

18:17.565 --> 18:20.165
that they got from these different, different,

18:21.365 --> 18:22.995
cards from the different locations.

18:23.615 --> 18:26.595
And we went through very light touch.

18:27.315 --> 18:31.415
I, we went through a, a very light touch

18:32.455 --> 18:34.255
introduction to thematic analysis,

18:34.255 --> 18:37.375
because it just felt that's a, a really accessible way

18:37.375 --> 18:39.175
for everyone to start thinking about this.

18:39.475 --> 18:42.095
And what they did was they went through the work,

18:42.335 --> 18:44.815
thinking about some of the literature that they'd looked at,

18:45.395 --> 18:48.375
and identifying the themes that that came out of it.

18:48.395 --> 18:50.335
But the whole time that they were doing this,

18:50.335 --> 18:52.415
they were thinking about how would we do this

18:52.415 --> 18:53.455
with the BTech students?

18:54.475 --> 18:56.055
Um, so there was two things going on.

18:56.055 --> 18:57.175
They were doing their own research

18:57.175 --> 18:58.335
to find out about belonging,

18:58.355 --> 19:01.695
but also thinking about how they, they designed this

19:01.875 --> 19:04.655
and we're looking at, I came in, was to guide them

19:05.445 --> 19:07.705
and was to support them through this process.

19:08.685 --> 19:12.185
Um, which was interesting for us in many respects,

19:12.365 --> 19:14.305
and interesting for the participants as well,

19:14.305 --> 19:18.055
because you're dealing with, perceptions

19:18.075 --> 19:22.295
of particular roles that have been in place for many years

19:22.325 --> 19:24.615
through, schooling.

19:25.435 --> 19:27.815
And no matter how much we tried, we come in

19:27.815 --> 19:29.455
and we were like, yeah, we're, we're gonna work

19:29.455 --> 19:30.495
with you, no problem.

19:31.475 --> 19:35.815
It took a while for that to break down so that we were seen

19:35.815 --> 19:36.815
as guiding them

19:36.915 --> 19:38.855
and learning worth them and learning from them.

19:39.415 --> 19:41.775
A big thing I would, seems so insignificant,

19:41.915 --> 19:44.535
but the, the, one of the biggest things for us was the fact

19:44.535 --> 19:48.785
that when we, we spoke to the participants, they said,

19:48.785 --> 19:52.505
the first couple of sessions, they found it hard to accept

19:52.735 --> 19:55.665
that we were committed to our intentions of co-production,

19:55.775 --> 19:59.945
because we automatically, as teachers came into the front

19:59.945 --> 20:02.505
of the room, put PowerPoint slides up,

20:02.815 --> 20:05.545
something isn't seemingly insignificant to that, as

20:05.545 --> 20:06.945
that was, was massive

20:07.335 --> 20:09.465
because it reproduced the notions of,

20:09.485 --> 20:10.785
of power differentials.

20:11.085 --> 20:14.145
And that what actually shifted that was when we sat down

20:14.685 --> 20:15.745
at the table with them

20:15.745 --> 20:19.025
and they said, that was the point that where we felt your,

20:19.695 --> 20:21.945
that, that you were being true to your intentions.

20:21.965 --> 20:24.745
And, and so really we were there

20:24.745 --> 20:26.105
to guide them through that process.

20:26.405 --> 20:30.245
And then one of the, one of the things that they decided

20:30.345 --> 20:34.005
to do with the findings from that project was to create

20:34.605 --> 20:38.645
a series of zines, so DIY

20:39.285 --> 20:42.525
magazines, because they wanted to put the findings out there

20:43.345 --> 20:46.985
within the institution and beyond, without

20:47.425 --> 20:50.715
Them being seen as attached

20:50.975 --> 20:53.835
to an institutional narrative around belonging,

20:53.835 --> 20:55.875
because in many respects, it contested

20:56.345 --> 20:58.555
what was in the brochures, what was on the website.

20:59.835 --> 21:04.375
So we provided them with opportunities to, to go to,

21:04.875 --> 21:07.735
an arts-based hub in Nottingham

21:07.735 --> 21:09.095
where they learned how to do this.

21:10.085 --> 21:14.545
And the unfortunate thing is that didn't manifest itself

21:14.545 --> 21:19.065
because that was around the end of, of term time.

21:19.445 --> 21:21.225
And some of them, the,

21:21.325 --> 21:23.745
the participants were graduating as well.

21:24.565 --> 21:28.905
Um, but the findings from the project got written up

21:30.095 --> 21:31.425
into a series of,

21:31.425 --> 21:36.265
or into a report that, that advocated for this approach

21:36.805 --> 21:40.945
as a way of augmenting study skills approaches

21:40.945 --> 21:42.505
that were already in, in place.

21:42.725 --> 21:45.065
So using research engaged approaches to,

21:45.085 --> 21:49.105
to support students develop, academic confidence.

21:49.685 --> 21:52.505
And my reflections on it was,

21:53.145 --> 21:55.705
'cause I'd done, for my thesis, I'd done something similar

21:56.325 --> 21:59.425
and the group didn't work in the thesis if I can compare

21:59.445 --> 22:00.465
my work with the thesis.

22:00.525 --> 22:02.385
So I worked with, I worked with a group

22:02.585 --> 22:04.785
of primary school teachers from the same school,

22:04.965 --> 22:06.825
and we did the work in their school,

22:07.445 --> 22:08.665
and they all knew one another.

22:09.405 --> 22:12.745
Um, and the idea again, was to get them to think about

22:12.845 --> 22:16.145
how stories about teachers related to the, the stories

22:16.145 --> 22:18.825
that they told themselves to gain a sense of

22:18.825 --> 22:20.545
who they were or who they were becoming.

22:21.005 --> 22:24.105
And, and it asks you to, to be really Yeah.

22:24.215 --> 22:27.265
Asks you to open up quite a bit and, and,

22:27.265 --> 22:30.425
and engage with the idea of sharing and interrogating and,

22:30.445 --> 22:33.585
and the possibility of, of rethinking something

22:33.585 --> 22:35.305
that you took for granted as being true.

22:35.765 --> 22:39.265
So with the primary school teachers, from a thesis,

22:39.895 --> 22:42.025
they shut down pretty much.

22:42.765 --> 22:44.425
Uh, and what came outta that was

22:45.255 --> 22:46.965
there wasn't enough difference in the group,

22:47.425 --> 22:49.045
the hierarchy within the school.

22:49.345 --> 22:51.925
It was impossible to, to take that outta the group.

22:52.795 --> 22:55.375
So social relations within the school were reproduced

22:55.375 --> 22:56.455
in the inquiry site.

22:56.455 --> 23:00.815
Whereas with this work, even though they all worked

23:01.315 --> 23:04.735
for the, the widening access team,

23:04.825 --> 23:08.685
which is now under a different name, they, none

23:08.685 --> 23:10.205
of them really knew each other.

23:10.595 --> 23:12.445
They all, as I said, came, they all had,

23:12.445 --> 23:15.285
there was differences in terms of their demographics,

23:15.285 --> 23:16.885
their identity characteristics.

23:17.465 --> 23:19.565
The courses were different that they were on,

23:19.755 --> 23:21.045
they were on different years.

23:22.345 --> 23:25.685
And I think that was vital in all of this, is that,

23:25.905 --> 23:27.645
you know, you can have similarities

23:27.665 --> 23:30.485
and actually work that I've done since then where academics

23:30.485 --> 23:31.485
that identify as being

23:31.485 --> 23:35.285
of working class origins pr well showed the same thing.

23:35.555 --> 23:37.405
It's like, you can have that commonality,

23:38.065 --> 23:41.215
but you need differences within the group

23:41.395 --> 23:44.695
to generate those moments of rupture, of

23:44.695 --> 23:46.725
Tension, or whatever you want to call it,

23:46.755 --> 23:50.685
that leads people to, to ask questions, to

23:51.435 --> 23:52.445
find things out.

23:52.555 --> 23:55.125
Whereas with the primary school teachers that I worked with

23:56.275 --> 24:00.045
that wasn't there because their lives were so entangled

24:00.045 --> 24:04.765
through their everyday situatedness in that school, which is

24:04.765 --> 24:06.605
where it happened,

24:06.605 --> 24:08.605
that they just couldn't get away from that.

24:08.665 --> 24:11.205
And actually, at the end of that particular study,

24:11.225 --> 24:13.085
the teacher said to me, you need

24:13.085 --> 24:14.125
to do this with different people.

24:14.585 --> 24:16.365
So with this project, even though

24:17.165 --> 24:21.835
there were same institution, there was enough different to

24:23.315 --> 24:26.235
actually create a space where

24:27.865 --> 24:29.025
questions could be asked.

24:29.205 --> 24:31.025
But the big thing in this, and again, it's going back

24:31.025 --> 24:32.905
to the work of somebody like Miranda Fricker

24:32.905 --> 24:35.065
and indeed going back to Monica McLean's work

24:35.165 --> 24:39.305
and, is that there, there needs to be

24:40.145 --> 24:42.905
a, a as a sense that there's,

24:44.185 --> 24:46.075
that there's reciprocity within the group.

24:46.175 --> 24:49.435
So if I give you something, you are gonna listen and,

24:49.455 --> 24:52.315
but you're gonna give me back and you're gonna be respectful

24:52.375 --> 24:54.315
and allow me to make my contribution

24:54.735 --> 24:56.595
and allow me to have my say.

24:56.935 --> 24:59.035
And that was something that we really stressed from,

24:59.145 --> 25:01.915
from the outset and that the group really embraced.

25:02.095 --> 25:04.235
And again, in subsequent studies, that

25:04.735 --> 25:06.915
that's been pivotal to all of this.

25:06.915 --> 25:10.675
Because without that, you, you can develop trust.

25:11.175 --> 25:12.355
And if you don't have trust

25:12.355 --> 25:14.875
and you don't work at keeping that trust, you,

25:14.875 --> 25:19.035
you're not going to get people embracing the idea of

25:19.745 --> 25:22.335
unsettling, interrogating, and reimagining.

25:22.365 --> 25:24.335
It's just not gonna happen because they won't feel

25:24.335 --> 25:25.735
comfortable taking risks.

25:26.195 --> 25:28.295
And certainly that was one of the major findings

25:28.295 --> 25:31.385
that came back from this work, was that people felt,

25:31.415 --> 25:33.025
that, that they could take the risk.

25:33.025 --> 25:35.385
And I remember one person saying to us, the big,

25:35.725 --> 25:38.945
big thing was that having looked and,

25:39.325 --> 25:43.465
and me there made them feel safe that they could take

25:43.465 --> 25:45.065
that route, take, sorry.

25:45.365 --> 25:47.545
It made them feel safe that they could take that risk

25:48.055 --> 25:51.265
because it made them feel

25:51.575 --> 25:54.265
that we wouldn't let anything onward happen.

25:55.615 --> 25:56.745
Well, that's a good question.

25:56.785 --> 25:58.745
I had a meeting with somebody yesterday about future

25:59.185 --> 26:02.225
research, and I have to go back to the drawing board.

26:02.525 --> 26:05.625
Um, so where does it go now?

26:05.745 --> 26:09.225
I think for me, I've worked where in, in this context,

26:09.375 --> 26:10.865
I've done the work,

26:10.955 --> 26:14.385
after it with academics that identify as being

26:14.405 --> 26:16.575
of a working class heritage.

26:17.035 --> 26:21.975
Um, and going forward, I'd like to, I'd like to

26:22.645 --> 26:25.855
look at combining aspects of two of those studies

26:25.955 --> 26:30.455
to explore further how creative, methods

26:31.575 --> 26:34.605
actually provide opportunities

26:34.985 --> 26:38.925
for people from different social backgrounds to,

26:39.625 --> 26:42.845
to feel comfortable speaking about their own experiences

26:43.785 --> 26:48.125
in a way that develops, I dunno,

26:48.125 --> 26:51.885
cosmopolitan knowledge about, about these experiences

26:52.515 --> 26:55.205
without, I feel sometimes what happens is

26:55.205 --> 26:59.445
that when we talk about identity, we, we end up,

26:59.505 --> 27:01.685
and I say this as somebody that's from Northern Ireland

27:03.705 --> 27:06.015
descending into forms of what a battery.

27:06.515 --> 27:10.855
So it's like, so for me it's, it's, it's looking at

27:11.115 --> 27:15.095
how we can use these approaches to create opportunities

27:15.515 --> 27:16.935
for people from, from different

27:17.515 --> 27:20.535
underrepresented social groups to come together to,

27:20.795 --> 27:23.895
to explore the differences, to look for those commonalities

27:24.435 --> 27:28.655
and using, methods like the co-production methods

27:28.765 --> 27:30.815
that I used, on this project.

27:31.195 --> 27:33.895
Uh, and the subsequent one with the academics

27:34.395 --> 27:36.855
and really looking at the, the opportunities

27:36.855 --> 27:40.465
that storytelling provide to do this.

27:41.085 --> 27:42.945
And particularly I'm thinking about the work

27:42.945 --> 27:45.905
of academics such as Ali, Russell Ho Shield,

27:46.325 --> 27:49.465
who has done a lot of work around this notion

27:49.465 --> 27:53.465
of deep stories that cultures have that provide them

27:53.465 --> 27:56.735
with a sense of sense of belonging

27:56.875 --> 27:58.375
and, a sense of identity.

27:58.635 --> 28:01.735
But they, they're all, quite often they're, they're

28:01.735 --> 28:03.895
as if stories, they're, they're imagined there,

28:04.325 --> 28:06.775
there's very little factual or, or,

28:06.775 --> 28:08.535
or moral underpinning with them.

28:09.555 --> 28:10.855
But people clinging to them

28:10.855 --> 28:13.975
because they have an emotional sort of attachment to them

28:13.975 --> 28:15.495
because it provides 'em with a sense of color,

28:15.635 --> 28:18.655
or, sorry, a sense of provides 'em with a sense

28:18.755 --> 28:22.175
of confidence, think thinking that they're similar to the,

28:22.235 --> 28:24.455
the people that identify in similar ways.

28:24.515 --> 28:28.255
But the issue with this then is that it, as, as,

28:28.695 --> 28:30.855
Ali Russell Hoshi points out is that this,

28:30.855 --> 28:34.215
this creates empathy walls between social groups,

28:35.235 --> 28:39.815
and that stops us from understanding the position

28:39.815 --> 28:43.495
of people we, we identify as, as others,

28:43.675 --> 28:45.615
and often in a, in a negative way.

28:45.755 --> 28:48.895
It stops us from understanding their lived experiences

28:49.035 --> 28:51.215
of the, the shared social spaces that we,

28:51.805 --> 28:53.415
that we inhabit with them.

28:53.555 --> 28:57.695
And for me, I'd like to, to use that concept, that concept

28:57.795 --> 28:58.855
of deep stories to,

28:59.195 --> 29:01.415
to explore the ways in which these approaches,

29:01.415 --> 29:05.655
these creative, co-production approaches can be used to,

29:05.795 --> 29:08.575
to bring people together from, from different,

29:09.875 --> 29:11.535
for different underrepresented groups.

29:11.635 --> 29:15.575
To, to create opportunities for people to not just

29:15.575 --> 29:16.775
to understand their own stories,

29:16.795 --> 29:20.885
but understand other people's stories so that,

29:21.435 --> 29:24.155
that we can try to

29:25.505 --> 29:26.555
push back against.

29:26.555 --> 29:30.195
What I think happens sometimes is underrepresented groups

29:31.015 --> 29:35.075
get positioned against each other,

29:35.375 --> 29:39.965
in social imagination in the media, which works to,

29:40.385 --> 29:44.445
to favor people that have,

29:45.115 --> 29:49.125
that benefit and privilege from keeping those groups apart.

29:49.505 --> 29:51.205
So that's, that's kind of where I'm, I'm,

29:51.385 --> 29:54.125
I'm going broadly at the moment with this work

29:54.265 --> 29:58.105
and thinking about how it might fit into formal

29:59.105 --> 30:01.065
curricular approaches,

30:01.325 --> 30:04.625
but also thinking about where it would set outside of those,

30:05.005 --> 30:09.785
in spaces where there isn't a outcomes based,

30:10.485 --> 30:13.365
curriculum in place that leads

30:13.365 --> 30:16.525
to something like a degree or, you know, qualification.

00:00 - The context of the study was that my, my colleague and I look, our mentor that works at Nottingham Trent University, we, we were very much interested in this, the, the, the context of, widening participation, and access to higher education.

00:20 - And the concept of there being a traditional route into, higher education, which is in the United Kingdom, is very much associated with, A levels, which are seen as an academic qualification. Besides those in the uk we have more vocational qualifications that can give you access to higher education. And one of the most common ones is, a BTech, which is Business and Technology Education Council. And Luke and I, we're very much, and Luke's role in particular was very much

00:58 - involved in thinking about widening access to higher education for people that are, are seen as coming from underrepresented social groups and maybe not having the, the same opportunities to enter higher education as more privileged individuals. And one of the things that, that as a part of this that we were interested in was the, the perceptions that people had of the academic capabilities of students that entered academia through BTES. I did A BTE myself.

01:30 - and one of the things that really prompted this work was we would, we would go to events and we would go to events where people from certain courses that took in, large numbers of BTech students would refer to these students as practical. The assumption being that they, this, this notion of them being practical, the assumption was that they weren't academic, therefore not being academic. They were somehow to, to us that communicated this idea

02:03 - of them being less epistemically credible. that, and what I mean by that is the sense that the knowledge that they had lack a sense of academic credibility because they did a B Tech. And this constant referring to them as practical students not interested in theory, reproduced these, these stereotypes I think of, of, of, of students that couldn't engage with what was deemed academic study in the same way that students that had done A levels.

02:35 - And we started looking at the work of people like, like Monica McLean from the University of Nottingham. and we, we started looking at work that she'd done with various colleagues in various contexts around this idea of epistemic credibility in relationship to access to higher education. And particularly looking at institutions that, where we used the term post 92 institutions to refer to institutions that prior to 1992 were polytechnics in the United Kingdom.

03:08 - The assumption, again, being that within polytechnics, the emphasis was on very vocational knowledge. Vocational knowledge, not being seen as episte, credible as academic knowledge, whatever that might be. so Monica's work then got us thinking about this concept of epistemic injustice that, that we, see as originating primarily from our perspective in the, in the work of, of philosopher Miranda Fricker. And that was certainly through Monica's work that we came across this.

03:38 - And it's the idea that in, in certain situations, people are, because of stereotypical characteristics around their, their identity, that often speakers will look upon certain individuals as, as not being credible or lacking credibility in terms of the knowledge that they have. And also, and referring to this as testimonial injustice, but also there's this idea of hermeneutic injustice,

04:07 - which is the sense that because people are perceived in a certain way according to stereotypes and prejudices, they're excluded from the possibilities of accessing types of knowledge to, to understand their situation and contribute to those pools of knowledge that we draw on to, to make sense of why people act, think, and are the way that they seem to be. And this really resonated with us in terms of, of BTech students.

04:36 - 'cause we felt that if you look at the, the, the data around BTech students, and I as again, just to reemphasize I'm one myself, there's a likelihood that they're going to come from, social backgrounds where they haven't had access to certain types of resources that allow them to partake in, more privileged forms of education. It's not always the case, but there's certainly enough data out there to show that it is.

05:03 - And therefore, we felt that by, by constantly referring to them at this sense of practical, it was reinforcing these senses that, you know, they, they, they were deficit in terms of the knowledge that they had, and it was potentially excluding them from the possibilities of, of expressing themselves and knowing themselves in, in, in ways that had to, they they hadn't come upon. And another thing subsequently after this study coming across work, excuse me,

05:36 - by people like a, Alex Steers Macron in the US that develops Miranda Riker's idea of epistemic injustice to include this idea of people being spoken for by more powerful others. And every time that we went into one of those sessions where people were saying, these are our students are practical, that yeah, we, we just get 'em hands on practical, we felt that this was a, this sense, it was academics speaking for students without asking them whether

06:09 - or not they saw themselves in that way. So for us, this, this sense of epistemic injustice was very much tied up with the way that that certain groups of students, in this case, BTH students were represented in the social imagination and the impact that had on them when they went to try and access higher education. And also the, the impact that had on their experiences in higher education when possibly people went, those are the BTech students.

06:37 - They can't do this, they can't do that. Therefore, we've got to as, as, one study that Monica was involved in, they talked about dumbing down the curriculum to, to, to make it easier in many respects for them, what I think our work says and shows is that research engaged approaches like those that we took have the possibility to provide, groups of students to develop knowledge about themselves as well

07:09 - as the subjects that, that they're studying through co-production approaches and, and through collaboration in a way that, that maybe other approaches, more istic, modularized approaches that emphasize outcomes possibly don't. Now, I, you know, I say that with a caveat that I'm not saying that, that, that that's, absolutely how things are because I, I recognize it in different contexts. Certain situations will affect the extent

07:43 - to which students experience learning what they learn, et cetera. And I also acknowledge that what we did may possibly not replicate itself in another situation. But what I do think that this project showed was, if I think about the literature, and particularly the literature around co-production, so thinking about the work that we drew on heavily for, people like Sarah Banks, at the University of, of,

08:09 - of Durham, and particularly the work that she did with the Imagine Project, which was going out and working in communities with people. And I think that's the key to this, is that you are working with people. So you, you're, you're in many respects, you, we, we sought to on set that traditional sort of teacher student dynamic to try and create, a space where it was, where people felt comfortable to, in a, a very simple way

08:39 - to get, get things wrong, and to explore, and develop a sense of curiosity around things. And again, to really emphasize that, I think the key thing in all this idea about co-production is the width. So you working With people, so it was given them, wasn't, wasn't just that they were given an opportunity to explore something and potentially learn something about it, but they were given opportunities to take the process in the direction that they wanted

09:09 - to take it in as well, and become comfortable with the uncertainties that, that that brought and the uncertainties that, that the subjects they were looking at brought and the uncertainties around what was happening to them as people. So the ethical dimensions of this were, were massive. and that was something that I think it contributes to, to, to work around, co-production, participatory approaches.

09:38 - particularly thinking about ethics, because we were dealing with people's everyday lives. We were asking them to delve into their memories. We were asking them to deal with subjects that were quite personal, like belonging, and what that actually meant to them. and as we saw on several occasions that it prompted people to, to go back to episodes in their lives and to visit places that were quite, yeah, it,

10:04 - unsettling is the right word to use because it, it, it brought back things that they hadn't thought about, but it also, through the project, prompted them to reimagine it in different ways as well. So they were developing knowledge about concepts and about ideas, and it was making them look at things that they possibly taken for granted in different ways. And I've seen in subsequent work that I've done using, similar approaches that that, that that can happen

10:36 - and will, will happen when you are situating people's everyday lives as sites of critiquing analysis. So that, I think that's a major contribution that the work made. I also think a major contribution that it, that it made was that we did see the group of people, when I have to emphasize the, the, the students that we worked with were not BTE students. They were designing the process for B Tech students while being immersed in a social

11:02 - research context. So they were learning how to do social research, and as they were learning how to do the social research, they were developing the similar program for, for the btex. What we saw with that group of people was that in different ways, and there was seven, seven participants each, each one of them in different ways developed what we, we might call intellectual confidence, epistemic confidence to, to actually think of themselves in a way

11:31 - that they hadn't thought of before the project. So for example, at least two of them pointed out that doing the project prompted them to, to think about postgraduate study, as something that was within their, their grasp, of their capabilities, rather in a, in a way that possibly before the project, they'd never thought of that, or as being something they could do or, or even something seemingly sort of every day is contributing to seminars or,

12:04 - or making presentations for, for some of the groups. That was something that they struggled with. and they said that they felt through the project that they actually had something that was worth listening to in terms of what they had to say. And again, and another person as well was the, 'cause we worked with undergraduates at different points and their, their, degrees, and they were all different degrees. And we had one, one post grad that was moving into

12:33 - to employment and a very prestigious, area, of, of law. And they came from, again, an underrepresented background or, in terms of their social class and their ethnicity, and they were really, really worried about getting into that environment. It's, you know, I think it's fair to say in the social imagination, the, the law courts, in particularly the bar somewhere that's associated with,

13:02 - privilege, and we've, we've seen it on TV recently. We read about it all the time. But this person felt that doing the project had given them a, I think the, the expression they used was a greater sense of belonging in themself to go into that environment and, and, and thrive potentially. So I, I, I think, that is, that is where con contributions lie. And I think it's always with a caveat that, that

13:29 - the po the potential outcomes of this were very much to do with the, the time the space and the people that were involved. And I've seen with other projects that I've done that time space, and people are, will actually play a major factor and the, and the extent to which something can be sort of deemed, I don't, I don't wanna use the word successful, but whether it plays out the way that you, you thought it was going to play out.

13:54 - And I think in with this group of people, they were genuinely, really, really committed to, to the project because they were all working in widening access context as student, ambassadors. but a very, very different group in terms of, backgrounds. and to, and thinking about identity characteristics as well. So it was an all female group, different ages,

14:22 - different courses, different years, different, ethnicities within, in the groups, different social class backgrounds as well. But the commonality that they had was a commitment to, widening access work. The, the project was a bit, it was a bit like a research project within a research project. Yeah. So it was a, an immersive participatory approach. So essentially what we, we, we asked the, the participants

14:46 - to do it was to engage in a piece of research, Social research that they came up with. Yep. And as they were doing that social research, thinking about how they would develop a similar process to support BTech students. Now, I think maybe one of the group, maybe two, had done anything resembling social research before. So we had somebody from fashion, somebody from law, somebody from education, somebody, was from social work.

15:21 - So they, they all came from very different backgrounds, very little experience, certainly no experience doing participatory work of this nature. So again, thinking about Sarah Banks's work, we embraced what they refer to as a spirit of, of research. So what we didn't want was to replicate a method, course that they would get on their degree. We didn't have time for that. So we, we set up a series of five, six evening, sessions.

15:51 - We brought everybody in. first session was about outlining expectations we had of the project of each other, how we were going to work, et cetera, what we needed them to do. And then I think the sec, the second session was around, you know, looking at, at different studies that were doing similar things and thinking about what, what they said about the, the project,

16:21 - and how they could actually work with those sources to, to form their own project. Project. What I should say, sorry, at this point is that the focus of their project was, developing, a sense of what belonging meant to different students in the institution that they, they were all situated within, which was in the, the Midlands of, England. And again, it was a, a post 92 institution. And the reason for that idea around belonging was it's,

16:54 - it's it, and now it's, it's still a, a, a very, very, very popular topic and higher education. And, and then it was as well, but there was a sense that sometimes maybe institutions, the, the representation of belonging that they shared with the outside world, and that image of student belonging maybe wasn't actually how some students were experiencing belonging. So that was the idea. So their project was to get at, in a way,

17:25 - how different students felt about their sense of belonging in the institution. So they looked at literature, they looked at studies that did this, and then they came up with a way of generating data. and we went through the ethics process. And their way of generating data was very creative, in the sense that they created, what they called initially graffiti walls, which turned out to be, walls that they created in parts

17:57 - of the institution where there's a lot of footfall. And they asked students, what does it mean to belong? And students posted their answers. And for the students that weren't comfortable putting it up on the board, they put it into to boxes. Once that was done, we had a session around, how are you going to anana, analyze this data? So they looked at all the data that they got from these different, different, cards from the different locations.

18:23 - And we went through very light touch. I, we went through a, a very light touch introduction to thematic analysis, because it just felt that's a, a really accessible way for everyone to start thinking about this. And what they did was they went through the work, thinking about some of the literature that they'd looked at, and identifying the themes that that came out of it. But the whole time that they were doing this, they were thinking about how would we do this

18:52 - with the BTech students? so there was two things going on. They were doing their own research to find out about belonging, but also thinking about how they, they designed this and we're looking at, I came in, was to guide them and was to support them through this process. which was interesting for us in many respects, and interesting for the participants as well, because you're dealing with, perceptions

19:18 - of particular roles that have been in place for many years through, schooling. And no matter how much we tried, we come in and we were like, yeah, we're, we're gonna work with you, no problem. It took a while for that to break down so that we were seen as guiding them and learning worth them and learning from them. A big thing I would, seems so insignificant, but the, the, one of the biggest things for us was the fact

19:44 - that when we, we spoke to the participants, they said, the first couple of sessions, they found it hard to accept that we were committed to our intentions of co-production, because we automatically, as teachers came into the front of the room, put PowerPoint slides up, something isn't seemingly insignificant to that, as that was, was massive because it reproduced the notions of, of power differentials. And that what actually shifted that was when we sat down

20:14 - at the table with them and they said, that was the point that where we felt your, that, that you were being true to your intentions. And, and so really we were there to guide them through that process. And then one of the, one of the things that they decided to do with the findings from that project was to create a series of zines, so DIY magazines, because they wanted to put the findings out there within the institution and beyond, without

20:47 - Them being seen as attached to an institutional narrative around belonging, because in many respects, it contested what was in the brochures, what was on the website. So we provided them with opportunities to, to go to, an arts-based hub in Nottingham where they learned how to do this. And the unfortunate thing is that didn't manifest itself because that was around the end of, of term time. And some of them, the,

21:21 - the participants were graduating as well. but the findings from the project got written up into a series of, or into a report that, that advocated for this approach as a way of augmenting study skills approaches that were already in, in place. So using research engaged approaches to, to support students develop, academic confidence. And my reflections on it was, 'cause I'd done, for my thesis, I'd done something similar

21:56 - and the group didn't work in the thesis if I can compare my work with the thesis. So I worked with, I worked with a group of primary school teachers from the same school, and we did the work in their school, and they all knew one another. and the idea again, was to get them to think about how stories about teachers related to the, the stories that they told themselves to gain a sense of who they were or who they were becoming.

22:21 - And, and it asks you to, to be really Yeah. Asks you to open up quite a bit and, and, and engage with the idea of sharing and interrogating and, and the possibility of, of rethinking something that you took for granted as being true. So with the primary school teachers, from a thesis, they shut down pretty much. and what came outta that was there wasn't enough difference in the group, the hierarchy within the school.

22:49 - It was impossible to, to take that outta the group. So social relations within the school were reproduced in the inquiry site. Whereas with this work, even though they all worked for the, the widening access team, which is now under a different name, they, none of them really knew each other. They all, as I said, came, they all had, there was differences in terms of their demographics, their identity characteristics.

23:17 - The courses were different that they were on, they were on different years. And I think that was vital in all of this, is that, you know, you can have similarities and actually work that I've done since then where academics that identify as being of working class origins pr well showed the same thing. It's like, you can have that commonality, but you need differences within the group to generate those moments of rupture, of

23:44 - Tension, or whatever you want to call it, that leads people to, to ask questions, to find things out. Whereas with the primary school teachers that I worked with that wasn't there because their lives were so entangled through their everyday situatedness in that school, which is where it happened, that they just couldn't get away from that. And actually, at the end of that particular study, the teacher said to me, you need

24:13 - to do this with different people. So with this project, even though there were same institution, there was enough different to actually create a space where questions could be asked. But the big thing in this, and again, it's going back to the work of somebody like Miranda Fricker and indeed going back to Monica McLean's work and, is that there, there needs to be a, a as a sense that there's,

24:44 - that there's reciprocity within the group. So if I give you something, you are gonna listen and, but you're gonna give me back and you're gonna be respectful and allow me to make my contribution and allow me to have my say. And that was something that we really stressed from, from the outset and that the group really embraced. And again, in subsequent studies, that that's been pivotal to all of this. Because without that, you, you can develop trust.

25:11 - And if you don't have trust and you don't work at keeping that trust, you, you're not going to get people embracing the idea of unsettling, interrogating, and reimagining. It's just not gonna happen because they won't feel comfortable taking risks. And certainly that was one of the major findings that came back from this work, was that people felt, that, that they could take the risk. And I remember one person saying to us, the big,

25:35 - big thing was that having looked and, and me there made them feel safe that they could take that route, take, sorry. It made them feel safe that they could take that risk because it made them feel that we wouldn't let anything onward happen. Well, that's a good question. I had a meeting with somebody yesterday about future research, and I have to go back to the drawing board. so where does it go now?

26:05 - I think for me, I've worked where in, in this context, I've done the work, after it with academics that identify as being of a working class heritage. and going forward, I'd like to, I'd like to look at combining aspects of two of those studies to explore further how creative, methods actually provide opportunities for people from different social backgrounds to, to feel comfortable speaking about their own experiences

26:43 - in a way that develops, I dunno, cosmopolitan knowledge about, about these experiences without, I feel sometimes what happens is that when we talk about identity, we, we end up, and I say this as somebody that's from Northern Ireland descending into forms of what a battery. So it's like, so for me it's, it's, it's looking at how we can use these approaches to create opportunities for people from, from different underrepresented social groups to come together to,

27:20 - to explore the differences, to look for those commonalities and using, methods like the co-production methods that I used, on this project. and the subsequent one with the academics and really looking at the, the opportunities that storytelling provide to do this. And particularly I'm thinking about the work of academics such as Ali, Russell Ho Shield, who has done a lot of work around this notion of deep stories that cultures have that provide them

27:53 - with a sense of sense of belonging and, a sense of identity. But they, they're all, quite often they're, they're as if stories, they're, they're imagined there, there's very little factual or, or, or moral underpinning with them. But people clinging to them because they have an emotional sort of attachment to them because it provides 'em with a sense of color, or, sorry, a sense of provides 'em with a sense

28:18 - of confidence, think thinking that they're similar to the, the people that identify in similar ways. But the issue with this then is that it, as, as, Ali Russell Hoshi points out is that this, this creates empathy walls between social groups, and that stops us from understanding the position of people we, we identify as, as others, and often in a, in a negative way. It stops us from understanding their lived experiences of the, the shared social spaces that we,

28:51 - that we inhabit with them. And for me, I'd like to, to use that concept, that concept of deep stories to, to explore the ways in which these approaches, these creative, co-production approaches can be used to, to bring people together from, from different, for different underrepresented groups. To, to create opportunities for people to not just to understand their own stories, but understand other people's stories so that,

29:21 - that we can try to push back against. What I think happens sometimes is underrepresented groups get positioned against each other, in social imagination in the media, which works to, to favor people that have, that benefit and privilege from keeping those groups apart. So that's, that's kind of where I'm, I'm, I'm going broadly at the moment with this work and thinking about how it might fit into formal

29:59 - curricular approaches, but also thinking about where it would set outside of those, in spaces where there isn't a outcomes based, curriculum in place that leads to something like a degree or, you know, qualification.

Faculti AI can make mistakes