“By giving a voice to local ideas and opinions, marginalised groups can present themselves as active citizens.”
(Rodriguez, 2004)
This report presents my proposal for an intervention that supports intersectional social justice, drawing on theories of inclusion. It also offers a critical reflection on the decisions made and the challenges faced throughout the process.
What are the challenges that I am trying to tackle with my intervention?
There is a lack of reflection on how to create more inclusive spaces in higher education. When inclusion policies are developed, they often follow a top down approach, where decisions are made by a small group of senior staff or experts. As a result, these policies do not always reflect the views and needs of the wider community. Important voices are often left out of the consultation process, such as hourly paid lecturers, administrative staff, technicians, and students.
Context and methodology
I teach within the Journalism department at London College of Communication (LCC), where the staff team and students are highly diverse, including individuals from a wide range of cultural, linguistic, and educational backgrounds. While this diversity is a strength, it can also create challenges during complex discussions, particularly for those whose first language is not English or who experience barriers to written communication.
Some members of staff and students identify as neurodivergent and may find alternative forms of expression, such as drawing or video, more accessible and effective. This intervention proposes the use of two inclusive methodologies: participatory video and rich picture mapping.
Participatory video is a collaborative process in which participants plan, film, and edit their own short video narratives. It enables people to share their experiences visually and collectively, creating space for dialogue and reflection (Shaw and Robertson, 1997).
Rich picture maps are hand drawn visual tools that help individuals explore complex systems through symbols, sketches and text. This method offers a creative and non linear way of thinking and communicating (Checkland and Scholes, 1990).
This approach recognises that “the need to account for multiple grounds of identity when considering how the social world is constructed” (Crenshaw, 1990, p.1245) is key to building meaningful inclusion. By allowing for alternative forms of communication and storytelling, the intervention addresses overlapping forms of marginalisation across race, gender, language, and neurodivergence.
What do I want to change with my intervention and why?
My intervention aims to support the implementation of UAL’s inclusion policies by making the decision-making process more democratic. It proposes a wider and more inclusive consultation within the UAL community to reflect on the challenges and share possible solutions for inclusive practices.
The goal is not only to propose new responses to current issues, but also to collect and share examples of inclusive practices that already exist at the LCC journalism department, to inspire positive change in other departments and colleges.
From my experience on the PgCert course and conversations with staff and students across UAL, it is clear that many good practices already exist. However, these are often limited to small groups or individuals and are not shared widely. This intervention could help fill that gap.
I believe the proposal is applicable beyond my department, as the participatory video methodology has been proven to work in many academic and non academic contexts. It is flexible and can be adapted to explore different challenges. It also aligns with my teaching, as it supports a solution journalism approach that focuses on presenting constructive responses to social problems. This encourages positive actions.
Reflecting on my positionality, I will lead the project starting from my experience. I have been working with participatory video for more than ten years and I am the Co-director of Cobra Collective, an organisation that uses visual methods to promote social justice worldwide. Although I have used this methodology in several international contexts, this will be the first time I explore it within higher education at LCC. I believe this will be a valuable learning opportunity.
My intervention proposal – The participatory video workshop
I propose to run a two-day participatory video workshop (three hours each) for 15 to 20 representatives from the LCC journalism department community, including directors, lecturers, technicians, the admin team, and students.
The final output will be a short video created collaboratively, capturing participants’ reflections, challenges, and proposals to build a more inclusive environment.
“Participatory video encourages a process of inquiry and critical thinking, allowing participants to experience investigating and learning about their situation to draw key conclusions.”
(Asadullah, 2012)
Session one will start with a presentation of the workshop’s goals, followed by icebreakers to build trust. We will then agree on group rules to create a safe and respectful space. Next, participants will be introduced to the rich picture mapping technique. This activity will help them reflect on key challenges and explore solutions visually and collectively. These ideas will form the basis of a simple video script, which may include voice overs, interviews, and direct messages to the camera. A call to action might also be included, where participants invite colleagues or decision makers to help bring change.
In session two, the group will film and edit the video using mobile phones, tripods, microphones, and open source editing software. The process promotes dialogue and reflection, as participants decide together how the story should be told.
To guide the workshop, I will propose reflective questions such as:
What does inclusion mean to you?
What are the challenges in creating inclusive spaces in the journalism department?
What best practices are already in place?
What new proposals would you like to see implemented?
What do you need to make these changes happen?
Starting with the question “What does inclusion mean to you?” opens up a space for personal insights and creates an inclusive starting point. This encourages openness and makes room for multiple perspectives.
Action – How do I propose this intervention be used?
Once produced, the video can be shared through UAL’s internal newsletter. A screening at LCC could be organised, followed by a discussion with the senior management team. This would help share the video’s messages across departments and could influence institutional decisions.
As a pilot, the method could be replicated across other departments and colleges. To support wider adoption, a handbook could be developed to guide others in applying this methodology in different contexts.
Reflection and theory that inspired my intervention
The feedback from peers and my tutor was very useful in refining the intervention. A key question from a peer was about how the physical layout of the room could support accessibility. This led me to plan for a wheelchair accessible venue with tables placed in circles to encourage group work. I also decided to include a quiet space where participants could take breaks if needed.
My tutor asked how I would create a safe space and support different types of participation. This led me to include an activity at the start where participants could express how they prefer to take part.
Participatory video allows for flexible forms of contribution. Participants can be involved by brainstorming, drawing, adding notes to the shared script, recording audio, filming, or speaking on camera, depending on what feels most comfortable.
If participants prefer to speak in their own languages, subtitles in English can be added. This reflects Crenshaw’s (1990) call for recognising intersectional barriers and creating truly inclusive spaces.
People with hearing impairments can contribute by writing or drawing. Blind participants may prefer to record audio. The aim is to ensure that everyone has a way to contribute that works for them. This will be explained clearly at the start and repeated throughout.
Some of my peer’s feedback confirmed ideas I had already considered. For example, breaking the workshop into two sessions was important to allow enough time for editing and participation. I also expanded the time for brainstorming and mapping on the first day.
Harris (2020) notes the importance of “creating spaces where quieter voices can emerge on their own terms”, which helped reinforce my decision to include alternative forms of communication. These quieter voices might not emerge in meetings but can flourish through drawing or voice recording.
Feedback also helped shape the idea of creating a handbook to support scalability and help others implement the method independently.
Evaluation of process
To evaluate the impact of the workshop, I will facilitate a short reflective discussion at the end of the session and invite participants to share anonymous written feedback. I will also follow up informally with attendees in the weeks after to gather thoughts on how the experience influenced their practice. These reflections will inform the handbook and future iterations of the project. I would also look at how many proposals were made, and whether any were implemented at LCC or UAL. This would help assess the impact.
Conclusion and next steps
This intervention helped me reflect on my dual role as a teacher and as a participatory video facilitator promoting inclusion. I bring experience in participatory video, but I also learn from my students and colleagues every day. The next step will be to propose this approach and methodology to my manager and journalism course director, and apply for the UAL Teaching and Learning Fund or the Social Purpose Innovation Fund.
By creating spaces that welcome different communication styles, we can build more inclusive learning and working environments. This process has reaffirmed my belief in participatory methods as powerful tools for social justice and positive change in education.
References
Asadullah, M.N., 2012. Participatory video: a tool for empowerment and evaluation. University of Sussex.
Checkland, P. and Scholes, J., 1990. Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Chichester: Wiley.
Crenshaw, K., 1990. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of colour. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), pp.1241–1299.
Cobra Collective, 2020. Video tutorial No. 1 – What is participatory video? Directed by C. Nuzzo. Available at: https://vimeo.com/397994533 [Accessed 15 July 2025].
Harris, K (2022) ‘Embracing the Silence: Introverted Learning and the Online Classroom’, Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal, Vol 5 Issue 1, pp 101-104.
Rodriguez, C., 2004. The revolution will not be televised: participatory media in the struggle for social change. In: A. Amado, ed. Civic Discourse and Cultural Politics in the Americas. Albany: SUNY Press.
Shaw, J. and Robertson, C., 1997. Participatory Video: A Practical Guide to Using Video Creatively in Group Development Work. London: Routledge.