Developing my Ethical Action Plan was harder than I expected. Across four versions (linked below) I accepted that the plan will keep evolving as my reading, question and data do.
The research question
Defining a clear, concise question was hardest. It moved from “Why do students lack a sense of belonging in the studio?” to “How can the architecture studio enable more equitable forms of belonging, participation and agency?”, and finally to “Why don’t students engage in the studio and how can it become somewhere they feel they belong?” I reviewed each version alone, then with my tutor. As an Italian speaker I tend to overcomplicate sentences with adjectives and detail, so I pushed for simplicity. I expect to revise the question again as the interviews unfold.
Literature
My reading list kept growing and shrinking as my thinking on belonging, agency and participation shifted. Having read the introduction to Sara Ahmed’s Living a Feminist Life, I want most references to be by women and people of colour.
Action plan
I first planned five interviews (four alumni and the BA Subject Leader in Ethics) plus two workshops with student representatives. My tutor and colleagues helped me see this was too much for three months, and that focused interviews would already give me plenty to analyse. I now have five alumni interviews. Alumni can reflect on lived experience with distance, and compare the studio with their MA or workplace. Current students are still “entangled” in the busyness of the year.
[Insert action research spiral diagram]
[Insert timeline / Gantt chart]
Planning, data gathering and reflection feed analysis and interpretation, which will inform future action to improve belonging in the studio.
Who I will invite
I wanted diverse alumni with intersecting identities, mostly from underrepresented groups. Colleagues suggested focusing on disabled students only. With five participants I considered this seriously, but I kept a range of gender, religion, race and disability, prioritising disability. Invitations will be targeted, not open.
Ethical considerations
- Consent: participants receive an information sheet and consent form beforehand, and may withdraw until 20 November 2026, when analysis begins.
- Confidentiality and data: identifiers are removed; recordings and transcripts sit encrypted on institutional storage, accessible only to me, and are deleted within a year of the unit.
- Power: the majority of invited alumni were my students, so in the invitation I stress that participation is voluntary and has no effect on their studies or careers.
- Risks: five interviews cannot be generalised, so I will present findings as situated, not representative of the entire BA student cohort. The research question and literature may also change as the research evolves by gathering new data.
Positionality
I am a white, cisgender, heterosexual woman, a migrant from a working-class background, in my sixth year teaching at CSM. I was once a student in different contexts and geographies, so students’ stories resonate with me. Still, unconscious bias will shape how I conduct and write this study, and my efforts may fall short; I ask for your patience. I hope that understanding what makes students feel they belong will help the university respond better to their needs.