Respondents: 9 staff across 2 sessions
Data: Qualitative feedback and Likert-scale ratings (see questionnaire example)
Quantitative feedback indicates a positive response to the workshop. Most participants (77.8%) strongly agreed it created a supportive and respectful space for exploring identity, belonging, and equity, and all respondents (100%) rated it as highly relevant to their teaching practice. Confidence in using participatory or object-based approaches increased for many (62.5% strongly agreed; 12.5% agreed), though 22% responded neutrally, suggesting some participants may benefit from additional time and support to apply these methods.
Observations
Participants consistently described objects as relational, narrative-driven, and culturally situated, conveying lived experience and identity beyond their appearance. The workshop prompted reflection on positionality, assumptions, and bias, with one participant noting it offered a “nice framework to investigate our own assumptions and prejudice,” and another that it encouraged thinking “through learning about personal standpoint.” Group discussion were valued, with participants appreciating a “safe space for collaboration and collective learning” and hearing diverse perspectives.
Thematic Analysis
Safe, Respectful, and Inclusive Space
Staff highlighted the workshop’s success in fostering an environment for sensitive identity-related discussions. One participant reflected: “Facilitating safe space to reflect ‘On Belonging’ from a deeply personal point of view/lived experience offered authentic, impactful insight.” Shared agreements, collective reading, and multilingual identity markers (e.g., three keywords in one’s mother tongue) “helped situate participants before engaging in complex conversations.”
Participants valued the structure, and pedagogical framework. One noted, “The workshop also made me more conscious of the significance and presence of different objects,” while another valued that the facilitator “successfully encouraged deep object engagement without the expectation to be verbally responsive.” The postcard and question decks were highlighted as scaffolding tools: “The questions provided really a nice framework to unsurfaced our assumptions and prejudice,” and “The postcard were helpful to think about personal endeavours/critical theory. How do I apply these theories to myself? (Decentering the self, hybridity, etc.).”
Multiple Truths, Intent vs Impact, and Critical Complexity
Engaging with complexity was highlighted as a key outcome: “The idea of multiple truths, as well as the notion of impact and intent,” and “It was very insightful how many different aspects of identit(ies) emerged!”
Relational and Generous Listening
Participants valued listening without immediate response: “The facilitator successfully encouraged deep, generous, relational listening… without the expectation to be verbally responsive; this was key to contemplate the physicality of the objects.”
Application to teaching: Participants articulated clear ways they planned to apply the workshop approaches within their own practice:
- Designing an “object CV” or portfolio documenting an object’s biography and cultural background as part of professional practices to bring it to life and render it *employable*.
- Applying methods within Knowledge Exchange work with communities.
- Incorporating active listening as a research and facilitation methodology.
- Reusing the questioning framework developed in the workshop: “I will try to use this way of questioning objects in my future projects.”
What worked well:
- The question deck provided a “nice framework to un-surface our assumptions and prejudice” and linked critical theory to personal reflection.
- Reading lists and related categories were helpful.
- Time to read prompts individually and collective reading supported engagement.
- Shared agreements and printed materials helped settle participants into complex discussions.
Suggestions for refinement and expansion:
- Clear time limits for object sharing activity.
- More time dedicated to discussing how to navigate difficult or triggering topics.
- Language in the card deck perceived as overly academic. Suggested clearer explanations or prompts on the reverse of cards.
- Reducing overlap between similar questions (e.g. Questions 3 and 4).
- Clearer communication in advance about the workshop format and expectations.
- Participants highlighted the complexities of facilitating identity-based discussions, including facilitator emotional labour. One noted that “some responses can be challenging for the facilitator (trauma triggering or feeling judged for a certain family background/privilege), and more time to discuss navigating difficult topics would be valuable.”
References
Gibbs, G. and Coffey, M. (2004) ‘The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students’, Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(1), pp. 87–100.
Killion, J. (2015) Assessing impact: Evaluating professional learning. 2nd edn. Oxford, OH: Learning Forward.
Peterson, R.A. (2000) Constructing effective questionnaires. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Smyth, J.D. (2016) ‘Self-administered surveys and questionnaires’, in The SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
University of the Arts London (n.d.) Evaluating staff development: Teaching, Learning and Employability Exchange guidance. London: UAL.