Corey's Teaching

1. Introduction

This blog reports the development of an intervention which encourages positionality-related thinking in Computer Science (CS) students. The hope is that through developing their own positionality and self-reflecting, a plurality (Sturdee et al., 2021) of students’ experiences can be brought forth to the classroom. This would support inclusive practice by ensuring that all people’s voices are heard regardless of their intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989).

My own positionality is that, as every student will have a unique background informed by their own combination of disabilities, faith, religion, belief, and race, encouraging students to speak to their own personal experience will allow for more meaningful sharing of ideas within the class. This is a challenge where CS as a discipline often reinforces hard-science techniques that categories the world into measurable outcomes and attempts to generalize from homogenous samples (Garibay, 2015; Wong et al., 2021).

2. Context

The teaching context is brainstorming sessions. I’ve run these for 2^nd year and MSc CS students at the CCI. The sessions involve students generating ideas to evaluate their experiences of a technology. The general process I’ve been using follows Lucero (2015), visualized in Figure 1. The utility of the intervention is that it can increase diversity of student perspectives and allow them to bring their own individualism to course discussions.

3. Intervention Iteration 1

3.1 Inclusive Learning Literature

Inclusivity in my teaching context is crucial to ensure that all voices and perspectives are brought forth. Students often do not contribute equally to the group work contexts of my teaching (link), meaning individuals can dominate the discussion and direction of the activity.

CS is also a male dominated discipline. Whilst groups such as the QMUL Women+ of Stem Society (2025) have built communities to support women in CS, often males dominate discussion in classes  (Holden, 1993). This is reflected in my own teaching practice (link).

CS students are also stereotypically introverted (Pocius, 1991). Allowing these students to better understand their professional themselves and feel confident bringing forth ideas in group discussions is thus crucial.

Education literature suggests methods for more comprehensive student. Engaging students in storytelling and inviting stories from their own personal perspectives (Unin and Bearing, 2016; Medaille and Usinger, 2019) can help CS students better connect with tasks as they offer their own, diverse, lived experiences. Holden (1993) suggests using groups of mostly boys or mostly girls to increase fruitful. However, I think this poses a risk of creating an alienation effect (Mann, 2001) and reinforcing gender imbalances.  Writing-tasks that give space for students to articulate their thinking before engaging in discussion can also support participation (Medaille and Usinger, 2019); for example, the think-pair-share method (Kaddoura, 2013) gives student’s space to consider ideas.

3.2 Intervention Design

Based on the literature in the previous section, I extended the brainstorming approach in Figure 1. The update is shown in Figure 2.

The key decisions were to: frame the task as interested in student’s own perspectives, to allow self-selection of groups cf. Holden (1993), to give space for students to prepare ideas before speaking cf. Kaddoura (2013), and to offer a route for feedback outside of class if students do not want to speak publicly.

3.3 Reflection on Intervention

Upon reflection, there were limitations to the intervention that I wanted to build on. I felt that the intervention was simplistic; whilst likely to make a marginal difference, there were deeper questions on how to capture and bring forth personal perspectives from students. In particular, the instruction to “frame the task as being interested in student’s own perspectives, experiences and voices” was open-ended; discussion with my peers revealed that there would likely need to be more direction given for students to introspectively identify and bring forth their ideas.

I also felt that the intervention require students to be motivated to spark their introspection and reflection (Slovak et al., 2023), without myself giving reflective prompts.  As CS is dominated by hard-science methods (Garibay, 2015; Wong et al., 2021), often these more open-ended and qualitative brainstorming activities are met with little enthusiasm. Indeed, students have commented to me in feedback sessions that they want to be doing more “serious” and “technical” activities e.g. coding. This is despite this holding back their more unique pluralistic perspectives, which I want to harness for a more inclusive practice.

The feedback from PGCert tutors highlighted a couple of new literature resources, as follows. Grieve et al. (2021) highlight that presentations can negatively impact student experience, with greater supported needed in showing students how to give presentations. In the current intervention, there is an assumption that students already understand how present.  Bayeck’s (2022) research emphasizes how positionality shifts based on interactions between people in groups. This made me reflect on how people’s positionality might shift in the group contexts of my own courses.

4. Intervention Iteration 2

Through reflection on the first iteration of my intervention, the following main limitations stood out to me: i) the task lacked clear guidance for students to articulate their personal perspectives and positionality, ii) the task assumed presentation skills without providing adequate support, and iii) overlooked how students’ positionality shifts within group dynamics. I further wanted to try to better support student’s reflection on their positionalities in a way that fit with the epistemological hard-science bias of CS.

4.1 Inclusive Learning Literature

To address the need to scaffold student’s in articulating their positionality, I explored more literature. Ashcroft, Severes and Martinez-Perez (2025) contributed cards with reflective prompts to help researchers in considering intersectionality and positionality. However, many of their prompts were focused on how to incorporate reflexivity into research paper writing or system designs – not supporting reflection-on-self per se.

A resource that stood out to me was The Positionality Wheel (Noel and Paiva, 2021). It presents an “activity created to help designers and researchers reflect on their identities and their teams’ composition before starting their work” (pg. 67). It contains 12 prompts that help people to write their own positionality statements. It is shown in Figure 3. I can immediately see how this could help students to think about a variety of facets – from race, gender and age, to class and education. I was also excited that it was designed for group work, as it could help with gleaming how people’s positionality was based on other’s group dynamics cf. Bayeck (2022). The challenge here is how to ensure that use of this tool is later reflected upon in the brainstorming context, which is more systems related.

I also considered how a more CS-styled activity migh help people build their positionality. I reflected on how algorithms in technology learn about us – from targeted adverts and curated Instagram feeds (Thompson, 2018), to AI models such as ChatGPT which mimic our ways of speaking (Farah, 2025). An idea for an activity which was developed in discussion with PGCert tutors and peers, was to have students create “digital selves” – writing their positionality in code as computer algorithms. However, I felt that this was best suited to a more longitudinal assessment, than in the single brainstorming sessions. Similarly, autobiographical design (Neustaedter and Sengers, 2012), where students can reflect on themselves and integrate this into their products, I thought would be well suited to helping students develop their positionality with technology. However, I felt this approach would require more time and didn’t suit the brainstorming context.

4.2 Intervention Design

Based on the literature above, I refined the brainstorming practice further, shown in Figure 4. The key additions were to incorporate the positionality wheel task at the start (to prime students) and end (to apply the wheel to the rest of the brainstorming activity). I also added that presenting tips would be sent out before the lecture, to give students information on how best to do this, as recommended in Grieve et al. (2021).

5. Action

I propose that the intervention could form the basis for my brainstorming sessions. For my teaching practice, this would help students to think more critically on their own positionality and perspectives. The hope is that students would learn more about themselves and each other. This could also nurture their intrinsic motivation to engage in learning, as the task are more directly related to their own interests. Furthermore, I hope that it could foster students comfort in recognising their own unique backgrounds, and in bringing forth these experiences.

6. Evaluation

From this process, I learnt that it is important to give space for students to foster ideas. I also recognized that specific guidance is both important to ensure that students have structure to be able to engage in deeper reflection, and to connect with themselves and bring forward their perspectives and critiques.

If I were to implement the activity, I would need to assess the types of information that students bring forth on their own personal perspectives and try to capture how their self-reflection and positionality changes within the group working context.

I also hope to explore the ideas which are more in line with the type of activity CS students tend to ask for such as to code their own positionality as algorithms. However, I think these would be better suited to an intervention that I could integrate throughout my courses.

7. Conclusion

My key takeaway is that inclusive interventions require structured scaffolding – such as the Positionality Wheel, reflective writing tasks, and alternative feedback mechanisms –to support students in articulating their own perspectives. This process has informed my practice by demonstrating how thoughtfully designed activities can foster positionality-related thinking, and could be consider within the epistemological constraints of CS.

References

Ashcroft, A., Severes, B. and Martinez-Perez, M. (2025) ‘Suggested Prompts for Reflexivity: Navigating Intersectionality in HCI and CSCW Research’, Interacting with Computers, p. iwaf007. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwaf007.

Bayeck, R.Y. (2022) ‘Positionality: The Interplay of Space, Context and Identity’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, p. 16094069221114745. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221114745.

Crenshaw, K. (1989) ‘Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics’, University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), pp. 139–167.

Farah, L. (2025) ‘Shifting Personas: Exploring AI embodiment and emotional manipulation’, in Proceedings of EVA London 2025 (EVA 2025). London, UK. Available at: https://doi.org/10.14236/ewic/EVA2025.47.

Garibay, J.C. (2015) ‘STEM students’ social agency and views on working for social change: Are STEM disciplines developing socially and civically responsible students?’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(5), pp. 610–632.

Grieve, R. et al. (2021) ‘Student fears of oral presentations and public speaking in higher education: a qualitative survey’, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45(9), pp. 1281–1293. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2021.1948509.

Holden, C. (1993) ‘Giving Girls a Chance: patterns of talk in co‐operative group work’, Gender and Education, 5(2), pp. 179–189. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0954025930050205.

Kaddoura, M. (2013) ‘Think pair share: A teaching learning strategy to enhance students’ critical thinking.’, Educational research quarterly, 36(4), pp. 3–24.

Lucero, A. (2015) ‘Using Affinity Diagrams to Evaluate Interactive Prototypes’, in J. Abascal et al. (eds) Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2015. Springer, Cham (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), pp. 231–248. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22668-2_19.

Mann, S. (2001) ‘Alternative perspectives on the student experience: alienation and engagement’, Studies in Higher Education, 26(1), pp. 7–19.

Medaille, A. and Usinger, J. (2019) ‘Engaging Quiet Students in the College Classroom’, College Teaching, 67(2), pp. 130–137. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2019.1579701.

Neustaedter, C. and Sengers, P. (2012) ‘Autobiographical design in HCI research: designing and learning through use-it-yourself’, in Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery (DIS ’12), pp. 514–523. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/2317956.2318034.

Noel, L.-A. and Paiva, M. (2021) ‘Learning to recognize exclusion’, J. Usability Studies, 16(2), pp. 63–72.

Pocius, K.E. (1991) ‘Personality factors in human-computer interaction: A review of the literature’, Computers in Human Behavior, 7(3), pp. 103–135. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0747-5632(91)90002-I.

QMUL Women+ of STEM (2025) ‘Official Instagram Profile’. Available at: https://www.instagram.com/qmulwostem/.

Slovak, P. et al. (2023) ‘Designing for Emotion Regulation Interventions: An Agenda for HCI Theory and Research’, ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., 30(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/3569898.

Sturdee, M. et al. (2021) ‘A Plurality of Practices: Artistic Narratives in HCI Research’, in Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Creativity and Cognition. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery (C&C ’21). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/3450741.3466771.

Thompson, N. (2018) ‘When tech knows you better than you know yourself’, Wired, 10th April [Preprint].

Unin, N. and Bearing, P. (2016) ‘Brainstorming as a Way to Approach Student-centered Learning in the ESL Classroom’, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 224, pp. 605–612. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.450.

Wong, B. et al. (2021) ‘Is race still relevant? Student perceptions and experiences of racism in higher education’, Cambridge Journal of Education, 51(3), pp. 359–375. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2020.1831441.

In this blog, I reflect on resources relating to race and higher education.

UAL’s anti-racism action plan (Purnell and Patel, 2021) sparked my reflection on performativity, and on how anti-racism is “evidenced” by universities. The plan says it will create “measurable commitments” and deliver change in its “data”. My view is that issues relating to racism in university teaching are far more complex than the simplistic stories that numbers can paint – especially when considering theories of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989) and the matrix of domination (Collins, 1990). It is apparent that universities’ reports on awarding gaps are flawed – underrepresenting many people’s diverse characteristics as well as those unwilling to disclose their information. The UAL plan also introduces student-facing workshops and events, which can easily be counted to show that the university has acted. However, this stops anti-racism being more thoroughly integrated into everyday work life – instead becoming a one-time consideration.

I had similar thoughts when reviewing the Telegraph’s report: “The charity turning UK universities woke” (Orr, 2022). It critiques AdvanceHE’s Athena SWAN and equality charters by interviewing students and experts from Cambridge. It argues that AdvanceHE’s guidelines are unhelpful, leading to trainings that push a particular ideology. To support this, the interviewer speaks with a recent Cambridge PhD, who says that a cambridge-published report found just one racism report per year to HR (over the short period of five years). This ignores i) the bias of the institution itself publishing the report, ii) systemic HR challenges that block complaints, and iii) broader cultural issues that discourage people from reporting in the first place.

Despite interviews with students who say AdvanceHE-influenced ideas helped them better understand and engage with others, the interviewer frames it as an attack on free speech. In one interview, an interviewee notes that, given the diversity at universities, it can be hard to fit in – a genuine point about the plurality of perspectives on campus. The interviewer uses this to suggest people can’t express their views (although, no one had noted that they can’t). The interviewee then mentions changing “hello ladies and gentlemen” to “hello everybody” in their teaching – the point where the clip cuts off. This minor, voluntary shift in language to me brings more students into discussions: not posing a threat to free expression.

This brings me to my reflection on a video clip of students doing a privilege walk (Channel 4, 2020). Its benefit and drawback is that it makes alienation visible. This is useful for sparking reflection in students (see Mann, 2001; Demirdiş, 2021; and my earlier blog link). However, as a pedagogic technique, care is needed to ensure this exposure doesn’t have harmful effects. Many anti-diversity rhetorics tap into white guilt which leads to white defensiveness (Levine-Rasky, 2000). People often react angrily to guilt, doubling down rather than considering how to change. This emotional reaction may help to explain the popularity of free speech arguments used against universities.

For teaching, I’d thus love to explore more how to invite reflection on race throughout courses and better manage emotional discussions. Any recommendations welcome!

References

Channel 4 (2020) ‘The School That Tried to End Racism’. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I3wJ7pJUjg.

Collins, P.H. (1990) ‘Black feminist thought in the matrix of domination’, Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment, 138(1990), pp. 221–238.

Crenshaw, K. (1989) ‘Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics’, University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), pp. 139–167.

Demirdiş, M. (2021) ‘Bertolt Brecht’s Theatrical Techniques’ Connection with Critical Pedagogy and Their Usability in Learning Environments’, in. Available at: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:252019494.

Levine-Rasky, C. (2000) ‘The practice of whiteness among teacher candidates’, International Studies in Sociology of Education, 10(3), pp. 263–284.

Mann, S. (2001) ‘Alternative perspectives on the student experience: alienation and engagement’, Studies in Higher Education, 26(1), pp. 7–19.

Orr, J. (2022) ‘Revealed: The Charity Turning UK Universities Woke’. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRM6vOPTjuU.

Purnell, J. and Patel, N. (2021) ‘UAL Anti-racism Action Plan Summary’. University of the Arts London. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0032/296537/UAL-Anti-racism-action-plan-summary-2021.pdf.

This blog reflects on how to support students in sharing their faith and identity within my Computer Science lecturing, drawing on course readings and recent teaching experiences.

Reflecting on Literature

In workshop 2A/2B, we reflected on what constitutes as faith. McKeown and Dunn’s  (2021) point that ethical, but not health, veganism is a philosophical belief broadened my understanding of faith beyond religion. Ramadan’s (2022) report on the challenges of Muslim Women Academics (MWA) also shed light on issues with micro-aggressions and tokenism in intersectional contexts. I was particularly struck by how some MWA would remove their hijabs to progress their careers.  The theme across these papers was that there is evident discrimination on people’s beliefs that, through the lens of the social model of disability (Oliver, 2013), are enabled through governance and institutional practice.

However, Wong et al.‘s (2021) study on students’ perception of academics made a point which resonated most with me and my practice. They noted that the STEM fields’ focus on “hard facts” and “objectivity” can obscure unconscious bias, essentially training computer scientists to overlook social influences. Indeed, HCI research has not fully engaged with faith, religion and spirituality (Rifat et al., 2022; Wolf, Friedrich and Hurtienne, 2024), despite diverse understandings of how people’s consumption and perception of technology being an asset to the field (Ibtasam, 2021).  

Teaching Context: A Recent Example

Reflecting on the literature above, I postulate that the objective epistemic stance dominating Computer Science hinders students’ confidence in bringing forth their lived experiences. We recently had a guest lecturer who discussed how, in the future, people might have computer chips placed into their brains, to manipulate their reality. They asked the class for their perspective on this. One student, in a rare moment of vulnerability, told the speaker that they were Muslim and objected to the idea that computer scientists should be interfering with God’s creation. This was a fantastic, critical, personal insight from the student, based on their lifestyle, norms and values. This student rarely brings forth this perspective in other classes, nor their reflective writing blogs (which directly ask for personal perspectives).  

So what?

To me, bringing forth people’s diverse perspectives seems key to an inclusive teaching environment – where everyone’s intersectional identities are welcome and foreground their critical thinking on the ideas introduced. An open question is how to foster students’ confidence in bringing forth their personal perspective – particularly, in a discipline which emphasises objectivity, not plurality.

One suggestion from in-class discussion was to offer alternative ways for students to give feedback. However, in my experience, when I have offered this option, it is still only the most active students who engage.

Recently, I have found activities which dismantle the student-teacher hierarchy to be useful in giving students’ confidence in being who they are. I’ve had lunch with students and chatted with them at events. Since then, the quieter students have been more forthcoming with their own ideas and perspectives – drawn from their lived experience – in their assignments and classes. Perhaps, there is opportunity for more inclusive, informal events, that improve students’ comfort around me and their peers. Thus, opening them up to giving their viewpoints without the pretense of the disciplines’, arguably unfriendly, ‘hard science’ epistemology.

These are early thoughts, but I aim to better explore how to encourage students’ diverse perspectives – including faith, race, and culture – throughout the module.

References

Ibtasam, S. (2021) ‘For God’s sake! Considering Religious Beliefs in HCI Research : A Case of Islamic HCI’, in Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery (CHI EA ’21). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3450383.

McKeown, P. and Dunn, R.A. (2021) ‘A “Life-Style Choice” or a Philosophical Belief?: The Argument for Veganism and Vegetarianism to be a Protected Philosophical Belief and the Position in England and Wales’, Liverpool Law Review, 42(2), pp. 207–241. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-020-09273-w.

Oliver, M. (2013) ‘The social model of disability: thirty years on’, Disability & Society, 28(7), pp. 1024–1026. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2013.818773.

Ramadan, I. (2022) ‘When faith intersects with gender: the challenges and successes in the experiences of Muslim women academics’, Gender and Education, 34(1), pp. 33–48. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2021.1893664.

Rifat, M.R. et al. (2022) ‘Integrating Religion, Faith, and Spirituality in HCI’, in Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery (CHI EA ’22). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3503705.

Wolf, S., Friedrich, P. and Hurtienne, J. (2024) ‘Still Not a Lot of Research? Re-Examining HCI Research on Religion and Spirituality’, in Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery (CHI EA ’24). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/3613905.3651058.

Wong, B. et al. (2021) ‘Is race still relevant? Student perceptions and experiences of racism in higher education’, Cambridge Journal of Education, 51(3), pp. 359–375. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2020.1831441.

Teaching Context

In my teaching, I frequently run brainstorming sessions. Examples include students identifying unexpected links between blog posts on guest lectures (2^nd Year BSc Computer Science), and brainstorming usability issues with Moodle pages (MSc Computer Science). These sessions use the following process, based on Lucero (2015):

Challenges

There are issues of inclusion in this process, particularly in the group work context. In a previous blog post (link), I showed that when using online tools such as Miro, students did not contribute equally – many stayed quiet whilst one individual dominated. Since then, I use paper post-it notes and using different colours per person, so their contribution is visible. My teaching observation (link) also showed that mostly male students presented ideas; other group members didn’t speak.

Research has shown methods to increase participation of quiet students in these types of settings. For example, storytelling and inviting personal viewpoints in group tasks (Unin and Bearing, 2016; Medaille and Usinger, 2019) is shown as effective in increasing participation – people were more connected offering their own, diverse, lived-experiences.

Holden (1993) advocated for groups of mostly boys or mostly girls, showing that girl-majority groups tended to increase the amount of “abstract talk” (where students reason, hypothesise and find conclusions around an issue). My view would be that forcing gendered groups could be alienating; I read the work more to suggest not forcing a gender balanced for groups, but to allow students to mix as comfortable.

The addition of writing-based tasks can also engage quieter students (Medaille and Usinger, 2019) – giving space to articulate their thinking. This also neatly documents their ideas for feedback which could be outside of the classroom. This reminds me of the think-pair-share method (Kaddoura, 2013), to give time to reason around tasks before sharing to the class.

Intervention

Below I propose a more inclusive brainstorming framework, based on the literature above.

References

Holden, C. (1993) ‘Giving Girls a Chance: patterns of talk in co‐operative group work’, Gender and Education, 5(2), pp. 179–189. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0954025930050205.

Kaddoura, M. (2013) ‘Think pair share: A teaching learning strategy to enhance students’ critical thinking.’, Educational research quarterly, 36(4), pp. 3–24.

Lucero, A. (2015) ‘Using Affinity Diagrams to Evaluate Interactive Prototypes’, in J. Abascal et al. (eds) Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2015. Springer, Cham (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), pp. 231–248. Available at: https:/doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22668-2_19.

Medaille, A. and Usinger, J. (2019) ‘Engaging Quiet Students in the College Classroom’, College Teaching, 67(2), pp. 130–137. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2019.1579701.

Unin, N. and Bearing, P. (2016) ‘Brainstorming as a Way to Approach Student-centered Learning in the ESL Classroom’, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 224, pp. 605–612. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.450.

This blog uses Crenshaw’s (1989) theory of intersectionality – where race, gender, and other characteristics overlap and create discrimination beyond a single-axis –  to reflect on films by individuals identifying as disabled.

Illustrative Examples

Film one presents the Social Model of Disability at UAL but doesn’t give concrete examples of lived experience. Due to scope, I place more emphasis on the other films.

Film two features Paralympian Ade Adepitan discussing systemic discrimination intersecting race and disability. Adepitian notes that the Paralympic movement created opportunities for people to shine, yet other movements haven’t made much progress and should offer better support. Lived Experience: A striking example for me was Ade being unsure that he could promise children that their characteristics wouldn’t hold them back. It upset me that societal issues factored into such a decision. I was also surprised that the interviewer focused on transport design, missing the broader point about systemic attitude change.

In film three, Christine Sun Kim discusses how repetition of sign language shift its meaning, and how her large-scale art brings deaf experiences into hearing people’s everyday experience. Lived Experience: I enjoyed how Christine involved her child in her practice, showcasing how their experience permeates family life. Christine also felt less pressure in Berlin compared with NYC. Yet, NYC helped her build communication skills outside the deaf community. I was struck by how nuances within deaf culture can create barriers with the hearing world.

Film four features Chay Brown, a trans man and “probably not neurotypical”, cofounder of Transfactual, discussing their intersecting identity shapes and feelings of belonging in the LGBTQ+ community. Lived Experience: Chay had to learn the subtleties of non-verbal communication among gay men. He also highlights intersectional challenges, like step-free venues lacking accessible toilets, and how that LGBTQ+ events could better support those with neurodivergence.

Themes

One similarity was the systemic influences on family life. Christine’s integration of her child into her artistic practice demonstrated how disability became part of their everyday family life, whilst Ade’s reflections on the possibility of starting a family emphasised the challenges.

There was a trend in understanding nuances of how cultural communication intersects with identity. Chay’s reflections on the non-verbal communication practices of the gay male community parallel Christine’s need to develop communication skills in New York.

Other moments emphasised systemic issues and need for broader attitude change, e.g., Adepitan’s discussion of the limited progress of movements compared with the Paralympic movement which provided opportunities for equal involvement – where attitude change leads to genuine equality of opportunity. Christine in NYC and Chay at LGBTQ events both also highlight systemic issues with cultures they interacted in.

My Teaching Context

I teach software design. Software we use might include systemic bias. For example, features (such as the save icon) typically assume a western user (Kariuki, 2023). We also have a deaf student on our course, where it is crucial that our software includes accessibility support, e.g. screen readers or tools for colour-blindness.

Our course also has several neurodivergent students. When lecturing, I need to be careful that I am communicating in a way that is not vague or understood, avoiding colloquialisms. I’ll also be mindful with assessing reports, where phrasing or language might vary.

It is important for students to recognise their own positionality and consider others when creating software, e.g., to avoid unconscious bias becoming part of their design cf. airport scanners which flag non-binary bodies for search (Costanza-Chock, 2020). Fostering everyday foresight on issues of diversity is paramount to my teaching.

References

Costanza-Chock, S. (2020) Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. The MIT Press.

Crenshaw, K. (1989) ‘Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics’, University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), pp. 139–167.

Kariuki, P. (2023) ‘Rwanda is different from California: from coding to innovation to impact people’. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRYlokbxzmM.