Hello :)

Hello! My name is Mihali Intziegianni and I am a creative practitioner from Cyprus based in London. I currently work at London College of Fashion as a Specialist Photography Technician  for School of Media and Communication. I am also a Visiting Practitioner for short courses and the Outreach program.

I hope the PgCert provides me with the knowledge to create and foster creative spaces and educational reflexive practices in my teaching methods and personal and professional journey. I also hope to develop further into Academia and progress professionally.

Reflecting on Data Results

Student_Questionnaire_ResultsDownload

Staff_Questionnaire_ResultsDownload

Looking across both the student and staff questionnaire responses, one thing becomes clear very quickly: there is a shared awareness that studio terminology is a sticking point — but it shows up differently depending on positionality in the studio.

Doing vs naming

Students repeatedly showed that they are far more confident doing than naming. Many could recognise equipment, use it correctly, and work through studio setups, but struggled when asked to name tools or explain what they were using. This came through clearly in the image-based questions, where common responses relied on generic terms like “stand”, “tripod”, or “that thing that goes on the stand”.

Staff responses strongly echoed this. Several staff noted that students often know what equipment does, but not what it’s called. One described students “pointing rather than naming”, while another reflected that students tend to describe function instead of using technical terms. This alignment between student self-reporting and staff observation is important. It suggests this isn’t a perception gap, but a real pattern. This alignment does not point to a deficit in student knowledge, it should be expected, but to a recurring pattern that raises questions about progression, timing, and how studio terminology is supported as students move further through the course.

Confidence is quieter than it looks

On paper, many students reported feeling reasonably confident in the studio. But when questions moved towards terminology, that confidence dipped. Students described looking things up after sessions, copying peers, or guessing based on context rather than asking directly.

Staff noticed the same thing. Several mentioned that students rarely say outright that they don’t understand terminology. Instead, uncertainty shows up as hesitation, silence, or reliance on peers. One staff member noted that students can appear confident and capable, while still being “quietly unsure” about what things are called.

What’s interesting here is that embarrassment wasn’t always explicitly named by students, but it still seems to be operating in the background. Not knowing the “right word” can feel like not belonging, especially in a space that already feels technical, professional, and fast-paced.

Volume, pace, and overload

Both groups pointed to the sheer amount of terminology as a challenge. Students talked about too many new terms being introduced at once and not enough time to absorb or practise them. Staff reflected on the difficulty of balancing safety, technical instruction, and creative teaching within limited workshop time.

One staff response highlighted how terminology often comes bundled with everything else: equipment handling, lighting theory, workflow, and creative decision making. In that context, it’s easy for language learning to become secondary or invisible altogether.

This raises an important question: if terminology is essential for independence and employability, where exactly is the space for it to be learned properly?

Inconsistency across staff and students

Another strong theme from the staff questionnaire was inconsistency. Several respondents acknowledged that different staff use different terms for the same equipment, often based on professional background or habit. One described how “we all use slightly different terms”, which can easily confuse students who are still building their vocabulary.

From a student perspective, this inconsistency shows up as uncertainty. If the same object has multiple names, or if names shift depending on who is teaching, it becomes harder to feel confident using any of them.

This isn’t about blaming anyone. It’s about recognising that studio language is inherited, informal, and rarely standardised. But that informality can sometimes create real barriers for learners.

Language, background, and access

Both questionnaires also pointed towards the role of background and language. Some students explicitly linked terminology challenges to English not being their first language. Staff noticed similar patterns, pointing out that students from different educational or cultural backgrounds often arrive with very different levels of exposure to studio language.

What’s important here is that terminology isn’t just technical, it’s cultural. Knowing the right words signals professionalism, experience, and belonging. When that language isn’t made explicit, it advantages those who have encountered it before.

Support, resources, and shared responsibility

When asked about support, students and staff were remarkably aligned. Visual guides, images paired with names, repetition, and the ability to revisit terminology outside of workshops came up again and again. Both groups saw value in a shared or centralised resource ® not as a replacement for teaching, but as something that supports it.

Staff responses were particularly interesting here. Several framed shared resources as a way to reduce repetition, improve consistency, and help students become more independent. One suggested that clearer terminology support would allow more time for creative problem-solving, rather than constant clarification.

There was also a sense that terminology support shouldn’t sit solely with students. Instead, it’s a shared responsibility shaped by how teaching in the studios is conducted, labelled, and talked about.

A note on responses!

It’s important to acknowledge that while the student response rate was not so reasonable, staff participation was even lower. Out of around 30 invitations sent to staff, only 7 people completed the questionnaire. This limits how far the findings can be generalised.

At the same time, the overlap between staff responses and student experiences gives weight to the themes that did emerge. The patterns are consistent enough to suggest that these issues are not isolated.

What now?

Taken together, the questionnaires show that studio terminology sits in an awkward in-between space. It’s essential, but rarely taught directly. It’s expected, but unevenly accessible. And it has a real impact on confidence, communication, independence, and how students position themselves in professional environments.

Reflecting on both sets of responses reinforces the idea that improving studio language isn’t about correcting students. It’s about evolving teaching practices, developing clearer resources, and making studio knowledge more visible and shared.

Speaking the studio, it turns out, is as much about how we teach as what we teach.

Technical Resources: Pages Analytics

  1. Technical Resource Page: Introduction to Photography Lighting

https://artslondon.sharepoint.com/sites/LCFTech/SitePages/Photography%20-%20Basic%20Lighting.aspx

Sharepoint Page Analytics – Number of unique users who have viewed this page.
Sharepoint Page Analytics – Number of times users have viewed this page.

2. Technical Resource page: Single Point Lighting for Portraits

https://artslondon.sharepoint.com/sites/LCFTech/SitePages/An-Introduction-to-Portrait-Photography-Lighting.aspx

Sharepoint Page Analytics – Number of unique users who have viewed this page.
Sharepoint Page Analytics – Number of times users have viewed this page.

3. Technical Resource page: Light and Lighting

https://artslondon.sharepoint.com/sites/LCFTech/SitePages/Light-and-Lighting.aspx

Sharepoint Page Analytics – Number of unique users who have viewed this page.
Sharepoint Page Analytics – Number of times users have viewed this page.

4. Technical Resource Page: Lighting Ratios

https://artslondon.sharepoint.com/sites/LCFTech/SitePages/Lighting-Ratios.aspx

Sharepoint Page Analytics – Number of unique users who have viewed this page.
Sharepoint Page Analytics – Number of times users have viewed this page.
  • LCFTech pages have been running since 2019, most photography related resources were completed between 2021-2023.
  • Foundational pages receive slightly more attention than specialised ones.
  • Overall engagement is extremely low!

ONLINE RESOURCE BOOKING (ORB) FINDINGS

Astonishing 1/4 of students have not used the studios so far.

Students that completed the training: 24

Students that are yet to complete the training: 9

Bookings on ORB have been slow, especially for MA students.

Equipment bookings have been steady throughout.

Studios and studio related equipment bookings have been consistent.

questionnaire aims and research notes

Speaking the Studio: Why This Study Was Needed

This small-scale study stemmed from my repeated observations in studio-based workshops with MA Fashion Photography students at London College of Fashion. While many students demonstrated confidence using equipment, they often hesitated when asked to name tools, ask technical questions, or verbally communicate their needs. This study was designed to better understand that gap.

The Aim of the Study

The central aim of the research was to explore how MA Fashion Photography students understand photographic studio terminology, and how this understanding affects confidence, participation, and learning in studio-based environments.

Specifically, the study aimed to:

  • Identify gaps in students’ understanding of common photographic studio terminology
  • Compare confidence in using studio equipment with confidence in recognising and using technical language
  • Understand how students respond when terminology is unfamiliar during workshops
  • Gather student perspectives on what kinds of support would help them learn studio language more effectively

At the heart of the study was a simple question:

If studio language is part of professional photographic practice, how accessible is it to MA Fashion Photography students when it is left implicit?

Rather than focusing on knowledge deficits, the study was framed around improving learning environments and identifying opportunities to support student development more effectively.

How the Research Was Carried Out

An anonymous online questionnaire was distributed to MA Fashion Photography students at London College of Fashion. The questionnaire combined quantitative and qualitative questions, including:

  • Confidence scales for studio equipment and terminology
  • Image-based questions asking students to name commonly used studio tools
  • Multiple-choice questions about challenges and coping strategies
  • Open-ended questions exploring confidence, frustration, and studio experience

Out of a total of 33 MA Fashion Photography students only 13 participated to the study. They came from a range of prior educational and professional backgrounds, and for several students English was not their first language [an important factor when learning highly specific technical vocabulary].

What the Study Sought to Reveal

Rather than assessing technical competence, the questionnaire was designed to reveal where friction occurs in studio learning. It explored:

  • The gap between recognising equipment visually and naming it accurately
  • Whether technical terms are understood in real time during fast-paced workshops
  • How students cope when they do not understand studio language
  • Whether terminology affects confidence, communication, and a sense of belonging

Early analysis suggested that studio terminology often operates as a hidden layer of learning, one that can quietly shape confidence and access within the studio.

Why This Matters

For MA Fashion Photography students, studio fluency is closely tied to professional identity. Knowing how to “speak the studio” affects how confidently students collaborate, experiment, and position themselves within professional photographic environments.

By making studio terminology more explicit, visual, and shared, educators can reduce unnecessary barriers and support more inclusive studio learning. This study highlights opportunities to develop clearer and more accessible learning resources, introduce more engaging and inclusive approaches to technical delivery, and consider the role of a centralised glossary in supporting diverse student learning experiences.

Questionnaire preparations

This week I focused on refining the questionnaires, one for students and one for technical staff and visiting practitioners, which will help me understand how photographic studio terminology is learned, used, and sometimes misunderstood.

Both questionnaires were designed to gather specific insights:

  • The staff questionnaire explores observed challenges, levels of student confidence, and the types of support technicians feel would be beneficial.
Staff_Questionnaire_MIDownload
  • The student questionnaire focuses on prior experience, familiarity with terminology, confidence levels, and preferred forms of support.
Student_Questionnaire_MIDownload

Following the ethical requirements, each includes an embedded Participant Information Sheet, a clear consent statement, and no identifiable data are collected. All responses remain fully anonymous.

As part of the preparation, I contacted the MA Fashion Photography course leader to request permission to attend an upcoming session and allocate 10 minutes for students to complete the questionnaire. I also sent a group email to all technical staff explaining the project and inviting them to participate.

Screenshot: Email to Paul
Screenshot: Email to staff

Reflection: “Knowing Me, Knowing You” 

Reframing My Research Approach

At my first *proper* tutorial with Andrew, it became clear that I was approaching my action research project from a wrong lens. I had jumped straight into thinking about solutions, specifically the glossary app, without fully understanding the problem. I had assumed the app was the answer before I had properly interrogated what the question actually is.

One thing Andrew pointed out, which immediately resonated and made me realise something true about my own approach, was that I seemed to be working from a place of certainty rather than curiosity. In other words: I was acting as though I already knew what students struggled with and what they needed, even though I had not formally asked them. This was an important moment of self-awareness. It made me recognise how easy it is, as a practitioner, to rely on instinct, repetition, and experience – especially when I spend so much time teaching in the studio and seeing students’ reactions in real time.

But Andrew’s comment made me realise that my understanding is still partial. I see what students do in workshops, but not necessarily what they feel, what they assume, or what they fear they don’t know. I see the visible challenges, not the invisible ones.

This insight is pushing me to ask a more profound question:
“What don’t I know?”

This question completely reframes my approach. Instead of starting with a proposed solution, I now need to put my focus on the students themselves. What they experience. What they understand. What they struggle with. What they wish they had. And just as importantly: what I might be misinterpreting or overlooking.

I already know from teaching the MA Fashion Photography that students arrive with widely different levels of photographic knowledge. They come from different cultural, educational, and linguistic backgrounds. Yes, I have observed a language barrier (especially between native and second-language English speakers) and I do recognise that this may only be one layer of the issue. Some students may not know technical terminology simply because they have never been exposed to studio practice before. Others may feel embarrassed to ask questions. Some may use different terminology from their home countries. Some may feel overwhelmed by fast-paced workshop environments.

But (and this is the key point) I do not know this for certain until I ask them.

  • How can I engage students who know a lot alongside those who know very little?
  • How can I understand what students already know before assuming what they don’t?
  • How can I meaningfully uncover the silent, hidden, or unspoken gaps in confidence?
  • How can I create space for students to tell me what they need, instead of me deciding it for them?

I had been thinking too far ahead, my solution-focused mindset skipped over the most crucial step: understanding the problem from multiple perspectives. Once I truly understand this, the right form of intervention (digital or not) will become clearer.

This encourages me to take a step back, sit in the uncertainty, and begin again from a position of curiosity. This shift opens up space for a more honest, inclusive, and reflective enquiry, one that starts with students’ realities rather than my projections.

I cannot support students effectively unless I first understand them, and unless I also critically reflect on what I don’t yet know about their learning needs.

Reframing the project this way is fundamentally reshaping my direction. The research now begins with enquiry, listening, and discovery and not with a predetermined outcome. 

The true purpose of action research: to learn before acting!

‘Unknown unknowns’

“Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know.

We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.

But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know.

And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.”

– Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Department of Defense Briefing, 12 Feb 2002

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_unknown_unknowns#cite_note-defense.gov-transcript-1

ABBA (1976) Knowing Me, Knowing You. Arrival. Available at: Apple Music (Accessed: 7 November 2025).

IP unit: Reflective Report

Inclusive Toolkit for Photography Workshops

Introduction

This reflective report outlines the development and theoretical grounding of my intervention proposal: an Inclusive Toolkit for Photography Workshops. As a queer, bilingual specialist technician my intersectionality and positionality inform my commitment to embedding inclusive practices in my technical teaching. The proposal emerges from an awareness of how exclusion can be structurally embedded in photography teaching environments, where assumptions around physical ability, neurotypical processing, and technical fluency often marginalise disabled, neurodivergent, multilingual, or otherwise underrepresented students.

My aim is to design and implement an intervention that moves from reactive accommodation to proactive inclusive design. Grounded in intersectional social justice (Crenshaw, 1991; Bell, 2007) and inclusive pedagogies (Hockings, 2010), this toolkit seeks to create more equitable and accessible learning environments. The intervention is shaped by both lived experience and observation in technical workshops, and supported by critical reflection and peer feedback throughout the Inclusive Practices (IP) unit.

Context

In my role at LCF, I deliver a wide range of technical workshops including analogue darkroom processes, digital photography, post-production editing, and studio lighting. These workshops cater to diverse student cohorts across multiple courses. A recurring challenge I have observed is the mismatch between the one-size-fits-all structure of technical delivery and the multifaceted learning needs of students. From complex technical language to physically demanding processes, these workshops often presume a normative learner-English-speaking, physically-able, neurotypical, and confident in navigating unfamiliar tools.

The Inclusive Toolkit I propose is intended as a modular, shareable resource for embedding inclusive practice across technical teaching. 

It includes: 

  • Flexible task adaptations. 
  • Screen-reader accessible asynchronous materials. 
  • Access reflection prompts.
  • A diverse reference list highlighting underrepresented photographers. 
  • Optional, inclusive feedback formats.
  • Potential additional workshop/discussion session on how access and identity shape photographic practice and vice versa. (to be continued in Action Research project).

The toolkit is designed for adaptability, allowing other technicians and educators to build on it. While the initial pilot will be limited to one or two workshops, I envision its application across my technical department.

Toolkit for Inclusive Workshop PracticesDownload

Inclusive Learning and Theoretical Rationale

Inclusive practice in photography education is not just an ethical imperative but a pedagogical one. Students must be able to engage fully in order to develop critical, creative and technical knowledge. In my context, where fashion photography often reflects and reproduces dominant norms around beauty, ability and identity, an inclusive approach must challenge these structures.

This intervention is grounded in Kimberlé Crenshaw’s theory of intersectionality (1991), which highlights how multiple systems of oppression can compound barriers to access. It also draws from Universal Design for Learning (CAST, 2018), which advocates for designing learning environments that anticipate diverse needs.

Boler and Zembylas’ (2003) concept of “pedagogies of discomfort” has also informed my approach, particularly in designing workshops that encourage critical reflection on privilege and access. Hockings (2010) argues that inclusive learning involves recognising and valuing difference, which aligns with my aim to incorporate diverse photographic references and open formats for participation.

Recent research also emphasises participatory design in inclusive education. Huang, He and Jiang (2024) argue for co-producing accessible knowledge through community-based methodologies, while Falk et al. (2024) highlight the importance of designing diverse pathways for participation. These insights reinforced the need for my toolkit to be a living, co-created document.

Reflection on Process

The intervention proposal evolved through continuous reflection and peer feedback during the IP unit. Initially, I conceived the toolkit as a solo project shaped by my own observations. However, formative feedback from peers and line management team encouraged me to consider co-designing elements with students and colleagues. This shift towards participatory design represents a meaningful transformation in my approach, acknowledging that inclusion is not a fixed outcome but a collective, evolving process.

One key decision was to centre flexibility within the toolkit, avoiding a prescriptive approach. Feedback also highlighted the importance of planning the toolkit’s implementation in phases—prioritising certain changes for immediate rollout while leaving room for iteration. A potential risk is institutional inertia: unless embedded within departmental structures, the toolkit could remain underutilised. To mitigate this, I plan to share findings and invite collaboration from other technical staff, especially those in photography across UAL.

Challenges also included time constraints within technical delivery and the emotional labour of advocating for inclusion in environments where it’s often seen as supplementary. Nonetheless, the IP unit gave me a framework and community to explore these tensions constructively.

Action and Next Steps

I intend to pilot the Inclusive Toolkit in one or two photography workshops at the beginning of the academic year, focusing on analogue or digital studio sessions. The pilot will include flexible task options, an accessible handout, and an optional debrief using a reflective prompt on access and identity. Informal student feedback will be gathered through short reflective forms and one-on-one conversations.

Following the pilot, I aim to revise the toolkit based on feedback and invite peer technicians to trial elements in their own workshops. A collaborative meeting with colleagues across technical photography teams at UAL could motivate cross-departmental application. In the longer term, the toolkit could become part of new technician’s induction or training.

Evaluation of Process

This process has deepened my understanding of inclusion as a design practice rather than a retrofit. I have learned that intersectional access must be embedded at all levels—from planning to delivery to evaluation. Theoretical frameworks from intersectionality to Universal Design for Learning have provided language and structure to ideas I had previously intuited through experience.

If implemented, the toolkit’s success will be measured not just by participation but by student confidence, feedback, and engagement. I am also interested in how peer technicians respond to the resource – whether it resonates, adapts, or evolves through their contexts.

The IP unit has also encouraged me to consider inclusion as a shared responsibility, not the burden of individual educators or students. Inclusion becomes transformative when it is participatory, evolving and embedded in the fabric of practice.

Conclusion

This intervention has allowed me to crystallise an ambition I have long held: to create technical learning environments where all students can thrive, not just survive. My intersectionality has helped me recognise the subtle and systemic ways in which exclusion manifests in photography teaching. Through the PgCert course, theory, peer discussions, and structured reflection, I have begun to shift from reactive accommodation to proactive inclusion.

The Inclusive Toolkit is both a practical resource and a philosophical commitment to equity in technical education. It remains open-ended, designed for co-creation and continuous development. Looking forward, I am committed to embedding this work into my own practice, and collaborating with others to foster inclusive, equitable learning spaces across UAL and beyond.

References

Bell, L. A. (2007) ‘Theoretical foundations for social justice education’, in Adams, M., Bell, L. A. and Griffin, P. (eds) Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice. 2nd edn. New York: Routledge, pp. 1–14.

Boler, M. and Zembylas, M. (2003) ‘Discomforting truths: The emotional terrain of understanding difference’, Philosophy of Education, 2003(1), pp. 110–119.

CAST (2018) Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Wakefield, MA: CAST. Available at: https://udlguidelines.cast.org (Accessed: 10 July 2025).

Crenshaw, K. (1991) ‘Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color’, Stanford Law Review, 43(6), pp. 1241–1299.

Falk, J., Blumenkranz, A., Kubesch, M., Vetter, R., Hofer, L. and Frauenberger, C. (2024) ‘Designing diverse pathways for participation’, in Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–16.

Flacke, J., Hoefsloot, F. I. and Pfeffer, K. (2025) ‘Inclusive digital planning: Co-designing a collaborative mapping tool to support the planning of accessible public space for all’, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 121, p. 102310.

Hockings, C. (2010) ‘Inclusive learning and teaching in higher education: a synthesis of research’, EvidenceNet, pp. 1–31.

Huang, S., He, J. and Jiang, Z. (2024) ‘Co-producing access(ible) knowledge: Methodological reflections on a community-based participatory research’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23, p. 16094069241257947.

Schindler-Ruwisch, J., Paiz, H. R. and Pryor, K. (2024) ‘Social justice in community environments: A collaborative photovoice process’, Journal of Participatory Research Methods, 5(2).