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.
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).