1. What is the working title of your project?
Working title: To what extent does a teaching sequence support socio-spatial and ethical awareness in architecture students?
This Action Research Project examines how a structured sequence of teaching activities supports BA Architecture students in developing socio-spatial and ethical awareness before beginning design proposals for affordable and social housing on the Dorset Estate. The project builds on my experience of teaching the same studio brief over several years and responds to recurring challenges in how students imagine and represent future users.
The pedagogical sequence moves from personal reflection ‘What is the meaning of home for you?’ through speculative exploration to a collective workshop entitled ‘Who do I imagine when I imagine a user?’. In this workshop, students prepare three speculative user profiles informed by demographic research rather than direct engagement with residents.The project investigates how this sequencing helps students recognize the ethical responsibilities involved in architectural representation, particularly when working with socially sensitive housing contexts.
2. What sources will you read or reference?
BERA (2024) Guidelines for Educational Research (5th ed.).
UAL Code of Practice on Educational Ethics and Educational Ethics (Canvas).
International Visual Sociology Association (IVSA), Code of Research Ethics and Guidelines. University of Sheffield (2018) Emotionally Demanding Research.
Banks, S. (2016) Everyday Ethics in Professional Life.
IVSA (2009) Ethics and Guidelines. Social Research Association (SRA) (2021) Research Ethics Guidance.
Cook, T. (2009) ‘The purpose of mess in action research: building rigour through a messy turn’, Educational Action Research
3. What action(s) are you planning to take and are they realistic in the time you have (Sept-Dec)?
I am redesigning and testing a short pre-design pedagogical sequence within existing studio teaching time. The actions focus on supporting students’ critical reflection on domesticity and the ethical implications of representing others, prior to any design work.
The sequence includes:
- What is the meaning of home for you?
An open-ended reflective exercise responding to the concept of home through a chosen medium (e.g. collage, photograph, text, sound, object). Students are not required to depict their own home or disclose personal circumstances. This activity supports reflection while avoiding unequal exposure of domestic conditions. - Speculative exploration of home and care
A follow-on task that invites students to move beyond personal experience and explore ideas of collectivity, care, and everyday spatial practices. This stage prepares students to think relationally and socially before introducing users. - Who do I imagine when I imagine a user?
The central intervention is a structured workshop in which students present a portfolio page containing three speculative user profiles. These profiles are informed by demographic research (e.g. household types, income ranges, work patterns, accessibility needs, housing precarity) rather than direct engagement with residents. Users are represented through fictional images, drawings, or short vignettes prepared in advance. During the workshop, peer discussion and facilitated questioning encourage students to critically reassess assumptions around income, tenure, eligibility, and everyday life.
Following the workshop, students write a short anonymized reflection on how they decided whose stories to foreground and how they chose to represent them. I will collect these written reflections and examples of studio-generated work for analysis. This is realistic within the available timeframe and existing assessment structure. The focus of analysis will be on students’ justificatory language and reflective decision-making, rather than on design outputs.
4. Who will be involved, and in what way?
Student participants: Stage 2 and Stage 3 BA Architecture students at Central Saint Martins. Students participate through normal studio teaching activities that form part of the curriculum. Participation in the research element of the project is voluntary and separate from assessment.
Researcher / educator: Myself, as studio tutor and practitioner-researcher, responsible for designing, facilitating, and reflecting on the pedagogical sequence. My role is to support learning and critical reflection rather than to evaluate individual students.
Teaching partner: A co-tutor who supports delivery of the workshop and takes contemporaneous notes on the flow of discussion and levels of engagement. Their role is observational and supportive rather than evaluative.
Wider community: No members of the local community or residents of the Dorset Estate are involved as research participants. Students do not collect personal data from residents and are explicitly instructed not to seek information about income, health, or family circumstances.
All participants are adults (18+). No vulnerable individuals are involved, and no participation takes place outside the studio teaching context.
5. What are the health & safety concerns, and how will you prepare for them?
The teaching and research activities will occur in regular studio teaching settings, following UAL’s Health & Safety and Wellbeing Policy. The main consideration is emotional sensitivity: discussing or representing domestic spaces and users groups may surface private or difficult experiences. To mitigate this:
- Students are informed that they may choose abstract or fictional approaches.
- Any distress will be managed with empathy and appropriate signposting to UAL support services.
- Group discussions will have clear ground rules for respect and care.
No physical risk or hazardous activity is involved.
6. How will you manage and protect any physical and / or digital data you collect, including the data of people involved?
- All teaching and research activities will take place within normal studio teaching environments and will follow the University of the Arts London Health & Safety and Wellbeing policies. No physical risks or hazardous activities are involved.
- The primary consideration for this project is emotional sensitivity, as reflecting on or imagining domestic spaces and housing conditions may prompt personal or difficult associations for some students. This risk is addressed through the design of the activities themselves, which prioritise abstraction, fictionalisation, and demographic research over personal disclosure.
- To support student wellbeing:
- Students are explicitly informed that they are not required to share personal experiences or details about their own homes or circumstances.
- Reflective exercises allow for abstract or indirect responses rather than literal representation.
- Group discussions are structured with clear expectations around respect, care, and non-judgement.
- Any signs of discomfort will be addressed with empathy, and students will be signposted to appropriate UAL wellbeing and support services if needed.
- The project does not involve physical risk, fieldwork, or interaction with external participants, and therefore does not raise additional health and safety concerns beyond those normally associated with studio-based teaching.
7. How will you take ethics into account in your project for participants and / or yourself?
Ethics in this project are addressed primarily through pedagogical design. Activities are framed and sequenced to minimise pressure on students to disclose personal circumstances and to avoid exposing socio-economic differences prematurely. Reflective tasks allow abstraction and fictionalisation, and students are explicitly informed that personal disclosure is not required.
When working with socially sensitive housing contexts, speculative users are used as an ethical mediation tool. User profiles are informed by demographic research rather than engagement with real residents, allowing students to consider income, tenure, accessibility, and care at a structural level while maintaining appropriate ethical distance. Peer discussion and facilitated questioning support collective reflection without singling out individuals.
For myself as a practitioner-researcher, ethics are treated as an ongoing reflective process. This includes attention to power dynamics between tutor and students, clear separation between research participation and assessment, and critical reflection on how teaching practices shape representation and care. Insights from this ARP will inform future iterations of the studio as part of an ongoing Action Research cycle.
Name: Patricia Santos Vidal Tutor: Carys Kennedy Date: 21.10.25
rev. 18.11.25 (include’s tutor’s comments)
rev. 03.01.26 (slightly updated)