One of the key challenges at LCC around intersectional identities is the notion that systems and processes are not constructed through a user experience lense. Rather they are frequency ‘one size fits all models’ with tokenistic elements to address inclusivity. In ignoring  ‘The vantage point of the atypical’ (Linton, 1998) they could be construed as exclusionary by design. Much of my work relates to cultural identities, but my recent research around hidden disabilities has shone more light on how this area of intersectionality is not adequately addressed, particularly from a student journey and transition point of view.

Processes are largely designed for staff to use. Timetabling is a good example of this whereby little thought is given to where classes are located from the positionality of student need. Capacity constraints and teaching tools, whilst highly important- are the overriding objectives. For example the 14^th Floor of the LCC Tower Block has no step free access and is thus at a minimum a potential barrier for students and at most entirely inaccessible. Equally one of the first things students see when they enter the building is an imposing flight of stairs behind the security barriers. As Ade Adepitan argues he ‘becomes disabled when society doesn’t allow him to shine’. (Paralympics GB channel), a quote that I feel is very indicative of the HE environment. Navigating this process is tricky particularly if students have hidden disabilities. Whom do they speak to? And how can this be resolved when a schedule has already been agreed and mapped across the academic year? The emotional impact of this, requiring confidence and proactive nature is not necessarily something that comes easy to students from diverse cultural backgrounds. My research has shown that many Tier 4  students, particularly those of East Asian heritage are used to a structure which places the tutor on a pedestal where knowledge exchange is largely one directional. The UK approach which values two way learning is something which can take a long time for students to adjust to. Students may be fearful of being seen to be complaining and, as Okorocha suggests may feel it is ‘impossibly rude to imply that supervisors’ judgement could be anything other than perfect’  (Okorocha, 1997- page 104 working 1-1 with students). It is reasonable to assume that fears around disability disclosure are magnified when presented in tandem with certain cultural identities  

Another area of the college that many students with intersectional identities struggle with is the 3D workshop space. It is framed in marketing materials as an ‘open access space’ but in reality that term could be interpreted as ableist access. Much of the equipment (ie the lazer cutters) are positioned at a certain height and can’t be adjusted. Neurodiverse students also struggle with the environment which is busy, noisy and overwhelming in terms of tools and processes. In the past I have arranged for certain equipment to be brought out into more inclusive spaces to run trial/ taster workshops. Although not practical on a large scale this ties into the importance of space itself being a ‘signature pedagogy’  as discussed by Orr S & Shreeve (2017) whereby learning is tailored to the space, in this instance more inclusive for students with impairments related to neurodiversity, students experiencing cultural barriers and the intersectionality of both positions.

These two examples are perhaps evidence of how UAL as an institution feeds into Critical Disability Theory. I feel that financial constraints (the costs of studying in HE being magnified by certain conditions) and the concept of ableism (particularly through the architecture of the building and administrative processes) sustain identities around disability. Intersectionality will often focus on the value of lived experiences and the risks of assuming these are applicable to a whole group. Critical Disability Theory can take a similar approach by ‘acknowledging the broadness and subjectivity of the term disability and addressing the limitations of disability research studies on these grounds’ (G Wiiliams, 2023). To navigate these difficulties students often have to disclose/ present themselves in order to receive additional support. As previously discussed this barrier is often more acute for certain cultural identities and thus creates an intersectional identity which falls between the cracks within UAL attainment and success data.

References

Georgia Williams  What Is Critical Disability Theory, online article 2023 https://www.perlego.com/knowledge/study-guides/what-is-critical-disability-theory

Orr S & Shreeve, 2017  ‘Art & Design Pedagogy in Higher Education’ Page 90

Linton, S. 1998. Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity. New York: NYU Press. Page 5

ParalympicsGB (2020) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAsxndpgagU