Case Study 1

Contextual Background

I am a Lecturer on the MA Performance: Screen and an Associate Lecturer on the BA Performance: Design and Practice at Central Saint Martins. For the past three years, I have organised the ‘Expanding Cinema Club,’ an after-school program that showcases inspiring performance-screen-based works. This initiative is co-curated with students and includes screenings, artist talks, performances, and Q&As, held in the LVMH Lecture Theatre at CSM. It is open to all students on the Performance Programme, attracting a diverse range of participants, many of whom do not know one another. As part of this program, I typically facilitate the post-screening discussions and host the Q&As.

Evaluation

I feel passionately that the work presented as part of the club should reflect the diversity of our students, and so this means we often programme work that seeks to de-colonise the curriculum, challenge/dismantle systems of oppression and engage with works created by a diverse range of artists with intersectional backgrounds and research topics. Many of the students select pieces which reflect their own interests and identities. At times, this can create some tension, particularly in post-screening discussions, as the intersection of needs in the space are very varied and students do not necessarily know one another as they study on different courses. This can make the post-screening conversations more challenging to facilitate and navigate in a way that feels equitable, just and brave.

For example, the needs of neurodiverse students can vary significantly. Some may need quiet reflection time, while others prefer to process information verbally. Some students from different racial and ethnic backgrounds can find certain topics difficult to navigate and discuss (such as a recent screening we hosted with UAL Student Justice for Palestine). Lived experience has a huge impact on the safety and wellbeing of a student when certain topics are encountered. Sometimes the intersection of identities makes navigating discussions with others challenging and particularly knowing when to speak up and when to give space for others. As a white lecturer at an institution where, according to the UAL Anti-Racism Action Plan published in 2021, only 23.13% of staff belong to Black, Asian, or minority ethnic groups, I often reflect on my positionality and responsibility within this space and how to create an environment that meaningfully challenges structures of oppression.

To improve my approach, I have engaged with various resources such as Arao and Clemens’s article on “Safe Spaces to Brave Spaces,” a recent DEI workshop led by Tas Emiabata, and an interview I conducted with Daniel Regan on inclusivity for neurodiverse and disabled participants. My research has also included exploring trauma-informed approaches, with resources from Traumascapes being particularly helpful. These resources have prompted me to reflect on how I can adapt my facilitation style to better balance the needs of students, ensure the space is equitable and brave, and acknowledge my own position as a white, neurodiverse, cis-female lecturer. The idea of “bravery” in learning resonates deeply with me, especially the understanding that:

bravery is needed because “learning necessarily involves not merely risk, but the pain of giving up a former condition in favour of a new way of seeing things”.

Arao, B. and Clemens, K. (2013) ‘From Safe Spaces to Brave Spaces: A New Way to Frame Dialogue Around Diversity and Social Justice’, in Landreman, L.M. (ed.) The Art of Effective Facilitation: Reflections from Social Justice Educators. New York: Routledge,

Moving forwards

With the above quote in mind, I devised the following possible strategies to move forward with:

For Programming:

• Creating a poll at the start of each term with all of the suggested pieces, and ask the students in the Performance Programme to vote on which ones they would most like to see, as well as add comments about their access needs to engage with each piece.
• Share Daniel Regan and Vijay Patel’s access rider templates, to support students in articulating their needs in the space.
• Where possible, ask students who have selected the works to co-facilitate with me, if they feel comfortable to and if it feels important for them to do so.
• Invite artists and other staff members to co-host and facilitate where lived experience would be beneficial to the post-screening dialogue.
• Continue giving content notices and descriptions of the works including themes explored before each screening (this is informed by the work of Traumascapes and the training I have done with them previously).
• Include Adam Frener and Darren Chetty’s ‘How To Disagree’ text with the package resources for the screenings.
• Signpost extra support relevant to the topics covered in each event.

For Post-Show Discussions:

• Make sure I have up to date ISA’s for students outside of my course who may attend, so that I am aware of the kind of support they might need in the space.
• Set up the post-show discussion by introducing the concept of the ‘brave space’.
• Create a group agreement of ground rules about how we will manage the space and be with one another in discussions. Note that this is an ongoing contract and that we may need to revisit it from time to time as and when issues arise.
• Include Tas Emiabata’s framework of ‘assuming positive intent’ and unpack the term ‘civility’ with the group.
• Offer some reflection time directly after screenings, where students are encouraged to reflect privately by thinking or writing notes alone before speaking.
• Offer opportunities to speak in pairs or small groups first before sharing reflections with the wider group.
• Create a clear accountability framework protocol to deal with issues that might arise and share this with my line manager to get support in implementing.
• Offer a ‘check in’ and check out’ to bookend each event, so that students can process how they are feeling and what they entering and leaving the space with.
• Offer students opportunities to feedback on sessions, via email and occassional surveys to ensure that any thoughts, questions or concerns are heard and where possible, implemented.

These strategies are just the beginning, and I will continue to refine and adapt my approach, working closely with the students who attend the Expanding Cinema Club, ensuring the program continues to be responsive to their evolving needs.

References 

Arao, B., & Clemens, K. (2013). ‘From Safe Spaces to Brave Spaces: A New Way to Frame Dialogue Around Diversity and Social Justice,’ in Landreman, L.M. (ed.) The Art of Effective Facilitation: Reflections from Social Justice Educators. New York: Routledge, pp. 135-150.

Emiabata, T. (2025). DEI and Anti-Racism Training.

Ferner, A., & Chetty, D. (2019). How to Disagree: Negotiate Difference in a Divided World. White Lion Publishing.

Regan, D. (2025). ‘Breaks and Joins: Inclusivity for Neurodiverse and Disabled Participants.’ Interview by Lowry, C.

Traumascapes CIC. (n.d.). Traumascapes. [online] Available at: https://www.traumascapes.org/.

UAL (2024). Anti-racism strategy. [online] UAL. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/about-ual/strategy-and-governance/anti-racism-strategy.

Vijaypateltheatre.co.uk. (2018). Vijay Patel (He/They). [online] Available at: https://vijaypateltheatre.co.uk/?fbclid=PAZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAaZEoWlxYTVuyHjePyHScNqaO_22h43jnBLuKNk06fdr7BCc2QqZ5MdEXpU_aem_SjE1X9Kthc0QpW9KS-Aikg [Accessed 16 Mar. 2025].