Situated Design: A Three-Session Workshop for Inclusive Curatorial Practice
Introduction
This reflective report critically explores the design and implementation of my teaching intervention titled Situated Design, a three-session workshop series aimed at embedding intersectional social justice through inclusive curatorial practices within the MA Graphic and Digital Communication (GDC) course at University of the Arts London (UAL). As an educator positioned at the intersection of diverse cultural backgrounds and academic disciplines, I was motivated to challenge dominant curatorial norms that often marginalize non-Western, non-dominant voices in place-making. My intention was to create a shared learning space where multiple student positionalities, including cultural, communicative, and accessibility differences, could be visibly and equitably integrated into the exhibition design process.
This intervention resonates with my academic practice in visual communication and design education, emphasizing participatory design and critical pedagogy as tools to deconstruct hegemonic narratives in design presentation. In reflecting on the intervention’s design, enactment, and outcomes, I draw on theories of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991), pedagogies of discomfort (Boler, 1999), and situated knowledges (Haraway, 1988) to critically assess the opportunities and challenges encountered. My overarching aim is to contribute to a more inclusive academic environment where diverse ways of knowing and presenting research are not only accepted but are central to our collective learning.
Context
The workshop was embedded within the preparatory phase for the MA GDC WIP (Work In Progress) Show, a high-stakes public exhibition where students present their research projects visually and spatially. The existing exhibition format at UAL traditionally prioritizes polished, final outcomes and often reflects dominant institutional aesthetics, which risks marginalizing students with diverse cultural backgrounds, research methodologies, or access needs. The cohort’s geographic, linguistic, and disciplinary diversity calls for a more flexible, dialogic approach to exhibition curation.
Situated in the GDC department, the intervention’s utility lies in transforming the exhibition from a static display into a dynamic, collective process of spatial and conceptual negotiation. By guiding students through infrastructural mapping, collaborative spatial prototyping, and live activation of their exhibition zones, the intervention foregrounds inclusion as a principle of spatial justice and collective authorship. It positions the exhibition as an ongoing, evolving site of intersectional engagement rather than a mere showcase.
Inclusive Learning: Theoretical Rationale
Inclusion within design education is imperative not only for social justice but also for the epistemological richness it brings to creative inquiry. Design has historically privileged Western, able-bodied, and commercial aesthetics (Flecker, 2020). This intervention aligns with inclusive pedagogies that resist homogenizing knowledge and instead cultivate plurality, autonomy, and participation (Sensoy and DiAngelo, 2017).
Intersectionality, as conceptualized by Crenshaw (1991), was a foundational lens, helping me understand how overlapping identities (cultural, linguistic, gendered, and neurodiverse) shape students’ experiences and modes of expression. Haraway’s (1988) concept of situated knowledges was pivotal in shifting away from universalist, “view-from-nowhere” curatorial narratives towards localized, relational epistemologies where knowledge is partial, contextual, and embodied.
Further, the intervention drew on participatory design principles, notably “designing with, not for” (Muller, 2003), to ensure students were co-authors rather than passive recipients of curatorial decisions. This approach also incorporates the idea of pedagogies of discomfort (Boler, 1999), recognizing that confronting inequities in authorship and representation can be challenging but necessary for transformative learning.
Reflection on the Intervention Design and Challenges
My thinking was shaped initially by student feedback from previous years, where many expressed feeling distanced from curatorial decisions and constrained by normative exhibition formats. Peer discussions within the department and informal consultations with technical staff helped refine the practical aspects, such as timelines and resource availability.
Key decisions included the three-part structure: mapping to foreground relational contexts, spatial prototyping to negotiate shared territories, and activation to embody dynamic participation. The emphasis on “living zones” aimed to subvert static displays and offer ways for ongoing visitor engagement.
However, challenges emerged in balancing structure and openness. There was a risk that too rigid a format could stifle individual creativity or enforce tokenistic inclusion. Conversely, too little structure might lead to fragmented or incoherent exhibitions. This tension mirrors wider debates in inclusive pedagogy around scaffolding versus autonomy (Florian and Black-Hawkins, 2011).
Further, there were potential risks around uneven participation, where dominant voices could overshadow others during group spatial negotiations. I anticipated that students with less confidence or different communication styles might struggle to assert their perspectives. Accessibility considerations, such as physical access to workshop spaces and alternative communication formats, were addressed but required ongoing attention.
Action and Implementation
The intervention was implemented over three sessions:
Session 1: Ground Work – Infrastructure and Mapping
Students collaboratively mapped their projects’ social, spatial, and relational contexts, building a visual diagram that made visible the situatedness of each research inquiry. Groups nominated coordinators to ensure ongoing communication.
Session 2: Spatial Production and Arrangement
Students created scaled models of their exhibition zones within a shared grid, negotiating curatorial decisions such as materials and spatial relationships that reflect individual and collective identities.
Session 3: Activation and Programming
The final session involved designing interactive elements—prompts, live programming, publishing—to animate the exhibition zones, inviting visitor participation and creating a living exhibition presence.
This approach foregrounded dialogue and co-creation, challenging hierarchical authorship. For my academic practice, it meant shifting from instructor-led directives to facilitative coaching, supporting students’ agency in shaping their own representation.
Evaluation of the Process
Through this process, I learned that inclusivity in curatorial practice requires ongoing negotiation and reflexivity. Success depends not only on well-designed structures but also on responsiveness to emergent group dynamics and individual needs.
To evaluate effectiveness, I propose multiple feedback mechanisms:
- Student reflections and surveys focusing on whether they felt their voice was authentically represented and if the process enabled equitable participation.
- Observational notes from workshop facilitators tracking engagement patterns and power dynamics.
- Exhibition visitor feedback to assess if the living zones fostered meaningful interaction and conveyed diverse perspectives.
The intervention revealed that while the theory of inclusion provides a vital framework, practical enactment demands adaptability and critical self-awareness to avoid reproducing exclusion.
Conclusion
This intervention deepened my awareness of the complexities involved in enacting intersectional social justice within design education. It reaffirmed my commitment to pedagogies that embrace discomfort, partiality, and multiplicity of voices, challenging dominant narratives in curatorial practice.
My positionality as an educator with a transnational background informed my sensitivity to cultural diversity and epistemic justice, yet also necessitated humility to listen and learn continuously from students’ lived experiences.
Moving forward, I aim to embed more participatory elements in my teaching while remaining vigilant about structural inequalities that can inadvertently resurface. Situated Design has been a meaningful step towards a more inclusive academic culture, underscoring the potential of collective authorship and spatial justice in shaping equitable design education.
References
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell. (Original work published 1974)
Campos, M. R. (2017). Queering Architecture: Appropriating Space and Process (MA thesis). University of Cincinnati.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). ‘Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.’ Stanford Law Review, 43(6), pp. 1241-1299.
Florian, L. and Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). ‘Exploring Inclusive Pedagogy.’ British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), pp. 813–828.
Flesler, G., Neidhardt, A. and Ober, M. (2025). ‘A Conversation on the Discomfort of Feminist Design Pedagogy.’ In Mareis, C., Paim, N. et al. (eds.) Design Struggles: Intersecting Histories, Pedagogies and Perspectives. Amsterdam: Valiz, pp. 205–225.
Haraway, D. J. (1988). ‘Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.’ Feminist Studies, 14(3), pp. 575-599.
Muller, M. J. (2003). ‘Participatory Design: The Third Space in HCI.’ In Human-Computer Interaction Handbook. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sensoy, O. and DiAngelo, R. (2017). Is Everyone Really Equal? An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education. 2nd ed. New York: Teachers College Press.