Intervention Connect

Introduction

My intervention, Connect, centres on students’ need to make meaningful emotional and professional connections during their study. It responds directly to data from our Course Student Survey (CSS, 2025), where 73% of students agreed there are insufficient opportunities to connect with other postgraduate taught students, a figure 10% above the UAL-wide average (see fig. 1 and fig. 2 appendix). This lack, I believe, negatively affects academic performance and social life, triggering a cycle that can amplify individual struggles.

My positionality as a fairly recent immigrant to the UK, who has lived in multiple countries and speaks several languages, informs this perspective. I know first-hand the importance of feeling connected beyond the need for networks. By designing this intervention, I hope to foster belonging and challenge the structural and social barriers that international students, especially those arriving from Asia, might face but may not initially recognise. This goal aligns directly with my teaching practice as an hourly paid lecturer on the MA Innovative Fashion Production course, where building networks is vital to students’ success and wellbeing.

Context

As part of the teaching team, I tutor and lecture students across the academic year. By block 3, students have settled into their studies, formed close bonds within the cohort (91% agreement on feeling connected), and become familiar with the institution (90%). The established sense of belonging not only shows in classroom interactions, but also manifests itself in Instagram following and LinkedIn connection requests we are starting to receive by the end of block 2. This also shows that they start contemplating about their career paths after graduation.

“There are not sufficient opportunities to connect with other postgraduate taught students.”
UAL course survey result (2025)

Yet, CSS data show that beyond this internal community, they feel isolated from the broader postgraduate network. Despite strong internal bonds, our course’s lowest scoring area in the course student survey relates to connecting beyond the course, highlighting an opportunity to strengthen relational networks and foster systemic inclusion. Therefore, the intervention is timed for the period after students select their Master’s project topics as they recognise the value of external networks, including alumni and industry professionals.

Inclusive learning and intervention rationale

Inclusive education is not merely about ensuring equal access; it is transformative when it recognises intersectionality and values students’ lived experiences (Holland-Gilbert, 2019). Czerniewicz and Cronin (2023) argue that belonging is deeply tied to “infrastructures of care,” which higher education often lacks due to competitive, individualistic cultures. Deficit discourses and structural inequalities can further reinforce feelings of marginalisation (Bradbury, 2020).

“Care in higher education must be about creating the conditions for all to flourish: this necessarily means fostering belonging, inclusion and recognition for those who have historically been marginalised.”

(Czerniewicz and Cronin, 2023)

This frames belonging as not just emotional comfort but as a systemic goal. Within this discourse, networks are mentioned as one way to foster belonging. They are seen as central to moving away from cultures of individualism to more collaborative, relational, and care-focused practices (Waghid, 2019). The intervention intends to connect the students to alumni and people outside of the University, so that they can navigate and co-construct their place within and beyond institutional structures.

Reflecting deeper on my positionality, as Senior Lecturer Hamish Chohan encouraged, it has shaped how I’ve designed this intervention. Coming from Germany, I didn’t initially experience marginalisation; yet, over time, I became aware, to my surprise, of the subtle but pervasive influence of the UK class system, which judges by postcode, accent, or background. I arrived as a confident, educated German woman, expecting equal treatment despite my low economic status. The powerwheel (see fig. 3) illustrates how my positionality profile changes based on my location, here in the UK versus Germany, my home country. This journey from not recognising marginalisation to gradually seeing local hierarchies directly informs how I empathise with my international, mainly Chinese, students.

Many of them may come from privileged backgrounds and might not experience marginalisation in the ways UK-centric narratives assume. By acknowledging this, I avoid framing them through an “othering” lens. Instead, I centre their perspectives, seeing any unfamiliarity with local structures not as a deficit but as a starting point for shaping our common experience. This approach shifts power by inviting students to express their own needs and goals, positioning them as co-creators of their learning networks rather than passive recipients of institutional support.

Reflection

The idea for the intervention emerged during a team discussion about the upcoming Master’s project unit. Reflecting on the previous year, I noticed that some students seemed reluctant to seek out help by others, both from within and outside of University, possibly held back by a lack of confidence and language barriers. This observation stayed with me, as I felt that these challenges were not just academic and emotional, but structural. How should they build and access supportive networks uniquely meaningful to them?

Around this time, I listened to a podcast episode (Different Perspectives: A Social Work Podcast, 2025) with Leah Cox, one of our IP guest lecturers, in which she discussed using a Human Library (The Human Library Organisation, n.d.), a live testimony session in which marginalised people share their lived experiences, followed by informal conversations, allowing for questions to be asked and time spend together, which she applied to the context of BA (Hons) Social Work. What struck me most was hearing the student’s own account of how meaningful that experience had been for her learning, especially that the encounter not only enhanced her expertise, it boosted her confidence and brought her closer together with her peers. I thought this was a helpful example of how to part from a purely skills-based perspective to considering the emotional and relational dimensions of learning.

Initially, my proposal focused on academic support, with inclusive aspects secondary. Sharing the idea with peers highlighted the need to centre the belonging aspect and on building a supportive network. One colleague, reflecting on her own experience as an international student, underlined how valuable such an event would have been, which made me realise the broader potential impact.

“Establishing a network for students who don’t have one.”

(Ruiz, 2025)

My tutor Tim Stephens also offered a critical perspective, pointing out that my original title, Expert Encounter, could unintentionally reinforce traditional hierarchies by suggesting that the expert holds authority. This feedback prompted me to reconsider the framing of the intervention. Drawing on Freire’s (1970) idea that “No one educates anyone else, nor do we educate ourselves; we educate one another in communion,” I was reminded that everyone brings unique forms of expertise shaped by their lived experiences. This reflection helped me reframe the intervention. I now prefer to include the students in the process of ideating the network event in terms of event design and choice of guests. In addition, I chose to rename it to Connect, as a space where students and our guests could share, listen, and learn from each other on equal terms.

Potential risks include guests or students viewing the event mainly as a networking opportunity for career gain, overlooking emotional and relational aspects. To mitigate this, I plan a co-created event manifesto to be shared with the guests, encouraging sharing vulnerabilities alongside achievements.

Reflecting on the planning for our networking event, another risk is linked to funding: there is no dedicated budget available, although our program leader kindly offered a small amount for providing refreshments. This lack of funding means I am unable to pay some external network candidates for their time, which is particularly unfortunate as some may need to make financial decisions about how they spend their time, despite their goodwill and desire to contribute.

Action

I propose implementing Connect after students decide on their Master’s project topics (end of block 2). Before the event, students will reflect on people, skills, and expertise they’d like to connect with. In tutorials, we’ll identify common themes to guide guest invitations, ensuring diversity in backgrounds, identities, and positionalities.

The intervention itself will be an informal, inclusive conversation space. It will draw on intergroup contact theory (Allport, 1954), promoting equal status, shared goals, and collaboration over competition. A co-created manifesto will help establish shared values and guide interactions.

By designing the event collaboratively, the aim is to build trust, expand networks meaningfully, and foreground care, agency, and inclusion.

Evaluation

Throughout this process, I learned the value of feedback and reflection in shaping inclusive practice. Through a shift in perspective to forefront the belonging and care aspect and facilitating network creation with co-selected guests, Connect evolved, demonstrating how reflective practice supports transformative design (Schön, 2016; Gibbs, 1988; Rolfe et al., 2001).

If implemented, to evaluate its effectiveness, I would adopt a mixed methods approach situated within an interpretivist paradigm, recognising that knowledge emerges from interaction and context (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). Reflexivity would be central, acknowledging how my positionality influences data collection and interpretation (Hall, 2025).

Data collection would include:

• Semi-structured interviews with volunteer students, exploring their experiences, reflections, and feelings of belonging (Kawamura, 2011).

• Post-event survey combining quantitative and qualitative elements: nominal and ordinal scale questions on usefulness and confidence; open-ended questions about personal relevance and suggestions for improvement (DeVellis, 2016).

This combination would provide nuanced insights into whether the intervention supports emotional and professional connection, and how it might be improved.

Conclusion

This process deepened my awareness of how positionality shapes practice and design. Feedback from colleagues and reflection helped shift the intervention from a knowledge-transfer focus to one centred on belonging, co-creation, and relational care. It reinforced the importance of resisting deficit framings and designing inclusive spaces that recognise the complex, changing positionalities of international students. Ultimately, Connect aspires not just to link students to networks, but to foster shared agency and more inclusive, care-based learning cultures.

References
Allport, G.W. (1954) The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bradbury, A. (2020) A critical race theory framework for education policy analysis: The case of bilingual learners and assessment policy in England. Race Ethnicity and Education, 23(2).

Crenshaw, K. (1991) ‘Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color’, Stanford Law Review, 43(6), pp. 1241–1299.

Czerniewicz, L. and Cronin, C. (eds) (2023) Higher Education for Good: Teaching and Learning Futures. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers. Available at: https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0363 (Accessed: 10 July 2025).

Different Perspectives: A Social Work Podcast (2025) The Human Library with Summer 27 March. Available at: https://open.spotify.com/episode6xsSfBnjZIxmaNsKMi2zf8?si=iQ3lYFKyT9SOVEgSYlJArA  (Accessed: 15 June 2025).

Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Hall, F. (2025) Positive Evaluation – Tools for evaluative thinking. Available at: https://positiveevaluation.myblog.arts.ac.uk/ (Accessed: 4 July 2025).

Holland-Gilbert, J. (2019) Precariat insurgency: A means to improve structures of inclusivity in higher education. In: K. Hatton, ed. Inclusion and intersectionality in visual arts education. London: Institute of Education Press (IOE Press), pp.122–142.

Kawamura, Y. (2011) Doing Research in Fashion and Dress: An Introduction to Qualitative Methods. Oxford: Berg.

Gibbs, G., 1988. Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford: Further Education Unit, Oxford Polytechnic.

Recipes for Wellbeing (2023) The wheel of power and privilege. Recipes for Wellbeing. Available at: https://www.recipesforwellbeing.org/the-wheel-of-power-and-privilege/ (Accessed: 11 May 2025).

Rolfe, G., Freshwater, D. & Jasper, M., 2001. Critical reflection for nursing and the helping professions: a user’s guide. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

The Human Library Organization (n.d.) ‘Home’, The Human Library Organization. Available at: https://humanlibrary.org/ (Accessed: 14 July 2025).

Waghid, Y. (2019). Towards a Philosophy of Caring in Higher Education. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-03961-5

Bibliography

UAL: Belonging Through Compassion (n.d.) Theory. Belonging Through Compassion. Available at: https://belongingthroughcompassion.myblog.arts.ac.uk/theory/ (Accessed: 16 July 2025).

Appendix

UAL wide our course MA IFP is doing well, with an average of 84.6% composed of the answers to the questions in fig. 1.

UAL wide our course MA IFP is performing very well in ‘Community’, with an average of 84.6% (see fig. 2) composed of the answers to the questions in fig. 1., compared to the UAL-wide much lower result of 68.6%. If the answer to the last question yielded a higher agreement rate, we would do exceptionally well. Notably, 84.6% is still our course’s lowest questionnaire score and therefore important to address.