Project Findings

Research Methods:

In reflection looking back at the ARP research methods, there are variety of definition and models to guide its implementation (Koshy, Koshy, & Waterman, 2010).  My initial idea was following the Spiral Model by Kemmis and McTaggart.  This model follows a simple, spiral logical flow in the category of planning, acting, observing, reflecting and re-planning.  This was perceived as a non-rigid research model by Koshy (2010).

In reviewing my project findings, I came across O’Leary’s “Cycles of Research”, which highlight experiential learning for change.  The unique approach has initial focus on observation and data collection prior to planning the action research.  This method is more scientific with a rigid research structure.  However, O’Leary’s model also has limitations with this research methods (Stringer & Genat, 2004).

I realised that my research methods has used the Spiral Model by Kemmis and McTaggart and part section of the O’Leary’s Cycles of Research. My observation and data collection started with the CSS survey on the CerHE course. The Social justice issue emerged through my observation and student engagement in the classroom setting.

Thematic Analysis – Method and Results
This project used Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six phase approach for thematic analysis:

1. Data Familiarization: The full response data set was read closely to become immersed and intimately familiar.
2. Initial Code Generation: Interesting segments of text were identified and initial codes or labels assigned using an inductive, data-driven approach.
3. Searching for Themes: Codes were analyzed for overlap and redundancy. Broader patterns of meaning were identified to form initial theme groupings.
4. Reviewing Themes: The candidate themes were checked in relation to the coded data and full data set. Thematic maps were created to refine the themes.
5. Defining & Naming Themes: Each theme was clearly defined and named to capture the overall conceptual significance.
6. Writing Up: Selection of vivid, compelling extract examples relating back to analysis of the research question and literature.

Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six phase approach guided the analysis: data familiarization, code generation, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and writing up findings. The analysis aimed to identify patterns related to the workshops’ effects on awareness, attitudes, preparedness and actions related to EDI.

Central Organizing Concepts
Four central organising themes from the analysis:

1. Knowledge Gained
   Most participants (90%) reported gaining new knowledge about EDI topics through the workshops. This encompassed learning definitions of key concepts like equality, equity and inclusion as well as diversity dimensions such as race, gender, culture. Many (70%) also described increased self-awareness and reflection on their own identity, privileges and positionality.
2. Comfort Sharing
   A majority (72%) felt comfortable sharing personal experiences and backgrounds during the workshops, seeing it as an open, welcoming intercultural exchange. Some described appreciating hearing diverse perspectives. However, a few felt unsure about sharing their intersectionality.
3. Awareness of Inequities
   Many participants (81%) enhanced their awareness of discrimination and representation gaps in the arts. Common issues included systemic barriers and biases related to gender, race, culture and disability. A few noted the need for better equity policies and practices in the arts.
4. Preparedness for Inclusion
   Most participants (84%) felt better equipped to foster inclusion after the workshops, through enhanced communication, cultural sensitivity and embracing diversity. Some described feeling more empowered to create welcoming classrooms. A few expressed wanting more concrete tools to counter discrimination.

Here is a summary of themes based on the analysis:

Participant response data in full (CSV format):

Quantitative Analysis Findings:

– Calculating the percentage of each response option (Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree) for the Likert scale questions (e.g. “I am more aware of my own privileges and disadvantages after this workshop”). Some students chose the “Neutral” option, which therefore removed some insight what they would have chosen on the spot.

The anonymous nature of the questionnaire removed the ability to further investigate e.g. gender and nationality, which is also due to group inconsistencies with mixing varying quantities of international students.

Improvement: remove the “Neutral” option to ensure participants have to make a choice.

Qualitative Analysis: 

– Thematic coding of the open-ended text responses to identify common themes and patterns. For example, categorizing the descriptions of participants’ intersectionality and analysing the most frequent identity dimensions reported.

This has put a context around the qualitative analysis and created focal themes, which can be used for the next cycle in the action research.

In summary – both quantitative and qualitative analysis provided value and complemented each other. The open-ended responses enable richer exploration of emergent themes and also show points that were not considered before. 

Moving forward – explore data visualisation to link in with dashboard e.g.

• Charts to communicate results on Likert scale questions
• – using Interactive diagram showing question response flows
• – Word cloud or tree illustrating common word pairs in responses

Key Takeaway 1: Age, gender identity, and ethnic background make up significant parts of respondents’ intersectionality – highlights prominence of these identity dimensions for this sample.

Key Takeaway 2: While workshop increased some awareness of equity issues, responses indicate there are still gaps in knowledge around discrimination faced by marginalized groups. Follow-up education may further enhance understanding.

Conclusion
Overall, quantitative and qualitative findings suggest the workshops improved participants’ competencies around diversity awareness, cultural sensitivity and inclusion. Some areas of the workshop need further development, ensuring comfort in sharing for all and providing actionable tools to promote equity. Follow-up workshops could find longer-term changes in attitudes and behaviours.

Future Work
The workshops were largely successful at building competencies, however there are opportunities for improvement. For example, a minority expressed hesitation sharing their intersectionality during sessions. Future iterations could integrate small group discussions before larger disclosures to enhance psychological safety. Additionally, a few participants expressed a desire for more actionable tools to counter discrimination in arts contexts. Follow-up workshops could provide resources to promote inclusion tailored to students’ disciplines and leadership levels. Longer-term evaluation would assess actual behavioural change beyond intentions.

Reflection on the Workshop

Key Findings

• The use of Padlet enabled effective sharing of student work and data collection for research purposes across workshops. However, the “map of the world” Padlet with excessive information became messy and confusing. Simplifying it to just display students’ intersectionality made it more usable.
• Student cultural background diversity within each workshop group heavily impacted group dynamics and effectiveness of cultural exchange. Placing students strategically to maximize diversity could enable more fruitful intercultural interactions.
• Extending workshop duration to 1.5 hours instead of 1 hour could enable more in-depth discussion of artists’ works per student feedback requests. The additional time could enrich sessions.

Method Reflections

• Adjusting seating arrangements to circular tables promoted an inclusive, engaging setting that put students at ease during sessions.
• Amending delivery method by having the tutor sit with students instead of standing separately further contributed to a comfortable, collegial environment to aid participation.
• Continued refinement of Padlet use for sharing and data gathering balanced research and teaching needs with student understanding and engagement.

Moving forward:

• Strategically organise student group composition by cultural background to better enable diversity and intercultural exchange during workshops.
• Extend workshop duration from 1 hour to 1.5 hours to enable longer discussion and interaction per student feedback, as well as available time to fill in the survey.
• Promote circular, collaborative seating arrangements to encourage open participation.
• Continue using Padlet effectively for research data gathering while simplifying content.