Research Methods

P
U
F

I think I had already started to touch on some of the research methods when thinking through the question and the action research cycle.
Having thought initially that I would be operating purely from an autoethnographic place, I actually now think that there are elements of other approaches that are emerging as I reflect on my practice and my approach.

Whilst it might not seem so, there are elements of activism in my approach both to my role and to the live briefs as explored in this ARP.
To give an example of one of the ways in which I feel this work is operating in a space of activism is that a big part of this work involves challenging norms and going against systems, and guidance that exist within the institution. Take for example the guidelines for student-sponsored projects published on canvas, this is guidance that went through phases of consultation with multiple stake holders and staff members, rounds of editing and reiterating and has a degree of clour accross the institution. Consider comparatively that what I’m doing is challenging this framework and guidance but I’m also operating in a space of making these challenges largely as one individual. This feels to me like an act of activism – however small it may be.

To speak more to the detail of it all, if we remove the semantics of the names – live brief vs student-sponsored – there is a big overlap in the kind of work both do. In fact, you will see they describe student sponsored projects as live briefs at the very beginning of the guidelines. They are essentially the same or very similar activities, dressed up in different ways to serve different purposes. But when you think about it in terms of the student experience the offer on paper is allegedly designed to provide a similar learning and a similar experience.
The marked difference that is important for me, and perhaps the part where my approach is leaning into a more activist approach is around payments, IP, hierarchies and control.
SSP’s in my opinion and experience put the client first, the dynamic of the relationship is a more transactional and hierarchical approach with a very clear power imbalance, focussed not entirely but more so on income generation than on student experience. Do I think they should exist and that there is a place for them? Absolutely!
Do I think parts of them warrant more considerations and more leaning towards a student-centred approach – absolutely! Hence me designing and delivering the live briefs in the way that I do.
The best way I know how to approach activism is to do something, to enact a different approach or way of working. Sometimes it is much more effective than trying to communicate the change you want to see.

So within my role and as I said the subject of my ARP – the home brief. This activism takes the shape of going against some of the guidelines and formats that are outlined in the guidelines or are common practice and advocating fiercely for students above everything else. Which I have had to do recently more than I care to mention, with a lot of pushback and a lack of understanding in many instances.

Things that I have embedded in briefs, some of which have caused this pushback and differ to these norms and guidelines I mention.

  • There is always payment, I do not ask students to deliver work for a client or a live brief that is not paid (you might be surprised how often students are asked to do this including on briefs that come through or are approved by B&I or course teams and individual academics.
  • This payment is fair and considered and arrived at based on the brief and scale of the ask. Royalties and licensing models that demonstrate best practice are considered when arriving at payment. Prizes are used that reward effort or other attributes but not as payment for services or products. ie these are given to projects that are not executed, not taken on by clients or that don’t represent any potential commercial gain for external partners ie. are not selected by clients and therefore the IP remains the ownership of the student who originated the idea or design.
  • The format is as close to a real life freelance experience as possible:
    – The student is paid directly for the work (SSP’s when paid are usually paid to the course and not the individual student or students, the course teams have autonomy to decide what to do with it)
    – The contracts and IP agreements are exposed to the students upfront in almost all cases and the agreements are transparent, learning around this is also embedded into the live briefs. (this is all hidden in most other instances at UAL – including SSP’s in fact hidden in any instance I have encountered)
  • External clients are expected to do more than just set a brief, give a bit of feedback and then leave with the outcomes
  • The external clients are more often than not, graduate businesses or SME’s this is by choice and design to provide case studies and role models that are more recognisable and relatable to students current position. It avoids the awful practice of working for free because it’s for a big name or brand but also creates more of an eco system and likelihood of there being a legacy or longer lasting relationship after the project end
  • The external client is paid for their contributions to the teaching and learning aspects of a brief, ie. running sessions that support the students learning and execution of the brief. This also levels the playing field because it doesn’t assume all students already have the agency, knowledge and experience to execute a live brief to the same standard prior to the live brief.
    This also means there is deep value for those students whose ideas are that are not selected.
    I also believe it fosters a more reciprocal and warmer environment to work in for both.
  • The Client is expected to pay the students based on the value, and comparitively to anyone they commission who is delivering a similar outcome. I won’t entertain paying them less than their commercial value just because they are students.
  • Students and clients are encouraged to communicate directly as much as is reasonable and possible to again mirror a real-life experience and to gain that learning. We do overly field or vet communications but choose rather to empower both parties to communicate effectively and with compassion.
  • The briefs are not designed to generate income at course or university level but at student level
  • We do not have a fixed fee for transferring of IP as that is not how the industry works, each brief is assessed case by case


    Many of these things have received pushback, so to continue to evidence the benefits of this practice, and to repeatedly have to advocate for students in this space is a form of activism and by addressing some of this in my ARP positions it as activist or advocacy research in my opinion.

    So in conclusion my research will be both autoethnographic and activist in nature.