Phase 2 of my project led me to contact the EDI team and share the information I had discovered from my preliminary inquiries, in addition to supporting my research techniques. In addition to highlighting the significance of my research, I wanted to demonstrate my goal of having industry professionals receive training on UAL’s ethics and principles.
My plan was composed of the conclusions from the discussion with EDI and my assumptions about my plans, as it is outlined below. I intended to develop a module based on UAL’s anti-racism module. To obtain access to it, I scheduled a meeting with the Head of EDI.
On 11/09/2023 I met with the head and manager of UALs EDI, online and explored my ambitions. See link for flow chart of the planned EDI Meeting: Flow Chart for EDI Provider Project.docx
The meeting clarified the EDI and Anti Racism modules’ origins, purpose, aims and how it fed into the UAL strategy, marrying up with my intent to feed into UALs strategy: “Our strategy’s third guiding policy is to change the world through our creative endeavour” ((UAL, 2022). I also discovered that the team had never been posed with involving industry within their strategies: objectives or reports (UAL, 2022).
The positive outcome of the meeting altered my original plans of creating a module, as the EDI team agreed to grant limited access to the actual UAL module/s, to those who agreed to take part in my research. Another outcome was the suggestion that I personalise the training, by asking participants if they had done EDI training in the last 2 years. Dependant on their answer would be dependent on what I advised them to undertake:
- If they answered yes, then they would be advised to do the anti-racism module only.
- If they said no, then I would advise to do the EDI only.
Hence all participants would have access to both modules but would be advised on what they should undertake, during consultation and based on prior knowledge. The prior knowledge would be assessed by me verbally with closed questions and would be my first form of data collection within the project. This assessment had the potential to manipulate the outcome of my research and was the most appropriate way of justifying why the participant did their advised module. My thoughts: utilise critical theory, before consultation with externals.
Their agreement to grant access eradicated the workload: altering my original plans and enabling me to have more time to seek participants and their consent to contribute to my research. So, the next part of my plan was to seek the professionals and the consent of using the information that I gathered.
Within the KE team, knowledge sharing occurs naturally. After discussing my goals with my coworkers, it was decided that inviting all the externals I would be collaborating with during block 1 to participate in “contributor selection” would be the most equitable method. So, that’s what I did, I invited each of the five of them!
References:
UAL (2022). Guiding policy 3. [online] UAL. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/about-ual/strategy-and-governance/strategy/guiding-policy-3 [Accessed 12 Dec. 2023].
UAL (2022). Equality objectives and reports. [online] UAL. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/about-ual/public-information/equality-objectives-and-reports