As my ARP explores co-creating a sense of community on the BA Embroidery course, one of the unexpected challenges I’ve encountered is how to approach ethics and consent in a way that aligns with the spirit of the project.
The format I’ve chosen is informal, conversational and student-led, it isn’t about extracting data or producing quantifiable outcomes. Instead, I’m inviting students to contribute ideas, reflections, or simply engage in a casual conversation around what community means to them. What I’ve come to realise is that more important than simply gathering consent to tick a box is the way consent is approached, as it can either support or undermine the core values of the project.
Rather than using a formal consent form, which felt out of step with the tone of the work, I’ve chosen to use a short, transparent statement of consent at the top of all communications and platforms (Padlet, feedback form, email invitations, and in-person discussions). This acknowledges the voluntary nature of participation, assures students that their input is anonymous, and clearly gives them the option to opt in or out at any point.
Consent statement example:
“By taking part (adding comments, attending, or giving feedback), you are giving your consent for your anonymous input to be used as part of this small research project for my PgCert. You will not be identified in any way, and everything is optional, you can skip questions or leave the session at any time.”
This approach reflects wider critiques of power dynamics in research, particularly in education settings, where formal consent procedures can reinforce institutional authority and unintentionally pressure participants. bell hooks (1994) highlights how educational spaces often replicate hierarchies, even when the intent is progressive or collaborative. Similarly, Mazzei and Jackson (2012) note that overly structured consent frameworks can shape and limit the kinds of responses participants feel able to give, shifting focus from authentic expression to anticipated ‘correct’ answers.
I wanted to avoid creating a dynamic where students felt they were being studied or assessed. Using a statement instead of a form feels more honest, more proportionate to the level of engagement, and more aligned with the broader goal of building trust and belonging. It helps maintain a sense of shared authorship, where students are collaborators rather than subjects.
Ethically, this also aligns with UAL’s low-risk research guidance, which recognises that not all research requires a formal signature especially when the work is observational, anonymised, and non-invasive.
Ultimately, it’s made me reflect on how research practices themselves can either support or destabilise the values we claim to be working towards. Even in small, informal projects, questions of trust, consent and power are central, and how we navigate them can shape the entire experience.
References
British Educational Research Association (BERA) (2018). Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. [Online] Available at: https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2018
hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge.
Mazzei, L.A. and Jackson, A.Y. (2012). Thinking with Theory in Qualitative Research: Viewing Data Across Multiple Perspectives. London: Routledge.
University of the Arts London (n.d.). Ethical Guidance for Research. [Online] Available at: https://ethics.arts.ac.uk