Below are my reflections on the intervention which took place during the first year sewing skills workshops, each occurring over 3.5 days during the Autumn term. Each technician teaches one pathway (30 students), with the form group split in half and receiving sewing skills workshops one week and pattern cutting tuition the other.
Initially, I introduced the adaptability packs on the second day of the workshop. This wasn’t the best time to do so on reflection as it was only a half day. I was already struggling with student engagement and the amount of content we needed to cover in half a day. The tools were not used at all by the students over the 3.5 day workshop. I concluded I needed to introduce the packs and my intervention at the start of the first workshop day, when students were more engaged and open. I felt like this was research practice in action – look at chart.
After my reflection on the first attempt, I spoke to two colleagues who were teaching pathways that typically have students who are less experienced in garment construction. They agreed that they would be happy to introduce the packs and surveys to the second half of the group the following week and I briefed them on introducing the project and aims.
Wehn teaching my second cohort, I introduced the survey at the very beginning of the workshop, after taking the register, and explained my studies, the aim of the intervention and how helpful survey responses would be, whether students used the tools or not. This helped me focus both myself and the students, as when I went on to explain the plan for the next 3.5 days, I could also tie in the relevance of the adaptability packs. In the first ‘run’, by introducing the packs on day 2, I realised this had reduced some chance of the cutting tools being used, as we had already cut out much of the fabric required.
As I demonstrated the various sewing techniques I had the tools next to me, referring to and demonstrating with them and the wide range of applications of use. I noted that students could use them as they pleased to aid their sewing, not necessarily for the intended purpose. I found that students seemed reluctant to engage with the tools independently, perhaps viewing them as unnecessary. There seemed to be a kind of pride thing of not wanting to appear as though they needed help, from myself or the tools. I felt this was particular to this half of the group and that there were some students who were very vocal about not needing the tools, were quite dismissive of the teaching received and very vocal of their professional experience. Some of the behaviour felt quite disruptive and disrespectful, which was a challenge and I believe did have an impact on students ability to be vulnerable and ask for help or feel confident in trying out the tools without judgment.
To try and provide encouragement I moved around the studio space, helping students at the machines. When I saw students struggling I then suggested different tools they could use that could aid their sewing, such as the magnetic seam guide, to help them remember where the seam allowances are and also keep stitches in straight, accurate lines. Many of them actually had their own equipment such as pins and unpickers. I didn’t see them using those much as tools when they were sewing, which on reflection, I think I would’ve encouraged them to use to gain more control. I did demonstrate using screwdrivers and clips to help guide the fabric and hold it together rather than using pins.
If i was to repeat this intervention I would do it in an interview format, and introduce the packs during a less stressful time perhaps on a more one to one basis. Students receive only 3 sewing workshops from technicians during their time on the course, so this often feels very pressured, with lots of information to digest in very little time, with design tutorials, lectures and meetings scheduled at the same time or close to deadlines. We often feel we are competing for students’ focus and attention.
Ahmed, S.K. et al. (2025) ‘Using thematic analysis in qualitative research’, SSRN Electronic Journal, 6. doi:10.2139/ssrn.5222482.
Anon (2023) ‘consent-template-for-surveys ’. Milton Keynes: The Open University.
Home (2024) American Sewing Guild ASG. Available at: https://www.asg.org/sew-comfortably/ (Accessed: 28 September 2025).
Maloney, M.J. (2025) Fork for Cindy suspended in a silicone cap. London.
Opie, C. (2004) ‘Research procedures’, in Doing Educational Research. London: Sage, pp. 100–101.
Retro Claude (2020) Sewing with a Disability – making sewing more accessible, YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwKI-G-e05E (Accessed: 22 June 2025).
Verma, G.K. and Beard, R.M. (1981) What is educational research: Perspectives on techniques of research. Aldershot: Gower.
I have been drafting and redrafting my survey after sending it out to both colleagues, fellow PGCert students and tutors. To draft the initial survey I researched government guidance around gender and disability in the context of data collection, lifting the categorisations of disability and gender into my survey.
Below is my initial survey which you can see is weighted towards longer, written responses and includes questions around gender identity and trans history.
After attending Monday’s workshop with Carys and Federico, we discussed the collection of data and only collecting that which is necessary. I had initially felt it was best to collect as much information as possible to help inform my study, but realised that this can be invasive and unnecessary for participants, so removed my questions around trans history.
I also wasn’t aware of the need for an additional consent form. I decided to incorporate this into my survey by adding it to the front page as I don’t want participants to feel overwhelmed by paperwork. I have used a statement with a check box to consent, as I want my responses to be as anonymous as possible, and used some statements from the Open University resource ‘Consent template for surveys’ (2023).
I went on to edit the survey further, sharing with peers and tutors. I received some really helpful and differing feedback, from which I have ‘cherrypicked’ and moulded into my survey. The survey takes a ‘funnel approach’ where I have left ‘more structured or pre-coded questions to a later stage’ (Opie, 2004). It was highlighted that many of the questions require written answers, rather than tick boxes, which may decrease student participation due to a range of factors, such as language differences, dyslexia, time constraints, engagement/focus. It was also highlighted that limiting some questions to checkboxes can also help improve clarity when analysing data.
I have now incorporated more tick-box responses, but retained some of the written answers, as I want students to have chance to express opinions by being less prescriptive or boundaried around their thoughts. Below is my final survey.
Anon (2023) ‘consent-template-for-surveys ’. Milton Keynes: The Open University. Opie, C. (2004) ‘Research procedures’, in Doing Educational Research. London: Sage, pp. 100–101.
Descriptive method of research page 57 – what is educational research Verma and beard
‘Descriptive research may not answer all the fundamental questions, but it provides useful data which can serve as a basis for further research’ page 58
‘Descriptove research involves a certain amount of interpretation of the meaning or significance of what is described. This process is often criticised on the grounds of bias towards the investigators subjective judgements and superficial impressions of phenomena. pg 58
This is where I might write about any primary research I have been doing. E.g., if I was going to interview someone and have written a list of questions, I would add the ‘interview schedule’ (that’s what you call the list of questions!) here. I may add comments on what I have been reading about Research Methods to evidence that also.
One thing I would NOT do, is include any raw data that has participant information on it, or anything I did not get informed consent to share. That would be unethical. I would keep that elsewhere (private) and I may write about the findings from it on this page, but I definitely would not paste it up in raw unedited form.
Last week I introduced the adaptable sewing packs to my first year students on Wednesday morning. It didn’t go as smoothly as planned. I introduced the packs whilst students were at their machines sewing, and it was hard to tell whether the students were focusing on what I was saying or were distracted by the task at hand.
I had the packs on the tables they were using, but no students engaged, despite it being a full group. I did find that the class I was teaching were the most capable sewers I have ever taught, and are also on a pathway that tends to have more experienced first years than others. This being said, it is difficult to oversee a class of 14 students and tend to their varied needs, whilst keeping a good pace and ensuring we cover all aspects of the workshop. I myself also forgot to keep reiterating the availability of the tools and their uses.
As no students engaged with the packs I had no responses on my survey which is concerning. Luckily I am also teaching the second half of the form group this week. To improve chances of engagement I will be introducing the packs on the very first day and I will do some demonstrations with them. I have also reached out to 2 colleagues to request if they will participate by distributing the packs to their groups.
The initial teaching week is usually quite overwhelming and exhausting, and we are very restricted by time. I hope that the second week of teaching will feel less chaotic and I will have time to introduce the tools in a more formal and consistent manner, to produce some survey responses. I will also look at requesting the surveys are completed on Friday morning to ensure students don’t leave before completing them.
I spent today sewing the adaptable sewing packs with my colleague. They will contain the adaptable tools so with accessibility in mind we used a velcro fastening for the main bag, and then for the smaller pack (which contains the fabric clips, thimble and threader) we used a drawstring. I recognise that a drawstring is not the most accessible fastening, however we needed something that would close firmly without leaving gaps that these smaller items could escape from. I will reflect on ways to improve this for future students.
For my ARP I have tried to refer back to my intervention which explored gender and disability and have narrowed down the aims by focusing upon whether adaptable tools can assist students in their learning.
The tools were initially used to teach and assist a colleague’s return to sewing after experiencing limb loss and physical injury. After my colleague engaged so positively with the pack I put together, I felt these tools could be utilised in the studios and offered up to first year students in their sewing skills workshops at Central Saint Martins. This led me to question, “Can adaptable sewing tool packs improve student development of sewing skills and foster a sense of inclusion?”
The purpose of the study is to analyse attempts at creating a more inclusive student experience and development of skills, and whether this has a positive impact. If not, why? What could be improved? Can adaptable sewing tool packs improve student development of sewing skills and foster a sense of inclusion? In the journal article ‘Teaching Sewing Techniques to Students with Disabilities’ by Jamoliddinova, Makhbuba and Sotvoldiyevna, they state: “Students with disabilities encompass a wide spectrum of abilities and challenges. Some may face physical limitations, while others may experience cognitive or sensory impairments. Recognizing these differences is crucial for designing effective teaching strategies that address individual needs. In the context of sewing, educators must be attuned to the unique challenges students may encounter, such as difficulties with hand-eye coordination, sensory sensitivities, or challenges in following sequential instructions.”
The action will occur during the first technical sewing workshops the students attend at university. I will be trying to create more accessibility to the sewing machines and other technical equipment, by creating packs with adaptive tools to aid in sewing clothing for differently abled students. These tools will be open to all students to access as they are of benefit to everyone. I want to see if this improves accessibility and engagement with sewing skills by disabled and neurodivergent students as well as the wider student body.
I feel these tools would be useful to all students in encouraging them to use aids. There can be a discourse amongst sample machinists that using tools to assist in sewing is unprofessional and a ‘proper’ machinist does not use such tools. I want to question that narrative and give students of all abilities the option to try new, perhaps non-traditional, approaches to garment construction. I find that many students are deterred by the sewing/technical element of the course and leave tasks they deem ‘difficult’ to the technicians, as the garment construction is not graded and can therefore be deemed as not important.
I will gather qualitative data through surveys and I will interpret it through thematic analysis. I must be wary of my own biases and position of power as a specialist technician, white, able-bodied, cisgender woman and how this can impact the generation and interpretation of data. As stated by Ahmed et al (2025) “researchers may present themes as “emerging” from the data without acknowledging their role in constructing them, which risks obscuring the interpretative process.” I will try to reduce the impact of my positionality by introducing the survey to students in a deferential way, emphasising the help it will provide me, encouraging honesty and emphasising the anonymity of the surveys. I need to remain conscious of my own potential biases when analysing the data.
My project question should be open, and not trying to create an outcome I desire. When writing my survey I will be wary of asking leading questions and offer up an open space for critique and discussion. The aim is to test whether these packs actually have any impact and how students engage and interact with them. I am conscious that the studio environment and its lack of accessibility/adaptability could be deterring students who are differently abled and I believe we as technicians can make changes to create a more inclusive teaching environment.
I am wary of the time restrictions I have to complete my ARP, as I am planning to carry out the research with students in workshops commencing Tuesday 28th October. The tasks highlighted indicate completion
Research educational research and data collection methods
Draft research question/brief
Ethical Action Plan
Make bags for adaptable sewing tools and assemble packs
I want to spark conversation around the gender norms that we reinforce through garment construction details, as well as the equipment we use (mannequins), and how they reinforce gender binaries. These conversations will occur during the first technical workshops the students will attend at university. I will be trying to create more accessibility to the sewing machines and other technical equipment, by creating packs with adaptive tools to aid in sewing clothing for differently abled students. These tools will be open to all students to access as they are of benefit to everyone.
When teaching first year sewing skills in BA Fashion at Central Saint Martins, this is the most formal teaching time technicians receive with students. I am often aware of the exclusionary language and techniques we use regarding differently abled people and the broad gender identities of the student and staff body. The student cohort within fashion has a high number of LGBTQIA+ students. Unfortunately I can only confirm this through lived experience and observation as the UAL data does not record sexuality or gender identity beyond male or female (UAL EDI Annual Report and Active Dashboards). Mason (2002) describes the impact of language and how “a few code words act as triggers to evoke…taken-as-shared meanings, values and practices”. I am conscious of how language within the classroom can reinforce assumed norms around gender, disability, socio-economics and race.
As a technician who has worked their way through the department as a support, then specialist technician, I believe I have a unique positionality amongst my team members. The majority of my development and training as a teacher and sample machinist has been on the job and aligned with the teaching and learning experience of the students. As a technician I feel the weight of the hierarchies within the institution and the erasure of the technical teams contributions to both the student experience and output. This feeling of exclusion can aid me in my exploration of minorities and exclusionary language and behaviours perpetuated through my own teachings.
As a white, cisgender woman working as a technician within the BA Fashion department I have learnt from peers and students experiences, through both direct conversation and observing interactions in the studios. I try to take an empathetic approach to teaching, striving to understand other people’s experiences, perspectives and how I can contribute to more inclusive spaces and practices. My lived experience as a woman who has experienced sexism at UAL and has been dismissed by members of management when raising issues around supporting the team, I want to help others feel supported, recognised and heard, even if I do not share their experiences or values.
Within my intervention I have tried to explore the shortcomings of teaching garment construction and current, potentially exclusionary, practices. I have explored how they can be improved in relation to gender conformity and access for differently abled students. By viewing the intervention through an intersectional lens I hope to encourage more inclusive practices within the technical workshops.
I often struggle with imposter syndrome and try to take an empathetic approach when teaching the students new skills. I have often found that many of the tips and tools I have learnt are shared verbally, and are not shared in books. By compiling a document of ‘rules’ and sewing tips I want to spark conversations about why the gendering of clothing norms are still so rigid, when this is not reflected in fashion design or wider society. Tanveer Ahmed writes “mannequins are always presented as male/female binary non-disabled bodied forms preventing any exploration of gender or ableism as part of the design process” (2023). As I work with Tanveer I will reach out to her around her practice and to exchange ideas on this topic. I have also spoken with my interim manager and will open up discussion and ideas with my fellow fashion technicians and academics.
Myah Hasbany’s graduate collection, BA Fashion 2025 – British Vogue, Rebecca Maynes – 2025
Reflection and Feedback
I came upon the ideas for this intervention through both lived experience and observation of the classroom and through a knowledge exchange. I organised workshops with a colleague who has limb differences where they taught me how to repeat screensprint and I taught them how to sew. The glossary and techniques are born out of my experience of learning from colleagues about the rules and techniques of garment construction, and being in a space with a diverse group of people who identify as transgender and non-binary. I felt a misalignment with the current fashion education system and industry and how it enforces gender binaries, which don’t reflect the values of the communities within these systems.
The feedback received around my intervention has been positive. I have already approached management about funding a trial of the adaptable sewing tool packs, which they have been very supportive of noting ‘£200 for a major intervention is very cheap’. Management also raised concerns around UAL’s seemingly revoking the rights and protections previously offered to trans and non-binary students in the recent communications. I have pushed back on this concern and honestly reject UAL’s policy around this, putting the threat of litigious action above the safety of staff and students. My fellow PGCert students have highlighted that the intervention is quite broad and that it may be too much work for me to analyse. Upon further discussion with my tutor Victor Guillen, Victor raised that the intervention is intersectional as it considers both gender and disability. I therefore have decided to continue as planned.
I hope that these actions will help students engage more fully with garment construction and also reconsider the accepted and hidden gender and body norms enforced by the rules and equipment we use. These tools and glossaries are not limited to those with limb differences, neurodivergencies, or those not conforming to gender norms. They can also be used for anyone struggling or new to sewing to assist their skills and help us all consider the societal constructs around gender and identity. I hope that allowing the students to use tools to help, and overcome the accepted narrative that some of these tools are not required by ‘proper’ sample machinists, will inspire them to persist with the challenges of garment construction, rather than passing them onto trained technicians to make. Sara Ahmed (2019) states, “Perhaps when we use something in ways that were not intended, we are allowing those qualities to acquire freer expression”
This quote also links to the questioning of gender binaries within the glossary, which I hope will promote a more open and accepting environment in the studios where discussions about how gender binaries are reinforced in the smallest details, and question how we can disrupt these notions to create a progressive and inclusive practice.
Evaluation
The outcome would be of a lived observed measure rather than a statistical outcome. As there is a fashion show for the 1st years just a few months after the skills workshop, it is easy to see the students who struggled and how they overcame, or continue to struggle, through their garments on the runway. A recent example was a student who had never sewn before. They struggled to hold the fabric and guide it through the machinery. Their friend would tease them over their difficulty handling the fabric, to which I questioned and reminded the class that we all learn at different paces and have different educational journeys. I was really thrilled to see this student persist and take on my words of encouragement to create a highly technical garment, with assistance from myself and their tutors, which went on to close the first year Reset Show, an esteemed gesture that the garment is considered strong in design and execution. I believe that the packs could have enhanced this student’s experience even further and hope I will be able to recognise the intervention’s impact through lived experience and observation.
Conclusion
I have realised that although my positionality in many ways is one of privilege, there are aspects of my career progression and the standing of technicians within Central Saint Martins and the fashion industry that give me experience of oppressive and reductive attitudes. I need to do further reading around gender binaries to help inform my writing for the glossary and technical rules, to ensure my language is not reinforcing these binaries but instead is provoking thought and discussion. I need to explore how I will record and develop the intervention results into data, and want to explore my understanding of how a lived experience or observation can be the outcome, as I am more familiar with statistical research and data analysis. I have concerns around biases appearing in my observations, and after reading Mason (2002) I have realised the importance of working with colleagues, students and peers to help detect biases in my methodology and research conclusions.
References
Ahmed, S. (2019) What’s the Use? : On the Uses of Use [Preprint]. doi:10.2307/j.ctv11hpr0r.
Ahmed, T. (2023) ‘Decolonizing the Mannequin’, in Fashion Education: The Systemic Revolution. Bristol: Intellect Books, pp. 156–156.
