Designing my workshop Mark to Material has been a way to bring my previous intervention, Unravelling the Norms, into a new, practical context. That earlier project explored how sketchbooks in textile education can sometimes act as exclusionary spaces, reinforcing narrow ideas of what creativity “should” look like. I wanted to question those norms by creating a workshop that encourages play, experimentation, and accessibility, especially for those who might feel alienated by the traditional expectations of the sketchbook.
As I began planning my workshop, I realised how central reflection and data collection would be, not just for the sake of assessment, but for understanding whether the workshop genuinely shifts thinking. My tutor’s feedback encouraged me to move beyond surface-level evaluation and think more deeply about what I was really asking: did participants find the workshop playful? Did new materials make creative practice more accessible? Did the “no right or wrong” ethos reduce fear of failure? And ultimately, did this broaden their understanding of what creativity can be?
These questions resonated with the purpose of my project, to challenge dominant ideas of creative “success” and make space for diverse ways of making and knowing. They also align with ideas from McNiff (2002), who reminds us that action research is about “learning from experience, systematically and reflectively, to improve practice.” My workshop isn’t just an activity; it’s a small act of inquiry into how teachers can rethink process, play, and inclusion in their own classrooms.
Collecting Data Ethically and Reflectively
I decided to use a combination of pre- and post-workshop questionnaires, a group reflective discussion, and observational note-taking to collect my data. This mixed-method approach, as Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2012) describe, allows for both measurable and interpretive insight, a way of balancing structure and reflection.
The questionnaires will provide a baseline understanding of participants’ attitudes toward experimental drawing, sustainability, and inclusivity before and after the session. The reflective group discussion will allow for a more organic sharing of experience, encouraging participants to explore how they felt during the process, moments of play, discovery, or even uncertainty. I’ll record this discussion through field notes taken by an assistant, rather than audio, to maintain a relaxed, conversational atmosphere.
Following ethical guidance from UAL Insights, participants will be informed that their responses and reflections are being used solely for my PgCert Action Research Project and professional development. All data will be anonymised, securely stored, and presented only in aggregated or illustrative form.
This process feels in tune with Alvesson’s (2012) idea of ‘reflexive methodology’, where data isn’t just collected but ‘co-created’ through dialogue. Similarly, Ellis and Bochner (2006) argue that qualitative inquiry should “evoke, provoke, and engage,” which reflects how I want my workshop to feel, not like a survey, but a shared conversation about practice.
Prompts for Reflective Group Discussion
At the end of the session, I’ll facilitate a short group reflection to gather deeper qualitative data. These prompts are designed to connect directly to my research question while encouraging participants to speak from experience: (please see previous blog post)
These questions aim to create space for honest reflection, not just evaluation, recognising, as Tjora (2006) suggests, that rich data often comes from “the dynamics of dialogue.”
Looking Ahead
Thinking about data in this way has reframed how I see my role in the workshop. I’m not just facilitating a creative session, I’m learning through it. The feedback, reflections, and discussions become part of a collective inquiry into how we might make art and design education more inclusive, playful, and open-ended.
As McNiff (2002) reminds us, action research is as much about ‘becoming aware’ as it is about changing practice. In that sense, Mark to Material feels like both a workshop and a mirror, reflecting back to me what inclusive creativity might look like when we stop worrying about doing it “right.”
References
-Alvesson, M. (2012) ‘Interpreting Interviews’. London: Sage.
-Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2012) ‘Research Methods in Education’. London: Routledge.
– Ellis, C. & Bochner, A. P. (2006) ‘Analyzing Analytic Autoethnography’, ‘Journal of Contemporary Ethnography’, 35(4), pp. 429–449.
-McNiff, J. (2002) ‘Action Research for Professional Development: Concise Advice for New Action Researchers’. Dorset: September Books.
-Tjora, A. (2006) ‘Writing Small-Scale Research Projects in the Social Sciences’. London: Sage.