By Koundinya Dhulipalla, Winnie Soon, Lily Chasioti 

Contemporary centralised communication systems perpetuate technical paternalism—systems designed with unexamined assumptions about control and hierarchy. These systems can reinforce existing power imbalances and render certain voices unheard. In response, local technologies that emphasise community participation and collective ownership emerge as alternatives to corporate-run centralised systems. The Reimagining Futures: Creative Networks for Social Justice workshop, facilitated by community educator Catalina Polanco and organised by Slade Art+Tech Research Lab (March 2025), demonstrated how engaging with community infrastructure serves both resistance and pedagogical innovation.

Through hands-on engagement with LoRa (Long Range) mesh networks—wireless communication systems that allow devices to directly connect and relay messages to each other without requiring centralised infrastructure—the workshop positions decentralised technology as both technical intervention and deconstructive educational practice. Building on Phil Agre’s framework of critical technical practice (Agre, 1997), the workshop explored how community-run networks can be used to teach students to question the material and ideological architectures of centralised infrastructure. By engaging with alternative infrastructures through hands-on practice, participants developed both technical literacy and critical consciousness about the political dimensions of network design and peer communication. This workshop not only explored technological alternatives but also demonstrated how such approaches inform innovative pedagogical practices that integrate technical skills with critical thinking, providing a model for interdisciplinary teaching and learning.

Technical Characteristics and Political Affordances 

The problem of centralised networks lies in their hierarchical structure, where communication typically flows through corporate-controlled servers. In contrast, decentralised mesh networks offer an alternative approach with valuable teaching applications in examining the role of agency—how users can exercise control and decision-making power within technological systems. LoRa peer-to-peer mesh networks function by allowing devices (nodes) to communicate directly with each other without requiring a centralised server.

These networks possess several distinctive technical characteristics that translate into political and pedagogical possibilities. Their network redundancy—the ability to have multiple backup paths for information to travel if one connection fails—allows data to route around failures, teaching students about robust system design against both accidental outages and deliberate communication disruption, embodying individual agency through system resilience.

Their adaptability enables nodes to dynamically discover communication routes and adapt to changing conditions, offering lessons in systems that “self-heal” as components join, leave, or change position—giving users agency to reshape network topologies as needed. Through incremental scalability, these networks demonstrate how systems can grow organically without requiring centralised planning or significant infrastructure investment, further emphasising community agency in network development. Additionally, LoRa devices can be powered with a battery, making them ideal tools for teaching about portable devices for long-range data communication, even during outages, enhancing user agency during crisis situations. 

Pluriverse of Local Worlds 

The workshop’s technical experiments with LoRa devices operationalised de Valk’s “pluriverse of local worlds”—systems rejecting universal solutions in favour of community-specific epistemologies (de Valk, 2021). Participants configured Meshtastic nodes not merely as communication tools but as infrastructural critiques, bypassing dependencies on internet service providers while interrogating terms like “protocol” and “bandwidth” as ideological constructs.  

When participants established their first successful node-to-node connections, discussions immediately turned to how these connections differed from corporate networks. Unlike centralised systems where communication passes through corporate ‘cloud’ servers, these peer-to-peer transmissions created direct links between community members. This technical arrangement materialised a different social relationship—one where communication infrastructure could be collectively set up, owned and governed rather than rented from distant corporations. This direct connection between technical configuration and social relationships formed the foundation for understanding how infrastructure design embodies political values.  

The workshop also situated this technical practice in Latin American community technology movements, where facilitator Catalina Polanco, a community educator working on promoting free and open technologies, shared experiences from organisations like Laboratorio de Medios and Red TIC-AC, which demonstrated how community-driven technology development and political action become naturally intertwined in grassroots contexts. These collectives focus on developing independent communication networks, providing digital security training, and supporting Indigenous and rural communities in reclaiming their narratives through open-source technology. Open-source technology—software and hardware whose design is public and can be accessed by anyone—is central to these movements as it enables communities to adapt technologies to their specific needs while reducing dependency on proprietary systems controlled by corporations.  

These examples provided more than inspiration—they offered practical methodologies. When configuring LoRa devices, participants adopted approaches that prioritise repairability over optimisation. By embedding these principles in technical work, participants experienced how infrastructure design can either reinforce or challenge existing power relations. Contextualising the workshop with the works of these organisations working in Latin America also established a framework for approaching this workshop as an exploration of digital sovereignty—a resistance against surveillance and centralised corporate and state control—while also encouraging knowledge-sharing and the decolonisation of knowledge systems. 

Critical Technical Practice Methodologies 

The workshop operationalised Agre’s framework of critical technical practice through several specific methodologies: 

Speculative Scenarios 

A fictional scenario set in 2033 revealed tensions between decentralised resilience and scalability limits. Participants proposed interfaces between LoRa and community radio infrastructure. The scenario exercise highlighted how decentralised networks could support mutual aid during climate disasters, positioning them as essential infrastructure for community survival in increasingly precarious times (Bodó, Brekke, & Hoepman, 2021). This scenario-based approach connects to broader traditions of speculative design (Dunne & Raby, 2013) that use fiction as a method for exploring the social and political implications of technology. 

Repair and Maintenance as Critical Practice 

The workshop included discussions on maintenance and repair practices, shifting attention from innovation to sustainability—from creation to care. Repair practices reveal the values and power relations embedded in technical systems. By prioritising the ongoing life of devices over their replacement, participants enacted a different relationship to technology—one based on stewardship rather than consumption. This approach emphasises the agency to maintain and modify devices rather than being forced into cycles of obsolescence and replacement.  

The repair sessions also democratised technical knowledge. Participants with varying levels of expertise worked collaboratively, challenging the conventional separation between “experts” and “users” that often characterises technical education. This horizontal knowledge-sharing fostered what can be termed “cognitive justice” (Visvanathan, n.d.) —recognising diverse forms of expertise and making technical knowledge accessible to communities typically excluded from technological production. 

Significant discussions emerged during the workshop around the labour implications of decentralised networks. Participants questioned who maintains these systems once they are built; how technical knowledge is preserved and shared; and what sustainable repair practices might look like (Internet Policy Review, 2021). Unlike corporate infrastructure with dedicated maintenance teams, community networks depend on distributed responsibility and skill-sharing arrangements that can be challenging to sustain over time. 

Participants also explored sustainability in environmental and social dimensions—considering how to create technologies that can be sustained without enormous energy demands, utilising renewable energy sources like solar and wind power, while also addressing how community knowledge can be preserved and transmitted through generations. 

Critical Technical Practice as a Pedagogical Framework 

By integrating theory and practice, this workshop embedded critical reflection directly into technical learning and teaching, demonstrating how deconstruction and critical technical practice (Soon & Valasco 2024) can serve as a pedagogical framework. Participants engaged simultaneously in learning technical skills (configuring Meshtastic devices, testing signal ranges, as well as a walk-through of the open-sourced program that runs on the LoRa devices) and analysing their political implications (who controls communication, how infrastructure embodies power relations). This integrated approach disrupts the conventional division between “technical” and “critical” courses, demonstrating how the technical and political dimensions of technology are inherently interconnected, fostering both technical competence and social awareness. 

As participants explored LoRa communication, significant debates emerged about network architecture choices. Some teams devoted considerable time to weighing the trade-offs between fully decentralised mesh networks, centralised systems with designated control points, or hybrid approaches combining elements of both. These discussions highlighted an important aspect of critical technical practice—that infrastructure design involves not just implementation but constant negotiation of values, priorities, and governance models. By experiencing firsthand how different network topologies embodied different political possibilities, participants gained insight into the open-ended nature of technical decisions and their social implications. 

The educational impact extended beyond individual skill development to collective knowledge production. As participants from different disciplines collaborated—some bringing technical expertise, others contributing critical frameworks from feminist or decolonial theory—engaging in the material creation of networks, they developed a shared understanding across disciplinary boundaries, demonstrating how infrastructure functions not just as physical structure but as a process that clarifies relationships between different knowledge systems. This approach recognises that infrastructure is not merely technical but encompasses social, epistemological, and cognitive components that together support collaborative learning practices. Such a pedagogical approach becomes essential in interdisciplinary contexts where diverse backgrounds and perspectives transform into meaningful collaborative exchange. 

Conclusion: Protocols as Praxis 

The workshop explored how building LoRa networks constitutes critical technical practice by materialising alternative social relations through channel configurations that prioritise community needs over corporate metrics. It embedded maintenance as ongoing ethical labour rather than a technical afterthought and situates technology within specific cultural and ecological contexts. 

As corporate platforms increasingly co-opt “decentralisation” rhetoric, community networks might remain sites of ongoing deconstruction—infrastructures that continuously question their own power dynamics while providing essential services (Soon & Velasco, 2024). This approach rejects both techno-utopianism and techno-pessimism in favour of what critical technical practice proposes—an engagement with technology that recognises its political nature while working toward more equitable and sustainable configurations. 

This workshop offers a model for integrated technical-critical pedagogy, aligning with the BA Art & Technology programme’s commitment to treating infrastructure not just as a technical system but as a cultural and political architecture open to reimagination. By embedding critical technical practice into the curriculum, the program fosters a generation of practitioners who approach technology as both a medium and a site of intervention—developing an artistic practice to build, critique, and reshape the systems that shape our digital and physical environments. The workshop’s approach directly informs undergraduate teaching in the BA Art & Technology by demonstrating how technical learning becomes transformative when situated within critical and creative frameworks – engaging in collaborative learning environments where diverse backgrounds and perspective inform an interdisciplinary approach to teaching and learning. By treating the classroom as a site of critical technical practice, the programme prepares students not merely as consumers of technology but as practitioners capable of reimagining the systems and infrastructures that increasingly define our social, cultural, and political realities. 

+++ 

The workshop was organised by the Slade Art+Tech Research Lab, based at UCL East, and is supported by UCL’s Centre for Humanities Education.  

Photo credits: Jessica Arnold 

Workshop facilitator: Catalina Polanco / IG: @descuartizadorahack Organisers:  Winnie Soon, Koundinya Dhulipalla, Lily Chasioti 

References 

• Agre, P. E. (1997). Toward a Critical Technical Practice: Lessons Learned in Trying to Reform AI. In G. C. Bowker, S. L. Star, L. Gasser, & W. Turner (Eds.), Social Science, Technical Systems, and Cooperative Work: Beyond the Great Divide (pp. 131-158). Lawrence Erlbaum. 

• Bodó, B., Brekke, J. K., & Hoepman, J.-H. (2021). Decentralisation: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Internet Policy Review, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.14763/2021.2.1563 

• de Valk, M. (2021). A Pluriverse of Local Worlds: A Review of Computing within Limits Related Terminology and Practices. In LIMITS ’21: Workshop on Computing within Limits, June 14-15, 2021. 

• Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. MIT Press. 

• Soon, W., & Velasco González, P. R. (2024). (De)constructing Machines as Critical Technical Practice. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 30(1), 116-141. 

• Visvanathan, S. (n.d). The Search for Cognitive Justice. The ACU Review. Retrieved March 21, 2025, from https://www.acu.ac.uk/the-acu-review/the-search-for-cognitive-justice/ 

Aristophanes’ Peace: A Topical Story by Giovanna Di Martino

After thirteen long years of war, Athens and Sparta have turned a proxy dispute into an all-out extravaganza of chaos. The goddess Peace has been locked away in a cavern, far, far away, tired, sad, and downright cross with everyone for ignoring her.

Meanwhile, the gods have taken a permanent vacation from their heavenly palace, seeking refuge in the most remote corner of the earth, leaving the god of War to run the show. The result? A nation exhausted, angry, and simply desperate for any sort of deal to end the madness.

Enter Trygaeus: a once-successful winemaker who decides to take on the epic task of saving Greece. With a giant beetle as his trusty steed, he’s determined to fly to heaven, convince the gods to convince humans to cut the nonsense, and rescue Peace.

Originally produced in the spring of 421 BCE in Athens at probably the largest theatre festival in the ancient world, the City Dionysia – just days before a much-anticipated peace treaty was finally signed between Athens and Sparta – Peace is the work of the visionary playwright Aristophanes: it stands as a powerful symbol of hope and the promise of an end to stubbornly useless suffering.

This was the imaginative story that we decided to work on for our project Aristophanes at Chickenshed, an international collaboration between the University of Bristol, University College London (UCL), the University of Parma, Chickenshed Theatre and Teatro delle Albe.

Aristophanes at Chickenshed: Aims, Motives and Methods

The project comprised a five-day workshop on Aristophanes’ Peace held from the 28^th of October to the 1^st of November 2024 at Chickenshed Theatre in London. This was directed by Marco Martinelli and Ermanna Montanari of Teatro delle Albe, with the assistance of dramaturg Giovanna Di Martino (UCL), who also produced a new translation of the play. This project brought together students from the universities involved with students from the Chickenshed’s education programmes, culminating in two (sold-out) performances of a new version of Peace.

This workshop is rooted in the pedagogical imperative of integrating performance practice into the study and teaching of ancient Greek drama. As well as providing a more accessible approach to ancient Greek dramatic scripts, this approach also serves as an appropriate method for exploring these texts that, before enjoying a long and successful literary life off the stage, were originally intended for performance.

Ancient Greek Drama, in and outside the Classroom

Since the 1960s, ancient Greek drama has remained one of the most widely used sources for writing new plays and for directors to experiment on a global scale (Hall 2004: 12). This year, the London stage alone has seen Robert Icke’s widely acclaimed Oedipus at the Wyndham Theatre and Alexander Zeldin’s equally successful The Other Place (a rewrite of Antigone) at the National Theatre; in January, the Old Vic will present Matthew Warchus and Hofesh Shechter’s Oedipus, while Daniel Fish’s Elektra will run at the Duke of York’s Theatre.

But ancient Greek drama is also one of the most appealing and widely studied aspects of ancient Greek literature and culture more generally, both at school level (through the syllabuses for Classical Civilisation, Drama and English, at both GCSE and A-Level) and in Higher Education (Andújar 2023: 373).

Though the performance history of these ancient scripts has been incredibly rich since their return to the stage in the early modern period, only recently has the discipline of Classics begun considering the reception of these texts on the stage as an integral component of the texts themselves. Recent developments in this area are part of the new subfield of classical reception studies. In addition to recognising the dramatic nature of these texts in analysing and teaching them, this field also incorporates the performance history of these texts through time as part of the multiple layers of meaning they present to us today.[1]

Yet, while taking stock of their dramatic nature and how they have worked historically on the stage is indeed a step forward for the discipline as well as for the theatre practitioners wanting to engage with these ancient scripts on the contemporary stage, only very recently has there been a change in the way these texts are taught in the classroom.[2]

Practice Research, Performance Pedagogy and the Chorus

The aims and outcomes of this workshop should be inserted into this new thrust towards practice-based teaching and research practices that align with theatre and performance studies’ long-term commitment to performance as a method of inquiry and a pedagogical tool.

Our workshop combined practice research with performance pedagogy: while it aimed at producing new knowledge in the ‘ecosystem’ of scholarship, performance, and translation of Aristophanes’ Peace,[3] it also invited university and drama students to be active participants in this process of knowledge-production.

The integration of both methodologies was greatly supported by the directors of the workshop, Marco Martinelli and Ermanna Montanari. Martinelli’s unique approach, termed the ‘non-school’, emphasises a non-prescriptive engagement with ‘canonical’ texts that often serve as the subject of classroom study. He advocates for deconstructing and bringing these texts to life on stage through a process he calls ‘messa in vita’ (‘putting into life’). As a theatre practitioner, he draws upon the ancient Greek chorus, as well as the Medieval Passions (sacra rappresentazione), up to Majakovskij’s revolutionary theatre. His theatre practice revolves around the concept of the Chorus, which transforms individual identity into collective identity.[4]

The workshop also hugely benefited from Ermanna Montanari’s long-term vocal exploration (on which she has published widely).[5] She was responsible for the warm-up exercises, through which students worked extensively on breathing, movement and voice.

Their approach was complemented by Chickenshed Theatre’s fifty years of experience bringing together young people from a variety of difficult circumstances and backgrounds and using theatre to help them develop skills, confidence and community. This combination of approaches was supported by academics from the participating universities in several ways. Lines from Giovanna Di Martino’s translation of Peace were interwoven with the students’ improvisations during the devising process and Di Martino also acted as a simultaneous Italian-English interpreter during the workshop. Lucy Ruddiman, and Zoë Carvalho Morris provided dramaturgical support during the workshop process – while also participating in the performance.

The Process: New Knowledge and Community Building

The process of bringing together this Chorus of different voices to explore Aristophanes through a collaborative combination of methods and languages was as important as the performance we created. The goal was not to re-create or re-discover meanings that Peace may have had in the ancient world, but to participate in creating new knowledge around the play, its myth-story, and contemporary theatre practices that were generated from the participants’ interactions with them. One student reflected, ‘I loved creating for an Ancient Greek show – as I had very little knowledge of shows from that period beforehand. This experience has inspired me to be more confident in trying a new approach in theatre.’ The value of this project was in the different ways in which the ‘non-school’ method combined with Chickenshed’s inclusive theatre practices to allow the student-performers to construct their own Aristophanes; one who enabled them to express some of their own concerns through performance.

Another valuable aspect of this process was the community (the Chorus) that emerged throughout the workshop. There were challenges to this: we had different groups of people (some of whom were already used to working together in a particular way, and some of whom had never worked together before); we were combining different methods of making theatre; we were exploring a play that almost all participants were unfamiliar with; and we were doing it all across a language barrier. Nevertheless, the students reported that they felt a strong sense of community in this process. One student commented, ‘I didn’t expect to build such a strong connection within such a short period of time.’ That we were able to bring this group together into a community to create our own Aristophanes was a testament to the success of the process, which we felt spoke strongly in favour of performance pedagogy as a way of exploring ancient drama.

Language and Performance

Another key aspect of this project was its multilingual nature, where language should not be merely understood as a means of communication, but as a means of being, a way of thinking and, in this case, a way of ‘feeling’ theatre. One of Chickenshed’s main organizers described this project as a valuable opportunity for students to experience something new, primarily by being exposed to people speaking different languages. From the beginning of the collaboration between Albe, UCL and the University of Parma, this has been a central aspect of the project.[6]

It was noted by one participant that one of the most exciting things was indeed to be able to ‘work in a foreign language’. Another participant spoke of the opportunity to ‘connect strangers without words’ even though they did not share a language. And again, another was surprised that though ‘we spoke different languages’, there somehow emerged a common language, that of ‘performance’.

Giovanna Di Martino is Leventis Research Fellow in Ancient Greek Literature at University College London. Her main research areas are the translation and performance of ancient Greek drama in the early modern period, in Europe and beyond. She has recently co-edited a volume for De Gruyter: Translating Ancient Greek Drama in Early Modern Europe: Theory and Practice (15th-16th Centuries) and two special issues for Skenè: Memory and Performance: Classical Reception in Early Modern Festivals. She has also contributed several journal articles on translation theory and practice of Greek and Latin texts across time. Her research interests include the reception of ancient Greek drama during Fascism (on which she has published two special issues for CRJ and Brill’s Fascism). She is the author of the monograph Translating and Adapting Aeschylus’ Seven Against Thebes in the United States (Skenè, 2020) and is currently working on her second monograph for OUP on Aeschylus’ Reception. Translation, Adaptation and Performance. She has several ongoing practice-research projects on the translation of ancient Greek drama and its adaptations.

—————————————————————————————————————–

Outputs

Inclusive Theatre and Community-Building | Giovanna Di Martino, Marco Martinelli, and Dave Carey

Since the end of the project, we have been sharing the premises and outcomes of this workshop with a few audiences. First, we held an event with Marco Martinelli and Dave Carey in conversation with Giovanna Di Martino at the University of Oxford, hosted by the Archive of Performances of Greek and Roman Drama, on 4^th November 2024. Here we talked about Chickenshed and Teatro delle Albe, their history and ethos, and then presented a few clips from the workshop as a result of the successful collaboration.

Roundtable on Ancient Greek Comedy as Community Engagement

We also held a roundtable discussion at the University of Bristol on 11^th November 2024 as part of the Theatre Department’s events, though the panel included both classics and theatre scholars. It was a fruitful and productive discussion led by Giovanna Di Martino and Lucy Ruddiman that (unusually) brought together different disciplines and students from a diverse range of BAs. The panellists have since been in contact and expressed a desire to continue the conversation. We hope that this indicates the possibility of a future life for this project and the value of these sorts of collaborations.

——————————————————————————————————

This video is a selection of moments from the performance. Each moment is intended to illustrate a different aspect of the process that went into creating it.

• Prologue: This was to convey the war happening in the background of the play, while building a sense of chorus. The performers entered the space, fell to the floor and rose again. This was repeated a few times but is only shown once here.
• The Feeding of the Beetle: The protagonist of Peace, an Athenian named Trygaeus, has acquired a dung beetle which he intends to fly to Mount Olympus to rescue the goddess of Peace. Here the beetle is represented by half the chorus and the other half are workers feeding it dung. This scene mixes the improvisations of the participants with lines from Giovanna Di Martino’s translation.
• The Flight of the Beetle: Trygaeus flies the beetle to Mount Olympus. This scene demonstrates more of the choral techniques explored, which are drawn from Ermanna Montanari’s (the other co-founder Teatro delle Albe who was also present for the workshop) work with breath and voice.
• The Gods of War: On arriving at Mount Olympus Trygeaus finds Hermes, who explains that the other Olympian gods have left the gods of war in charge. The gods of war enter singing war songs, which were chosen and created by the students.

Credits

Directors: Marco Martinelli, Ermanna Montanari

Dramaturg and Translator: Giovanna Di Martino

Assistant Directors: Zoë Carvalho Morris, Lucy Ruddiman

Workshop Organisers: Francesca Bortoletti, Giovanna Di Martino, Lucy Ruddiman, Francesca Venturi

Cast Members: David Akubardiya, Desirè Andreotti, Yasmine Anouar, Reece Bailey-Smith, Sean Baradhi, Chiara Barresi Vannini, Luca Bartolomucci, Jacopo Rossano Botto, Sofia Buttini, Alan Campani, Zoë Carvalho Morris, Camilla Castellano, Bianca Dondi, Samuel Gould, Harry Johnson, Katie King, Bunny Kwabene, Theo Leslie, Agnes Lindstoel Wilhelmsen, Naledi-Zoe Mangrozah, Joguina Mokekola, Leonardo Morgan-Russel, Annalisa Pagani, Benedetto Loris Pizzo, Lucina Rigoberto, Lucy Ruddiman, Hamza Sogut, Giada Vendemmiati, Lily Walker, Yasmin Wilson, Kye Wolbrom.

Video Footage: Simon Gutimo.

Sponsors: Istituto Italiano di Cultura (London), UCL’s Centre for Humanities Education, Ravenna Teatro (Ravenna), the Leventis Foundation, the Gilbert Murray Trust, the Bristol Institute of Greece, Rome, the Classical Tradition, the Institute of Classical Studies, the Archive of Performances of Greek and Roman Drama (Oxford), the University of Parma-DUSIC, and the WIDE European Program.

Approved by UCL’s Ethics Committee under the title ‘Theatre Practice and Ancient Greek Drama in Translation’, Ethics Number 22797/001. PI: Giovanna Di Martino.

————————————————————————————————————————-

[1] The Archive of Performances of Greek and Roman Drama, founded in 1996 by Edith Hall and Oliver Taplin, is a pioneering research centre in this field. Today, the Archive continues to serve as an interface between ancient drama and its reception, both on and off the stage, while also developing new reception through collaborations with creative artists. On the return of Greek drama to the early modern stage, see Bortoletti, Di Martino, Refini 2024; on Greek drama on the British stage, see Hall and Macintosh 2005; on Greek drama in the Americas, see Bosher, Macintosh, McConnell, Rankine 2015; on the Latin American stage, see Andújar and K.P. Nikoloutsos 2020; on the Georgian stage, see Gurchiani 2017; for a general overview, see van Zyl Smit 2016.

[2] See Mitchell-Boyask 2023; Meineck 2023; Plastow and Bullen 2024, amongst others.

[3] For the use of the term ‘ecology’ and ‘ecosystem’ in relation to any new knowledge produced around ancient Greek drama, see Plastow and Bullen 2024.

[4] Martinelli’s non-school developed in Italy, but also in France, Belgium, Brazil, Senegal, the United States and recently in the United Kingdom. See Marco Martinelli, Aristofane a Scampia, Milan, Ponte delle Grazie, 2016; Id., The Sky Over Kibera, 2019: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt18358142/; Id., Aristophanes dans les banlieues. Pratique de la non-école, trans. Laurence Van Goethem, Arles, Actes Sud-Papier, 2020. For more information on Martinelli’s non-school practice, see https://www.teatrodellealbe.com/ita/contenuto.php?id=4. For more on his ‘choral’ practices, see Marco Martinelli, Coro, Genoa, AkropolisLibri, 2023, and Di Martino 2024.

[5] Ermanna Montanari, Enrico Pitozzi, Cellula: anatomia dello spazio scenico = an anatomy of stage space, Macerata, Quodlibet, 2021; Ermanna Montanari, Enrico Pitozzi, Prima voce, Bologna, Sigaretten Edizioni Grafiche, 2022.

[6] On the history of this collaboration, see Bortoletti, Di Martino, Refini 2024a, 6-7.

Bibliography

Andújar, R. (2023). Profile: Greek tragedy and performance. The Classical Review, 73 (2), 373-377. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/classical-review/article/profile-greek-tragedy-and-performance/F526AC205991FC008F369060D629212D

Andújar, R., & Nikoloutsos, K. P. (2020). Greeks and Romans on the Latin American stage (1st ed.). Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

Bortoletti, F., Di Martino, G., & Refini, E. (Eds.). (2024). Memory and performance: Classical reception in early modern festivals. Skenè: Journal of Theatre and Drama Studies, 10 (1). https://skenejournal.skeneproject.it/index.php/JTDS/issue/view/32

Bortoletti, F., Di Martino, G., & Refini, E. (2024). Preface. Skenè, 10 (1), 5-7. https://skenejournal.skeneproject.it/index.php/JTDS/article/view/465/426

Bosher, K., Macintosh, F., McConnell, J., & Rankine, P. (2015). The Oxford Handbook of Greek Drama in the Americas (1st ed.). Oxford University Press.

Di Martino, G. (2024). Practice research, performance pedagogy, and early modern Aristophanes: Building (on) the script(s). Skenè, 10 (2), 247-292.

Gurchiani, K., Torlone, Z. M., Munteanu, D. L., & Dutsch, D. (2017). Greek tragedy on the Georgian stage in the twentieth century. In A Handbook to Classical Reception in Eastern and Central Europe (pp. 548–559). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Hall, E. (2004). Introduction. In E. Hall, F. Macintosh, & A. Wrigley (Eds.), Dionysus since 69: Greek tragedy at the dawn of the third millennium (pp. 1-46). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hall, E., & Macintosh, F. (2005). Greek tragedy and the British theatre, 1660-1914 . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mitchell-Boyask, R. (2023). Teaching the Oresteia as a work for the theatre. In P. Burian & J. Bromberg (Eds.), A Companion to Aeschylus (pp. 533-543). Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.

Meineck, P. (2023). Applied Aeschylus. In P. Burian & J. Bromberg (Eds.), A Companion to Aeschylus (pp. 518-532). Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.

Plastow, C., & Bullen, D. (Eds.). (2024). Introducing the classics ecology. In Greek tragedy, education, and theatre practices in the UK classics ecology (pp. 1-16). New York: Routledge.

Smit, B. van Z. (Ed.). (2016). A handbook to the reception of Greek drama . Wiley Blackwell.

The Centre for Humanities Education is pleased to announce the 2024-2025 call for small EDI grants within its Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) stream. We invite staff and students to propose projects that contribute to fostering inclusivity, diversity, and accessibility in education. For this round, we will accept all applications that centre on EDI; we particularly encourage initiatives that focus on (i) disability equity and (ii) race equity.  

Grants Purpose: The purpose of these small grants is to encourage innovative projects that aim to enhance equal opportunities and create a more inclusive learning environment at UCL Arts and Humanities. We especially welcome proposals that consider disability and race (and the intersections of these with other dimensions of equity (including socio-economic equity, gender equity, LGBTQ+ equity, race equity, religion and belief equity). 

 

Eligibility:  

• Faculty, staff, and students from UCL Arts and Humanities are eligible to apply. Students should apply in collaboration with a member of staff. 
• If you are a student, we suggest you discuss this with someone in your programme or study or department. If you don’t feel this is appropriate for your idea or are not quite sure whom to contact among staff, then you are also welcome to contact Dr Jesper Hansen (j.hansen@ucl.ac.uk). 
• Collaborative projects involving multiple stakeholders are encouraged.  
• Projects that take intersectionality into account are warmly welcome.  

Grants Amount: Grants of up to £500 will be awarded to successful proposals.  

What can these funds be used for?   

• Events/conferences/workshops;
• To pay PGTAs or other students to undertake tasks relating to an event/conference/activity (at the relevant standard UCL rate);   
• To pay the expenses of visitors (travel/overnight hotel if necessary) who give talks (note that UCL Expenses Policy will apply to these);   
• To purchase resources/consumables.   

What can they NOT be used for?   

• They cannot be used for staff buy out;   
• They cannot be used for the purchase of equipment.  

Project Categories: We welcome proposals in the following categories (but not limited to):  

• Development of educational resources that address Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion.
• Initiatives promoting mentorship and support for students from underrepresented backgrounds.
• Workshops, seminars, or events fostering awareness and dialogue on equity in education.  

Application Process: Interested applicants are invited to submit a proposal via this Microsoft Form, including the following details:  

• Project title and brief description (up to 300 words).
• Objectives and expected outcomes (up to 200 words).  
• Budget breakdown.  
• Timeline for project implementation.  
• Potential challenges and mitigation strategies (up to 200 words).  
• Relevance to the overarching goal of socio-economic equity and education (up to 200 words).  

Submission Deadline: The deadline for submitting proposals is 25th November, 2024. Late submissions will not be considered.  

Review Process: Proposals will be reviewed by a panel within the EDI stream of the Arts and Humanities Centre for Humanities Education, considering the alignment with the initiative’s goals, feasibility, and potential impact on socio-economic equity and education.  

Notification of Awards: Successful applicants will be notified by 2nd December. Funds will be disbursed upon approval of project plans. Funding has to be spent by May 30th, 2025 (please keep in mind that this is a hard deadline). 

Contact: For inquiries or further information, please contact Thomas Cryer (thomas.cryer.21@ucl.ac.uk).

How to Apply:  

Deadline: 25th November, 4pm.  

We look forward to receiving your innovative proposals that contribute to advancing equity and education within our community. 

by Poppy Shortmoor and Ella Bosworth-Gerbino (Department of Greek and Latin)

What was Rome’s ideal woman? Selflessness, sexuality, and dependency on men – these were the values that coloured the depiction of female characters in Roman epic, mythology, and elegy.

But this idealised helplessness of women in Roman literature is juxtaposed against their real economic liberties, where there was much more freedom and agency than is generally believed.

Our paper, titled “How the Economic Role of Roman Women both Challenges and Conforms to Literary Ideals”, focused on this juxtaposition, and was one of many presented at this year’s Greek and Latin Speaker Series, titled New Frontiers in the Ancient World.

The Speaker Series, organised this year by Mairead McAuley and Ronald Chiu, aims to diversify the curriculum and encourage students to explore new perspectives with regards to Classics.

Placing student work front and centre

Student participants volunteered to give a short lecture on a topic of their choosing within the themes of sexuality, gender, identity, race, and otherness.

After participants had their abstract approved, they independently researched and created their presentations over a few weeks. These projects covered topics like femininity in Sumerian literature, sexuality in Greek art, and feminist analyses of mythology and theatre.

A commitment to equality, diversity, and inclusion is at the centre of this year’s Speaker Series. This focus allows for new topics not commonly discussed to be introduced to students, which hopefully will aid the process of broadening the wider curriculum.

Additionally, it highlights what students are interested in, fostering a more welcoming environment and allowing new perspectives into the discussion on the ancient world.

This interest in diversity was particularly evident in the wide variety of talks from other students. Not only were they able to explore their own interests, as we were, but also to illuminate topics that other participants might not have been aware of before.

Karen Guo’s talk “I petrify: Medusa and the Stone Butch” was a particular standout.

Bringing together contemporary queer theory and ancient mythology, she discussed parallels between the concept of the Stone Butch popularised by Feinberg in the late twentieth century, and the themes of sexuality in Medusa’s story.

Mitigating historical bias on modern literary reception

Our own paper was illustrated through an exploration of the historic figures including Ummidia Quadratilla and other Roman women.

Together, we set out a rough plan of our presentation, then went on to conduct our research separately before combining our arguments.

Ultimately, we reached the conclusion that it is important – when studying classics – not to take literature as unequivocal, historical fact, due to its intrinsic links to the ideals of its time and culture.

This topic was particularly interesting to both of us, because, as women studying in a traditionally male dominated field, we understand the importance of recognising the impacts of historical bias on modern literary reception, and of highlighting female history.

Exploring student interests beyond modules

The Speaker Series gave us an opportunity to explore our subjects outside of the modules available in the Greek and Latin department.

Being able to investigate a particular area of Classics that we are especially interested in, we were able to develop a sense of independence within our studies. In particular, the Speaker Series allowed us to develop skills that we have not had much opportunity to exercise as of yet.

Additionally, as we both plan on going into higher education, this project has provided an invaluable introduction into a more self-directed line of study, giving us skills that will no doubt be useful in our educational journey.

Poppy Shortmoor is a second year ancient world student who is planning on doing a masters in economic and social history and is particularly interested in the economy of the early Roman imperial era. Ella Bosworth Gerbino is a 2^nd year French and Latin student who is planning on going into teaching and is interested in the modern reception of classics. 

The Centre for Humanities Education is pleased to offer up to £1000 for projects supporting educational research or enhancement of any kind. We particularly encourage applications in the areas of assessment and feedback as well as on AI, technology, and education (including exploratory projects). We also encourage collaborative projects that involve colleagues and students across career stages and disciplines.

Some ideas for what these funds could be used for:

• Events/conferences/workshops;
• To pay PGTAs or other students to undertake tasks relating to an Education-focused event/conference/activity (at the relevant standard UCL rate);
• To pay the expenses of visitors (travel/overnight hotel if necessary) who give talks (note that UCL Expenses Policy will apply to these);
• To run a small research project with student researchers
• To purchase resources/consumables.

What can they NOT be used for?

• They cannot be used for staff buy out;
• They cannot be used for the purchase of equipment. 

See the full list of previously funded projects here. 

The deadline for applications is Monday 22 April 2024 at 5pm. Projects need to be completed by 15 December 2024. 

Please click here to access the short online form to submit your application.

Good luck! We’re excited to see what comes next for CHE fund awardees!  

by Selena Daly (SELCS) 

The second meeting of the Creative Teaching in the Humanities Network, in November 2023, focused on assessments and featured two speakers: Dr Akil Awan, Associate Professor of Modern History and Political Violence in the Department of History, Royal Holloway, University of London and Dr Eleanor Chiari, Associate Professor (Teaching) at SELCS in UCL.

Developing the ‘Unessay’

Akil presented his use of the ‘Unessay’ as part of the assessment for his module on the history of terrorism from the 19^th century to today. Instead of submitting a traditional written essay, students were asked to complete an ‘Unessay,’ essentially a creative and critical engagement with any theme from the module. Possible formats could include a piece of artwork, a documentary, a graphic novel, a website, or a short story, among many other possibilities.

Among examples of some of the best work students submitted as ‘Unessays’ were the following: a debate between a perpetrator and victim of terrorism in Northern Ireland written as a play; a board game in which you get to play as British colonial forces or the ‘Mau Mau’ or Kenyan Land and Freedom Army; and a musical composition focusing on the immediate public responses to the 9/11 attacks and remembrance of victims of terrorism. Students were also required to submit a 500-word self-reflexive essay worth 25% of the grade.

Engaging with trauma in visual culture

Eleanor presented an assessment that features as part of an undergraduate module entitled ‘Trauma in Visual Culture,’ which had similarities to the Unessay approach presented by Akil but adapted to her particular module’s context. Its aim was to encourage students to reflect more critically on emotive side of visual culture.

Students were required to submit a portfolio of work that responded to the module’s themes and theories examined. Examples of student work included: a graphic novel-style reinterpretation of Art Spiegelman’s Maus to explore the theme of post memory in the context of the Troubles in Northern Ireland; a visual journal exploring the haunting legacy of Nic Ut’s ‘terror of war’ photograph from the war in Vietnam; and a video essay which explored the idea of the ‘illogical spectator’ using family home videos from before the Syrian war. If students opted to submit an entirely abstract piece, they were required to submit a 1,500-word essay on their work.

Both Akil and Eleanor identified similar advantages to adopting these kinds of creative assessments. Both highlighted their value in catering to a diverse student cohort and the way that they foster creativity, imagination, and experimentation. Creative assessments also allow students to make use of skills they may have developed in other aspects of their lives (e.g. music or art), allowing for more holistic learning.

The approach also encourages students to engage more personally with the module content and Eleanor highlighted how, for some students who accessed family stories, the assessment helped them see how the visual could facilitate processes of grief and healing. Another major advantage is the fact that these assessment types are ‘ChatGPT-proof,’ as an AI system would be unable to produce the creative outputs required of the students.

Navigating difficulties as a module convenor

Although both speakers emphasised how rewarding and stimulating these kinds of creative assessments can be, both Akil and Eleanor also highlighted some issues that any colleagues should be aware of when considering an assignment of this type. Both of these modules confront difficult and potentially upsetting topics so sensitivity is required of the module convenor in navigating these issues, especially if students opt to focus on a topic that is related to their personal experience. Both Akil and Eleanor always offered students an ‘escape option,’ in the form of a traditional essay, if they decided they did not want to attempt the creative assignment, although Eleanor said no student had ever requested it.

There is also a significant time commitment involved for the module leader. Each project must be individually approved, often through a number of meetings with students. And finally, but perhaps most importantly, was the issue of how to ensure parity between students. Marking criteria are thus crucial. Akil’s assignments were thus judged on a non-standard set of the criteria, including the following: suitability (use of a medium appropriate to the topic); engaging (the submission is readable/watchable/listenable); and originality (the submission adds something new rather than summarising existing information).

Assignments of this type require us to ask whether it is even possible to measure creativity, or, as Akil said, ‘how can we compare a watercolour and a short story?’ The answer is with careful handling, precise marking criteria and motivated and committed instructors.

The Creative Teaching in the Humanities Network is led by Dr Selena Daly (SELCS). If you have any queries or suggestions for future events and/or speakers, please do get in touch at selena.daly@ucl.ac.uk.

by Selena Daly (SELCS) 

The first meeting of the Creative Teaching in the Humanities Network got off to a great start in October 2023 with a session on Object-Based Learning (OBL). Dr Thomas Kador (BASc) led all the participants in a fun and enlightening ice-breaker session that was, literally, hands on! Each table had a black box with holes in the sides placed in front of them and we were invited to feel the object inside, to draw it and to describe it. I won’t ruin the exercise for future participants but the objects ranged from the ancient to the modern, from the natural to the mechanical.

1. Consolidating learning through creating a memorable experience 

As Thomas then explained to us, sight is vastly overplayed in teaching and education. Our sense of touch is generally forgotten and yet our fingertips are powerful analytical tools. As one participant commented, an object-handling session is a ‘low stakes way of engaging students,’ while others remarked on how a memorable experience of this kind can stay with them longer, thus consolidating learning.

2. Moving students into non-formal learning spaces

Dr Andrea Fredericksen, Curator of the UCL Art Museum, then highlighted that in her line of work you can’t touch the artworks but explained that working up close with artworks can be a transformative experience for students. She highlighted how OBL can facilitate student wellbeing by getting students into ‘non-formal learning spaces,’ which can help overcome classroom anxiety and combat stress.

3. Allowing students who are less comfortable with traditional academic essays to shine 

Next, a series of colleagues shared insights and examples of how they use OBL in their teaching practice, beginning with Dr Kirsty Sinclair Dootson from SELCS. For a module on film materiality, she has put together her own personal teaching collection of film negatives, which is often the first time students have ever encountered such objects. She encourages them to think about issues such as size, flammability and even scent, asking them what they can learn about film without watching a movie. One of her big takeaways was how the assessment based on this film stock flipped the hierarchy in the room, with those who had performed less well on a traditional academic essay excelling at this task.

4. Helping educators teach difficult histories and topics 

Dr Lucia Rinaldi, also from SELCS, highlighted her use of the UCL Galton Collection in teaching a summer school module entitled ‘The Dark Side of London,’ using objects related to the development of forensic science, fingerprinting and aspects of eugenics. She emphasised how OBL can be a powerful tool in helping educators teach difficult histories and topics, by offering an alternative access point to controversial subjects.

5. Building student confidence through introducing real-world professional situations 

Lastly, Dr Anna Maguire (History) and Jo Baines (UCL Special Collections) presented their integration of OBL into the MA in Public History. They both highlighted the importance of sustainable partnerships between academics and UCL collections and archives. Indeed, the MA in Public History programme was approved to be in collaboration with Special Collections, which, in turn, influenced how the programme was designed. One activity asks students to design a lesson plan using objects in a box they are given, with tutors then intervening with last-minute alterations to the brief, exactly as happens in a real-world professional situation. According to Anna, it was a scenario that helped build students’ confidence and made them more confident in engaging with other creative outputs.

Final reflections: what about digital objects?

Aside from showcasing the exciting work being done in the area of OBL across UCL and providing attendees inspiration for how to embed OBL into their own modules, this session also raised some interesting questions. One of the most pressing was how OBL interacts with the digital world. Kirsty also asks her students to engage with films as digital files, asking what you cannot learn from a film that has been digitised and encouraging them to reflect on the consequences of the move from print to digital.

A broader reflection raised several times was whether we should include digital objects in definitions of OBL. Out of necessity, during the Covid lockdowns work, that was previously in person and hands-on was transferred online which posed some interesting questions for the group such as ‘can digital objects be included in definitions of OBL?’ and ‘what is gained and what is lost when we encounter objects only in digital form?’. Perhaps these are questions that can be tackled at a future meeting of the Creative Teaching in the Humanities Network.

The Creative Teaching in the Humanities Network is led by Dr Selena Daly (SELCS). If you have any queries or suggestions for future events and/or speakers, please do get in touch at selena.daly@ucl.ac.uk.

by Dr Simon Rowberry (UCL Centre for Publishing)

Edited 16 May 2024 to add: Inksights is now live! Check out the podcast here. 

In an era where digital landscapes evolve at lightning speed, equipping students with future-proof skills is more crucial than ever. With generative AI and multimedia platforms redefining professional boundaries, how can educational institutions stay ahead?

The answer: overhauling our curriculum for agility by embedding digital literacy throughout, and offering opportunities for students to work on real-world, career-enhancing projects.

A team of seven MA Publishing students, led by Amy, Lily and Mira, have been doing just this by working on Inksights, a podcast aimed at combining academic and industry perspectives on current publishing topics.

Each episode will blend interviews, reviews, debates, and news stories. Each member of team focuses on a different part of the podcast’s creation, production and marketing.

Finding your voice and preferred ways of collaborating

During the Inksights podcast’s pilot recording, the team tackled the art of collaboration head-on. The hosts encountered a challenge—avoiding interruptions—but ingeniously resolved it by adopting a lip balm stick as their “talking stick.” This simple yet effective strategy ensured clear, orderly discussions.

The Inksights team also skilfully navigated the challenge of sounding distinct and dynamic, steering clear of a “robotic” tone. The pilot showcases this success, achieved through planning and ensuring each host’s voice was unique and engaging. You can listen to it below (13:09 minutes long):

 

Methods of collaboration and working with guests were also challenges. While exploring various platforms, students discovered that each had its pros and cons. Zoom emerged as a standout for virtual sessions: the team praised it “for virtual interview/podcast recordings. The recording was quickly processed and available to access on the cloud by the production team.”

Working collaboratively on a podcast requires digital collaboration tools, which have proliferated over the last five years. The Inksights team are still finding the collaborative workflow that is most suitable for their needs. They are spending time to get this right early to avoid having to pivot to another setup later.

Our next steps include continuing to develop networks with similar groups of students and academics working on generative AI/podcasting across the University and the sector to gain further valuable insights and share good practice.

What Generative AI (currently) can and cannot do

Eden leads the generative AI project, focusing on images, videos, and animations. These are under-developed areas within publishing and require tools beyond Open AI’s Chat-GPT.

Through this scoping work, Eden notes: “I have become much more knowledgeable with this cutting-edge technology than industry professionals, putting me in a better position for job prospects.”

The projects highlight the constraints of today’s Generative AI tools in publishing. For example, it is possible to ask Chat-GPT to generate a book cover image, but this image appears in a square frame that requires further editing.

The file format of the output frequently clashes with current publishing workflows. This shifts human effort towards tedious tasks like cropping and format conversion, detracting from the creative focus on aesthetics and composition.

Likewise, most Generative AI services focus on a single media output, making cross-platform integrating challenging.

The Inksight podcast team’s experience with Zoom illustrates the benefits of human intervention as it “allows us to have video material to use for promotional purposes (Reels, YouTube, UCL publishing Instagram).”

This underscores the ongoing need to balance automation with human creativity, a vital skill for enhancing our students’ future employability.

The sustainability of extra-curricular media projects

The one-year format of our MA programme presents a significant hurdle for extracurricular activities as demonstrated by previous projects including Uncovering Publishing and Shelf Healing. Just as students hone their skills, they are ready to graduate, often having secured industry positions.

We do not yet have a practical solution to this challenge, but as the two projects continue to develop, we will look for ways to ensure greater continuity between cohorts and ensure teaching colleagues are equipped with the relevant skills to assist new groups of students.

The Inksights team are currently editing the first full episode of the podcast with the aim to release it by the end of Term 2.

Acknowledgements: Thanks to Amy, Eden, Lily and Mira for providing their thoughts on their progress to date. Simon used GPT-4 to improve the readability and conciseness of the first draft.

by Dr Xiaofan Amy Li (SELCS-CMII)

After half-term, Felix* realised that the academic rhetoric required of essays at UCL was very different from what she had learned in her BA in China.

Using lengthier and more elaborate sentences is typical in Chinese academic writing. However, Felix learned that this is seen as undesirable or unnecessary in academic English writing, which prefers short, plain language.

People assume that MA students are already skilled in writing coursework assignments, but often forget that many MA students come from radically different linguistic and academic backgrounds and are still learning new English language skills during the MA programme.

This is particularly the case for the MA in Comparative Literature, which attracts a large number of Chinese overseas students each year.

To focus on this issue, Dr Xiaofan Amy Li (Programme Director in MA Comparative Literature and EDI Co-lead at SELCS-CMII) organised a series of Grammar and Proofreading Workshops in Term 1 2023-24 for students whose first language is not English and who have not written extensive academic pieces in English before arriving at UCL.

This project raised awareness about linguistic disparities among MA students. It also offered an extended learning opportunity to help students who are disadvantaged compared to students whose first language is English and who have already been trained in anglophone academic cultures.

Workshop sessions took the format of individual feedback sessions (lasting 30 min) between a tutor and the student, focusing on a short piece of writing that responded to a writing prompt. Two PhD students in Comparative Literature, Oli Eccles and Clara Ng, tutored the sessions and gave meticulous feedback to tutees.

Sophie* is an MA student in Comparative Literature who found the English-language requirements for her module overwhelming, especially since English was not her native language and she had never written entire essays in academic English before.

The feedback sessions in the workshop focused on the grammatical and stylistic details of writing, which helped her understand what argumentative writing in academic English required.

Jian, another student, told their personal tutor that they found it very difficult to keep up with readings from their Comparative Literature modules.

They needed to check dictionaries constantly, which considerably slowed down their reading speed, and often worked until 2 a.m. to finish the required reading before class.

Due to this, they did not feel confident about completing written assessments. However, they found the workshop feedback extremely useful as their workshop tutor worked very patiently with them on details of constructing phrases, clarity of expression, and maintaining a coherent focus in essay writing.

Felix — the student mentioned at the beginning of this blog post — often made self-deprecating statements about not being able to address a certain problem in the conclusion.

After discussing these issues with Dr Li and attending the workshops, Felix has a much-improved understanding of the writing style and format required at UCL. Writing shorter and more concise sentences has also helped her to avoid extensive run-ons and grammatical errors that typically arise from constructing longer clauses.

This project has highlighted that passing an English language qualification such as IELTS or TOEFL is not the best indicator of overseas non-anglophone students’ existing training and abilities for writing complex and argumentative essays, which is required for MA programmes at SELCS-CMII.

More attention should be paid to the varying linguistic, cultural, and academic cultures of our students, and to the most concrete aspects of writing such as how to formulate a clear phrase and avoid awkward passive tenses.

Overall, this workshop has proved very useful for MA Comparative Literature students, especially in Term 1 when students are still settling into their courses.

Many thanks again to the workshop tutors Oli and Clara for their dedication and work!

*Names cited here are not real names as students preferred to keep their comments anonymised.

It’s time for the crit. These are words that might send a nervous flutter through the students at the creative arts university Dr. Victoria Odeniyi works at.

A crit is meant to be an open, democratic, and non-hierarchical space where students receive constructive feedback on their artwork. However, for some students, their lived experience of the crit diverged quite a bit from its intended purpose.

Victoria Odeniyi gave a talk titled “Challenges and opportunities of embedding institutional research findings into practice” at Decolonising Language Studies II about her experiences as an applied linguist at University of the Arts London.

Working with the Decolonising Arts Institute, she conducted an ethnographic research project focused on ways of creating more equitable educational outcomes, partly through narrowing persistent funding gaps between home and international students as well as between students of colour and students who identify as white.

The goal was to challenge colonial and imperial legacies and to drive cultural, social, and institutional change by encouraging the institution to critically reflect on their current practices.

This post is the third part of a series where we summarise speakers’ main ideas about decolonising language studies from a series of symposia organised organised Dr Jelena Ćalić and Dr Eszter Tarsoly on behalf of PROLang.

Expectations versus reality: the crit as “un-safe” space

The crit is intended to be an open space for students to display their artwork – such as sculptures and other installations – to their peers and tutors.

Victoria shares her experience about a crit she attended at a location called Safehouse in Peckham, where, over two days, students showcased their work to visiting arts scholars.

She observed tutors commenting on a student’s work in front of about thirty of their peers:

 

 

As Victoria says:

“We can see that there’s a disconnect between these spaces of open, democratic, and supportive peer review, where the tutor […] holds back, and what actually happens during interactions. So this was one example of how I felt […] why some students may have found this space particularly challenging.”

Turning her attention to the space, Victoria also realised that there was no plumbing or places for people to sit. She remarks that, ironically, “the safe house… felt unsafe to me.” Students undergoing the crit “needed a certain amount of stamina” to spend two days in this space.

Assessing multilingual repertoires in students’ art practices

Victoria then shares a story about a design student named Angela, who is both Cantonese- and English- speaking and uses both languages in her work.

Angela experienced an element of frustration in needing to constantly explain her work to her tutor, whom she felt was resistant towards her artistic choices.

As Angela said:

“I had to keep explaining… there’s a lot of hand-holding in terms of explaining it to tutors so they will understand where I am coming from.”

Victoria remarks that multilingual students often have to bear the responsibility of explaining their choices even though they are otherwise encouraged to draw on multiple semiotic resources – texts, colours, fonts, and layouts – in their work.

This also raises issues around how students using multilingual practices for their art can be assessed, especially if tutors are not language specialists or do not have an interest in language:

“If the teacher doesn’t understand Cantonese, how can this work be assessed according to perhaps relatively abstract assessment criteria – which is used to assess other forms of communicative practices?”

Facing institutional resistance to recommendations presented in Victoria’s report

As part of her research report, Victoria suggested initiatives to support awareness raising activities around language, multilingualism, and named languages within the academy.

She also suggested that recognising students’ language backgrounds and repertoires would be a way of cutting across institutional categories and labels. As she says in the talk: “We no longer [have to] speak about international students and home students; we can talk about the repertoire of semiotic resources for meaning-making.”

These recommendations did not seem controversial to her, but when she completed and published the report, she was asked to pause dissemination.

Victoria acknowledges that part of decolonising the curriculum and university concerns navigating institutional spaces and practices like those described above. Noting that universities are often sites of struggle and inequity, she observed institutional resistance to suggested changes.

Some of the responses she received included:

• Competing priorities other than a focus on multilingual repertoires, such as sustainable fashion and climate change, were listed: “Not now, staff may become confused”
• The predominance of language ideologies and Anglonormativity: “if they choose to come here, they need to do it our way”; “it has to be in English”
• Questions of whether there would be a “safeguarding issue” if students are using a number of different languages
• Concerns around assessment: “How can we assess multilingual practices?”

Victoria also notes that her position as a linguist (instead of an artist) rendered her an outsider.

She was often asked, “but Victoria, what is your practice? […] [which] implies: ‘you’re not one of us, so please explain what you’re doing here.’”

Victoria’s talk reflects on both the challenges and possibilities of turning the decolonial gaze back on to the university; on students’ frustrations and experience; and on how difficult it might be to actually enact institutional change.

You can watch her full talk here.

You can also read earlier posts in this blog series:

• Let’s re-centre multilingual communities in our classrooms and research: a summary of Prof. Li Wei’s talk
• How students learn German through charity shop raids: a summary of Prof. Alison Phipps’s talk

This symposium was organised by Dr Jelena Ćalić and Dr Eszter Tarsoly on behalf of the PROLang (Policy, Research and Outreach for Language-based area studies) Research Group in collaboration with UCL Institute of Advanced Studies, with the support of CHE’s Education Enhancement Grant. This post was written by Kellynn Wee.