Through a series of 3-4 webinars, we will explore the rich potential of Feminist Perspectives to inform the conceptualisation and design of research in the social sciences. The series aims to stimulate dialogue between researchers of all stages.
About the webinar series
Feminist perspectives have inspired a diverse range of theoretical and methodological innovations in social research over decades. Different forms of feminism have generated new disciplines and sub-disciplines, from women’s studies, masculinities studies and queer studies to feminist security studies and eco-feminism, many of which have emerged from debates and challenges between feminists.
Feminists have led the way in developing philosophical insights, methodological innovations and analytical tools for researching complex social problems, revealing not only their gendered dimensions but multiple intersecting forms of oppression, inequality and dominance underlying and generating them. Feminist thought has historically evolved within the crucible of social movements and has from time to time been challenged, bifurcated, reshaped and reinvigorated within these movements.
Meanwhile feminist perspectives continue to inspire activists and contemporary social movements such as the International Women’s Strike, the #MeToo movement, secondary school students’ exposure of rape culture in their schools, the global anti-street harassment movement and women’s environmental movements (to name just a very few).
Through a series of 3-4 webinars, we will explore the rich potential of Feminist Perspectives to inform the conceptualisation and design of research in the social sciences. Over the course of three webinars, we will invite established academics, activists, early career and doctoral researchers to talk about why they are feminists, the forms of feminism that have inspired their work and, crucially, how feminist analytical perspectives have been productive in the conceptualisation, design and conduct of their research.
The webinar series aims to stimulate dialogue between researchers at various stages of their careers and with different degrees of knowledge and commitment to feminist perspectives. While particularly aimed at doctoral researchers, it is open to academics and non-academics from across different disciplines within and beyond the five institutions that make up the South West Doctoral Training Partnership.
Taking inspiration from the epistemological and theoretical critiques and developments in feminisms, feminist methods and methodologies are about more than just including women in research or women studying women. This webinar will provide an introduction to the history of feminist methods in concert with the growth of feminist thought. We illustrate both specific methodologies developed in and through feminist thought, and how feminist thought can be brought to bear on other methods and methodologies as well as on other aspects of the research process (e.g., ethics, representation).
Speakers
Bryan Clift, Senior Lecturer, Centre for Qualitative Research and Dept for Health, University of Bath
Ellie O’Connell, PhD Researcher, School of Education, University of Bristol
Jessica Francombe-Webb, Senior Lecturer, Department for Health & Institute for Policy Research (IPR), University of Bath
Below are the references for the four texts mentioned in the session to start your journey in Feminist Methodologies:
Harding, S. G. (Ed.). (1987). Feminism and methodology: Social science issues. Indiana University Press.
Sprague, J. (2016). Feminist methodologies for critical researchers: Bridging differences. Rowman & Littlefield.
Holland, J., & Ramazanoglu, C. (2002). Feminist methodology: challenges and choices. Sage.
Jaggar, A. M. (2015). Just methods: An interdisciplinary feminist reader. Routledge.
For many, Intersectionality should not be considered as a separate feminist topic, but rather as a framework and\or concept that infiltrates all areas of feminist thought and analysis.
This webinar will:
Provide an introduction to the history of intersectionality
Illustrate how this concept, which was generated from within Black feminist thought, is being developed and put to use today
Ask you to consider whether it should it be used by white feminists and others in ways that include factors other than gender and race such as disabilities, sexualities, social class among other questions
Gendered inequality, exploitation and violence takes both new and old forms in contemporary times. Three researchers and activists talk about the feminist theories that they draw on in their research.
Sian Norris will talk the insights that socialist feminism brings to her research on reproductive labour and exploitation. Egle Cesnulyte will discuss how sex work positive feminism influence her research on women’s agency and political economy. Jennifer Thomson will consider the co-optation of feminism through the critiques that feminist scholars, such as Nancy Fraser, have raised against neoliberalism.
Speakers:
Sian Norris is a writer and journalist focusing on women’s and minority rights. She is the Chief European and Social Affairs reporter at Byline Times. Her book on the far right’s war on reproductive rights will be published by Verso in spring 2023. Her reporting has appeared in the Guardian, the i, openDemocracy, the New Statesman and elsewhere.
Egle Cesnulyte is a senior lecturer in Politics and International Development at the University of Bristol.
Dr Jennifer Thomson is a senior lecturer in Comparative Politics at the University of Bath.
This studentship will be affiliated with the Education (Bristol) SWDTP pathway. Proposed Start Date October 2022 . Please use this link to apply through the ‘Education (PhD)’ programme at the University of Bristol
Despite important Feminist, Critical and anti-colonial traditions of futures thinking, the field of Futures Studies and its subfield Futures Literacies have been dominated by white, male, anglophone and capitalist worldviews, which risks the colonization of the imagination of the future by a small subset of human insights and experiences (Facer & Sriprakash, 2021; Andersson, 2018). This tendency is repeated in the world of sociodigital futures-making, where the design and development of virtual and immersive learning technologies presently over-represent white male life experiences (e.g. Reiley, 2016; Feenberg, 2002). The development of virtual and immersive environments as spaces in which humanity might explore potential future trajectories risks, therefore, producing a set of experiences that intensify the narrowing of imaginative capacities.
The aim of this PhD thesis is to engage with the rich fields of Afro- and Indigenous- futures as well as immersive futures design practice, to begin to explore how immersive virtual technologies might be harnessed to ‘decolonise the imagination’ and open-up critical and reflective capabilities for imagining alternative futures in educational settings. The precise design and scope of the project will be developed in negotiation between the successful candidate and supervisors.
The thesis will require both critical engagement with theory and the ability to work creatively and practically with designers, teachers, students and developers to create experimental forms of pedagogic practice in immersive spaces (Schultz, 2018; Holbert et al, 2020; Wallis & Ross, 2020).
Career Development Support & Capacity building
• The student will be building capacity in the mobilisation of immersive practices – technologically and non-technologically mediated – for the exploration and imagination of critical and emancipatory futures
• The student will be supported to network widely with the Global Futures Literacy Network – an international consortium that brings together leading thinkers in Futures Research, Policy and Practice.
• There will be the opportunity for at least two periods of internship/volunteership with Centre Strategic Partners who may be educational (e.g. UNESCO), activist or technical in focus. These will enable the student to gain an understanding of cutting-edge practice in immersive anticipatory learning oriented towards decolonisation.
CenSoF project studentship applicants are also required to complete Annex A and emailed to censof-enquiries@bristol.ac.ukby NOON 25 February 2022 and will be assessed using the criteria below:
A huge thanks to Sanja Djerasimovic and Punit Shah (PIs) with Stephanie Alder, Susan Hope Hoffman, Masha Remskar, Idris Yana & Lucy Waldren (PGR team) for managing the event and putting this blog piece together.
The last few years – Covid-19 pandemic notwithstanding – have highlighted the fact that postgraduate students (PGRs) appear significantly more susceptible to ill mental health, particularly anxiety and depression, than comparable populations. Recent UK-based research further indicates that neither the existing research nor wellbeing services built on the needs of the undergraduate and postgraduate taught students are adequate for the doctoral student community.
In response to these issues, we – a team of social sciences and humanities academics and PGRs from the universities of Bath and Exeter – were granted funding by the ESRC SWDTP academic-led collaboration fund to organise an event aimed at PGRs and supervisors from across SWDTP and SWWDTP institutions.
Identifying Stressors
The event sought to comprehensively explore this topic, often addressed by identifying discrete stressors – worry about the future, financial situation, relationship with the supervisor, unclear expectations, competitiveness, impostor syndrome, work-life balance – from a novel perspective of social identity. In other words, we sought to understand the different social identities that PGR students inhabit, how these interact with a PGR identity, and with what consequences to students’ wellbeing.
Experiences of the PGR members of our team influenced our planning of the event. Among them were Psychology, English, and Drama PGRs, some of them British, others international, navigating a new cultural as well as academic landscape; some following a fairly linear path from their undergraduate to their doctoral studies, others joining with background in student wellbeing and PGR representation, yet others prompted to join by their own, often problematic, negotiations of the PGR journey, not quite a ‘student’ (mature, with caring responsibilities), not quite an academic ‘colleague’ despite engaging in research and teaching, acutely feeling the resulting financial and social precariousness. We also liaised with some members of the institutional PGR wellbeing services, whose experience confirmed that felt by some PGRs collaborators: that the institutions are keenly aware of the problem, but that the institutional provision is often under-utilised, prompting us to address this aspect of the issue in our event as well.
We aimed to take a dialogic, multi-perspective, holistic, non-pathologising approach to the question of PGR identity and wellbeing, starting with problematising the language that is used to describe the PGR experience. Moving away from discourse that often positions PGRs as (struggling) students, we wanted to focus on all the different aspects of their social being and belonging that interact with this experience, some making it more challenging, but others elevating it. We used ‘social identities’ as a way of designating and naming different roles that we all enact or aspire to enact, the social spheres and communities of belonging that inspire our values, motivation, a sense of accomplishment.
Sharing experiences
Although we approached the planning of the event from a combined disciplinary expertise and research interests in Higher Education policy and Psychology, the idea for the event came from a conversation in which the two academic leads realised that we shared a personal as well as an intellectual interest in the topic. We have both entered academia from within social spheres – class, ethnicity, gender – not ‘traditionally’ compatible with the cultural ideal of an academic, one that is thankfully, but slowly beginning to change, a fact that has been as helpful as it has been occasionally problematic. Having a sense of shared experience among peers and supervisors, and being able to relax the anxiety associated with the nascent academic identity and the fears about the academic career, by changing the perspective and drawing on these other sources of social support and belonging, was incredibly important, and allowed us to cherish the positive aspects of the PGR experience.
We thus wanted to open up this conversation among current PGRs and create an environment in which diverse, and perhaps similar, experiences can be shared – from across disciplines, institutions, and levels of academic experience, in an effort to understand, all of us, the broader lifeworlds of doctoral students, beyond that of a student, learn about their triumphs and their challenges and begin sketching the ways in which social resources can be utilised to improve wellbeing, within and beyond peer and supervisory relationships and institutions.
Our focus was on humanities and social science students who often share similar working conditions, such as individual work (increasing the risk of isolation), with their supervisor(s) often the main – if not only – source of support and guidance.
We also focused on PGRs in the 2nd and later years of their PhD journey, to ensure that the event enabled productive, experience-based conversations. However, we plan to share our insights that are valuable for transition into PhD study, and 1st year induction processes and experiences, with participating institutions.
The half-day event was delivered online on the 8th of September 2021, and consisted of creative, prompt-based, and topic-based small-group discussions, and whole group discussions. At each point during the day’s several sessions, we had between 20-25 participants, who had, judging by the pre-event survey, joined for a number of different reasons, from learning how to look after their wellbeing, through wanting to understand their and others’ PGR identities, to seeking to socialise, network and get the sense of confidence and resilience from knowing that they are not alone in their experience – although for most of them, their PGR experience had not been entirely (or even predominantly) negative.
We welcomed participants from at least five different institutions, a dozen different disciplines, at different stages in their PGR journey, part-time and full-time students, those funded by the doctoral partnerships, by other funders, and self-funded. A number of academics and current PhD supervisors, were also in attendance, drawing both on their past PGR experience, and the present experience of PGR supervision.
The event was set up to be conversational. Although it was delivered online, we decided that it would not be recorded, so to enable creating a relaxed, safe atmosphere where participants – PGRs and supervisors alike – would be free to express their views. We opened with an introduction from organisers and closed with a whole group discussion. But for the most part, participants were divided into smaller groups of PGRs and supervisors.
Initial Zoom breakout rooms, during the morning sessions, opened the broad discussion about the PGR identity and other social identities, and wellbeing during the PGR journey, moderated by the members of the organising team. The afternoon sessions, also moderated, took place in Wonder rooms to facilitate more flexible discussions (with participants moving in and out of the rooms) around specific topics: me and my supervisor; me and my peers; I feel like an outsider; what I do and why; my PhD and my home life; and my PhD and my future.
Social Identities
For example, it was felt that defining oneself solely by what one does, i.e. ignoring other social roles and identities, was potentially dangerous, but something that PGRs are particularly vulnerable to, given that the nature of their work is more likely to be connected to their values and passions. Additional difficulties were seen as arising from a perception that PGRs’ work is not inherently valued, and the burden of having to demonstrate that one’ research ‘matters’ – the value and the challenges of public engagement, and the permission to be ‘an expert’ even though one was not yet ‘an academic’ were in one group discussed at length.
The hierarchical nature of academia and the cultural and financial factors influencing the division between ‘academics’ and ‘PGRs’ were further perceived as problematic, not least in terms of difficult relationships with supervisors. Finally, identity conflicts were particularly strong where there was a mismatch between one’s PGR experience, and the identities relating to class, gender, national or ethnic background (international and ethnically diverse students, in particular, voiced experience of their wellbeing not being adequately supported by institutions) – and an additional sense of inner conflict for mature students who may have lost access to their prior professional self.
Overall, however, common themes of being lost, different, an outsider, came up across the group discussions throughout the day. Such difficulties associated with trying to find a social circle where one fits, could also be interpreted as a reasonably weak ‘PGR identity’ to begin with among our participants – not helped by the pressures of academia, both the job market and the cultural values of competition where, almost paradoxically, it was noted at one point, the very group that should provide the strongest sense of belonging and support, i.e. one’s peers, ends up being a group of individuals against whom one is in constant competition.
Some suggested ways of addressing these problems included: a stronger institutional presence for PGRs, both in terms of representing the research community, and where applies, the paid labour force; more social and professional interaction between PGRs and senior colleagues in a flatter, collaborative, non-hierarchical structure and bringing together PGRs and staff around common interests and agendas, thus overcoming the institutional barriers; supportive supervisor and pastoral relationships; appreciating the uniqueness of one’s own path and understanding that there is no such thing as ‘ideal’ PGR experience; finally, exercising other social identities – having the option of leaving the academic ‘bubble’ or the ‘echo chamber’ by maintaining strong social ties outside of academia or engaging in fieldwork in a manner that challenges the dominant perspective of a PGR struggle and relaxes some of the pressures associated with it.
Conclusion
The post-event survey indicated that participants really appreciated the prolonged discussion in which they could voice their concerns openly and hear about others’ experiences that could be both supportive of their own and relieving the sense of isolation, and challenging and presenting different perspectives, not least those of the supervisors. This was confirmed by our PGR collaborators, who affirmed the necessity of such spaces and the enlightening and reassuring effect of the event on their own experiences. Further survey responses suggested willingness to engage in more similar discussions, with more people and disciplines represented, or conversely, discussions focused on particular challenges of a subject/discipline and an institution, or centred around issues of equality, diversity, and inclusion.
We wish to thank the ESRC SWDTP for their support – every step of the way! – in moving from an idea and a casual conversation towards delivering this event, and generating what is now the outline of a research project and a programme of developing better understanding and adequate support for our PGRs in the context of their social identities. We, as a team, have also gained so much from this process, not only a better understanding of the issues discussed, but also of each other’s experiences of academic and social identities and wellbeing, which have been enriched personally and professionally by the project.
Get involved in future work
Finally, we are taking this project a step further now, in an effort to better understand some of the themes that emerged from our conversations back in September, and test some ideas for short-, medium-, and long-term initiatives to address some of the challenges mentioned, particularly in terms of a question over whether there are strong, visible, high-status PGR communities in our institutions, and how to reconcile multiple, occasionally incompatible, social identities.
If you are a PGR or a supervisor interested in contributing to this conversation in a focus group interview, planned for December 2021/January 2022, please get in touch with one of the project’s PIs, Sanja Djerasimovic, on s.djerasimovic@exeter.ac.uk.
The interviews will be pseudonymised and your participation completely confidential, and the insights from the interviews and our event, will be shared with other stakeholders, including funders, academic (research) communities, and institutional wellbeing services in an online event planned for February 2022.
My research examines the role of collective biographies of women and LGBTQ+ figures in diversifying children’s and young adult literature through narrating the lives and achievements of figures, past and present. I am interested in how the production of collective biographies of women and LGBTQ+ figures disrupts masculinist, heterosexual knowledge, and contributes to increasing the diversity of children’s literature. I aim to explore the successes, complexities and critiques of the content, themes and messages of children’s non-fiction literature, and will address how biography can be used to teach issues of gender and sexuality, perhaps providing potential solutions to the gaps in the school curriculum, created as a result of the unease surrounding feminist topics and LGBTQ+ education.
My research aims to study the inclusion and exclusion of indigenous ways of knowing in the curriculum and pedagogy of formal education. I aim to address the epistemic injustice faced by marginalised communities and the research draws inspiration from literature on decolonizing methodologies. I will be working collaboratively with children and adults from Soliga community in India to make the curriculum epistemically just and develop pedagogies that are relevant for the students.
My study aims to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of the new PSHEE content in schools surrounding the topics of domestic-abuse and healthy relationships. Whilst the need to include young people in the fight against domestic-abuse has been recognised by the inclusion of this content, the quality and the impact on young people remains unclear without evaluation. My project aims to generate insightful data to analyse any changes in participants’ attitude and knowledge, develop a theory of change to understand the mechanisms of attitudinal change in education surrounding domestic-abuse and make recommendations to enhance the programme and teacher training.
Led by Adriana Suarez-Delucchi (University of Bristol)
This highly successful hands on workshop on IE provided insights into an approach which is applicable across the social sciences including health and disability studies, education, gender studies, natural resource management & land planning. IE has strong interdisciplinary potential and it is well equipped to pay attention to difference.
The workshop offered participants a practical opportunity to familiarise themselves with IE and to consider how they could use it in their own research in innovative and collaborative ways. Following an overview of IE as a feminist sociology, the speakers presented two case studies to show how it can be used and with what results. In the afternoon, attendees were given time to think, discuss, and apply IE to their own research.
Event speakers were:
– Dr Adriana Suarez-Delucchi, University of Bristol
– Dr. Órla Meadhbh Murray, Visiting Scholar, Sociology, University of Edinburgh, Research Assistant, Imperial College London
– Dr. Liz Ablett, Post-Doctoral Researcher, School of Geography, University College Dublin
Kevin Walby’s work on videos as texts is very helpful when thinking of ‘changing’ texts e.g. online memes etc.
Dorothy Smith:
Chapter on political correctness in her 1999 book ‘Writing the Social’. Griffith, A. “Insider / Outsider: Epistemological Privilege and Mothering Work.” Human Studies 21 (1998): 361–76.
Readings on discourse – chapter ‘Femininity as Discourse’ in her 1990 book ‘Texts, Facts, and Femininity’.
On feminist Standpoint: Smith, D. “Comment on Hekman’s “Truth and Method: Feminist Standpoint Theory Revisited”.” Signs 22, no. 2, Winter (1997): 392-98.
An interesting article on counter-institutional approaches with IE is: Whitley, L. and Page, T. (2015) ‘Sexism At The Centre: Locating The Problem Of Sexual Harassment’, New Formations, 86(86), pp. 34–53.
On the process of writing a text: Eastwood, L. E. “Negotiating Un Policy: Activating Texts in Policy deliberations.” In Incorporating Texts into Institutional Ethnographies. Edited by Dorothy Smith and Susan M. Turner. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2014.
Puwar, N. (2014) ‘The Archi-Texture of Parliament at Westminster’, in Rai, S. M. and Johnson, R. E. (eds) Democracy in Practice: Ceremony and Ritual in Parliament. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 234–250.
Rai, S. M. (2010) ‘Ceremony and Ritual in Parliament : Preface Ceremony and Ritual in Parliament : Preface’, 2334, pp. 281–283. doi: 10.1080/13572334.2010.498097.
Puwar, N. (2004) Space invaders: race, gender and bodies out of place. Oxford: Berg.
Back, L, ‘The Art of Listening’ (as a supplementary reading to IE) https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/the-art-of-listening-9781845201210/
“From Cooperativism to Commoning. Historical and Contemporary Forms of the Institutions of the Common”- is an online conference, November 19th and 20th, 2020. Link here
Random effects models are applied in a range of social science domains (e.g. education, health and economics). Across disciplines, however, they are often used for different purposes, with different specifications, or even with different terminologies. These differences may well reflect genuine complexities and ambiguities that are associated with their implementation. This two-day course will focus on selected advanced issues in the application of random effects models in social research contexts. It is most suited to empirical social science researchers with some previous experience in using statistical models with random effects.
Review common uses of random effects models in the social sciences
Explore enduring debates in the specification and exploitation of random effects models
Facilitate virtual lab sessions designed to illustrate and investigate the contribution of random effects models
Participants will be supported in order to
Secure a rigorous understanding the terminology and features associated with random effects models
Understand different perspectives in important debates concerning the use of random effects
Enhance practical skills in applying random effects models to statistical datasets
Participants should have experience of estimating statistical models including some previous experience working with random effects models, for instance through multilevel modelling, frailty modelling or longitudinal and panel models.
The participants will be invited to use their own computers in the virtual lab exercises. Participants should have at least one of the software packages Stata, SPSS and R installed on their computers in order to participate in the virtual labs.
The course will be delivered on-line and run from 10:00 – 16:00 each day.
In this SWDTP Webinar, Phillippa Grand (Bristol University Press), will be joined by colleagues who have recently published their theses as monographs (Bowles; Carver) and Weldes (Co-Editor for two Routledge Book Series). Content will include:
Why publish your PhD as a monograph; why choose a monograph vs a journal article; what makes a good monograph
How does a doctoral researcher know if their research could be a published monograph?
Turning a doctoral dissertation into a marketable monograph; how much work is involved?
Practical tips on:
Producing a book proposal
The process for peer review/production/choosing a publisher
Approaching and working with publishers
Q&A with the panel
Webinar contributors
Angeline Barrett (Webinar Chair), SWDTP Deputy Director
Harry Bowles (Early career researcher and Lecturer in Physical Education and Youth Sport at the University of Bath who recently published his Doctoral thesis as a monograph)
Natasha Carver, (Lecturer in International Criminology, University of Bristol, who recently published her Doctoral thesis as a monograph which can be found here)
Philippa Grand, BUP; Senior Commissioning Editor / Publisher, Bristol University Press • Bristol University Press
Jutta Weldes (Professor of International Relations, University of Bristol; co-editor, for two Routledge Series book series, ‘New International Relations’ and ‘Popular Culture and World Politics’
This event has been organised by the ESRC funded South West Doctoral Training Partnership but is open to all students (studying at any level), academics and any other colleagues who may find the content useful. However, registration is required in advance.
“Fostering research, training and education, and industry collaborations through qualitative research“
The Centre for Qualitative Research (CQR) is a proactive, scholarly, and supportive platform for fostering Research, Training and Education, and Industry Collaboration and Consulting in qualitative research across the University of Bath
The Centre for Qualitative Research at the University of Bath presented a series of free online workshops and webinars for doctoral researchers, between February and July 2021.
The workshops are split into two packages: the main training package and the demand led sessions. Bringing together academics and doctoral scholars from across the SWDTP institutions interested in qualitative research, this bespoke training consists of a comprehensive programme of 7 practical and cross-disciplinary qualitative workshops for SWDTP doctoral researchers and others who are interested in extending their knowledge and use of qualitative inquiry. A further 5 demand-led qualitative innovations webinars focused on emerging, novel topics within qualitative inquiry.
Demand-Led Qualitative Innovations Sessions
These sessions will provide a deeper and more theoretical exploration of qualitative methods. These sessions have now finished but you can find the event information on the CQR website or more specific notes below:
These sessions have now finished but you can find the event information on the CQR website.
See below for a short introduction to each of the seminars.
Where does qualitative research come from?
Run by Bryan Clift, 9 February 2021
This workshop looks at the philosophical ideas that underpin qualitative research practices.
2. Planning and designing qualitative research?
Run by Sarah Morgan-Trimmer, 23 February 2021
This session introduces the fundamentals of designing a good qualitative study – establishing philosophical underpinnings, using theory, identifying appropriate methodology and methods, and others.
3. Preparing for speaking-based data collection
Run by Fiona Spotswood, 16 March 2021
Here, we consider the practical steps required to set the scene for rigorous quality data collection. This includes preparing and piloting a research instrument and considering and piloting projective and enabling techniques.
4. Conducting, improving, and refining interviews and focus groups
Run by Sheree Bekker, 20 April 2021
This session explores the practical ‘how’ of qualitative data collection, focusing on interviews and focus groups as well as following on from session 3.
5. Analysing interview and focus group data
Run by Olivia Brown, 25 May 2021
In this session, participants worked individually and in groups to analyse interview transcripts using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase approach to Thematic Analysis.
6. Evaluating qualitative research
Run by Svetlana Cicmil, 3 June 2021
This workshop explores how the quality of qualitative research is judged, particularly discussing the criteria beyond traditional generalisability, reliability, replicability, and validity.
7. Series conclusion: drawing together the process from planning to product
Run by Julia Gore, 30 June 2021
This session reflects upon the workshop series as whole and offer opportunities for personal reflection on methods and methodology.
