Disclaimer: this is not a confluence but it is some of my thinking-findings.
What has interested me as part of this research project, is how slippery the whole process and especially the ‘data’ has felt. The largest recorded engagement metrics (via mentimeter) actually represented some fairly difficult interactions which felt quite destructive to belonging.
Quantifying something abstract always loses something – a grasping at air. In this sense arts-based methods are much better at conveying and capturing complexity. I found this in my own River of Experience drawing, a much richer tool of understanding and analysis rather than data visualisations in the form of bar charts. (Maybe this is also because I am not a graphic designer and I am not good at data visualisations.)
Credit: River of Experience drawing of my ARP project (K.Beales Jan 2026), coloured pencil and pen on A3 fabriano paper
The research provided evidence of support for continuing to integrate experimental participatory non-methods into Year meetings, and the majority of students recognised these as positive contributions to developing an inclusive community. Many of these were rated as very effective on the likert scale.
Table above: Questionnaire 2 Q3 Likert scale
In addition, positively, the number of students who answered ‘no’ to Q1 (which was the same in both questionnaires) dropped from 9% to 0%, and this related to a corresponding increase in ‘yes’ responses from 52 to 59%[1].
Image: Outcome Questionnaire 1 Q1
Image: Outcome Questionnaire 2 Q1
The participatory methods, in particular the game elements I tested out e.g. the rock, paper scissors championship, did result in some limited mixing up of the existing social strata in the lecture theatre. One Focus Group participant named the set group of people they already know as their “safety circle” and we discussed how this can form an exclusionary safety bubble. Their proposed solution was to do a seat lottery which I hope to trial this coming term[2].
I am interested in the ongoing work of increasing student interactions in meetings and my research shows Mentimeter can enable the greatest number of interactions but as I have discussed this needs to be framed and moderated carefully.
Table above: Interactions observed in Year Meeting Recordings
Moving forward, I am committed to continue to use Live Captioning. The Focus Group identified its importance for inclusivity not just as access requirement for the Deaf student but also for international students with English as a second language[3].
It is also clear that is important for students to be active contributors and that there is more work for me to do to provide opportunities for this. Students are for each other to share work, but generally they lack confidence to engage with this opportunity themselves. The student videos as a mediated presence, do offer a way forward for increasing student voice, despite the ethical complexity. Reflecting on the video the student reps made to introduce themselves, J said
“we put ourselves out there, you know, and… like that kind of made this space. It felt different… I just I felt less embarrassed just being there.” [4]
Overall, I care about this research and am committed to continuing to co-create with students, spaces of solidarity, care and community in Year meetings.
501 words
Appendix:
Questionnaires https://kbealespgcert.myblog.arts.ac.uk/2026/01/15/arp-questionnaires/
Observations from Year meetings https://kbealespgcert.myblog.arts.ac.uk/2026/01/15/arp-observations-from-year-meeting/
Focus Groups https://kbealespgcert.myblog.arts.ac.uk/2026/01/15/arp-focus-groups/
Mentimeter https://kbealespgcert.myblog.arts.ac.uk/2026/01/15/arp-mentimeter/
River of Experience Drawing https://kbealespgcert.myblog.arts.ac.uk/2026/01/15/arp-river-of-experience-drawing/
[1] Note: Some of these findings should be treated with caution due to the relatively small amount of responses proportionately to both Questionnaires (under 30 / 172).
[2]I: But yeah, yeah, because people always feel like, um, very safe when they’re sitting with someone they already know. And, um, I know it’s very hard to jump that circle outside. Oh, yeah. Like a safety circle. Yeah.
KB: The safety circle is a lovely phrase. Yeah. And it’s like, how do we keep the safety circle so people feel safe, but they still aren’t, like, it’s not like a safety bubble, you know, like where they don’t. It’s exclusive.
[3] J: “…because I’m not a English like a native English speaker. Sometimes I even when I’m like talking to like people who are British and like have a dialect. I wish there is a subtitle when I’m talking to them, like casually and like having the whenever having a lecture or Year meeting, like having a subtitle really helped me a lot.”
[4] O: I mean, I liked, um, Lucy doing the introduction video for all of us because I feel like because we put ourselves out there, you know, and… like that kind of made this space. It felt different… Um, because, yeah, I just I felt less embarrassed just being there, you know?
KB: Yeah. That’s interesting to reflect a bit more on… would you generally feel embarrassed about being there?
J: …Um, I, I literally would not enter a lecture theatre if I was like five minutes late. I would literally just, like, stand out there and be like “pants” And then I’d leave. But, um, now I don’t care. I’m just like, I can just walk in. It’s fine, you know?
KB: (celebratory) Hey!
J: Finally.