Reflecting on the previous blogs and the resources I engaged with, I have started to reconsider my approach to teaching and how it has been shaped by my own background. Before moving into education, I worked for 15 years in the fast fashion industry as a Garment Technologist. This role required a highly technical, precise and methodical approach, where the focus was on achieving correct fit, measurements and consistency at scale. Over time, this led me to develop quite a fixed idea of how garment construction should be done. When you are immersed in that environment for so long, it becomes difficult to see alternatives.
Former colonial powers… continue dominating the design, marketing, and selling of clothes and accessories, while people in former colonies (the Global South) work under exploitative conditions manufacturing these products as the industry continues to damage their natural environments.
Blanco F., J. and Reilly, A. (eds.) (2021) Fashion, dress and post-postmodernism. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Since working at UAL, and particularly within a more creative educational context, I have begun to recognise that these industry “rules” are not always necessary or helpful for students. Instead, they can feel limiting, especially in a space that encourages experimentation and individual expression. I have also become more aware of ongoing conversations around decolonising the curriculum, and how dominant Western approaches to garment construction may exclude or overlook other ways of making and thinking.
As a result, I would like to introduce a small-scale intervention within my teaching practice by adapting one of my existing workshops. Rather than teaching a single, industry-standard method, I would offer multiple approaches to garment construction. This could include alternative cutting techniques, more experimental processes, and references to non-Western garment practices. Alongside this, I would develop supporting materials such as visual guides or step-by-step resources, allowing students to engage with the content in different ways.
The intention behind this is to create a more inclusive learning environment. For students with different learning needs or disabilities, having multiple ways to approach a task can help reduce barriers. For example, some students may find highly technical or linear methods difficult to follow, whereas a more visual or exploratory approach may feel more accessible. Offering flexibility also allows students to work in ways that align better with how they process information and develop ideas.
From a race and cultural perspective, broadening the references and methods used within workshops may help students feel more represented and included. By moving beyond a singular Western framework, it opens up space for different forms of knowledge and making to be valued within the classroom. This also benefits all students, encouraging them to question established norms and consider alternative approaches.
This intervention feels both relevant and feasible within my current role. It would not require a complete redesign of the curriculum, but rather a shift in how I frame and deliver existing content. It may involve additional research and preparation, particularly in sourcing diverse references and methods, but I’m happy to put in the time and research over the summer.
Although I have not had detailed peer feedback on this specific idea, wider conversations within UAL around inclusivity and decolonising teaching suggest that this approach would be both timely and valuable. Ultimately, I hope this shift will support a more open and flexible learning environment, where students feel able to engage in ways that work for them and see their identities more clearly reflected in what they are being taught.