My initial expectation for the Action Research Project project was to organise a forum to engage directly with a group of students to gain direct input to the need for change in the Fine Art Subject Guide Bibliography. Similar projects at other institutions had run through consultation and collaboration with student leaders and Lenette (2024) reinforced this assumption. However due to the timing and timescale of the project, and based on my evolving understanding of extractivism, I realised that more iterative and distributed research methods are more appropriate in this instance: reducing the burden on both potential participants and myself in the busiest teaching term of the academic year. I elected instead to read materials reflecting on these wider pieces of research and to absorb the learnings into my plans where possible.
I had also initially assumed I should interview colleague stakeholders, whether other fine art librarians involved in refreshing the resource or academic members of staff responding to invitations to participate. Again partly due to the need to design the research to a manageable scale, partly to manage the expectation of time contributions from others at this point in the year, and partly based on the extensive writings available to consult on the subject of representation and inclusion in resources. I decided interviews are not necessary, and would be unlikely to add any more value than continuing to collaborate and progress the project as colleagues. Having adopted a CRT framework for the project I am reminded to foreground impact over intention; particularly as I had hoped to have actioned more change by this point, and so I want to avoid further delays in the absence of barriers to progress. There is no institutional or interpersonal need to justify these changes through the production of further discussion or evidence.
Part of the evidence base for proposing this research project is based on student research trends I have noticed in 1:1s supporting critical contextual projects. I had worried that I could not use the data available in my records of previous 1:1 tutorials without participant consent, however I am now planning to use secondary data from my sent emails following tutorials with all student details redacted for anonymity. Only a themeatic table of mentioned topics will be included in the research file. This will mean I have a basis of quantitative data that may show the student research needs unmet by the resource I plan to change. The project will proceed regardless of the output of this data, as the resource does not meet UAL’s anti-racism commitments, but quantifying the student need will be a helpful data point.
Having seen a colleague’s MA research survey questionnaire get an excellent response rate by being distributed through; QR code on library flyers, small posters in the loos near the library and emails to contacts, I have decided to take this same route of employing a short Qualtrics survey questionnaire. Group tutorial discussions helped to clarify my research question, and to make the question more explicit in the survey structure and questions. I have since refined the survey quite concisely to the research question and I have realised that limiting the scope of this element of research (and the project) does not limit the ongoing potential reach, whether driven by further research, discussions with colleagues and academic teams, or student requests and comments.