TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Letter from the Editors
By Fiona Dieffenbacher, Caroline Stevenson, and Ben Barry
- The Role of Empathy in Cultivating Equitable and Just Learning Environments
By Steven Faerm
- Teaching Notes: BioFashion BFA
Undergraduate Design Course at Universidad de Los Andes
By Carolina Obregón and Giovanna Danies Turano
- Cuts, Shreds, Remains, & Scraps
Practice of Theory
By Caroline Stevenson - Can Empathy Be Employed as a Powerful Tool for Change?
By David Hopwood and Lilia Yip
*PDF version here
- Enabling Fashion Through Disabled Perspectives
By Sugandha Gupta
*PDF version here
- Undoing Fashion: How Can We Encourage Students to Undo Preconceived Ideas About Fashion?
By Fiona Dieffenbacher - Teaching Notes: Recontextualizing The Creative Process of Fashion Design at Universidad de Monterrey
By Santiago Útima Loaiza
- Hands-On Approach
By Liliana Sanguino
*PDF version here - Fit But You Know It
By Luke Stevens, Sara Chong Kwan, Cian O’Donovan, and Olivia Hegarty
*PDF version here
Dear FSJ readers,
In 2023-24, Caroline Stevenson from the London College of Fashion along with Ben Barry and Fiona Dieffenbacher from Parsons School of Design co-led a symposium entitled Transformative Fashion Pedagogies 2.0 (TFP), building on the success of the symposium by the same name in the previous year.
TFP 2.0 aimed to address recent calls to action (see Timmo, 2017; Barry, 2021; Cheang, 2020; and Stevenson, 2022) for educators to radically rethink the role of fashion education in relation to industry and wider debates around positionality, power, and social and climate justice. While the fashion industry continues along a damaging path of exploitative environmental and social practices, we have found a renewed opportunity for fashion education to challenge the status quo and equip a new generation of students with the practical and intellectual skills to create lasting change. This symposium offered an intimate and supportive space for fashion educators from London College of Fashion and Parsons School of Fashion to share the progressive and inclusive pedagogies that we have implemented in our courses and institutions across business, product, design, textiles, media, concept, history, and theory.
The symposium foregrounded fashion pedagogy as critical research, asserting the interconnectedness of research, teaching, and industry and/or community organizations and the role we play as educators in enacting impactful social and political change with our students. Presenters were asked to respond to one of four themes: Design Justice; Defining Fashion; Undoing Fashion; and Industry Impact, along with key questions posited within each.
This special issue represents eight presentations from the symposium in the form of academic papers, hybrid visual essays, and teaching notes.
In response to the theme “Defining Fashion,” Caroline Stevenson shares ideas for micro intervention in the form of workshops with the aim to reconcile the gap between theory and practice in fashion education and questions the relationship between authority and language in fashion knowledge.
Three papers address “Undoing Fashion.” Fiona Dieffenbacher asks, “How Can We Encourage Students to Undo Preconceived Ideas About Fashion?” and offers insight from the lens of the design school as well as pedagogical approaches within the context of a course. Sara Chong Kwan, Olivia Hegarty, Cian O’Donovan, and Luke Stevens explore the concept of The Critical Fitting and share examples from their workshop that seeks to undo traditional approaches to this practice, moving to a more collaborative, open-ended process. Santiago Útima Loaiza examines how aspiring fashion designers can recontextualize their creative processes by recognizing their region’s collective memory and integrating their personal experiences.
Three papers address the theme of “Design Justice”: Sugandha Gupta’s hybrid visual essay discusses the embodied knowledge and expertise of people with disabilities in the field of art and design and offers the Sensory Design framework as an example. From the context of the classroom, empathy is addressed from two perspectives: Steven Faerm looks at its role in cultivating equitable and just learning environments, and David Hopwood and Lilia Yip ask the critical question, “Can Empathy be Employed as a Powerful Tool for Change?”
Speaking to Industry Context, Carolina Obregon and Giovanna Danies offer teaching notes from their BioFashion elective course that integrates biology, design, and sustainability, fostering an innovative mindset and critical thinking. Liliana Sanguino’s visual essay “Hands-On” addresses students’ gaps in fabric knowledge that impacts their ability to translate ideas in 3D and shares the the impact of a Materials Donation Resource built from deadstock fabrics from industry that provides a space for peer-to-peer knowledge sharing.
We hope you find these nine papers, visual essays (pdf versions of which are available for download here), and teaching notes compelling and insightful for your own practice, whether it be in industry or academia.
Regards,
Ben Barry, Caroline Stevenson, Fiona Dieffenbacher
Guest editors
The design of the title banner and chapter openings for this issue is by Claudia Sanchez San Miguel, Parsons MA Fashion Studies '25.
It is part of the Spring 2025 University Design Studio course taught at Parsons School of Design by Lucille Tenazas, Henry Wolf Professor of Communication Design.
Collaborative design was provided by Nadia Batchelor, MPS Communication Design '25, Yaxuan Cai, MPS Communication Design '25, Ana Licinio Caligiorne, AAS Communication Design '26, Huijie Ji, MPS Communication Design '25, Yingjie Mu, MFA Design and Technology '26, Rudy Ofori, MFA Design and Technology '26, Teo Tsivranidis, MFA Design and Technology '26, and Danit Weitzman, MFA Design and Technology '25.

Steven Faerm is Associate Professor of Fashion at Parsons School of Design and the author of three books, including Introduction to Design Education: Theory, Research, and Practical Applications for Educators (Routledge, 2023). His research explores the intricate relationships and convergence among three key scholarly areas, namely design education, pedagogy, and student development. www.StevenFaerm.com.
Empathy is the spark of human concern for others. The glue that makes social life possible.
– M. L. Hoffman, 2000
Introduction
An individual cannot learn, function, or achieve their full potential until they feel safe. [1] In the context of education, students’ optimal learning, levels of motivation, and potential will be undermined if they feel unsafe. The presence of this emotion is largely dependent upon whether or not the student feels included in the community. Once feelings of safety are established, the student’s focus shifts, “from their security and well-being to connecting with others, taking risks, exploring the unknown and unfamiliar, and consequently, their learning.” [2] Thus, the teacher’s responsiveness to facilitating safe learning spaces is vital for students’ achieving optimal development—particularly in design classrooms. Psychological safety—including the assurance that one's fellow group members won't be humiliated, shunned, punished, or made fun of for speaking up—is the single most significant element that fosters creativity and innovation. [3]
A primary method to ensure we, as educators, meet our students’ levels of need for psychological safety is through the ongoing, active practice of cultivating empathy within ourselves. Empathy and empathetic reasoning play invaluable roles in our teaching practice—and in facilitating safe spaces—because they enable us to observe better, reflect upon, and understand a student’s thoughts, feelings, and experiences. This heightened cognitive and emotional awareness, in turn, prompts action on our parts, including the making of more informed pedagogical, interpersonal, and compassionate decisions for our students’ personal and academic development. [4] Accordingly, the learning experience is bolstered, leading the students and the institution to flourish.
Still, despite the significant role empathy plays in fostering optimal learning environments and the accompanying student success, it has been given scant attention in both scholarly research and faculty development, particularly in design higher education. Design educators are typically hired for their design expertise, not their teaching experience, and rarely receive direct preparation to teach. During the hiring process, most design school administrations evaluate a candidates’ design experience and, if hired, assign the novice teachers with little to no pedagogical support or training to teaching classrooms. Consequently, these educators must experiment with their pedagogical approaches, learning as they go, and eventually sink or swim at the expense of their students and institutions.
This paper examines the role of empathy in fostering equity and justice in the design classroom. To begin, an overview of what constitutes empathy and the neurological relationship between emotional affect and cognitive function is provided. Following this foundation, strategic methods for developing empathetic, inclusive classrooms are described. Then, focus is given to the practice of Critically Reflective Teaching by discussing its purpose and fundamental tenets, the ways it can promote empathy in educators, and its subsequently beneficial impacts on both student development and the advancement of equitable, inclusive learning environments. The aim of this paper is to focus our scholarly attention on this critical subject and to begin to address the significant deficit of research literature in the area of faculty development in design higher education.
Empathy is about finding echoes of another person in yourself.
– Mohsin Hamid, novelist
Derived from empatheia, meaning "physical affection, passion, or partiality,” empathy is commonly described as the capability to imagine how another person feels; it enables the person “to understand and share the thoughts, feelings, and experiences of others.” [5] The practice of empathy involves adopting another’s perspective, standing in others’ shoes, and seeing with their eyes so that each individual can be better attuned to what the other person is feeling and, consequently, can better comprehend the other’s emotional state. [6]
But empathy is not merely a feeling: it also requires that the empathetic individual externalizes this gained understanding with intention, care, and concern. [7] In short, empathy is a way to understand other humans; it is “a universal language that connects us beyond country or culture. Empathy makes us human. Empathy brings us joy. And…Empathy is an essential part of living a life of meaning.” [8] Accordingly, empathetic educators are those who exhibit deep care, compassion, and understanding for their students’ life circumstances.
Empathy is more closely defined through specific concepts and types that include (but are not limited to) cognitive empathy, emotional (affective) empathy, somatic (bodily) empathy, and spiritual empathy. Among these classifications, researchers widely concur the two major components to empathy are emotional empathy (the ability to respond to another person's mental state with appropriate emotion) and cognitive empathy (the capacity to comprehend the viewpoint or mental condition of another). [9] These two classifications are the perspective through which the topic of this paper is examined, given the dominant roles they play in an educator’s ability to cultivate safe and empathetic learning environments. It must be noted that emotional and cognitive empathy are independent from one another. For example, an individual with significant emotional empathy may not have the same capacity to comprehend cognitively the viewpoint of another person. [10]
The Benefits of Empathy
The benefits of empathy are universal across communities, cultures, and settings. Empathy enriches our existence by narrowing the gap between the self and the other. It is a prosocial phenomenon that promotes community, altruism, cooperation, trust, support, and intimacy with others. [11] Possessing empathy is essential for maintaining positive relationships, which are shown to beneficially affect our emotional and physical health. For instance, studies reveal high-scoring participants on empathy questionnaires report having more positive relationships with people, along with “greater life satisfaction, more positive affect, less negative affect, and less depressive symptoms than people who had lower empathy scores." [12] Studies also show strong social connections can lead to a 50% greater chance of longevity, a stronger immune system, faster recovery from disease, higher levels of self-confidence and empathy, improvement of emotional regulation skills, and lower susceptibility to depression and anxiety. [13] Our collective need to teach empathy to the current and future generations of design students is significant: there has been a 40% drop in empathy among undergraduates in the past twenty years. [14]
For faculty development and academic institutions, the benefits of empathy are equally significant and broad. For example, by adopting learner- and colleague-centered viewpoints we can:
Moreover, research shows employees with empathetic supervisors are more productive, engaged, efficient, agile, creative, and less likely to feel burnout and a desire to quit than those with less empathetic supervisors. [15] A teacher’s empathy, as studies in the private sector suggest, is particularly important for students’ academic and professional success: just 32% of those with less empathetic senior leaders report being engaged frequently or always, compared to 76% of those with highly empathetic senior leaders. [16] Additionally, only 13% of those with less empathetic senior leaders report being innovative at work, compared to 61% of those with highly empathetic senior leaders who describe being innovative often or always. [17] Clear parallels can be drawn from this research and applied to both the design student and design educator’s experiences. A design student’s current learning experience and future career trajectory can be significantly impacted by the teacher’s ability to facilitate empathetic learning environments and relationships.
The academic institution also benefits from possessing highly empathetic educators, since empathy is essential to building an inclusive culture and producing high-performing teams. These, in turn, strengthen the institution’s financial wellbeing. [18] For example, The Global Empathy Index revealed the top ten most empathetic companies experienced a 50% growth in earnings (defined by market capitalization) and a value gain of more than double that of the bottom ten. Researchers discovered a correlation as high as 80% between departments with higher empathy and those with high performers. [19] While these findings come from the private sector, it can be presumed that similar financial benefits—such as those associated with student retention—can be found in the public sector of academia that, in recent years, has adopted a more business-oriented and corporatized model of operations. [20] Conversely, an absence of empathy can weaken an institution and its community. As Smith observes:
“A workplace without empathy undermines morale, paralyzes teams and promotes burnout, irreparably damaging your business. Meanwhile, empathy markedly increases efficiency, creativity, innovation and job satisfaction. There’s only one choice here. Prioritizing empathy at every level of your organization inoculates your business against the meanness and spitefulness seemingly lurking in every corner. How your employees treat each other, how well they work together, directly affects your bottom line. More empathy means happier people, more profits and, hopefully, far less spite.” [21]
The Neurological Relationships Between Emotional Affect and Cognitive Function
When you show deep empathy toward others, their defensive energy goes down, and positive energy replaces it. That's when you can get more creative in solving problems.
– Stephen Covey, educator and author
Negative environments and the attendant stressors can significantly dampen students’ cognition and motivation in many ways. Within the human brain (Figure 1), chronic stress overstimulates the amygdala (the brain’s emotional response center), which then overproduces the stress hormone cortisol. Excessive cortisol levels shrink and functionally impair the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for critical executive functions (e.g. organization, planning, time management, problem solving, managing emotions, and working memory). The sudden flood of cortisol draws resources away from cognition and into “fight, flight, freeze, or faun” fear responses, which subsequently hinder the aforementioned brain functions. The resultant impairment on brain size and function from this cycle can result in undue student challenges, frustrations, and subsequent underachievement.
– M. L. Hoffman, 2000
Introduction
An individual cannot learn, function, or achieve their full potential until they feel safe. [1] In the context of education, students’ optimal learning, levels of motivation, and potential will be undermined if they feel unsafe. The presence of this emotion is largely dependent upon whether or not the student feels included in the community. Once feelings of safety are established, the student’s focus shifts, “from their security and well-being to connecting with others, taking risks, exploring the unknown and unfamiliar, and consequently, their learning.” [2] Thus, the teacher’s responsiveness to facilitating safe learning spaces is vital for students’ achieving optimal development—particularly in design classrooms. Psychological safety—including the assurance that one's fellow group members won't be humiliated, shunned, punished, or made fun of for speaking up—is the single most significant element that fosters creativity and innovation. [3]
A primary method to ensure we, as educators, meet our students’ levels of need for psychological safety is through the ongoing, active practice of cultivating empathy within ourselves. Empathy and empathetic reasoning play invaluable roles in our teaching practice—and in facilitating safe spaces—because they enable us to observe better, reflect upon, and understand a student’s thoughts, feelings, and experiences. This heightened cognitive and emotional awareness, in turn, prompts action on our parts, including the making of more informed pedagogical, interpersonal, and compassionate decisions for our students’ personal and academic development. [4] Accordingly, the learning experience is bolstered, leading the students and the institution to flourish.
Still, despite the significant role empathy plays in fostering optimal learning environments and the accompanying student success, it has been given scant attention in both scholarly research and faculty development, particularly in design higher education. Design educators are typically hired for their design expertise, not their teaching experience, and rarely receive direct preparation to teach. During the hiring process, most design school administrations evaluate a candidates’ design experience and, if hired, assign the novice teachers with little to no pedagogical support or training to teaching classrooms. Consequently, these educators must experiment with their pedagogical approaches, learning as they go, and eventually sink or swim at the expense of their students and institutions.
This paper examines the role of empathy in fostering equity and justice in the design classroom. To begin, an overview of what constitutes empathy and the neurological relationship between emotional affect and cognitive function is provided. Following this foundation, strategic methods for developing empathetic, inclusive classrooms are described. Then, focus is given to the practice of Critically Reflective Teaching by discussing its purpose and fundamental tenets, the ways it can promote empathy in educators, and its subsequently beneficial impacts on both student development and the advancement of equitable, inclusive learning environments. The aim of this paper is to focus our scholarly attention on this critical subject and to begin to address the significant deficit of research literature in the area of faculty development in design higher education.
What Constitutes “Empathy” and Empathetic Learning Environments?
Empathy is about finding echoes of another person in yourself.
– Mohsin Hamid, novelist
Derived from empatheia, meaning "physical affection, passion, or partiality,” empathy is commonly described as the capability to imagine how another person feels; it enables the person “to understand and share the thoughts, feelings, and experiences of others.” [5] The practice of empathy involves adopting another’s perspective, standing in others’ shoes, and seeing with their eyes so that each individual can be better attuned to what the other person is feeling and, consequently, can better comprehend the other’s emotional state. [6]
But empathy is not merely a feeling: it also requires that the empathetic individual externalizes this gained understanding with intention, care, and concern. [7] In short, empathy is a way to understand other humans; it is “a universal language that connects us beyond country or culture. Empathy makes us human. Empathy brings us joy. And…Empathy is an essential part of living a life of meaning.” [8] Accordingly, empathetic educators are those who exhibit deep care, compassion, and understanding for their students’ life circumstances.
Empathy is more closely defined through specific concepts and types that include (but are not limited to) cognitive empathy, emotional (affective) empathy, somatic (bodily) empathy, and spiritual empathy. Among these classifications, researchers widely concur the two major components to empathy are emotional empathy (the ability to respond to another person's mental state with appropriate emotion) and cognitive empathy (the capacity to comprehend the viewpoint or mental condition of another). [9] These two classifications are the perspective through which the topic of this paper is examined, given the dominant roles they play in an educator’s ability to cultivate safe and empathetic learning environments. It must be noted that emotional and cognitive empathy are independent from one another. For example, an individual with significant emotional empathy may not have the same capacity to comprehend cognitively the viewpoint of another person. [10]
The Benefits of Empathy
The benefits of empathy are universal across communities, cultures, and settings. Empathy enriches our existence by narrowing the gap between the self and the other. It is a prosocial phenomenon that promotes community, altruism, cooperation, trust, support, and intimacy with others. [11] Possessing empathy is essential for maintaining positive relationships, which are shown to beneficially affect our emotional and physical health. For instance, studies reveal high-scoring participants on empathy questionnaires report having more positive relationships with people, along with “greater life satisfaction, more positive affect, less negative affect, and less depressive symptoms than people who had lower empathy scores." [12] Studies also show strong social connections can lead to a 50% greater chance of longevity, a stronger immune system, faster recovery from disease, higher levels of self-confidence and empathy, improvement of emotional regulation skills, and lower susceptibility to depression and anxiety. [13] Our collective need to teach empathy to the current and future generations of design students is significant: there has been a 40% drop in empathy among undergraduates in the past twenty years. [14]
For faculty development and academic institutions, the benefits of empathy are equally significant and broad. For example, by adopting learner- and colleague-centered viewpoints we can:
- establish more positive relationships with our colleagues and students, thus improving positive interaction and productivity;
- reduce social distance and make more informed decisions once we understand and anticipate the behaviors of others;
- gain aesthetic enjoyment when we widen the scope of what we experience;
- deepen our levels of creativity, innovation, and problem-solving owing to our openness to other’s ideas, experiences, and feelings; and
- adjust our pedagogical methods by taking into account students’ cognitive and emotional states, from challenges and blockages to apathy and boredom [2, 4, 6, 56]
Moreover, research shows employees with empathetic supervisors are more productive, engaged, efficient, agile, creative, and less likely to feel burnout and a desire to quit than those with less empathetic supervisors. [15] A teacher’s empathy, as studies in the private sector suggest, is particularly important for students’ academic and professional success: just 32% of those with less empathetic senior leaders report being engaged frequently or always, compared to 76% of those with highly empathetic senior leaders. [16] Additionally, only 13% of those with less empathetic senior leaders report being innovative at work, compared to 61% of those with highly empathetic senior leaders who describe being innovative often or always. [17] Clear parallels can be drawn from this research and applied to both the design student and design educator’s experiences. A design student’s current learning experience and future career trajectory can be significantly impacted by the teacher’s ability to facilitate empathetic learning environments and relationships.
The academic institution also benefits from possessing highly empathetic educators, since empathy is essential to building an inclusive culture and producing high-performing teams. These, in turn, strengthen the institution’s financial wellbeing. [18] For example, The Global Empathy Index revealed the top ten most empathetic companies experienced a 50% growth in earnings (defined by market capitalization) and a value gain of more than double that of the bottom ten. Researchers discovered a correlation as high as 80% between departments with higher empathy and those with high performers. [19] While these findings come from the private sector, it can be presumed that similar financial benefits—such as those associated with student retention—can be found in the public sector of academia that, in recent years, has adopted a more business-oriented and corporatized model of operations. [20] Conversely, an absence of empathy can weaken an institution and its community. As Smith observes:
“A workplace without empathy undermines morale, paralyzes teams and promotes burnout, irreparably damaging your business. Meanwhile, empathy markedly increases efficiency, creativity, innovation and job satisfaction. There’s only one choice here. Prioritizing empathy at every level of your organization inoculates your business against the meanness and spitefulness seemingly lurking in every corner. How your employees treat each other, how well they work together, directly affects your bottom line. More empathy means happier people, more profits and, hopefully, far less spite.” [21]
The Neurological Relationships Between Emotional Affect and Cognitive Function
When you show deep empathy toward others, their defensive energy goes down, and positive energy replaces it. That's when you can get more creative in solving problems.
– Stephen Covey, educator and author
Negative environments and the attendant stressors can significantly dampen students’ cognition and motivation in many ways. Within the human brain (Figure 1), chronic stress overstimulates the amygdala (the brain’s emotional response center), which then overproduces the stress hormone cortisol. Excessive cortisol levels shrink and functionally impair the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for critical executive functions (e.g. organization, planning, time management, problem solving, managing emotions, and working memory). The sudden flood of cortisol draws resources away from cognition and into “fight, flight, freeze, or faun” fear responses, which subsequently hinder the aforementioned brain functions. The resultant impairment on brain size and function from this cycle can result in undue student challenges, frustrations, and subsequent underachievement.

Consequently, rather than focusing on and retaining concepts and ideas effectively, the learner becomes distracted; they are biologically being driven to attempt to grapple with the perceived threat first in order to restore their sense of safety. These students retain less information, engage in less self-reflection, and because large parts of their attention are lost to these fear responses, these students are less able to access the full education they need. Accordingly, for optimal learning to occur, students must feel emotional safety, trust, and empathy vis-à-vis their teacher-student and student-student interactions. It is only through these feelings that students are willing to freely explore and experiment, which are fundamental to both design innovation and students’ holistic development as emergent design professionals who will lead the future industries.
Yet, the vast majority of design educators enter higher education as well-seasoned design practitioners. Few—if any—have engaged in prior studies of educational pedagogy, student development, and/or student/developmental psychology. Thus, while design educators and school administrators widely concur that empathetic and inclusive teaching practices enhance both the student experience and the institution itself, they are often unsure of where or how to codify best practices. The proceeding section offers strategic guidance and practical tools that all design educators can use for developing more empathic and inclusive design classrooms for resultant student success.
The development of empathic and inclusive learning environments is especially critical in studio-based education. Design students are routinely asked to produce original, deeply personal projects that are presented in highly public settings for peer and faculty critique and assessment. In this regard, design students remain distinct when compared to “traditional” college students (i.e. those not engaged in studio-based education, such as liberal arts and STEM) owing to the vulnerable “place” in which they must work if they are to achieve significant creative and professional growth. Accordingly, design students in particular need faculty who are steadfast in cultivating empathy in design classrooms.
Empathy, like all skills, is not a fixed trait but one that is malleable and can grow over time through learning and sustained practice. Common strategies for developing empathy include (but are not limited to) practicing the following: mindfulness, active listening, asking questions, questioning our biases, and by spending time with individuals different from ourselves. Simply having an empathetic mindset leads to more empathetic methods and actions educationally. [22] Strategic methods are also required for developing empathetic, inclusive design classrooms. These commonly utilize a mixture of ongoing reviews of curricula, proactively investigating new research and knowledge around inclusive practices, and nurturing inter- and intra-personal awareness. We can begin this work by considering:
This preparatory reflection enables us to practice the following methods that aim to promote empathy in the teacher, the classroom, and the wider academic community.
When developing your course’s content, begin the process by asking yourself, “What do I use to teach?” and “Do my course readings, visual/audio content, and examples used in my classroom represent and respect multiple identities and communities as legitimate sources of critique or knowledge?” [55] If the materials are homogenous, it is vital that you assess how/where you can incorporate more inclusive material into your curriculum so that it better conveys how other peoples’ perspectives and backgrounds can have a place in your course. For instance, if all your featured designers/authors are of one gender, ethnicity, and/or political orientation, then your teaching will send “a message about the voices that are valued and will be devaluing the scholarship of others who have written or created materials on the topic.” [23]
Also consider your students when selecting your course materials. Wherever possible, ensure that the course content meaningfully represents the diverse aesthetics, creative approaches, experiences, values, backgrounds, and viewpoints of all your students. The customization of content extends well beyond the examples mentioned above. It includes in-class activities, discussions, projects, and other learning content that can reflect the community’s diversity. Doing so may help all students to imagine themselves actively participating within various learning scenarios, cultural contexts, and professional environments. [24]
Cultivate stronger, more authentic teacher-student relationships
Hierarchies—namely, pronounced, steep imbalances in social and political power—destabilize the formation and perpetuation of close, meaningful relationships. This significant social distance between individuals, in turn, weakens empathy. Moreover, when people have more power in a social hierarchy, they “tend to lose their empathetic abilities (even if their trait empathy was high when they came into the hierarchy)” whereas those at the bottom “often need to develop hyper-empathy as a kind of counterbalance (and to keep themselves safe).” [25] Teachers must therefore reduce the intensity of entrenched teacher-student hierarchies if empathetic, inclusive classrooms are to emerge. This can be achieved through the fostering of “side-by-side” teacher-student relationships that aim to deepen students’ greater sense of inclusivity, care, tolerance, and holistic support. By positioning themselves in this way, teachers acquire a more nuanced and empathetic understanding of each individual learner, one that helps them strengthen their student-centered pedagogy. Without such knowledge and understanding, the teacher may resort to stereotypes in an attempt to make sense of students’ behaviors and ideas that contradict their preexisting schemas. [26] This is a salient point in design education due to the exponential enrollment growth since 2000. As enrollment increases, so too does the diversity of students’ learning styles, academic needs, personal values, and much more. It is therefore imperative that design educators resist outdated stereotypes of students that may undermine and marginalize particular types of learners.
There are numerous core techniques we can use for cultivating stronger, more authentic relationships with our students. One technique involves creating routine moments in the classroom to personally connect with each student. Simple acts, like asking students what they hope to gain from your course, how they’re doing in their other courses, how they spent their weekend/free time, and what hobbies or extracurricular interests they have, will demonstrate your care and genuine concern for them. Creating moments to personally connect with each student—not merely as pupils who we see and evaluate through their academic work—demonstrates we value and respect their life situations, which is vital if students are to feel like they belong and to bring their authentic selves to your classroom. [27] This is critical information you need to shape your teaching to be centered on inclusivity—and the importance of the individual—as opposed to exclusivity or bias.
Similarly, our body language can be used as a dynamic tool for building more positive teacher-student relationships. Researchers posit approximately 93% of all face-to-face communication is nonverbal. [28] While verbal communication primarily stimulates cognition (learning) in the student, nonverbal communication (e.g., body language and vocal tone)—which sometimes replaces verbalizations—stimulate affective meanings in students (e.g., their feelings and attitudes toward the course, learning material, and the teacher). [29] Thus, we can build positive rapport and emotional connections with our students by mirroring their body language, speed of speech, facial expressions, and vocal styles during our interactions. The power of these practices is especially impactful in design education given that design students are highly attuned to visual information and subsequent learning experiences. In doing so we convey our care and empathy that, in turn, bolster positive teacher-student relationships.
Research shows societies that promote individualism have lower capacity for empathy. [30] Subsequently, we can deduce that promoting the feeling of communalism in students is vital to fostering empathetic learning environments. Throughout the course, we can encourage and support this collective mindset by providing opportunities for students to interact with each other via formal and informal activities. These can include group design projects, small discussion or work groups, new seating arrangements, mid-class seat-swaps, and 15-minute peer-tutorials, where students pair off to share tips and tricks related to the coursework. [31] Activities like these strengthen students’ sense of being part of a team, understanding of one another’s perspectives, mutual respect, peer support and, consequently, empathy. These techniques help ensure class dynamics stay fresh, and students are afforded regular opportunities to get to know every classmate throughout the course’s duration. Moreover, these techniques prepare design students for professional design studios, environments in which the personal and creative attributes of collaboration and teamwork are fundamental to success.
Relieving Stereotype Threat in Students
Stereotype threat refers to “the [learner’s] fear of confirming a negative stereotype about their respective in-group, a fear that can create [a] high[-stress] cognitive load and [thus] reduce academic focus and performance.” [32] Its existence is anathema to promoting equitable and just learning environments. To reduce stereotype threat, researchers (e.g., [33, 34, 35]) posit the following methods:
Empathy, as a malleable skill, is central to fostering both the personal and professional growth of design students. By incorporating these inclusive teaching strategies, educators can ensure that all students, regardless of their backgrounds, have the opportunity to thrive in an environment that promotes creativity, collaboration, and understanding. Central to this principle is that we, as design educators, engage in ongoing analysis and evolution of our teaching practice through mindful, critical reflection.
Cultivate a “Critically Reflective Teaching Practice”
Empathetic and inclusive learning environments must be built on a foundation of ongoing self-improvement for both individual educators and the institution itself. A key technique for building this foundation is Critically Reflective Teaching (CRT) Practice. CRT is a well-defined and crafted action that aims to make the implied explicit for evaluation and positive action. [40] It draws attention to areas of our teaching that may be problematic so that our pedagogical methods may be improved.
To succeed, CRT requires “[a] disposition to inquiry incorporating the process through which students and early career and experienced teachers structure or restructure actions, beliefs, knowledge and theories that inform teaching for the purpose of professional development.” [41] Furthermore, CRT is a career-long process whereby the teacher forever seeks to understand better the effects of their teaching and connect more meaningfully with students so they can foster an ideal learning environment. During this process, the teacher must “probe beneath the veneer of a [one-dimensional] commonsense reading of experience. [Reflective teachers] investigate the hidden dimensions of their practice and become aware of the omnipresence of power.” [42]
Notably, CRT extends well beyond the scope of mere instruction and course content because it prioritizes introspection around what is being done, why it’s being done, and how well it impacts students’ knowledge acquisition. [43] These areas of reflection are vital to our teaching practice and personal development because we are, “[t]o some extent…prisoners trapped within the perceptual frameworks that determine how we view our experiences.” [44] The conscious and unconscious assumptions and biases we hold may distort, blur, or constrain our teaching, thereby undermining our professional growth, students’ learning, and the value our institutions provide. The reflective process, overall, allows us to see things from different viewpoints, thus strengthening our cognitive and emotional/affective empathy. Moreover, CRT is especially important for both new and less experienced design teachers who are learning that effective teaching is a synthesis of three key areas: a deep understanding of course content, a strong and continuously evolving pedagogy, and expansive and respectful relationships with students both inside and outside of the classroom. Through CRT, the novice design educator hones pedagogical approaches that effectively address these fundamental tenets.
Methods of Critically Reflective Teaching Practice
The search for our own assumptions and biases that keep us from seeing our "true" selves is at the core of critical reflection. Facilitating this inward search requires us to reposition ourselves, "from the dance floor to the balcony," so that we can better assess and comprehend the full scope of a situation, its participants (such as students), and ourselves. Numerous scholars (e.g., [45]) prescribe four methods teachers can use to gain a more salient understanding of their identities and roles as educators (Figure 2). These perspectives serve as a starting point for developing effective curriculum, teaching more responsively, fostering empathy, and grounding our educational processes. After all, “[w]ithout this knowledge all the pedagogic skill in the world means very little, since that skill may unwittingly be exercised in ways that confuse or intimidate learners.” [46]
Yet, the vast majority of design educators enter higher education as well-seasoned design practitioners. Few—if any—have engaged in prior studies of educational pedagogy, student development, and/or student/developmental psychology. Thus, while design educators and school administrators widely concur that empathetic and inclusive teaching practices enhance both the student experience and the institution itself, they are often unsure of where or how to codify best practices. The proceeding section offers strategic guidance and practical tools that all design educators can use for developing more empathic and inclusive design classrooms for resultant student success.
Developing Empathetic and Inclusive Design Classrooms
The development of empathic and inclusive learning environments is especially critical in studio-based education. Design students are routinely asked to produce original, deeply personal projects that are presented in highly public settings for peer and faculty critique and assessment. In this regard, design students remain distinct when compared to “traditional” college students (i.e. those not engaged in studio-based education, such as liberal arts and STEM) owing to the vulnerable “place” in which they must work if they are to achieve significant creative and professional growth. Accordingly, design students in particular need faculty who are steadfast in cultivating empathy in design classrooms.
Empathy, like all skills, is not a fixed trait but one that is malleable and can grow over time through learning and sustained practice. Common strategies for developing empathy include (but are not limited to) practicing the following: mindfulness, active listening, asking questions, questioning our biases, and by spending time with individuals different from ourselves. Simply having an empathetic mindset leads to more empathetic methods and actions educationally. [22] Strategic methods are also required for developing empathetic, inclusive design classrooms. These commonly utilize a mixture of ongoing reviews of curricula, proactively investigating new research and knowledge around inclusive practices, and nurturing inter- and intra-personal awareness. We can begin this work by considering:
- the ways students’ identities, values, experiences, and background influence their levels of engagement;
- why some students seem to learn more easily than others;
- why some students participate or disengage more frequently; and
- how course design and pedagogical approaches include or exclude students [24]
This preparatory reflection enables us to practice the following methods that aim to promote empathy in the teacher, the classroom, and the wider academic community.
Strategize Course Content
When developing your course’s content, begin the process by asking yourself, “What do I use to teach?” and “Do my course readings, visual/audio content, and examples used in my classroom represent and respect multiple identities and communities as legitimate sources of critique or knowledge?” [55] If the materials are homogenous, it is vital that you assess how/where you can incorporate more inclusive material into your curriculum so that it better conveys how other peoples’ perspectives and backgrounds can have a place in your course. For instance, if all your featured designers/authors are of one gender, ethnicity, and/or political orientation, then your teaching will send “a message about the voices that are valued and will be devaluing the scholarship of others who have written or created materials on the topic.” [23]
Also consider your students when selecting your course materials. Wherever possible, ensure that the course content meaningfully represents the diverse aesthetics, creative approaches, experiences, values, backgrounds, and viewpoints of all your students. The customization of content extends well beyond the examples mentioned above. It includes in-class activities, discussions, projects, and other learning content that can reflect the community’s diversity. Doing so may help all students to imagine themselves actively participating within various learning scenarios, cultural contexts, and professional environments. [24]
Cultivate stronger, more authentic teacher-student relationships
Hierarchies—namely, pronounced, steep imbalances in social and political power—destabilize the formation and perpetuation of close, meaningful relationships. This significant social distance between individuals, in turn, weakens empathy. Moreover, when people have more power in a social hierarchy, they “tend to lose their empathetic abilities (even if their trait empathy was high when they came into the hierarchy)” whereas those at the bottom “often need to develop hyper-empathy as a kind of counterbalance (and to keep themselves safe).” [25] Teachers must therefore reduce the intensity of entrenched teacher-student hierarchies if empathetic, inclusive classrooms are to emerge. This can be achieved through the fostering of “side-by-side” teacher-student relationships that aim to deepen students’ greater sense of inclusivity, care, tolerance, and holistic support. By positioning themselves in this way, teachers acquire a more nuanced and empathetic understanding of each individual learner, one that helps them strengthen their student-centered pedagogy. Without such knowledge and understanding, the teacher may resort to stereotypes in an attempt to make sense of students’ behaviors and ideas that contradict their preexisting schemas. [26] This is a salient point in design education due to the exponential enrollment growth since 2000. As enrollment increases, so too does the diversity of students’ learning styles, academic needs, personal values, and much more. It is therefore imperative that design educators resist outdated stereotypes of students that may undermine and marginalize particular types of learners.
There are numerous core techniques we can use for cultivating stronger, more authentic relationships with our students. One technique involves creating routine moments in the classroom to personally connect with each student. Simple acts, like asking students what they hope to gain from your course, how they’re doing in their other courses, how they spent their weekend/free time, and what hobbies or extracurricular interests they have, will demonstrate your care and genuine concern for them. Creating moments to personally connect with each student—not merely as pupils who we see and evaluate through their academic work—demonstrates we value and respect their life situations, which is vital if students are to feel like they belong and to bring their authentic selves to your classroom. [27] This is critical information you need to shape your teaching to be centered on inclusivity—and the importance of the individual—as opposed to exclusivity or bias.
Similarly, our body language can be used as a dynamic tool for building more positive teacher-student relationships. Researchers posit approximately 93% of all face-to-face communication is nonverbal. [28] While verbal communication primarily stimulates cognition (learning) in the student, nonverbal communication (e.g., body language and vocal tone)—which sometimes replaces verbalizations—stimulate affective meanings in students (e.g., their feelings and attitudes toward the course, learning material, and the teacher). [29] Thus, we can build positive rapport and emotional connections with our students by mirroring their body language, speed of speech, facial expressions, and vocal styles during our interactions. The power of these practices is especially impactful in design education given that design students are highly attuned to visual information and subsequent learning experiences. In doing so we convey our care and empathy that, in turn, bolster positive teacher-student relationships.
Research shows societies that promote individualism have lower capacity for empathy. [30] Subsequently, we can deduce that promoting the feeling of communalism in students is vital to fostering empathetic learning environments. Throughout the course, we can encourage and support this collective mindset by providing opportunities for students to interact with each other via formal and informal activities. These can include group design projects, small discussion or work groups, new seating arrangements, mid-class seat-swaps, and 15-minute peer-tutorials, where students pair off to share tips and tricks related to the coursework. [31] Activities like these strengthen students’ sense of being part of a team, understanding of one another’s perspectives, mutual respect, peer support and, consequently, empathy. These techniques help ensure class dynamics stay fresh, and students are afforded regular opportunities to get to know every classmate throughout the course’s duration. Moreover, these techniques prepare design students for professional design studios, environments in which the personal and creative attributes of collaboration and teamwork are fundamental to success.
Relieving Stereotype Threat in Students
Stereotype threat refers to “the [learner’s] fear of confirming a negative stereotype about their respective in-group, a fear that can create [a] high[-stress] cognitive load and [thus] reduce academic focus and performance.” [32] Its existence is anathema to promoting equitable and just learning environments. To reduce stereotype threat, researchers (e.g., [33, 34, 35]) posit the following methods:
- Promote a “growth mindset” in students. Encourage students to view their abilities, creativity, and intelligence as expandable qualities that come from persistence rather than as "fixed" entities (e.g., "I just don't have a ‘computer brain’"). This is especially relevant to design education owing to the consistent, routine practice needed to build technical skillsets, such as drawing, 3D prototyping, and other skills that are integral to design practice. To cultivate the growth mindset in students, our critiques should affirm that learning is an incremental process, and therefore each student has the potential to achieve mastery. Accordingly, students understand that we see them, individually, as capable learners.
- Showcase positive role models. By telling students about the personal and professional struggles faced by renowned designers—especially those who belong to marginalized groups currently or historically—we can help them see successful role models from outside the dominant paradigm and develop the mentality that, "If they can overcome what they did, I can overcome my hurdles too." As Greer notes, “[p]ositive role models, who perform well in fields that typically invoke stereotype threat, can increase otherwise poor performance for stigmatized groups.” [36]
- Check for any external cause(s) for difficulty. Students' anxiety may be lessened if teachers assist them in determining the external cause(s) of their concerns. Additionally, studies note “instructors reduced [students’] poor performance by suggesting that anxiety might actually help with test taking, without connecting the anxiety to any stereotype.” [37]
- Encourage and reaffirm the importance of diverse personal identities. The power of stereotype threat—and accompanying weakening of cognitive performance—can be destabilized by instilling in students the understanding that their identity is a valuable asset to themselves and to the world. (e.g., [38]) This can be achieved through practices such as self-affirmation. Also, respectfully drawing attention to students' diversity in the classroom (as opposed to ignoring it) can develop into a valuable teaching tool and thus underscore the significance of diversity in design practice as well as in life.
- Allow for choice and autonomy. Whenever possible, provide students with opportunities for self-directed learning. Allow students to develop work that tells their own stories, on their own terms. As mentioned above, design students’ engagement in work that is deeply personal (and thus emotional) frequently creates feelings of vulnerability within them, particularly during critiques and assessments. Therefore, facilitating opportunities that provide choice in how, when, and where students share information about their identities is essential to creating safe learning spaces and cultivating trust. Consider critical questions, such as, “How can small conversational groups precede large, class-wide discussions so that students can first assess their readiness to be vulnerable?” [39]
Empathy, as a malleable skill, is central to fostering both the personal and professional growth of design students. By incorporating these inclusive teaching strategies, educators can ensure that all students, regardless of their backgrounds, have the opportunity to thrive in an environment that promotes creativity, collaboration, and understanding. Central to this principle is that we, as design educators, engage in ongoing analysis and evolution of our teaching practice through mindful, critical reflection.
Cultivate a “Critically Reflective Teaching Practice”
Empathetic and inclusive learning environments must be built on a foundation of ongoing self-improvement for both individual educators and the institution itself. A key technique for building this foundation is Critically Reflective Teaching (CRT) Practice. CRT is a well-defined and crafted action that aims to make the implied explicit for evaluation and positive action. [40] It draws attention to areas of our teaching that may be problematic so that our pedagogical methods may be improved.
To succeed, CRT requires “[a] disposition to inquiry incorporating the process through which students and early career and experienced teachers structure or restructure actions, beliefs, knowledge and theories that inform teaching for the purpose of professional development.” [41] Furthermore, CRT is a career-long process whereby the teacher forever seeks to understand better the effects of their teaching and connect more meaningfully with students so they can foster an ideal learning environment. During this process, the teacher must “probe beneath the veneer of a [one-dimensional] commonsense reading of experience. [Reflective teachers] investigate the hidden dimensions of their practice and become aware of the omnipresence of power.” [42]
Notably, CRT extends well beyond the scope of mere instruction and course content because it prioritizes introspection around what is being done, why it’s being done, and how well it impacts students’ knowledge acquisition. [43] These areas of reflection are vital to our teaching practice and personal development because we are, “[t]o some extent…prisoners trapped within the perceptual frameworks that determine how we view our experiences.” [44] The conscious and unconscious assumptions and biases we hold may distort, blur, or constrain our teaching, thereby undermining our professional growth, students’ learning, and the value our institutions provide. The reflective process, overall, allows us to see things from different viewpoints, thus strengthening our cognitive and emotional/affective empathy. Moreover, CRT is especially important for both new and less experienced design teachers who are learning that effective teaching is a synthesis of three key areas: a deep understanding of course content, a strong and continuously evolving pedagogy, and expansive and respectful relationships with students both inside and outside of the classroom. Through CRT, the novice design educator hones pedagogical approaches that effectively address these fundamental tenets.
Methods of Critically Reflective Teaching Practice
The search for our own assumptions and biases that keep us from seeing our "true" selves is at the core of critical reflection. Facilitating this inward search requires us to reposition ourselves, "from the dance floor to the balcony," so that we can better assess and comprehend the full scope of a situation, its participants (such as students), and ourselves. Numerous scholars (e.g., [45]) prescribe four methods teachers can use to gain a more salient understanding of their identities and roles as educators (Figure 2). These perspectives serve as a starting point for developing effective curriculum, teaching more responsively, fostering empathy, and grounding our educational processes. After all, “[w]ithout this knowledge all the pedagogic skill in the world means very little, since that skill may unwittingly be exercised in ways that confuse or intimidate learners.” [46]

“Empathetic and inclusive learning environments must be built on a foundation of ongoing self-improvement for both individual educators and the institution itself.”
1. Performing Autobiographical Reflection
By reflecting on our own autobiographies as teachers and learners, we can become conscious of the internal assumptions and instinctive reasonings that inform our teaching practices. [47] We consider the positive and negative formative experiences we had as students and how they influenced our pedagogical styles. For example, past positive experiences may guide what we seek to emulate while negative ones are those we want to avoid exhibiting. Examining teaching journals, peer and student feedback, personal goals and outcomes, and/or role model profiles are all part of this reflective process that deepens our empathy.
2. Considering Our Students’ Viewpoints
When we consider our students' experiences, concerns, difficulties, blockages, and views of our pedagogy, we can gain a deeper understanding of the cognitive and emotional challenges that they face during the learning process. By placing ourselves in their shoes, we can better understand students’ needs and wants from their points of view, not our own. This makes it quite evident how empathy (giving people what they need) and generosity (giving what you assume they might appreciate) differ from one another. [48] This process—which has been shown to offer the greatest long-term effect in evolving an educator’s pedagogy—is especially beneficial to those who have been teaching and/or in professional practice for so long that over time they forget their own experiences as students [49]
3. Engaging in Peer Mentorship
Obtaining guidance and feedback through mentorship allows us to reexamine our teaching methods via other perspectives that, in turn, can help us reframe, expand, and strengthen our pedagogy. The practice of mentorship can involve informal conversations, teaching observations, reviews of materials (e.g., syllabi or teaching philosophies), workshops, and similar opportunities that enable us to identify more clearly and examine more effectively past actions and events. Moreover, mentorship provides emotional support, a sense of connectedness, and the feeling that we are not alone in our challenges.
4. Reviewing Scholarly Literature
Research on higher education offers multiple, diverse viewpoints on specific topics. These resources can challenge our preconceptions and predispositions, provide fresh perspectives on familiar situations, help us "name" our experiences and practices, and make situational contexts clearer. [50] Akin to peer mentorship, these external sources could reveal that problems we may think are personal shortcomings or difficulties are actually caused by other variables, such as the structural or cultural conditions of the institution. This increased understanding, in turn, reduces the tendency to blame oneself, preserves emotional energy, and ultimately boosts our assurance and efficacy as educators. [51]
CRT, driven by a deeper understanding of our biases and assumptions, is essential for effective teaching. By employing the methods suggested, design educators can gain insight into their roles, cultivate empathy, and create more responsive and impactful learning environments. Without this self-awareness, even the best pedagogical skills may fall short in truly connecting with students.
Select Benefits of Critically Reflective Teaching
Critically Reflective Teaching delivers extensive benefits. Over time, as we become more aware and understanding of ourselves and our students—as we strengthen our empathy—the new information accumulates and is integrated into our prior knowledge. This arsenal of data can then be leveraged to achieve greater effectiveness in our roles as design educators. The use of CRT heightens feelings of confidence, autonomy, and motivation within us and thus improves the quality of our design pedagogy, students’ learning, the academic community, and the design school's value.
Other, more nuanced benefits emerge from CRT. They include (but are not limited to):
Yet, despite these and numerous other benefits, many teachers will feel reluctant to undertake the practice of Critically Reflective Teaching. After all, the process aims to disrupt the status quo, both internally as teachers and externally at an institutional level. In particular, it fundamentally asks us to deconstruct our ways of knowing and being in the world. Consequently, this process can produce tumultuous feelings of loss, confusion, and general ambiguity about the worth and value of our teaching and of ourselves. However, by adopting the methods and systems of CRT, we may reap many remarkable benefits with our teaching practices and on a larger scale for the community, including the development of a deeper body of knowledge into the epistemology of teaching practice—potentially through academic textbooks, scientific papers, and academic journals—that will serve to strengthen future design educators, institutions, and industries.
All advocacy is, at its core, an exercise in empathy.
– Samantha Power, government official and journalist
If we want equitable and just design classrooms, the process must start with empathy. The establishment of inclusive learning environments—places where all students feel supported creatively and intellectually through mutual expressions of empathy—is fundamental to students’ wellbeing and to ensuring every student is given equal opportunities to succeed. To accomplish this objective, the ways in which we embody our roles and, indeed, the very manner in how we practice our pedagogy, must evolve. Design pedagogy must be conceptualized as an emotional practice (not one that is merely content based) whereby educators, through empathy, are better equipped to challenge their biases and what they “know” of their students. Ultimately, it is only by establishing common ground and close, meaningful relationships with students that we can truly grasp the contexts and complexities of each student’s circumstances. This understanding, in turn, helps us more effectively position and focus our teaching methods.
This significant enhancement to our roles will positively transform the diverse communities that extend well beyond our campus boundaries: as educators, we model behaviors, habits, and actions for our formative students, young adults who will graduate and embody the values and traits we instilled in them during their education as they succeed in the global design industries. By gaining the skill of empathy (that was modelled by their faculty), design students strengthen their observational and problem-solving skills, create more inclusive design, acquire better communication skills, form dynamic design collaborations, and make stronger emotional connections—all of which promote more meaningful, impactful, and user-centered designs. Empathy also stimulates ethical considerations: by understanding the consequences of their work, students/professionals can design in ways that positively impact society and avoid harm.
A more equitable and just design Academy is remarkably dependent upon the ongoing development of empathy within us—namely, by gaining a fuller awareness of empathetic practices, the impact of emotional affect on cognition, the techniques for developing empathetic and inclusive learning environments, the practicing of Critically Reflective Teaching, and the other select strategies described in this article. Incorporating these and additional pedagogical methods in design education will help educators develop practices that actively support students’ feelings of psychological safety, belonging, and inclusivity in design classrooms so they may, in turn, flourish personally, academically, and professionally.
Notes: Empathy Cultivating Just Environments
[1] A. H. Maslow, “A theory of human motivation,” Psychological Review, 50 (4), 370-96, (1943).
[2] S. Faerm, Introduction to Design Education: Theory, Research, and Practical Applications for Educators (Routledge, 2023), 243.
[3] H. Tavanger, “Creating an inclusive classroom,” Edutopia, (2017). https://www.edutopia.org/article/creating-inclusive-classroom
[4]A. Smith, “If you’ve ever experienced meanness at work, here’s what to do,” Forbes, (2023). https://www.forbes.com/sites/annkowalsmith/2023/10/12/if-youve-ever-experienced-meanness-at-work-heres-what-to-do/?sh=65baac8569b5
M. McAlinden, “Can teachers know learners’ minds? Teacher empathy and learner body language in English language teaching,” In K. Dunworth & G. Zhang (Eds.), Critical Perspectives on Language Education (Springer, 2014), 71-100.
[5] A. Smith, “If you’ve ever experienced meanness at work, here’s what to do,” Forbes, (2023).
[6] Ibid.
D. Pink, A Whole New Mind: Why Right-brainers Will Rule the Future (Riverhead Books 2005).
[7] T. Van Bommel, “The power of empathy in times of crisis and beyond,” Catalyst, (2021). https://www.catalyst.org/reports/empathy-work-strategy-crisis/
[8] G. Jahoda, “Theodor Lipps and the shift from sympathy to empathy,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 41(2), p: 151–163, (2005).
D. Pink, A Whole New Mind, 165.
[9] K. Rogers, I. Dziobek, J. Hassenstab, O. Wolf, and A. Convit, “Who cares? Revisiting empathy in Asperger syndrome,” Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(4), p: 709–715, (2007).
[10] P. Kanske, A. Böckler, F. Trautwein, F. Parianen Lesemann, and T. Singer, “Are strong empathizers better mentalizers? Evidence for independence and interaction between the routes of social cognition,” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11 (9), p: 1383–92, (2016).
[11] W. Roberts, and J. Strayer, “Empathy, emotional expressiveness, and prosocial behavior,” Child Development, 67(2), p: 449–470, (1996).
M.L. Hoffman, Empathy and Moral Development, (Cambridge University Press, 2000).
W. Ringwald and A. Wright, “The affiliative role of empathy in everyday interpersonal interactions,” European Journal of Personality, 35(2), 197–211, (2021).
[12] D. Grühn, K. Rebucal, M. Diehl, M. Lumley, and G. Labouvie-Vief, “Empathy across the adult lifespan: Longitudinal and experience-sampling findings,” Emotion, 8(6), 753–765, p. 10, (2008). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2669929/pdf/nihms101335.pdf
[13] E. Seppälä, “Social connection boosts health. Even when you’re isolated,” (2020). https://emmaseppala.com/connect-to-thrive-social-connection-improves-health-well-being-longevity/
[14] S. Turkle, Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age (Penguin, 2015).
[15] T. Van Bommel, “The power of empathy in times of crisis and beyond,” Catalyst, (2021). https://www.catalyst.org/reports/empathy-work-strategy-crisis/
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Smith, “If you’ve ever experienced meanness.”
[19] B. Parmar, “The most empathetic companies,” Harvard Business Review, (2016). https://hbr.org/2016/12/the-most-and-least-empathetic-companies-2016
[20] F. deBoer, “Why we should fear university, inc.,” The New York Times, (2015, September 9). https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/magazine/why-we-should-fear-university-inc.html
[21] Smith, “If you’ve ever experienced meanness.”
[22] Ibid.
[23] S. Saunders, and D. Kardia, “Creating inclusive college classrooms,” University of Michigan, n.p., (1997) http://crlt.umich.edu/gsis/p3_1
[24] Yale University Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning (YUPC), (n.d.), “Diversity and Inclusion.” https://poorvucenter.yale.edu/FacultyResources/Diversity-Inclusion
[25] K. McLaren, “The 6 essential aspects of empathy: A big-tent model of empathy that creates no exiles,” Psychology Today, (2024). https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/on-emotions-and-empathy/202406/the-6-essential-aspects-of-empathy
[26] M. McAlinden, “Can teachers know learners’ minds? Teacher empathy and learner body language in English language teaching,” In K. Dunworth & G. Zhang (Eds.), Critical Perspectives on Language Education, (Springer, 2014), 71-100.
[27] Van Bommel, “The power of empathy.“
[28] A. Mehrabian, “Silent messages,” Wadsworth, (1971).
[29] J. McCroskey, V. Richmond, and L. McCroskey, An Introduction to Communication in the Classroom: The Role of Communication in Teaching and Training, (Allyn & Bacon, 2006).
[30] I. Weiner, and W. Craighead, The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology, John Wiley & Sons, 2010.
[31] Faerm, Introduction to Design Education, 243.
[32] C.M., Steele, and J. Aronson, “Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), p: 797–811, (1995). as cited in
A. Greer, “Increasing inclusivity in the classroom,” Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching, (2014). https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/increasing-inclusivity-in-the-classroom/#why
[33] E. Fournier, (n.d.), “Reducing stereotype threat,” Washington University. https://ctl.wustl.edu/resources/reducing-stereotype-threat/
[34] Greer, “Increasing inclusivity in the classroom.”
[35] S. Stroessner, and C. Good, (n.d.), “Stereotype threat: An overview,” Reducing Stereotype Threat. https://www.reducingstereotypethreat.org/home
[36] Greer, “Increasing inclusivity in the classroom.”
[37] Ibid.
[38] G.L. Cohen, and D.K. Sherman, “The psychology of change: Self-affirmation and social psychological intervention,” Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 333–371, (2014).
[39] S. Safir, “Fostering identity safety in your classroom,” Edutopia, (2016). https://www.edutopia.org/blog/fostering-identity-safety-in-classroom-shane-safir
[40] J.J. Loughran, “Effective reflective practice: In search of meaning in learning about teaching,” Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33–43, (2002).
[41] P. Zwodiak-Myer, The Teacher’s Reflective Practice Handbook: Becoming an Extended Professional Through Capturing Evidence-Informed Practice, (Routledge, 2012).
[42] S. Brookfield, Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher (Jossey-Bass, 1995).
[43] P. Mathew, and P. Peechattu, “Reflective practices: A means to teacher development,” Asia Pacific Journal of Contemporary Education and Communication Technology, 3(1), p: 126–131, (2017).
[44] S. Brookfield, “Becoming a critically reflective teacher.”
[45] Ibid.
[46] Ibid., p. 94.
[47] B. Miller, “Brookfield’s four lenses: Becoming a critically reflective teacher,” Faculty of Arts Teaching and Learning Committee, The University of Sydney, (2010). https://valenciacollege.edu/faculty/development/courses-resources/documents/Brookfield_summary.pdf
[48] K. McLaren, “The 6 essential aspects of empathy: A big-tent model of empathy that creates no exiles,” Psychology Today, n.p. (2024). https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/on-emotions-and-empathy/202406/the-6-essential-aspects-of-empathy
[49] S. Brookfield, “Becoming a critically reflective teacher.”
[50] Ibid.
[51] Ibid.
[52] Ibid.
[53] L. Bartlett, “Teacher development through reflective teaching,” In J. C. Richards & D. Nunan (Eds.), Second Language Teacher Education (Cambridge University Press, 1990), 2002–2014.
[54] S. Brookfield, “Becoming a critically reflective teacher,” 7.
[55] Harvard University Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning. (n.d.). Inclusive teaching. https://bokcenter.harvard.edu/inclusive-teaching
[56] Breithaupt, F. The Dark Sides of Empathy (Cornell University Press, 2019).
By reflecting on our own autobiographies as teachers and learners, we can become conscious of the internal assumptions and instinctive reasonings that inform our teaching practices. [47] We consider the positive and negative formative experiences we had as students and how they influenced our pedagogical styles. For example, past positive experiences may guide what we seek to emulate while negative ones are those we want to avoid exhibiting. Examining teaching journals, peer and student feedback, personal goals and outcomes, and/or role model profiles are all part of this reflective process that deepens our empathy.
2. Considering Our Students’ Viewpoints
When we consider our students' experiences, concerns, difficulties, blockages, and views of our pedagogy, we can gain a deeper understanding of the cognitive and emotional challenges that they face during the learning process. By placing ourselves in their shoes, we can better understand students’ needs and wants from their points of view, not our own. This makes it quite evident how empathy (giving people what they need) and generosity (giving what you assume they might appreciate) differ from one another. [48] This process—which has been shown to offer the greatest long-term effect in evolving an educator’s pedagogy—is especially beneficial to those who have been teaching and/or in professional practice for so long that over time they forget their own experiences as students [49]
3. Engaging in Peer Mentorship
Obtaining guidance and feedback through mentorship allows us to reexamine our teaching methods via other perspectives that, in turn, can help us reframe, expand, and strengthen our pedagogy. The practice of mentorship can involve informal conversations, teaching observations, reviews of materials (e.g., syllabi or teaching philosophies), workshops, and similar opportunities that enable us to identify more clearly and examine more effectively past actions and events. Moreover, mentorship provides emotional support, a sense of connectedness, and the feeling that we are not alone in our challenges.
4. Reviewing Scholarly Literature
Research on higher education offers multiple, diverse viewpoints on specific topics. These resources can challenge our preconceptions and predispositions, provide fresh perspectives on familiar situations, help us "name" our experiences and practices, and make situational contexts clearer. [50] Akin to peer mentorship, these external sources could reveal that problems we may think are personal shortcomings or difficulties are actually caused by other variables, such as the structural or cultural conditions of the institution. This increased understanding, in turn, reduces the tendency to blame oneself, preserves emotional energy, and ultimately boosts our assurance and efficacy as educators. [51]
CRT, driven by a deeper understanding of our biases and assumptions, is essential for effective teaching. By employing the methods suggested, design educators can gain insight into their roles, cultivate empathy, and create more responsive and impactful learning environments. Without this self-awareness, even the best pedagogical skills may fall short in truly connecting with students.
Select Benefits of Critically Reflective Teaching
Critically Reflective Teaching delivers extensive benefits. Over time, as we become more aware and understanding of ourselves and our students—as we strengthen our empathy—the new information accumulates and is integrated into our prior knowledge. This arsenal of data can then be leveraged to achieve greater effectiveness in our roles as design educators. The use of CRT heightens feelings of confidence, autonomy, and motivation within us and thus improves the quality of our design pedagogy, students’ learning, the academic community, and the design school's value.
Other, more nuanced benefits emerge from CRT. They include (but are not limited to):
- We view teaching as an ongoing process of development and improvement. Many educators believe they must be the “perfect” teacher. However, CRT reminds us that our professional development is not finite; it is a never-ending process that can be likened to a Möbius strip. When we honestly and openly reflect on ourselves, this can lead us to fostering a work environment where we respect—and appreciate—one another's capacity for transformation. [52] Our students also gain exponential benefits because through this practice, we become better at communication, course content delivery, and teacher-student relationships.
- We feel greater intention and groundedness in our teaching practice. Rather than fate, serendipity, or even luck shaping our educational processes, CRT reveals and affirms the personal agency—and the responsibilities—we have as teachers. [53] By acting with intention, discovering deeper meaning in our work, and having purpose in all that we do, we can achieve greater fulfillment as more self-directed and empowered educators. [54] Furthermore, our capacity to articulate our pedagogical approaches and ultimate goals to students builds our credibility, which in turn fosters a culture of higher trust, understanding, and empathy in teacher-student relationships.
- We strengthen the institution and its community. A vital outcome of the reflective process is the illumination of hegemonic assumptions that are commonly embedded in schools’ culture to the point of remaining unnoticed and accepted as “The Way Things Are Done.” The purpose of reflective practice is to challenge these presumptions to discover alternate, improved methods that better address the goals, needs, and ambitions of our evolving design students as well as ourselves and our academic communities.
Yet, despite these and numerous other benefits, many teachers will feel reluctant to undertake the practice of Critically Reflective Teaching. After all, the process aims to disrupt the status quo, both internally as teachers and externally at an institutional level. In particular, it fundamentally asks us to deconstruct our ways of knowing and being in the world. Consequently, this process can produce tumultuous feelings of loss, confusion, and general ambiguity about the worth and value of our teaching and of ourselves. However, by adopting the methods and systems of CRT, we may reap many remarkable benefits with our teaching practices and on a larger scale for the community, including the development of a deeper body of knowledge into the epistemology of teaching practice—potentially through academic textbooks, scientific papers, and academic journals—that will serve to strengthen future design educators, institutions, and industries.
Conclusion
All advocacy is, at its core, an exercise in empathy.
– Samantha Power, government official and journalist
If we want equitable and just design classrooms, the process must start with empathy. The establishment of inclusive learning environments—places where all students feel supported creatively and intellectually through mutual expressions of empathy—is fundamental to students’ wellbeing and to ensuring every student is given equal opportunities to succeed. To accomplish this objective, the ways in which we embody our roles and, indeed, the very manner in how we practice our pedagogy, must evolve. Design pedagogy must be conceptualized as an emotional practice (not one that is merely content based) whereby educators, through empathy, are better equipped to challenge their biases and what they “know” of their students. Ultimately, it is only by establishing common ground and close, meaningful relationships with students that we can truly grasp the contexts and complexities of each student’s circumstances. This understanding, in turn, helps us more effectively position and focus our teaching methods.
This significant enhancement to our roles will positively transform the diverse communities that extend well beyond our campus boundaries: as educators, we model behaviors, habits, and actions for our formative students, young adults who will graduate and embody the values and traits we instilled in them during their education as they succeed in the global design industries. By gaining the skill of empathy (that was modelled by their faculty), design students strengthen their observational and problem-solving skills, create more inclusive design, acquire better communication skills, form dynamic design collaborations, and make stronger emotional connections—all of which promote more meaningful, impactful, and user-centered designs. Empathy also stimulates ethical considerations: by understanding the consequences of their work, students/professionals can design in ways that positively impact society and avoid harm.
A more equitable and just design Academy is remarkably dependent upon the ongoing development of empathy within us—namely, by gaining a fuller awareness of empathetic practices, the impact of emotional affect on cognition, the techniques for developing empathetic and inclusive learning environments, the practicing of Critically Reflective Teaching, and the other select strategies described in this article. Incorporating these and additional pedagogical methods in design education will help educators develop practices that actively support students’ feelings of psychological safety, belonging, and inclusivity in design classrooms so they may, in turn, flourish personally, academically, and professionally.
Notes: Empathy Cultivating Just Environments
[1] A. H. Maslow, “A theory of human motivation,” Psychological Review, 50 (4), 370-96, (1943).
[2] S. Faerm, Introduction to Design Education: Theory, Research, and Practical Applications for Educators (Routledge, 2023), 243.
[3] H. Tavanger, “Creating an inclusive classroom,” Edutopia, (2017). https://www.edutopia.org/article/creating-inclusive-classroom
[4]A. Smith, “If you’ve ever experienced meanness at work, here’s what to do,” Forbes, (2023). https://www.forbes.com/sites/annkowalsmith/2023/10/12/if-youve-ever-experienced-meanness-at-work-heres-what-to-do/?sh=65baac8569b5
M. McAlinden, “Can teachers know learners’ minds? Teacher empathy and learner body language in English language teaching,” In K. Dunworth & G. Zhang (Eds.), Critical Perspectives on Language Education (Springer, 2014), 71-100.
[5] A. Smith, “If you’ve ever experienced meanness at work, here’s what to do,” Forbes, (2023).
[6] Ibid.
D. Pink, A Whole New Mind: Why Right-brainers Will Rule the Future (Riverhead Books 2005).
[7] T. Van Bommel, “The power of empathy in times of crisis and beyond,” Catalyst, (2021). https://www.catalyst.org/reports/empathy-work-strategy-crisis/
[8] G. Jahoda, “Theodor Lipps and the shift from sympathy to empathy,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 41(2), p: 151–163, (2005).
D. Pink, A Whole New Mind, 165.
[9] K. Rogers, I. Dziobek, J. Hassenstab, O. Wolf, and A. Convit, “Who cares? Revisiting empathy in Asperger syndrome,” Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(4), p: 709–715, (2007).
[10] P. Kanske, A. Böckler, F. Trautwein, F. Parianen Lesemann, and T. Singer, “Are strong empathizers better mentalizers? Evidence for independence and interaction between the routes of social cognition,” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11 (9), p: 1383–92, (2016).
[11] W. Roberts, and J. Strayer, “Empathy, emotional expressiveness, and prosocial behavior,” Child Development, 67(2), p: 449–470, (1996).
M.L. Hoffman, Empathy and Moral Development, (Cambridge University Press, 2000).
W. Ringwald and A. Wright, “The affiliative role of empathy in everyday interpersonal interactions,” European Journal of Personality, 35(2), 197–211, (2021).
[12] D. Grühn, K. Rebucal, M. Diehl, M. Lumley, and G. Labouvie-Vief, “Empathy across the adult lifespan: Longitudinal and experience-sampling findings,” Emotion, 8(6), 753–765, p. 10, (2008). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2669929/pdf/nihms101335.pdf
[13] E. Seppälä, “Social connection boosts health. Even when you’re isolated,” (2020). https://emmaseppala.com/connect-to-thrive-social-connection-improves-health-well-being-longevity/
[14] S. Turkle, Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age (Penguin, 2015).
[15] T. Van Bommel, “The power of empathy in times of crisis and beyond,” Catalyst, (2021). https://www.catalyst.org/reports/empathy-work-strategy-crisis/
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Smith, “If you’ve ever experienced meanness.”
[19] B. Parmar, “The most empathetic companies,” Harvard Business Review, (2016). https://hbr.org/2016/12/the-most-and-least-empathetic-companies-2016
[20] F. deBoer, “Why we should fear university, inc.,” The New York Times, (2015, September 9). https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/magazine/why-we-should-fear-university-inc.html
[21] Smith, “If you’ve ever experienced meanness.”
[22] Ibid.
[23] S. Saunders, and D. Kardia, “Creating inclusive college classrooms,” University of Michigan, n.p., (1997) http://crlt.umich.edu/gsis/p3_1
[24] Yale University Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning (YUPC), (n.d.), “Diversity and Inclusion.” https://poorvucenter.yale.edu/FacultyResources/Diversity-Inclusion
[25] K. McLaren, “The 6 essential aspects of empathy: A big-tent model of empathy that creates no exiles,” Psychology Today, (2024). https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/on-emotions-and-empathy/202406/the-6-essential-aspects-of-empathy
[26] M. McAlinden, “Can teachers know learners’ minds? Teacher empathy and learner body language in English language teaching,” In K. Dunworth & G. Zhang (Eds.), Critical Perspectives on Language Education, (Springer, 2014), 71-100.
[27] Van Bommel, “The power of empathy.“
[28] A. Mehrabian, “Silent messages,” Wadsworth, (1971).
[29] J. McCroskey, V. Richmond, and L. McCroskey, An Introduction to Communication in the Classroom: The Role of Communication in Teaching and Training, (Allyn & Bacon, 2006).
[30] I. Weiner, and W. Craighead, The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology, John Wiley & Sons, 2010.
[31] Faerm, Introduction to Design Education, 243.
[32] C.M., Steele, and J. Aronson, “Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), p: 797–811, (1995). as cited in
A. Greer, “Increasing inclusivity in the classroom,” Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching, (2014). https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/increasing-inclusivity-in-the-classroom/#why
[33] E. Fournier, (n.d.), “Reducing stereotype threat,” Washington University. https://ctl.wustl.edu/resources/reducing-stereotype-threat/
[34] Greer, “Increasing inclusivity in the classroom.”
[35] S. Stroessner, and C. Good, (n.d.), “Stereotype threat: An overview,” Reducing Stereotype Threat. https://www.reducingstereotypethreat.org/home
[36] Greer, “Increasing inclusivity in the classroom.”
[37] Ibid.
[38] G.L. Cohen, and D.K. Sherman, “The psychology of change: Self-affirmation and social psychological intervention,” Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 333–371, (2014).
[39] S. Safir, “Fostering identity safety in your classroom,” Edutopia, (2016). https://www.edutopia.org/blog/fostering-identity-safety-in-classroom-shane-safir
[40] J.J. Loughran, “Effective reflective practice: In search of meaning in learning about teaching,” Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33–43, (2002).
[41] P. Zwodiak-Myer, The Teacher’s Reflective Practice Handbook: Becoming an Extended Professional Through Capturing Evidence-Informed Practice, (Routledge, 2012).
[42] S. Brookfield, Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher (Jossey-Bass, 1995).
[43] P. Mathew, and P. Peechattu, “Reflective practices: A means to teacher development,” Asia Pacific Journal of Contemporary Education and Communication Technology, 3(1), p: 126–131, (2017).
[44] S. Brookfield, “Becoming a critically reflective teacher.”
[45] Ibid.
[46] Ibid., p. 94.
[47] B. Miller, “Brookfield’s four lenses: Becoming a critically reflective teacher,” Faculty of Arts Teaching and Learning Committee, The University of Sydney, (2010). https://valenciacollege.edu/faculty/development/courses-resources/documents/Brookfield_summary.pdf
[48] K. McLaren, “The 6 essential aspects of empathy: A big-tent model of empathy that creates no exiles,” Psychology Today, n.p. (2024). https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/on-emotions-and-empathy/202406/the-6-essential-aspects-of-empathy
[49] S. Brookfield, “Becoming a critically reflective teacher.”
[50] Ibid.
[51] Ibid.
[52] Ibid.
[53] L. Bartlett, “Teacher development through reflective teaching,” In J. C. Richards & D. Nunan (Eds.), Second Language Teacher Education (Cambridge University Press, 1990), 2002–2014.
[54] S. Brookfield, “Becoming a critically reflective teacher,” 7.
[55] Harvard University Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning. (n.d.). Inclusive teaching. https://bokcenter.harvard.edu/inclusive-teaching
[56] Breithaupt, F. The Dark Sides of Empathy (Cornell University Press, 2019).


Carolina Obregón is an Assistant Professor at Parsons School of Design teaching Sustainable Systems and Systems & Society in the undergraduate program and Entrepreneurship at the graduate level. Before beginning her academic career, she worked in the international fashion industry for over 15 years. In 2014, she implemented the first undergraduate program in Sustainable Fashion & Management in Latin America at Jorge Tadeo Lozano University in Colombia. She was also an Assistant Professor at Universidad de los Andes, where her teaching and research focused on biodesign, biofashion, sustainable fashion, and textiles. Carolina is part of two startups: NanoFreeze, a patented bionanotechnology refrigeration system, and E.biodye, a bacteria-based textile dye.
Giovanna Danies, Ph.D. in Plant Pathology from Cornell University, is an Associate Professor at Universidad de los Andes. Her research and practice center on biodesign with an interdisciplinary approach to education. She has led award-winning student projects and co-founded two bio-based sustainable startups: NanoFreeze and E.biodye. In 2019, she received the L'Oréal-UNESCO Women in Science Award in Colombia.
The industrial model in fashion has led to mass production, harming social and environmental ecosystems in the pursuit of economic gain. [1] Textile dyeing alone is responsible for approximately 20% of global freshwater pollution, significantly impacting aquatic ecosystems by releasing heavy metals such as lead, mercury, chromium, cadmium, and copper, among other contaminants. [2] In this context, fashion is reimagined through living organisms that function as co-designers. A prime example of this co-design process is E.biodye, which maximizes water efficiency by enabling reuse throughout the dye production cycle, drastically reducing water waste. [3] In addition, the bacterial dye eliminates toxic waste by preventing the release of heavy metals or harmful byproducts, and it is biodegradable, ensuring that water bodies and soils remain uncontaminated. This approach to the fashion system transforms materials into dynamic resources where quality, color, and form evolve in real time as they grow.
Sustainable systems and Biodesign offer a future-focused approach to addressing sustainability in fashion and design. Biodesign is “a new discipline that integrates biological processes with design to create sustainable and innovative solutions. It goes beyond biomimicry by actively incorporating living organisms into design, fostering a symbiotic relationship between nature and technology.” [4] As the term "sustainability" has evolved into a marketing buzzword, its true meaning has become diluted, with brands redefining its denomination to suit their purposes. Teaching Biodesign and BioFashion enables students to explore tangible, science-driven solutions to sustainability challenges. Students can rethink fashion production beyond traditional methods by working with living organisms and developing new materials. This approach shifts the focus from mere marketing to creating high-performance, functional, and genuinely sustainable innovations. Integrating these concepts into education fosters critical thinking, creativity, and adaptability, equipping students to lead in a rapidly changing industry.
Sustainable systems and Biodesign offer a future-focused approach to addressing sustainability in fashion and design. Biodesign is “a new discipline that integrates biological processes with design to create sustainable and innovative solutions. It goes beyond biomimicry by actively incorporating living organisms into design, fostering a symbiotic relationship between nature and technology.” [4] As the term "sustainability" has evolved into a marketing buzzword, its true meaning has become diluted, with brands redefining its denomination to suit their purposes. Teaching Biodesign and BioFashion enables students to explore tangible, science-driven solutions to sustainability challenges. Students can rethink fashion production beyond traditional methods by working with living organisms and developing new materials. This approach shifts the focus from mere marketing to creating high-performance, functional, and genuinely sustainable innovations. Integrating these concepts into education fosters critical thinking, creativity, and adaptability, equipping students to lead in a rapidly changing industry.
These teaching notes are designed to guide instructors through a BioFashion course, outlining practical strategies for delivering content, facilitating discussions, and encouraging student engagement. The course integrates biology, design, and sustainability, fostering a system- and critical-thinking mindset. A portfolio of materials was built throughout the course, and through practical exercises and the formulation of a final project, BioFashion product was developed.
The BioFashion course explores the intersection of fashion and biology, emphasizing the role of living organisms as co-designers in the fashion ecosystem. Students engage in hands-on experimentation with materials derived from microfungi, bacterial cellulose, and organic waste, culminating in creating a BioFashion product.
The objectives and outcomes of this course focus on fostering critical thinking, collaboration, and innovation in the context of design and sustainability. Emphasizing the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration, students learn how to integrate biological concepts into their design processes. They are also introduced to sustainability tools through case studies and practical applications, such as life-cycle assessment and systems thinking. Furthermore, discussions explore how biological processes can inform material innovation in fashion, encouraging students to think creatively and challenge traditional fashion paradigms. The course guides students in developing functional and aesthetically appealing materials with a strong focus on practical applications. Ultimately, students can translate their theoretical knowledge into tangible outcomes, showcasing their work through well curated portfolios.
Course Structure
BioFashion is based on learning through theoretical knowledge, which is applied in home laboratories, university facilities, FabLab’s, or community labs. This space proposes recognizing the meaning of the knowledge available in each context to be appropriated through discussion and practice.
The course spans 16 weeks and is structured around a learning process of exploration, creation, implementation, and presentation, which has proven to be a dynamic and novel approach to combining theoretical knowledge with hands-on practice. The course has allowed students to explore unexpected domains within the fashion industry while learning key practical and conceptual skills by integrating a systemic approach to fashion design, Biodesign, and biological materials. Below is a reflection on how this course has been implemented and the resulting outcomes.
The initial weeks focus on research and exploration, where students are introduced to the theoretical background of BioFashion as they begin cultivating biological materials, such as fungi, bacteria, bacterial cellulose, and bioplastics derived primarily from agricultural or food waste. Group discussions and guest lectures from experts such as Suzanne Lee, who coined the term Biocouture, Juan P. Hinestroza, Rebecca Q. Morgan ’60 Professor of Fiber Science & Apparel Design at Cornell University, and Johann Osma, Associate Professor in Electrical and Electronic Engineering at Universidad de los Andes, provide a solid foundation for students to think critically about the intersection of biology, design, fashion, and technology. Guest speakers are particularly beneficial, offering students exposure to industry experts and diverse perspectives on biodesign and sustainable fashion, ultimately broadening their interdisciplinary knowledge and critical thinking skills.
This phase encourages students to engage in in-depth discussions about biological materials, incorporating scientific protocols and experimental methodologies to create bio-based materials. Students' understanding of materials extends beyond environmental, social, and ethical impacts, including scalability, durability, and real-world applications.
Students develop an understanding of the sciences through research grounded in scientific literature, examining principles from green chemistry, biomaterial engineering, and biotechnology. They explore resources from disciplines beyond fashion and design, such as material science, synthetic biology, and environmental sustainability, to gain a holistic perspective on Biodesign.
A case study we discussed in class is Sauria. This speculative design project addresses ethical and environmental issues in Colombia’s reptile skin trade, which is linked to illegal hunting and habitat destruction. Sauria’s use of lab-grown reptile skin reduces animal exploitation by replacing traditional sourcing with in vitro production. This biodesign process minimizes reptile harm and mitigates environmental damage caused by conventional practices. While the project supports conservation goals and promotes ethical luxury markets, it faces scalability challenges due to high production costs and the need for regulatory support for lab-grown alternatives. Despite these hurdles, Sauria is an essential example of how speculative design can drive material innovation toward more sustainable and ethical practices in the luxury goods market.
Course Overview
The BioFashion course explores the intersection of fashion and biology, emphasizing the role of living organisms as co-designers in the fashion ecosystem. Students engage in hands-on experimentation with materials derived from microfungi, bacterial cellulose, and organic waste, culminating in creating a BioFashion product.
The objectives and outcomes of this course focus on fostering critical thinking, collaboration, and innovation in the context of design and sustainability. Emphasizing the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration, students learn how to integrate biological concepts into their design processes. They are also introduced to sustainability tools through case studies and practical applications, such as life-cycle assessment and systems thinking. Furthermore, discussions explore how biological processes can inform material innovation in fashion, encouraging students to think creatively and challenge traditional fashion paradigms. The course guides students in developing functional and aesthetically appealing materials with a strong focus on practical applications. Ultimately, students can translate their theoretical knowledge into tangible outcomes, showcasing their work through well curated portfolios.
Course Structure
BioFashion is based on learning through theoretical knowledge, which is applied in home laboratories, university facilities, FabLab’s, or community labs. This space proposes recognizing the meaning of the knowledge available in each context to be appropriated through discussion and practice.
The course spans 16 weeks and is structured around a learning process of exploration, creation, implementation, and presentation, which has proven to be a dynamic and novel approach to combining theoretical knowledge with hands-on practice. The course has allowed students to explore unexpected domains within the fashion industry while learning key practical and conceptual skills by integrating a systemic approach to fashion design, Biodesign, and biological materials. Below is a reflection on how this course has been implemented and the resulting outcomes.
Exploration Phase (Weeks 1-2): Laying the Foundation
The initial weeks focus on research and exploration, where students are introduced to the theoretical background of BioFashion as they begin cultivating biological materials, such as fungi, bacteria, bacterial cellulose, and bioplastics derived primarily from agricultural or food waste. Group discussions and guest lectures from experts such as Suzanne Lee, who coined the term Biocouture, Juan P. Hinestroza, Rebecca Q. Morgan ’60 Professor of Fiber Science & Apparel Design at Cornell University, and Johann Osma, Associate Professor in Electrical and Electronic Engineering at Universidad de los Andes, provide a solid foundation for students to think critically about the intersection of biology, design, fashion, and technology. Guest speakers are particularly beneficial, offering students exposure to industry experts and diverse perspectives on biodesign and sustainable fashion, ultimately broadening their interdisciplinary knowledge and critical thinking skills.
This phase encourages students to engage in in-depth discussions about biological materials, incorporating scientific protocols and experimental methodologies to create bio-based materials. Students' understanding of materials extends beyond environmental, social, and ethical impacts, including scalability, durability, and real-world applications.
Students develop an understanding of the sciences through research grounded in scientific literature, examining principles from green chemistry, biomaterial engineering, and biotechnology. They explore resources from disciplines beyond fashion and design, such as material science, synthetic biology, and environmental sustainability, to gain a holistic perspective on Biodesign.
A case study we discussed in class is Sauria. This speculative design project addresses ethical and environmental issues in Colombia’s reptile skin trade, which is linked to illegal hunting and habitat destruction. Sauria’s use of lab-grown reptile skin reduces animal exploitation by replacing traditional sourcing with in vitro production. This biodesign process minimizes reptile harm and mitigates environmental damage caused by conventional practices. While the project supports conservation goals and promotes ethical luxury markets, it faces scalability challenges due to high production costs and the need for regulatory support for lab-grown alternatives. Despite these hurdles, Sauria is an essential example of how speculative design can drive material innovation toward more sustainable and ethical practices in the luxury goods market.
“Students do not simply work with pre-existing materials; instead, they become the supply chain, responsible for developing their biomaterials.”
Another case study is Woocoa, an innovative vegan wool alternative made from a blend of Cannabis sativa and coconut fibers. [5] Woocoa showcases the potential of Biodesign to transform waste into sustainable, eco-friendly materials. Addressing fiber roughness with a Lacasse enzyme derived from oyster mushrooms mimics the softness and qualities of traditional wool, providing a cruelty-free and environmentally ethical option. The project also highlights Colombia’s biodiversity by repurposing cannabis industry waste, creating economic opportunities in rural areas that have historically relied on illicit marijuana cultivation. However, Woocoa faces scalability challenges, such as expanding local cannabis fiber processing infrastructure and overcoming market resistance to new fibers. Despite these obstacles, Woocoa offers a promising solution to reduce the environmental impact of wool production while supporting local economies. Woocoa significantly outperforms conventional cotton in sustainability, using only a third of the land and requiring far less water while avoiding the need for pesticides and insecticides.
“This interdisciplinary methodology—merging design with biology, chemistry, and material science—helps students develop a more holistic and unconventional approach to fashion and material development.”
By the end of this phase, students will be immersed in the sciences and systems-thinking approach, understanding the potential and limitations of biological materials in fashion. This learning process follows a scaffolding focus, beginning with the Double Diamond approach developed by The Design Council (The Double Diamond - Design Council, n.d.). This methodology guides students through four key stages as The Design Council provides a visual representation of the Double Diamond model:
By structuring their learning through this iterative process, students develop a deeper conceptual and practical understanding of biological materials in fashion and gain critical thinking skills essential for innovation. Besides, they become more familiar with the broad scope of Biodesign, equipping them with the necessary knowledge to proceed into the more experimental and applied phases of the course.
The next phase immerses students in practical experimentation within the lab, offering the opportunity to engage in hands-on research aimed at developing biological materials for fashion. Students begin by mastering essential scientific protocols, such as sterile technique, culture preparation, and aseptic transfer, ensuring that their experiments remain free from contamination. With these foundational skills, they conduct controlled experiments involving bacteria inoculation, microfungi cultivation, and bacterial cellulose growth. Through these processes, students gain technical proficiency and foster a deeper understanding of the intersection between biology and material innovation, laying the groundwork for sustainable, cutting-edge solutions in fashion design.
Furthermore, students explore bioplastic synthesis, examining methods to create biodegradable polymers from agricultural waste, starch-based compounds, gelatin, and alginate-based materials. Through this process, they document material properties, degradation rates, and potential applications within sustainable fashion. The lab workshops emphasize meticulous documentation following microbiology standards, such as observation logs, growth tracking, and step-by-step procedural recording, ensuring reproducibility and accuracy in results. These sessions reinforced the importance of scientific literacy, structured methodologies, and analytical thinking—all essential components of any design process involving living organisms. By integrating scientific rigor with creative exploration, students develop a deeper understanding of how biological materials behave and evolve, setting the foundation for their next phase of prototyping and material application in BioFashion design.
Students encounter breakthroughs and challenges in their biological material growth processes through experimentation. This experience underscores the importance of iteration when designing with living organisms, as successful outcomes require extensive preparation, controlled conditions, and continuous refinement. Students also learn the necessity of patience, as biological materials grow and develop at varying rates, and experiments may fail due to contamination, temperature fluctuations, inadequate light exposure, or the unavailability of essential nutrients and reagents.
As they progress in Biodesign, students adapt and refine their methodologies in response to unexpected results—an essential skill when working with organic materials that exhibit unpredictable behaviors. Through this iterative process, they develop a deeper appreciation for the resilience, adaptability, and problem-solving mindset required in Biodesign, reinforcing their ability to navigate scientific experimentation and biomaterial innovation challenges.
Weeks 5 and 6 focus on market analysis and the life cycle of biological products. Case study discussions allow students to analyze successful examples of Biodesign, bridging theoretical knowledge with practical applications. A life cycle mapping exercise encourages students to collaboratively trace biomaterials' environmental and social impacts from sourcing to end-of-life, fostering a deeper understanding of sustainability within the broader context of design and production.
Students explore successful market biomaterials, examining their potential and limitations. For instance, Piñatex, which utilizes discarded pineapple skins as raw material, originates from organic waste but still incorporates synthetic components in its final structure. [6] Similarly, Desserto, a cactus-based leather alternative, integrates synthetic backing to enhance durability. [7] Other examples include MycoTex, which harnesses mycelium (fungal root structures) to create seamless, biodegradable textiles without cutting and sewing, reducing material waste. [8] Bolt Threads developed Mylo, a lab-grown mycelium leather alternative, and Microsilk, a bioengineered spider silk designed for durability and sustainability. [9] AlgiKnit, now known as Keel Labs, focuses on kelp-based bio-yarns, offering a biodegradable and renewable fiber alternative for fashion and textiles. Meanwhile, Colorifix uses DNA sequencing and engineered microorganisms to develop sustainable dyeing techniques, replacing traditional chemical dyes with biopigments that significantly reduce water and energy consumption. [10]
Through these case studies, students critically assess the advantages and trade-offs of biomaterials, gaining a nuanced perspective on their real-world applications, challenges, and potential for circularity within the fashion industry. This phase provides students with a deeper understanding of market dynamics, emphasizing the increasing demand for sustainable fashion and the crucial role that biological materials play in meeting this demand. By evaluating the viability of their designs within the context of sustainability, students can refine their concepts, ensuring they are both novel and feasible. This analytical approach helps lay the groundwork for the next phase, where they transition from research to hands-on creation and material experimentation.
During weeks 7 and 8, students focus on developing and curating their portfolios. The portfolio workshops guide students in organizing and presenting their work effectively, while peer review sessions encourage constructive critique and collaborative refinement. This stage is essential in helping students reflect on their progress and strategize how to showcase their projects best.
A pivotal moment in this phase is the interdisciplinary critique session, where students present their work to a panel of designers, architects, biologists, microbiologists, and chemical engineers. This session offers invaluable insights into transforming a working prototype into a viable startup or scalable innovation. The interdisciplinary critique is particularly impactful as students are exposed to diverse perspectives beyond aesthetics, evaluating their projects based on feasibility, functionality, and real-world application.
The peer feedback sessions further enrich this process, allowing students to see their designs through the lens of others and make critical adjustments. Beyond refining their projects, these sessions underscore the importance of effective communication in design, helping students sharpen their presentation, storytelling, and strategic thinking skills in preparation for the final showcase.
The creation phase marks a significant turning point, as students apply the skills and knowledge accumulated in previous stages to develop their BioFashion portfolios and product prototypes. This phase follows the Double Diamond design process, which structures the development of their projects through four key stages. First, in the identification phase, students explore various applications of biological materials within the fashion ecosystem, analyzing state-of-the-art concepts and protocols relevant to their areas of interest. Next comes the creation phase, where opportunities are transformed into tangible ideas with the potential to evolve into fully realized design proposals. Students assess feasibility and begin prototyping their materials at this stage. The implementation phase follows, involving intensive prototyping, where value propositions are defined and ideas materialized into functional design prototypes.
Finally, in the presentation phase, the design proposal is finalized and conceived as a product that can be replicated through a well-documented protocol, culminating in the final showcase. The design thinking approach encourages iteration and refinement, helping students approach their work with an open and flexible mindset. Regular mentorship meetings are crucial in this phase, providing tailored guidance and troubleshooting support to address specific challenges.
One of the course's greatest strengths is the creative freedom given to students during this phase. This autonomy empowers them to experiment with new ideas, materials, and techniques without fearing failure. The iterative nature of the design thinking methodology ensures that students continuously refine their creations based on feedback, hands-on experimentation, and personal reflection, reinforcing the adaptability and resilience needed for innovation in BioFashion.
The final phase of the course is dedicated to refining prototypes and preparing for the final presentation of BioFashion pieces. Prototyping sessions give students the time to experiment, iterate, and perfect their designs, while structured guidance on presentation techniques helps them communicate the story behind their creations effectively.
While students are adept at presenting their ideas from a design perspective, delivering within a BioFashion and Biodesign framework requires a different approach. They must articulate their concepts using scientific language, explaining biological processes that are previously unfamiliar to them. This includes detailing the specific biological mechanisms, scientific methodologies, and material behaviors that inform their work. In addition, they need to justify the value of BioFashion—demonstrating its aesthetic appeal, conceptual innovation, and potential to challenge conventional materials that might be cheaper and easier to mass produce.
One example of this approach is the Brideology project, which introduces a biodegradable wedding dress made from corn starch, gelatin, and dandelion fibers. The project challenges the traditional idea of wedding attire by focusing on sustainability and biodegradability, offering an alternative to the wastefulness often associated with the bridal and fashion industries. By adopting circular design principles, Brideology seeks to minimize the environmental impact of its creations. However, the project faces challenges, such as preserving the bio-dress under specific conditions (e.g., avoiding high temperatures) and scaling production while maintaining the dress’s durability and performance. Nevertheless, Brideology is a powerful example of how BioFashion can push the boundaries by integrating groundbreaking materials.
- Discover – Students explore foundational knowledge on how design and biology intersect, examining scientific principles, material behaviors, and biofabrication techniques.
- Define – They analyze and frame the problem within a local or global context, identifying affected stakeholders, including human and non-human entities, and considering ecological and ethical implications.
- Develop – This phase focuses on experimentation, where students assess which biotechnologies can be integrated into their design process. They engage with biologists and material scientists to support their work, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration.
- Deliver – Depending on the project's progress, students either present a low-fidelity prototype as a proof of concept or, if their research and experimentation are sufficiently advanced, develop a high-fidelity solution that can be tested or further iterated upon.
By structuring their learning through this iterative process, students develop a deeper conceptual and practical understanding of biological materials in fashion and gain critical thinking skills essential for innovation. Besides, they become more familiar with the broad scope of Biodesign, equipping them with the necessary knowledge to proceed into the more experimental and applied phases of the course.
Research and Experimentation (Weeks 3-4): Developing Skills and Documentation
The next phase immerses students in practical experimentation within the lab, offering the opportunity to engage in hands-on research aimed at developing biological materials for fashion. Students begin by mastering essential scientific protocols, such as sterile technique, culture preparation, and aseptic transfer, ensuring that their experiments remain free from contamination. With these foundational skills, they conduct controlled experiments involving bacteria inoculation, microfungi cultivation, and bacterial cellulose growth. Through these processes, students gain technical proficiency and foster a deeper understanding of the intersection between biology and material innovation, laying the groundwork for sustainable, cutting-edge solutions in fashion design.
Furthermore, students explore bioplastic synthesis, examining methods to create biodegradable polymers from agricultural waste, starch-based compounds, gelatin, and alginate-based materials. Through this process, they document material properties, degradation rates, and potential applications within sustainable fashion. The lab workshops emphasize meticulous documentation following microbiology standards, such as observation logs, growth tracking, and step-by-step procedural recording, ensuring reproducibility and accuracy in results. These sessions reinforced the importance of scientific literacy, structured methodologies, and analytical thinking—all essential components of any design process involving living organisms. By integrating scientific rigor with creative exploration, students develop a deeper understanding of how biological materials behave and evolve, setting the foundation for their next phase of prototyping and material application in BioFashion design.
Students encounter breakthroughs and challenges in their biological material growth processes through experimentation. This experience underscores the importance of iteration when designing with living organisms, as successful outcomes require extensive preparation, controlled conditions, and continuous refinement. Students also learn the necessity of patience, as biological materials grow and develop at varying rates, and experiments may fail due to contamination, temperature fluctuations, inadequate light exposure, or the unavailability of essential nutrients and reagents.
As they progress in Biodesign, students adapt and refine their methodologies in response to unexpected results—an essential skill when working with organic materials that exhibit unpredictable behaviors. Through this iterative process, they develop a deeper appreciation for the resilience, adaptability, and problem-solving mindset required in Biodesign, reinforcing their ability to navigate scientific experimentation and biomaterial innovation challenges.
Market Analysis (Weeks 5-6): Understanding the Industry Context
Weeks 5 and 6 focus on market analysis and the life cycle of biological products. Case study discussions allow students to analyze successful examples of Biodesign, bridging theoretical knowledge with practical applications. A life cycle mapping exercise encourages students to collaboratively trace biomaterials' environmental and social impacts from sourcing to end-of-life, fostering a deeper understanding of sustainability within the broader context of design and production.
Students explore successful market biomaterials, examining their potential and limitations. For instance, Piñatex, which utilizes discarded pineapple skins as raw material, originates from organic waste but still incorporates synthetic components in its final structure. [6] Similarly, Desserto, a cactus-based leather alternative, integrates synthetic backing to enhance durability. [7] Other examples include MycoTex, which harnesses mycelium (fungal root structures) to create seamless, biodegradable textiles without cutting and sewing, reducing material waste. [8] Bolt Threads developed Mylo, a lab-grown mycelium leather alternative, and Microsilk, a bioengineered spider silk designed for durability and sustainability. [9] AlgiKnit, now known as Keel Labs, focuses on kelp-based bio-yarns, offering a biodegradable and renewable fiber alternative for fashion and textiles. Meanwhile, Colorifix uses DNA sequencing and engineered microorganisms to develop sustainable dyeing techniques, replacing traditional chemical dyes with biopigments that significantly reduce water and energy consumption. [10]
Through these case studies, students critically assess the advantages and trade-offs of biomaterials, gaining a nuanced perspective on their real-world applications, challenges, and potential for circularity within the fashion industry. This phase provides students with a deeper understanding of market dynamics, emphasizing the increasing demand for sustainable fashion and the crucial role that biological materials play in meeting this demand. By evaluating the viability of their designs within the context of sustainability, students can refine their concepts, ensuring they are both novel and feasible. This analytical approach helps lay the groundwork for the next phase, where they transition from research to hands-on creation and material experimentation.
Portfolio Development (Weeks 7-8): Reflecting and Curating Work
During weeks 7 and 8, students focus on developing and curating their portfolios. The portfolio workshops guide students in organizing and presenting their work effectively, while peer review sessions encourage constructive critique and collaborative refinement. This stage is essential in helping students reflect on their progress and strategize how to showcase their projects best.
A pivotal moment in this phase is the interdisciplinary critique session, where students present their work to a panel of designers, architects, biologists, microbiologists, and chemical engineers. This session offers invaluable insights into transforming a working prototype into a viable startup or scalable innovation. The interdisciplinary critique is particularly impactful as students are exposed to diverse perspectives beyond aesthetics, evaluating their projects based on feasibility, functionality, and real-world application.
The peer feedback sessions further enrich this process, allowing students to see their designs through the lens of others and make critical adjustments. Beyond refining their projects, these sessions underscore the importance of effective communication in design, helping students sharpen their presentation, storytelling, and strategic thinking skills in preparation for the final showcase.
Creation Phase (Weeks 9-13): Turning Ideas into Reality
The creation phase marks a significant turning point, as students apply the skills and knowledge accumulated in previous stages to develop their BioFashion portfolios and product prototypes. This phase follows the Double Diamond design process, which structures the development of their projects through four key stages. First, in the identification phase, students explore various applications of biological materials within the fashion ecosystem, analyzing state-of-the-art concepts and protocols relevant to their areas of interest. Next comes the creation phase, where opportunities are transformed into tangible ideas with the potential to evolve into fully realized design proposals. Students assess feasibility and begin prototyping their materials at this stage. The implementation phase follows, involving intensive prototyping, where value propositions are defined and ideas materialized into functional design prototypes.
Finally, in the presentation phase, the design proposal is finalized and conceived as a product that can be replicated through a well-documented protocol, culminating in the final showcase. The design thinking approach encourages iteration and refinement, helping students approach their work with an open and flexible mindset. Regular mentorship meetings are crucial in this phase, providing tailored guidance and troubleshooting support to address specific challenges.
One of the course's greatest strengths is the creative freedom given to students during this phase. This autonomy empowers them to experiment with new ideas, materials, and techniques without fearing failure. The iterative nature of the design thinking methodology ensures that students continuously refine their creations based on feedback, hands-on experimentation, and personal reflection, reinforcing the adaptability and resilience needed for innovation in BioFashion.
Finalization and Presentation (Weeks 14-16): Bringing Ideas to Life
The final phase of the course is dedicated to refining prototypes and preparing for the final presentation of BioFashion pieces. Prototyping sessions give students the time to experiment, iterate, and perfect their designs, while structured guidance on presentation techniques helps them communicate the story behind their creations effectively.
While students are adept at presenting their ideas from a design perspective, delivering within a BioFashion and Biodesign framework requires a different approach. They must articulate their concepts using scientific language, explaining biological processes that are previously unfamiliar to them. This includes detailing the specific biological mechanisms, scientific methodologies, and material behaviors that inform their work. In addition, they need to justify the value of BioFashion—demonstrating its aesthetic appeal, conceptual innovation, and potential to challenge conventional materials that might be cheaper and easier to mass produce.
One example of this approach is the Brideology project, which introduces a biodegradable wedding dress made from corn starch, gelatin, and dandelion fibers. The project challenges the traditional idea of wedding attire by focusing on sustainability and biodegradability, offering an alternative to the wastefulness often associated with the bridal and fashion industries. By adopting circular design principles, Brideology seeks to minimize the environmental impact of its creations. However, the project faces challenges, such as preserving the bio-dress under specific conditions (e.g., avoiding high temperatures) and scaling production while maintaining the dress’s durability and performance. Nevertheless, Brideology is a powerful example of how BioFashion can push the boundaries by integrating groundbreaking materials.
The final showcase event is a pivotal moment where students present their work to peers, faculty, and industry professionals. This is not only an opportunity to exhibit their creations but also a chance to receive valuable feedback from a broader audience with diverse expertise. Following the showcase, a reflective session encourages students to discuss their experiences, challenges, and key takeaways from the course. This phase is instrumental in helping them consolidate their learning, evaluate the effectiveness of their designs, and refine their critical thinking and problem-solving skills.
Throughout the semester, students cultivate an advanced understanding of scientific and design principles, enabling them to navigate the interdisciplinary challenges of BioFashion. This elevates their ability to articulate and defend their work, as their prototypes are evaluated for their aesthetic composition and the scientific protocols and biotechnological processes used in their creation. The final stage of the course highlights the importance of merging creativity with scientific rigor, reinforcing BioFashion’s potential as a field that bridges design, sustainability, and biotechnology.
The BioFashion course provides students with a comprehensive learning experience, blending theory, experimentation, and practical application. By the end of the course, students gain hands-on experience working with biological materials, develop a deeper understanding of sustainability in fashion, and refine their design and presentation skills. They also became more adept at adapting to challenges and embracing the iterative nature of the design process, learning that failure and refinement are essential aspects of working with living systems and bio-based materials.
This teaching approach fosters technical expertise and encourages critical thinking, collaboration, and a more profound commitment to sustainability in terms of material selection and the entire creation lifecycle. Students do not simply work with pre-existing materials; instead, they become the supply chain, responsible for developing their biomaterials. This unique experience allows them to understand and assess material development’s environmental, ethical, and systemic impacts, engaging with sustainability at a deeper level than traditional design education typically offers.
Moreover, the course emphasizes scientific rigor, requiring students to follow precise scientific protocols, monitor measurements, temperature, and material composition, and allow biological processes to shape their outcomes. This interdisciplinary methodology—merging design with biology, chemistry, and material science—helps students develop a more holistic and unconventional approach to fashion and material development.
As a result, students leave the course with a profound understanding of the potential of Biodesign and a portfolio showcasing their ability to turn experimental ideas into tangible, cutting-edge creations. More than just technical proficiency, they gain the ability to think systemically, experiment fearlessly, and contribute meaningfully to the future of sustainable fashion and material innovation. The BioFashion course expands their design capabilities and equips them with the vision and adaptability needed to drive meaningful change in the fashion industry.
Throughout the semester, students cultivate an advanced understanding of scientific and design principles, enabling them to navigate the interdisciplinary challenges of BioFashion. This elevates their ability to articulate and defend their work, as their prototypes are evaluated for their aesthetic composition and the scientific protocols and biotechnological processes used in their creation. The final stage of the course highlights the importance of merging creativity with scientific rigor, reinforcing BioFashion’s potential as a field that bridges design, sustainability, and biotechnology.
Outcomes and Conclusion
The BioFashion course provides students with a comprehensive learning experience, blending theory, experimentation, and practical application. By the end of the course, students gain hands-on experience working with biological materials, develop a deeper understanding of sustainability in fashion, and refine their design and presentation skills. They also became more adept at adapting to challenges and embracing the iterative nature of the design process, learning that failure and refinement are essential aspects of working with living systems and bio-based materials.
This teaching approach fosters technical expertise and encourages critical thinking, collaboration, and a more profound commitment to sustainability in terms of material selection and the entire creation lifecycle. Students do not simply work with pre-existing materials; instead, they become the supply chain, responsible for developing their biomaterials. This unique experience allows them to understand and assess material development’s environmental, ethical, and systemic impacts, engaging with sustainability at a deeper level than traditional design education typically offers.
Moreover, the course emphasizes scientific rigor, requiring students to follow precise scientific protocols, monitor measurements, temperature, and material composition, and allow biological processes to shape their outcomes. This interdisciplinary methodology—merging design with biology, chemistry, and material science—helps students develop a more holistic and unconventional approach to fashion and material development.
As a result, students leave the course with a profound understanding of the potential of Biodesign and a portfolio showcasing their ability to turn experimental ideas into tangible, cutting-edge creations. More than just technical proficiency, they gain the ability to think systemically, experiment fearlessly, and contribute meaningfully to the future of sustainable fashion and material innovation. The BioFashion course expands their design capabilities and equips them with the vision and adaptability needed to drive meaningful change in the fashion industry.
Notes: BioFashion
[1] Kate Fletcher, and Mathilda Tham, Fashion Action Research Plan (2019).
[2] Kirsi Niinimäki., Greg Peters, Helena Dahlbo, Patsy Perry, Timo Rissanen, and Alison Gwilt, “The environmental price of fast fashion,” Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 1, (2020): 189–200.
[3] E.biodye. (n.d.). Mysite. https://www.ebiodye.com (Retrieved March 12, 2025).
[4] William Myers, “BIODESIGN: Nature + Science + Creativity,” Thames & Hudson (2012).
[5] Katherine Sullivan, “Meet Woocoa—A New “Wool” Made from Coconuts and Other Plants,” PETA, (2018). https://www.peta.org/blog/peta-cosponsors-global-biodesign-challenge-help-discover-vegan-wool/
[6] C. Dela Cruz, “Piñatex: Sustainable leather alternative made from pineapple leaf fibers,” Ananas Anam, (2016). https://www.ananas-anam.com/
[7] DESSERTO, (n.d.) (Retrieved March 12, 2025). https://desserto.com.mx/home
[8] MYCOTEX by NEFFA | HOME. (n.d.), (Retrieved March 12, 2025). https://neffa.nl
[9] Bolt | Material Innovation for Sustainable Beauty, Bolt, (2015). https://boltthreads.com/
[10] Colorifix, (n.d.), (Retrieved March 12, 2025). https://www.colorifix.com/

Caroline Stevenson is Interim Director of the Centre for Fashion Curation and Programme Director for Cultural and Historical Studies at London College of Fashion, University of the Arts London. A curator and writer, she works across the fields of fashion and contemporary art with an emphasis on collaborative and critical methods of practice.
This essay is concerned with the location of theory in practice-based fashion education. It contributes to a growing recognition of the productive relationship between theory and practice in fashion more broadly and the opportunities that this affords us, as educators, to develop critical fashion pedagogies with transformative actions in the real world. Through this essay, I share some ideas for micro interventions in the form of workshops. These workshops, although small in scope, aim to reconcile the gap between theory and practice, and also question the relationship between authority and language in fashion knowledge.
I write from the position of a fashion educator responsible for the design and implementation of a theory program across the entire institution in which I work, from undergraduate to postgraduate. Based in the UK, this particular institution is one of the only colleges in the world dedicated entirely to the teaching of fashion in an art school context. The theory program that I lead emerged in the early 2000s from the British tradition of Cultural Studies. In more recent years, however, our department has come to identify more with the interdisciplinary field of Fashion Studies that draws equally from anthropology, sociology, cultural studies, linguistics, philosophy, and now, increasingly, from practice-based research.
Elke Gaugele and Monica Titton identify this particular moment in fashion research as a “paradigm shift” where theory and practice have merged into an expanded field of critical knowledge. [1] This has happened through the expansion of practice-based PhDs within fashion, but also because of departments like ours which have developed a particular approach to understanding and teaching fashion theory within an art and design context. This paradigm shift has been escalated also through pressure from a new generation of students demanding a radical upheaval of the fashion system itself: a direct result of renewed concern over an industry that has pervasively relied on the outdated and exploitative modes of industrial production, steeped in histories of colonialism and rooted in the hegemonic order of global capitalism. These demands have called for a re-thinking of fashion theory which has been complicit in reproducing and maintaining a particular idea of fashion as a product of Western society, where the fashion norm has been created by European models of production. In fact, as Gaugele points out, the origins of fashion theory and its ways of thinking come from categorizations of Western colonial knowledge which prioritize a center or a mainstream and excludes everything else as tradition, myth, or even craft or costume. In our case, while the political concerns of British Cultural Studies have provided a very useful framework to work through many of these issues, we have had to quickly consider how we approach the teaching of fashion as a practice and not just an object of theoretical study. In other words, our work now is to demonstrate that fashion practice itself is the impetus for transformative action in the real world.
On a macro level, this has entailed an entire re-thinking of our curriculum and its delivery, which we have done, and continue to do. It has also called for a re-thinking of how we position theory within our institution, not only to foreground practice, but also to reflect the complexity of fashion as a visual and social indicator of this political moment in time. On a smaller scale, through everyday pedagogical interventions, we have also moved more closely into the realm of fashion practice, creating situations and opportunities to inspire thought with action. In the following paragraphs, I outline one such intervention in the form of a workshop that I developed together with designer and researcher Ruby Hoette as part of our collaborative practice. [2]
I write from the position of a fashion educator responsible for the design and implementation of a theory program across the entire institution in which I work, from undergraduate to postgraduate. Based in the UK, this particular institution is one of the only colleges in the world dedicated entirely to the teaching of fashion in an art school context. The theory program that I lead emerged in the early 2000s from the British tradition of Cultural Studies. In more recent years, however, our department has come to identify more with the interdisciplinary field of Fashion Studies that draws equally from anthropology, sociology, cultural studies, linguistics, philosophy, and now, increasingly, from practice-based research.
Elke Gaugele and Monica Titton identify this particular moment in fashion research as a “paradigm shift” where theory and practice have merged into an expanded field of critical knowledge. [1] This has happened through the expansion of practice-based PhDs within fashion, but also because of departments like ours which have developed a particular approach to understanding and teaching fashion theory within an art and design context. This paradigm shift has been escalated also through pressure from a new generation of students demanding a radical upheaval of the fashion system itself: a direct result of renewed concern over an industry that has pervasively relied on the outdated and exploitative modes of industrial production, steeped in histories of colonialism and rooted in the hegemonic order of global capitalism. These demands have called for a re-thinking of fashion theory which has been complicit in reproducing and maintaining a particular idea of fashion as a product of Western society, where the fashion norm has been created by European models of production. In fact, as Gaugele points out, the origins of fashion theory and its ways of thinking come from categorizations of Western colonial knowledge which prioritize a center or a mainstream and excludes everything else as tradition, myth, or even craft or costume. In our case, while the political concerns of British Cultural Studies have provided a very useful framework to work through many of these issues, we have had to quickly consider how we approach the teaching of fashion as a practice and not just an object of theoretical study. In other words, our work now is to demonstrate that fashion practice itself is the impetus for transformative action in the real world.
On a macro level, this has entailed an entire re-thinking of our curriculum and its delivery, which we have done, and continue to do. It has also called for a re-thinking of how we position theory within our institution, not only to foreground practice, but also to reflect the complexity of fashion as a visual and social indicator of this political moment in time. On a smaller scale, through everyday pedagogical interventions, we have also moved more closely into the realm of fashion practice, creating situations and opportunities to inspire thought with action. In the following paragraphs, I outline one such intervention in the form of a workshop that I developed together with designer and researcher Ruby Hoette as part of our collaborative practice. [2]

The workshop begins with sets of photocopied pages from fashion theory texts—from foundational books such as The Fashion System, The Empire of Fashion, The Fashioned Body, Seeing Through Clothes, Thinking through Fashion, Fashion, a Philosophy, and so on. The books are not photocopied in full; rather, we select random pages. Students are invited to choose several of the pages and to read through them.
We discuss how it feels to read theory ‘out of context,’ and how these pages represent a history of bigger ideas that help us to understand the meaning of fashion. We also discuss the poetics of theory, looking at how ideas are formed through language and different modes of composition.
We encourage the students to look again at their photocopies, this time to search for small ideas that resonate with them. These can be single words, full sentences, paragraphs, or even chapter titles. We ask them to use the texts to construct their own ideas about fashion, using the language of theory like they would a material to make something completely new. They are provided with scissors, masking tape, Post-its, highlighters, pencils, glue, staplers, and other tools to help them cut up, collage, and re-configure the photocopies into their own essays.
We discuss how it feels to read theory ‘out of context,’ and how these pages represent a history of bigger ideas that help us to understand the meaning of fashion. We also discuss the poetics of theory, looking at how ideas are formed through language and different modes of composition.
We encourage the students to look again at their photocopies, this time to search for small ideas that resonate with them. These can be single words, full sentences, paragraphs, or even chapter titles. We ask them to use the texts to construct their own ideas about fashion, using the language of theory like they would a material to make something completely new. They are provided with scissors, masking tape, Post-its, highlighters, pencils, glue, staplers, and other tools to help them cut up, collage, and re-configure the photocopies into their own essays.
“The new paradigm of critical fashion practice calls equally for a reconciliation between practice and theory, but also for new frameworks that validate practice as a legitimate mode of inquiry, beyond the existing normative structures that generate and circulate knowledge.”
The results are always visual and poetic, reflective of the weight of theoretical writing but also experimental and inventive. At the end of the workshop, we look at the essays together and discuss how it feels to—quite literally—cut up theory into scraps and shreds of ideas. The resounding response is usually that it feels liberating, but also that it helps us think about our own positionality in relation to theory. For most students, it is an opportunity to insert themselves into the discourse of fashion and to raise questions about its thinking: what do we need to know about fashion and what is considered valid knowledge? How does the structure of language shape knowledge and what does it leave out?
I will deliver a similar workshop in a few months’ time. This time, I’m going to ask the students to do something slightly different. The premise will stay the same, but I’m going to photocopy pages from two books: The Shape of a Pocket by John Berger, and “Hospital Underlife,” one chapter of Erving Goffman’s book Asylums: Essays on the Social Situations of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. Both texts discuss pockets in the context of resistance. Berger writes conceptually about resistance as pockets of people coming together. Goffman writes explicitly about pockets as living containers to hold personal items, especially when the expression of individual identity is under threat.
I will deliver a similar workshop in a few months’ time. This time, I’m going to ask the students to do something slightly different. The premise will stay the same, but I’m going to photocopy pages from two books: The Shape of a Pocket by John Berger, and “Hospital Underlife,” one chapter of Erving Goffman’s book Asylums: Essays on the Social Situations of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. Both texts discuss pockets in the context of resistance. Berger writes conceptually about resistance as pockets of people coming together. Goffman writes explicitly about pockets as living containers to hold personal items, especially when the expression of individual identity is under threat.

As a starting point, I will ask the students to scan the pockets in their own clothing. The scans can be small details or the entire pocket. They should spend time doing this, considering the spatial qualities of their pockets, as well as their function and material construction. They will print out their scans and use them as a basis for their essays. As before, we will discuss the theoretical texts and students will be invited to cut them up and reconfigure them into new essays. In this workshop, however, students will be encouraged to work together in pairs and groups to create their own pockets of resistance.
The aim of these workshops is not to suggest that theory is meaningless, nor to reinforce the difficulty of its language. Instead, the aim is to consider how and where fashion knowledge is made and to validate it as a collective, disruptive and participatory activity. In Irit Rogoff’s words, these workshops are a “shift away from a model that says that the manifest of culture must yield up some latent values and intentions through endless processes of investigation and uncovering.” [3] In the gap between theory and practice there is great pressure to apply theory to practice, to demystify or expose fashion as a set of existing cultural meanings. As Rogoff points out, this assumes that meaning is always imminent, that it resides within the structures of fashion and can be uncovered through theoretical analysis, or as Anne Hollander suggests, our ability to “see through clothes.” [4] Teaching cultural analysis in this way does produce valuable critical thought; however, it doesn’t allow us to engage with the real and performative nature of culture where meaning is made—and re-made—in the here and how. [5] Importantly—and in the context of the paradigm shift in fashion knowledge—we need to understand how to “inhabit problems” and open them up by asking questions rather than tying them down into existing categorizations of thought. [6]
In this sense, the workshop interventions I outline here aim to open up new modes of thinking with theory, through the idea of praxis. The workshop format provides a space where ideas can be practiced and fashion knowledge can be produced through thinking, making, and doing. By examining the poetics of theoretical language and encouraging students to use these to express their own thoughts, it also foregrounds the “affect of experience,” which can’t be completely captured through cognition alone. [7] This includes the memories, feelings, and the relationality of our lived experiences with clothes. Or, as Irit Rogoff writes: it is a “mode of embodiment, a state from which one cannot exit or gain a critical distance…” [8]
It is also my aim, through these workshops, to consider how the practice of theory might actually take us to a place of productive unknowing. Unknowing, in the sense that Emily Ogden describes here:
“Can a person go back to the unpruned adjectives of immediate experience? Before one summed up this moment in history, what, exactly, was it? What, lying under the summary – what, before the predator’s eye confounded itself – what was it, what does it continue to be? When I talk about unknowing, I am not talking about the refusal to know what can be known, or about the simple accident of not having found something out yet, nor even, although this is warmer, about the fact that we will each absorb only a finite amount of knowledge in the course of our finite lives. Instead I am talking about a capacity to hold the position of not knowing yet – possibly of not knowing ever.” [9]
In the context of education, Dennis Atkinson talks about disrupting the normative frameworks of understanding through a pedagogy of the unknown “when the symbolic order is punctured, [or] a shattering of boundaries when our practices or representation are severely disrupted by something that happens.” [10] This is not only through shattering or slicing through frameworks of established theoretical thought but also through moments where we, as educators, enter into spaces of unknowing with our students. In these moments, we can disrupt hierarchies of knowledge and also those structures that regulate the practices of teaching and learning. We can learn to lean into uncertainty so that rather than working through a process of pre-ordained commitments, we can act in the moment, as urgencies arise and possibilities present themselves. Leaning into the unknown is, after all, at the heart of any creative practice.
Returning to Gaugele and Titton’s “paradigm shift,” the authors argue that, in this moment, “fashion knowledge has been renegotiated, especially from the angle of reconfiguring the interrelations of theory and practice…[into a] theoretically reflexive form of fashion practice.” [11] The new paradigm of critical fashion practice calls equally for a reconciliation between practice and theory, but also for new frameworks that validate practice as a legitimate mode of inquiry, beyond the existing normative structures that generate and circulate knowledge. As these workshops suggest, this means collectively leaning into the unknown—looking for the slippages and silences that characterise our relationship with fashion—but also unpicking the authority of language in relation to knowing and thinking. In Rosalind Krauss’s words, “a withdrawal into those extremely personal reaches of experience which are beyond, or beneath speech.” [12]
The aim of these workshops is not to suggest that theory is meaningless, nor to reinforce the difficulty of its language. Instead, the aim is to consider how and where fashion knowledge is made and to validate it as a collective, disruptive and participatory activity. In Irit Rogoff’s words, these workshops are a “shift away from a model that says that the manifest of culture must yield up some latent values and intentions through endless processes of investigation and uncovering.” [3] In the gap between theory and practice there is great pressure to apply theory to practice, to demystify or expose fashion as a set of existing cultural meanings. As Rogoff points out, this assumes that meaning is always imminent, that it resides within the structures of fashion and can be uncovered through theoretical analysis, or as Anne Hollander suggests, our ability to “see through clothes.” [4] Teaching cultural analysis in this way does produce valuable critical thought; however, it doesn’t allow us to engage with the real and performative nature of culture where meaning is made—and re-made—in the here and how. [5] Importantly—and in the context of the paradigm shift in fashion knowledge—we need to understand how to “inhabit problems” and open them up by asking questions rather than tying them down into existing categorizations of thought. [6]
In this sense, the workshop interventions I outline here aim to open up new modes of thinking with theory, through the idea of praxis. The workshop format provides a space where ideas can be practiced and fashion knowledge can be produced through thinking, making, and doing. By examining the poetics of theoretical language and encouraging students to use these to express their own thoughts, it also foregrounds the “affect of experience,” which can’t be completely captured through cognition alone. [7] This includes the memories, feelings, and the relationality of our lived experiences with clothes. Or, as Irit Rogoff writes: it is a “mode of embodiment, a state from which one cannot exit or gain a critical distance…” [8]
It is also my aim, through these workshops, to consider how the practice of theory might actually take us to a place of productive unknowing. Unknowing, in the sense that Emily Ogden describes here:
“Can a person go back to the unpruned adjectives of immediate experience? Before one summed up this moment in history, what, exactly, was it? What, lying under the summary – what, before the predator’s eye confounded itself – what was it, what does it continue to be? When I talk about unknowing, I am not talking about the refusal to know what can be known, or about the simple accident of not having found something out yet, nor even, although this is warmer, about the fact that we will each absorb only a finite amount of knowledge in the course of our finite lives. Instead I am talking about a capacity to hold the position of not knowing yet – possibly of not knowing ever.” [9]
In the context of education, Dennis Atkinson talks about disrupting the normative frameworks of understanding through a pedagogy of the unknown “when the symbolic order is punctured, [or] a shattering of boundaries when our practices or representation are severely disrupted by something that happens.” [10] This is not only through shattering or slicing through frameworks of established theoretical thought but also through moments where we, as educators, enter into spaces of unknowing with our students. In these moments, we can disrupt hierarchies of knowledge and also those structures that regulate the practices of teaching and learning. We can learn to lean into uncertainty so that rather than working through a process of pre-ordained commitments, we can act in the moment, as urgencies arise and possibilities present themselves. Leaning into the unknown is, after all, at the heart of any creative practice.
Returning to Gaugele and Titton’s “paradigm shift,” the authors argue that, in this moment, “fashion knowledge has been renegotiated, especially from the angle of reconfiguring the interrelations of theory and practice…[into a] theoretically reflexive form of fashion practice.” [11] The new paradigm of critical fashion practice calls equally for a reconciliation between practice and theory, but also for new frameworks that validate practice as a legitimate mode of inquiry, beyond the existing normative structures that generate and circulate knowledge. As these workshops suggest, this means collectively leaning into the unknown—looking for the slippages and silences that characterise our relationship with fashion—but also unpicking the authority of language in relation to knowing and thinking. In Rosalind Krauss’s words, “a withdrawal into those extremely personal reaches of experience which are beyond, or beneath speech.” [12]
Notes: Cuts, Shreds, Remains, Scraps
[1] Gaugele, E. & Titton, M. (2022) Fashion Knowledge: Theories, Methods, Practices and Politics. London: Intellect.
[2] For a further iteration of this workshop see Hoette, R. (2023) “Text as Material” in Garder, L. & Mohajer va Pesaran, M. (eds.) Radical Fashion Exercises: A Workbook of Modes and Methods. Amsterdam: Valiz
[3] Rogoff, I. (2006) Smuggling: An Embodied Criticality available at chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://eipcp.net/dlfiles/rogoff-smuggling/attachment_download/rogoff-smuggling.pdf, Accessed 31/10/2024. p.1
[4] Hollander, A. (1993) Seeing Through Clothes (illustrated version). California: University of California Press.
[5] Rogoff, I. (2006).
[6] Ibid.
[7] Atkinson, D. (2013) “Pedagogy of the Not Known” in Fortnum, R. & Fisher, E. (eds) On Not Knowing: How Artists Think. London: Black Dog Publishing.
[8] Rogoff, I. (2006), p. 2.
[9] Ogden, E. (2022) On Not Knowing: How to Love and other Essays. London: Peninsula Press. p. 6
[10] Atkinson, D. (2013) p. 140
[11] Gaugele, E. & Titton, M. (2022) p. 2
[12] Krauss, R. (1999) Batchelors. Massachusetts: MIT Press. p. 92


David Hopwood is Programme Director: Product at London College of Fashion, UAL. A graduate of the Royal College of Art in MA Fashion Womenswear, David has a solid and continuing developing knowledge of the fashion industry both in the UK and Europe. David has worked in several different design and production roles as well as special projects with brands, artists and magazines.
Lilia is a UK-based Singaporean designer, researcher, and educator whose work bridgesfashion, tradition, and critical pedagogy. With expertise in sustainable practice and globaldesign histories, they teach at London College of Fashion, UAL, exploring dress as culturalknowledge through conscious, embodied methods and empathetic approaches to fashion education.
A full PDF version of this visual essay is available here.
EMPATHY AS DISRUPTION
“Committed acts of caring let all students know that the purpose of education is not to dominate, or prepare them to be dominators, but rather to create the conditions for freedom. Caring educators open the mind, allowing students to embrace a world of knowing that is always subject to change and challenge."
-hooks, b., 2003
HELLO and welcome
We are Lilia and David, and we teach on the BA (Hons) Fashion Design and Development (FDD) course at London College of Fashion, UAL.
We have 350+ students around the world, and we work with around 15-18 students/groups.
On FDD, we recognize the challenges facing the global fashion industry and encourage our students to re-think current industry practices through innovation, technology and future-thinking. Our students learn to develop their own individualized practice-led approaches that engage directly with real-world issues; designing solutions and product with empathy, critical thinking, and sustainable methodologies.
WE LOVE PEOPLE
As educators we are conscious of our own experiences as designers and students.
We teach, create, and learn with and through empathy, embedding it within our pedagogical practices.
In this article, we reflect on how we build empathy within fashion education:
- through the sharing of our positionalities
- being transparent about our experiences and vulnerabilities
- acknowledging the structures within the fashion industry
- embracing a world that is subject to change and challenge
Through empathic listening, we work to actively diffuse the power imbalances inherent within student and tutor relationships, building trust in a holistic manner.
Using student examples from BA Fashion Design and Development (FDD), we suggest ways in which empathy-led teaching pedagogies create space for students to define fashion for themselves, leading to innovative, diverse, and inclusive bodies of work that demonstrate student agency and visions of what fashion could be.
EMPATHY AS DISRUPTION from a FDD perspective
thinking about boundaries/ sharing
empathy can:
- Enable us as educators to always break away from students being passive receivers of information, but we can utilize the knowledge our empathetic observations have given us.
- Dismantle power - not just teacher and students but our power with others in the world and outside the classroom
- Give insights to help us develop how we teach unit content and create resources
- Aid us in how we develop our course curriculum and scaffold our students’ learning journeys to enable students to engage with their learning and self-development
- Create confidence in being curious and not being afraid to fail
empathy can’t:
- Be underestimated. Working with the students and being present can lead to fatigue and so it is important to build boundaries with how you work with your students.
- Be the only working method. Empathy works as disruption in how it is used alongside critical thinking and sustainable methodologies.
- Suit everybody. It is important to recognize ways people can build empathy into their teaching practice.
EMPATHY AND SYSTEMS THINKING
"Fashion design education itself has been a small self-referential niche within the whole system. This isolation is possibly coming to an end, given the acknowledged impact of fashion on global economies and society, and the need for it to engage, as for all other sections, in supporting a consistent transition of our world towards more sustainable paradigms." Bertola, P. (2018)
We have been exploring the space outside of the binary lines of the fashion education system.
Transforming and reshaping how we teach, so we move away from passive knowledge–focused teaching, "feeding an enduring demand in prospective students, who are usually fascinated by fashion for its media and social impact, driven by individualism and not pragmatically informed by the professional context of designing and developing real products in a dramatically changing world." Betola, P. (2018)
The fashion industry is formed of multiple systems intersecting and interacting with each other, and in fashion education it is vital that we find ways to break down these systems so students are exposed to the industry within academic spaces.
Using the curriculum to design a student + staff learning journey has enabled us to put systems in place to:
SCAFFOLD
- The learning journey for staff and students.
- Doing this enables us to create unit teams that bring their knowledge + skills to the unit.
- We plan together as a team finding ways to scaffold the transition between year groups.
- See the units as products which have their own identities but also align with the other units in how we build in knowledge and skill delivery.
FIND SPACE to REACT, ADAPT + be AGILE
- For our students
- In embedding industry into the course curriculum
- In finding space between the units for staff and students to reset
USE EMPATHY to ENABLE STUDENTS
- To actively listen
- To explore collaboration and ways of working across the school and college
- To develop skills, agency, and confidence
As a team we have worked together to co-develop strategies for:
MUTUAL TRUST + CO-CREATION
This has taken time for us to develop as a team.
We are a large team of 10 permanent staff and 6 hourly paid lecturers.
Everyone has different schedules, so finding time in the working week to meet as unit teams and the FDD team is challenging.
When developing ways of creating and working as a team it is necessary to recognize how everyone receives and retains information. Context and transparency are key to this.
We've done a lot of work on confidence building within the team to bring out each other’s potential and understanding of empathy in education.
As a course team we've developed systems that allow us to play with our curriculum—how we teach and create spaces for ourselves and our students to be curious and explore in safe environments.
"On the one hand, decolonization involves dismantling structures that perpetuate the colonialist status quo and addressing unbalanced power dynamics...
For everyone, to decolonize means to learn about ourselves, our places of origin, and our relationships to the communities in which we live and the people with whom we interact." S. Covington (2024)

Decolonizing with empathy when applied within teaching is not simply about what we teach but how we teach.
The teacher-student power imbalance is the first structure we have sought to reconstruct. This is not an equalizing but an opening.
Being open to the fluid nature of power dynamics in this relationship, recognizing how we affect each other, and being conscious of the impact of our words and actions.
In this framework, both tutor and student are ready to learn more about themselves and each other and recognize where we have and lack power.
"Power" in this context is transformed from a concept of domination and authority over another to a source of personal agency.
We discuss this framework in action below.
EMPATHY - in action on FDD

We will present some student examples from a snapshot of our units across the three years of FDD below. The three units chosen are excellent examples of the work we have done on the FDD curriculum and student/staff learning journey. This is evident in the student outputs and engagement with the unit.
“Through empathic listening, we work to actively diffuse the power imbalances inherent within student and tutor relationships, building trust in a holistic manner.”
In 2022/23, we redesigned FDD through the reapproval process. We were re-writing units, learning outcomes, assessment criteria, using this opportunity to create space within our units for our students to explore their identities and for us to bring our own educational and industry experiences to FDD.
We have a diverse student population in FDD and we were seeing some beautiful personal responses to the units, but we felt we needed to step off the binary lines the course followed and reimagine the course with the following aims:
To use our empathy to understand our experiences, allowing us to recognize and learn from our own vulnerabilities and how we can employ these in how we teach.
Intro to FDD was the first unit we could test from the new course handbook.
This is the first unit we deliver and is the first chance for us to create trust with our new students.
This unit introduces the students to us as a course and as their tutors. We have developed sessions where students co-create; working on their zines and through conversation, we ask them to explore their chosen garment through different lenses.
We ask them to find ways to understand their chosen garment through different research methods and how they document these in their zines.
"The empowerment cannot happen if we refuse to be vulnerable whilst encouraging students to take risks. Professors who expect students to share confessional narratives but who themselves are unwilling to share are exercising power in a manner that could be coercive." hooks, b. (1994)
We have a diverse student population in FDD and we were seeing some beautiful personal responses to the units, but we felt we needed to step off the binary lines the course followed and reimagine the course with the following aims:
- To play with those "traditions" that are present in a lot of undergraduate courses within the UK.
- To identify and address where each unit did not challenge the students to engage or to show their own personal evolution as they progressed through the course.
- To question where we were not giving them the tools or opportunities to be exposed to different ways to create, make, present their work and themselves with meaning.
- To start in year 1 day 1 instilling the ethos of being "industry-ready" and to stand apart from their peers in a crowded graduate job market.
To use our empathy to understand our experiences, allowing us to recognize and learn from our own vulnerabilities and how we can employ these in how we teach.
Intro to FDD was the first unit we could test from the new course handbook.
This is the first unit we deliver and is the first chance for us to create trust with our new students.
This unit introduces the students to us as a course and as their tutors. We have developed sessions where students co-create; working on their zines and through conversation, we ask them to explore their chosen garment through different lenses.
We ask them to find ways to understand their chosen garment through different research methods and how they document these in their zines.
EMPATHY TO CREATE TRUST
"The empowerment cannot happen if we refuse to be vulnerable whilst encouraging students to take risks. Professors who expect students to share confessional narratives but who themselves are unwilling to share are exercising power in a manner that could be coercive." hooks, b. (1994)

EMPATHY TO CREATE TRUST
Breaking from bias (empathy to create trust)
On FDD the first unit our students work on is Intro to FDD. This is their first unit, the first time they work with us and their peers in a new space and city.
We recognize we are asking a lot of our students in choosing their garment, bringing it to class, in turn opening themselves up to their own and others’ opinions, assumptions, and biases.
We ask that they have a personal connection to the garment they choose. We do this as we see it as a way for them to enter the teaching space with a garment that they trust.
In this 7-week unit, through a series of lectures and workshops, they work together in peer groups researching, examining, and understanding their own relationship to their chosen garment.
Students engage in a variety of "playful" ways in how they research and start to build their own knowledge and insights.
As educators our intention is to start the process of our students finding their own way with how they approach research, how they use it to learn to break from bias, and to create work that shows their creative personality and their empathy to how they present their findings.
Our students create a digital 'zine,’ and two pages from Ethan's zine have been presented here.
Ethan used this as a way to understand himself—to understand not only his reasons for choosing this garment but also to acknowledge how his garment is perceived by others within society and by him.
His chosen garment is worn by so many different people, it has an obvious function but what really captured Ethan was the meaning different communities place on the garment.
How something practical can signal to someone else who you are.
Ethan used his research, his self reflection, to recognize the bias this garment has—how through his own lived experiences wearing the garment he was able to understand how other people reacted to him. He explored his relationship with himself and his garment, giving him an understanding of codes of wear and his positionality.
Our work on this unit involves how we employ empathy as a form of understanding our positionally through a chosen garment. The bell hooks quote on the previous page highlights that this is not a one-way street.
"Professors who expect students to share confessional narratives but who themselves are unwilling to share are exercising power in a manner that could be coercive." hooks, b. (1994)
In developing the way we deliver this unit we also present our chosen garments to the students, using this as a way to develop mutual trust with the students.
We give the students the freedom of choice about how they present their zines, the types of research they decide to do into their chosen garment.
We do structure the delivery of the unit, recognizing that the ways we explore how we might research and apply this knowledge could be overwhelming.
We use systems thinking in how we scaffold the delivery of content, breaking down the "process" so students can start to embed this into their own practice.

EMPATHY AS AWARENESS
Disrupting hierarchies of power (empathy as awareness)
On FDD, we use sustainable supply chain design as a means of questioning hierarchies of power. Students take a systems approach to design, questioning the role of the designer and their relationship with people, material, and nature.
As part of their fashion brand concept development, students are asked to design a sustainable supply chain that reflects their ethos and values, reimagining more equitable relationships between:
Designer – nature
Designer – people they work with / impact upon
Designer - material
At the heart of this exercise is the recognition that designers are part of a complex ecosystem. The ability to empathize with not just people but all the resources that feed into this system allows designers to imagine ways of manufacturing that aim to have positive social and economic impacts.
In this example, Clara explores the idea of localism, which Fletcher and Klepp describe as a process that subordinates economic decisions to communities and nature. It is typically small-scale, characterized by self-reliance, practices shaped by traditions, necessity, climate, and a distributed form of authority, leadership, and political power. (Fletcher and Grimstad Klepp, 2018)
Within this context, supply chain and design decisions are shaped by a region’s natural factors and by what is intriguing and vibrant in a place to ensure its long-term prosperity.
Whereas the forces of globalization act centrifugally, moving away from the distinction of a specific ecosystem or place, Fletcher and Klepp see localism as a centripetal movement, concentrating economic and political power inside communities.
In the process of designing sustainable supply chains, students thus explore the possibilities of a "decentralised textile and clothing system reflecting ecological conditions, changed economic priorities, community empowerment, heterogeneous products, local stories, myriad dress practices, and fewer goods." (Fletcher and Grimstad Klepp, 2018).


Challenging fashion norms
In the 2022 Fashion Inclusivity and Diversity UK Report, Tamara Sender Ceron writes;
"There have been big strides made by fashion retailers and brands over the last few years to become more inclusive and diverse, but more still needs to be done to embrace consumers of all sizes, ages, ethnicities, body abilities, genders and sexualities. Amid a cost-of-living crisis, understanding the struggles that these under-represented consumers face when buying fashion is key for brands to increase their appeal among these groups and drive spending."
On FDD, we create spaces to listen.
We acknowledge our own lack and stay open to learning. Allowing for a diversity of voices to be heard.
We challenge the myth of the "star" designer, a common narrative that continues to obscure the reality that fashion is created by the plural not the singular.
We encourage students to connect with their body, their consumer, their community. To observe, empathize and learn about their needs.
We recognize that becoming aware of one's positionality can create vulnerability, but the process of unpacking these complex intersections brings with it a renewed sense of creative agency.
In the 2022 Fashion Inclusivity and Diversity UK Report, Tamara Sender Ceron writes;
"There have been big strides made by fashion retailers and brands over the last few years to become more inclusive and diverse, but more still needs to be done to embrace consumers of all sizes, ages, ethnicities, body abilities, genders and sexualities. Amid a cost-of-living crisis, understanding the struggles that these under-represented consumers face when buying fashion is key for brands to increase their appeal among these groups and drive spending."
On FDD, we create spaces to listen.
We acknowledge our own lack and stay open to learning. Allowing for a diversity of voices to be heard.
We challenge the myth of the "star" designer, a common narrative that continues to obscure the reality that fashion is created by the plural not the singular.
We encourage students to connect with their body, their consumer, their community. To observe, empathize and learn about their needs.
We recognize that becoming aware of one's positionality can create vulnerability, but the process of unpacking these complex intersections brings with it a renewed sense of creative agency.

In her final year, Jade created an inclusive womenswear brand that celebrated her culture and personality.
The clothes were designed to fit herself and the women that make up her consumer and community—friends and work colleagues. These women became part of the design process, and their feedback on size, fit, print types, and ways of dressing were incorporated into the collection design.
The Madras print, which is a traditional cloth used in the French West Indies, was adopted and adapted to suit contemporary tastes.
In the image below, we see Jade's work colleague Vera giving feedback on what scale and color of Madras print suits her body.
We encourage our students to co-create with their wearers, actively soliciting feedback on what they think and feel about a design.
Just as we recognize the importance of the designer-wearer relationship, we adopt the same approach in our individual tutorials with each student. Their project direction is co-created through conversation where we see the tutor as a guide who asks questions (rather than provides quick solutions, or worse, passes judgement).
Tutors are not gatekeepers or tastemakers.
Open questions might take the form of:
"How would you like to proceed?"
"Which would you prefer and why?"
"Choose your favorite 3 designs"
"What is the key message you would like to communicate?"
The purpose of these tutorials is to help students approach design both through critical thinking and intuitive decision making, enabling them to confidently make decisions for themselves in the future.
The clothes were designed to fit herself and the women that make up her consumer and community—friends and work colleagues. These women became part of the design process, and their feedback on size, fit, print types, and ways of dressing were incorporated into the collection design.
The Madras print, which is a traditional cloth used in the French West Indies, was adopted and adapted to suit contemporary tastes.
In the image below, we see Jade's work colleague Vera giving feedback on what scale and color of Madras print suits her body.
We encourage our students to co-create with their wearers, actively soliciting feedback on what they think and feel about a design.
Just as we recognize the importance of the designer-wearer relationship, we adopt the same approach in our individual tutorials with each student. Their project direction is co-created through conversation where we see the tutor as a guide who asks questions (rather than provides quick solutions, or worse, passes judgement).
Tutors are not gatekeepers or tastemakers.
Open questions might take the form of:
"How would you like to proceed?"
"Which would you prefer and why?"
"Choose your favorite 3 designs"
"What is the key message you would like to communicate?"
The purpose of these tutorials is to help students approach design both through critical thinking and intuitive decision making, enabling them to confidently make decisions for themselves in the future.

CAN EMPATHY BE EMPLOYED AS A POWERFUL TOOL FOR CHANGE?
Empathy does not come easy. It can burn you out, create fatigue in how you teach and develop resources and content, but if used with self-care, alongside critical thinking and sustainability, empathy can be a part of how the course becomes a space of mutual trust, co-creation, and curiosity.
To do this, we keep evolving and adapting the course curriculum, and we talk during the unit and post-assessment about:
- our reflections on the units
- the flow, delivery of workshops, the interactions, and areas where we had to plug gaps
- the previous year and thinking of how the upcoming Y2 Block 2 units could react to these insights
- how we scaffold the journey between years
- how we work with different teams within the school and college
- analyzing the cohort’s personalities and approaches and how we can adapt and work with them
We can analyze the above in relation to university datasets, metrics, unit attainment, and retention. These data do not show the real picture—the time each team member puts into their work to realize those breakthrough moments with students, seeing their pride and confidence in their work, in their concepts, how they talk and present.
These data do not show the goodwill and extra hours the team puts in to really create and foster those connections with our students, which then can lead to trust and the use of empathy.
The data do give us the opportunity to understand where we should focus our attention and enable us to see how effective our teaching practices have been.
HOW DO WE DO THIS:
Empathy does enable us to ask questions about the course, the industry, and world and find ways to bring this into the ways we teach and interact with our students and each other.
We work in collaboration with colleagues in facilitating workshops with the team, and in doing so over the last 5 years we have explored ways we can do this.
Co-teaching has given us so many opportunities to use empathy in different modes and, (referring back to Bertola) break down these fashion industry systems so students are given the exposure to the industry within academic spaces.
Co-teaching allows multiple academic voices, their expertise, and experience to be used effectively. In our delivery we debate and, through sharing experiences, we create spaces for students to define fashion for themselves, demonstrating student agency and visions of what the fashion industry could be.
We co-teach with 3–5 academics in the room and multiple groups. FDD has on average six groups in a year so bringing the cohort together allows for parity in our teaching and an opportunity for our students to work with other team members.
Active interaction has been developed, referring to Betola's idea of students being able to work in multidisciplinary contexts and how we can move away from passive knowledge–centred learning.
We have developed resources accessible to all which provide students with core skills. Doing this means we can then explore other skills and ways to develop problem solving, system thinking, team working, and "integrate socially responsible principles and practices into design and product development strategies and processes." Bertola, P. (2018)
We have moved away from resource-reliant skills delivery and now use group work, applying methodologies to analyze and critique and problem solving activities. Creating asynchronous resources enables us the time and space within the teaching sessions to explore in more granular detail, using the asynchronous resource as a starting point. These resources are usually recordings with a PDF and students are asked to watch them before sessions, alongside preparing tasks for peer feedback and group work.
YES, BUT WITH CLEAR BOUNDARIES
We rarely say NO to our students when they present their concepts. We work with them to find ways to realize their ideas into fashion product. We problem solve and adapt our delivery to build confidence in their abilities.
Doing this requires empathy, to read what the student needs and to reframe how we speak, position our body, and use our power to defuse any power dynamic between ourselves and our students.
Our aim is not to become their creative director nor their best friend and confidant.
Our aim is to become a part of their fashion process and build mutual trust in a holistic manner.
WE LOVE PEOPLE
Additional Resources: Empathy as Tool for Change
Bertola, Paola. (2018). Reshaping fashion education for the 21st Century world. in Nimkulrat, N., Piper, A., Ræbild, U. (ed.) Soft Landing. Finland: Aalto University Schools of Arts, Design and Architecture, pp7 - 14.
Centre for Sustainable Fashion (2021). Fashion Values. [online] fashionvalues.org.
Available at: https://fashionvalues.org/.
Coplan, A. (2011). Will the real empathy please stand up? A case for a narrow conceptualization. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 49, pp.40–65. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-6962.2011.00056.x.
Covington, S. (2024). Decentering and decolonizing fashion and dress in The Meanings of Dress. Bloomsbury. Available at: https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/discover/bloomsbury-academic/blog/featured/decentering-and-decolonizing-fashion-and-dress/.
Fletcher, K. and Grimstad Klepp, I. (2018) ‘A Note from the Editors of Fashion Practice’, Fashion Practice, 10(2), pp. 133–138. doi: 10.1080/17569370.2018.1458500.
Fuad-Luke, A. (2009) Design Activism: beautiful strangeness for a sustainable world. London ; Sterling, Va: Earthscan.
Gardner, L. and Mohajer, D. (2023). Radical Fashion Exercises: A workbook of modes and methods. The Netherlands: Valiz.
Grove O'Grady, A. (2022). Performing empathy: Using theatrical traditions in teacher professional learning. Teachers and Curriculum, 22(2), pp17–24.
Hooks, B. (2003). Teaching community : a pedagogy of hope. New York: Routledge, p.92.
Hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to Transgress : education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge, p.21.
Issue 15 ︎︎︎
Fashion & Southeast Asia
Issue 14 ︎︎︎
Barbie
Issue 13 ︎︎︎ Fashion & Politics
Issue 13 ︎︎︎ Fashion & Politics