Inclusive Making: Rethinking Technical Language and Reference in MA Fashion
word count: 1628
Introduction
This report outlines a pedagogical intervention designed to diversify and decolonise the technical and make reference materials used in the MA Fashion programme at Central Saint Martins (CSM). As Technical Studies Lead, my role involves supporting students as they develop garment-making skills and navigate technical aspects of their design practice. In this position, I work across teaching, creative practice, and university systems. It is within this intersection that I often reflect critically on what we teach, how we teach it, and what underlying messages are being conveyed.
My positionality deeply informs my work. As a white European woman trained in a European system, completing a BSc in Fashion and Textile Design in Slovenia, I was educated through a rigid model of garment making. During my studies, I was taught that garments must follow very specific rules, for example: grainline should always be followed; edges must never be left raw; and details were clearly defined by gendered categories such as “menswear” or “womenswear.” There was little room for creative experimentation, deviation, or contextual thinking. Garment construction was treated as a technical craft that could be perfected through precision, discipline, and standardisation.
When I moved to the UK to complete my MA in 2009, (before the implementation of the UK Equality Act in 2010) the approach became more exploratory and creative. However, a high value was still placed on finish, professionalism, and reproducibility. The garments were expected to look as though they could be sold on a shop floor, aligning with industry standards and aesthetics. Even within an institution promoting creativity, there was an implicit hierarchy of privileging factory-ready outcomes over handmade, culturally specific, or unconventional finishes. In practice this means that students from UK, EU, India, China, Denmark etc. would all produce garments following the same Western standards.
Looking back, I now recognise how these expectations reflect dominant Western narratives about what constitutes “good” or “professional” making. They risk marginalising approaches that fall outside of those norms, whether rooted in cultural tradition, neurodivergence, or experimentation. My aim with this intervention is to encourage students to reflect on their own positionality and making choices, and to question industry-derived assumptions. I want to promote a more expansive view of technical excellence that values difference, inclusivity, and critical engagement. This work is a direct extension of my academic practice as an educator committed to inclusive, reflective, and student-led learning.
Context
This intervention is situated within the MA Fashion course at CSM, a globally recognised course known for its creative innovation and diverse student body. Students come from all over the world with varying degrees of experience in garment construction. While some arrive with strong technical skills, others have had little exposure to pattern cutting, sewing, or manufacturing processes. Although the traditional expectation that all students possess advanced technical skills has softened in recent years, there remains an unspoken pressure among students to produce work that meets perceived “industry standards.”
It is also important to mention that it is expected that during 15-month course students improve technical skills and understanding, but it is impossible to teach students skills from “scratch”.
I often witness students comparing their output to commercial benchmarks or referencing mainstream luxury fashion in moments of doubt about their own practice. Many express concerns about whether their garments appear “professional enough,” often linking that idea to neatness, finish, or conventional construction methods. This reveals a disconnect between the MA ethos, which prioritises experimentation, and individual voice.
CSM’s mission to “inspire experimental innovation and nurture groundbreaking talent” underpins this intervention. The proposed resource is intended to help students build confidence in developing their own, signature, technical voice, what I refer to as a personal “making language.” It aims to validate diverse routes to technical competence, particularly those not necessarily rooted in Western industrial frameworks.
Inclusive Learning
In a field so deeply intertwined with identity, culture, and lived experience, inclusivity is not optional; it is essential. Fashion is not just a product but a process of expression. Teaching practices that prioritise narrow definitions of excellence risk reinforcing dominant hierarchies and excluding students whose approaches do not align with those norms.
Fashion education often leans heavily on Eurocentric references and formalised making techniques. These default standards can marginalise “alternative” garment traditions, ignore the contributions of disabled or neurodivergent practitioners, and dismiss “low-status” methods such as gluing, stapling, or visible overlocking. These approaches are often perceived as substandard, but they represent different values, resourcefulness, and creative or aesthetic intention.
This intervention is grounded in inclusive pedagogy and informed by several theoretical frameworks. bell hooks’ concept of engaged pedagogy advocates for mutual learning, critical inquiry, and the affirmation of lived experiences. It encourages teachers and students to co-create knowledge, challenging the traditional, one-directional flow of expertise. I also draw on Rekis’ concept of epistemic appreciation, which argues for the recognition of multiple, culturally situated ways of knowing. Additionally, Wenger’s work on communities of practice supports the idea that learning occurs most meaningfully through shared dialogue, practice, and participation.
The proposed intervention, a collaborative digital visual reference hosted on Padlet, reflects these principles. It showcases a wide spectrum of techniques and examples, as mentioned in my intervention blog post.
Rather than reinforcing a singular ideal, this resource invites students to explore multiple paths toward technical fluency.
This intervention was shaped by continuous reflection and informal conversations with students and peers. Many students voiced anxiety about technical standards, particularly when their work diverged from mainstream expectations. They often felt unsure whether their approach was “valid” or “professional,” revealing the hidden curriculum at play within technical teaching.
Reflection
Initial drafts of the intervention focused mainly on featuring designers from a broad range of cultural backgrounds. However, I quickly realised that attempting to represent all cultures equally was unrealistic and risked superficial inclusion. Instead, I shifted the scope to focus on broader forms of inclusion, prioritising critical engagement with technical norms, rather than attempting comprehensive representation.
My colleague’s feedback affirmed the need for this shift. Others noted that their own teaching materials heavily consisted of established Western designers and traditional technical references. The intervention was seen as a valuable step toward widening the scope of what is considered worthy of reference.
Key decisions included:
- Curating examples that reflect critical, non-traditional approaches to making
- Using Padlet for its accessibility and interactive format
- Positioning students as co-authors and contributors
- Avoiding tokenism by prioritising depth, context, and student voice
- The resource should support students with less technical skills and students with great technical skills
One of the major risks is that garments and collections end up looking unfinished, unconsidered and not exhibiting students’ ability to make.
Challenges included sourcing meaningful and accessible references, ensuring cultural sensitivity, and setting boundaries to avoid overloading staff and students.
The sustainability of the process of creating this resource was recognised as essential to the intervention’s success.
Action
The Padlet board will be introduced as part of technical support and tutorials, both in group and one-to-one sessions. Rather than being presented as a definitive guide, it will function as an open-ended prompt, a starting point for discussion, discovery, and reflection. Students will be encouraged to engage with the resource throughout their studies and to contribute examples from their own practices, communities, and cultural backgrounds.
This shared library will complement existing teaching by offering an expanded set of possibilities. It will help students see that technical confidence can be built through multiple routes, and that personal, cultural, or non-traditional approaches are not only acceptable but valuable and essential.
For my own academic practice, this represents a shift in how I define and communicate technical standards. It challenges me to question inherited assumptions, diversify my own teaching materials, and invite students into the conversation as collaborators. By embedding co-creation into the teaching process, I hope to cultivate a more relational, inclusive, and reflective pedagogy.
Evaluation of the Process
Through this process, I’ve learned that inclusive teaching is not about having all the answers and trying to cover all cultures or techniques; it’s about creating space for different perspectives to emerge. Inclusion is not a checklist; it’s an ongoing dialogue shaped by critical reflection and responsiveness.
To evaluate the success of the intervention, I will consider:
- Reduction in expressions of anxiety about meeting “industry standards” (hopefully)
- Observable shifts in students’ confidence and experimentation
- References to the resource in crits, portfolios, tutorials or finished garments
- Student and staff feedback on its usefulness and accessibility
Sustainability of keeping the resource relevant will be ensured through periodic review and student feedback, allowing the resource to evolve organically while remaining rooted in its original intention.
Conclusion
This intervention has led me to reflect more deeply on my positionality and the values embedded in my teaching. At the beginning of this unit, I was very critical of it and felt guilty in the sense that I was to blame for this issue. I was a part of the problem. But towards the end of the unit and through writing this report I realised, that I have an opportunity to also be a part of a solution.
By introducing a more inclusive and participatory technical resource, I hope to foster a culture of curiosity, experimentation, and mutual respect. Co-creating reference materials with students not only diversifies content but also shifts the power dynamics of the learning space. It validates difference, invites dialogue, and redefines what finished garments can look like.
Ultimately, fashion education should not only train students to meet industry expectations but equip them to challenge, reshape, and innovate within those systems. As the text Identity discovery: Small learning interventions as catalysts for change in design education (Shen & Sanders, 2022) suggests, even small interventions, when grounded in critical intent and collaborative purpose, can have transformative impact. This project is one such intervention, and its development has strengthened my commitment to inclusive, reflective, and forward-thinking teaching in the field of Fashion.
References:
Shen, Y., & Sanders, E. B.-N. (2022). Identity discovery: Small learning interventions as catalysts for change in design education. Journal of Design, Business and Society, 9(1), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1386/dbs_00049_1
Rekis, J. (2023) Religious Identity and Epistemic Injustice: An Intersectional Account [online]. Hypatia, Cambridge University Press.
hooks, b. (2010) Teaching critical thinking: Practical wisdom. New York, Ruthledge; found at: https://acurriculumjourney.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/hooks-2010-engaged-pedagogy-chapter.pdf (accessed on 12th of July 2025)
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.
Crenshaw, K. Intersectionality, 1990. Accessed on 27 of April 2025 at https://moodle.arts.ac.uk/mod/folder/view.php?id=1386601