Unit 1: Theories, Policies and Practices
Reflection
During Workshop 3 of the Theories, Policies and Practices Unit, a conversation unfolded that has stayed with me. We were discussing assessment — specifically the tension between technical skill and critical/ theoretical development. What struck me most was the divergence in perspective between technicians and those of us positioned as “academics” or lecturers.
The discussion emerged when we were asked to share our perspectives on assessment practices within art and design education, highlighting differences in how student learning is supported and recognised across roles.
Several technicians shared concerns that students often graduate without strong technical competence. Because workshop learning is not always formally embedded within course learning outcomes, technical development can depend on student self-initiation. If a student does not actively seek workshop time, there is little structural accountability. Meanwhile, technicians rarely have formal mechanisms to assess or document student progress. Feedback happens verbally, in fragments, without integration into summative assessment.
This feels like a gap — not only operationally, but epistemologically. Art and design education in the UK has increasingly centred embodied knowledge, criticality and speculative thinking. These shifts are generative. They move beyond narrow craftsmanship models and embrace wider social, political and theoretical engagement. However, I question whether the pendulum has swung too far towards privileging discursive articulation over material competence.
Cripistemology — a term emerging from disability studies — challenges normative assumptions about knowledge production and capacity (Johnson and McRuer, 2014). Applying this lens to assessment makes me wonder: Whose skills are being valued? Whose ways of knowing are legitimised? If assessment privileges written reflection and theoretical framing, are we disadvantaging students who think materially? Equally, if we over-correct and prioritise technical mastery, do we marginalise those whose strengths lie in conceptual innovation?
Figure 1. Scott, J. (2003) Untitled. [sculpture]. Available at: https://www.sleek-mag.com/article/outsider-artists/ (Accessed: 15 March 2026).
The issue is not choosing one over the other. It seems that it is more about balance and flexibility. Different students arrive with different aspirations. Some want industry-ready technical expertise whilst others seek critical frameworks to reshape their practice. Many want both. Current assessment structures often reward strategic learning (students who quickly identify what is graded and optimise for that) rather than meaningful learning.
I am increasingly interested in whether learning outcomes could be designed with more elasticity. Could there be parallel pathways within assessment criteria, allowing students to weight technical development and critical inquiry differently? Could collaboration be formally encouraged, pairing students with complementary but different strengths, mirroring professional creative industries where diverse expertise converge? Could this form a new way of assessing students in collaboration, where their individual skillsets and collective contributions are considered within summative assessment?
Importantly, I believe that technical staff should not remain peripheral to curriculum design. If their teaching is central to student development, their insights should inform learning outcomes and assessment procedures. Otherwise, we perpetuate a false hierarchy between “thinking” and “making” which does not feel beneficial to student learning.
At the same time, I remain cautious about summatively grading technical skill in isolation. Craft divorced from context risks becoming hollow virtuosity but criticality without material grounding can also become abstracted from lived practice.
Figure 2. Kapoor, A. (2006) Cloud Gate. [sculpture]. Available at: https://www.singulart.com/blog/en/2024/04/05/cloud-gate-by-anish-kapoor/?srsltid=AfmBOooyQFk5WExLaMEKtCserIwBHXpQOH06ybBIqa_Z6ATGVd2pUoYm (Accessed: 17 March 2026).
Perhaps the question is not how we assess technical versus theoretical skill, but how we recognise them as entangled. Material decisions are theoretical decisions. Conceptual frameworks manifest materially. Rethinking assessment through a cripistemological lens invites us to design systems that are less about ranking fixed competencies and more about supporting diverse ways of knowing and making. It asks us to consider access, difference and interdependence. And maybe, ultimately, it asks us to move from assessment as measurement towards assessment as dialogue.
Moving forward, I want to open up conversations with technical staff affiliated with my own course to better understand how their insights might be integrated into teaching and assessment. I am also interested in exploring how tutorials and feedback might more explicitly acknowledge material processes alongside conceptual development, so that students feel supported in recognising the value of both.
References
Johnson, M.L. and McRuer, R. (2014) ‘Cripistemologies: Introduction’, Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies, 8(2), pp. 127–147.
University of the Arts London (2023) Assessment for Learning Principles. London: UAL.
Images
Figure 1. Scott, J. (2003) Untitled. [sculpture]. Available at: https://www.sleek-mag.com/article/outsider-artists/ (Accessed: 15 March 2026).
Figure 2. Kapoor, A. (2006) Cloud Gate. [sculpture]. Available at: https://www.singulart.com/blog/en/2024/04/05/cloud-gate-by-anish-kapoor/?srsltid=AfmBOooyQFk5WExLaMEKtCserIwBHXpQOH06ybBIqa_Z6ATGVd2pUoYm (Accessed: 17 March 2026).