Introduction
This reflective report traces my learning and evolving understanding of inclusive pedagogies through the design and refinement of an intervention to support student and graduate sex workers (SWs) in higher education, specifically at University of the Arts London (UAL). My professional role as Graduate Employability Specialist within the university’s central Careers and Employability department focuses on supporting students and graduates in their transition into employment and developing their professional practice. This places me in a privileged yet complex position of navigating issues of marginalisation, stigma, and systemic inequality in a career-focused academic environment. The focus on sex workers emerged from both professional experiences and lived proximity to this often-invisible community within creative education. As someone whose own positionality includes queerness, disability, and working-class roots, my understanding of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991) and social justice (Kendi, 2019) continues to deepen, especially in a changing world involving the rise of AI and right-wing politics. The Inclusive Practices unit has sharpened my awareness of how systems of oppression interlock across race, class, gender, disability, and faith, and how my practice can move beyond performative inclusion to real structural change, reflected in how we regard SWs at UAL.
Context
UAL’s creative and liberal ethos does not automatically translate into inclusivity and success stories for marginalised groups. As the UAL EDI data (2024) shows, disappointing disparities persist across student attainment, staff diversity, and graduate outcomes. With Creative Access’ THRIVE 2025 report (2025) noting a decline in inclusive hiring practices or positive progression and career trajectories even off the back of their initiatives and programmes, and UAL graduates facing barriers based on race, religion, gender, and disability, I began considering possible alternative job roles for those with marginalised identities: sex work. Many students and graduates are motivated to consider sex work due to financial necessity, flexibility, or accessibility (Sex Workers’ Union 2023, National Union of Students 2016), particularly those at the intersections of class, neurodivergence, disability, and gendered oppression. The stigma attached to sex work, however, creates silence, shame, and a lack of institutional support. Inspired by scholarship such as Jones (2023), I initially proposed a student-led study to understand their experiences. However, peer and tutor feedback helped me see that involving students at this stage would be ethically precarious without proper institutional frameworks, risk assessments, plus time constraints on the course. Plus the fact I am a new researcher, it would be ethically unfair to handle sensitive information and stories on a taboo subject as a novice in this field. My proposal was too advanced.
Inclusive Learning and Theoretical Rationale
The redesign of my intervention is grounded in intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991), epistemic justice (Kidd, 2017), and inclusive pedagogies (Spratt and Florian, 2013). Drawing on my disability-focused blog, which unpacked how disabled students often outperform peers when supported through inclusive design, I realised the transformative potential of shifting systems rather than “fixing” individuals (Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, n.d.). Similarly, in my reflection on faith, I learned how secular academic spaces can inadvertently erase or pathologise religious identity (Rekis, 2023; Ramadan, 2022), which can further alienate individuals from traditional education and similar structures such as routes to employment. My race-focused blog explored how structural whiteness and career progression are tightly linked (Garrett, 2024; Bradbury, 2020). These overlapping insights have encouraged me to centre marginalised voices and move away from institutional norms of professionalism that replicate exclusion (Advance HE, 2024; Arboine, 2023).
Reflection
Peer feedback included reaching out to support support services, the Arts SU, and other universities and academics who have an interest in this topic. Tutors Victor and Tim helped clarify that my project must start with university staff, if adhering to the educational research ethics guidelines (BERA 2022). The revised intervention involves conducting interviews and surveys with staff to explore their awareness, assumptions, and preparedness to support students or graduates who engage in sex work. This shift, while initially deflating, was critical. It means focusing on culture change within my control. Upon reflection, this a much more manageable and less risky approach while still progressing the conversation – and can inadvertently be a method of recruiting possible collaborators and support if I were to continue this research beyond the course. Tim also challenged me to centre my positionality in the work, rather than hiding behind academic neutrality. This aligns with Bilgin (2021) and Gani and Khan (2024), who emphasise that positionality is not merely declared but enacted through ethical and relational accountability. I realised the risk of “othering” sex workers through research if I detach personally from the topic in an attempt to protect myself form possible backlash or deligitimise my position as an academic researcher (Nash 2023). Or emotionally detach to be ‘neutral’ – which I’ve learned from resources on policy and decision-making, is inherently an unfair institutional power-dynamic.
This reflective process has reinforced that inclusive practice must be accompanied by a strong ethical foundation, particularly when exploring sensitive and marginalised topics such as student sex work. My tutor Kwame’s feedback prompted me to interrogate my university’s stance more directly and review essential readings. Notably, Lahav-Raz and Birnhack’s (2020) study highlighted how institutional attitudes and values deeply shape how sex work is managed within academic contexts, either as a topic of research or as a lived student experience. Their work helped me consider how reputational concerns, public relations, and embedded stigma may impact the university’s willingness to acknowledge or engage with this issue. This aligns with Nash’s (2023) critique that institutional discomfort with sex work may silence student voices and stifle necessary dialogue.
Also from Kwame’s feedback, I now understanding that the university’s stance on sex work is essential. As Lahav-Raz and Birnhack (2020) argue, institutional narratives often avoid engaging openly with sex work due to fears around reputation, even when support services are present. This suggests a disconnect between policy, practice, and student need, which my proposed intervention seeks to bridge by opening internal dialogue with staff and surfacing attitudes, assumptions, and preparedness.
Kwame also encouraged me to consider student wellbeing in the context of SW. The UK Parliament briefing (House of Commons Library, 2023) reminded me that university life intersects with broader social crises, including rising costs of living, debt, and mental health challenges. These are not external factors, but material drivers that lead some students into sex work. This context reinforced the urgency and relevance of my proposal: to move beyond morality or criminality and instead create structures of support and understanding for students navigating such realities. Wellbeing in important here also because this line of work is linked to gender and homophobic violence, degradation, plus code-switching between work and personal life which can deplete energy and fuel imposter syndrome.
Another suggested reading from Kwame: Armstrong and Mitchell (2021), pushed me to think deeply about research ethics and reflexivity when working with marginalised groups. Their emphasis on shared authority, informed consent, and non-extractive relationships reframed my role: not simply to gather data, but to advocate, support, and protect. This directly informed my decision to pause on involving students in the current intervention and instead begin by engaging with staff awareness and training, ensuring a more ethically sound foundation for future phases of the project.
Action
The intervention now seeks to evaluate current knowledge and biases held by staff, identify training needs, and propose strategies to increase preparedness and comfort in supporting SWs. This could lead to better signposting, less moral panic, and a signal to students that staff are ready to support them without judgement. Future work could include co-producing guidance with SWs, but only with adequate funding and ethical clearance. This initial phase could culminate in recommendations for institutional training, potentially feeding into wider staff development programmes such as UAL’s anti-racism strategy (UAL, n.d.).
Evaluation of the Process
I have learned that meaningful change in inclusive practice begins with personal reflection, followed by cultural shift, then systemic redesign. The process of writing my earlier blog essays helped me practice connecting theory to action, praxis. For instance, applying Kidd’s (2017) concept of epistemic injustice to both faith, and now sex work, showed me that inclusion isn’t about making room for difference but transforming the norms that exclude in the first place. If implemented, I would measure the intervention’s success through pre- and post-surveys of staff comfort and confidence levels, qualitative reflections, and uptake in training offers. Longer term, I’d like to analyse changes in disclosure rates or graduate outcomes for sex-working students, although this would require ethical approval and safeguarding protocols. Being wary of any press coverage, my research and the realities of our changing world and job markets mean this topic is increasing traction through dialogue and awareness.
Reflecting on the ethics of involving students in research about sex work, Armstrong and Mitchell (2021) emphasise the importance of centring participant wellbeing and considering power asymmetries in research design. This supported the reconsideration from my original approach and understand that even well-intentioned interventions can reproduce harm if not critically evaluated. This reaffirmed peer advice to avoid involving students in data gathering at this stage and instead focus on staff preparedness and institutional culture.
Conclusion
This unit has challenged and expanded my understanding of inclusive practice. I now see the importance of positioning myself within the work, not just as a practitioner but as an advocate for those marginalised within the academic labour market, to have any weight in the process and gravitational pull in the results and further action. Inclusive pedagogy requires continuous learning, critical reflexivity, and an unwavering commitment to justice, as a personal journey too, not just on the clock. The project on supporting SWs is not merely a professional interest; it is an ethical responsibility. I hope to build on this work in future research, perhaps in collaboration with the UAL Decolonising Arts Institute (UAL, n.d.a), to dismantle the systemic stigma that prevents so many students from thriving fully and visibly within our creative institutions.
References
Armstrong, L. and Mitchell, G. (2021) Researching the sex industry: Reflections on the role of ethics in feminist fieldwork. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 586235. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.586235/full (Accessed: 20 July 2025).
House of Commons Library (2023) Support for students with mental health issues in higher education, Briefing Paper CBP-8593. Available at: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8593/CBP-8593.pdf (Accessed: 20 July 2025).
Lahav-Raz, Y. and Birnhack, M. (2020) Student sex work and the university: Stigma, support, and the role of institutional policy, Sexualities, 23(8), pp.1358–1377. doi:10.1177/1363460720922733.
Advance HE (2024) Advance HE Strategy to 2030. Available at: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk (Accessed: 21 July 2025).
British Educational Research Association (BERA) (2022) Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research (5th ed.). London: BERA. Available at: https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2018 (Accessed: 29 July 2025).
Arboine, J. (2023) Positionality Wheels Workshop: A Project in Progress . University of Glasgow. Available at: https://mediaspace.gla.ac.uk/media/1_i2jp1l9j (Accessed: 21 July 2025).
Bilgin, A. (2021) ‘Why positionalities matter: reflections on power, hierarchy and knowledges in development research’, Third World Quarterly, 42(11), pp. 2688–2707.
Sex Workers’ Union (2023) Students are turning to sex work to afford university. Vice. Available at: https://www.vice.com/en/article/students-turning-to-sex-work-to-afford-university (Accessed: 21 July 2025).
National Union of Students (2016) Student Sex Work Survey: 5 things we learned. English Collective of Prostitutes. Available at: https://prostitutescollective.net/nus-5-things-we-learned-from-the-student-sex-work-survey (Accessed: 21 July 2025).
Nash, M. (2023) Does reputation get in the way of researching student sex work? Wonkhe [Blog]. Available at: https://wonkhe.com/blogs-sus/does-reputation-get-in-the-way-of-researching-student-sex-work/ (Accessed: 29 July 2025).
Bradbury, A. (2020) ‘A critical race theory framework for education policy analysis’, Race, Ethnicity and Education, 23(2), pp. 241–247.
Brown, C. (2023) ‘I’m a trans man with mental health difficulties, and I’m probably not neurotypical’, Transactual UK.
Crenshaw, K. (1991) ‘Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color’, Stanford Law Review, 43(6), pp. 1241–1299.
Creative Access (2024) THRIVE 2025: An industry in flux. Available at: https://creativeaccess.org.uk/thrive-2025-an-industry-in-flux/ (Accessed: 21 July 2025).
Garrett, R. (2024) ‘Racism shapes careers’, Globalisation, Societies and Education, pp. 2–11.
Gani, R. and Khan, S. (2024) ‘Positionality statements as a function of coloniality’, Third World Quarterly, 45(2), pp. 280–298.
Jones, A. (2023) ‘“I Can’t Really Work Any ‘Normal’ Job”: Disability, Sexual Ableism, and Sex Work’, Disability Studies Quarterly, 43(1).
Kendi, I.X. (2019) How to be an antiracist. London: Bodley Head.
Kidd, I.J. (2017) ‘Epistemic injustice and religion’, European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 9(1), pp. 89–111.
Ombudsman (n.d.) Introduction to the Social and Medical Models of Disability. Available at: https://www.ombudsman.org.uk (Accessed: 21 May 2025).
Rekis, J. (2023) ‘Religious Identity and Epistemic Injustice: An Intersectional Account’, Hypatia, 38, pp. 779–800.
Ramadan, T. (2022) ‘When faith intersects with gender’, Gender and Education, 34(1), pp. 33–48.
Spratt, J. and Florian, L. (2013) ‘Applying inclusive pedagogy in schools’, Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(2), pp. 233–245.
UAL (2024) EDI Data Report. University of the Arts London. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0030/472836/UAL-EDI-data-report-2024-PDFA.pdf (Accessed: 21 July 2025).
UAL (n.d.) UAL Anti-Racism Strategy. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/about-ual/strategy-and-governance/anti-racism-strategy (Accessed: 21 July 2025).
UAL (n.d.a) Decolonising Arts Institute. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/ual-decolonising-arts-institute (Accessed: 21 July 2025).