Author: Yasaman Karbalaie Hadj Agha Tehrani
2. Psychological safety as a phenomena
Phenomenological research is a qualitative approach that seeks to understand and describe lived experiences from the perspective of those who live them (Husserl, 1970). Unlike other methodologies that may prioritise measurable outcomes or theoretical constructs, phenomenology focuses on subjective experience, exploring how individuals make sense of the world around them (Groenewold, 2004).
In the context of my research, a phenomenological approach allows me to examine how students experience psychological safety in online arts education, particularly as it relates to their willingness to share creative work.
As a research strategy, it allows me to focus on “learn[ing] from the experiences of others […] broadening our understanding of the complex phenomena involved in learning” (Neubauer, Witkop and Varpio, 2019), specifically as these phenomena are experienced by students.
Edmondson (1999) defines psychological safety as “freedom from fear, embarrassment, or humiliation in groups.” In the context of arts education, this concept becomes increasingly nuanced. As Samuel Beckett (1975) reminds us, “To admit that to be an artist is to fail, as no other dare fail, that failure is his world.” This perspective highlights the profound vulnerability inherent in developing one’s creative practice, where the act of making and sharing inevitably involves the risk of failure, critique, and misunderstanding. Psychological safety, therefore, is not merely about cultivating a “nice” or supportive environment in which to share, learn, and fail; it demands a critical examination of the power dynamics, values, and institutional structures that influence students’ willingness to share their work and fully engage in the learning process.
According to Schein and Bennis (1965) psychological safety can also be something that reduces “a person’s anxiety about being basically accepted and worthwhile”. If we couple this with the belief that in art and design education, ‘the work’ is ‘synonymous with the person[hood] of the student and an integral part of their professional identity’ (Orr and Shreeve, 2017), then this means that when we ask students to share their work, we’re asking them to offer up for critique a part of themselves. For black and ethnic minority, LGBTQIA+, mature, and first-generation university students who are often excluded from normative student culture, this ask can be particularly challenging . Such feelings of exclusions from the ‘norm’ can lead to feelings of fear and isolation, impacting their motivation, experience and retention (Tinto, 1993), a scenario exemplified by former LCF student, Romero Bryan:
I wanted to explore my culture, in terms of reggae music and the dancehall scene, being I am originally Jamaican, with links to Cuba also. Unfortunately, it was frowned upon by the tutors. I guess they were scared they couldn’t relate to my experiences… It was very much a Western approach to the subject areas you were allowed to explore. Anything outside of that was a no-go zone.
Romero Bryan, Shades of Noir, 2020
Romero’s experience highlights how the lack of psychological safety can limit the ability of students from diverse backgrounds to fully engage in and express their creative identities. He experienced the learning environment as one in which certain perspectives were implicitly excluded, restricting his creative exploration and reinforcing feelings of alienation as his identity and experiences fell outside the norm.
While psychological safety has been studied across various contexts in education, a significant gap exists in understanding its role within arts education, particularly in online environments. My research direction has been influenced by existing studies that explore psychological safety as a phenomenon, albeit in different disciplinary fields such as medicine or business studies. This gap presented an opportunity to examine psychological safety specifically within the online creative arts education space.
References
Beckett, S. (1965) Proust: And three dialogues with Georges Duthuit. London: Calder.
Groenewald, T. (2004) ‘A phenomenological research design illustrated’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(1), pp. 42–55. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690400300104.
Neubauer, B., Witkop, C. and Varpio, L. (2019) ‘How phenomenology can help us learn from the experiences of others’, Perspectives on Medical Education, 8(2), pp. 90–97. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-0509-2.
Orr, S. and Shreeve, A., 2017. Art and design pedagogy in higher education: Knowledge, values and ambiguity in the creative curriculum. Routledge.
Schein, E.H. and Bennis, W.G. (1965) Personal and organizational change through group methods. New York: Wiley.
Teherani, A., Martimianakis, T., Stenfors-Hayes, T., Wadhwa, A. and Varpio, L. (2015) ‘Choosing a qualitative research approach’, Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 7(4), pp. 669–670. doi:10.4300/JGME-D-15-00414.1.
References
Citation points to method and how we come to write what we know. Citation is important because if frames and supports (legitimizes) our argument.
Katherine McKittrick, 2021
Ahmed, S. (2012) On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Durham, N.C: Duke University Press.
Bali, M. and Zamora, M. (2022) ‘Intentionally Equitable Hospitality as Critical Instructional Design’, in Quinn, J., Burtis, M., Jhangiani, S. and Denial, C.J. (eds) Designing for Care. Hybrid Pedagogy Incorporated. Available at: https://pressbooks.pub/designingforcare/ (Accessed: 12 September 2024).
Beckett, S. (1965) Proust: And three dialogues with Georges Duthuit. London: Calder.
Brown, B. (2012) Daring Greatly: How the Courage to Be Vulnerable Transforms the Way We Live, Love, Parent, and Lead. London: Penguin Books Ltd.
Cook, T. (2009) ‘The purpose of mess in action research: building rigour through a messy turn’, Educational Action Research, 17(2), pp. 277–291. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790902914241.
Clarke, V. and Braun, V. (2017) ‘Thematic analysis’, The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), pp. 297–298. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613.
Creswell, J.W. (2003) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Edmondson, A. (1999) ‘Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), pp. 350–383. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999 (Accessed: 16 December 2024).
Freire, P. (2017) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London, England: Penguin Books.
Groenewald, T. (2004) ‘A phenomenological research design illustrated’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(1), pp. 42–55. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690400300104.
Hanshaw, G. and Hanshaw, J. (2023) ‘The effect of psychological safety on the performance of students in graduate-level online courses’, International Journal of Innovative Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 4(1), pp. 1–21. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4018/ijitlhe.333864.
Hubbard, K. and Gawthorpe, P. (2024) The Inclusive Higher Education Framework, Inclusive Education Framework. Available at: http://www.inclusiveeducationframework.info/ (Accessed: 16 December 2024).
Husserl, E. (1970) The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology. 1st edn. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Kanyal, M. (2024) Benefits and challenges of PAR in HE student research. Online presentation, University of the Arts London, delivered via Blackboard Collaborate, 27 November.
Lenette, C. (2022) Participatory action research: ethics and decolonization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McKittrick, K. (2021) Dear Science and Other Stories, Duke University Press eBooks. Duke University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1215/9781478012573.
McLeod, E. and Gupta, S. (2023) ‘The role of psychological safety in enhancing medical students’ engagement in online synchronous learning’, Medical Science Educator, 33, pp. 423–430. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-023-01753-8.
McNiff, J. (2013) Action research : principles and practice. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon ; New York: Routledge.
Neubauer, B., Witkop, C. and Varpio, L. (2019) ‘How phenomenology can help us learn from the experiences of others’, Perspectives on Medical Education, 8(2), pp. 90–97. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-0509-2.
Newman, A., Donohue, R. and Eva, N. (2017). ‘Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature.’ Human resource management review, 27(3), pp.521-535.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.01.001
Nyemba, F. and Mayer, M. (2017) ‘Exploring the roots of participatory action research: An interview with Dr Marja-Liisa Swantz’, Action Research, 16(3), pp. 319–338. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750316684003.
O’Donovan, R., De Brún, A. and McAuliffe, E. (2021) ‘Healthcare professionals’ experience of psychological safety, voice, and silence’, Frontiers in Psychology, 12(12). Available at: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.626689.
O’Reilly, J. (2024) Feedback on my ethical action plan.
Orr, S. and Shreeve, A., 2017. Art and design pedagogy in higher education: Knowledge, values and ambiguity in the creative curriculum. Routledge.
Pauwels, L. (2019) ‘Visual elicitation in interviews’, in Atkinson, P., Delamont, S., Cernat, A., Sakshaug, J.W. and Williams, R.A. (eds) SAGE research methods foundations. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526421036846496 (Accessed: 14 October 2024).
Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (2008) The Sage handbook of action research : participative inquiry and practice. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Robinson, H. and Held, F. (2024) ‘Psychological safety in online interdisciplinary student teams: What teachers can do to promote an effective climate for knowledge sharing, collaboration and problem-solving’, Active Learning in Higher Education. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874241275346.
Schein, E.H. and Bennis, W.G. (1965) Personal and organizational change through group methods. New York: Wiley.
Teherani, A., Martimianakis, T., Stenfors-Hayes, T., Wadhwa, A. and Varpio, L. (2015) ‘Choosing a qualitative research approach’, Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 7(4), pp. 669–670. Available at: doi:10.4300/JGME-D-15-00414.1.
Tinto, V. (1993) Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago (Ill.): University of Chicago Press.
White, D. (2022) Belonging is inconvenient, David White: Digital and Education. Available at: https://daveowhite.com/inconvenient (Accessed: 16 October 2024).
Citations
KonMari (n.d.) [Photo of Marie Kondo]. Available at: https://konmari.com. (Accessed: 15 October 2024).
9. Reflections
Rethinking psychological safety in online learning – tackling the elephant in the room
When we talk about learning in general, we often focus on the student-tutor interaction. Through my research and discussions with students, I noticed an interesting dynamic, often students did not differentiate between UAL as an institution and their tutors. While it was clear that they had a connection with their tutor (and vice versa), what was less apparent was that both the students and the tutor are also embedded within the institution.
It is this power dynamic between the institution and the tutor that I am calling the ‘elephant in the room’ – a critical yet often overlooked factor in creating the conditions for psychological safety. Simply put, if tutors do not feel psychologically safe in their roles, how can they be expected to feel supported, empowered, and enabled to foster a safe and inclusive learning environment for their students?
Tutors are often seen as the primary architect of the students’ learning experience. And whilst this is largely true, it seems that there is a slight misalignment, in that whilst they may be the architects, they aren’t the only people involved in the construction of the full experience. This perception places an enormous burden and responsibility on tutors, who must somehow embody institutional values while navigating their own position within the organisational hierarchy. A tension that one student, when asked to think about that, in my final interview, summed up perfectly by saying :
It’s not easy because you know it’s… you know, it’s not really down to individuals who aren’t nice enough. It’s the whole system is built around having to meet certain things and the people are just a function of this machine that’s bigger than them. And and then that’s and then you end up, you know, trying to do care against the machine, which I think our tutors were to some extent as well and they were getting, like, mangled in the cogs between the humans and the machinery.
Student C
With this on my mind, it was somewhat fortuitous when the annual Staff Survey email landed in my inbox. As I was completing it, a few key questions stood out to me with my psychological safety hat on:
- I feel I can be my true self at work
- I feel that my background, difference and lived experience is valued at the University
- I feel able to speak up and challenge the way that things are done
Feeling intrigued, I quickly searched to see if I could find the Staff Survey results for 2023. The results were shocking (at least to me).
The lowest positive response (38%) is for “I feel able to speak up and challenge the way that things are done,” which indicates a significant barrier in staff feeling empowered to voice concerns or critique processes.
For the statement “I feel that my background, difference and lived experience is valued at the University,” the UAL result (50%) trails significantly behind the HEI (-21% difference) and the London HEI benchmark (-16% difference).
Only 38% of staff feel able to ‘speak up and challenge the way that things are done’, with a high negative response rate (33%) compared to other categories.
This brings us to a crucial question: How can we expect tutors to create psychologically safe spaces when they themselves might not feel secure within the institution? Especially if we take serious Amy Edmondson’s definition, psychological safety means “freedom from fear, embarrassment, or humiliation” – which seems perhaps unlikely given the staff survey results. The reasons are manifold:
- Precarious employment conditions
- High expectations for student support and student satisfaction
- Limited institutional backing
- Unclear policies and procedures
- Feeling unheard and not listened to.
This raises crucial questions about how institutions can better support both staff and students. The next steps involve translating these insights into practical strategies that enhance psychological safety across all levels of online education.
Positionality statement
As a learning designer focused on online teaching and learning, I approach this action research project from both a professional and deeply personal perspective. My own experiences with feeling unsafe to share (as both a member of staff and a student) in educational spaces have influenced my understanding of psychological safety. This personal insight is balanced with my professional role in designing inclusive and engaging learning experiences for others.
My cultural background has heightened my awareness of how the ‘mainstream’ represents just one of many valid perspectives. While I acknowledge my privilege in speaking English – the language of the dominant culture – this intersection of belonging and difference has made me particularly attuned to the complexities of creating truly inclusive learning spaces.
The philosophy inherent in this quote by Dieter Ram: “Indifference towards people and the reality in which they live is actually the one and only cardinal sin in design” resonates deeply with my position as a learning designer, where my role is not just to create educational experiences, but to actively combat indifference by understanding and responding to the diverse realities of learners’ experiences.
Having such a positionality both benefits and challenges my research. While my personal experiences with feeling unsafe to share inform my sensitivity to these issues, I must remain mindful that my current role as a learning designer and my ability to navigate dominant cultural spaces might make me less likely to see other perspectives. This awareness shapes my approach to the research, particularly in how I engage with participants and interpret their experiences of psychological safety in online arts education.
My intervention project for the IP unit explores my feelings around being made to feel that I should be ‘fitting in’ to spaces, be it professional or personal. You can read more here: The ‘perfect fit’ – embracing authentic identities in online environments.
5. Reflecting on research methods
Extending action research through a participatory and phenomenological approach
Watching the Caroline Lenette talk on Participatory Action Research (PAR) really opened my eyes to the concept of PAR as a framework for collaboration, reflexivity, and change. This resonates deeply with me as a learning designer and researcher. Both PAR and phenomenological research centre on lived experiences. While PAR emphasises collaboration and participatory agency, phenomenology provides a lens for deeply understanding the subjective experiences of individuals.
To explore students’ perceptions of psychological safety, I adopted a mixed-method approach. This helps me combine the qualitative depth of phenomenological research with the practical insights gained from participatory action research (PAR), alongside quantitative tools such as questionnaires. Together, these methods will help me develop a comprehensive understanding of how students experience and navigate psychological safety in online arts education.
Action research, with its emphasis on reflection, change, and addressing real-world problems through iterative cycles of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting, remains my foundation. But, by incorporating participatory action research (PAR) and phenomenology, I hope to build on this ethos to suit the needs of my project.
PAR helps me foster collaboration and participant agency (where I as the researcher have to recognise my privileges, biases, and responsibilities), while phenomenology focused understanding on students’ lived experiences. Together, these approaches ensure my research remains reflective, responsive, and attuned to the complexities of psychological safety in online arts education. And, I hope will help me professionally think more critically about how course design influences their willingness to share creative work.
The ethics of PAR
PAR centres on co-researchers, fostering relationships built on trust and shared decision-making. It challenges rigid research structures, acknowledging that research is often “messy” but no less meaningful. Lenette (2022) emphasises that meaningful participation must be designed into the project from the start, requiring time, effort, and deep engagement to ensure co-researchers exercise agency and that outputs are community-driven. This approach aligns with my goal of addressing students’ perceptions of psychological safety in online learning environments, aiming to amplify their voices and translate findings into actionable insights for educational practice.
Taking inspiration from one of our Wednesday cross-programme event series by Mallika Kanyal, I decided, given the limitations of my ARP and following the advice given by Mallika, to focus on specific elements of PAR that I can work into my project, rather than attempting to design and run an entire participatory action research project which would not be feasible given the time constraints. By being honest about these constraints and working collaboratively within them, I hope to honour the spirit of PAR.
I’ve adapted PAR principles to fit the scope and resources available. Here’s how:
Acknowledging my positionality
I started by reflecting on my own positionality, writing a positionality statement that situates me within the research. This reflexive practice aligns with phenomenological principles, recognising that my own experiences and perceptions inevitably shape how I interpret participants’ stories.
This includes recognising the privileges I bring to the project, as well as the power dynamics at play when interacting with participants. This reflexivity is a cornerstone of PAR, ensuring transparency and accountability throughout the process.
Encouraging participant agency
While I can’t fully co-design the research with participants due to time constraints, I am integrating opportunities for students to share their experiences in ways they feel most comfortable. This aligns with phenomenology’s emphasis on understanding the meaning participants ascribe to their experiences, ensuring that their perspectives remain central to the research. This includes offering options for anonymous contributions, balancing the ethical complexities of anonymity with the need to ensure participants feel safe. I am also offering students a choice of completing a questionnaire or taking part in an interview.
Prioritising lived experiences
PAR, ‘privileges the active involvement of people with lived experiences of the topic as co-researchers to generate new knowledge and act on findings to improve their lives.’ I believe this methodology is essential for my research as it aligns with my commitment to ensuring participants’ psychological safety. Moreover, allowing participants to be co-researchers means they will be ‘feeling valued through the opportunity of sharing perspectives on problems and solutions,’ (Lenette, 2022) which further supports their wellbeing throughout the research process.
A trauma-informed approach
Inspired by Lenette’s emphasis on trauma-informed practices, I am mindful that some students may bring stories of vulnerability or discomfort when asked about moments where they might have felt psychologically unsafe in an online learning environment. By creating spaces where participants feel supported and not forced to take part, I aim to mitigate potential harm while ensuring their voices remain central to the project. This approach draws on phenomenology’s focus on the complexity and depth of individual experiences, allowing for a deeper understanding of how participants navigate vulnerability in online learning environments.
Conclusion
PAR invites us to embrace complexity, challenge traditional power dynamics, and prioritise relationships and process over rigid outcomes. Combined with phenomenological principles, this approach allows for a nuanced exploration of how psychological safety is experienced by students and shaped by course design. Together, these methodologies create a framework for ethical and meaningful research that aligns with my values as a learning designer. While not strictly following a traditional action research framework, my methodology remains rooted in its core principles: reflection, collaboration and meaningful change. Incorporating participatory and phenomenological elements allows me to address the complexities of psychological safety as both a lived experience and a design outcome, ensuring responsiveness to the needs of students in online arts education.
By embedding these principles into my ARP, I hope to contribute not only to a deeper understanding of psychological safety but also to actionable insights that can help shape more inclusive and transformative online learning environments.
As Lenette reminds us, PAR is not about achieving perfect results but about creating meaningful, ethical engagement. By incorporating even small elements of this approach, I hope to move closer to a research practice that aligns with my values and empowers participants to share their voices safely and authentically.
References
Kanyal, M. (2024) Benefits and challenges of PAR in HE student research. Online presentation, University of the Arts London, delivered via Blackboard Collaborate, 27 November.
Lenette, C. (2022) Participatory action research: ethics and decolonization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Looking ahead
From research to practice
Creating the conditions for psychological safety to emerge for students and tutors requires action at the institutional level. It’s not merely about student experience – it’s about creating an environment where everyone feels secure enough to contribute, challenge, and grow.
This might look like asking ourselves the following questions:
- How do our policies and practices impact tutor psychological safety?
- What concrete steps can we take to support both tutors and students?
- How can we better align our institutional values with daily educational practice?
My ARP has revealed that psychological safety isn’t just about creating comfortable spaces – it’s about building environments where students feel empowered to take creative risks, experiment with new ideas and grow both artistically and personally.
Rewarded vulnerability
I define vulnerability as uncertainty, risk and emotional exposure.
Brené Brown
This powerful statement resonates deeply with the essence of arts education, where articulation of creative voice often requires embracing vulnerability. The act of sharing creative work is inherently vulnerable. Students don’t just share assignments – they share pieces of themselves, their perspectives, and their lived experiences. My research has highlighted the delicate balance between encouraging sharing and respecting personal boundaries. When students feel psychologically safe, they’re more likely to engage in:
- Authentic creative expression
- Constructive peer feedback
- Risk-taking in their artistic practice
- Open dialogue about their creative process
Challenging power dynamics
The challenge lies in ensuring that we create environments where students can integrate their lived experiences without fear of their identity being displaced by the bodies that seek to de-voice anyone posing a ‘threat’ at the periphery of institutional whiteness (Ahmed, 2012).
Inspired by Maha Bali’s (2023) praxis of intentionally equitable hospitality (IEH) which focuses on intentionality in ‘fostering learner/participant agency within the learning space, while never forgetting the ways in which power and oppression work outside of that learning space, and how they influence it’, I envision implementing these insights through several key approaches:
Curriculum design:
- Building structured opportunities for low-stakes sharing
- Creating a clear distinction between ‘eager’ and ‘expected’ sharing
- Incorporating reflection points about psychological safety as a value
- Designing assessments that value process as much as product
- Supporting and rewarding vulnerability in creative arts practice
- Reframing failure as a valuable part of learning
- Creating spaces where diverse lived experiences are valued
Institutional changes:
- Embedding psychological safety in course documentation (validation?)
- Developing staff training around creating safe spaces
- Establishing clear support frameworks for both students and tutors
- Creating feedback mechanisms to monitor psychological safety
Final thoughts
As we continue to develop online learning spaces, we must remember that psychological safety isn’t just a concept to be studied – it’s a practice that must be deliberately embedded at every level of our educational institutions. Only by supporting those who support our students can we create truly effective learning environments.
Creating truly psychologically safe learning environments requires ongoing commitment and action at all levels – individual, departmental, and institutional. It is everyone’s responsibility. The challenge ahead lies in ensuring that our commitment to psychological safety moves beyond rhetoric to become embedded in every aspect of our educational practice.
It is my hope that explicitly focusing on building psychological safety will ‘build cultures which positively foster a strong sense of community and belonging’ (Hubbard and Gawthorpe, 2023), where students feel comfortable to take creative risks and are not afraid to share their thoughts, opinions or work with their tutor or peers.
References
Ahmed, S. (2012) On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Durham, N.C: Duke University Press.
Bali, M. and Zamora, M. (2022) ‘Intentionally Equitable Hospitality as Critical Instructional Design’, in Quinn, J., Burtis, M., Jhangiani, S. and Denial, C.J. (eds) Designing for Care. Hybrid Pedagogy Incorporated. Available at: https://pressbooks.pub/designingforcare/ (Accessed: 12 September 2024).
Brown, B. (2012) Daring Greatly: How the Courage to Be Vulnerable Transforms the Way We Live, Love, Parent, and Lead. London: Penguin Books Ltd.
Hubbard, K. and Gawthorpe, P. (2024) The Inclusive Higher Education Framework, Inclusive Education Framework. Available at: http://www.inclusiveeducationframework.info/ (Accessed: 16 Decmeber 2024).
8. Results
My thematic analysis revealed four key themes. Below, for each theme, I will provide a definition, outline what it encompasses, and share quotes from student interviews to offer deeper insight into their experiences.
Theme 1: Creating conditions for trust
Definition:
The foundational environmental and interpersonal conditions necessary for learners to feel secure enough to share their work and ideas.
Includes:
- Conscious curation of psychological safety through structured activities
- Emotional safety in learning spaces
- Non-judgmental. non-competitive atmosphere
- Comfort in sharing draft work
- Conscious curation of psychological safety through structured activities
Student voice:
“Psychological safety to me means…a space where it’s safe to share your thoughts, which might not be completely formed or factually correct yet.” (Student A)
“When everyone participates, it feels really encouraging to contribute and you feel comfortable.” (Student A)
“There’s no one formula to it, but I think it’s a lot of conscious curation to creating that safe space. You have to almost build up to it.” (Student A)
It would be nice if we encourage , you know the uniqueness of each person, because we’re doing arts, we’re doing creative work. So if we emphasise the, you know, creativities more than, like fame or money or things like that.” (Student B)
“If everyone participates, it feels really encouraging to contribute and you feel comfortable.” (Student B)
“There were moments where I wasn’t sure how my practice would land, like experimenting with something that may or may not be OK.” (Student C)
Theme 2: Structure and empathy
Definition:
The intentional pedagogical frameworks and institutional structures that facilitate safe sharing and learning.
Includes:
- Actively designing opportunities for psychological safety into the curriculum
- Clear instructional design and guidelines
- The role of the tutor in promoting care and empathy
- Consistent feedback mechanisms
- Assessment design that encourages sharing
- Support at the point of need
Student voice:
“I think guidelines are really helpful. When the tutor says we’ll critique just one section, it’s easier to focus and manage feedback sessions.” (Student A)
“The tutors, are really encouraging and really supportive and they’re really nice and they will do some interactions with the with students for example, just put some, you know, emojis in the chat box. That really helps.” (Student B)
“I think the tutors probably need to, you know, put more attentions on each student’s work. They need to know what they’re currently doing at the moment to avoid some plagiarism. And that could be one of the main reason that student, they’re not wanting to share their work.” (Student B)
“It could be a bit intimidating, but I would say the tutor did a good job of making it feel not like that.” (Student C)
“It would help if the university embedded principles of care and empathy in the pre-curriculum or the curriculum itself” (Student C)
“The whole first unit was about who are we, where do we live, what’s going on in our lives right now. The activities were very grounding: asking about the weather or where you live, helping us connect without being deeply personal.” (Student C)
“The tutor’s approach to slowing down the pace, starting small, and not rushing helped create a safe environment.” (Student C)
“The course did a good job of creating conditions for safety, like grounding activities, even if the systems around it didn’t fully support that.” (Student C)
“The tutor’s vulnerability, especially in a new course under pressure, was noticeable and had a knock-on effect on the group.” (Student C)
Theme 3: Cultural barriers to sharing
Definition:
The identification and navigation of cultural differences that impact willingness and ability to share in creative arts online settings.
Includes:
- Understanding the influence of cultural backgrounds on sharing
- Language and communication
- Different cultural approaches to learning
- Challenging assumptions about the perceived value of cultural capital
- Building cross-cultural awareness and sensitivity
- Creating truly inclusive spaces for diverse perspectives
Student voice:
“They created that safe space to share…taking one word or one topic which is very universally understood and discussing that topic to form like a common basis of understanding.” (Student A)
“Cultural communication sessions helped create a shared understanding, making it easier to connect and share ideas across diverse groups.” (Student A)
“It was like assuming that because it’s a performance course, we’re all really comfortable doing body work.” (Student C)
“Acknowledgment goes a really long way to make you feel cared for.” (Student C)
“Acknowledging language and cultural realities helped people feel cared for.” (Student C)
“I felt like I had a huge cultural advantage being a native English speaker, even though it was a culture shock for me.” (Student C)
“The lack of language support for non-native speakers created a barrier to sharing and full participation.” (Student C)
4. Power dynamics in groups
Definition:
The recognition and management of power relationships and their impact on group interaction and learning.
Includes:
- Power dynamics in peer relationships
- Implicit hierarchies in learning environments
- Impact of anonymity on participation
- Fear of work being copied
- Group composition and interaction patterns
Student voice:
“The dynamic of the class and how the tutor encourages people to share really makes a difference.” (Student A)
“I feel like knowing a person more makes you more willing to share your thoughts or work, like you’re more like a family instead of competitive peers. If the course is competitive, I feel less comfortable sharing, but a collaborative atmosphere helps.” (Student B)
“Plagiarism is a concern; students worry about their work being copied or misused when shared online.” (Student B)
“Some students that might feel anonymous would be better for them to share their works because some of them might feel bits, you know, embarrassing to share.” (Student B)
“There’s an elitism in academic culture. Sometimes complexity and difficulty are used to maintain hierarchies.” (Student C)
“Academia is competitive, and it’s hard to create non-competition within it. But you can create moments of pause to reflect and connect. The competitive culture of academia sometimes discourages vulnerability and sharing.” (Student C)
3. Literature review
The existing literature clearly establishes what psychological safety is and its importance in learning (Newman et al, 2017).
The concept of psychological safety, first introduced by Edmondson (1999), describes an environment where individuals feel safe to take interpersonal risks, speak up, and share ideas without fear of negative consequences. While Edmondson’s work focused on workplace teams, the concept has evolved significantly, particularly in educational contexts where risk-taking, failure and vulnerability are inherent to the learning process.
Recent research has expanded our understanding of psychological safety in online educational environments. In design thinking education, researchers have found that establishing psychological safety requires specific strategies tailored to virtual spaces (Hanshaw and Hanshaw, 2023). This work demonstrates how traditional concepts of psychological safety must be adapted for online learning environments where physical cues and immediate feedback are limited.
The importance of psychological safety in online learning is further emphasised in medical education research, where studies show its crucial role in student engagement during synchronous learning (McLeod and Gupta, 2023). This research reveals how psychological safety influences students’ willingness to participate actively in online discussions and collaborative activities. Similarly, studies of interdisciplinary student teams highlight the critical role of instructors in fostering psychological safety, particularly in knowledge sharing and problem-solving contexts (Robinson and Held, 2024).
Healthcare professional studies provide valuable insights into the relationship between psychological safety and voice behaviour (O’Donovan, De Brún and McAuliffe, 2021), while research on graduate-level online courses demonstrates direct links between psychological safety and academic performance (Hanshaw and Hanshaw, 2023). These findings collectively suggest that psychological safety is not merely a desirable condition but a fundamental requirement for effective learning outcomes.
However, despite this growing body of research, a significant gap exists in understanding psychological safety within arts education, particularly in online environments where students must share creative work. While existing studies have examined psychological safety from instructional and performance perspectives, there remains limited understanding of how students experience psychological safety as a phenomenon emerging from course design decisions. This gap is particularly noteworthy in creative disciplines where sharing work involves unique vulnerabilities and risks. This is the gap I wish to explore as part of my action research project.
To address this gap, my action research project adopts a phenomenological approach, examining how students experience psychological safety specifically within an online arts education. This methodology allows for deep exploration of the lived experiences of students, particularly focusing on the tension between ‘eager’ and ‘expected’ sharing behaviours as outcomes of course design choices.
References
Hanshaw, G. and Hanshaw, J. (2023) ‘The effect of psychological safety on the performance of students in graduate-level online courses’, International Journal of Innovative Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 4(1), pp. 1–21. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4018/ijitlhe.333864.
McLeod, E. and Gupta, S. (2023) ‘The role of psychological safety in enhancing medical students’ engagement in online synchronous learning’, Medical Science Educator, 33, pp. 423–430. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-023-01753-8.
Newman, A., Donohue, R. and Eva, N. (2017). ‘Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature.’ Human resource management review, 27(3), pp.521-535.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.01.001
O’Donovan, R., De Brún, A. and McAuliffe, E. (2021) ‘Healthcare professionals’ experience of psychological safety, voice, and silence’, Frontiers in Psychology, 12(12). Available at: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.626689.
Robinson, H. and Held, F. (2024) ‘Psychological safety in online interdisciplinary student teams: What teachers can do to promote an effective climate for knowledge sharing, collaboration and problem-solving’, Active Learning in Higher Education. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874241275346.
1a. Background
Understanding psychological safety as experienced by students. What it means and why it matters.
My Action Research Project (ARP) focuses on students’ perceptions of psychological safety in online learning environments. Edmondson (1999) defines psychological safety as “freedom from fear, embarrassment, or humiliation in groups”. In the art context, this sense of safety is vital for students to confidently share their creative work, engage in critique, and develop their ideas collaboratively (Orr and Shreeve, 2017).
Sharing creative work is at the heart of an arts education. It’s through sharing that students invite others into their process, allowing for dialogue, feedback, and growth [citation]. But sharing isn’t easy. It requires vulnerability, exposing ideas that may still feel raw, unfinished, or deeply personal. For this to happen, students need to feel safe what Edmondson described as the ‘freedom from fear embarrassment, or humiliation’ within a group setting.
UAL data from the Postgraduate Taught Survey (PTES 2023/2024) highlights that postgraduate taught (PGT) students on online master’s programmes feel disconnected.
Postgraduate students don’t feel part of a community at UAL. Why is this? It may be that opportunities for dialogue and the safe sharing of creative work haven’t been fully embedded into the online curriculum.
When students feel disconnected, they’re less likely to share. Fear of judgment or misunderstanding can hold them back, creating a cycle where isolation deepens, and opportunities for growth are missed. In an online environment, where the absence of physical connection can already amplify feelings of disconnection, this becomes even more critical. Without intentional design that fosters a sense of community and trust, the process of sharing, an essential part of the creative arts pedagogy, can be stifled entirely.
In an on-campus setting, this might not matter so much. As, belonging and community often emerge organically as students share physical spaces over time (White, 2022). But in online spaces, where students are scattered across cities, countries, continents and time zones, feelings of connection are harder to cultivate. It isn’t enough to hope that students will ‘figure it out’ on their own. The structure must support connection.
If the structure does not permit dialogue the structure must be changed.
Paulo Freire
If the structure doesn’t allow for dialogue for sharing, then the structure must changed. Grappling with this tension is central to my work, and practice, as a learning designer at UAL. When engaging in course learning design with tutors, I ask of myself and them:
- How can we invite students to share their thoughts, opinions, and creative work without fear?
- How can we co-design learning experiences that intentionally cultivate psychological safety?
It’s also important to recognise that not all students enter the online learning space on equal footing. Some students’ work and approaches are more readily legitimised, aligning with the ‘right kind’ of dispositions and cultural capital that the academy and the art world value (Orr and Shreeve, 2017). For others, their backgrounds, perspectives or approaches may fall outside of these “values”, leaving them more susceptible to the fear of being excluded or undervalued. When students sense that their contributions might not be not equally valued, they may hesitate to share their (real) work or fully participate in the learning process.
I suspect this might come down to a lack of psychological safety in the online environment, particularly for black and ethnic minority, LGBTQIA+, mature, and first-generation university students who are typically excluded from normative online student culture. This can lead to feelings of fear and isolation which impact student motivation, experience and retention (Tinto, 1993).
Recognising and addressing these dynamics is critical to fostering a truly inclusive arts education – where the fear of being oneself is removed as much as possible.
This is why understanding psychological safety and how students experience it is so important. I believe that it is key to delivering on the task of creating inclusive and transformative learning environments.
References
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), pp.350–383. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999. (Accessed: 16 December 2024).
Freire, P. (2017) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London, England: Penguin Books.
Orr, S. and Shreeve, A., 2017. Art and design pedagogy in higher education: Knowledge, values and ambiguity in the creative curriculum. Routledge.
Tinto, V. (1993) Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago (Ill.): University Of Chicago Press.
White, D. (2022) Belonging is inconvenient, David White: Digital and Education. Available at: https://daveowhite.com/inconvenient (Accessed: 16 October 2024).