Learning Matters

Chris Stocking (Assistant Professor in English Language Teaching) & Jo Osborne (Lecturer in English for Academic Study)  

Over the past few years, while working on the design of intercultural modules and non-traditional spaces of intercultural learning, we kept running into the same question: how do we ‘teach’ interculturality in a room where everyone present is already an expert in their own cultural experience? The more we sat with it, the more it seemed like the wrong question. What does it take to build a space in which people can genuinely encounter difference; not just discuss it, but sit inside it, be changed by it, and stay in relation to one another throughout? The real challenge wasn’t how to teach students, but how to build a space in which we could all, ourselves included, think and become otherwise, together. 

That question led us to feminist and decolonial pedagogies, and eventually, through co-designing the Intercultural Reflection Series (and the problem we faced in how to ensure safety within a student-owned and student-led space of learning), to a set of eleven principles that now underpin how we facilitate critically reflective intercultural spaces. These principles are not a code of conduct so much as an ethical orientation. They are a way of naming what a genuinely reciprocal, critically honest intercultural encounter asks of everyone in the room. 

Refusing hierarchy, choosing reciprocity 

The first move is a refusal. We reject the idea of knowledge flowing one way, from expert to novice, in favour of a dynamic process in which facilitators and participants together co-construct the emergent culture of learning (Rawal and Stocking, Forthcoming). This owes a debt to feminist pedagogy’s insistence, via bell hooks (1994) and others, that teaching can be a practice of freedom, and that education must actively make room for marginalised voices and experience rather than treating them as supplementary to a ‘core’ curriculum. Practically, this means recognising that multiple epistemologies, histories, experiences, and worlds will occupy any intercultural space at once, and that no single one of them can possibly hold a monopoly on validity. We position ourselves in seminars as co-inquirers rather than the experts in the room: we can offer concepts and frameworks, but we cannot tell a student how to make sense of their own lived experience through them; that sense-making has to be theirs (Osborne, 2026). The facilitator’s expertise lies in guiding the encounter, not in adjudicating whose understanding or framing is more correct. 

In practice, this means we’re not aiming for convergence. We don’t want twenty-five students arriving at the same understanding of, say, what ‘culture’ means. We want divergence, because it’s in the friction between different readings and the conversation around such differences that learning becomes iterative, complex, alive, and genuinely intercultural. We borrow the word ‘conversation’ here from Stuart Hall (2007), who describes how two people arrive at the present by different routes, and how any real exchange between them has to hold that difference rather than resolve it. Conversation, in this sense, becomes a practice of staying present to each other’s differences without needing to flatten them into convenience or assimilate them into our own frames and discourses of cultural difference (Stocking, 2026). 

Power as constraint and as possibility 

Several principles deal directly with power, resisting a simple story. Power is named as something to engage with courageously, by understanding how historical and structural inequalities shape interaction and learning, and by recognising that no space of learning is ever neutral. As in any interculturally informed classroom, being able to sit with contradictions without needing to resolve them is important, and the framing of power is no different. Power, in an intercultural space, is understood not only as an extension of colonial, racial, hegemonic, and imperialistic histories, but also as a source of agency, energy, joy, and transformation, the immanent experiences of which cannot be translated solely through a critical engagement with history’s oppressive, violent categorisations of life, personhood, and community. This dual reading matters pedagogically, because a space that only diagnoses power as oppressive can leave participants feeling stuck inside it. Naming power as also co-generative opens a route towards post-activist oriented critical reflection (Akómoláfé, 2020): the idea that critically reflective learning is incomplete unless it is eventually used to rethink discrimination and advance equity beyond institutionalised logics and discourses of criticality and activism.  

Discomfort is not harm 

Perhaps the principle we return to most is the distinction between discomfort and harm. Critically reflective engagement with complex histories of oppression and privilege will evoke discomfort, and the principles treat this discomfort as a catalyst for growth rather than something to be designed away. But this is held together with an equally firm commitment to community and care, meaning that engaging in an intercultural space entails recognition of the emotional dimensions of reflective learning, and committing to an environment that nurtures intellectual and emotional wellbeing alongside intellectual challenge. Discomfort without care risks becoming harm; care without discomfort risks becoming inert. The principles insist on both, in the same space, at the same time. That’s also why the principles put so much weight on care alongside critique. A space that only challenges people, without holding them, tends to close down rather than open up. This is why alongside the principles on power and discomfort sit others on mutual care and accountability.   

This is where a decolonial sensibility becomes important too. Rather than treating ‘difference’ as something to be resolved, corrected, managed, or explained away, the principles ask participants to hold multiple, sometimes irreconcilable, ways of knowing in view together. This is closer to Donna Haraway’s idea of ‘staying with the trouble’ (2016) than to any drive toward consensus, resisting the urge to smooth over tensions by instead announcing them and tending to them together as they arise. Within an intercultural space, then, tension is not a sign that conversation has gone awry, but an expression that epistemological thresholds are being reached. For us, it’s here, in the ineffable, overwhelming encounter with the limits of one’s own world, that the potential emerges for thresholds to be breached and the experience of self, other, and world reshaped.  

Accountability, imperfection, and the unfinished 

The final principles bring the set back down to earth. They call for accountable, ethical collaboration; constructive dialogue and respectful feedback grounded in active listening; and zero tolerance for discrimination, harassment, or abuse of power, however it may arise. And then, deliberately, the list ends with a caveat; a recognition that the space will never be perfect, because none of us are. That closing principle matters as much as any other. It resists the temptation to present critically reflective intercultural practice as a solved problem, and instead frames it as an ongoing, imperfect, collective commitment towards an im-possible end; one that has to be renewed and renegotiated every time we enter a space to learn together. 

An orientation, not a checklist 

Read together, the eleven principles are best understood as a disposition to be practised: towards reciprocity over authority; towards holding power honestly rather than pretending it isn’t there; towards discomfort as generative rather than something to avoid; and towards care as the condition that makes intercultural learning possible. None of this is comfortable work, and the principles do not pretend otherwise. What they offer instead is a shared basis for staying in the difficulty together, honestly and with care. 

The principles themselves 

The principles emerged from a piece of work Chris was undertaking in 23/24 that explored the intersections between feminist and decolonial pedagogies and intercultural praxis. This mapping drew on the work of several notable feminist scholars (e.g., bell hooks, Audre Lorde, Adrienne Rich, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Carolyn Shrewsbury), decolonial scholars (e.g., Catherine E. Walsh and Walter Mignolo), and intercultural scholars (e.g., Kathryn Sorrells and Adrian Holliday).  

Following an emotional and vulnerable second session of the 24/25 Intercultural Reflection Series, it became clear that a set of guiding principles was needed to support and safeguard the participants in the reflective space. Chris subsequently wrote the following 11 principles, refining them in consultation with Jo and the two Intercultural Ambassadors, Précieux Rajaofera and Victoria Rodriguez Denyer. The principles have, however, continued to evolve, with Principle 7 recently being refocused onto self-accountability. 

1. Transformative and reciprocal learning 
   We reject hierarchical knowledge transmission in favour of a dynamic, reciprocal learning process in which facilitators and participants co-construct knowledge. This approach values lived experiences as integral to critical reflection and collective growth. We recognise that multiple epistemologies (or systems of knowledge and ways of making sense) will occupy this space, and that all have equal value. 

2. Community and care in engagement 
   A critically reflective intercultural space is built on mutual care, empathy, and respect. We recognize the emotional dimensions of reflective learning and commit to fostering an environment that nurtures both intellectual and emotional well-being. 

3. Critical engagement with power and privilege 
   We will engage courageously and compassionately with issues of power and privilege, acknowledging that difficult conversations are necessary for transformation. We strive to understand how historical and structural inequalities shape our interactions and learning. 

4. Discomfort as a catalyst for growth 
   We acknowledge that critically reflective engagement may evoke discomfort as we confront complex histories of oppression and privilege. However, discomfort is distinct from harm, and we commit to supporting each other in navigating these challenges constructively. 

5. Power as both constraint and potential 
   We recognise power not only as a source of domination but also as a means of agency and transformation. We commit to exercising power ethically, working so that it is shared, distributed, and exercised with transparency and accountability. 

6. Inclusive and equitable participation 
   We strive to create an inclusive space where diverse voices are heard and valued. This requires dismantling biases, recognising systemic barriers, and actively working towards equitable participation in all discussions and decision-making processes. 

7. Action-oriented reflection for self-accountability 
   Critical reflection ought to lead to meaningful change in how we see and relate to others. We commit to using the insights gained in this space to notice the ways we may other, stereotype, or hold bias or prejudice (in our language or habits of thought) and to hold ourselves accountable for changing these patterns in ourselves as the basis for more open and equitable relations with others. 

8. Accountable and ethical collaboration 
   We hold ourselves accountable for our individual and collective contributions to this space. Ethical collaboration requires trust, clarity in shared goals, and a commitment to collective success. 

9. Constructive dialogue and respectful feedback 
   We will engage in continuous dialogue, actively seeking and offering feedback that is constructive and respectful. Conflict resolution will be approached through active listening and a commitment to non-violent, respectful communication. 

10. Commitment to integrity and zero tolerance for harm 
    We will uphold the highest ethical standards, calling out and addressing any form of discrimination or harassment. Creating a truly reflective and inclusive space requires unwavering commitment to integrity and the safety of all participants. 

11. Recognition of imperfection 
    We recognise and respect the fact that the reflective space will not be perfect, because we ourselves are not perfect. 

Enacting Sussex 2035 

The intercultural principles outlined above embody the spirit of the University of Sussex’s 2035 strategy, promoting global and civic engagement, human flourishing, and global knowledge equity. They empower students to understand themselves not as passive participants in a global university, but as active contributors to a more equitable, connected, and culturally conscious academic community. They also challenge educators to think closely about how to make genuinely equitable learning communities.  

References 

Akómoláfé, B. (2020) What I mean by postactivism. Available at: https://www.bayoakomolafe.net/post/what-i-mean-by-postactivism (Accessed: 14 July 2026). 

Hall, S. (2007) Living with Difference, Soundings, (37), pp. 148–158. 

Haraway, D. J. (2016) Staying with the trouble. Duke University Press: Durham, NC. 

hooks, b. (1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. Routledge: New York. 

Osborne, J. (2026) Creating an Inclusive Classroom Environment, in Senker, C. (ed.) Inclusive teaching practices: A toolkit for narrowing ethnicity awarding gaps. Sussex: Open Press University of Sussex. 

Rawal, A. and Stocking, C. (Forthcoming) Transformative Learning, in Garnham, W., Overton, S., Taylor, W., and Watson, S. (eds.) Learning Matters: Insights, Experiences and Conversations from the Podcast. Sussex: Open Press University of Sussex.  

Stocking, C. (2026) Critical Reflection, in Senker, C. (ed.) Inclusive teaching practices: A toolkit for narrowing ethnicity awarding gaps. Sussex: Open Press University of Sussex. 

Chris Stocking (Assistant Professor in English Language Teaching), Jo Osborne (Lecturer in English for Academic Study), Natacha Akaliza and Erlinda Joseph (Intercultural Student Ambassadors)

Introduction

Many international students arrive at Sussex already carrying extensive intercultural expertise. Much of this has been developed previously by navigating different or unfamiliar contexts, learning to make sense of new social codes, and by building a feeling of belonging from scratch. In a 2022 plenary for The British Association of Lecturers in English for Academic Purposes (BALEAP), the applied linguist Adrian Holliday named this directly, describing international students as ‘intercultural experts’ in their own right. We think this reframing carries a real responsibility for a university like Sussex, to help students recognise the expertise they already have, and to support them in seeing themselves not as outsiders adapting to a pre-existing culture, but as people with the standing to help shape it. Interculturality, the concept underpinning all of this, is worth pausing on for anyone encountering it for the first time. It is a way of understanding culture, identity, and communication that treats these things as relational and always in motion, rather than as fixed features that can be read off someone’s passport. It stands in contrast to older, more static framings of cross-cultural difference, drawing instead on intersectionality, systems thinking, and a critical eye on how the language of ‘othering’ shapes who feels like they can belong. 

The Intercultural Reflection Series puts this thinking into practice. Designed by Chris Stocking and Jo Osborne and delivered by two appointed Intercultural Student Ambassadors, the Series unfolds across six sessions. Over the course of these sessions, international students come together in a student-led, discursive space created to support open dialogue and to provide a platform from which students might come to understand themselves and their place within the university’s academic culture in more meaningful ways. Each session takes on a different theme. In session 1, students explore how they define their own international identity. In session 2, they discuss how they have experienced being othered or have unintentionally othered others in turn. In session 3, they reflect on their relationship with English as a language they are expected to master rather than one they can claim as their own. In session 4, they consider what it means to be an ‘intercultural global citizen’ and whether such an identity position is even desirable. Session five introduces Adrian Holliday’s own ideas of how ‘small cultures’ (1999, 2016) form between people regardless of nationality, language or ethnicity, before the Series closes with a collective reflection in which students come together to share their learning and compose a shared poem. Alongside these in-person sessions, a dedicated Canvas site offers short, accessible pre-recorded videos on the intercultural theory underpinning these reflective sessions, introducing students to concepts like non-essentialism, ethnorelativism, intersectionality, native-speakerism, and small cultures, giving them a shared vocabulary for the expertise they already hold. 

For the 25/26 year, the second year the Series has run, the reflective sessions increased from 1.5 hours to 2 hours, giving students a slower pace for meaningful reflection. The Intercultural Ambassadors also brought a new lens to the sessions, receiving instruction on ‘harvesting’ what Nora Bateson calls ‘Warm Data’ (2017). Conventional, ‘cold’ data isolates variables, treating, for instance, a student’s nationality or English language proficiency as facts that can be understood or measured on their own. ‘Warm Data,’ by contrast, insists that nothing meaningful can be understood in isolation from the living relationships and context it sits within. Applied to the Series, this means learning to see each student not as a data point to be measured against a fixed cultural or academic standard, but as a person embedded in an unfolding web of relationships: to their discipline, to the friends and the communities they have built at Sussex, and to the cultural contexts they have left and the ones they are now navigating. In this sense, the Series puts Warm Data harvesting into practice; it functions as a space in which the kind of relational, contextual sharing and understanding that intercultural learning asks of us can actually take place. 

The effects of this learning have gone well beyond the sessions themselves. Students have told us that the Series gave them a space where they didn’t need to perform a version of themselves to fit in, and where speaking from their own positionality was validated collectively rather than smoothed over. It helped some feel, for the first time, a genuine sense of belonging and mattering to the university. Facilitated throughout by two incredibly caring and deeply humble Intercultural Ambassadors, Natacha Akaliza and Erlinda Joseph, the Series has also helped students build support networks that have outlasted the programme itself. Following the success of its first run in the 2024/25 spring term, the Intercultural Reflection Series has since developed into a certified CPD programme, offering formal certification for a kind of non-standard learning that can often go unrecognised. 

Listen to and read more from our Intercultural Ambassadors and Series participants below:  

1. Akaliza (Intercultural Ambassador) 

Natacha Akaliza is a Rwandan daughter, sister, friend, and Tata (Aunt). Her professional experience spans research and analysis in climate adaptation, equity and social inclusion in Rwanda, including within smallholder agriculture. Her non-professional experience spans questioning, observing, laughing with tears, and overthinking. She is curious about the world and mostly humans, she is a lifelong learner. 

Akaliza reflects on the Series

The Intercultural Reflection Series was a space where we, as international students, came together to reflect. I joined as a facilitator, not really knowing which student was going to show up, except my co-facilitator. The experience was quite new to me. Some of the concepts we discussed were completely new and unfamiliar, like lingua franca and essentialism, while others, like othering, were things I had come across before. 

Some of the sessions were challenging, but not because we didn’t understand the concepts. It was more because of the different, and sometimes uncomfortable, views that we had to sit with. What I really appreciated was that people still showed up, even when the conversations were difficult. I think some of the deeper learning and connections happened because of that. We got to understand where other people were coming from, while also recognising our own biases and how they can sometimes get in the way of that understanding. But most importantly, I think we developed a deeper respect for each other. 

There was also a lot of internal work happening for each of us. I realised that while some of the barriers are very real and valid, allowing those barriers to define how we interact with others is also, to some extent, a role we play. And unlearning some of those things is a role we can choose to play too. 

Generally, I think students might hesitate to join something like this. They might wonder what it is, whether it is worth their time, or whether it will take away from their studies. And I understand that hesitation. But I don’t think this is an extra thing that takes time away. It is an opportunity to reflect, and I think it gives something back, in how you navigate classrooms, the campus, and the world. Because the understanding it gives you, of yourself, of other people, and of the spaces you share with others is not separate from the education you pursued. In many ways, I think it is part of our education. The part that teaches us new ways to think about relation. 

2. Lindu (Intercultural Ambassador) 

Erlinda Joseph (Lindu) is a gender, labour and migration researcher, educator and organiser with over 8 years’ experience supporting migrant, domestic and women workers across Southeast Asia. She is currently completing an MA in Gender and Development at the Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex. She has experience in feminist participatory action research (FPAR), programme implementation, worker education and grassroots organising. Erlinda is also an avid hiker and long-distance runner who loves to challenge herself and believes nothing is impossible. 

Lindu reflects on the Series

Through the Intercultural Series, I learned how to navigate spaces with people who are different from me. I realised that if I truly want to understand someone, open communication and sharing are essential; otherwise, I can never fully know that person. 

During the Series, I initially thought I knew some people through our daily interactions. However, in the sharing sessions, I discovered many layers in each person that I had never known before. This experience opened my eyes to how many layers we all must unpack, negotiate, and accept to exist within a particular space. I found that unpacking these layers of the self was not easy, as they are often connected to different emotions and personal experiences. Nevertheless, I am grateful that I had the opportunity to do so through these sessions. The Series has changed the way I see others and helped me understand that many of my perceptions of people are shaped by my own upbringing and life experiences. 

Another important lesson I learned from this Series was overcoming my lack of confidence when communicating in English with native speakers. I used to believe that I had to speak perfect English to have meaningful conversations. However, these sessions taught me that English is a lingua franca, and it is okay not to be perfect. Most importantly, the experience helped me develop ownership and confidence in my use of the language. 

I am truly grateful for this space and the opportunity to be part of this Series. I especially valued the conversations and sharing sessions with Akaliza and Chris, as they inspired me to reflect more deeply on the world around me and how I connect with it. 

I also enjoyed the facilitation sessions and learned a great deal about creating warm data, an area that I would like to pursue further in the future. In particular, I am interested in exploring how academic knowledge and artistic approaches can be combined to generate meaningful forms of data and understanding. I believe this perspective will be valuable for my future work and research. 

Akini  

Akinsanmi Fowowe is a dedicated researcher and academic with a strong interest in the sustainable utilisation of renewable biomaterials, biomass valorisation, wood adhesives, and nanocellulose isolation. He is currently pursuing a PhD at the University of Sussex, focusing on lignin-based anticorrosion coatings, a bio-based solution for industrial applications. With a background in wood products engineering, Fowowe holds an MSc in Pulp and Paper Technology from the University of Ibadan, Nigeria, where he also served as a Lecturer II. In 2024, he was awarded the C.V. Raman International Fellowship for African Researchers in India. His PhD is funded by the Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic (BAME) Scholarship. He has contributed to the field through research publications and conference presentations. 

Akini reflects on the Series

The Intercultural Reflection Series was a thought-provoking, structured course that moved beyond simple awareness into deeper self-examination and practical reflection. What stood out most was its progression, beginning with identity, moving through how we define others, then exploring language, competency, culture, and finally ownership of intercultural identity. That sequence, especially the short introduction videos, made the learning feel cumulative rather than disconnected, and encouraged critical engagement with the assumptions behind language and behaviour at the university, not just participation. 

The main lesson learned was that identity is not fixed or singular, but shaped by context, relationships, and the language used to describe it. Terms like “global citizen,” “international student,” “native speaker,” and even “culture” carry hidden assumptions that influence belonging and exclusion, something the sessions on othering and English as a lingua franca made especially clear. How people are positioned in institutions can either empower them or leave them feeling peripheral. The course helped reframe interculturality as something active, ethical, and relational, rather than merely descriptive. 

It also changed how I understood myself. My international identity is not simply a label given by an institution, but something I can define and own. It shifted how I think about mattering at the university too, not as someone merely adapting to a system, but as someone whose experiences, language practices, and perspectives contribute to the learning environment. That shift moved me from feeling observed or categorised to feeling visible and legitimate within the university community. 

Learning, I realised, is not just about receiving information, but about participating, reflecting, questioning, and bringing my own experience into dialogue with others. My identity and perspective are not peripheral to that process but central to it. Ownership came to feel personal and shared at once, personal because I am responsible for my own development, and shared because learning becomes richer when different identities and perspectives are valued. Overall, the Series fostered a stronger sense of confidence, belonging, and agency, both in my intercultural identity and in my role as a learner. 

Evy  

Yuwei Qiu (Evy) is a first-year PhD student in English at the University of Sussex. Her research focuses on representations of Chinese merchants in British literature, particularly women merchants. With a background in Comparative Literature, this is her first experience of living and studying abroad for an extended period

Evy reflects on the Series

This course offered me a brand new perspective of seeing myself as an international student in Sussex and in the UK. The arrangement of the course is reasonable and inclusive. The facilitators put a lot of effort into preparing, left enough space for participants to think and share, led us through our daily experience with theories as a tool, and helped me to be more conscious about myself and the environment. The Canvas is also useful with the keywords and bibliography. 

In terms of what I learned, first is knowledge about intercultural theories and studies. I was familiar with some–like stereotype, identity, global citizen and othering, but not with others–like essentialist paradigm of culture, lingua franca, intercultural blocks and threads. This course helped me understand all of them better and deeper. Also, I made some good friends during the course. It was not easy to really pay attention to someone, try to understand another culture without pretending I do when the difference is huge and obvious, and to be honest and polite. I have learned to be more open and honest with myself and others and would say it is the best thing to take away for the rest of my life. What’s more, our facilitators also inspire me on how a class could be. This course is based on individual experiences, so it is very important that the participants can feel safe and creative when we try to dig into the deeper part of our daily experience and feelings. I really enjoy all the painting, poem writing and dancing as tools to learn more about myself and others and would love to use it for my future classes. 

Beyond what I learned, the course also changed how I understood myself and my sense of mattering at the university. Yes, definitely. I was not confident when I speak to native speakers or in a public space, always reflect on how others would think about me and the grammar mistakes I made. But now I realize I am not less qualified with using the language as a tool to communicate. Also I am more conscious and cautious when I try to make judgement about other people. I have learned to read people as individuals instead of the products of different cultures. 

Looking ahead, I think I will be more comfortable to get engaged in different activities (both academic and others) and to reach out for help if it’s needed. And I would feel more qualified and confident to be an international student. 

Miki  

Miki Fukase is currently talking an MA in International Education and Development at Sussex. 

Miki reflect on the Series

The Intercultural Reflection Series helped me reflect more deeply on my identity as an international student, not as something fixed or simply defined by nationality, language, or institutional labels, but as something dynamic, relational, and constantly changing. 

One of the most important things I learned was to move away from an essentialist understanding of culture. It is easy to say, “Japanese people are like this,” “British people are like that,” based on what we learned from different sources.  However, the Series helped me realize once again that these categories, while sometimes useful, can also limit how we understand ourselves and others. I began to see culture as more heterogeneous, fluid, and shaped through relationships and lived experiences. 

The discussions on othering and agency were also particularly meaningful for me. As an international student, I have sometimes felt that I am seen through narrow assumptions, for example, as someone whose English is not perfect, someone who needs help, or someone who comes from a different culture. At the same time, I also realized that I unconsciously categorize others by nationality, language, accent, or cultural background. This awareness made me more careful about how I see and speak about others. It also reminded me that ignorance or incorrect assumptions can hurt people, even when there is no bad intention. 

One more thing I learned is that intercultural understanding does not simply mean accepting everything without question. Sometimes we need to listen with openness and humility; at other times, we also need to draw boundaries and say clearly when something feels wrong. For me, intercultural learning involves both the courage to make mistakes and the courage to accept, respect, and learn from other people. 

Another important learning point was about language ownership. Studying in English, I have often felt insecure about whether my English is “good enough.” However, through the discussions on English as a lingua franca and language ownership, I came to understand English not as something owned only by native speakers, but as a shared language through which people from different backgrounds create meaning together. At the same time, I also became more aware that English can have very different meanings for different people, especially for those whose own languages have been marginalized or displaced. This reminded me that language is not just a communication tool; it is also connected to identity, power, memory, and respect. 

More broadly, the Series encouraged me to connect my personal experiences with theory, to ask questions in my own words, and to allow my thinking to change through dialogue with others. Speaking with people from different cultural backgrounds in the class helped me understand not only others, but also myself more deeply. Differences can create misunderstandings and tensions, but they can also be beautiful. In an increasingly globalized world, where more cultures and experiences are being shared across borders, I want to continue valuing difference, listening carefully, and respecting others as whole human beings. 

I also really appreciated the structure and atmosphere of the Series. The two student facilitators provided thoughtful and supportive navigation throughout the sessions, and the materials prepared by the teacher were clear and accessible. The space felt inclusive and welcoming, making it easy for students to participate. I especially valued the use of dance, poetry, and art, as these creative activities helped reduce the distance between students and created a more open environment where we could share our thoughts honestly. 

Overall, the Intercultural Reflection Series gave me a valuable opportunity to reflect on who I am, how I relate to others, and how I want to take ownership of my learning and identity at university. It helped me feel that my experiences, questions, and voice matter within the university community. 

Kina

Kina Nicholas is currently talking an MSc in Climate Change, Development and Policy at Sussex. They reflect on the Series:

The Intercultural Reflection Series helped me understand culture as something that is  dynamic, complex, and shaped by people’s different identities, histories, and experiences. The concepts that stood out most to me were intercultural competency and global competency, because they encouraged me to think about how we build belonging through care, empathy, and openness, especially when we encounter difference. 

One of the most meaningful parts of the Series was realising how much intercultural learning already happens in everyday university life. For example, living with flatmates from completely different cultural backgrounds has taught me how important it is to listen, ask questions respectfully, and share parts of my own culture too. Our cultural dinner nights, where we cook food from our own countries and explain its meaning, have become a practical form of intercultural dialogue. They show how connection can be built through small acts of sharing, curiosity, and mutual respect. 

The Series also changed how I understood myself and my sense of mattering at university. Being in a multicultural class again reminded me that my own background, experiences, and perspectives are valuable. Hearing from others helped me appreciate that everyone brings different “threads” of experience into the classroom, into the study space, into what makes the University of Sussex, with students from over 173 countries, a unique and inclusive space; and that these differences can deepen learning rather than divide us. 

Finally, it helped me see greater ownership in my learning. It made me feel that learning is not only about receiving knowledge from lecturers, but also about contributing my own experiences, reflecting critically, and learning through dialogue with others. It encouraged me to take more responsibility for how I engage with people, ideas, and difference at this amazing institution. It was truly a joy to take that mid-week break and vent, learn, understand and improve through these reflection Series. This was an extremely valuable addition to my university experience! 

Closing comments 

Taken together, these reflections return to a handful of the same ideas, arrived at independently by students who had never held conversations about interculturality with one another before. Each describes a shift away from thinking about identity, culture, or language as something fixed, given by a passport or ethnicity, and toward something made, in relationship, through the specific people and situations each student found themselves navigating. Each also describes a similar movement in how they came to see their own place at Sussex, from feeling observed or categorised to feeling genuinely legitimate, visible, and heard. And each, in their own words, connects that shift to a changed understanding of learning as something they actively own and shape by drawing on their own experiences, cultural frames, and positionality. 

Enacting Sussex 2035 

The Intercultural Reflection Series embodies the spirit of the University of  Sussex’s 2035 Strategy, promoting Global and Civic Engagement, Human Flourishing, and Global Knowledge Equity. It empowers students to understand themselves not as passive participants in a global university, but as active contributors to a more equitable, connected, and culturally conscious academic community. 

References 

• Bateson, N. (2017) Warm Data. Available at: https://norabateson.wordpress.com/2017/05/28/warm-data/ (Accessed: 17 August 2026)  

• Holliday, A. (1999) Small cultures, Applied Linguistics, 20(2), pp. 237–264. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/20.2.237 

• Holliday, A. (2016) Revisiting intercultural competence: small culture formation on the go through threads of experience. International Journal of Bias, Identity & Diversities in Education, 1(2). pp. 1-14. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJBIDE.2016070101 

Cath Senker: Assistant Professor in Academic Skills

Introduction

As teachers, we hope to make our teaching as inclusive as possible for the wide range of students in our classes, in terms of both curriculum and pedagogy. How can we do this? This year, I have been gathering examples of excellent inclusive practices from teachers across The University of Sussex to create a helpful toolkit that can be adapted for different subjects. This blog post highlights some key aspects of the toolkit and you can read the full version online: Inclusive teaching practices: a toolkit for narrowing ethnicity awarding gaps. 

All the contributions are aligned with six key practices that have been shown to narrow ethnicity awarding gaps:  

I’ll briefly talk about these factors, mention some toolkit examples and provide tips for using the toolkit.  

1. Decolonisation of the curriculum and anti-racist pedagogy 

University curricula need to be ‘inclusive and reflective of diverse perspectives’, as Banerjee states in her evidence-based recommendations for narrowing ethnicity awarding gaps (Banerjee 2024). Decolonising the curriculum starts at the basic level of diversifying the names used in case studies and the authors in reading lists. To go further requires ‘a deeper reflection on thoughts and assumptions underlying knowledge’ (de Sousa, Fatilewa and Mistry 2021). The toolkit contains examples of such in-depth decolonisation, such as Dr Sabrina Gilani and Dr Ashleigh Keall’s Aboriginal Law module (Law), which focuses explicitly on Indigenous perspectives. 

2. Co-creation of the curriculum 

Linked to decolonisation is the involvement of students in decision-making processes in their teaching, which includes co-creating the curriculum (QAA 2024: 22). In her Conservation Biology module (Life Sciences), Dr Deborah Glass runs debates on topical conservation issues; the students work in groups to co-create the materials. Student co-creation of assessments gives students agency and makes the assignments more relevant and engaging (Canal and Child 2025). In Prof Zahid Pranjol’s Introduction to Human Disease module (Life Sciences), groups of students decide on their own creative, innovative and inclusive assessment outputs, such as a mind map or a YouTube video.

3. Inclusive assessment 

Inclusive assessment can be defined as ‘the provision of assessments that allow all students to do well without receiving alternative or adapted assessments’ (Bain 2023). According to this definition, Prof Pranjol’s assessment is inclusive because it is flexible. The Awarding Map notes that: ‘Diversification of assessment type, either in place of or in addition to more traditional assessment methods, may have a positive impact on student experience and degree outcomes’ (QAA 2024: 26). Canal and Child agree that diversification is vital. They highlight the importance of developing ‘…discipline-specific or authentic “real world” tasks to demonstrate their [students’] learning and development of a range of skills relevant to their discipline and future work.’ (Canal and Child: 991). Jeanette Ashton and Dr Verona Ní Drisceoil’s Professional Skills: Law in Action module (Law) includes the task of setting up a student law firm to offer legal advice to a local organisation. 

4. Student engagement 

The student-centred practices above foster engagement. As Newbigin and Tucker note, when you incorporate such practices, the tutor’s role becomes ‘curatorial and facilitative’. Students take part in discovering knowledge rather than passively receiving it. They use their lived experiences to connect learning to issues relevant to their lives (Newbigin and Tucker: 11). In Chris Stocking and Jo Osborne’s interculturality modules (English), students relate the module readings to their own knowledge and experience, which leads to a high level of participation and engagement.

5. Fostering sense of belonging 

Students feel a greater sense of belonging when they see their own experiences reflected in the curriculum. The TASO Theory of Change curriculum review project at the University of Law noted as an impact that students of colour ‘show an increased sense of belonging as they identify more with the content of the curricula – are more engaged and find accessing curricular content easier, as it is more relevant to them’ (University of Law). Dr Xiangming (Tommy) Tao’s Business School modules contain diverse protagonists in business case studies, making the curriculum more representative and strengthening students’ sense of belonging. Feelings of belonging are linked to narrowing ethnicity awarding gaps. According to Banerjee, ‘When students feel connected to their institution and have a sense of belonging, they are more likely to persist and complete their degrees. This can help to reduce degree awarding gaps and improve outcomes for all students.’ (Banerjee: 43) 
 

6. Academic skills and student support 

Providing tailored academic skills support can also help to narrow awarding gaps. At the University of Birmingham, the Birmingham Scholar programme is ‘designed to support students from all backgrounds to thrive at university and beyond.’ It is offered to black students from the most deprived neighbourhoods, care leavers and students from non-selective state schools. ‘Preliminary quantitative evidence… suggests the Scholar programme may help to reduce awarding gaps by improving degree outcomes for Scholars who engage with the programme’ (Harper and Campbell 2023). Based on Museus’s Culturally Engaging Campus Environments (CECE) model of success for racially diverse student populations (Museus 2014), Hengyi Wang’s Learning Community programme (Business School) extends beyond academic skills to provide a comprehensive model that incorporates students’ personal development support. 

How to use the toolkit 

The toolkit contains a range of examples that can be adapted to different disciplines, from easy-to-implement tips for encouraging more engagement in the classroom to deeper-level change, involving rethinking systems of knowledge. It is organised in sections that I hope will be convenient for teachers. They don’t match the six factors above because most  contributions relate to more than one factor for narrowing awarding gaps.  

1. Decolonising the curriculum 
2. Seminars  
3. Lectures 
4. Team-based learning and group work 
5. Assessment 
6. Academic skills and student support 

The contributions all have a summary, course information, description of the practice and outcomes – how the practice can help to narrow ethnicity awarding gaps. Some include comments and reflections from students and/or tutors. The Resources section has links to materials for narrowing ethnicity awarding gaps from Sussex and other universities.  

I welcome any feedback on outcomes from teachers who have used these or similar practices. This is an ongoing project. Please contact me if you’d like to contribute to the toolkit or have recommendations to improve it: Cath.Senker@sussex.ac.uk

Reference list 

Bain, K. (2023) ‘Inclusive Assessment in Higher Education: What Does the Literature Tells Us On How To Define and Design Inclusive Assessments?’, Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, 27: 1, https://doi.org/10.47408/jldhe.vi27.1014 (accessed 12 May 2026) 

Banerjee, P. (2024) ‘Connecting The Dots: A Systematic Review Of Explanatory Factors Linking Contextual Indicators, Institutional Culture And Degree’, Higher Education Evaluation and Development 18.1: 48, https://doi.org/10.1108/HEED-07-2023-0020 (accessed 15 April 2026) 

Canal, M.M. and Child, R. (2025) ‘Impact of the Type of Assessment on Awarding Gaps In Bioscience Undergraduate Degrees’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 50.6: 991, https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2500365 (accessed 15 April 2026) 

Harper, P. and Campbell, L.B.M. (2023) ‘Addressing the Awarding Gap, Fostering Belonging: Developing Enhanced Academic Skills Support for our Birmingham Scholars’, Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education 29: 1, https://doi.org/10.47408/jldhe.vi29.1074 (accessed 24 April 2026)  

London Metropolitan University (2025) ‘London Met Among Top Universities for Closing the Awarding Gap’, 20 November (accessed 21 April 2026) 

Museus, S.D. (2014) ‘The Culturally Engaging Campus Environments (CECE) Model: A New Theory of Success Among Racially Diverse College Student Populations’, in Paulsen, M. (eds) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research 29, Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8005-6_5 (accessed 12 May 2026) 

Newbigin, E. and Tucker, S. (2025) ‘Teaching History Inclusively: A Pedagogical Case Study from an Institution Shaped by Empire’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 1–27, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0080440125100510 (accessed 12 May 2026) 

QAA (2024) ‘The Awarding Map’, available to QAA members (accessed 27 January 2026) 

de Sousa, S.; Fatilewa, O.; Mistry, T. (2021) ‘Inclusive Curriculum and BAME Student Advocacy in a Business School: Reflections on Three Years of Inclusive Module Reviews’, Open University Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning 23.3: 48–56(9) https://doi.org/10.5456/WPLL.23.3.48ƒ (accessed 12 May 2026) 

University of Law (2024), Monitoring of Inclusive Learning (MOIL) Panel, TASO (accessed 15 April 2026)