I’m aware that I only have left 5 days at uni and that tomorrow I have my final presentation. The fact is I can’t change much of what I’ve done and what I’m going to present these few days at uni, but I’m still committed to keep on learning about different angles on inclusion and intersectionality. That’s why I decided to be part of the workshop that Academic Support was offering. The name was Exploring intersectionality through object-based learning and it catch my name immediately because my project is deeply related to intersectionality.
The workshop was today and when I got to the meeting point, I was the only student that appeared! I basically had a personal session with Dayna Tohidi, she’s a teacher at UAL and works also at the CSM Museum, she’s doing a research related on object based learining for neurodivergent students through action research methodology! So we talked loads about each other projects and she seemed very interested about mine. We did an exercise about emotional object reading and I picked some prosthetic nipples that were designed by an UAL student last year. It was a very moving exercise knowing that they were designed for breast cancer patients and have included the melatonin of the hair those patients lost during chemotherapy.
At the end we exchanged contacts and I received some feedback on how to make my exposition more inclusive considering the accessibility aspects I’ve pointed out before. She liked my idea of placing a disclaimer about the colour- filter aspect of my exposition.
Still sad about leaving uni but very happy I’ve had the possibility of sharing this type of spaces!
Last Wednesday, I had a conversation with Monica Bueno, a service designer who has worked with agencies like IDEO and is now based in Boston, running her own consultancy. I reached out to her because she’s Colombian, and I thought she could provide valuable insights into how she applies concepts like averages in her design practice.
I introduced myself and explained my research topic, and she shared some of her experiences with using “extreme users” when designing services at IDEO. When planning a project and talking to users, they always included extreme interviews. Monica explained that designing for the average doesn’t allow you to understand the extremes, which is necessary for creating an effective product that avoids generalizations. Instead of relying solely on data, she conducted very deep interviews and anthropological exercises to gain a profound understanding of user behaviors.
In another consultancy she worked with, the focus was less on individuals and more on behaviors. This approach was more psychological, analyzing consumption patterns and creating behavior archetypes.
Lastly, she talked about using a “jobs-to-be-done” approach, which is more practical and focused on efficiency. This method allowed her to quantify decisions more easily, which is often a priority in the corporate world. She emphasized that the depth of user understanding depends on the client’s appetite for investing resources in knowing their customers.
I found the conversation fascinating because, based on my own experience in a design agency, I could relate to what she was saying and understand how it applies in practice. However, I realized that for my project, it might be more useful to speak with a product designer.
At the end of our chat, Monica kindly offered to connect me with people in London, especially to help me explore job opportunities.
During the final round of tutorials, we focused on completing our final deliverables and elevating our pitch, making sure we were focusing on the most relevant aspects of our research. Elizabeth emphasized the importance of clearly explaining the logical connections between our ideas. We also discussed how to improve our blogs, a topic I’ve dedicated significant effort and time to, and I’m proud of it.
One of Elizabeth’s key lessons was the importance of keeping things concise and impactful. She often reminded us to prepare for counter-questions about our projects, a skill I’ve found invaluable for sharpening my ideas and communicating them effectively.
Among the group exercises we did, the most impactful for me was when Elizabeth asked us what we had placed in our “box of uncertainties” at the beginning of the year. My answer was ignorance, justice, and gender + design. Reflecting on this, I realized that my project and research had been taking shape in my mind even before the master’s program started. This year has been an opportunity to bring those ideas into the world and explore how they might create meaningful change.
Finally, Elizabeth reminded us that the final presentation is not just an assessment but also a celebration of the knowledge we’ve gained and the progress we’ve made. I find this to be ver special and was the first time that I approached education that was, as a celebration of knowldege! Amazing way of ending this insightful year.
Elizabeth, my tutor, sent me this event that happened at the university, since she knew I was interested about the design practice.
I went to the event and for my surprise, Monica was Colombian! She talked about her projects working in big design agencies, as IDEO, and her practice as a service designer. I took the opportunity to ask her a couple of questions about what challenges has she faced as a Latina in the industry and asked awe if I could contact her after the talk. She shared her email and now we are having a chat next Wednesday!
I really enjoyed the journey to create what I wanted to show for the final showcase, since it allowed me to explore with different mediums to execute my idea, an I experienced how the creative process is all about trusting intuition, asking for feedback and working hard to make it happen.
My first vision of what I want to showcase came from an idea I had of a possible intervention where I ask people to confront themselves against a mirror that had on top the silhouette of the average man, asking them if they could fit that frame. After the Dragon’s Den, I had a different idea of how to approach it, it’s all described in this previous blog post.
After deciding that I want to create an environment full of red flags on objects and reading about the anaglyph effect, Zuleika informed me that for the exposition I didn’t have enough space to make an entire living room as I had thought, so I had to reframe my idea. I decided then to create some posters still with the same effect, so I went to the Digital Lab and asked help to one of the technicians I already had work with to create the Flag the Gap logo. She then invited me to play around with Illustrator. It’s important to mention that I have not much experience with and that I had to learn A LOT. Also, she asked me to create some sketches of what I was envisioning so it felt ore guided my creative process.
So, here are some of the images of the process, from the beginning to the end. I’m going to print them with the Riso printer of the university and I’m so excited of the result!
First Sketches:
First try in Illustrator:
This was during the week of ….
Progress with Illustrator
Final Result
Another aspect that was important for me was to develop my own logo for Carolina, la Latina, which started as the name of this blog, but now I’m thinking about using it as my own personal brand for my art projects and my creative side. Also, by prototyping and playing around with Illustrator I created my new brand, which is also a big step for me.
It took me 2 weeks to make this happen and I’m really so proud of myself and the evolution I saw on my art piece.
While finalizing my research and creating the art piece for the festival, I had a significant realization: my main critique is about how things are designed for the few, yet the engaging aspect of my project is only accessible to people who can see. Once again, I find myself unintentionally excluding others through my design decisions, contradicting my own critique.
For example, my use of ableist language, such as referencing “visibility” and “invisibility” in a project centered on sight, revealed another layer of my biases. While this aligns with my theme of “making the invisible visible,” it also underscores the need to consider inclusivity, something I now wish I had addressed earlier.
This is not only for my own project but for art in general.
When I shared this with Zuleika, she suggested exploring ways to improve accessibility, such as adding audio descriptions or image captions. However, given my limited time and budget, I understand these solutions may only be partial. Still, it’s important to acknowledge this in both my final reflective report and here on the blog.
This realization has reminded me that research—and life in general—is full of contradictions. Recognizing them is part of the process, and all we can do is strive to learn and do better.
In this post, I will explain how I’ve accomplished each of the Learning Outcomes for my MA in Applied Imagination. I’ll also reflect on what could have been improved if I had more time or could start again from the beginning.
Learning Outcome 1:The ability to critique and iterate a research question in response to external feedback and evidence gained from your chosen field of enquiry.
My research question evolved significantly throughout the project. Initially, it was broad, but through interventions, stakeholder conversations, and feedback from experts such as Emilia Márquez, it became more focused . This iterative process led me to refine my terminology, shifting the language to better align with my objectives. If I had started over, I would have explored diverse feedback sources earlier from experts in inclusive desing, ensuring a wider range of perspectives shaped my question. I’ve made another blog named The mutation of a research question where I describe this process with more detail.
Learning Outcome 2:The ability to make critical analysis and synthesis of the current knowledge and your research within your chosen field of enquiry.
I synthesized insights from academic texts (Design Justice, Invisible Women, Feminist Designer, The end of avergae, The Tyranny of Metrics, Anthropometry, etc) and stakeholder discussions to understand the implications of design biases. These insights informed interventions that challenged normalized structures, such as the average body concept. Looking back, I would have like to approach the concept of average even more and make more focused interventions with the latin amercian community.
As an example of systematization of knowledge, I have a Mural where I saved the most relevante quotes of the books and academic papers I read.
Learning Outcome 3:The ability to critically evaluate a series of external interventions, reflecting on their results and their implications.
My interventions were designed to provoke dialogue and gather actionable feedback. For example, I have the main key quotes of the feedback I recieved from my main interventions such as FlagTheGap that I then used for the presetation of Unit 3. Also, by reflection I revealed gaps in my design, such as how I’m really approaching inclusitivity (my reliance on visual language) that contradicted my critique of exclusivity in design. If I had more time, I would have iterated further to test alternative approaches to make my interventions experiences that had the possibility of engagement to anyone – an by anyone I mean including aspects with different senses that everyone could relate and engage to.
Learning Outcome 4:The ability to use appropriate formats to communicate your critical position and new knowledge gained to a range of audiences.
Throughout my project, I explored creative ways to communicate my research. The use of participatory interventions, such as workshops and guided activities, allowed audiences to engage directly with the questions I was raising. For example, for my workshop at Latin American House I made people move and asked them to show me with their movements how they felt and with that explain them how posture has effect on our perception of life. For my final exposition, I’m making some poster that will allow people understand the reference of red flags in objets making it visually impactful!
Learning Outcome 5:The ability to take ethical responsibility for evaluating evidence of change within relevant stakeholder communities.
Throughout the interventions and conversations with external experts, participants knew that I was a master’s student and that I was developing a precise research at UAL. They were informed of the intervention or project objective and accepted to be part of it. This is a research that’s not going to be used for any commercial use.
The episode unpacks the origins of sizing systems that shape everything from our clothes to our furniture. The story begins in mid-20th century America, where anthropometric studies were conducted to collect data on body measurements. These studies—initially aimed at creating better-fitting military uniforms—focused on specific demographics, primarily white men and a limited sample of women. The result? A dataset that defined the “average” human body but was deeply biased and exclusionary.
What struck me was how this narrow dataset became the foundation for standardization across industries. The proportions and measurements derived from these studies still influence modern design, even though they reflect only a fraction of the global population. This “average” has been codified into the objects we interact with daily, creating a system that marginalizes anyone who doesn’t fit into its parameters.
For example, clothing sizes, which we’ve all struggled with at some point, are wildly inconsistent because they stem from these flawed beginnings. Even tools, chairs, and car seats owe their dimensions to this skewed data. Listening to Butt Stuff made me realize how much of the design world is rooted in a singular, exclusionary perspective—a perspective that perpetuates discomfort, frustration, and even discrimination.
Emilia’s suggestion sparked a deeper awareness in me: where does the idea of the “average” come from, and why does it persist? Her encouragement to look beyond Eurocentric perspectives and question the origins of standards was transformative. It reframed my research, shifting my focus from gender alone to intersectionality and the broader implications of design that fails to account for human diversity.
The concept of “average” was never neutral. It was created to serve specific purposes—managing populations, optimizing production, and reducing costs. But these purposes often excluded the realities of most people’s lives. As Emilia pointed out during our conversations, everyone relates to objects, but we all experience them differently. What’s ergonomic for one body can be inaccessible for another, making standardization not just a design choice but a mechanism of exclusion.
Radiolab’s Butt Stuff episode didn’t just explain where average comes from; it revealed how deeply embedded this flawed concept is in our world. It also validated my research’s core critique: that design is political, and challenging it requires unpacking the hidden histories of the systems we interact with every day.
I decided to read this book because I also wanted to understand the implications my research claim has on the bodies in a more existencial way of seeing our relationship with our own bodies. This book starts understanding the implications of asking What is body?
The author challenges the idea of the body as a stable, closed entity, proposing instead that bodies are fluid and permeable. She argues that bodies don’t just exist in spaces but also interact with them in complex ways, influenced by cultural norms and social expectations. She addresses how different identities interact with bodily boundaries. Race, sexuality, gender and class influence bodily experiences, suggesting that the fluidity of boundaries is felt differently depending on one’s social positioning.
I really enjoyed reading briefly her research on bodily fluids (such as sweat, tears, and breast milk) and men. She critiques the taboos around bodily functions, showing how they reflect cultural anxieties about control and purity.
Bodies and their socially encoded meanings can be understood only in specific spatial, temporal and cultureal contexts
As suggested by Tim, I’ve been reading about Anthropometry, which is is the study of how to measure human’s bodies. There are tons of manuals and research surrounding this topic. In the book Anthropometry: Human Body Measurements and How to Use Them by Beata Mrgalska and Waldemar Karwowsk (2024), the authors ackowledge that there will never be an average human in Anthropometry. They say: there is no such thing as an average human or a 50th percentil human.
They also mention how there’s a lot of popultation sampling problems and how antropometric database is quite complicated to be fully standarized, so they say it’s necesary to compromise since the lack of data:
“The cost and logistical difficulties involved in such surverys will probably limit them to the more prosperous nations for the forseable future so that the development of a truly global anthropometric database is unlikely for many years to come.”
This book helped me visualize: there’s an akwnoledgement on the gap but here’s also an aknoledgement on how it’s easier utilizing incomplete data base, since it’s what exists. As Caroline Perez Criado mentions on her book, theres in gener a lack of data that faciliates like thought only for men.
