Drawing Circles: to understand assumptions of comfort and discomfort

tro a n d discomfort

‘DRAWINGCIRCLE S ’

‘DRAWING CIRCLES’

To understand assumptions of comfort and discomfort

OCTOBER 2024

AMSTERDAM

AHK PROGRAMME COMMITTEE ON DIVERSITY ON INCLUSION

TEXT : Mary Tupan - Wenno, Executive Director ECHO, Center for Diversity Policy in co-creation with Nicolette Jongkind and members of the AHK Programme Commitee on Diversity and Inclusion

PHOTOS : Lizzy Zaanen, Kirsten van Santen, Almichael Fraay & Zobayda

LAYOUT : Oskar Oonk

Capturing the impact of activities organised by the Programme Committee on Diversity and Inclusion of the Amsterdam University of the Arts

MEMBERS OVERVIEW OF THE THE AHK PROGRAMME COMMITTEE ON DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION

PREFACE

1. INTRODUCTION

2. METHODOL OGY

3. THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL FRAMEWORKS

4. SOCIET AL CONTEXT AND GLOBAL DEVELOPMENTS

5. AHK PROGRAMME COMMITTEE ON DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION

6. FROM INTENTION TO IMPACT:

A . THEORY OF CHANGE ‘SAFETY FROM A LINGUISTIC POINT OF VIEW’

B . THEORY OF CHANGE OF THE CIRCLE ‘NECESSARY CONVERSATIONS’

C . THEORY OF CHANGE OF THE CIRCLE ‘PRIVILEGE PYRAMID’

D . THEORY OF CHANGE OF THE CIRCLE ‘WRAP-UP AHK CIRCLES’

7. CONCLUSIONS

8. RECOMMENDA TIONS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX I AHK CIRCLES OVERVIEW

APPENDIX II T heory of Change Matrix ‘SAFETY FROM A LINGUISTIC POINT OF VIEW’

APPENDIX III T heory of Change Matrix ‘NECESSARY CONVERSATIONS

APPENDIX IV T heory of Change Matrix ‘PRIVILEGE PYRAMID’

APPENDIX V T heory of Change Matrix ‘WRAP-UP CIRCLES’

THE AHK PROGRAMME COMMITTEE ON DIVERSITY AND

INCLUSION

(D&I)

Saundra Williams

Katya Boriscva

Pedro Silva Costa

Renske de Groot

Arjan Schoolderman

Lina van den Idsert

Jesse van Mourik Justin van de Berg

Faydim Ramshe

Toni Blackwell

Mildred van der Zwan

Janne Igbuwe

Marieke Veldema

Astrid Rose

Amber Scheffers

Billy Ka

Isabella Giacomelli

Oskar Oonk

Aina Font Zaragoza

Rama Kumaran

Dwayne Toemere

Wieke Teselink

Indira Barve alex blum

Jamy Guda

Fionnuala Joyce

Kas Pijs

Marlies VriesendorpSwart

Nathalie Roos

Nicolette Jongkind

PREFACE

I proudly present this report with ‘the harvest’ of the past four years from the AHK Programme Committee on Diversity and Inclusion of the Amsterdam University of the Arts. These years, from 2020 to 2023, were a time of growth, innovation and collaboration, with the ‘AHK Circles’ taking centre stage.

The initial assignment for the programme committee, consisting of students and staff, was to seek connection, share and engage in academy-wide conversations. This was operationalised based on a ‘grass-roots’ approach of ‘learning by doing’. This approach initiated a movement with valuable returns.

For the launch of the programme committee in early 2020, Rubik’s cubes were created in the six academy colours. The idea was to distribute them to all AHK staff and all first-year students at the start of the academic year. The cube represents the challenge to address inclusivity – and the multi-voices and perspectives that inclusion brings. The first challenge came quickly, as COVID-19 left us all at home and the cubes ended up in storage.

Over the past four years, we have faced even more global developments and challenges. The COVID-19 pandemic, for example, limited us in physical space and numbers, forcing us to be creative in our programming and programme design. Virtual meetings, ‘break out rooms’, and online presentations became the norm, and we discovered new ways to connect and share knowledge despite physical distance. In addition, the Black Lives Matter movement and the war in Gaza brought pressing issues to the forefront. These events demanded that we, as a programme committee, critically reflect on what voices needed to be heard and what stories needed to be told.

As a result, we felt an additional responsibility to create space for diverse perspectives and to put the conversation at the centre of our programmeseven – and perhaps especially – when it is uncomfortable. Therefore, I would like to thank all (former) members of the programme committee for their continuous commitment, valuable feedback and courage to be vulnerable. In addition, I would like to thank all participants in the AHK Circles for their openness and willingness to listen to each other.

Looking back, the process that followed the start in 2020 seemed like solving a Rubik’s cube. Each twist revealed new insights and perspectives, and collectively we often had to rearrange and adjust pieces. This can be seen as the need to adjust structures, processes and systems within a department, academy or institution to be more inclusive. By considering these aspects, we can use the Rubik’s cube as a powerful metaphor for the fundamental question in inclusion and social justice: How can we bring all these different elements together to form a harmonious and functioning whole, where each person feels seen and valued? This process has begun, but we are certainly not finished. Perhaps it would still be worth considering getting the cubes out of storage.

I hope that the results of this ‘harvest’ will make a valuable contribution to the understanding and further development of the programme committee and AHK Circles, and similar initiatives in the future.

Kind regards,

Project coordinator Diversity and Inclusion AHK October 2024

‘We monitor as a critical friend, with inclusion as our goal.’

Inclusion AHK

Nicolette Jongkind Project coordinator Diversity and

1. INTRODUCTION

This report captures the work of the Amsterdam University of the Arts Programme Committee on Diversity and Inclusion. The aim was to evaluate the role and achievements of the programme committee in organising AHK Circles from 2020 – 2023. An evaluation encompassing attributes, to document the effectiveness of the committee’s work, would not do justice to the scope of the programme committee’s work and impact in the short and longer term. The results are multilayered, achieved by trusting a process of continuous learning, listening to the feedback of the audience and reshaping and redeveloping, which is not a linear process; hence the title ‘Drawing the Circles, to understand assumptions of comfort and discomfort’.

The question that became more prominent was if a distinctive role of having a programme committee representing both students and staff from all academies within the AHK is a condition and added value for equity, inclusion and a safe campus climate for everyone. The AHK programme committee anticipated the notion of comfort and discomfort of assumptions by intentionally focusing on critical consciousness (Freire 2021)and listening to different perspectives, listening to silenced or unheard voices and becoming aware of mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion. With the AHK Circles, the programme committee enhances a culture of belonging for the diversity of communities within the AHK by creating

brave spaces for engagement, exploring a diversity of perspectives and using multiple artistic strengths by staying close to the profession and being of representants of the broader AHK community.

This report was developed in co-creation with members of the programme committee. The conversations with committee members were important in this process: the sharing of experiences, views and reflections in general to, more specifically, focusing on how assumptions are intentionally addressed and challenged in the programming of the Circles. Additionally, committee members suggested using the Theory of Change (ToC) to evaluate the AHK Circles to determine what is necessary to create impact when striving for equity, diversity and inclusion. In the conversations, it was clear that for the committee members, the aim of the programme committee as an entity within the AHK and the AHK Circles are aiming at change. Change in awareness of existing assumptions, change in being hesitant to discuss discomfort, change in accepting inequality in positionality, both regionally and socially, and change to more intentionally discussing the essence of inclusion and safety. In the past four years, the programme committee started this process of intentionally focusing on change for the short and longer term. The committee is aware of what it takes for the AHK to draw the circles, to agree and disagree, to challenge and compromise, and to learn and unlearn.

The AHK Strategic Plan 2024-2029 starts with the following: ‘Art education is practicing, exploring, experiencing and working together. It is trying, failing and trying again. And again. That requires a vulnerable and curious attitude, and that can only be done with good guidance and in a safe environment.’ This profoundly encapsulates similar institutional processes when aiming for equity and inclusion. This evaluation, therefore, is not just focusing on evaluating outcomes as results of a linear process but rather focused on understanding the parameters that made a difference.

Evaluating the impact of outcomes meant not just focusing on what the programme committee has achieved, but rather on why and how these activities were centred and with what purpose. The Circles are meant to be educational and performative (hooks, 1994) by transforming the educational process into an engaging, dynamic and empowering experience that challenges existing and accepted norms and fosters critical consciousness (Freire, 1970). Both performative education and a level of critical consciousness are meant to invoke action and not for the sake of being performative.

The AHK Circles testify to a good level of understanding and insightfulness of what is needed in changing institutional dynamics by understanding the impact of societal and (geo)political contexts and awareness of the changing needs of students and staff. Examples of this include addressing safety and belonging, comfort and discomfort, and exploring assumptions that are inseparably linked to conversations on equity, diversity and inclusion. The programme committee is keen to be performative and intentionally fosters critical consciousness by creating spaces and processes for reflection and engagement to also challenge persisting underlying assumptions of what the AHK needs to create a safe and inclusive campus climate for all students and staff.

Activities like the AHK Circles add value to transform intentions into impact. Activities alone, however, cannot bring about structural change. More important is the intentionality and vision of why certain topics have been addressed, the choice of speakers, who to collaborate with etc. The organising entity, thus, the Programme Committee on Diversity and Inclusion, is, in fact, a crucial agent of change, especially since the programme committee represents the different communities (students and staff) of the six AHK academies and the Service Bureau. More importantly, these representatives, especially students, are connected to the broader society,

being part of larger global conversations centring on social justice. Conversations outside of the academy have become an unexpected and informal voice entering institutions and, in some instances, also instigating a sense of urgency and agenda-setting regarding equity, diversity and inclusion.

Initiating a programme committee on diversity and inclusion to transform institutional strategy into action shows an awareness of the intent to collaborate with students. The results of the national Students-4-Students campaign (ECHO, 2024) support this notion. The findings of this project, executed with 27 initiatives over a time span of 6 years, show the importance of involving students in social innovation by developing new approaches for existing institutional issues. S4S showed that working in co-creation with students can be beneficial in securing the student voice in developing new policies and thereby sharing responsibility or involving students to capture new perspectives to solve specific issues. In both instances, students cancontribute new perspectives by co-creating with institutions from their role as critical friend. The programme committee, consisting of students and staff, assumed that role as a critical friend, where the Circles served as a catalyst to make the academy more inclusive and safer for the broader diversity of students and staff. The content of the AHK Circles shows that the committee covered a more holistic representation of themes

and addressed known and unknown matters that are necessary to enhance belonging and a safe environment for all. The AHK can benefit from the experiences and profound insights of the programme committee by providing the committee with a distinctive, more structural, role within the academy and, with that, validating the committee’s additional and complementary purpose in improving inclusive practice, policy and culture within the AHK.

‘If someone leaves the Circle and says they feel heard for the first time, that is already a great success.’

of the programme committee, student of the

Rama Kumaran member

Conservatorium van Amsterdam

2. METHODOLOGY

The information for the analysis was obtained by means of:

• Preparatory conversations with Nicolette Jongkind

• Two sessions with the programme committee, consisting of students and staff from the six different academies and the Service Bureau;

• Aina Font Zaragoza (Conservatorium van Amsterdam),

• Indira Barve & Oskar Oonk (Academy of Architecture),

• Billy Ka (Reinwardt Academy),

• alex blum & Kas Pijs (Academy of Theatre and Dance),

• Nathalie Roos & Wieke Teselink (Breitner Academy),

• Nicolet te Jongkind (Netherlands Film Academy),

• Marieke Veldema (Service Bureau)

• Desk research

• Data provided by members of the programme committee using the Theory of Change (ToC) for four Circles

Two sessions with the programme committee

The first session had three purposes for the analysis:

1. Commit tee: centering the positionality and identities of programme committee members, their views and perspectives on D&I;

2. Process: committee members sharing views and experiences on the role of the Programme committee D&I and providing suggestions for the evaluation. The Programme committee suggested using the ToC to review the outcomes of the last four Circles;

3. Content: committee members shared views on the role of assumptions and the importance of anticipating the assumptions of visitors of the Circles, which will guide the development of the content of Circles. Too often, it is assumed that others know what is meant when talking about equity, diversity, inclusion and safety, and why it is important, which is not always the case since everyone understands and relates to these concepts based on their positionality. A shared understanding is therefore important by providing space for exchange and reflection, guaranteeing Circles to address the vision and ideas of the programme committee. For instance, assumptions regarding language (literally and figuratively) regarding comfort, discomfort and sense of belonging.

Desk research

For this part, several public (strategic) documents of the AHK on diversity and inclusion (D&I) were taken into account, and information on D&I policy and practice was available on the AHK website. Temporary access was provided to MyAHK to gain insight into the different Circles. For the analysis, relevant theoretical and practical frameworks were used to support the analysis and to explain what the Programme committee achieved and why certain choices were made in the process of preparation and implementation of the Circles. Chapter three will elaborate on the theoretical frameworks and experiences of the Students-4-Students campaign, which shows similar experiences in the Netherlands of cocreation of students and staff regarding equity, diversity and inclusion, which led to the embedding of the activities at an institutional level.

The second meeting focused on the development of the respective ToCs by groups of committee members and a conversation on final reflections and expectations on the role of the AHK Programme Committee on Diversity and Inclusion.

Theory of Change (ToC)

This methodological tool is used by many public and private organisations to support policy and project development processes. Using ToC provides a framework to describe the impact of the AHK Circles. More importantly, the ToC provides valuable information on the different aspects influencing the process from intention to impact. Intention in this context also refers to identified issues that create inequities, unsafety or inaccessibility and were therefore chosen by the programme committee to be addressed. The ToC was initially developed as an evaluation tool. In this process, the ToC models outcomes and the sustainability of outcomes (impact) in an ‘outcome pathway’ (Taplin et al. 2013). An important step in evaluating projects from the framework of the ToC is identifying what (pre-)conditions must be put in place to reach these goals. The success of this model is to demonstrate the progress in the process by evaluating the outcomes as evidence of how the intended goals were achieved.

Some important principles of the ToC approach are (Valters, 2015):

• Focus on the process: projects are flexible and occur in changing systems and contexts;

• Prioritise learning: a reflective and adaptive approach.

• Bottom-up: participatory principles, see what happens on the floor;

• Not linear: think in terms of a compass, not in terms of a map.

Through seven different questions, key aspects will be defined that together answer the question: ‘What is the long-term change you see as your goal?’ In this way, the ToC methodology provides a structured description and elaboration on the questions of what, how and why. In doing so, it shows how a specific project, activity and, in this case, Circles contributed to a desired change and how that development can be expected in a particular context.

The programme committee added the element of assumptions as a key question relevant to anticipating the intended impact and what was needed regarding the content and organisation of Circles. They took assumptions into account, which is crucial to better anticipating the Circles’ audiences and the choices for their content and organisation.

The members of the programme committee developed a ToC for four Circles. We have chosen to focus these ToCs over the last period from September 2022 to December 2023, as current student members and most staff members were involved in these Circles during this period and not before. The weight now seems to be on the last period, while the initial series produced a lot of beautiful, important and sparkling things (see MyAHK-D&I-AHK Circles).

In the attachments, the outcomes of these ToCs are presented. In chapter 5, the data provided to the question on Intentions, Assumptions and Direct Impact are presented and used to support the analysis of the processes of these four Circles.

Intentions

Audience

3. THEORE TICAL AND PRACTICAL FRAMEWORKS

There are a few theoretical frameworks that are relevant to explain the work of the programme committee. These frameworks will be highlighted briefly in this chapter and are relevant to: (1) the vision, strategy, and intentional choices that the programme committee made to develop content, invite speakers and organisation of Circles; (2) the role and position of the programme committee’s work in the bigger context of policy and practice regarding D&I and social safety.

Intersectionality

Intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989) is one of the guiding principles of the programme committee. It was consistently highlighted in the conversations with the programme committee and is visible in terms of content used in the programming of the Circles. The committee members are very much aware of the importance of using an intersectional approach to do justice to the visible and invisible aspects of a person’s layered identity. Intersectionality is an analytical framework that explains the relationship between different aspects of a person’s identity, revealing different forms of discrimination and privilege. Examples of these frequently mentioned aspects include gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, religion, belief, and ability. The work of Crenshaw specifically looked at the intersectionality between race and gender, which allows distinctions to be made between the experience of, say, a woman of colour, a white woman, or a queer woman. In the conversations with the programme committee, more specific identity aspects were mentioned that are not necessarily recognised nor acknowledged as a person that might need specific support, for instance, an international student of colour who also identifies as queer and is proficient in English, but does not speak Dutch. Or an individual identifying as gender non-conforming is the first in their family, have suffered intergenerational trauma being from a former warzone and are a dance major.

Performative education

hooks talks about ‘teaching being a performative act (hooks, 1994) and the classroom being a radical place for possibility’, which poses conditions to what is expected of teachers and professors: ‘Professors are whole human beings engaged with other whole human beings.’ hooks also shared thoughts about the arts: ‘The function of art is to do more than tell it like it is to imagine what is possible’ (hooks, 2006). Engaging with each other while respecting each other as whole human beings is connected to the concept of intersectionality, which is important in creating spaces of dialogue to have conversations where discomfort is a means to share and explore differences in thinking to become aware of persisting assumptions and transform consciousness. One of the former lectors Social Justice and Diversity in the Art of the AHK, Aminata Cairo, was also mentioned as a scholar-practitioner in this context. The programme committee intentionally and unintentionally organised the Circles as radical spaces for possibility, with the aim being to foster transgressive learning as an AHK community.

Safe spaces and brave spaces

‘The term safe space has been used in various contexts in higher education—from movement-building to academic theory to student support services, as well as in the classroom.’ (Ali, 2017). Since safe spaces are not safe enough to facilitate dialogues with a diversity of views and perspectives, the concept of brave spaces was introduced by Arao and Clemens (2013) ‘to draw attention to the differences and to bring clarity to the conversation’. A paper by Ali (2017), a policy analyst at the Research and Policy Institute of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA), provides useful recommendations for explaining the intentions of the programme committee when aiming ‘to make safe environments for members and participants’ (core value). These recommendations are:

• ‘Adopt the use of the term brave spaces’ since language is important and may contribute to misconceptions of the goals of creating inclusive environments;

• ‘Encourage intersectional conversations about movementbuilding, advocacy and the role of campus environments to better understand the evolutions of safe spaces over time;’

• Refer to existing campus activities, such as multicultural, LGBTQIA+ and women’s rights proficiencies. ‘Safe spaces and brave spaces must be used together to ensure the academic success of marginalised students and the personal growth and development of the entire student body.’ (Ali, 2017)

Assumptions

It is fair to say that not everyone has the same level of understanding of mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion. What inclusion, exclusion, and safety entail is multidimensional: there is an individual and institutional reality and vocabulary. Assumptions often undermine the inclusion policies of higher education institutions (Ahmed, 2012). Ahmed argues that diversity work can be performative, failing to address the real, structural issues that sustain exclusion. Having mechanisms or a provision like the programme committee in place is a means to explicitly discuss underlying assumptions or even microaggressions.

Microaggressions, often rooted in unconscious assumptions, are the everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalised group membership. Microagressions manifest due to systemic inequities in the larger society (income, wealth, education and health disparities). (Sue and Spanierman, 2020). Sue distinguishes racial, gender and sexual orientation microaggressions.

Liberatory consciousness framework

Barbara Love’s liberatory consciousness framework, which identifies four stages: awareness, analysis, action, and accountability (Love, 2010), is an often-used model to provide guidance in understanding and explaining the process of moving forward with equity, diversity, and inclusion strategies. This framework is also helpful in developing inclusive and safe learning- and working environments since it focuses on awareness of the dynamics of oppression and what it needs to develop systems free of oppression. One of the elements of being conscious of oppression is language and vocabulary, which can be insensitive and yet normalised and accepted. The themes of the Circles are very mindful of the use of language, including both verbal and body language. The AHK committee members were also vocal about the impact of not speaking the Dutch language, which denied students the ability to participate fully and created inequity.

Students-4-Students (S4S)

Students play a valuable role as equal partners to cocreate a more inclusive and safer learning and working environment. The national Students-4-Students campaign, funded by the Dutch Ministry of Education from 2018 – 2022 funded 27 projects in higher education. The Netherlands Film Academy was one of the 27 projects. Students positioned themselves as a critical friend in these projects and collaborated with institutions in developing and operationalising inclusive education. Students were living up to this role of critical friend since in addition to studying, students are also socially active and, to a greater or lesser extent, engage in emancipation movements within and outside of higher education.

Where there is injustice, inequality and unsafety, students make their voices emphatically heard. The recent student protests inside and outside the Netherlands also show that students are speaking out critically about (geo)political and social developments outside higher education and bringing this into local debates and activities. The S4S campaign has provided space for students who, on the one hand, want to contribute to constructive solutions to make higher education more accessible and inclusive. On the other hand, students have raised issues for discussion that were not yet on the radar of institutions and have been able to participate in thinking about solutions and be involved in their development and implementation.

It is important, though, to involve students based on equality, to cooperate based on co-creation and to operate based on co-ownership. This requires a degree of commitment and support at the front end of the process due to the level of awareness about the roles students can play and the added value and impact on the organisation. Institutions can anticipate and benefit from insights into what collaboration with students and student networks means. Making students part of the implementation, with institutions taking responsibility and committing to working with students, implies a paradigm shift of jointly ‘battling’ for a more inclusive education system rather than ‘battling’ against each other (ECHO, 2024).

4. SOCIE TAL CONTEXT AND GLOBAL DEVELOPMENTS

COVID-19

The programme committee started in 2020, which coincided with national and global developments that also affected (higher) education institutions. The COVID-19 pandemic had a major impact on the daily reality of students and staff in education. It showed that basic provisions, such as online accessibility and physical spaces to study and perform in general, are not a given for all students. For AHK students whose educational and professional habitat is not an online environment, education became even more difficult given the fact that students became isolated and lost a sense of community. This was even more difficult for international students in arts education. The absence of friends and family, experiences of daily microaggressions and ‘everyday racism and discrimination in public, private and institutional spaces’ (Sharma, 2022). The increase in awareness of student well-being stems from these developments. The Sector Agenda for Dutch Higher Art Education 2021-2025, stresses the importance of arts education being a resilient sector. The strategies to improve resilience are: Resilient and resourceful students, Diversity and inclusion and Relationships with communities (KUO, 2021). To foster students’ well-being at universities of the arts, students need to be physically and mentally fit to pursue their dreams.

Inequity in opportunities

There is evidence of structural economic disparities in society, creating a persisting divide in economic, social, cultural, and personal capital (SCP, 2023). The study of the SCP presents evidence of a class structure of six categories in the Netherlands, each relating differently to the distinguished types of capital.

#MeToo and #BLM

Global social movements such as #MeToo and #Black Lives Matter also reverberate in the Netherlands and enable conversations about countering racism and discrimination. In addition, reports of sexually transgressive behaviour as a result of Tim Hofman’s TV programme BOOS, impact conversations about social (un)safety within higher education institutions in the Netherlands. These developments made discussions about sexism, racism, heterosexism and social (un)safety widely possible and led to concrete policy and practice at the AHK.

Global developments

Where there is injustice, inequality, and unsafety, students and staff, to a greater or lesser extent, raise their voices and show solidarity. For instance, regarding climate change, equal rights for LGBTQIA+ people, apartheid in South Africa, or due to geopolitical developments like the war in Gaza.

The programme committee provided a platform with the programming of the AHK Circles to address mechanisms of exclusion and unsafety. The committee used the often perceived discomfort and ignorance in addressing injustice as an opportunity for exchange and dialogue. Creating spaces to listen, watch and discuss (in)justice and (un)safety is an act of acknowledging the existence of these mechanisms, allowing staff and students to feel seen and heard and increasing awareness at an individual and institutional level.

5. AHK PROGRAMME COMMITTEE ON DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION

The programme committee was initiated in 2020 by the chair (in 2020 vice-chair) of the AHK Executive Board to promote and draw attention to what has been developed and achieved in inclusive practices, policy and campus climate, both at an institutional level and at the level of six AHK academies. The programme committee was initiated to organise socalled AHK Circles Diversity and Inclusion, to foster a sense of community and engagement within safe and inclusive spaces for AHK students and staff by AHK students and staff.

When the committee started, there was no concrete goal formulation, which allowed the committee to develop a vision and strategy for the content and programming. One of the ToCs mentioned ‘AHK Circles D&I create a ‘community platform’ for everyone within the AHK to open conversations, interventions and actions where there is a need.’ These are interactive meetings that engage stakeholders in the programme. The collaboration with experts is an important part of this. The committee always invited an AHK art student who was asked to connect a performance or lecture with the theme of a Circle. Sometimes the arts student collaborated with an expert in the field on a relevant theme.

The programme committee presented themselves by sharing its core values:

‘The programme committee is a collective that contains students and staff with different lived experiences from the six different academies to improve inclusive culture, practices and policies within the AHK. The programme comittee works with the following core values:

• Inclusion the programme committee appoints students and staff from the widest range of intersectionality within the AHK;

• Inclusive programming our internal practices enables us to make more inclusive Circles;

• Critical friend we encourage critical and goaloriented thinking towards inclusion;

• Dialogue we facilitate conversations and awareness, strengthening interdisciplinary dialogue;

• Safet y we use approved strategies to make safe environments for members and participants;

• Catalyse we push energy into the Circles to prepare the ground for change;

• Knowledge exchange we share best/worst practices and we educate people on important social issues.’

This led to the concrete outcome of more than ten AHK Circles. After one and a half years, the programme committee’s activities were evaluated, and it revealed that both the AHK Circles and the programme committee itself needed to be more visible within each academy to interest more students and staff. An academy-focused programme and outreach were necessary since both students and staff identified more on an academy level than on an institutional level. In Autumn 2021 the programme committee developed a series of videos as part of a communication strategy. All committee members worked closely in co-creation with the six academies on developing content for the remaining Circles. All academies hosted a Circle with the theme Safety and Inclusion. Each Circle represented a programme relevant to what safety and inclusion mean in the context of each academy. For developing the series of videos, ‘Drawing the Circles’, committee members reached out to their academy and invited guests to be interviewed for the videos.

The programming of the Circles shows intentionality in providing an intersectional perspective necessary to the physical and mental realities of artists, both students and staff, representing a diversity of identity aspects and, therefore, an array of unknown or unspoken experiences of exclusion. The programming of Circles allows the committee to be more intentional in discussing comfort and discomfort, and questioning underlying assumptions.

6. FROM INTENTION TO IMPACT

This part of the report aims to show the programme committee’s thought process and vision when organising these Circles. Although every Circle has specific angles in terms of content, choice of speakers and performing students, they were all organised with the core values (page 24) in mind. These ToCs show similarities in the intentions and assumptions the programme committee considered and anticipated to create a direct and sustainable impact.

As mentioned in chapter two, the programme committee developed a ToC for four Cirles out of the latest range of Circles over the period 2020- 2023 (see appendices on pages 50-52):

• Language says more than words. Safety from a linguistic point of view. September 2022;

• Necessary conversations, September 2023;

• Privilege Pyramid, October 2023;

• Wrap-up AHK Circles, November, December 2023.

The provided content from these ToCs will be used to reflect on the intention-to-impact process. The programme committee’s specific observations of each ToC will be highlighted with a particular focus on intentions, assumptions and direct impact. The idea is to provide the committee’s train of thought regarding what was seen as necessary to transform intentions into impact, being aware of rightful and wrongful assumptions. The complete ToCs on pages 50-52 provide more information on other aspects of the ToC, such as target audience, collaborations relevant to operationalise impact, necessary steps that need to be taken and, where possible, examples of sustainable impact.

A. Theory of Change of the Circle ‘Language says more than words. Safety from a linguistic point of view’ September 2022 at the Conservatorium van Amsterdam

Focus on gender-inclusive communication and other types of communication relevant to gender inclusion.

Intentions

To create an inclusive culture, practices and policies within the AHK, this Circle intends to create awareness of language. Inclusive policies and practices are often a response to societal and institutional changes. Understanding why these changes take place, why injustices and unsafety are being addressed, and how and what language is used to initiate a dialogue or conversation on an individual or institutional level, is part of the process of enhancing change. Awareness of the parallels between societal and institutional change and the impact of it on requirements for inclusive language and -vocabulary is important. Words and norms about language are constantly changing. These were intentional considerations for this Circle.

Assumptions

Assumptions that were taken into account for this Circle are awareness of the multidimensional nature of language. Language has a linguistic, but also a physical, dimension – especially within the context of the AHK – a physical dimension that impacts students’ and staff’s potential to feel safe, seen, heard and belonging. Therefore, two AHK Circles were programmed to address this: ‘Language says more than words’, September 2022 and ‘Body Talks’, October 2022. These two Circles were complementary to each other. Language can also be a barrier, for instance, for non-native speakers. Therefore, English is the main language, with the option to choose a Dutch translator. The ToC mentions language to speak, but even more as a means for listening. The assumption for this and other Circles was to organise an in-person event (post-COVID) with good food for the broader AHK community, as a unifying moment to be together.

Direct impact

The outcomes of the Circle had a direct impact on different levels:

• The Circle turned out to be a gathering to meet and connect with each other ‘in a different way’, to exchange ideas and experiences and to be seen and heard on the issues addressed in the Circle. Participants experienced no hierarchical lines and the programme committee tries to get the message across: ‘Everyone is equal.’

• It was a positive ‘breathtaking experience’, where seeds were planted to be more aware of the means and purposes of language-related inclusive culture. Participants were inspired by the keynotes and by the ‘stories of others,’ which apparently gave new insights, enhanced ‘learning, unlearning, and relearning’, and opened minds.

• Concrete impact:

• Nina de Jong (speaker and student of the Reinwardt Academy) was invited by the Master of Film programme of the Netherlands Film Academy to renew the website texts;

• Amrita Das (keynote speaker) was invited to teach the first-year students of the Netherlands Film Academy.

• This Circle led to establishing a D&I working group at the Conservatorium van Amsterdam.

B. Theory of Change of the circle ‘Necessary conversations’

September 2023 at the Academy of Theatre and Dance

What are the necessary conversations we want or should have with each other now? And how do we stay in conversation with each other even when things get uncomfortable?

Intentions

This Circle supported the idea of having ‘necessary conversations’, which led to direct questions like what is needed to have these ‘necessary conversations’. This Circle aimed at establishing ‘Rules of Engagement’ for conversations to clarify and become aware of the presence of (unequal) power dynamics linked to the positionality of persons joining the conversation and to teach active listening techniques to discover commonalities ‘beyond individuals’ differences’.

Assumptions

Conversations are allegedly difficult because the assumption is that they are linked and embedded in different AHK academies on the one hand, while the assumption also is that the AHK is a singular context. There is a student-staff dichotomy present within conversations, which can imply opposing perspectives. ‘Listening techniques can be taught within gameplay and transferred to the AHK world.‘

Direct impact

The outcomes of the Circle had a direct impact on different levels:

• The Circle created ‘confusion and lack of ease’;

• Embracing discomfort in conversations is what the programme committee aimed at with the Circles;

• There was awareness of the risks and time constraints regarding necessary conversations;

• The book ‘Je mag ook niets meer zeggen’ by Mounir Samuel (keynote speaker) was shared and distributed;

• Information on the AHK’s EDI work expanded beyond the event;

• There were open conversations and questions about power dynamics, e.g. ATD director Anthony Heidweiller’s opening speech.

C. Theory of Change of the Circle ‘Privilege Pyramid’ October 2023 at the Breitner Academy

What is the impact of socioeconomic status on society and on AHK students and staff? Key questions: What is the effect of economic vulnerability on academic and career outcomes and the role of shame when discussing this topic? What about power dynamics?

Intentions

This Circle addressed economic inequality and existing power dynamics between international and Dutch students and staff within the AHK. Within this context, it also focuses on exploring intersectionality and differentiating social positions. Mounir Samuel’s framework, ‘the Privilege Pyramid’, was used to explain the concept of privilege and create awareness of the power dynamics to better understand inequities.

Assumptions

The programme committee relied on a progression in knowledge and awareness from the previous Circles and wanted to explore intersectionality because ‘Dutch students’ and ‘international students’ are assumed to be two mutually exclusive and homogenous groups. The assumption is that participants have at least some knowledge of ‘intersectionality’. By using Mounir Samuel’s framework, the committee put trust in Mounir and

intentionally used a visually and interactive supportive learning tool that supports the process of awareness and learning. The programme committee intentionally addressed ‘Israel’s aggression in Gaza’ and was aware of the discomfort and difficulty of the dialogue.

Direct impact

The outcomes of the Circle had a direct impact on different levels:

• The Programme committee invited the director of the Breitner Academy to respond to the situation in Israel and Gaza;

• Mounir Samuel also provides his perspective on the situation in Israel and Gaza and ‘confronts the audience in relating to the conflict as an educational institution, as a teacher, as a student, and as a human being’;

• Colleagues (who visited the Circle) have used the privilege pyramid in workplace supervisor training, which can also be seen as supportive to sustainable change.

D. Theory of Change of the Circle ‘Wrap-up AHK Circles’

November –December 2023 at the AHK Culture Club

This is the wrap-up of all AHK Circles, featuring performances, activities and conversations concerning neurodiversity, mental and sexual health, trauma processing, and the process of making.

Intentions

The ToC on the wrap-up of AHK Circles refers to the programme committee’s intentionality in marking the transitional aim and value of the Circles. The Circles introduced experiences and knowledge from outside the academy, transforming this into spaces of dialogue and focusing on internal emerging knowledge and practices. By doing this, they align artistry and D&I with the specific context of the AHK. The committee intentionally invited bottom-up critical voices within the AHK to showcase their art, aiming to create a ‘sense of collective ownership’. In terms of governance, the committee is transparent and accountable when it comes to the finances and budget within and outside the committee. Therefore, all participating artists were given a full overview of the associated costs, including the organisation’s compensation.

Assumptions

For the development of the wrap-up Circle, the assumptions were categorised into themes: students, vocabulary, location, promotion, representation, unheard voices, finances and process.

• Students: Be aware that not all students are equal, the same, interchangeable, etc. Do not assume that ‘involving many students in the programming and displaying their work will automatically attract more students to attend’.

• Representation: ‘Open calls will not yield a representative crowd.’ The programme committee was aware that not all students would see the open call and that students did not have equal access to such an event. The committee ‘accepted this shortcoming beforehand’.

• Unheard voices: The committee assumes that many students’ voices at the AHK are, for whatever reason, unheard, and students feel unseen regarding their identity and/or due to the ‘conservative traditions in the curriculum or discipline’.

• Vocabulary: Everyone shares some vocabulary and definitions. However, do not assume that everyone knows the meaning of specific terminology, such as ‘cis’.

• Location: ‘The AHK culture club is a common room for the AHK and despite being disconnected from a major faculty building students will not have an issue going there.’

• Promotion: The committee assumed the event was more widely known, which was not the case despite different methods of communication. The programme committee met with AHK students who were unaware of the circles.

• Finances: ‘Financial transparency helps create a bond of trust with the participants, managing expectations and preventing potential disappointments and miscommunications.’

• Process: The process was very informal. The committee strongly believed in their collective strength to create and develop content that met the needs of the AHK students and staff community driven by a good foundation of trust in the committee and trust in the process.

Direct impact

The impact of the Circles is hard to measure. There are indications to believe that the Circles led to impact:

• Artists connected with each other and, in several instances, engaged in ongoing collaborations with people they met during the wrap-up circle;

• The Circles allowed AHK students to identify as AHK students instead of only identifying with the context of their specific academy. The AHK consist of six fragmented academies, each representing a specific context. ‘For the participants of this event (as well as the organisers), it was a unique opportunity to experience the breadth of the AHK within one space and develop a sense of what the other academies do’;

• The Circles hold space for important conversations. It exposed participants and the audience to critical and new perspectives and allowed them to engage in the various discussions.

The Circles have been very intentional in providing spaces to discuss comfort and discomfort. Discussing discomfort is necessary to move forward in understanding unspoken underlying assumptions, acknowledging experiences of exclusion or a lack of belonging. These sessions have provided a platform to explore the variety of opinions and perspectives.

The Circles served as brave spaces (Arao and Clemens, 2013), by ‘getting comfortable with the uncomfortable’ (Baboeram and Karaaslan, 2020). The title of the first Circle, formerly known as ‘Arena’, in 2020 was ‘Welcome discomfort’. Although the intention was to create a safe space with the Circles, the methodology for dialogue is the brave space. This methodology is more congruent with the insightfulness of the programme committee regarding existing differences in power and privilege when discussing equity, inclusion and social safety within the AHK (Arao and Clemens, 2013).

The ToCs address the importance of understanding the impact of language, conversations and awareness of inclusive communication. Language, both linguistically and physically, is an important means of communication for AHK students in general and especially for nonnative speakers. Language is mentioned frequently in the intentions and assumptions in the ToCs as a barrier, challenge, or misconception for both students and staff.

The intentions and assumptions in the ToCs show a need for awareness within the AHK concerning language and communication, which impacts students’ sense of belonging on an individual and institutional level.

In the conversations with the programme committee and in the ToCs, the need for intersectional policy and operationalising intersectional policy at AHK was expressed. An intersectional approach also provides the opportunity to take hidden or implicit dimensions of identity into account that are relevant to the community of AHK students and staff. One of these frequently mentioned dimensions is students’ and staff’s international background. This relates more directly to language, cultural background and belonging. Or indirectly to language in the context of definitions and vocabulary related to intersecting dimensions of diversity, and its impact on comfort and discomfort.

Applying the Theory of Change to visualise and harvest the outcomes of the specific Circles again shows the importance of why the committee did what it did. It also shows that applying a ToC to evaluate the impact of separate Circles provides richer, more detailed and context-related outcomes. Outcomes that were expected and outcomes that were unexpected. In this case, evaluating the whole would provide less than the sum of its parts.

The programme committee understands what it takes holistically to strive for institutional change in equity, diversity and inclusion, what it takes to transform intentions to impact on an institutional and individual level, and, therefore, how the work of the programme committee complements the array of policies, strategies, programmes and practices at the AHK.

‘I’m dependent on you being safe, just as much as you’re dependent on me being safe. Otherwise we can’t create art.’

alex blum

member of the programme committee, student of the Academy of Theater and

Dance

Establishing a programme committee consisting of students and staff on diversity and inclusion to complement the multifaceted institutional efforts of the AHK shows that the Executive Board is aware of the importance of collaborating with students to capture new perspectives, improve existing developments and respond to new emerging or invisible issues.

The national Students-4-Students campaign showed that working in co-creation with students can be beneficial at the individual and institutional levels. In 2020, the established AHK Programme Committee on Diversity and Inclusion, consisting of students and staff, took that role by positioning themselves as a grassroots initiative and embracing the role of a critical friend, not for the sake of being critical, but for the sake of acknowledging existing biases that need to be addressed.

From 2020 – 2023, there were several different activities: ten Circles, recommendations and a video campaign which served as a catalyst to support and ‘listen’ to the wider AHK community in making the academy more inclusive and safer for the broader diversity of students and staff. The programme committee played a crucial, formal, and informal role in holding spaces for AHK students and staff representing intersecting identities linked to experiences of comfort and discomfort.

Evaluating the impact of the AHK Circles was not a matter of focusing on what the programme committee has achieved, but rather on why and how these activities were focused and for which purpose. The AHK Circles are meant to be educational and performative (hooks, 1994) by transforming the educational process into an engaging, dynamic and empowering experience that challenges existing and accepted norms, and fosters critical consciousness (Freire, 1970). Performative education, while embracing a level of critical consciousness, is meant to invoke action for change, and be engaging and empowering.

This comes with certain dilemmas. Current developments in the world, the responding global social movements, like #MeToo, #BLM and the recent protests of students and staff in Amsterdam regarding the dire situation in Gaza, create situations for the leadership of institutions that are new and full of dilemmas. There are examples of institutional leadership that feel funneled into taking a geopolitical standpoint. There are (a few) examples of institutions that assessed the situation linked to the purpose of a higher education institute, welcoming students using their potential and talents to be critical thinkers combined with their intellectual, artistic, social and cultural capital. There is no policy nor protocols to guide institutional leadership in situations where societal developments ask for an institutional response. There is, however, always

the option for institutions to have dialogues while taking language (in the broader sense) and power relations into account and, above all, create opportunities to listen to each other, especially in anticipating future situations where students and staff will show their solidarity in addressing justice and injustice within or outside of the institution.

Within the AHK, the programme committee can stretch boundaries and continue the conversation where strategic engagement stops based on policy, liability or otherwise. Understanding the invisible boundaries of fostering critical consciousness to take action is an ‘art’ for all stakeholders in an institution. Having the programme committee intentionally provide a platform for dialogue, storytelling and critical reflection can be seen as a ‘must have’ instead of a ‘nice to have’.

This evaluation of the programme committee’s role and achievements in organising AHK Circles from 2020 – 2023 leads to the following conclusion: the AHK programme committee can have an even more distinctive role within the AHK, aiming at equity, inclusion and a safe campus climate for everyone. The programme committee developed a task conception by capturing the visible and invisible needs, assumptions and perspectives of AHK students and staff that are ‘lost in translation’. But even more to provide the opportunity for engagement, as meant by bell hooks, in creating spaces of dialogue to

have conversations where discomfort is a means to share and explore differences in thinking, to become aware of persisting assumptions and to transform consciousness to action (Love, 2010).

The ToCs of the four AHK Circles show the necessity of addressing unintended biases in policy and practice, which were captured by providing a brave space to embrace discomfort and allowing critical consciousness for the sake of getting comfortable with the uncomfortable (Baboeram and Karaaslan, 2020). Although inclusion policy in its foundation is not meant to be exclusionary, in reality, not all students or staff can participate equitably. This is not because inclusion policy and practice are failing or ineffective. Policies and practices developed at an institutional level cannot tackle all issues on a faculty, course and/or individual level. This is a constant challenge.

Successful inclusion policy and practice are impactful when it is a response and solution to contextualised situations by also taking intersectionality into account (Tupan-Wenno, van Marlen & Aumaj, 2020). The programme committee is aware of perceived disparities in belonging within the AHK context due to language barriers, inequity in social positions, differences in power relations, (invisible) inherited physical and neuro abilities, biased assumptions on gender, sexuality, ethnicity, socio-economic status (SES) and additional intersecting dimensions.

The programme committee has operationalised its vision and core values by ‘good troublemaking’ (ICARE4Justice, 2023). ‘Good Trouble’ acknowledges the words of civil rights leader John Lewis. In an article in the National Endowment for the Arts Blog, artists and cultural workers are asked to share their take on the idea of ‘good trouble’ (Beete, 2021). One of the interviewees, Jafreen M. Uddin, Executive Director of Asian American Writers Workshop, reflected as follows: ‘The art of difficult conversations is such a critical piece of making ‘good trouble’, and the importance of feeling empowered to engage in challenging discussions is something I think about all the time. What can we be doing so that we’re not only naming harsh truths but also being actively heard? This is where I believe the power of words and storytelling come in.’

Another interviewee, Jeffrey Mumford, composer, shared: ‘As an artist, I am trying to create an alternative reality in my work, my own heaven, because too much of the world we live in is not welcoming. The good trouble in which I regularly engage is simply to create the music I hear that I feel is important, transformative, and healing for me, and, hopefully, for my audiences as well. As the phrase relates to the arts in general, I strongly believe that true diversity and inclusiveness is key, encouraging work that is both challenging and healing.’

AREAS OF COMMITMENT

The AHK programme committee’s areas of commitment are connected to strategic aims. These areas of commitment complement each other and are meant to enhance impact at an individual and institutional level. Although these areas of commitment are rather abstract, they complement the more concrete outcomes of the ToCs in Chapter 6.

The future is international, intersectional and intergenerational

Increasing diversity means accepting a diversity of thoughts, perspectives and responsibilities inhabited by a more equitable representation of underrepresented groups and identities in combination with changing demographics due to international and global mobility. The diversity of individuals in organisations is not a collective of single identities, but a collective of multiple and layered identities with multiple diverse perspectives based on who they are, how they (prefer to) identify and how they are viewed by society. Considering positionality, whether based on an individual’s personal or social identity, matters.

Making excellence inclusive

Countering the dichotomy between meritocracy and excellence, on the one hand, and equity and diversity in the AHK, on the other hand, is part of the journey towards inclusion and belonging. ‘Inclusive excellence is a process that includes excellence in teaching and learning, student development, institutional functioning, community engagement, and workforce development’ (Salazar, Norton, and Tuitt, 2010).

Getting comfortable with the uncomfortable

Enabling uncomfortable conversations is part of the (growth) process of getting comfortable with the uncomfortable (Baboeram and Karaaslan, 2020). Not having these conversations will support the reproduction of inequities (Ahmed 2012). Because of the discomfort that often accompanies discussions about racism, sexism and other manifestations of discrimination, it is necessary to acknowledge and legitimise the discomfort to normalise these conversations. Facilitating the process of ‘getting comfortable with the uncomfortable’ is contingent on certain conditions. These conditions and terms take into consideration the context wherein the conversations take place. Specifically, the power dimensions that influence who gets the final say.

From colour-blind to colour-brave (where colour refers to all dimensions of diversity)

A color-brave approach supports the notion of being intentional and purposeful in enhancing inclusion in education (Hobson, 2014, Tupan-Wenno, van Marlen & Aumaj, 2020). It requires the acknowledgement of differences in ethnicity, (gender) identity, social position and (organisational) power structures that enhance or reduce access to organisational opportunities and experiences of belonging. Being color-brave is an intentional way to value difference and different perspectives and is relevant for organisations where diversity is increasing. Developing a color-conscious approach from an intersectional lens is essential to recognising power structures such as sexism, racism, and heterosexism (Sue, 2020). These institutionalised, reproducing mechanisms cause inequality in opportunities and inequity in positions. In addition to racism and (hetero)sexism, exclusion based on Dutch proficiency, non-Dutch ethnicity, religion, age, ability and neurodiversity should also be taken into account. Therefore, creating a climate to discuss experiences of inclusion and exclusion is part of the organisation’s growth process. Adding to and building on what has already been done within the AHK is important.

Safe, brave and accountable spaces

These spaces support creating a culture to discuss and combat experiences of racism, sexism and other systemic forms of discrimination (Ali, 2017). Safe spaces allow members of minoritised identities to share and explore ideas without feeling marginalised. Brave spaces are meant to discuss similar experiences with the purpose of students and staff understanding one another better and equally participating in challenging dialogues. Accountable spaces stress the importance of also structuring responsibility and accountability in addition to the brave space. The accountable space supports a deeper understanding of diverse lived experiences in real time (Ahenkorah, 2020).

From intention to impact

A transformation from intention to impact needs to aim at improving equity, inclusion and diversity and acknowledging, preventing and acting against racism, sexism and other institutional mechanisms of exclusion. Although both aims are interconnected and complementary, each still needs specific action and policies to enhance a sense of belonging for all students and staff. Commitment to EDI and critical consciousnesses include efforts to engage people both emotionally and analytically. Since the personal and political are both linked in EDI work, it is important to consider context and be aware of power dimensions within the institution. Think of the asymmetry between majority-minority and teacherstudent relationships, but also the historical dimensions of a given context.

Transforming from intention to impact to ensure equity, inclusion and diversity is a collaborative process and a shared responsibility. The AHK programme committee’s activities support this by capturing additional experiences and perspectives of students and staff at AHK. The AHK Circles highlight the programme committee’s determination not to shy away from experiences of exclusion within the institute, but rather address them and provide a platform for dialogue with the aim of creating awareness to dissect what impact means to the diversity of the AHK student and staff community in general and to the specific context of the six AHK academies. The work of the AHK committee is a fluid interplay of movements between formal and informal levels of engagement within the AHK as a whole and between the six AHK academies. The programme committee, therefore, fulfils an invisible link and unique position within the academywide infrastructure. Every higher education institution could benefit from an entity like the AHK programme committee in striving for an equitable, diverse, safe, and inclusive learning and work environment.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

The main recommendation is embedding the Programme Committee on Diversity and Inclusion in the institutionwide infrastructure of AHK D&I policy and practice. Institutionalising the AHK programme committee as an entity alongside other provisions was not the intention but can be seen as a positive unintended outcome. The programme committee can, as mentioned earlier, provide a unique and complementary role in the process of good troublemaking with the purpose of acknowledging unheard voices and listening to perspectives of comfort and discomfort to provide an engaging and empowering experience to all AHK students and staff. To operationalise this process of embedding the programme committee within the broader AHK landscape requires a pragmatic approach and ideas about structures and frameworks that have proven to be useful.

The liberatory consciousness framework (Love, 2010) is a frequently used model to provide guidance in understanding and explaining the process of moving forward with equity, diversity and inclusion strategies. This framework identifies four stages: awareness, analysis, action and accountability.

Barbara Love (2010)

Raising awareness is an important step in the process and is conditional to analysis and action. Having a comprehensive sense of awareness among stakeholders within institutions of what is necessary to address, analyse, and act on is not just important as a first step in the process of mobbing from intention to impact, but remains important during the process.

This image of the liberatory consciousness framework of Love (Pinheiro Keulers, 2024) is applied to better understand and tackle experiences of internship discrimination in higher education. This image shows that, like the implementation of the AHK Circles, the envisioned process is not linear but circular, hence ‘Drawing the Circles’ (AHK programme committee, 2023). The role of the programme committee in enhancing equity, diversity and inclusion on an institutional level is specifically relevant to the level of creating awareness and is a constant process of developing a sensitivity to issues that are relevant for students and staff to feel equitable, safe and included. The following areas of attention are recommended for the programme committee to operationalise this embedded role to its full potential.

AREAS OF ATTENTION

Transparency

Providing transparency about the complementary position, role and activities of the programme committee within the institution-wide infrastructure of the AHK and getting the support of the AHK Executive Board and the management of all six AHK academies.

Autonomy

It is important for the programme committee to have the autonomy to address and act in order to operationalise its role in capturing the level of awareness and developing the areas of comfort and discomfort within the institutions and within the six academies. The representation of staff and students of all six academies provides the committee with the benefit of understanding the specificities of each academy’s context.

Shared responsibility

The programme committee has shown a great sense of shared responsibility in developing and exploring dialogue and reflection, which is exactly what makes it innovative and complementary to the leadership levels within the AHK, the current D&I entities, research provisions (research group), platforms within academies, and the broader community of students and staff.

Visibility

Getting the necessary means of the AHK within the existing (D&I) infrastructure, so that the programme committee can show its presence as an entity within the institution and organise and develop activities according to the needs of the AHK students and staff.

Ally and instigator of change

The programme committee can provide unsolicited and solicited advice to the different entities responsible for D&I and the institution’s leadership, operationalising their role as an ally and co-instigator for institutional and sustainable change.

Innovative value

The programme committee can be a force of social and educational innovation within the AHK in supporting transformative processes for equity, diversity and inclusion by engaging with and within, formal and informal networks and communities. In addition, by not shying away from being critically conscious (Freire, 1970) for the sake of inclusion. The programme committee is able to provide counter-narratives that are necessary to be heard and seen, which makes the programme committee an indispensable link within the D&I (infra)structure.

D&I Infrastructure

The Programme Committee on Diversity and Inclusion could be embedded within the AHK organisational structure as presented on the right. The visual intends to show the programme committee’s collaborative role with all formal and informal organisational entities and communities and its autonomous position. This position is helpful in having an independent and trustful role within the AHK towards all students and staff. This role makes it possible to address, initiate, instigate and, where necessary, question EDI developments within the AHK, and since the committee consists of representatives of the six academies, also the academies.

An intersectional approach at an organisational level also means rethinking existing structures to better embed EDI within the organisational structures. This means, for instance, that social safety is integrated into aims and policy regarding inclusion. After all, there cannot be inclusion without safety. An intersectional approach also means intersectional policies and practices instead of generic target group policies and practices. Intersectional policy focuses on diversity between and within minoritised groups in society. Research shows that certain groups share experiences of exclusion and barriers, and members within these groups may simultaneously experience combined barriers. Based on these insights, developing policy considers challenges by specific groups and considers how certain combined exclusionary mechanisms may influence each other. An action framework developed by ECHO for the Ministry of Education Culture and Science and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment provides guidelines for implementation (ECHO, 2023).

Proposed place of the Programme Committee on Diversity and Inclusion within the institutional structure of the AHK

PC D&I Programme Committee on Diversity and Inclusion

CvB Executive Board

Lector Research Group (lectorate) Social Justice and Diversity in the Arts

CvA Conservatorium van Amsterdam

ATD Academy of Theatre and Dance

BA Breitner Academy

AvB Academy of Architecture

SB Service Bureau

NFA Netherlands Film Academy

RA Reinwardt Academy

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahenkorah, E. (2020). Safe and Brave Spaces Don’t Work (and What You can Do Instead). Medium. https://medium.com/@elise.k.ahen/safe-and-brave-spaces-dontwork-and-what-you-can-do-instead-f265aa339aff

Ahmed, S. (2012). On being included. Duke University Press.

Arao, B., & Clemens, K. (2013). From safe spaces to brave spaces. In L. M. Landreman (Ed.), The Art of Effective Facilitation: Reflections from Social Justice Educators (pp. 135–150). Stylus Publishing.

ATD Students Organisation. (2024), Open Letter to the AHK Executive Board. https:// openletter.earth/open-letter-to-the-ahk-executive-board-e5ba9b8d

Baboeram, P. and Karaslaan, H. (2020). Getting Comfortable with the Uncomfortable: 5 Uncomfortable situations in the classroom (or other educational settings) and how to constructively deal with them. IBelong. https://ibelong.eu/2020/11/24/ getting-comfortable-with-the-uncomfortable-5-uncomfortable-situations-in-theclassroom-or-other-educational-settings-and-how-to-constructively-deal-withthem/

Beete, Paulette. ‘Artists Reflect on What It Means to Make Good Trouble.’ National Endowment for the Arts, February 24, 2021. https://www.arts.gov/stories/blog/2021/ artists-reflect-what-it-means-make-good-trouble.

Cammileri, A.F., Tupan-Wenno, M., Fröhlich, M., King, S. (2016). Effective Approaches to Enhancing the Social Dimension of Higher Education – Analysis of IDEAS Database Cases. IDEAS. https://multinclude.eu/publication/effectiveapproaches-to-enhancing-the-social-dimension-of-higher-education-analysis-ofideas-database-cases/

Crenshaw, K. (2018). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics [1989] (pp. 57-80). Routledge.

ECHO. (2023). Aan de slag met intersectionaliteit in beleid. Een handelingskader.

ECHO. (2024). Stagediscriminatie integraal aanpakken. [Nog niet gepubliceerd]

Freire, Paulo. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Herder and Herder.

Hobson, M. (2014). Color blind or color brave? [video]. TED Conferences. https://www.ted. com/talks/mellody_hobson_color_blind_or_color_brave?language=en hooks, bell. (1994). Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. Routledge.

Love, Barbara J. (2010). Developing a Liberatory Consciousness. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, R. Castañeda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for Diversity and Social Justice (pp. 470-474). Routledge.

Salazar, M. D. C., Norton, A. S., & Tuitt, F. A. (2010). 12: Weaving promising practices for inclusive excellence into the higher education classroom. To improve the academy, 28(1), 208-226.

Sue, D. W., & Spanierman, L. (2020). Microaggressions in Everyday Life. Wiley.

Taplin, D. H., Clark, H., Collins, E., & Colby, D. C. (2013). Theory of Change: Technical Papers. ActKnowledge, New York.

Tupan-Wenno, M., van Marlen, J. & Aumaj, S. (2020). Rethinking Pathways towards Inclusion in Education. Multinclude Consortium. https://multinclude.eu/wp-content/ uploads/sites/23/2020/05/Multinclude-Analysis-publication-2.pdf

Valters, C. (2015). Theories of Change: Time for a Radical Approach to Learning in Development. Overseas Development Institute (ODI).

Waldring, I., Labeab, A., van den Hee, M., Crul, M., & Slootman, M. (2020). Belonging@ VU. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. https://research.vu.nl/ws/portalfiles/ portal/121496735/Waldring_ea_2020_Belonging_VU.pdf

APPENDIX I : AHK CIRCLES DIVERSITY & INCLUSION

AHK ARENA ‘WELKOM ONGEMAK’

AHK CIRLCES

‘REPRESENTATION AT OUR ACADEMIES’

09-09-2020 09-12-2020 Overview

Pakhuis de Zwijger AHK Culture Club

Hybird (live audience & live stream)

Hybird (live panel & online breakout)

Urias Boerleider Halil Karaaslan

SPEAKERS & GUESTS

Toni Blackwell : student, Theatre in Education ATD

Annet Lekkerkerker : Vice-chair Executive Board, AHK

Saundra Williams : member programme committee

AHK Circles / artistic director Production and Stage Management / ATD

Faydim Ramshe : student Directing Documentaries, NFA

Mavis Carrilho : ‘Kwartiermaker’ lectorate Diversity in the arts, AHK

Janne Igbuwe : student Fine Art in Education, BA

Prof. Karen van Oudenhoven – van der Zee & Brendy Boogaard : researchers VU Amsterdam

OUTPUT

Paper by anonymous ATD student; ‘welcome discomfort’

AHK CIRLCES

‘HOW TO CREATE INCLUSIVE SPACES?’

Overview

19-05-2021

SPEAKERS & GUESTS

Raul Balai : keynote speaker

Elisia da Silva Martins Peças : panel guest (ATD)

Roy Sjoers : panel guest (RWA)

Ashar Medina : panel guest (NFA)

OUTPUT

Recommendations representation by the programme committee

Hybird (live panel & online breakout) Amrita Das

SPEAKERS & GUESTS

Rama Kumaran : member programme committee & student CvA

Pedro Silva Costa : member programme committee & student AvB who shared his graduation project about ‘Safety and Public Spaces’

Alkistis Misouli : who shared her sound composition ‘Thoughts’ that revealed connections in our vulnerability during the pandemic through words and music (CvA).

Belle Teunissen, Gabriel Peralta Alvarez, Marieke

Parijs, Niels van Manen, Dina Lakhloufi : Mentors breakout rooms (LEARN Academy, VU Amsterdam)

OUTPUT

Field notes by Amrita Das

RECORDING CIRCLE FIELD NOTES

RECORDING CIRCLE

*during corona pandemic

VIDEO SERIES

‘DRAWING

CIRCLES TOGETHER’

AHK CIRCLE

‘EYE-OPENERS

TO CULTURES AND COMMUNICATIONS’ AHK CIRLCE

‘SAFETY FROM A LINGUISTIC POINT OF VIEW’

CAST & CREW

By the entire programme committee: Six academies and six conversations about Safety & Inclusion; In 2022 and 2023, the AHK Circles rotated around the six academies, where meetings were hosted and organised around the theme Safety & Inclusion. To map out the wishes and wants of students and staff of the AHK, the committee members of the Circles inquired at their own academies, with the aim of finding and inviting one or two guests for an in-depth conversation on safety and inclusion.

OUTPUT

These conversations were documented in the video series Drawing the Circles.

Memo to the Strategy Meeting dated 3-11-2022

SPEAKERS & GUESTS

Marjoleine Havik : keynote speaker

Lemuel de Graav : Learning intermezzo by student NFA. Student Scenario NFA; spoken word

SPEAKERS & GUESTS

Amrita Das : keynote speaker. Words matter & introduction VU Mixed Classroom educational model.

Nina de Jong : Learning intermezzo by student RWA. Explanation of thesis project ‘Words matter’ research on inclusion of trans and non-binary students. With a focus on gender-inclusive discourse and other forms of education that are important for gender inclusion.

Firoza Mulahella

Firoza Mulahella

AHK CIRLCE

‘MOVEMENT

AS A LANGUAGE’

AHK CIRCLE

‘SHORTCUTS

TO INCLUSIVITY AND ACCESSIBILITY’

AHK CIRLCE ‘NECESSARY CONVERSATIONS’

SPEAKERS & GUESTS

Michiel Zeegers : keynote speaker/workshop. Body talks: workshop on the search for the influence of dysfunctional thinking on the body and mind.  Damar Lamers & ATD students : Learning intermezzo by students of ATD. The rediscovery of our physical possibilities, individually and together. In a playful dance, participants were given the tools that contribute to empowerment, trust in your own body and self-exploration.

SPEAKERS & GUESTS

Winnie Roseval : keynote speaker positionality Flip Delmonte : special guest from ‘Stichting Doven Shoah’ Flip Delmonte. He told his life story outside in front of the Reinwardt Academy at the monument in memory of the deaf Jewish victims of the Nazi regime ‘De wereld bleef doof’ [the world remained deaf].

Andrej Badin : learning intermezzo student AvB. Graduation work; ‘Deaf landscape’. Andrej presented ‘Deaf landschape’, a project based on the deaf culture and perception. It is a proposal for a place where sign language, thanks to tactile vibrations, can be shared with everyone.

OUTPUT

AHK Circle 4

SPEAKERS & GUESTS

Mounir Samuel : keynote speaker What are the necessary conversations that we want or should have with each other at the moment? How do we continue that conversation, even if it becomes uncomfortable?

Anouschka van Bavel, Ziselle Siwabessy, Eshita Prins en Daphne Geurtsen : learning intermezzo by students from the Breitner Academy. Members of the audience were invited to take a seat on a traditionally set homely table full of familiy portraits and artefacts while students recite family stories.

OUTPUT

Mounir Samuel’s book ‘Je mag ook niets meer zegggen’ are displayed and handed out.

Reinwardt Academy

Academy of Theatre and Dance

Live (incl. visit to monument)

Live (audience & interactive)

Astrid Rose

Astrid Rose

AHK CIRCLE ‘PRIVILEGE PYRAMIDS’

31-10-2023

Breitner Academy

Live (audience & interactive)

Astrid Rose

62

SPEAKERS & GUESTS

Mounir Samuel : keynote speaker

What is the impact of socio-economic status on society? Or on a smaller scale, what is the impact on AHK students and staff? With a focus on important questions like: What effect does economic vulnerability have on academic and career results? And what is the role of shame or embarrassment in addressing this topic? What about power dynamics?

Aina Font Zaragoza : intermezzo by student CvA on saxophone in collaboration with:

Irene Sorozabal : voice and movement, student CvA

AHK WRAP-UP CIRCLES

‘EMERGING KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICES’

Overview

Date

Location

Format

Moderator

Attendance

SPEAKERS & GUESTS DAY 1

Health and Healing in Art Education

30-11-2023 and 01-12-2023

AHK Culture Club

Live (audience, breakout rooms, exhibit)

alex blum, Aina Font Zaragoza, Oskar Oonk

49

With performances, activities and conversations related to neurodiversity, mental and sexual health, trauma healing and the artistic process. The programme kicked off with an exhibition with works from: Saman Mahdavi (ATD-SNDO), Lola Umarova (BA), Anllel Tanus (ATD-SNDO) and Diana Story (RwA). The design of the space was coordinated by Anna-Marie Mašková & Oskar Oonk (AvB)

Annet Lekkerkerker : Chair of the Executive Board

Iris Skolidi : speaker/performer (CvA) alex blum : speaker (ATD-SNDO)

Marina Orlova : video performance-lecture on mental health and the identity of the artist (ATD-SNDO)

Marie Bardet & Lucas Lagomarsino (ATD-SNDO): dance-lecture; consciousness of the anus and movement directed from the anus.

PHOTO REPORT AFTER-MOVIE

SPEAKERS & GUESTS DAY 2

Counter-Canons and Working Queerly Elioa Steffen: keynote on social safety, normativity and queerness (in education) (ATD-DAS)

Counter-canons with moderator Aina Font Zaragoza (CvA) and performances from Lara Makollè Mbella Tekovic (CvA), Vera Morais (CvA) and Rūta Junevičiūtė (ATD-SNDO);

Working Queerly wih music and video (made by Meryl) from Carlotta Buyst (music) (CvA) and an IPOP feedback session with Elioa Steffen. Oskar Oonk (AvB) moderated the conversation between Carlotta and Sean Haid (CvA) about queerness and relationality. Sean Haid, Vizma ZvaigzneŠenka & Pieter Bogaert (CvA) closed the evening with a selection of opera pieces reversing stereotypical gender roles.

APPENDIX II : THEORY OF CHANGE ‘SAFETY FROM A LINGUISTIC POINT OF VIEW’

Attachment 1: ToC “Circle on Language says more than words; Safety from a linguistic point of view” at the Conservatorium van Amsterdam (September 2022) 1. Intentions

Create awareness from and through language.

Words and norms about language use are constantly changing.

If the AHK wants to be an inclusive institute then its students and staff must become aware of how and why these changes take place. A common use of language in which everyone feels comfortable is part of this.

Students and employees of the AHK

The target audience for each AHK Circle is predetermined all students and all employees. But is that really so inclusive?

Different levels, different knowledge levels and different experiences means that the knowledge gap among the participants is (sometimes) too big. How to make sure it is interesting for everyone, without excluding anyone

English is the main language. In the invitation, you could choose a Dutch translation but the language itself is a barrier for nonnative speakers.

Awareness around language has a linguistic but also definitely a physical side, therefore two AHK Circles were programmed that were complementary to each other: Language says more than words (AHK Circle on 15/9) & Body Talks (AHK Cirlce on 13/10).

AHK-wide coming together through organizing a physical event, in the presence of good food, food as a unifying moment to be together.

Language is speaking, but (especially) listening.

The AHK Programme Committee on Diversity and Inclusion is a collective of AHK students and staff from all 6 academies, it organizes the AHK Circles Diversity & Inclusion (D&I). The AHK Circles D&I create a 'community platform' for everyone within the AHK to open conversations, interventions and actions where there is a need.

They are interactive meetings that engage stakeholders in the programme. During this event, this was done through various breakout rooms and by creating time and space during the programme to share questions, perspectives and reflections.

There was collaboration with expert(s) during all programmes of the AHK Circles. There was for example, always an art student from the AHK who made a connection with the theme through a performance or lecture, in addition to and in some cases together with the art student an expert in the field of the relevant theme.

During the AHK Cirlce of Language this was:

- Amrita Das, Mixed Classroom specialist and D&I facilitator, together with a team of Mixed Classroom facilitators from LEARN! Academy, VU Amsterdam (4 trainers)

- Nina de Jong, Reinwardt Academy student, on her thesis Gender fication and genderinclusive language use.

Visibility of the programme committee (who are we) and the AHK Circles (what do we do) through an online video campaign.

Visibility of the AHK Circles through a social media campaign and physical expressions; door hangers with braille, flyers and posters.

Inviting inspiring speakers and giving students the stage.

Programming in the academies at the most convenient time possible; rotating around all the academies of the Circles with an appropriate theme per academy intended to have a threshold-reducing effect on participants.

No video recordings during the break-out sessions to create an environment where everyone dares to speak out.

End each session with references to confidants within the AHK and/or the general email address of the programme committee so that aftercare is also provided.

With the thought of 'good food, good mood' we tried to create a relaxed atmosphere to exchange (new) insights, get to know colleagues and thus allow exchange to take place at a deeper layer than in the workspace

Meeting each other and talking to each other in a different way. Exchange ideas and experiences, be seen and heard. No hierarchical lines, everyone is equal. This is a nice, breath-taking experience. Being inspired by the keynotes and the stories of others New insights, unlearning and relearning. The mind is open. Seeds are planted.

Concrete impact

- Nina de Jong was invited by the Master of Film programme of the Netherlands Film Academy to renew the website texts, - Amrita Das was invited to teach the first-year students of the Netherlands Film Academy, - after this meeting a working group D&I at the Conservatorium van Amsterdam was established.

Step by step, the seeds that have been planted are coming to fruition.

The network has been enlarged, the vocabulary has been supplemented and the vision has broadened.

Even the worldview has broadened because you have been able to immerse yourself in the situations of others.

With that new vocabulary, you can have conversations in a different way that allow you to spark a new awareness. For those around you, you can now accommodate and be more mindful of their situation. Understanding has grown. These are the stones for the ripple effect.

APPENDIX III : THEORY OF CHANGE ‘NECESSARY CONVERSATIONS’

Attachment 3: ToC Circle on “Necessary Conversations” at Academy for Theatre and Dance (September 2023)

1. Intentions 2. Audience 3. Assumptions 4.

To establish rules of engagement for conversation and to clarify the presence of power dynamics within conversations.

To teach active listening techniques.

To discover commonality beyond individuals’ differences.

How to have the necessary conversations?’

Students and staff from within AHK with interdisciplinary backgrounds.

Secondarily: young professionals from the Breitner Academy and their audience.

Conversations are difficult because of our institutional embeddedment.

There is a student ≠ staff dichotomy present within conversations.

AHK is assumed to be a singular context.

Listening techniques can be taught within gameplay and transferred to the AHK world/institutional work effortlessly.

This is the first of two events with Mounir Samuel.

Mounir Samuel (keynote speaker at the event)

Astrid Sonne (Moderator of the event)

Breitner students (intermezzo artists at the event)

Time and pacing, which wasn’t adequate/was too fast-paced.

Shared contextual understanding of the AHK.

Access needs to be met, especially for Mounir.

A shared urgency/understanding of what conversations are deemed ‘necessary’

People arrive with a need for the conversation to be had.

Confusion and lack of ease around conversation.

Risk and time constraints.

A case study on the (im)possibility of conversation within AHK.

Breitner students joined AHK’s DEI work in substantial numbers.

Mounir’s book was shared and distributed.

Knowledge of AHK’s DEI work was expanded beyond the event.

There was open conversation and questions of power dynamics, e.g. Anthony’s opening speech.

APPENDIX IV : THEORY OF CHANGE ‘PRIVILEGE PYRAMID’

Attachment 2: ToC Circle on “Privilege Pyramid“ at Breitner Academy (October 2023)

Intentions 2. Audience 3. Assumptions 4. Collaboration

To address economic inequality and power dynamics between international and Dutch students and staff within the AHK.

To explore intersectionality and differentiate social positions.

To work with Mounir Samuel’s tool ‘the privilege pyramid’.

Students and staff at the AHK. There is a progression from the previous circles.

‘Dutch students’ and ‘international students’ are assumed to be two, mutually exclusive and homogenous groups.

People have at least some knowledge of ‘intersectionality’.

Trust in Mounir.

Israel’s aggression in Gaza had to be addressed, and it would become difficult’.

Visually supportive learning tool would be helpful.

Interaction supports learning.

Everybody shares some vocabulary and definitions, e.g. cis’.

Mounir Samuel (keynote speaker at the event)

Astrid Sonne (Moderator of the event)

Aina Font Zaragoza + collaborator (intermezzo artists at the event).

Invited young professionals for the wrap-up Circle.

Necessary steps

Direct impact

The director of the Breitner Academy is asked by the programme committee to respond to the situation in Israel and Gaza

Mounir makes a statement about the situation in Israel and Gaza and confronts the audience to relate to the conflict as an educational institution, as a teacher, as a student, as a human being.

Colleagues (who visited the Circle) have used the privilege pyramid in a training for workplace supervisors (maybe even sustainable change).

The privilege pyramid is used in a training for workplace supervisors

APPENDIX V : THEORY OF CHANGE ‘WRAP-UP CIRCLES - EMERGING KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICES’

Attachment

4 ToC Circle

“Wrap-Up of AHK Circles” at the AHK Culture Club (November & December 2023)

Initially the intention was to create a wrap-up Circle which summarised all previous circles/ was a true wrap up.

Through the planning process the intention shifted from marking an end to marking a transition. A transition from Circles driven by external knowledge to an event hosting spaces for internal emerging knowledges and practices: artistry D&I, meaning context specific to the AHK.

At the same time, we also took a more central role in organising as a committee rather than advising/consulting on the organisation. This was more work but also brought more joy through a collective sense of ownership.

With the open call-in we invited bottom up’ critical voices within the AHK to showcase their art.

On the practical side, internal and external transparency about finances and budget were very important. All of the participating artists were given a full overview of the associated costs including the compensation for the organization.

All of this with the intention to create an event with a sense of collective ownership.

The open call-in , a combination of an open call and a ‘call-in was aimed at generating student responses in relation to the rather broad topic of emerging knowledges and practices.

As a result, the content of the Circle was directly reflecting topics that ‘lived’ within the student body and were aimed at both fellow students and staff of the AHK.

Despite so many different students participating/ showcasing their work, the student attendance was quite low. Possible explanation are the dates of the event (December is often very busy).

The staff attendance on the other hand was rather good.

Throughout the two days there were various discussion moments where the audience could ask questions. We observed that those who were present actively engaged in those moments and some very valuable conversations were had. We especially observed that participants in the discussions did not hesitate to put forward their personal, opposing views to the public.

Location: The Culture Club is a common room for the AHK and despite being disconnected from a major faculty building, students will not have an issue going there.

Promotion: We assumed the event was more widely known. Despite various methods of communication, we encountered various AHK students who had not been aware of this event.

Representation: Open call-ins will not yield a representative crowd. We were fully aware that despite posting an open call on the internal web of the AHK not all students will see it and have equal access to such an event. This was a shortcoming we accepted beforehand.

Unheard voices: Related to the intentions listed earlier, we assumed that there were many students at the AHK, who, for whatever reason, did not feel seen or heard, in relation to their identity and/or conservative traditions in the curriculum/discipline.

Finances: Complete financial transparency helps in creating a bond of trust with the participants and helps manage expectations/ prevents potential disappointments/ miscommunications.

Process: We had a very informal process, and it required a bit of faith but we strongly believed in the collective ability to create something as long as there was a good foundation of trust.

Students ≠ Students We assumed that involving many students in the programming and displaying their work would automatically attract more students to attend. This was not the case.

The collaboration process was rather complex.

The curators or subcommittee (alex, Aina & Oskar) from the program committee, with the support of the producer Fionnuala did most of the organizing and coordinating.

The programme committee was routinely informed of the progress during the plenary sessions and gave feedback on the plans.

Fionnuala arranged for the light and sound with Stage Mate preferred tech company of the Culture Club (our venue)

Fionnuala was the main link between the AHK administration in charge of the budget, final approval of the programming & the communication.

Aina, alex & Oskar were mostly focused on the communication with the following:

1. participants*

2. videographer

3. photographer

4. Culture Club

Additional equipment was borrowed from the Academy of Architecture

*For a full overview of the participants, please consider the last box of APPENDIX I : AHK circles Diversity & Inclusion

1. Attuning to each other as curators. Discussing our wishes/expectations and the way we like to work. This process took a considerable amount of time but ultimately allowed us to roll through the process rather smoothly. This brought us to the topic of a student driven Circle.

2. The second step was the formulation of the open call-in We made sure to take considerable time choosing our wording and the content of the open call-in document to reflect our expectations, while leaving space for unexpected contributions.

3. After the open-call in was published we intended to make a selection of participants. Ultimately we decided not to select, not in the least because that would require making comparisons which was practically impossible and undesirable. As such we reassessed and decided to shape a programme around all participants.

4. The next steps were the actual organisation of the Circle to a point that we could communicate a programme to the prospective audience.

5. The final organisation went swiftly with some of the participants showing great initiative, making it a real collective effort.

Impact was hard to measure but here are a few indications:

Connecting artists have heard several cases in passing of ongoing collaborations with artists who met during the wrap-up circle.

Identity building of the AHK student: the AHK consists of a collection of disconnected academies For the participants of this events (as well as the organisers), it was a unique opportunity to experience the breadth of the AHK within one space and develop a sense of what it is the other academies do.

Important conversations: As mentioned before, the Circle also stirred important conversations. It exposed participants and audience members to new perspectives and allowed them to engage through the various discussion rounds.

Sustainable change is difficult to describe at this stage. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning a few things on this topic

The video created of the circle is one result that is arguably sustainable in the sense that in all likelihood it will not cease to exist. The sustainable impact of the video highly depends on how it is put to use by the AHK.

We also believe that as a pan-AHK event the wrapup Circle provided a great precedent for future pan-AHK events that address he long felt ambition of the AHK to have more interaction between the academies.

‘DRAWING CIRCLES’