During the interview phase of this project, questions around dress, appearance and presentation emerged repeatedly. As a result, I added two further questions to my questionnaire to explore whether students experienced spoken or unspoken expectations around how they dress, and whether their background or identity felt recognised within their creative practice. This methodological adjustment reflects an important moment of reflexivity, where student narratives prompted a deeper examination of unconscious bias within the fashion education environment.
Student responses reveal a shared perception that, despite the absence of any formal dress code, appearance plays a significant role in shaping confidence, peer relationships and critique experiences. One student articulated this clearly: “There is often a particular ‘CSM look’ that feels more accepted or taken seriously… when my appearance didn’t align with that, it affected my confidence in critiques, as though how I looked influenced how my work was received.” Another described feeling judged in early years for being “unfashionable,” wearing fast fashion, or “trying too hard,” but later experiencing increased respect and belonging once their style became more “effortless” and aligned with institutional norms. These reflections demonstrate how dress functions as a form of cultural signalling, shaping perceptions of taste, legitimacy and value.
This finding can be understood through Bourdieu’s (1984) concepts of habitus and cultural capital. Students arrive with embodied dispositions shaped by class, culture and lived experience, yet within fashion education certain aesthetic codes are implicitly privileged. Those whose habitus aligns with dominant norms may be read as more credible or “naturally” suited to the discipline, while others experience misrecognition. Burke and McManus (2011) identify this dynamic within art and design education, documenting how judgments about dress and appearance — including descriptors such as “unfashionable clothes” — have historically influenced assessments of ability and potential. McManus (2009) further highlights how these assumptions intersect with classed and racialised interpretations of legitimacy.
Importantly, students also described tension between the encouragement of individuality in theory and the reality of normative expectations in practice. One respondent noted that drawing from their own background felt “less understood or subtly discouraged,” leading them to adapt their work in ways that created confusion rather than clarity. Another, reflecting on a white working-class background, described resisting autobiographical work due to discomfort with voyeuristic representations of working-class identity, highlighting the emotional labour involved in negotiating visibility and authenticity.
For my intervention, this represents a crucial finding. It underscores that widening participation and inclusive practice cannot focus solely on skills or access but must also address the hidden curriculum of fashion education. Making implicit norms visible, creating space to critically discuss dress, identity and taste, and acknowledging unconscious bias are essential steps in fostering genuine belonging. Rather than positioning students as needing to “fit” the institution, this work reframes belonging as a pedagogic and institutional responsibility.
The questions I added:
8.a As a student, do you feel there are spoken or unspoken expectations around how students should dress or present themselves within your course or in critiques?
Have you ever felt judged, supported, or misunderstood because of how you dress or present yourself?
8b. Do you feel your background, culture, or personal identity is recognised and valued within your design work and creative practice on the course?
For example, do you feel encouraged to draw from your own experiences, or have you ever felt pressure to adapt your work to fit certain expectations?
Student quotes:
“There is a particular ‘CSM look’ that feels more accepted or taken seriously.”
“There is a particular ‘CSM look’… when my appearance didn’t align with that… it affected my confidence in critiques.”
(Student reflection)
“How I looked influenced how my work was received.”
“I do feel as though your personal style/how you’re dressed does affect the way people view your work and taste level”
“In first year, I struggled to make friends as I dressed (in hindsight) quite crazy but not in a particulary fashionable, chic or effortless way.”
“I do feel as though I was encouraged to draw from my white, merseyside/northern working class background in my work, and when parts of my background and personal identity where included it was valued, however I personally resisted doing so. “
“I also didn’t see a way I could make work that would get them to understand the feeling of growing up poor, so I just didn’t make work about being working class at all after first year”
References (Harvard)
Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge.
Burke, P.J. and McManus, J. (2011) Art for a Few: Exclusion and Misrecognition in Art and Design Higher Education. London: National Arts Learning Network.
McManus, J. (2009) ‘Becoming a creative professional: Exclusion and inclusion in art, design and media education’. Unpublished PhD thesis. Institute of Education, University of London.
Reflection on Learning Outcomes:
- LO1 – Knowledge (Social Justice Focus):
Critically examines unspoken dress codes and aesthetic norms as a social justice issue within fashion higher education, demonstrating how cultural capital, class and identity shape student confidence, belonging and access to legitimacy. - LO2 – Enquiry (Research Design):
Develops a responsive research design that evolved through the inquiry process, with additional questionnaire questions introduced to address emergent themes identified during student interviews. - LO3 – Process (Methods & Instruments):
Designs, adapts and reviews qualitative research instruments (interviews and questionnaires) in response to student voice, demonstrating reflexivity and ethical sensitivity within tutor-led research. - LO4 – Communication (Synthesis & Evaluation):
Synthesises student data and critical theory (Bourdieu; McManus; Burke) to present a coherent, context-sensitive evaluation of findings and their implications for pedagogic intervention.