- Mixed qualitative approach was chosen to foreground lived experience, visual experimentation, and reflection rather than measurable technical outcomes.
- The use of smartphones significantly supported accessibility and inclusivity within the research process.
- Post-workshop feedback forms provided valuable reflective data, allowing participants to articulate their learning in their own words.
- Open-ended questions supported comparison across responses and revealed a range of engagement, from confident conceptual synthesis to tentative positions.
- Brevity of the form constrained the depth of reflection, particularly for students who may require more time, dialogue, or verbal exchange to process complex ideas.
- Method privileged students who are already comfortable with written academic reflection
- This potentially limiting access for others.
The short duration of the remote workshop also shaped the findings. While effective as an intervention, it did not allow sufficient time for participants to revisit, revise, or contextualise and have a group dialogue about the project and their images. This hindered the development of sustained critical positions, particularly around ethics and social justice, which require iterative discussion and reflection. At the same time, the compressed format made visible how quickly dominant assumptions about technology, professionalism, and value can surface when challenged, providing useful diagnostic insight into student thinking.