This research emerged from a moment that might have seemed minor at the time but stayed with me. After a seminar, a student quietly shared that she had felt uncomfortable engaging in the discussion due to how another peer was dressed. Her concern wasn’t rooted in moral judgement or conservatism; it was about emotional safety, a sense of disconnection, and the absence of shared boundaries in the space. It raised uncomfortable questions I couldn’t ignore: in a creative institution where we actively encourage radical self-expression, what happens when that very freedom creates discomfort for others? Whose sense of belonging gets protected, and whose discomfort goes unspoken?
This project is rooted in that question. It seeks to explore how students and staff in creative HE spaces like UAL navigate the tensions between cultural and faith-informed modesty and dominant cultures of inclusivity that often promote a “maximalist” approach to dress, where anything goes, and everything is valid. While this principle may appear open and liberating, it risks marginalising those whose dress choices are shaped by modesty, reverence, or religious conviction.
Before we carry on, it is important to distinguish between inclusion and belonging. Two terms that are often used interchangeably in institutional discourse, yet carry very different implications. As Strayhorn (2018) explains, inclusion refers to being invited or allowed to participate, typically framed as an institutional action: a policy, a gesture, a structural change designed to allow someone “in.” It is conditional, often focused on access or representation. Belonging, by contrast, is relational, feeling accepted, valued, and safe to be fully oneself. It is not something granted, but something experienced (Pleet-Odle, 2023). While inclusion may allow someone to be present, belonging means they feel safe enough to participate fully, without needing to assimilate or suppress key parts of who they are. This distinction is particularly relevant when thinking about dress and expression of one self through fashion. A student might be “included” in a space where all styles of dress are technically allowed, but if the cultural codes in that space reward only visibility, skin, or transgression, they may never feel they truly “belong”. Inclusion without cultural literacy risks becoming performative, and belonging requires attention to the unspoken, the relational, and the emotional dynamics of power, especially around the body.
According to HESA (2025), over 44% of UK students identify as Christian and Muslim, two belief systems where modesty is not simply a personal preference but often a spiritual or ethical imperative. Yet modesty is systematically under-theorised in higher education policy, pedagogy, and creative curriculum design. It is rarely addressed in institutional narratives around belonging or inclusivity, despite being a central element of identity for a significant proportion of the student body. As the Modest Fashion and Policy report from UAL (2022) highlights, modesty in secular spaces is frequently misunderstood, misread as repression, or seen as incompatible with contemporary feminist or creative values.
This misreading has real consequences. When modesty is met with silence or suspicion, students and staff who practise it may feel unable to fully participate, or they may internalise the idea that their mode of dress, and, by extension, their presence is somehow out of place.
Literature across multiple fields underscores this complexity. Oliver et al. (2022) show that what educators wear can shape students’ judgements of credibility and professionalism, highlighting the social and affective “work” that dress performs in learning environments. Ibrahim et al. (2016), examining moral education and dress expectations in higher education, similarly suggest that institutional norms around “appropriate” appearance can be culturally coded and unevenly experienced, with students reading them through different lenses of identity, morality and resistance. In school settings, Gajardo (2015) analysis of bans on religious symbols in British schools makes a parallel point from an equality-law perspective: rules framed as general, uniform standards can still operate as indirect discrimination when they disproportionately constrain pupils whose religious or cultural practices involve particular garments or symbols, thereby reproducing dominant norms while maintaining the appearance of neutrality and inclusion.
Waite et al. (2024) offer valuable insight into how university students articulate the relationship between appearance, wellbeing, and inclusion. Their study reveals that concerns around dress and appearance significantly impact students’ mental health, sense of belonging, and willingness to participate in university life, with many describing moments of comparison, discomfort, and invisibility. Crucially, participants highlighted the need for intentional, culturally aware, and genuinely inclusive practices, not surface-level representation or tokenistic gestures. As several students stressed, inclusion only works when people feel their identity is not just permitted but valued, and this includes appearance, culture, and visible difference. For creative HE contexts like UAL, the question isn’t just whether everyone can dress freely, it’s whether everyone feels seen and respected in the process.
My research doesn’t aim to resolve the tension, at least not yet. Instead, it seeks to table a conversation that remains largely absent from institutional discourse: one that surfaces unspoken experiences, discomforts, and silences; that centres those often overlooked in discussions of inclusion; and that asks how we might co-create more respectful learning environments where differing values around dress, including modesty, are acknowledged rather than sidelined.
These reflections continue to raise questions for me: How can we make space for the full spectrum of self-presentation within our creative classrooms? And are we truly considering how appearance norms, both spoken and unspoken, shape who feels welcome, who feels seen, and who quietly withdraws? These are some of the initial provocations that now guide my primary data collection.
References
Aune, K., Lewis, R. and Molokotos-Liederman, L. (2021) Modest fashion in UK women’s working life: A report for employers, HR professionals, religious organisations and policymakers. London: University of the Arts London and Coventry University. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0030/362370/modest_policy_FINAL.pdf [Accessed: 20 January 2026].
Gajardo Falcón, J. (2015) ‘Erica Howard. Law and the Wearing of Religious Symbols. European bans on the wearing of religious symbols in education, Routledge, Londres, 2012 (223 pp.)’ Revista de Derecho (Valdivia), 28(2), pp. 265–267. doi: 10.4067/S0718-09502015000200014.
HESA (2025) Higher Education Student Statistics: UK, 2023/24 – Religious Affiliation. [Online] Available at: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/news/20-03-2025/sb271-higher-education-student-statistics/numbers [Accessed 20 Jan 2026].
Ibrahim, R., Mohamed, S. and Salim, N. (2022) The Role of Moral Education on the Dress Code in Higher Learning Institutions. Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 20(1), pp. 15–26.
Oliver, M.B., Moshontz, H. and Green, M.C. (2021) Fitted: The Impact of Academics’ Attire on Students’ Evaluations and Intentions. Teaching of Psychology, 47(3), pp. 390–410. doi:10.1177/0098628320938776
Pleet-Odle, A. (2023) ‘Inclusion & belonging’, Joyful Inclusion, 26 October. Available at: https://www.joyfulinclusion.com/blog/inclusion-and-belonging [Accessed: 28 January 2026].
Strayhorn, T.L. (2018) College Students’ Sense of Belonging: A Key to Educational Success for All Students. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
Waite, E., Parnell, J., Guest, E., Harcourt, D., Stokes, R. and Slater, A. (2024) ‘“Make sure that everybody feels there is a space for them”: Understanding and promoting appearance inclusivity at university’, Body Image, 51, 101809. doi: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2024.101809.
UAL (2022) Modest Fashion and Policy Report. London: University of the Arts London. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/274074/modest_policy_FINAL.pdf [Accessed 25 Jan 2026].