It was no longer simply:

Did Jason Arday commit academic misconduct?

Increasingly, it seemed to be:

Was Jason Arday telling the truth about anything?

Following his death, the Metropolitan Police said it was unexpected but was not being treated as suspicious. His family described what had happened to him as a prolonged campaign of harassment, abuse and misinformation.

We should be extremely cautious about what follows from those facts.

The proximity between intense public scrutiny and Arday’s death does not establish that one caused the other. Unless reliable evidence establishes otherwise, it would be irresponsible to claim that journalists, academics, social media, or any particular individual, caused his death.

But avoiding an unsupported causal claim does not require us to avoid the harder question: How did we get there?

The explosion into public consciousness occurred in July 2026, following an article by Nathan Cofnas.

The underlying dispute was much older.

In May 2023, retired academic Dave Harris contacted Arday after identifying what he believed were troubling similarities between passages in Arday’s academic work and previously published material.

Harris subsequently involved sociologist Martyn Hammersley, who examined some of the material independently and considered the concerns sufficiently serious to contact Cambridge.

Corrections were subsequently made to two of Arday’s papers. Years later, Retraction Watch documented the history of those complaints and the unsuccessful attempts to have the concerns investigated to Harris and Hammersley’s satisfaction.

That matters.

Whatever happened subsequently, the original academic-integrity concerns should not simply be dismissed as a manufactured culture-war attack.

There were legitimate questions to answer.

But understanding Harris’s role requires understanding why he continued asking them.

Harris’s background is revealing.

His academic interests included education, sociology and research methodology. His extensive writings demonstrate a longstanding habit of close, sometimes unforgiving examination of academic arguments: checking references, interrogating methodology and asking whether evidence actually supports the conclusions being drawn from it.

From his perspective, the sequence of events may have appeared compelling.

He identified apparent problems.

He contacted Arday.

Arday’s response did not satisfy him and eventually Arday asked him not to make further contact, describing the continued attention to his work as bullying and harassment.

Harris sought another academic opinion.

Hammersley shared serious concerns.

Corrections subsequently appeared.

Additional apparent problems were identified.

Yet universities did not reach the conclusion Harris believed the evidence warranted.

What began as a textual question could therefore become a moral grievance.

For someone deeply invested in scholarly standards, plagiarism is not merely an administrative offence. Academic attribution determines who receives credit for intellectual labour.

From that perspective, allowing inadequately attributed work to pass through universities is itself an injustice, to other researchers, to students expected to follow those rules and to the integrity of scholarship.

The greater Arday’s academic prominence became, the greater that perceived injustice may have appeared.

Cambridge celebrated Arday’s appointment in 2023, describing his extraordinary educational journey and making him the youngest Black professor ever appointed at Cambridge.

Harris believed there were unresolved problems in the scholarship underlying that success.

Those positions were destined to collide.

But there is also a potential epistemic trap.

Once an investigator has been proved correct about some things, it becomes easier to assume they are correct about everything else.

The reasoning can gradually become:

I found a problem.

Others confirmed parts of it.

Therefore my judgement was correct.

The institution still disagrees with my wider conclusion.

Therefore perhaps the institution is failing to confront the evidence.

That does not mean Harris was wrong.

Whistleblowers sometimes persist precisely because institutions really have failed.

But once institutional disagreement itself becomes evidence of institutional failure, it becomes increasingly difficult for any institutional decision to resolve the dispute.

From Jason Arday’s side, the same sequence could look entirely different.

He did not appear to experience Harris as simply an academic asking reasonable questions.

He experienced someone repeatedly examining his work for errors.

That distinction matters because Arday’s relationship with education and written language was anything but conventional.

Cambridge’s own account of his life described autism and global developmental delay, considerable difficulties with speech and literacy, and an extraordinarily difficult route through education.

Some of the precise details Arday subsequently gave about his childhood would themselves become disputed.

But nobody seriously disputes that his educational journey was highly unusual.

And that deserves greater attention when considering his early academic writing.

What if Jason Arday became a better writer?

There is a question surprisingly absent from much of the public reckoning:

Did Jason Arday learn?

Academic writing is not simply ordinary writing with references sprinkled through it like intellectual parsley.

It is a learned literacy.

Students have to learn paraphrasing, synthesis, attribution, quotation, disciplinary conventions and how to distinguish their own voice from the language of the authors they are reading.

Some people learn these conventions easily.

Others don’t.

Academic-literacy researchers have long described patchwriting: writing that remains excessively close to the wording or structure of source material as writers attempt to incorporate unfamiliar scholarly language into their own writing.

Patchwriting can breach plagiarism regulations. Identifying it does not make the underlying problem disappear.

But researchers have also recognised that patchwriting can occur as part of developing academic literacy rather than necessarily representing a calculated attempt to steal somebody else’s intellectual work.

That distinction becomes particularly relevant to someone with Arday’s developmental history.

It would be patronising to argue that autism or learning difficulties exempt someone from academic standards.

They do not.

Nor can all the research-integrity concerns subsequently raised about Arday be explained through patchwriting. Questions about participant quotations, data and other aspects of research practice belong to different categories and require different explanations.

But neither should we move automatically from:

problematic source use

to:

deliberate plagiarism

to:

dishonest scholar

to:

dishonest person.

Those are separate propositions requiring separate evidence.

And chronology matters.

Formal corrections to older Arday papers appeared in 2023 and 2024. In examining his subsequent publication record, I have not identified equivalent plagiarism corrections attached to newly produced later collaborative work.

Indeed, even Cofnas’s later examination of publications highlighted by Arday found no plagiarism in several of them, although Cofnas questioned their scholarly quality.

That distinction matters too.

“I don’t think this is good scholarship” is not synonymous with “this was plagiarised.”

If Arday’s source handling improved following criticism, that would not erase earlier problems.

But it would tell us something important about the person at the centre of the story.

Human beings develop.

Achievement does not require a perfect origin story

There is something peculiar about how we retrospectively understand extraordinary achievement.

Once somebody becomes a Cambridge professor, we expect to find the Cambridge professor somehow already present in the struggling student.

But real learning rarely looks like that.

People misunderstand.

They imitate.

They write badly.

They receive feedback.

They develop strategies.

They improve.

For neurodivergent people in particular, development can be strikingly uneven. Considerable intellectual ability can coexist with difficulties involving written expression, organisation, executive function or conventional academic practice.

Recognising that isn’t lowering standards.

It is recognising development.

And if Jason Arday genuinely moved from profound educational difficulty to becoming capable of producing publishable academic scholarship, the difficulty of that journey does not diminish the achievement. It is part of the achievement.

The struggling writer and the Cambridge professor do not have to be competing versions of Jason Arday.

They can be the same person at different points in a developmental trajectory.

If his later writing improved substantially, then freezing him permanently at the weakest point of his earlier academic work would itself create a distorted picture.

The story that almost appeared in 2025

By 2025, concerns about Arday’s work had moved considerably beyond Harris.

Times Higher Education (THE) journalist Jack Grove investigated the allegations.

Retraction Watch later reported that Purdue University academic-integrity expert David Sanders examined a 63-page collection of comparisons and considered there to be extensive plagiarism.

Arday instructed the defamation specialists Carter-Ruck.

THE did not ultimately publish the investigation.

Again, the event can sustain two opposing narratives.

From Arday’s perspective:

Serious allegations are being made against me and I am entitled to defend my reputation.

From Harris’s:

Another independent investigator has found serious problems and once again nothing happens.

The same event reinforces both sides’ understanding of the dispute.

Arday sees continued pursuit.

Harris sees institutional suppression.

Then Nathan Cofnas enters the story.

Nathan Cofnas and a different kind of grievance

Cofnas says that an unnamed Cambridge faculty member approached him in June 2026.

The description reportedly supplied to him was striking.

Arday was characterised not merely as a suspected plagiarist but as a “plagiarist and fabulist.”

On 21 July, Cofnas published:

“DEI Fraud and Cover-Up at Cambridge”.

The title tells us something about the explanatory framework before we reach the evidence.

Cofnas had his own difficult history with Cambridge.

He had become embroiled in an intense controversy following writings concerning race, heredity, equality and merit. Emmanuel College ended its association with him. Cambridge investigated complaints concerning his writings, ultimately concluding that they did not breach the university’s free-speech rules or the law.

Cofnas had already developed a much broader argument about DEI, meritocracy and ideological capture within universities.

He had also personally experienced Cambridge as an institution willing to sanction him for expressing conclusions he believed were scientifically and philosophically defensible.

Then someone inside Cambridge handed him information about one of the institution’s most celebrated Black academics.

For Cofnas, Arday could therefore represent something much larger than one professor.

He could become evidence supporting an existing theory:

that elite universities had become so committed to diversity and racial representation that ordinary standards were being compromised.

That does not invalidate the evidence Cofnas presented.

But evidence never interprets itself.

Harris and Cofnas appear to arrive at Arday through quite different routes.

For Harris:

evidence → concern → institutional frustration → wider suspicion.

For Cofnas:

existing institutional theory → personal Cambridge conflict → Arday evidence → apparent confirmation.

Understanding those perspectives helps explain what happened next.

The question changes

The original question was:

Did Jason Arday plagiarise?

Then:

Did universities properly investigate him?

Then:

Was his Cambridge appointment legitimate?

But Cofnas’s article introduced something broader.

Was Jason Arday a fabulist?

Suddenly his scholarship was no longer the only admissible evidence.

His biography became evidence too.

His childhood.

His autism.

His literacy.

His running.

His fundraising.

His experiences of racism.

His career history.

Old interviews.

Things he had said casually years earlier.

The controversy crossed an important boundary.

It moved from investigating conduct to investigating credibility.

And once credibility itself becomes the object of investigation, almost nothing is out of scope.

Journalism joins the investigation

The story accelerated extraordinarily quickly.

Following Cofnas’s article on 21 July, on the 24th July, The Times published “Cambridge University pioneer Jason Arday in plagiarism row.”and the Telegraph published “Cambridge’s diversity poster boy in plagiarism row.”

Retraction Watch revealed the history of the unpublished THE investigation on 27 July.

On 29 July, the Telegraph published an article, followed by the Guardian on 1 August, followed by further articles. Both investigated Arday’s academic record and aspects of his personal biography. Its journalists did genuine investigative work: contacting institutions, police, witnesses and others rather than simply reproducing online allegations.

Further articles were printed; I will not list them all here.

Some findings raised serious questions.

A claim that Arday completed 600 miles in six days turned out, by his own subsequent account, to have involved 12 elapsed days including rest days.

His account of police involvement following an alleged severed pig’s head sent to his family was contradicted by the Metropolitan Police and by the butcher he said police had contacted.

These are legitimate subjects for journalism.

But not every claim investigated had the same evidential status.

Some appeared demonstrably inaccurate.

Some appeared exaggerated.

Some were difficult to verify.

Some involved conflicting witnesses.

Others had contemporary corroborating evidence.

And some appear to have depended upon interpreting ambiguous words in the least charitable possible way.

Seven Up and the transformation of ambiguity into certainty

One example is particularly revealing.

An old recording resurfaced in which Arday referred to having participated as a child in something he called “Seven Up”.

This was interpreted as Arday claiming he had participated in the famous British Up documentary series, which began in 1964.

Arday was born decades later.

Presented that way, the claim was absurd.

It consequently became another apparent piece of evidence that Arday simply invented things.

But Arday disputed the interpretation.

He said he had been referring to a different informal community initiative involving Black families and children with additional needs.

I have not found independent evidence conclusively establishing that explanation.

But that leaves us with an ambiguous statement + a disputed interpretation.

It does not leave us with a demonstrated lie.

That distinction is precisely the sort of thing journalism concerned with somebody else’s evidential standards ought to preserve.

When “questioned” becomes a verdict

There is a cumulative effect to journalism.

Consider reading:

plagiarism questioned

PhD questioned

Cambridge appointment questioned

marathons questioned

fundraising questioned

childhood questioned

racism claims questioned

autism narrative questioned

personal history questioned.

Each individual sentence may be defensible.

But eventually the word questioned quietly disappears from the reader’s mental model.

What remains is:

Jason Arday was a fraud.

That conclusion is considerably larger than the individual pieces of evidence from which it was constructed.

This is one of the dangers of cumulative framing.

A demonstrated falsehood, an exaggeration, an unverifiable statement, conflicting memories and an ambiguous remark are not epistemically equivalent.

Put them together under a story about someone’s credibility, however, and they begin reinforcing one another.

The allegation becomes evidence of dishonesty.

The dishonesty makes the next allegation more believable.

That allegation then becomes further evidence of dishonesty.

The reasoning becomes circular.

From specialist dispute to national entertainment

Within weeks, the controversy escaped academia and investigative journalism altogether.

By 6 August it was being discussed on Jeremy Vine’s BBC Radio 2 daytime programme.

That transition matters.

A journal article about plagiarism is encountered primarily by academics.

A newspaper investigation reaches hundreds of thousands.

A daytime radio programme brings the controversy into cars, kitchens, workplaces and waiting rooms.

Social media then collapses the distinction between audience and participant.

People no longer merely consume the story.

They investigate it.

Share it.

Mock it.

Defend Arday.

Search his history.

Find old interviews.

Challenge claims.

Make memes.

Argue with one another.

And every interaction potentially produces another interaction.

“I only commented once”

Imagine 10,000 people each make one comment.

From the perspective of every individual:

one person × one comment.

From the perspective of the person receiving them:

one person × 10,000 comments.

This difference is fundamental to understanding digitally mediated public scrutiny.

Nobody has to decide to create a pile-on.

One person shares an article.

Someone else makes a joke.

Another asks a sceptical question.

Someone defends Arday.

Someone reposts the defence because they disagree with it.

A journalist sees the engagement.

Another person discovers an old interview.

A broadcaster discusses the newspaper story.

Each participant can reasonably experience their own contribution as insignificant.

Yet the person at the centre does not necessarily experience each contribution as an isolated moral event.

They experience the aggregate.

Research into digital vigilantism has described precisely this problem: digitally mediated crowds can collectively gather, interpret and distribute information about perceived wrongdoing without any single participant necessarily controlling the ultimate scale or consequences of the process.

Alice Marwick’s work on morally motivated networked harassment is also relevant because online shaming frequently involves people who understand themselves not as harassers but as enforcing legitimate social norms.

That is important here.

Many people scrutinising Arday presumably believed they were doing something morally justified.

Academic plagiarism matters.

Institutional accountability matters.

Journalistic scrutiny matters.

Truth matters.

But morally motivated participation can still aggregate.

Even defending someone contributes to attention

There is an additional complication.

Imagine somebody posts “Leave Jason Arday alone. This has gone too far”.

That person is clearly doing something morally different from someone directing racist abuse at him.

But digitally, both posts may contribute to attention.

The supportive post mentions Arday.

People respond.

Others quote it.

Algorithms detect engagement.

More people encounter the controversy.

Some then search for the allegations.

So the valence of participation and the volume of attention are not the same thing.

Supportive, neutral and hostile contributions can all maintain visibility.

That does not make them morally equivalent.

It tells us that attention itself has properties independent of intention.

For somebody already overwhelmed by scrutiny, even supportive attention may mean that there is nowhere to escape the fact that everyone is discussing you.

How individual responsibility disappears

Neutralisation theory provides one useful way of examining this.

Kaptein and van Helvoort developed an extensive model of techniques through which people reconcile questionable behaviour with their existing moral standards.

We should be careful here.

Neutralisation theory should not be used to diagnose Harris, Cofnas, individual journalists or strangers online.

Instead, it allows us to examine the language through which participation is made morally acceptable.

Consider:

“I only made one comment.”

The significance of the contribution is minimised.

“Everybody was already talking about it.”

Responsibility is diffused.

“I’m only reporting what’s already in the public domain.”

Responsibility moves towards the original source.

“People have a right to know.”

Participation is justified through a higher moral objective.

“If he hadn’t lied, none of this would have happened.”

Responsibility moves towards the person being scrutinised.

“Calling this harassment is an attempt to silence legitimate journalism.”

Criticism of the process itself becomes morally suspect.

The interesting thing is that these statements may contain substantial truth.

One comment really is tiny.

The information may genuinely be public.

The public can have a legitimate right to know.

Academic integrity genuinely matters.

That is precisely why neutralisation is interesting.

People do not necessarily participate in collective harm by temporarily becoming bad people.

They can participate while believing they are behaving responsibly.

There is an uncomfortable irony in writing this article.

In trying to understand what happened to Jason Arday, I have also contributed to the continued scrutiny of him.

I have searched his history, revisited allegations about his academic work and personal life, read accounts of his childhood, compared competing claims and tried to establish which parts of the story are supported by evidence.

My intention is different from those who sought to discredit him. I am interested in how legitimate scrutiny can become cumulative, how uncertainty can disappear as allegations are repeated, and how individually small acts can collectively produce something much larger.

But intention is not the same as impact.

By writing this article, I am placing Jason Arday’s name into circulation again. I am repeating some of the allegations made against him. I am asking readers to think about him, discuss him and perhaps search for more information themselves.

There is also a question of whether contributing at all is necessary.

That question applies to me as much as anyone else; I am not placed outside of the system I am examining.

Indeed, claiming my contribution is different simply because my intentions are good would risk reproducing precisely the logic I have questioned throughout this article.

Perhaps reflexivity therefore requires something more uncomfortable than identifying what other people should have done differently.

It requires recognising ourselves inside the same attention economy.

The question is not simply when they should have stopped.

It is how any of us, once convinced that what we have to say is justified, recognise when saying nothing, or saying less, may be the more responsible and ethical choice.

The unit of action and the unit of experience are different

Perhaps this is the central problem.

Harris can say:

I raised legitimate academic-integrity concerns.

Cofnas:

I exposed institutional wrongdoing.

A Guardian journalist:

I verified disputed claims.

A Telegraph journalist:

I reported a public-interest story.

Jeremy Vine:

We discussed a major news story.

A social-media user:

I made one comment.

A defender:

I was supporting Jason.

Every statement can contain truth.

But Arday potentially experienced:

Harris + Cofnas + Cambridge + newspapers + radio + X + Facebook + Reddit + colleagues + strangers + investigations into his childhood + investigations into his autism + investigations into his achievements + investigations into his experiences of racism.

The actor’s unit of moral evaluation is the individual contribution.

The target’s unit of experience is the aggregate.

That distinction may help explain how something experienced as overwhelming can emerge without any single participant intending to overwhelm anybody.

Race cannot simply be removed from the story

Nor can this controversy be understood without race.

Cofnas explicitly framed Arday through DEI.

Arday therefore became evidence in a much larger political argument about racial equality, merit and universities.

That has consequences.

A professor accused of plagiarism is an individual accused of plagiarism.

A Black professor presented as evidence of DEI fraud becomes potentially representative of something larger.

His legitimacy becomes connected rhetorically to the legitimacy of diversity initiatives and, by implication, other minority academics.

Cambridge itself subsequently warned against using the Arday controversy to undermine Black academics generally.

But recognising the racialised context does not mean dismissing the underlying academic-integrity concerns as racist.

Both propositions can be true:

Arday’s scholarship contained legitimate matters for investigation.

and

the public process through which Arday himself became the object of extraordinary scrutiny could be racialised.

Complexity does not require choosing one.

Institutions may have failed everyone

There is another possibility beneath the entire controversy.

What if institutional processes failed both the complainants and Arday?

Harris believed serious concerns had never been adequately resolved.

Arday believed allegations continued despite having been subjected to institutional investigation.

Those experiences are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Poor institutional processes can leave complainants convinced wrongdoing has been covered up while leaving the accused believing that no investigation can ever finally clear them.

When formal processes cease to command legitimacy, disputes migrate.

From universities to blogs.

From blogs to Substack.

From Substack to newspapers.

From newspapers to radio.

From radio to social media.

Eventually the internet becomes the tribunal.

And unlike a university investigation, the internet has no final judgement.

There is always another allegation to examine.

Another interview to find.

Another discrepancy.

Another comment.

Another person asking, “But what about this?”

On 5 August, Arday resigned from Cambridge.

On 12 August, Cambridge announced an independent inquiry into his appointment and the circumstances surrounding it.

On 14 August, Jason Arday was found dead.

He was 41.

We do not presently know enough to draw causal conclusions from that chronology.

But chronology still matters.

A controversy that had moved relatively slowly through academic channels for approximately three years became a national examination of one man’s scholarship, career, disability, childhood, sporting achievements, charity work, experiences of racism and personal credibility in approximately three weeks.

Whatever conclusions are ultimately reached about Jason Arday’s academic record, that acceleration deserves examination.

A final thought

Jason Arday’s death should not make academics immune from scrutiny.

It should not prevent journalists from investigating plagiarism.

It should not require universities to overlook misconduct.

Nor should compassion require us to pretend that every claim Arday made was accurate.

But scrutiny itself requires standards.

Evidence should remain evidence.

Allegations should remain allegations.

Unverified should not quietly become false.

Improbable should not automatically become fabricated.

Contradictory evidence should remain contradictory.

Corrections and improvement should matter.

Context should matter.

Proportionality should matter.

And perhaps cumulative impact should matter too.

There should be conceptual space between:

holding someone accountable

and

making the entirety of a human being available for public investigation.

The Jason Arday controversy began with questions about academic standards and those are important questions.

But they should apply equally to those investigating the investigator’s subject.

Where did each allegation about Arday originate?

Was it independently corroborated?

Was the original context preserved?

Did five apparently separate allegations actually derive from one source?

Was uncertainty retained when a story was repeated?

Did corrections travel as widely as accusations?

Was evidence of improvement considered alongside evidence of previous failure?

Did a legitimate investigation of academic conduct gradually become an investigation of a person’s entire identity?

And when thousands of individually defensible contributions accumulated around one individual, who was responsible for considering the whole?

The most troubling part is that:

Nobody has to orchestrate a public pile-on for one to develop.

Nobody has to believe they are harassing somebody.

Nobody has to wake up and decide:

Today I will contribute to overwhelming another human being.

Everyone can simply do their small part.

The academic raises the concern.

The investigator pursues it.

The journalist reports it.

The broadcaster discusses it.

The algorithm recommends it.

The audience comments.

The defender responds.

I can say I am trying to understand how this happened.

These motivations are not morally equivalent.

Nor are the consequences of every contribution the same.

A carefully evidenced critique is not equivalent to racist abuse. Defending somebody is not equivalent to ridiculing them.

Yet each of us participates in the wider attention surrounding the person.

If everyone involved believed they were malicious, responsibility would be simple.

But people can contribute while sincerely believing they are acting responsibly.

Jason Arday stood at the point where all those individual actions converged.

His death does not tell us who was right about every allegation made against him.

Nor does it tell us who, if anyone, bears responsibility for his death.

But it should make us ask a different question.

When legitimate scrutiny becomes collective, continuous and all-encompassing, who is responsible for noticing when it has become something else?

My condolences and heart go out to Jason Arday’s family, especially his children. They are also victims of something much bigger than themselves: a controversy, an institutional conflict and a public storm they did not create and could not control. A nightmare for them that may continue for some time.

Whatever conclusions are reached about Jason’s work or the claims surrounding him, they have lost someone they loved. That human reality should not disappear beneath the arguments about plagiarism, journalism, universities, race or responsibility. Sometimes the people most affected by public controversy are those who never chose to participate in it at all.

Research references

Harris, L. C. (2022). Breaking lockdown during lockdown: A neutralization theory evaluation of misbehavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. Deviant Behavior, 43(7), 765–779. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2020.1863756

Kaptein, M., & van Helvoort, M. (2019). A model of neutralization techniques. Deviant Behavior, 40(10), 1260–1285. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2018.1491696

Marwick, A. E. (2021). Morally motivated networked harassment as normative reinforcement. Social Media + Society, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211021378

Schoenebeck, S., Lampe, C., & Triệu, P. (2023). Online harassment: Assessing harms and remedies. Social Media + Society, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231157297

Trottier, D. (2016). Digital vigilantism as weaponisation of visibility. Philosophy & Technology, 30(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-016-0216-4

Trottier, D. (2020). Denunciation and doxing: Towards a conceptual model of digital vigilantism. Global Crime, 21(3–4), 196–212.

Insights and articles

Recent Blog Posts

Jason Arday: When Scrutiny Becomes Something Else

No Comments

Jason Arday died on 14 August 2026. He was 41. Just weeks…

Read More

The Scenic Route to Becoming a Chartered Coaching Psychologist

No Comments

Is there only one route to Chartership? Explore an inspiring journey to…

Read More

Welsh Centre for Crime and Social Justice 2026 Conference

No Comments

A couple of months ago, I had the pleasure of presenting at…

Read More

Children Heard and Seen: Supporting Families Affected by Parental Imprisonment

No Comments

Attending the 10th Anniversary celebration of Children Heard and Seen was a…

Read More

Breaking Barriers: Building Anti-Ableist Coaching Practice

No Comments

How might ableism be influencing your coaching practice without you even realising…

Read More

Breaking Barriers: Coaching Psychology, Institutional Ableism and Human Rights

No Comments

Presented at the 83rd International Council of Psychologists Conference in Rotterdam, this…

Read More