Spotlight on: Tom Richardson

We are excited to introduce Tom Richardson as our scholar in the spotlight for the month of June 2026. Tom is a PhD Candidate at Oxford Brookes University researching the relationship between vernacular domains and liberal institutions in post-industrial Britain.

Find out more about Tom and connect via LinkedIn.

Tell us a bit about yourself. 

I am a PhD researcher at Oxford Brookes University working on the relationship between vernacular domains and liberal institutions in post-industrial Britain. I am in the early stages of my doctoral research, developing a conceptual framework that I will later examine through ethnographic fieldwork across different regions. My work sits across international relations, anthropology, and social theory, with a focus on how institutional frameworks are limited in understanding political order as experienced in everyday practice.

Alongside my research, I work in education as a youth worker. I am the son of a coal miner from the East Midlands and now live in South East London. I completed my undergraduate degree in International Studies and my MA in Education: Culture, Language and Identity at Goldsmiths, University of London. I am active in local campaigns to protect community spaces and enjoy being outdoors, listening to music, and spending time around the arts.

What are your research interests? 

My research focuses on vernacular domains and their relationship to liberal institutions. Drawing on Ivan Illich, I describe vernacular domains as forms of social organisation through which people organise their lives in ways not fully governed by markets, bureaucracies, and professional management. The project engages with critiques of Kantian liberal approaches to political order and develops a conceptual framework for identifying vernacular domains. It questions what these everyday practices reveal about understanding social division in post-industrial Britain.

The research applies this framework through ethnographic fieldwork in post-industrial Britain, focusing on fishing, former mining, and housing estate communities. It draws on institutional ethnography and micro-historical approaches to engage with everyday practices in these settings. It also develops a methodological approach that combines ethnographic analysis with narrative, including the use of fiction as a tool. This approach explores how vernacular domains can be identified in practice and represented beyond conventional academic methods.

Who is your favorite feminist icon?  

My first choice is Margaret McMillan (1860–1931). Her work in early years education, particularly with working-class communities, combined education and health in ways that continue to benefit children today. She played a key role in the development of free school meals in the UK and took seriously the conditions in which children live and learn. Her legacy remains visible in South London, with parks, buildings and schools named after her and her sister Rachel.

I would also highlight Michaela Loach. Her work is rooted in community organising and connects climate justice to intersectional questions of race, class, and inequality. I have seen her speak at many activist events in London, which made a strong impression because of the way she links colonial histories to contemporary issues in everyday life. As a younger voice in climate activism, she stands out for remaining grounded in collective action and grassroots climate movements today.

What are three sources you would recommend to others interested in feminist IR generally or your research topic in particular? 

First, Simply Institutional Ethnography by Dorothy E. Smith and Alison I. Griffith (2022) offers a clear introduction to institutional ethnography and provides a way of starting from everyday experience to trace how it is organised through “ruling relations”. It has been central to how I approach research design and analysis.

Second, Feminist International Relations: a contradiction in terms? Or: why women and gender are essential to understanding the world ‘we’ live in by Gillian Youngs (2004) shows how mainstream international relations often overlooks gendered power relations. This informs how I understand states and approach questions of security, sovereignty, and globalisation.

Finally, Gender by Ivan Illich (1982). As a critique of liberal feminism and industrial society, Illich offers a challenging account that distinguishes vernacular gender from economic sex, arguing that the loss of vernacular gender was a decisive condition for the rise of capitalism and a lifestyle dependent on industrially produced commodities.

What’s next for you? 

What motivates me most is continuing to develop the concept of vernacular domains further. Through my research, I am increasingly finding that the concept of the vernacular applies across a wide range of academic disciplines and social contexts, extending far beyond the original scope of my project. I am particularly interested in how vernacular domains can contribute to questions of political order, everyday life, and social organisation within international relations and related fields.

After my PhD, I would like to develop this work through comparative research on the vernacular in post-conflict regions, particularly in East Africa. I hope this would lead to further publications exploring the vernacular across different contexts and disciplines. In the longer term, I would like to work in higher education while continuing youth and community work, using research on the vernacular to engage wider audiences and support forms of community action grounded in lived experience.

Photo by Marek Studzinski on Unsplash