The discomfort of thought: Towards a pedagogical model of discomfort

Abstract

Pedagogies of Discomfort (PoD) emphasise teaching and learning that take place outside of ‘comfort zones’. Discomfort is not ‘pedagogised’ for the sake of discomfort; instead, it is a means to prompt transformative experiences. Embracing discomfort is a means to address fixed assumptions and move beyond ‘surface-level exploration’ (Faulkner and Latham, 2013; Nolan and Guo, 2019; Robinson, 2021; Sumara, 2002). While PoD have been extensively explored in scholarly literature, the diversity and breadth of this work are obstacles for educators and scholars seeking practical strategies and an overview of the ‘discomfort’ literature. To address these obstacles, this article curates the ‘discomfort’ literature to develop a model of practice for practitioners to adapt to their contexts. This model is a novel contribution that extends beyond what existing literature offers. Moreover, this model’s faithful curation of the ‘discomfort’ literature attempts to demarcate a specific body of knowledge on PoD.

Keywords

Discomfort pedagogy controversy critical pedagogy decolonisation race

Introduction

Disrupting convention requires an engaged pedagogy to uncover possibilities, value each student, and inspire transformation (Bastos, 2009). The opportunity to embrace an ‘engaged pedagogy’ may arise through including a controversial topic in the course syllabus or through co-curricular/extra-curricular activities. Pedagogies of discomfort (PoD) are a viable option for educators faced with the above two scenarios. Through dialogue, PoD enable educators and students to move outside their ‘comfort zones’; PoD assert that this move towards discomfort creates possibilities for individual and social transformation (Zembylas and McGlynn, 2012). PoD have attracted a rich and diverse body of literature. However, this abundance of interest can present challenges to practitioners seeking practical guidance. This essay aims to address this gap by curating the ‘discomfort’ literature to define and contextualise PoD and then formulate a model of practice (Faulkner and Latham, 2013; Nolan and Guo, 2019; Robinson, 2021; Sumara, 2002).

Pedagogies of discomfort

PoD involve the educators and students engaging in the discomforting process of questioning cherished beliefs and assumptions. Positioned within the genre of ‘disruptive pedagogies’, PoD challenge conventional practices to create space for ‘a language of possibility’ (Giroux, 1992: 204; Mills, 1997). The latter refers to an educational posture that engages with firmly established traditions through a lens of critique and transformation rather than through submission, reverence, or mere repetition (Gale, 1992; Giroux, 1988b). As is common practice with disruptive pedagogies, PoD will be pluralised to ‘pedagogies’ of discomfort to signify the variety of practices. A point of significance is that we do not seek to cause discomfort for the sake of discomfort; rather, it is a means to prompt transformative learning (Millner, 2021: 806). Felman (1992: 53) is even more explicit in their justification of discomfort, ‘Without embracing discomfort, you cannot address fixed assumptions and, arguably, you will not move beyond “surface-level exploration”’ (Faulkner and Latham, 2013; Nolan and Guo, 2019; Robinson, 2021; Sumara, 2002). There is also a moral impetus towards discomfort; since it is inevitable that students will have to contend with discomfort in their lives, Aultman (2005) maintains that it is the educators’ responsibility to give students what they need to develop professionally and morally beyond the classroom.

Questioning the assumptions of critical pedagogies

Our understanding and framing of PoD can be attributed to Megan Boler’s monograph, Feeling Power: Emotions and Education. This was followed by Boler’s articles with decolonial scholar, Michalinos Zembylas; their union further developed PoD (Boler and Zembylas, 2003; Porto and Zembylas, 2020; Zembylas, 2015; Zembylas and Boler, 2002; Zembylas and McGlynn, 2012). In recent times, Zembylas is the scholar most associated with PoD; in certain respects, Boler passed the mantle to Zembylas.

Although PoD are indebted to critical pedagogies, which are a set of approaches that apply concepts from critical theory to the field of education, PoD sought distance from critical pedagogies. Zembylas (2018: 96–97) points out:

Although there may be convergences between the aims of social justice projects…it would be a mistake to subsume the latter under the former, as the two projects might be grounded in different epistemological and ontological frameworks. For example, there might be limitations in the Eurocentric modernist framework that undergirds critical theory and pedagogy, and thus, it is important to confront the possibility that critical pedagogies might be implicated in modernity and coloniality.

In this regard, Boler and Zembylas’ union is not entirely surprising considering that the main criticisms of critical pedagogies came from both of their intellectual traditions, poststructuralist feminism, and decolonial scholarship, respectively. To a degree, their concerns about critical pedagogy informed the development of PoD; the latter’s contours and idiosyncrasies came out of their negotiations with the limitations of critical pedagogies. Therefore, to appreciate the distinct character of PoD, it is necessary to explore the widely held concerns of critical pedagogies. Moreover, Zembylas and Boler did not develop an explicit model, so exploring what differentiates PoD from critical pedagogies enables us to craft some semblance of a model for practice.

Questioning the rational man

Critical theory and its offshoots are indebted to the ‘rationalist hopes of Enlightenment legacy’; rationality is placed at the heart of pedagogy (Zembylas and Boler. 2002: 5). Whereas Boler (1999) places emotional and affective exchange at the heart of pedagogy. PoD recognise that there is an entwined connection between our emotions and epistemology both within and external of our learning environments; this inseparable connection holds influence over our awareness and knowledge creation (Ojala, 2021; Robinson, 2021). Undoubtedly, there is some degree of rational inquiry bound up in PoD. However, it is argued that a central focus on rationality can obscure the role that emotions play in learning; ‘emotions define how and what one chooses to see, and conversely, not to see’ (Boler, 1999: 176). Thus, we find that although there is diversity in the theory and practice of PoD, the focus on emotion and affection remains consistent.

Ultimately, it appears that Boler made these distinctions between emotion-infused PoD and rational approaches to make the broader point that emotions have been problematised and trivialised and then contrasted with ‘pure’ and reliable rationality. Boler asserted that emotions were pushed to the ‘bad side of the fence’, along with women, I would also add that minorities kept the women company (Boler, 1999: xv–xvi).

Taking one step back, we can see that Boler’s effort to liberate pedagogy from its bondage to rationality was part of a wider ‘abolitionist’ movement that began a decade earlier with her poststructuralist feminist ally, Elizabeth Ellsworth’s groundbreaking articles (Ellsworth, 1989, 1990). Ellsworth endured severe backlash for her article’s critique of critical pedagogy’s use of rationality; such levels of epistemic violence are unavoidable when one challenges Eurocentric orthodoxies (Harvard Educational Review, 1990). Ellsworth (1989, 1990) argued that rationality was often used as a blunt instrument that inflicted pain on her students. The context of her critique was the racial strife on her campus at the University of Madison-Wisconsin. In response, Ellsworth developed a module to address the racial tensions. She initially saw it as a simple problem that could be addressed with the ‘go-to’ pedagogy of the period; she took critical pedagogy ‘off the shelf’ and almost mechanically applied it in her classroom. However, Ellsworth soon realised she was harming rather than helping her students. She stated that subjecting their lived experiences to the logics of rationalism, validity, and scientism exacerbated the conditions that she was trying to work against, and she inadvertently reproduced relations of domination in her classroom. This is not to say that Ellsworth advocated that the positions of students were to be taken up unproblematically; her point was that much of rational discourse was predicated on and made possible through the exclusion of the socially constructed irrational ‘other’. Therefore, how could she use that very same discourse to call on students of colour to justify and explicate their claims? Similarly, is it possible that the ‘master’s tools’ can dismantle the ‘master’s house’? (Lorde, 1984: 112).

Questioning the individual man

We can also see PoD’s emphasis on collective/group teaching stems from the notion that emotions are connective, and much of what causes discomfort are not ‘private problems’ but are an indicator to something larger and other than ourselves (Boler, 1999: 177–78). Boler contrasts this collective approach to teaching and learning with the fetishisation of individualised self-reflection (Boler, 1999: 177). Likewise, Tuck and Yang (2012: 20) explain further that critical pedagogies’ resoundingly echo the allegory of Plato’s Cave, ‘A continental philosophy of mental emancipation, whereby the thinking man individualistically emerges from the dark cave of ignorance into the light of critical consciousness’.

Questioning the ethical man

A body of ethics encases PoD and critical pedagogies; there is much agreement between them, particularly around the notion that it is unethical to preserve the status quo to the extent that it can be considered ‘poisonous’ to ignore normalised cruelties and injustices. The difference between pedagogies is one of emphasis; critical pedagogues appear to focus on the educator’s virtue ethics’, whereas PoD have spent more time wrestling with the ethics of harm. The former pertains to the educator acting conscientiously, while the latter relates to the most ethical way to ‘step into this murky minefield and come out as allies and without severe injury to any party’ (Boler, 1999: 176). Therefore, PoD scholarship focused on strategies to avoid stepping on ‘landmines’. A strategy of PoD seeks to minimise harm and maximise the potential for personal and emotional transformation (Porto and Zembylas, 2020).

Minimising harm and maximising transformation are best articulated through Zembylas’ engagement with Butler’s work on ‘ethical violence’. He argues that discomfort in pedagogical encounters risks tipping into harm when demands are imposed upon students without offering them meaningful alternatives. Put differently, students should never experience a session in which they feel entrapped or perceive that no viable way out exists. Second, forcing students to adopt a collective ethos of what is deemed ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, without providing them with sufficient context or the necessary information, constitutes a form of harm. Third, harm may also arise when students are denied access to the educator’s own vulnerability, when the educator positions themselves solely as the custodian of knowledge rather than as a co-participant in the learning process.

Questioning the assumptions of pedagogy of discomfort

The above separation of PoD from critical pedagogies established a distinct and innovative approach to navigating classroom discomfort, a model that this article will further develop. However, this crucial move did not exempt PoD from inheriting its own set of problematic assumptions. Therefore, this section will examine the assumptions of the PoD in order to reorient it toward a more equitable application. First, it is not uncommon in the PoD literature to see attention paid to introducing discomfort into the classroom; it is almost as if discomfort is a foreign object that can be escorted into the class. In contrast, discomfort is already there; no classroom is balanced or universally safe for all; comfort is not the default for classrooms, as most function as zones of unequal power and privilege, with certain groups always marginalised, relative to context (Zembylas and Boler, 2003). Similarly, Gill and Uppal (2020) state that,

‘Notions of inviting emotion and discomfort into the classroom rather than recognizing that this lived reality already exists in the educational context among the bodies who experience the oppression and violence on a daily basis, personally, socially, epistemologically, institutionally, and systemically’.

Therefore, rather than focussing on introducing discomfort, our discussions should centre on how to explore its presence in the classroom. This distinction between introducing discomfort and exploring discomfort impacts the pedagogical approach. If we act on introducing discomfort, we may treat it as something with a predefined shape, a fixed script, and a predictable outcome. This approach pushes educators to adopt a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach that can feel artificial and an external imposition rather than an authentic part of learning. In contrast, exploration begins with the understanding that discomfort is not an object to be imported but a reality already present. This approach empowers educators to become facilitators or guides, helping to illuminate and navigate the discomfort that emerges organically. While setting clear boundaries for safety and respect remains crucial, the educator’s role shifts from a rigid script to an improvisational yet purposeful journey.

Second, by offering only minimal discussion on the differential impact of discomfort, the Pedagogy of Discomfort (PoD) literature appears to operate under the problematic assumption that all students will feel discomfort. However, discomfort does not impact students in the same way; students from dominant cultures may experience discomfort by encountering revelatory or repressed information (Gill and Uppal, 2020). For example, Cooks (2010: 248) observed, ‘For most Whites, to think about what it means to be White is itself a radical move’. Whereas in students from marginalised backgrounds, such thoughts can occur throughout the day. Therefore, their discomfort is more likely to arise from having to voice their inner thoughts and feelings that were habitually policed or excluded (Flam, 2024; Gill and Uppal, 2020; Leibowitz et al., 2010; Mortenson et al., 2024). Even more problematically, their discomfort can be exacerbated by educators who assume that all students are similar predicaments. This final point marks a point of departure with the architects of PoD. Zembylas and Boler (2003: 111) stated,

A pedagogy of discomfort invites not only members of the dominant cultures but also members of marginalized cultures to re-examine the hegemonic values inevitably internalized in the process of being exposed to curriculum and media that serve the interests of the ruling class. No one escapes hegemony.

Their notion that no one escapes ‘internalising dominant cultural values’ is problematic, even when moderated with ‘even though these values take different forms in different individuals’ (Boler and Zembylas, 2003: 115). Such an assertion speaks to lives lived outside of racialised and marginalised bodies. Many of us, especially those from ‘marginalised locations with profound and violent experiences of oppression and exclusion’, do resist internalising dominant cultural values and examine these values while experiencing hegemonic oppression on a regular basis (Gill and Uppal, 2020: 124). Even if members of marginalised communities internalise dominant cultural values, they maintain a clear understanding of the concessions that were made to function within these societies. For example, in the late twentieth century, Smith coined the term ‘bifurcation of consciousness’ to describe the dual existence of women navigating a male-dominated world. This concept refers to the tension between the abstract, male-centred ‘governing consciousness’, and women’s own practical consciousness, which is rooted in the everyday world (Appelrouth and Edles, 2008). For over a century, Black scholars have talked at length about the ‘double consciousness’ of their communities. Double consciousness is an awareness of the American who occupies an African Body. DuBois outlines the awareness:

It is a peculiar sensation, this Double Consciousness, this sense of always looking at oneself through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of the world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. One ever feels his twoness, an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings, two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keep it from being torn asunder (Reed, 1997: 91).

Rather than adopt blanket approaches, we can draw from the ‘dogged strength’ of students from marginalised backgrounds to foreground our explorations of discomfort.

The third implicit assumption is revealed in the lack of discussion on the identity of the educator; the ‘assumption is often that the educator has no color, class, gender, and so on’ (Gill and Uppal, 2020). This is a significant oversight, as it fails to acknowledge that the educator’s body and lived experience are integral to the curriculum itself. As Gill and Uppal (2020) compellingly argue, ‘The body of an educator is curriculum’. An educator’s social identity, encompassing factors such as race, class, and gender, profoundly shapes both the content delivered and how students receive it. Therefore, PoD must fundamentally integrate the educator’s lived experience to genuinely address the complexities of pedagogical discomfort.

Drawing on the above critiques of assumptions, a reimagined Pedagogy of Discomfort (PoD) is a transformative educational approach that foregrounds the complex and pre-existing presence of discomfort within the classroom, viewing it not as an obstacle but as a catalyst for transformative learning. They move beyond introducing discomfort as an external tool, instead viewing discomfort as a dynamic, already-present reality. A reimagined PoD rejects the notion of the educator as a neutral, disembodied figure. Instead, it recognises that the educator’s own racial, class, and gender intersecting identities profoundly shape both the curriculum and the learning environment.

Building a model of practice

The model presented in this article is a synthesis of the existing body of discomfort scholarship and the author’s reconfigured approach. Regarding the former, the intention was to search for journal articles that explicitly mentioned ‘Pedagogy of Discomfort’ in the title and/or abstract (see Table 1). This indicated that the articles drew from PoD to develop their theory and practice. It was important that we searched for articles that explicitly built upon the foundations laid by Boler and Zembylas (see Table 2). Otherwise, mixing genealogies of discomfort would have produced a convoluted and inconsistent model.

Table 1.

Search terms.

Search terms	Journal repositories
‘pedagogy of discomfort’	Sage publications – https://journals.sagepub.com/
‘pedagogy of discomfort’	JSTOR – https://www.jstor.org/
‘pedagogy of discomfort’	Taylor and Francis – https://www.tandfonline.com/

Table 2.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion	Exclusion
‘Pedagogy of Discomfort’ in title and/or abstract	Superficial reference to PoD (identified by the lack of reference to Boler and/or Zembylas)
Aside from the chapters of the founding authors, peer-reviewed journal articles were selected as the only source for their higher level of scrutiny, originality, focus, and continuity
Articles written in the English language

There was a total of 43 chapters and articles retrieved. A model was constructed from the oft-repeated concepts and approaches found in the 43 chapters and articles. Although more weighting was given to the works of the founding authors, the model is a faithful abridgement of the ‘discomfort’ literature.

Model of practice

This section will present the model and concrete examples derived from the 43 chapters and articles (see Figure 1). Henceforth, the 43 chapters and articles will be referred to as the ‘discomfort’ literature.

Figure 1.

Model of practice.

The model comprises four stages: (1) Reflexivity, (2) Safety, (3) Session, and (4) Action. Each stage will be discussed conceptually and supported by an example.

Reflexivity

Concept: The first stage is reflexivity. Reflexivity is the educator’s interrogation of himself or herself. Reflexivity is placed at the front of the model for three reasons. First, reflexivity’s prominent placement in the model speaks to its importance in the discomfort literature to the degree that it unifies the diverse literature. Second, its placement emphasises that it is vital for the educator to be reflexive before anything is done or planned. Third, its primary placement signifies that the uncomfortable process of interrogating oneself should start with the educator. It could be misconstrued that discomfort is just for the students. Instead, it is a shared journey; both parties need to face discomfort (Faulker and Lathan, 2013; Macdonald, 2013; Mokuria, 2024; Nolan and Guo, 2019; Quilty, 2017; Trahar, 2017).

As shown in the model of practice, reflexivity is not restricted to the first stage; it should be woven into the fabric of the session.

Example: Ideally, reflexivity should not be performed by the educator individually. Instead, it should be shared with people that the educator can be vulnerable with, either another individual or a collective (Boler, 1999; Wolgemuth and Donohue, 2006). Reflexivity can be conducted in several ways; it can commence with weighing up the harms and benefits of using a particular exercise (Boler, 1999; Lahiri-Roy et al., 2023; Zembylas, 2015). One could also reflect on one’s contradictions and inconsistencies relating to their beliefs, understandings, and practices (Boler, 1999; Mortenson et al., 2024; Nadan and Stark, 2017; Nolan and Molla 2018; Robinson, 2021). Additionally, educators should reflect on their positionality, how their positionality could impact the class and if the educator is from a minoritised background, and have they considered the enhanced consequences of running such a session? (Blum et al., 2021; Boler, 1999; Cooks, 2010; Gill and Uppal, 2020; Lahiri-Roy et al., 2023; Mortenson et al., 2024; Ohito, 2016).

Safety

Concept: The second stage is safety. Although we reject the notion that the typical classroom is safe for all parties, there is still a requirement to formulate ‘some sort of safety even under discomforting conditions’ (Zembylas and McGlynn, 2012: 44). ‘Some sort of safety’ is the delicate ethical balance between facilitating discussion on issues that are usually excluded from the classroom and ‘creating pain within the pedagogical process, layered on top of what is already a difficult and vulnerable enterprise’ (Ojala, 2021; Redmond, 2010; Zembylas, 2012, 2015). The key ethical question we must ask ourselves is ‘Where and how does one draw the line?’ (Zembylas, 2015: 164). Unanimously, the discomfort literature is very clear that the educator has a moral responsibility not to leave their students in abject pain. Therefore, a crucial component of PoD is employing a safety strategy.

Example: A strategy of safety can be implemented by co-constructing classroom guidelines, which serve as a shared framework to ensure that undue harm is minimised. The educator starts the session by putting forward guiding principles that encourage students to express their lived experiences without fear of repudiation and create a space of psychological safety. Then the educator arranges students into groups to develop more principles amongst themselves. This transfers agency to the students. Also, instead of surprising students with an unconventional session, co-construction provides scaffolding to walk students into the session gently and ‘free’ them from their typical constraints, and also by arranging the students into groups, the educator provides an opportunity for them to unpack what has occurred (Bryan, 2016; Faulker and Lathan, 2013; Millner, 2021). This speaks to what Zembylas and McGlynn (2012: 54) call ‘controlled discomfort’. In a way, co-construction is a means to gain informed consent from students as they have a part to play in constructing the rules of the game (Dutta et al., 2016). When the students report their guiding principles to the rest of the class, the educator can identify potential issues to which they can adapt their content. Co-construction is a more ‘productive’ alternative to ‘trigger’ or content warnings, which are ‘problematic’ due to their ‘potential conflation of trauma and offence and its entanglement with “questions of privilege”’ (Carniel, 2017: 142).

Session

Concept: Moving on to the actual session, there are three concepts within a single session to consider: (i) Strategic empathy, (ii) Dialogic exchange, and (iii) Affective content. It is vital that these concepts are interwoven into the session.

Strategic empathy

One of the basic tenets of PoD is that it promotes ‘active’ instead of ‘passive’ empathy (Boler, 1999; Zembylas, 2015). Zembylas (2015) develops this tenant into ‘strategic empathy’, which is to employ empathy when faced with problematic statements from students; you must dig deep to appreciate how an impoverishment of knowledge or experience would lead students to make problematic statements. Students need to feel that they can express their views without censure or judgment (Whitney et al., 2021). Zembylas (2015: 172) adds, ‘Taking sides too early may in fact make it impossible to build a constructive point of departure to navigate through and transform these knowledges and emotions’. However, this does not mean that ‘anything goes’ or necessitates that you agree or condone what was said (Jansen, 2009; Zembylas, 2015). Instead, as we will discuss later, it is vital to provide specific bordered spaces (thought experiments, heteroglossia, etc.) for students to express their views, lest their problematic statements ‘spill out’, and bring disproportionate discomfort to educators and their fellow students (Boler, 1999).

Dialogic exchange

Dialogue is fundamental to PoD; it is seen as a ‘key mechanism’ in the transformation process (Ivey and Johnston, 2024; Wiltse, Johnston and 2014). Bryan states (2016)

In asking learners to confront difficult knowledge…, it was necessary to ensure that there were multiple dialogical spaces where they could reflect upon, and work through, the feelings they experienced in response to the course material and concepts.

PoD’s emphasis on dialogue is due to its relational pedagogy, which entails forging a relationship with students through dialogue and encouraging dialogue between students (Ivey and Johnston, 2024). Through carefully pre-planned dialogue prompts, educators present themselves to their students as humanly as possible; they show their curiosity, vulnerability, and humility.

Affective content

‘We feel, therefore we learn’

(Walker and Palacios, 2016: 176).

Affective content is teaching material that engages with our emotions, impulses, desires, and feelings (Zembylas, 2014). The role of the educator is to utilise affective content to support the integration and exploration of emotions, impulses, desires, and feelings as they arise and to ‘teach each person in his or her totality’ (Clark and Dirkx, 2008; Cutri, 2015; Dirkx, 2008; Walker and Palacios, 2016: 177). Affect is a core tenet of PoD; it is a powerful technology that connects and stimulates students. Neuroscience and educational and cognitive psychology have amassed a body of literature that confirms the place of affect in learning (Walker and Palacios, 2016). Furthermore, affective content can be used to prod ‘troubled views’; there is an understanding that students’ ‘troubled views’ of the Other do not solely reside at the cognitive level; they have ‘emotional roots’ which are buried deep in the psyche. For example, there are deeply embedded beliefs that precede any ‘evidence’. Rather, ‘evidence’ is sought to maintain these beliefs because one’s humanity is contingent on the inhumanity of the Other; for one to maintain one’s ‘Whiteness’, others must be ‘Blackened’. Likewise, Boler (1999: 190) maintains, ‘To challenge a student’s (or educator’s) cherished assumptions may be felt as a threat to their very identity’. Such matters are often beyond the reach of purely evidenced-based interventions (statistics, percentages, data, etc.); instead, what is needed is the development of content that speaks to the emotions, impulses, desires, and feelings of students (Leibowitz et al., 2010: 84).

Example: The above three concepts (Strategic empathy, Dialogic engagement, and Affective content) of a session require ‘housing’; otherwise, there is an increased risk that discomfort will overwhelm the gathering and become an impediment to transformative learning. Three types of ‘housing’ will be explained: (1) Thought experiments, (2) Heteroglossia exercises, and (3) Formative reflective assignments.

Thought experiments

Nolan and Molla (2018) laid the foundation for our ‘thought experiment’, which is a way to organise ‘learning experiences around real-life problems’. They postulate that learning experiences organised in a collegial environment that create discomfort can provoke reflection on deeply embedded dispositions. Moreover, since thought experiments are a caricature of the real world, students are more likely to contribute and interrogate the status quo; it is almost as if they ‘drop their guard’ and are prepared to have honest conversations that might not occur if we were talking about the actual issue. If possible, the educator can gradually move from the thought experiment to discussing the real issue, and it is a productive pathway to having a real conversation. What follows is an example of a thought experiment:

The context to this example was to explore the existence of possible bias in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) topics. Therefore, the educator used the metaphor of the ‘neutral’ camera to illustrate the subtle nature of bias. Alternatively, it is possible to use the ‘neutral’ design of seatbelts, crash test dummies, spirometers, etc. The educator sets the scene by informing the students: ‘Camera technology has historically misrepresented darker skin tones. Lighter skin became the chemical baseline for film technology. Those of us with darker complexions are rendered unnaturally; we appear darker, artificially brighter, or washed out. In order for the camera to render my complexion accurately, I must sit in a particular location, invest in studio-grade lighting, and undertake significant post-production practices. Simply put, I need special artificial corrective care for me to appear natural. Before I became interested in photography, I assumed I was the problem for my lack of light skin, after all, the camera is just a neutral instrument that captures light. Far from it, photography is not just a system of capturing light, but a technology made from people's choices – what we value, we accommodate; what we do not value, we do not accommodate’ (Lewis, 2019; Roth, 2009a, 2009b, 2012). The educator arranges students into groups and asks them to explore bias in outwardly neutral processes: ‘Is there bias in the complaints department's decision not to uphold the complaints of the parents? Was there bias in the initial designs of camera technologies? Considering what we know about the rendering of darker skin tones, is there bias in the ongoing manufacturing of camera technologies?’

Heteroglossia

Heteroglossia refers to looking at a controversial issue from two or more perspectives. The Heteroglossia approach prepares students to engage with a plurality of perspectives about an issue (Leibowitz et al., 2010). To this point, Boler (1999) commented, ‘An ethical pedagogy would seem to require listening with equal attention to all views and perspectives’. The Heteroglossia approach can be used to encourage students to integrate their ‘troubled views’ into ‘socially just perspectives’ and demonstrate to them how our perspectives have been shaped by the ‘dominant culture of the historical moment’ (Boler, 1999: 179; Zembylas, 2012). The educator discusses a controversial issue to the class; this issue could be a current news headline, an enactment of a controversial law, etc. Then, the educator arranges students into groups to investigate the issue from various perspectives. For example, Heteroglossia approach could be a chronological exercise; the class could look at how a controversial issue was interpreted at different points in time. A group could look at how the issue was viewed in the past, another group could discuss how the issue is viewed now, and the last group could predict how the issue will be seen in the future. Alternatively, the educator organises the first group of students to look at the controversial issue from the perspective of the minority group affected, another group is tasked with looking at the issue from the perspective of the dominant culture, and another group will look at the issue from the perspective of a government department. What follows is an example of a Heteroglossia:

Educator: ‘Today, we are going to explore this issue using heteroglossia. Remember, this means holding multiple perspectives in tension, listening to each with equal care. I’ll divide you into three groups. Group A, you will represent a minority community directly affected by the policy. Group B, you will represent the government’s perspective. Group C, you will represent members of the dominant culture who support the law’. Students move into groups, discuss, and then report back.

Reflective assignment

If discomfort forms part or most of your course, you can require students to reflect on moments of discomfort in a formative assignment or section of their portfolio. This assignment is announced at the beginning of the course, and students can complete the assignment whenever they feel discomfort. In a certain way, this assignment is an outlet for students to wrestle with their discomfort. Students may not be able to engage with the class in the ‘heat of the moment’; therefore, this allows them to collect their thoughts and articulate their discomfort. The assignment can contain prompts to help them reflect on how they felt; identify the possible motive of the lecturer; suggest why discomfort is an important part of the learning process. To take this assignment from a solitary action to a dialogic encounter, the lecturer can respond with an empathetic reflection on what the student wrote; instead of students receiving the typical assignment feedback, they will be gifted with the lecturer’s reflection on their reflection. There is a real chance of growth and reconciliation in this approach. Moreover, this assignment provides another option for the formal complaints process. As an alternative to the typical accusatorial and adversarial interactions associated with the complaints process, a complaint is transformed into a learning opportunity for both parties. What follows is an example of a reflective assessment cover sheet.

Formative Reflective Assignment

Description: This formative assignment serves as a dedicated space for you to process and reflect on moments of discomfort as they arise throughout this module.

Submission date: You may complete and submit this assignment at any point during the course when you experience a significant moment of discomfort. There is no set deadline.

Format: Please write your reflection in a document and submit it via the module Moodle page.

Response: The assignment will not impact your final grade; nonetheless, the instructor will respond to your submission with a personal, supportive reflection of their own, designed to foster dialogue and mutual understanding. This assignment offers a pathway for both parties to engage in mutual growth.

Reflective Prompts: Please consider the following questions in your response. You do not need to answer all of them, but they can help you structure your thoughts:

• Describe the moment of discomfort: What happened? What was said or done?

• Explore your feelings: How did you feel in that moment? What emotions arose for you?

• Consider the intent: What do you believe was the possible motive or intent of the lecturer, peers, or material?

• Connect to learning: How did this moment of discomfort contribute to your learning process? If you feel that no learning occurred, what could have been done differently to facilitate a more constructive outcome?

Action plan

Concept: The final stage is action. From the outset, PoD was simultaneously seen as an inquiry ‘as well as a call to action’ (Boler, 1999: 176; Zembylas, 2015). Breaking free from its critical pedagogy origins, PoD sees inquiry as the ‘first step of a transformative journey’. The second step of action is equally important. If transformative learning has occurred, it follows that we should see its fruits in our actions (Boler, 1999: 179; Zembylas, 2015). Moreover, the emotion and affect that have been stirred up in the session require an outlet or release in the form of action (Walker and Palacios, 2016). This last stage of action can only come about through the delicate balancing of discomfort. If discomfort is too overwhelming, it could cause paralysis; overpowering guilt could result in defensiveness and shutting down; shame could lead to fears of ‘getting it wrong’ insofar that students opt for non-action; a crushing sense of despair and hopelessness in the face of so much suffering and injustice can result in apathy (Curry-Stevens, 2007; Walker and Palacios, 2016).

Example: In the closing minutes of the session, the educator arranges students into groups to develop an action plan. Alternatively, students can work on the action plan individually. To embody the collaborative spirit, the educator can also develop an action plan. The plan should comprise realistic and concrete steps of action that build on what was learnt in the session. It should be emphasised that the content of the action does not have to reflect a ‘particular political agenda, or to evaluate students on what agenda they choose to carry out, if any’ (Boler, 1999: 179). Their actions could be as simple as an intention to learn more about a topic, volunteer in community projects, or carry out a research project; what is important is that what was learnt in the session should reverberate beyond it.

Conclusion

While Zembylas and Boler laid the foundational groundwork for PoD as a distinct field of inquiry, this article marks a significant step forward by elevating it into a cohesive genre of practice. The author is the first to synthesise the fragmented body of ‘discomfort’ scholarship, bringing diverse studies together under a single, unified model for implementation. This was not done uncritically; the proposed model directly questions the problematic assumptions inherent in the PoD literature.

Our primary findings demonstrate that a reimagined PoD can be a powerful tool for fostering equity and transformative learning. By shifting the focus from ‘introducing’ discomfort to ‘exploring’ its pre-existing presence, our model acknowledges that classrooms are not neutral spaces. We found that differentiating the experience of discomfort, recognising that it is felt differently by marginalised and dominant students, is crucial for preventing harm and promoting transformative learning. Furthermore, by moving beyond individualistic self-reflection, PoD emphasise that discomfort is a collective signal of systemic injustice, thereby linking personal experience to a broader call for action.

The proposed model is theoretical, and its effectiveness requires validation through empirical research. Future studies should implement and test this framework in diverse educational settings to assess its impact on student engagement, learning outcomes, and well-being.

At its core, the model reflects Boler’s ‘minimal hope’ of laying a pathway for students and educators to examine their values and analyse how those values were formed (Boler, 1999: 198). In doing so, this model bridges high concepts with practical application, providing a roadmap for educators who have chosen to disrupt the status quo. It redirects our focus from ‘macro social and political visions’ to the ‘ethical dimensions of micro, classroom-level interactions’ (Soto, 2020: 129).

Equity work is a continuous journey, not a destination. It is a perpetual process of reflection and adaptation’ in this light, we must view the model as being in a perpetual ‘beta’ mode. It requires scholarly attention to test, update, and edit, while practitioners can adapt it to suit their unique contexts. PoD is a worthwhile pursuit; at the very least, it helps the comfortable understand discomfort and provides a moment of relief for those who already feel uncomfortable in academic spaces.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the Institute of Advanced Studies, University of Warwick.

ORCID iD

Ryan Arthur

References

Appelrouth

Edles

(2008) Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory California. Pine Forge Press.

Aultman

(2005) Uncovering the hidden medical curriculum through a pedagogy of discomfort. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice 10: 263–273.

Bastos

(2009) Disruptive pedagogies in art education. Art Education 62(3): 5.

Blum

Davis

Gibson

, et al. (2021) “I’ve never cried with a stranger before”: a pedagogy of discomfort, emotion and hope for immigrant justice. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 34(8): 763–781.

Boler

(1999) Feeling Power: Emotions and Education. Routledge.

Boler

Zembylas

(2003) Discomforting truths: the emotional terrain of understanding difference. In: Trifonas

(ed) Pedagogies of Difference: Rethinking Education for Social Change. RoutledgeFalmer, pp. 110–136. https://blogs.sun.ac.za/hopefulpedagogiessu/2011/03/13/zembylas-on-a-pedagogy-of-discomfort/

Bryan

(2016) The sociology classroom as a pedagogical site of discomfort: difficult knowledge and the emotional dynamics of teaching and learning. Irish Journal of Sociology 24(1): 7–33.

Carniel

(2017) [Insert image here]: a reflection on the ethics of imagery in a critical pedagogy for the humanities. Pedagogy, Culture & Society 26(1): 141–155.

Clark

Dirkx

(2008) The emotional self in adult learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 120: 89–96.

10.

Cooks

(2003) Pedagogy, performance, and positionality: teaching about whiteness in interracial communication. Communication Education 52(3–4): 245–257.

11.

Curry-Stevens

(2007) New forms of transformative education: pedagogy for the privileged. Journal of Transformative Education 5(1): 33–58.

12.

Cutri

Whiting

(2015) The emotional work of discomfort and vulnerability in multicultural teacher education. Teachers and Teaching 21(8): 1010–1025.

13.

Dirkx

(2008) The meaning and role of emotions in adult learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 2008: 7–18.

14.

Dutta

Shroll

Engelsen

, et al. (2016) The “Messiness” of teaching/learning social (in)Justice: performing a pedagogy of discomfort. Qualitative Inquiry 22(5): 345–352.

15.

Ellsworth

(1989) Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review 59(3): 297–325. https://archive.org/details/sim_harvard-educational-review_1990-08_60_3/page/406/mode/2up

16.

Ellsworth

(1990) The question remains: how will you hold awareness of the limits of your knowledge. Harvard Educational Review 60(3): 396–405.

17.

Faulkner

Latham

(2013) Disturbing stories: literature as pedagogical disruption. English in Education 47(2): 102–117.

18.

Felman

(1992) Education and crisis, or, vicissitudes of listening. In: Felman

Laub

(eds) Testimony: Crises of Witnessing in Literature, Psychoanalysis, and History. Routledge, pp. 57–75.

19.

Flam

(ed) (2024) Research Handbook on the Sociology of Emotion: Institutions and Emotional Rule Regimes. Edward Elgar.

20.

Gale

(1992) Teaching the language of possibility. The Review of Education 14(4): 369–376.

21.

Gill

Uppal

(2020) Decolonizing the concept of pedagogy of discomfort in classrooms, curriculum, and syllabi. In: Elias Mazawi

Stack

(eds) Course Syllabi in Faculties of Education: Bodies of Knowledge and their Discontents, International and Comparative Perspectives. Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 119–131.

22.

Giroux

(1988b) Schooling and the Struggle for Public Life. University of Minnesota.

23.

Giroux

(1992) Resisting difference: cultural studies and the discourse of critical pedagogy. In: Grossberg

Nelson

Treichler

(eds) Cultural Studies. Routledge.

24.

Ivey

Johnston

(2024) Volitional reading, ‘disturbing’ books, and the transformation of readers. Language and Education 38(4): 617–634.

25.

Jansen

(2009) On the clash of martyrological memories. Perspectives in Education 27(2): 147–157.

26.

Lahiri-Roy

Belford

Sum

(2023) Transnational women academics of colour enacting ‘pedagogy of discomfort’: positionality against a ‘pedagogy of rupture. Pedagogy, Culture & Society 31(3): 339–357.

27.

Leibowitz

Bozalek

Rohleder

, et al. (2010) Ah, but the whiteys love to talk about themselves’: discomfort as a pedagogy for change. Race, Ethnicity and Education 13(1): 83–100.

28.

Lewis

(2019) The Racial Bias Built Into Photography. The New York Times. April 25th 2019 Available. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/lens/sarah-lewis-racial-bias-photography.html

29.

Lorde

(1984) Sister Outsider. The Crossing Press.

30.

Macdonald

(2013) Inviting discomfort: foregrounding emotional labour in teaching anthropology in post-apartheid South Africa. Teaching in Higher Education 18(6): 670–682.

31.

Millner

(2023) Unsettling feelings in the classroom: scaffolding pedagogies of discomfort as part of decolonising human geography in higher education. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 47(5): 805–824.

32.

Mills

(1997) Towards a disruptive pedagogy: creating spaces for student and teacher resistance to social injustice. International Studies in Sociology of Education 7(1): 35–55.

33.

Mokuria

Morris

Lino Correa

, et al. (2023) Out of the frying pan and into the fire: the emotional labor of excavating internalised racism. Whiteness and Education 9(2): 310–331.

34.

Mortenson

Chase

Cerezci

(2024) Practicing a pedagogy of discomfort with teacher candidates: observations and reflections from a year- long case study. Educational Studies 60(3): 311–333.

35.

Nadan

Stark

(2017) The pedagogy of discomfort: enhancing reflectivity on stereotypes and bias. British Journal of Social Work 47(3): 683–700. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26364167

36.

Nolan

Guo

(2019) Transforming practice through a professional learning program: barriers and enablers. Early Years 42(2): 232–246.

37.

Nolan

Molla

(2018) Teacher professional learning through pedagogy of discomfort. Reflective Practice 19(6): 721–735.

38.

Ohito

(2016) Making the emperor’s new clothes visible in anti-racist teacher education: enacting a pedagogy of discomfort with white preservice teachers. Equity & Excellence in Education 49(4): 454–467.

39.

Ojala

(2021) Safe spaces or a pedagogy of discomfort? Senior high school teachers’ meta-emotion philosophies and climate change education. The Journal of Environmental Education 52(1): 40–52.

40.

Porto

Zembylas

(2020) Pedagogies of discomfort in foreign language education: cultivating empathy and solidarity using art and literature. Language and Intercultural Communication 20(4): 356–374.

41.

Quilty

(2017) Queer provocations! exploring queerly informed disruptive pedagogies within feminist community-higher-education landscapes. Irish Educational Studies 36(1): 107–123.

42.

Redmond

(2010) Safe space oddity: revisiting critical pedagogy. Journal of Teaching in Social Work 30(1): 1–14.

43.

Reed

(1997) W.E.B Du Bois and American Political Thought Fabianism and the Color Line. Oxford University Press.

44.

Robinson

(2021) Critical reflection: a student’s perspective on a ‘pedagogy of discomfort’ and self-compassion to create more flexible selves. Reflective Practice 22(5): 641–652.

45.

Roth

(2009a) Looking at shirley, the ultimate norm: colour balance, image technologies, and cognitive equity. Canadian Journal of Communication 34(1): 111–136.

46.

Roth

(2009b) Home on the range: kids, visual culture, and cognitive equity. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies 92: 141–148.

47.

Roth

(2012) The fade-out of Shirley, a once-ultimate norm: colour balance, image technologies, and cognitive equity. In Hall

(ed) The Melanin Millennium: Skin Color as the 21st Century International Discourse. Springer Publications.

48.

Soto

(2020) Classroom discourse analysis as a tool for exploring ethical tensions in a critical teaching. Classroom Disclosure 11(2): 129–148. doi: 10.1080/19463014.2020.1755328.

49.

Sumara

(2002) Why Reading Literature in School Still Matters: Imagination, Interpretation, Insight. LEA.

50.

Trahar

(2017) Learning to see the person, not the culture or the faith: critical reflections on internationalizing higher education in Israel. European Education 49(4): 276–292.

51.

Tuck

Yang

(2012) Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1(1): 1–40.

52.

Walker

Palacios

(2016) A pedagogy of emotion in teaching about social movement learning. Teaching in Higher Education 21(2): 175–190.

53.

Whitney

Skala-Cox

Hambley

, et al. (2021) Inviting discomfort in workshops with educators on supporting LGBTQ+ students in rural schools. Journal of Homosexuality 69(12): 2104–2125.

54.

Wiltse

Johnston

Yang

(2014) Pushing comfort zones: promoting social justice through the teaching of Aboriginal Canadian literature. Changing English 21(3): 264–277.

55.

Wolgemuth

Donohue

(2006) Toward an inquiry of discomfort: guiding transformation in “emancipatory” narrative research. Qualitative Inquiry 12(5): 1012–1021.

56.

Zembylas

(2012) Pedagogies of strategic empathy: navigating through the emotional complexities of antiracism in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education 17(2): 113–125.

57.

Zembylas

(2014) Theorizing “difficult knowledge” in the aftermath of the “affective turn”: implications for curriculum and pedagogy in handling traumatic representations. Curriculum Inquiry 44(3): 390–412.

58.

Zembylas

(2015) Pedagogy of discomfort’ and its ethical implications: the tensions of ethical violence in social justice education. Ethics and Education 10(2): 163–174.

59.

Zembylas

(2018) Affect, race, and white discomfort in schooling: decolonial strategies for ‘pedagogies of discomfort. Ethics and Education 13(1): 86–104.

60.

Zembylas

Boler

(2002) On the spirit of patriotism: challenges of a pedagogy of discomfort. Special issue on Education and September 11. Available at. https://meganboler.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/on_the_spirit_of_patriotism_challenges_o.pdf

61.

Zembylas

McGlynn

(2012) Discomforting pedagogies: emotional tensions, ethical dilemmas and transformative possibilities. British Educational Research Journal 38(1): 41–59.