Intellectual humility (IH) and cultural humility (CH) are usually categorized separately in the literature but have overlapping elements, especially when considering educational contexts. IH refers to an open attitude toward others’ knowledge through reflection and identification of gaps in one’s knowledge base that can be filled by the knowledge of others (Van Tongeren et al., 2019). CH is similar in that it is based on an open cultural attitude. ‘In a multicultural world where power imbalances exist, cultural humility is a process of openness, self-awareness, being egoless, and incorporating self-reflection and critique after willingly interacting with diverse individuals’ (Foronda et al., 2016, p. 4). Considering the growing diversity of student and staff populations in higher educational institutions (HEIs) (Marginson, 2016), IH and CH are of interest from various perspectives and may be necessary for educators and students to possess. Both IH and CH may be considered important aspects of social justice and student voice goals as the vehicle through which these educational aims can be achieved. 

Aspects of social justice and student voice are concerns at all levels of education, including higher education (HE) (Papa, 2019). Efforts have been made in various educational domains to address these concerns, such as socially just curricula development (Ashwin, 2022) and efforts to promote/develop ecological universities (Kinchin, 2023). Exploring and developing new pedagogical methods can play a significant role in developing socially just education, focusing on student voice across disciplines and enhancing student learning (Wong et al., 2023), thus addressing social justice and student voice concerns. Relating pedagogy to philosophical concepts, such as humility, can act as an important analytical tool in assisting lecturers in HE to understand the complexities of their practice when engaging in pedagogical method implementation. 

Based on the social justice framework of Nancy Fraser (2007, 2013) that consists of (re)distribution, recognition, and representation, the student voice for social justice (SVSJ) pedagogical method seeks to transform HE students from passive to active learners and engaged participants. SVSJ implements Fraser’s justice framework by creating space for student voice in course pedagogical content planning. Students (working in small groups) develop this space by researching, planning, and facilitating learning activities for their peers and the lecturer (Briffett-Aktaş et al., 2023). SVSJ relies on creating a mutually respectful environment in the classroom that fosters space for multiple voices to be expressed, heard, acknowledged, and valued. The classroom interactions between stakeholders require mutual respect, support, care for others, and a willingness to learn from the ‘other’ (i.e. IH and CH demonstrations); in short, displaying kindness to ‘the other’ (Rice & Bakke, 2022). The result is the creation of a shared power dynamic in the classroom, which has been shown to empower students to actively participate in and engage with their learning (Wong et al., 2023). 

In this inquiry, we argue that when implementing SVSJ in HEIs, IH and CH are foundational to the success of the implementation. Adopting and displaying different types of humility ensures that the interactions between the lecturer, students, their peers, and the course content are open and mutually respectful. IH and CH can help promote a supportive environment where different types of knowledge are successfully redistributed within the classroom community. Humility in a variety of forms can act as the catalyst through which socially just education and active student teaching and learning can be achieved in diverse SVSJ implementations.   

SVSJ employs a participatory action research (PAR) design because ‘the authority of direct experience, knowledge in action, research as a transformative process, [and] collaboration through dialogue’ (Cornish et al., 2023, p. 2) is of the utmost importance to socially just pedagogy development and PAR research. The structure of a course employing SVSJ requires lecturers to share the pedagogical content development process with students (i.e., making space for student voice in course content planning and delivery). Unplanned classes are left either in the middle or end of the semester to facilitate student teaching and learning activities. Students who volunteer to participate form small groups and work together to examine the course learning outcomes, what topics are being covered by the lecturer, and identify gaps in the knowledge being taught. Through reflective practices, students identify what knowledge they feel is important and meaningful to them and their context and is not already being addressed in the course. They then work in groups to prepare to disseminate their knowledge to the lecturer and their peers. What knowledge should be included and how it is taught is at students’ discretion. An important pedagogical component ‘involves participation as a way of learning – of both absorbing and being absorbed in – the ‘culture of practice’ (Lave & Wenger, 1999). SVSJ seeks to do just that by encouraging lecturers and students to be open to the ideas, knowledge (IH), cultures, and identities (CH) of each other (see Briffett-Aktas, 2021 for further details).

IH flows in SVSJ are multidirectional, flowing upward from the students to the lecturer, downward (from the lecturer to students), and diagonally to peers (during collaborative work). Students should work together to ensure that all group members contribute their knowledge and share in the redistribution of that knowledge with the class. Being open to the knowledge of others, both for lecturers and students, requires each stakeholder to have an accurate view of their knowledge base, including identifying where gaps in knowledge exist (Van Tongeren et al., 2019). Through this reflective practice, staff and students can place value on the alternative knowledge presented to them through the SVSJ implementation. When the class is comprised of diverse staff and student groups, as HEIs are increasingly experiencing (Marginson, 2016), the added element of CH is critical to achieving mutually respectful environments (Davis et al., 2013) in which those from different communities can work collaboratively with respect and appreciation for diversity. The lecturer’s attitude towards students should be one of CH, creating an open space for other cultural knowledge from students to be included in the class content. In this way, the hierarchy of culture and ‘valid’ forms of knowledge can be reduced. In this capacity, CH should be reciprocal and guide aspects of course content development and delivery and interactions in the classroom space. When employing SVSJ as a pedagogical method, the multidimensionality of interactions requires an open attitude to the knowledge held by ‘the other’. Common openness and respect must be given to actors in the classroom. In short, all classroom interactions should be mediated by notions of IH and CH in SVSJ implementation.

Ashwin, P. (2022). Understanding educational development in terms of the collective creation of socially-just curricula. Teaching in Higher Education, 27(8), 979-991. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2022.2111208 Briffett-Aktaş, C. (2021). Enhancing social justice and socially just pedagogy in higher education through participatory action research. Teaching in Higher Education. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1966619 Briffett-Aktaş, C., Wong, K. L., Kong, W. F. O., & Ho, C. P. (2023). The student voice for social justice pedagogical method. Teaching in Higher Education, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2023.2183770 Cornish, F., Breton, N., Moreno-Tabarez, U., Delgado, J., Rua, M., de-Graft Aikins, A., & Hodgetts, D. (2023). Participatory action research. Nature Review Methods Primers, 3(34), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-023-00214-1 Davis, D. E., Worthington, E. L., Hook, J. N., Emmons, R. A., Hill, P. C., Bollinger, R. A., & Van Tongeren, D. R. (2013). Humility and the development and repair of social bonds: Two longitudinal studies. Self and Identity, 12(1), 58–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2011.636509 Foronda, C., Baptiste, D. L., Reinholdt, M. M., & Ousman, K. (2016). Cultural humility: A concept analysis. Journal of Transcultural Nursing: Official Journal of the Transcultural Nursing Society, 27(3), 210–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043659615592677 Fraser, N. (2007). Re-framing justice in a globalizing world. In T. Lovell (Ed.), (Mis)recognition, social inequality and social justice (pp.17–35). Routledge. Fraser, N. (2013). Fortunes of feminism: From state-managed capitalism to neoliberal crisis. Verso. Kinchin, I., M. (2023). Five moves towards an ecological university. Teaching in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2023.2197108 Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1999). Learning and pedagogy in communities of practice. In J. Leach & B. Moon (Eds.), Learners & pedagogy (pp. 21-33). Paul Chapman Publishing. Marginson, S. (2016). The worldwide trend to high participation higher education: Dynamics of social stratification in inclusive systems. Higher Education 72, 413-434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0016-x Papa, R. (Ed.). (2019). Handbook on promoting social justice in education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74078-2_40-1 Rice, P., & Bakke, M. H. (2022). Advocating a pedagogy of kindness. In L.S. Zavodna & T. Falch (Eds), Teaching generation snowflakes: New challenges and opportunities (pp. 169-179). Prague University of Economics and Business, Oeconomica Publishing House. Van Tongeren, D. R., Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., & van Oyen Witvliet, C. (2019). Humility. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(5), 463–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419850153 Wong, K.L., Briffett-Aktaş, C., Kong, W. F. O., & Ho, C.P. (2023). The student voice for social justice pedagogical method: Learning outcomes and challenges. Active Learning in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874231176488