In everyday encounters at Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in the Netherlands, we experience that diversity discomfort forms a significant challenge: it often results in actions that hamper the creation of inclusive environments. Diversity discomfort concerns the unease that can arise from engaging with diverse people and perspectives. It can result in and from, for example, microaggressions that remain unchallenged, a lack of diversity among staff and students, and the reproduction of skewed power relations. At the same time, we believe genuine organizational transformation towards greater equity will be possible if participants in HEIs are encouraged and equipped to engage with diversity discomfort, transforming it into a constructive resource for teaching and learning. How can we transform diversity discomfort in HEIs from a barrier to a resource for inclusion? 

In our conceptual, agenda-setting paper, we outline how diversity discomfort can impede inclusive environments but also catalyse meaningful learning and inclusion. Drawing on power relations and learning theories, including safe/brave spaces and pedagogy of discomfort, we propose directions for equitable education. We advocate for in-depth research on diversity discomfort's causes, manifestations, and effects. Additionally, we identify strategies to help HEI participants leverage diversity discomfort constructively, fostering more inclusive educational settings. 

We explore how diversity discomfort can get in the way of inclusivity in HEIs, when it conjures: 

- the anxiety involved in categorizations and stereotyping (e.g. Wekker et al. 2016); 

- the hesitancy to engage with diverse perspectives (e.g. Pohlhaus 2012);  

- the reproduction of established power structures (e.g. Wang 2005, DiAngelo 2018, Ahmed 2017). 

We identify various strands of literature that outline how diversity discomfort can in fact be a critical resource for increasing inclusivity in HEIs: 

1. Feminist scholars describe how discomfort can be an indispensable signal that switching off the personal autopilot and employing conscious attention and reflection is required (e.g. Foucault 1994, Chadwick 2021). In line with Haraway (2016) and Ahmed (2017, p.28), Chadwick argues we need to ‘stay with the feelings that we might wish would go away’ (p.564). 

2. Scholars of learning processes show that discomfort is an integral part of learning as it requires a cognitive and personal stretch. The Learning Zone Model (Senninger 2000), for example, is based on Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (1978) and points to a fine line between experiencing discomfort in a constructive and in an impeding way (see also Muftugil-Yalcin et al. (2023) about dealing with hot moments.  

3. Literature on “safe spaces” and “brave spaces” provides further guidance on balancing safety and discomfort in educational settings. While ‘safe space’ suggests the absence of disagreement, ‘brave space’ allows for engagement with difficult topics, fostering critical thinking and personal growth, and enabling dialogue (Arao & Clemens 2013). In addition, Callan (2016) argues for room for ‘intellectual discomfort’ (disagreement) while protecting ‘dignity safety’. 

4. The pedagogy of discomfort centralizes discomfort in learning and challenges dominant assumptions. It advocates for deliberately exposing learners to discomforting ideas, experiences, or perspectives to evoke social and personal transformation (Boler, 1999). In this line of thought, some level of discomfort is not only inevitable but essential (Berlak, 2004). Dealing with emotions in learners and teachers alike is an important element (Boler & Zembylas, 2003; Zembylas & McGlynn, 2012). Relevant related concepts are ‘strategic empathy’ (Zembylas, 2015), ‘mutual vulnerability’ (Keddie, 2022) and ‘delayed interspace’ (Ghorashi 2014). 

Presenting the concept of diversity discomfort grounded in these varying scholarships, we aim to stir debate about if and how leaning into discomfort can produce transformative outcomes, and to inspire further empirical research into the processes and practices of diversity in HEIs. 

Our primary research question was: How can diversity discomfort in HEIs be transformed from a barrier into a resource for inclusion? As part of a comprehensive research project, we initiated a narrative review using search terms related to diversity, discomfort, and higher education. Through a series of expert meetings, we critically examined and evaluated the literature, identifying four key strands that provide conceptual and empirical foundations for the study of 'diversity discomfort'. This approach aligns with recent trends in diversity research, which emphasize the importance of intersectionality and the need to address unconscious biases in academic environments. Our approach allowed us to synthesize existing knowledge and identify gaps in the current understanding of diversity discomfort in HEIs. Research demonstrates that human diversity at HEIs improves intellectual engagement, self-motivation, citizenship, and cultural involvement. However, studies also show that minority students often feel isolated and unwelcome in predominantly white institutions, experiencing discrimination and differential treatment. By analyzing these literature strands, we developed a preliminary research agenda that positions diversity discomfort as a crucial object of analysis. This agenda aims to explore the potential of leveraging discomfort to produce transformative outcomes in higher education settings. Our methodology acknowledges the complex nature of diversity in HEIs, considering not only student diversity but also the impact of the learning environment and national educational contexts. We recognize that diversity management in higher education is driven by various motivations, which may not always align with implemented policies. By framing diversity discomfort as a potential catalyst for change, we seek to contribute to the ongoing discourse on creating more inclusive and equitable educational spaces. This research is particularly timely, as recent studies indicate that anti-racism and gender identity are dominant topics in diversity and inclusion debates in higher education. Moreover, there is a growing recognition of the need for a more diverse workforce in HEIs, particularly in universities of applied sciences where the teaching staff often does not reflect the student population. By addressing these complex issues, our research aims to provide insights into how HEIs can transform diversity discomfort from a barrier into a resource for inclusion, ultimately contributing to more effective diversity management strategies in higher education.

Diversity discomfort in higher education can be both a challenge and an opportunity for inclusion. We propose transforming it from a barrier into a resource for creating inclusive environments. This requires understanding its emergence, manifestations, and potential. Key questions include: How does diversity discomfort arise and function as a barrier? What characterizes its transformation into a resource? What do stakeholders need to facilitate this shift? How do these processes vary across contexts? Despite scholarly discussions, empirical research on diversity discomfort in higher education is limited. Increasing classroom diversity necessitates a robust research agenda to explore its potential. Critical considerations for diversity discomfort include: The challenge for teachers to remain within the zone of proximal development and not move into the panic zone, both for themselves and for their learners. This is particularly challenging given people’s varying levels of (un)familiarity with diverging from norms, in relation to their backgrounds, social positions and life experiences. The risks of ethical violence, which occurs when, in the name of ethics, particular norms are imposed (Butler, 2005). How can we prevent ethical violence when we ‘stay with discomfort’ on purpose? On the other hand, the pedagogy of discomfort poses that ethical violence is acceptable when used to reduce other violence, i.e., when it paves the way for socially just perspectives and structures (ibid.). This needs collegial debate. Navigating the current social climate in higher education, which is characterized by a generalized experience of constraint (time, funds), a focus on efficiency, and an emphasis on supposedly neutral, cognitive knowledge-transfer. Like Ghorashi (2014), we are concerned that this reinforces established hierarchies and solidifies convictions. These tendencies impede the deliberate pace and openness required to effectively engage with discomfort. Overcoming this challenge in creating inclusive education demands a clear articulation and demonstration of discomfort's value.

Ahmed, S. (2017). Living a Feminist Life. Duke University Press. Arao, B., & Clemens, K. (2013). “From safe spaces to brave spaces: A new way to frame dialogue around diversity and social justice”. In: L. Landreman (ed.), The art of effective facilitation (pp. 135-150). Routledge. Berlak, A. (2004) Confrontation and pedagogy: cultural secrets and emotion in antioppressive pedagogies, in: M. Boler (Ed.) Democratic dialogue in education: troubling speech, disturbing silence (New York, Peter Lang), 123–144. Boler, M. (1999) Feeling Power: Emotions and Education, New York, NY, Routledge. Boler, M. & Zembylas, M. (2003) Discomforting truths: the emotional terrain of understanding differences, in: P. Tryfonas (Ed.) Pedagogies of difference: rethinking education for social justice (New York, Routledge), 110–136. Butler, J. (2005). Giving an Account of Oneself. Fordham University Press. Callan, E. (2020). Education in Safe and Unsafe Spaces. Philosophical Inquiry in Education, 24(1), 64–78. Chadwick, R. (2021). On the politics of discomfort. Feminist Theory, 22(4), 556-574. DiAngelo, R. (2018). White Fragility. Beacon Press. Foucault, M. 1994. “For an Ethic of Discomfort.” In Essential Works of Foucault, 1954– 1984, edited by J. D. Faubion. Vol. 3, 443–448. New York: The New Press. Ghorashi, H. (2014). “Routed connections in late modern times”. In U. M. Vieten (Ed.), Revisiting Iris Marion Young on normalisation, inclusion and democracy (pp. 49–67). Houndmills: Palgrave Pivot. Haraway, D. (2016) Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press. Keddie, A. (2022). Engaging boys in gender transformative pedagogy: navigating discomfort, vulnerability and empathy, Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 30(3), 401-414. Pohlhaus, Gail (2012) ‘Relational Knowing and Epistemic Injustice: Towards a Theory of Willful Hermeneutic Ignorance’. Hypatia, 27(4): 715–735. Senninger, T. (2000). Abenteuer leiten – in Abenteuern lernen. Münster: Ökotopia. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press. Wang, H. (2005) Aporias, responsibility, and the im/possibility of teaching multicultural education, Educational Theory, 55, 45–59. Zembylas, M. (2015) ‘Pedagogy of discomfort’ and its ethical implications: the tensions of ethical violence in social justice education, Ethics and Education, 10(2), 163-174, DOI: 10.1080/17449642.2015.1039274. Zembylas, M., & McGlynn, C. (2012). Discomforting pedagogies: Emotional tensions, ethical dilemmas and transformative possibilities. British Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 41-59. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23211443.