As universities grapple with how best to support increasingly diverse student cohorts, trauma-informed practice is gaining traction as a way to foster more inclusive learning environments. Greater trauma awareness could lead to more inclusive pedagogy, better support and safer learning environments for student cohorts that universities often identify as equity priorities. But as with any emerging framework, its effectiveness depends on how it is applied.
Here, we reflect on the evolution of equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) work and draw lessons from its development for trauma-informed practice. When done well, trauma-informed practice is inherently anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-heterosexist and anti-classist, recognising that safety and well-being are political as well as pedagogical concerns. EDI reminds us that trauma doesn’t occur in a vacuum; it is shaped by political histories and structures.
Using EDI to support trauma-informed practices
Bringing trauma-informed practice and EDI-led approaches together links the former’s clinical insight with the latter’s road map for cultural and institutional change. Here are four key insights from EDI that can enrich and expand trauma-informed practice.
1. Share the responsibility
The burden of effecting change often falls on those already experiencing inequity or marginalisation – women, racialised or disabled staff and students, people of colour or LGBTQ+ communities, for example. Trauma-informed practice will be more effective when responsibility for responding to trauma is shared. Those with structural privilege, including white men, must engage fully, including reflecting on their roles and addressing unintended harms. This journey begins with “trauma awareness”, developing an understanding of what trauma is and how it can curtail academic endeavours.
2. Recognise trauma as an aspect of intersectional identity
EDI highlights that identity is never singular, and that experiences of harm and exclusion often reflect multiple, overlapping forms of disadvantage. Trauma is also shaped by these intersections – race, class, gender, sexuality, disability – and its impacts often compound across them. This includes both acute events and the chronic stress of navigating systems not built with such students in mind. Trauma-informed strategies should reflect this complexity, moving beyond one-size-fits-all approaches and acknowledging that not being shaped by trauma is itself a privilege.
3. Sit with discomfort
EDI often requires unlearning narratives about merit, objectivity and deservingness, which can be difficult. In this sense, discomfort can be productive. Trauma-informed work brings similar challenges. It asks institutions to reflect on how policies, however well intentioned, may cause harm. If framed as an easy or apolitical fix, trauma-informed practice risks missing its transformative potential.
4. Prioritise depth over speed
In a sector driven by deadlines and deliverables, seeking quick wins is tempting. However, EDI work shows that lasting change requires time. Toolkits and training sessions can help, but they must be part of a longer process of cultural reflection and deep engagement. Trauma-informed practice must be relational, embedded and committed to long-term impact, not just compliance.
Trauma-informed practice as a lever for equity
Trauma-informed equity work is grounded in the experiences of students – it’s not just an abstract idea. In our own research with students from equity backgrounds, it’s clear how deeply trauma shapes their learning – and how often universities fail to recognise this. Bureaucracy can become a kind of hostile architecture when help is offered but only secured after students are asked to navigate difficult terrain.
- Knowledge and approaches needed for trauma-informed teaching
- Spotlight guide: Making university safe for all
- What trauma-informed practice is not
Many students have described the emotional toll of disclosing personal reasons for needing time off, such as collecting a parent from jail or managing addiction recovery. One high-performing student with a disability adjustment plan described the complexity of deciphering rules applied to assessments while managing acute mental health challenges. Rather than feeling supported, she felt tested. For students who have spent time in care or had extended involvement with social services, these processes can be retraumatising.
Others have spoken about how trauma affects their ability to engage in group work or open-plan environments. For students who’ve experienced abuse, their trust and a sense of personal safety can be hard won. In these cases, what’s needed isn’t necessarily more support but more choice. Trauma-informed practice should offer flexible spaces and assessments, allowing students to decide how, when and with whom they engage.
Looking ahead
Mirroring a growing recognition of how experiences of trauma impact students’ learning, relationships and well-being, interest in trauma-informed practice in higher education has surged. Originating in clinical psychology, trauma theory offers evidence-based strategies for recognising and responding to trauma, providing a strong foundation for trauma-informed pedagogy and practice.
In our own work, we’re beginning to explore the complex ways equity and trauma intersect. This has led us to develop survey research (see Additional Links below) with higher education staff, benchmarking how trauma is understood in practice. We’re interested in how trauma-informed approaches can be embedded within the critical, reflexive frameworks that meaningful equity work demands. If we want all students to thrive – not just survive – then we must be willing to do the hard, human work of change.
Maree Martinussen is a researcher in social class and higher education equity and Sarah O’Shea is lead investigator in the Higher Education Equity Research Unit, both at Charles Sturt University, Australia.
If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.
comment