Abstract
Purpose
This integrative literature review aims to explore themes within higher education that may be applicable to leadership education including: descriptions of trauma, trauma-informed practices and trauma-informed practitioners.
Design/methodology/approach
Integrative, systematic literature review.
Findings
The results suggest that trauma and trauma-informed practices may have a place in leadership education pedagogy.
Originality/value
There is no work being done in trauma informed practice in leadership education. This study provides future direction for both research and practice.
Keywords
Citation
Holden, S. and Bruce, J. (2024), "Trauma-informed practices and leadership education: A literature review", Journal of Leadership Education, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOLE-01-2024-0016
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2024, Sarah Holden and Jackie Bruce
License
Published in Journal of Leadership Education. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
Trauma has historically been relegated to the field of psychology. Yet recent culture-shifts brought trauma-informed practices into education and other public service spheres (Carello & Butler, 2014; Stephens, 2020). Clinical diagnosis and treatment still lie with mental health professionals, however traumatic responses occur without regard to appropriate time or space, making it worthwhile for other practitioners to minimize trauma outside of clinical settings (Graham, Mennicke, Rizo, Wood, & Mengo, 2019; Parker, Kopp, & Steiner, 2021; Stephens, 2020).
Trauma-informed practices are already an established standard in K-12 education (Stephens, 2020). Higher education in contrast, has largely lagged (Carello & Butler, 2014). Some practitioners may argue trauma-informed practices are unnecessary in higher education, or that they should be left strictly to mental health professionals. However, trauma is endemic to society and college students are not immune to its impact (Carello & Butler, 2014). The repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic have started to make that clear (Jones et al., 2022; Murthy, 2022; Stephens, 2020). During lockdowns and remote learning, educators saw an increased number of students who were distracted, withdrawn or unable to concentrate, which are all potential signs of trauma (Stephens, 2020). Now as students return to in-person classrooms, these behaviors may persist or new ones may emerge due to the unknown impact of years-long global pandemic and extended periods of social isolation.
COVID-19 may have only built upon existing trauma among higher education students. Prior to 2020, Frazier et al. (2009) found that 85% of college students had experienced a traumatic event. Davidson (2017, p. 5) echoes this sentiment, finding that 66–85% of youth report at least one exposure to a traumatic event by the time they attend college. Among them, students from marginalized populations such as racial minorities, members of the LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning) + community, or those from lower-income families are disproportionately affected by a higher rate of exposure to traumatic events (Davidson, 2017, pp. 9–12; Graham et al., 2019).
The ubiquity of trauma in higher education and the unpredictability of triggers for traumatized students put educators in a unique position. As advisors, mentors and teachers, educators build relationships with students and bear witness to their daily lives. In these roles educators should not act as counselors (Stephens, 2020). It is not their responsibility to analyze trauma history or make diagnoses. However, it could be argued that educators should protect their students’ physical and mental well-being. Educators should not treat trauma, but they could avoid compounding it within their spheres of control.
If trauma is a universal and endemic issue (Carello & Butler, 2014) then addressing it is a matter of equity because traumatic responses are often the function of profound injustice. From individual and isolated experiences such as sexual assault (Finley & Levenson, 2018; Sales & Krause, 2017) to societal issues like racism and poverty (Caton, 2019; Stephens, 2020) adverse events are invariably connected to deeper systemic flaws. Here, an opportunity for leadership education emerges. Leadership educators are already tackling the prevalence and impact of critical social issues in higher education which puts them in a prime position to include trauma-informed practices in their classrooms and to push for improved policies and procedures in their respective colleges or universities.
Integrative literature reviews can offer new conceptual insights arising from the synthesis of existing research and provide a useful channel for advancing topical knowledge (Elsbach & van Knippenberg, 2020). We chose an integrative review method to analyze the existing literature on trauma and trauma-informed practices in leadership education. A precursory scan of leadership education literature produced zero articles. Therefore, we expanded our search to include articles in the broader scope of higher education to explore themes that may be applicable to leadership education. We summarize how trauma is described in higher education, how trauma-informed practices are described in higher education and who is implementing trauma-informed practices in higher education. We also make recommendations for potential areas of further exploration pertaining to leadership education.
Conceptual framework
Modern trauma theory began in clinical fields including psychology, social work and neurology, and eventually branched out into non-clinical fields (Carello & Butler, 2014). The expansion of research brought with it new descriptions of trauma that influenced how it is viewed today. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM–5; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013) defines trauma in stark terms as being “actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence”. Outside of the DSM-5, researchers have broadened the definition of trauma to account for the abstract ways people may describe the experience within themselves. Descriptions of trauma as a “black hole in the self” (Parker et al., 2021) or “a loss of agency and a profound sense of powerlessness” (Stephens, 2020) offer a glimpse into the impactful emotional toll that trauma has on individuals. Beyond the individual, trauma occurs at the community and societal levels expanding past cultural and historical boundaries (Ellis & Dietz, 2017; Sweeney, Filson, Kennedy, Collinson, & Gillard, 2018; Venet, 2021). Deep and abiding inequity, power imbalances and discrimination are all connected to structural oppression that traumatizes marginalized populations (Ellis & Dietz, 2017; Venet, 2021, p. 8).
Trauma-informed practices in mental health often focus on a responsive approach. That is, practitioners respond to the effects of trauma as it is presented to them (Sweeney et al., 2018). Although therapists and counselors may seek a cause for trauma in their patients to aid with diagnosis, they are not called upon to address the broader societal reasons for trauma (Sweeney et al., 2018). Typically, K-12 education has followed suit, implementing trauma-informed practices that focus on mitigating disruptive behavior as it is presented within the classroom (Venet, 2021, pp. 36–39).
An alternative approach requires a paradigm shift that asks practitioners to adopt a “trauma lens” prior to acting (Pica-Smith & Scannell, 2020; Sweeney et al., 2018). Pica-Smith and Scannell (2020) draw upon the intersection of systemic theoretical frameworks and trauma-informed care to present a trauma lens as one that acknowledges student lives are complex, they are influenced by sociopolitical context, and they often include trauma. Traumatic experiences are an integral part of young people’s lived realities to the extent that they impact who they are both in and out of the classroom. Seeing the world through a trauma lens encourages educators to be more empathetic and to shift their mindset from “what is wrong with you?” to “what has happened to you?” (Davidson, 2017; Stephens, 2020).
Venet’s (2021) work on equity-centered trauma-informed education expands the concept of a trauma lens and offers recommendations for what trauma-informed practices should be. Building on the assumption that trauma is often rooted in complex social justice issues, the author argues that trauma-informed practices require a two-pronged approach. Educators should implement practices that avoid retraumatization, while also working to address the structural inequities that cause the trauma in the first place (Venet, 2021).
We acknowledge that both a trauma lens and an equity-centered trauma-informed approach are not concepts derived from higher education. Indeed, the concept of a trauma lens as described by both Pica-Smith and Scannell (2020) and Sweeney et al. (2018) is rooted in the mental health field and Venet’s (2021) work targets K-12 educators. However, trauma-informed practices in higher education are still in their infancy, resulting in fewer discipline specific concepts to reference.
We also drew upon critical theory in the synthesizing of the literature for this review. A premise of critical theory exists in the tension between accepting the realities of the world as they are and also condemning them (Horkheimer, 1972). Govender (2020) pushes this concept further stating that critical theory in practice goes beyond condemnation and explores what could and should be. We argue that both a trauma lens and equity-centered trauma-informed practices possess language and structure evoking concepts found in critical theory and thus acknowledge its influence in our work.
We acknowledge that the synthesis of material for an integrative review can be subjective. Indeed, one of the guidelines used for conducting this review recommends that the author(s) explain their perspective to clarify their point of view to readers (Torraco, 2016). Beyond viewpoint, Freedman (2006) argues that documenting first person narratives of our own traumatic experiences provides transparency about our biases while also helping others understand potential biases in mainstream society. To aid in transparency about our perspective on trauma we feel it is important to offer epistemological statements outlining both authors’ experience with trauma.
I, Sarah, had multiple recurring traumatic experiences for a period of seven years during my adolescence and young adulthood. When I was thirteen, my father died suddenly. My mother suffers from debilitating mental health issues and had difficulty maintaining a job after his death which resulted in the foreclosure of my childhood home, two years of transient housing, food insecurity and large gaps in my education. When I was fifteen, she relinquished custody of my brother and I to distant relatives. I graduated high school but was kicked out of my guardian’s house two weeks before starting my freshman year of college. My dorm room was my primary residence. I lived there during the school year and then stayed with family, friends or my partner during school breaks until obtaining stable housing at the age of twenty.
I, Jacklyn, experienced trauma throughout my childhood and early adulthood, as the child of one parent who was a high functioning, but emotionally (and sometimes physically) abusive addict, and the other who suffered from untreated mental illness. That addiction left my family food and housing insecure, at various times, throughout my childhood, and we relied on resources from extended family on multiple occasions.
Methods
The purpose of this integrative literature review is to explore the existing descriptions of trauma, trauma-informed pedagogy and trauma-informed practitioners in leadership education to help better understand areas necessitating further research.
Three research questions guided our study:
How is trauma described in higher education?
How are trauma-informed practices described in higher education?
Who implements trauma-informed practices in higher education?
How can the literature from higher education at-large be applied leadership education?
The guidelines for conducting the review are based on recommendations by Torraco (2005) who provides a checklist for writing an integrative review that guided our research process. We also adhered to eleven points listed by Torraco (2016) on conducting an integrative review. The eleven points and our approach to each of them are summated in Table 1.
The research process consisted of three stages. First, was a keyword search in four major online academic search engines including: ProQuest, Web of Science, JSTOR (Journal Storage) and the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC). Keywords were selected based on relevance to higher education, trauma and leadership education. Only peer-reviewed articles were included in the search. To advance to the next stage each article had to include trauma or trauma-informed and at least one other keyword in the title or abstract. Boolean search operators were used to increase accuracy, reduce search time and to capture variations of root words. Keywords are listed in Table 2.
Stage one yielded 928 articles. RefWorks was used to organize and store article references for review in the next stage. At stage two, abstracts of all 928 articles were read thoroughly and evaluated for topical relevance based on the research questions. Inclusion criteria included being a peer-reviewed article and being topically relevant to higher education and trauma or trauma-informed practices. Exclusion criteria were articles not topically pertaining to higher education or leadership education including those pertaining to psychology, medicine, social work and medical or injury-related trauma.
One hundred and eighteen articles advanced to stage three. Each article was read in its entirety for topical relevance, then again to ensure accuracy. To narrow the topical scope, only articles that discussed trauma or trauma-informed practices and higher education were included for the final stage of review. Of the 118 articles, eight were found to fit the criteria for this literature review. Zero articles specifically described trauma or trauma-informed practices in leadership education. Table 3 provides a summary of the eight articles selected for the review.
Next, we critically analyzed the eight articles selected for the review. Torraco (2005) describes this step of critical analysis as “a deconstruction of the topic into its basic elements” and as an opportunity to critically evaluate how well the literature represents the issue. Therefore, the eight articles were read again in their entirety and base-level themes were identified and documented. Due to zero articles within leadership education being procured, the articles were evaluated for how well they represent a lack of trauma-informed practices in higher education at large.
After critical analysis, we synthesized the emerging themes and integrated new ideas over the course of five written drafts with author discussion about the themes between each draft. The structure of the results align with what Torraco (2005) describes as a “research agenda” which poses provocative propositions and gives direction for future research, specifically in leadership education. These propositions are integrated into the discussion section of this work.
Results
Descriptions of trauma in higher education
Descriptions of trauma vary within the literature retrieved for this review. Several articles describe individual trauma occurring because of specific, acute, on-campus experiences like sexual assault, interpersonal violence or homelessness (Caton, 2019; Finley & Levenson, 2018; Graham et al., 2019; Lynch & Glass, 2020; Sales & Krause, 2017). Other articles take a longview approach, describing individual trauma as a broader aspect of community trauma or societal inequity (Parker et al., 2021; Stephens, 2020; Walker et al., 2021). Yet from the two different approaches, a uniting theme emerges. Despite its ubiquity, trauma is not an assumed norm in higher education (Caton, 2019; Finley & Levenson, 2018; Graham et al., 2019; Lynch & Glass, 2020; Parker et al., 2021; Sales & Krause, 2017; Stephens, 2020; Walker et al., 2021).
Trauma in higher education is identified and interchangeable with adverse behavior, a description which evokes language used in K-12 education (Finley & Levenson, 2018; Graham et al., 2019; Lynch & Glass, 2020; Stephens, 2020). The evocation is logical considering the limited trauma research found outside K-12 education. Yet directly connecting trauma to adverse behavior assumes that traumatized students are readily identifiable from those who are not (Finley & Levenson, 2018; Graham et al., 2019; Lynch & Glass, 2020; Parker et al., 2021; Sales & Krause, 2017 Stephens, 2020; Walker et al., 2021). Indeed, traumatized students may exhibit adverse behaviors like truancy, inattention during class, defiance and lack of self-preservation (Finley & Levenson, 2018; Stephens, 2020). However, identifying trauma only by identifying adverse behaviors minimizes trauma’s complexity and potentially boxes individuals into stereotypical depictions of “bad students”.
Furthermore, if trauma is only acknowledged in the presence of adverse behaviors then traumatized students who do not exhibit those behaviors may be overlooked. Or in some cases, they may even be praised for behaviors that are perceived as positive. For example, anxiety or hyper-vigilance can be caused by trauma (Stephens, 2020). However, these traumatic responses may manifest as behaviors like perfectionism, over-achievement or competitiveness which are traditionally rewarded in academic spheres. Conversely, students who exhibit adverse behaviors such as missing class, defensiveness, or difficulty focusing are punished for their actions. The unfortunate result is that educators and practitioners may assume students are traumatized based on perceptions of their behavior, when it is likely that all types of students have endured traumatic experiences.
If trauma is identified through the presentation of adverse behavior, then traumatized students are different from “normal” well-behaved students (Walker et al., 2021). The othering of traumatized students flattens individual nuance and shifts the question from “what has happened to you?” to “what is wrong with you?” (Stephens, 2020). Additionally this viewpoint could foster a mindset of associating trauma with moral failing thus categorizing students as either good or bad with little consideration for the complex situations that create those perceptions.
In fact, most students do not define themselves as normal or abnormal based on their traumatic experiences (Caton, 2019). Yes, those who experience trauma may recognize it as part of their lived reality and may even view it as negative but they do not want to feel abnormal because of it Caton (2019), Finley and Levenson (2018), Sales and Krause (2017). For example, students who experience long term and recurring trauma may perceive it as a part of their normal lives and not recognize it as anything out of the ordinary (Caton, 2019). In the event of a sudden and acute traumatic experience, an individual may recognize it as a negative departure from their personal norms, but then seek out others with similar experiences to not feel abnormal (Finley & Levenson, 2018; Sales & Krause, 2017).
Higher education appears to recognize traumatic experiences by acknowledging instances of specific, isolated, traumatic events that occur within a university setting (Caton, 2019; Finley & Levenson, 2018; Graham et al., 2019; Lynch & Glass, 2020; Sales & Krause, 2017). The resulting message is trauma within higher education only exists in the form of acute and isolated events such as sexual assault or interpersonal violence (Finley & Levenson, 2018; Graham et al., 2019; Sales & Krause, 2017). However, many students enter higher education with a history of exposure to traumatic experiences that manifests not only from singular events but recurring adverse experiences at the community and societal levels (Parker et al., 2021; Stephens, 2020).
Furthermore, when trauma is situated as only being relevant to higher education when it occurs within higher education, the nuance of inequity is lost. Students may all be perceived as starting with the same clean slate and are therefore equally prone to traumatic experiences in higher education. That perception does not leave room for the fact that marginalized populations such as racial minorities and members of the LGBTQ + community are more likely to enter college with a history of trauma and are more prone to traumatic experiences while there (Caton, 2019; Graham et al., 2019; Parker et al., 2021; Stephens, 2020). It also leaves a vacuum of support because viewing these events as singular and isolated minimizes a lack of cultural awareness and structural support for these communities in the first place (Caton, 2019).
Descriptions of trauma-informed practices in higher education
Only two of the articles read for this review specifically describe trauma-informed practices in higher education (Parker et al., 2021; Stephens, 2020). Perhaps this is attributed to the broader attitude towards trauma among higher education; that traumatic events are isolated and that traumatized students are an abnormality marked by demonstrable adverse behavior (Caton, 2019; Finley & Levenson, 2018; Graham et al., 2019; Lynch & Glass, 2020; Parker et al., 2021; Sales & Krause, 2017; Stephens, 2020; Walker et al., 2021). Notably, the two articles describing trauma-informed practices center on trauma in relation to COVID-19 (Stephens, 2020) and sexual trauma and consent (Parker et al., 2021), traumatic experiences which have been elevated as commonplace in recent years. The remaining six articles do not explicitly detail trauma-informed practices, but descriptions emerge that suggest trauma-informed approaches. The driving force for these practices it seems is a recognition that students are suffering and educators are in a position to minimize it Caton (2019), Finley and Levenson (2018), Graham et al. (2019), Lynch and Glass (2020), Sales and Krause (2017), Walker et al. (2021).
Within the descriptions of intentional trauma-informed practices in higher education two themes emerge. First, trauma-informed practices begin with practitioners who accept and acknowledge that trauma is widespread (Parker et al., 2021; Stephens, 2020). Second, trauma-informed practices are rooted in intentional efforts to actively avoid retraumatization (Parker et al., 2021; Stephens, 2020). These approaches reflect recommendations from K-12 education and mental health fields, indeed both articles cite literature from these disciplines. Furthermore they actively reject the viewpoint from higher education that assumes trauma affects a limited number of students who exhibit adverse behavior (Finley & Levenson, 2018; Graham et al., 2019; Lynch & Glass, 2020). From this rejection, it could be argued that trauma-informed practices require a near paradigm shift within higher education to accept the bleak reality that a vast majority of young people experience traumatic events and that without intentionality even the most well-meaning educators can contribute to retraumatization (Parker et al., 2021; Stephens, 2020).
Acknowledging the widespread impact of trauma is crucial to trauma-informed practices because every student must be treated as though they have potentially been traumatized (Stephens, 2020). To some in higher education, this practice may be interpreted as an invitation to blur the lines between the private, and potentially traumatic, lives of students and the public sphere of education. Or perhaps be seen as creating an environment that coddles students and discourages resiliency. However, whether educators like it or not, students bring their “whole-messy selves” to higher education (Stephens, 2020). From classroom discussions to departmental networking events, students are expected to share pieces of their history, experience and identity with others, and for many those pieces include traumatic events (Parker et al., 2021; Stephens, 2020).
Not only do trauma-informed practices call for practitioners to acknowledge the endemic nature of trauma, they also require practitioners to actively avoid retraumatization (Parker et al., 2021; Stephens, 2020). Although the specific practices vary, the mindset is the same. Avoiding retraumatization requires a conscious commitment to analyze common practices in higher education through the lens of trauma and ask “could these methods potentially trigger a traumatic response?” (Parker et al., 2021; Stephens, 2020). Due to the individual nature of a trauma response, this practice requires a measure of introspection from the practitioner and a willingness to empathize with those whose experiences differ from their own. Beyond this, the effort to avoid retraumatization aligns with a recognition that no amount of empathy can account for all experiences. In essence this means that the work of avoiding retraumatization will inherently come with a margin of error on the part of the practitioner. This error is natural, given that many practitioners are educators or provide care for students in a non-mental health capacity. Therefore, the trauma-informed practice of avoiding retraumatization is not only about providing environments that minimize triggers, but also offer access to resources when inevitably and unintentionally something triggers a traumatic response in a student (Parker et al., 2021; Stephens, 2020).
Outside of formal evocations of trauma-informed practices, the articles in this review describe practices that are arguably trauma-informed in nature (Caton, 2019; Finley & Levenson, 2018; Graham et al., 2019; Lynch & Glass, 2020; Sales & Krause, 2017; Walker et al., 2021). The catalyst for these practices likely stem from the same as those that launch formal trauma-informed practices; a place of genuine care for students. (Finley & Levenson, 2018; Graham et al., 2019; Lynch & Glass, 2020; Sales & Krause, 2017). Educators and practitioners who directly engage with students can be privy to the disclosure of trauma. In some cases, disclosure of trauma comes from proximity. For example, student affairs professionals are actively involved in many facets of student lives. When combined with overwhelmed and underfunded campus counseling centers, student affairs professionals are often the first responders to students actively experiencing crisis (Caton, 2019; Lynch & Glass, 2020).
Educators may also experience disclosures or bear witness to student trauma not by proximity but by the nature of their relationship to students or their area of study. In some cases faculty who serve as mentors or advisors may become a trusted adult who students feel safe to disclose traumatic experiences to (Finley & Levenson, 2018). Other times, students may perceive faculty who work in certain fields of study such as psychology or social work as safe to disclose trauma to because of the nature of their work and topical knowledge (Finley & Levenson, 2018; Graham et al., 2019).
Although some disclosure requires mandatory reporting such as cases of sexual assault or threats of harm to the self or others (Finley & Levenson, 2018; Graham et al., 2019; Sales & Krause, 2017), most trauma disclosures likely rest in the gray area outside of mandatory reporting. Those who experience the disclosure of traumatic events may feel compelled to do something to ease the negative impacts of trauma on a student’s life (Finley & Levenson, 2018). Thus when students dictate stories from their lives to educators, the illusion of seeing them as only pupils is broken and educators may instead see them as “their whole messy selves” (Stephens, 2020). Once the illusion is lifted it may become difficult to ignore the broader societal traumas such as poverty or racism that impact students’ lives.
When educators and practitioners feel compelled to help their traumatized students, they may adopt an advocacy role to help avoid retraumatization (Caton, 2019; Finley & Levenson, 2018; Graham et al., 2019; Lynch & Glass, 2020; Sales & Krause, 2017; Walker et al., 2021). In an advocacy role, these individuals minimize retraumatization in several ways. Educators can serve as trusted mentors and role models. They can help connect students to valuable services like campus mental health professionals, transportation and housing services (Caton, 2019). Some educators or practitioners may advocate at the institutional level. In leadership roles on committees or advisory boards, these individuals can push for policy changes that help protect traumatized students or to identify and amend gaps in current policy (Finley & Levenson, 2018; Graham et al., 2019; Sales & Krause, 2017).
Implementers of trauma-informed practices in higher education
Those who currently implement trauma-informed practices include student affairs professionals, counselors, faculty in the social sciences and faculty with a personal interest in trauma (Caton, 2019; Parker et al., 2021; Finley & Levenson, 2018; Sales & Krause, 2017; Stephens, 2020; Walker et al., 2021). Among these descriptions, is a message to all educators. The effort to combat trauma cannot solely be the responsibility of counseling services, student affairs or select faculty. All educators should have a commitment to the implementation of trauma-informed practices (Caton, 2019; Finley & Levenson, 2018; Graham et al., 2019; Lynch & Glass, 2020; Parker et al., 2021; Sales & Krause, 2017; Stephens, 2020; Walker et al., 2021).
The faculty who are already engaging in that effort to implement trauma-informed practices are predominantly those who are involved in the work by nature of their field of study (Finley & Levenson, 2018; Sales & Krause, 2017; Walker et al., 2021). Educators in social work, psychology or sociology may be researching and developing trauma-informed practices which in turn are put into practice in their classrooms. Although these educators may be well-versed in trauma-informed practices, their scope of reach could be limited to the colleges they teach in within the broader context of a university.
Trauma-informed practices may also be implemented by counselors and other mental health professionals who provide campus services. Counselors are logical trauma-informed practitioners, however depending upon the campus they may be overwhelmed and unable to handle the caseloads presented to them. Or, at times they are under-utilized by students mistrustful of therapeutic intervention (Lynch & Glass, 2020).
When counselors cannot meet the demand of student needs for trauma-intervention, or when students mistrust therapy, student affairs professionals often take on trauma-informed care. For example, close proximity to students’ daily lives can place student affairs professionals in the role of institutional first responder to students in immediate crisis or those who are experiencing long-term impacts of trauma (Caton, 2019; Lynch & Glass, 2020). Despite this, many student affairs professionals are not trained specifically in trauma-informed practices and find themselves underprepared to handle serious traumatic events such as suicidal ideation or student homelessness (Caton, 2019; Lynch & Glass, 2020).
Outside of student affairs, faculty members who are in fields where trauma is part of the regular discourse such as psychology, social work or criminal justice tend to implement trauma-informed practices (Finley & Levenson, 2018). It is logical that these fields would be the forerunners since their work is centered around the adverse experiences that can lead to trauma. In some cases these faculty are also working directly to mitigate the trauma itself or are teaching their students how to help traumatized individuals. It seems that when trauma is centered within a discipline, trauma-informed practices are a natural progression.
Other faculty implementing trauma-informed practices are those with a personal interest in mitigating the effects of trauma in their classroom or university (Caton, 2019; Parker et al., 2021; Stephens, 2020; Walker et al., 2021). Without directly stating as such, descriptions of trauma-informed practices suggest that these faculties bear witness to the suffering of their students and wish to do something about it (Caton, 2019; Parker et al., 2021; Stephens, 2020). Perhaps it is rooted in a broader interest in the role of trauma in social justice issues (Caton, 2019; Stephens, 2020). Or in a desire to make classrooms or universities safer and more considerate of traumatized students (Parker et al., 2021). In some cases, they themselves were victims of trauma and wish to minimize its impact on their charges (Finley & Levenson, 2018; Parker et al., 2021).
While descriptions of who is implementing trauma-informed practices suggest a wide array of practitioners, the broader theme among the articles in this review is that all faculty can and should be pioneering trauma-informed practices in higher education (Caton, 2019; Finley & Levenson, 2018; Graham et al., 2019; Lynch & Glass, 2020; Parker et al., 2021; Sales & Krause, 2017; Stephens, 2020; Walker et al., 2021). Although a genuine trauma-informed approach involves campus-wide effort (Sales & Krause, 2017), faculty sit at a juncture that, if willing, puts them in position to launch that effort. Whether conducting research (Graham et al., 2019), leveraging their power on institutional committees (Finley & Levenson, 2018), adopting a trauma-informed pedagogy (Parker et al., 2021; Stephens, 2020) or teaching their students to be trauma-informed (Walker et al., 2021) faculty could play a crucial role in implementing trauma-informed practices.
Of question though is why there are not more faculty participating in trauma-informed practices at present. It is possible that some faculty do not know the impact of trauma on their students. Or perhaps they do recognize the effects of trauma but do not see how addressing it fits within their scope of discipline. Others may disregard it as unimportant or too difficult to tackle. Some faculty may be wary of crossing boundaries from educator to therapist because of trauma’s association with mental health. There is also the possibility some faculty may avoid trauma-informed practices due to unresolved wounds from their own traumatic experiences (Finley & Levenson, 2018).
Discussion
The attitude towards trauma in higher education could be described as a willingness to address the symptoms but not the cause. Trauma is pervasive among higher education students (Carello & Butler, 2014; Davidson, 2017, pp. 9–12; Graham et al., 2019; Stephens, 2020). It is likely that in any given classroom there are students who have experienced adverse events such as violence, poverty, or discrimination. Yet in higher education the response is to target students who act out (Stephens, 2020) effectively attaching a value system of good and bad to traumatized students. As a result, these students may inadvertently be compelled to minimize the impact of trauma on their lives to avoid negative repercussions.
The unspoken pressure to minimize trauma could serve as a vehicle of reinforcing power imbalances and delegitimizing the narratives of the most vulnerable student populations. For example, students from marginalized groups such as racial or ethnic minorities and members of the LGBTQ + community are more likely to experience adverse events and trauma in their lives (Davidson, 2017; Graham et al., 2019). If these students are discouraged from bringing “their whole messy selves” (Stephens, 2020) to our institutions and, most importantly, into our classrooms, then students from privileged populations may perceive trauma as an occurrence that only happens to other people. Or, if they have experienced trauma but do not see the compounding impacts on marginalized groups, then they may minimize the significance of privilege on their ability to thrive; instead attributing it to an individual resilience and not their own life circumstances. As a result, these students may ascribe a misplaced moral weight on overcoming trauma, never fully understanding how this viewpoint can contribute to the continued oppression of others who are seen as “morally failing”.
An aversion to discomfort, particularly for the privileged, may be a motivating factor to discourage the acknowledgment of trauma and the subsequent lack of effort to avoid retraumatization. After all, evoking the magnitude of adverse events cast light on the bleakness of reality and the broken systems that allow these events to occur. It also has the potential to make individuals uncomfortable as they reflect on their own adverse experiences or their role in contributing to others. Yet, two aspects of trauma-informed practices are to acknowledge that trauma is real and valid and to actively avoid doing further harm (Parker et al., 2021; Stephens, 2020). There should be a push to find the balance of working through an aversion to discomfort while acknowledging the actuality of trauma and making a conscious effort to minimize opportunity for further harm.
Educators are in a prime position to lead this effort through trauma-informed pedagogies (Caton, 2019; Finley & Levenson, 2018; Graham et al., 2019; Lynch & Glass, 2020; Parker et al., 2021; Sales & Krause, 2017; Stephens, 2020; Walker et al., 2021). Currently these efforts appear to exist either informally or in silos of specific disciplines. Yet with the ubiquity of trauma and its inextricable link to broader systems of inequity, it could be argued that all educators should include trauma-informed pedagogy as part of their repertoire.
Leadership educators, with the diversity of their students, and their commitment to mold future leaders who may enact meaningful change are prime candidates for this work. Zero articles pertaining to leadership education and trauma, or trauma-informed practices were retrieved for this review suggesting that little is being done within the discipline to adopt pedagogies that are trauma-informed. It could be argued, even, that some of the most popular pedagogies could be spaces of further harm for students. For example, Jenkins (2012) suggests that discussions may be signature pedagogy for leadership education. Indeed, when leadership students engage in discussions, they are given a space to tackle controversial issues and better understand differing perspectives (DeAngelis, 2009). However, without trauma-informed guidelines in place like content warnings, adept facilitation with a lens for the nuances that could be the cause of re-traumatization and adhered-to zero tolerance policies for demeaning behavior, discussions could unintentionally retraumatize individuals. Additionally, without the safety net of a trauma-informed approach, a variety of popular leadership strategies from case studies and reflective journaling (Jenkins, 2012) to team-based learning (Komives et al., 2011) can all potentially minimize the lived experience of traumatized students by reinforcing the idea that an absence of trauma is the norm.
If trauma-informed approaches are introduced into leadership education pedagogy, there is real opportunity to achieve the desired outcomes of common practices. Again, in using discussion as an example, DeAngelis (2009) suggests that discussions provide a space to dissect controversial topics and find commonality among differing perspectives. Ingerson and Bruce (2015) elaborate further saying that discussion provides space for self-reflection and helps broaden understanding of personal leadership behavior. Yet during discussion, the environment ultimately impacts leadership outcomes (Dugan & Komives, 2010). Without a trauma-informed approach the environment may not be a safe space for all participants which could negatively impact the desired outcome of discussion on leadership students.
The lack of existing leadership education literature on trauma or trauma-informed pedagogies provides ample opportunity for future research. Perhaps a valuable starting place is for leadership educators to turn inward and view their own lived experience through a trauma informed lens. Since trauma is simultaneously a universal issue (Carello & Butler, 2014) and a deeply individual experience (Stephens, 2020), it is likely that a large portion of leadership educators have both experienced trauma and dealt with it in vastly different ways. Of interest is how leadership educators currently define their relationship to trauma and whether they describe their adverse lived experiences as traumatic. From there, it is worth exploring whether those adverse experiences influence their preferred leadership theories and pedagogies.
Acknowledging that trauma is real and impactful is an important aspect of trauma-informed work (Parker et al., 2021; Stephens, 2020) therefore it would be beneficial to understand how leadership educators perceive trauma in their students. Of interest is whether leadership educators perceive trauma as an issue among their students and if so, what types of adverse events are viewed as likely to elicit a trauma response. Here, additional research opportunities in leadership pedagogy emerge. Opportunities include an exploration into how educator perception affects the way trauma is addressed or not addressed in classrooms, and what if any efforts are made to minimize the potential of retraumatization.
Nearly three quarters of high school students reported at least one adverse childhood experience during the COVID-19 pandemic and when compared to those without adverse childhood experiences, were more likely to experience poor mental health and suicidal behaviors (Jones et al., 2022). It is likely that incoming leadership students, as well as those already in higher education, are experiencing similar outcomes. Therefore, another area with vast potential for future study is understanding leadership students’ relationship with their own trauma, particularly since 2020 and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Of interest is how their trauma impacts their behavior, their expectations of the educator and their described needs to feel safe and supported both in and outside of the classroom.
Beyond trauma accrued during COVID-19, a broader exploration of the relationship between leadership students and trauma could provide fascinating insight. Of interest is the influence of trauma on a leadership identity and whether it is a motivating factor for an interest in leadership studies. There is also room to explore the confluence of race, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic identities with trauma and leadership. Often it seems that experiences of marginalization or discrimination can be a motivating factor to study leadership. Therefore, at this convergence of trauma, identity and leadership questions surrounding the roles of resilience and power emerge.
Leadership education has largely remained mum on the impact of trauma, thus providing no examples of trauma-informed practices within the discipline. The lack of literature on this subject reflects that. The converging impact of COVID-19 and the societal disruptions of the last two years have set off an urgent need for leadership educators to branch out and engage with trauma work.
Torraco’s 11 points for conducting an integrative literature review
| Torraco’s point | Our approach |
|---|---|
| Need and purpose of the review | The impact of COVID-19 has led to an increased need for research on trauma and trauma-informed pedagogy in higher education writ large and across specific disciplines. A preliminary search revealed that such literature is scant. An integrative review could help gather and synthesize what literature exists for future studies. The purpose of this integrative review is identified in the methods section |
| Topic of the review | The topic is identified and listed in the methods section and research questions, and further defined within the inclusion and exclusion criteria |
| Author(s) perspective | We describe our perspective in the conceptual framework and identify our interpretation of the definitions of “trauma” and “trauma-informed practices” that guide the synthesis of the articles. We also include an epistemological statement that acknowledges our personal experience with the topic |
| Organization and structure | Results are arranged thematically. Extracted themes were guided by research questions and synthesized |
| Discussion of research methods | Research methods generally follow Torraco’s (2005) checklist. In the methods section keywords are listed in a table, we identify the databases we searched and list our inclusion and exclusion criteria |
| Critical analysis | Critically analyzed strengths, weaknesses and differing perspectives. Conceptual relationships and common themes are identified |
| Synthesis | Articles were synthesized in the results section. Connective themes between the articles were identified and emergent concepts were proposed |
| Further research | An in-depth listing of opportunities, questions and recommendations for further research are offered in the conclusion |
| Logic and conceptual reasoning | The conceptual framework section provides theories and principles that describe the logic of the authors’ synthesis and influenced the direction of the work |
| Future of the topic | Emergent topics of interest are proposed throughout the results section. An in-depth exploration of the potential future of the topic is described in the discussion |
| Writing quality | The literature review manuscript went through multiple drafts. Both authors reviewed each draft, discussed potential improvements and edited until satisfactory |
Source(s): Author adaptation from Torraco (2016). Copyright 2016 by R.J. Torraco
Leadership education and trauma keyword terms
| Keyword terms | |
|---|---|
| Development | School |
| Education | Student |
| Faculty | Teach |
| Higher education | Train |
| Leader | Trauma |
| Mentor | Trauma-Informed |
| Pedagogy | |
Source(s): Table by authors
Final articles selected for the review
| Year | Author | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| 2017 | Sales and Krause | A trauma-informed institutional approach including faculty and staff support may be more beneficial to sexual violence prevention efforts than individual and relationship level efforts alone |
| 2018 | Finley and Levenson | Faculty are an untapped potential resource for campus sexual assault prevention efforts |
| 2019 | Caton | Addressing student homelessness is a complex issue that requires the partnership of faculty, student affairs, human resources |
| 2019 | Graham et al. | Faculty leadership can play a role in interpersonal violence prevention efforts by incorporating interpersonal violence prevention into their teaching and research. Faculty can also help by participating on prevention task forces and advocating for policy change |
| 2020 | Lynch and Glass | Student affairs professionals can develop secondary traumatic stress from being first responders in traumatic student experiences. There is a lack of training and preparation for student affairs professionals to handle these matters |
| 2020 | Stephens | An argument for trauma-informed pedagogy in theological classrooms |
| 2021 | Parker et al. | Traumatized students are inevitably present in eighteenth-century studies classrooms. Trauma-informed teaching is a way to protect students when sexual trauma and consent topics emerge |
| 2021 | Walker et al. | A trauma-informed approach to preparing students from multiple fields to work with individuals struggling with poverty |
Source(s): Table by authors
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Carello, J., & Butler, L. D. (2014). Potentially perilous pedagogies: Teaching trauma is not the same as trauma-informed teaching. Journal of Trauma and Dissociation, 15(2), 153–168. doi: 10.1080/15299732.2014.867571.
Caton, J. M. (2019). Engage, streamline, & advocate: The continued response of higher education professionals to homelessness among college students. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 26(1), 117–125.
Davidson, S. (2017). Trauma informed practices for postsecondary education: A guide. Education Northwest. Available from: https://educationnorthwest.org/sites/default/files/resources/trauma-informed-practices-postsecondary-508.pdf
DeAngelis, T. (2009). Changing the way we see each other. Monitor on Psychology, 40(3), 54.
Dugan, J. P., & Komives, S. R. (2010). Influences on college students’ capacity for socially responsible leadership. Journal of College Student Development, 51(5), 525–549. doi: 10.1353/csd.2010.0009.
Ellis, W. R., & Dietz, W. H. (2017). A new framework for addressing adverse childhood and community experiences: The building community resilience model. Academic Pediatrics, 17(7), S86–S93. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2016.12.011.
Elsbach, K. D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2020). Creating high-impact literature reviews: An argument for ‘integrative reviews’. Journal of Management Studies, 57(6), 1277–1289. doi: 10.1111/joms.12581.
Finley, L., & Levenson, J. (2018). The untapped resources of faculty in campus sexual violence prevention: Issues and recommendations. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 10(2), 123–133. doi: 10.1108/JACPR-05-2017-0297.
Frazier, P., Anders, S., Perera, S., Tomich, P., Tennen, H., Park, C., & Tashiro, T. (2009). Traumatic events among undergraduate students: Prevalence and associated symptoms. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(3), 450–460. doi: 10.1037/a0016412.
Freedman, K. L. (2006). The epistemological significance of psychic trauma. Hypatia, 21(2), 104–125, doi: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.2006.tb01096.x.
Govender, N. K. (2020). Alienation, reification and the banking model of education: Paulo Freire’s critical theory of education. Acta Academia, 52(2). doi: 10.18820/24150479/aa52i2/11.
Graham, L. M., Mennicke, A., Rizo, C. F., Wood, L., & Mengo, C. W. (2019). Interpersonal violence prevention and response on college and university campuses: Opportunities for faculty leadership. Journal of Family Violence, 34(3), 189–198. doi: 10.1007/s10896-018-9968-1.
Horkheimer, M. (1972). Critical theory: Selected essays. (M.J. O’Connell et al., Trans.). The Continuum Publishing Company. (Original work published 1968).
Ingerson, K., & Bruce, J. (2015). A case study of leadership pedagogy in an organizational behavior class. Journal of Leadership Education, 14(3). doi: 10.12806/V14/I3/R1.
Jenkins, D. M. (2012). Exploring signature pedagogies in undergraduate leadership education. Journal of Leadership Education, 11(1), 1–27. doi: 10.12806/V11/I1/RF1.
Jones, S. E., Ethier, K. A., Hertz, M., DeGue, S., Le, V. D., Thornton, J., … Geda, S. (2022). Mental health, suicidality, and connectedness among high school students during the COVID-19 pandemic — adolescent behaviors and experiences survey, United States, January–June 2021. (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report). U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 71(Suppl. 3), 16–21. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.su7103a3externalicon.
Komives, S. R., Dugan, J. P., Owen, J. E., Slack, C., Wagner, W., & Associates (2011). The handbook for student leadership development (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass: National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs.
Lynch, R. J., & Glass, C. R. (2020). The cost of caring: An arts-based phenomenological analysis of secondary traumatic stress in college student affairs. Review of Higher Education, 43(4), 1041–1068. doi: 10.1353/rhe.2020.0030.
Murthy, V. H. (2022). The mental health of minority and marginalized young people: An opportunity for action. Public Health Reports, 137(4), 613–616. doi: 10.1177/00333549221102390.
Parker, K., Kopp, B. M., & Steiner, L. (2021). ‘Side by side with a ruinous, ever-present past’: Trauma- informed teaching and the eighteenth century, clarissa, and fantomina. Abo, 11(1), 1–13. doi: 10.5038/2157-7129.11.1.1236.
Pica-Smith, C., & Scannell, C. (2020). Teaching and learning for this moment: How a trauma-informed lens can guide our praxis. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Perspectives in Higher Education, 5(1), 76–83. doi: 10.32674/jimphe.v5i1.2627.
Sales, J., & Krause, K. (2017). Schools must include faculty and staff in sexual violence prevention efforts. Journal of American College Health, 65(8), 585–587. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2017.1349133.
Stephens, D. W. (2020). Trauma-informed pedagogy for the religious and theological higher education classroom. Religions, 11(9), 449. doi: 10.3390/rel11090449.
Sweeney, A., Filson, B., Kennedy, A., Collinson, L., & Gillard, S. (2018). A paradigm shift: Relationships in trauma-informed mental health services. BJPsych Advances, 24(5), 319–333. doi: 10.1192/bja.2018.29.
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. doi: 10.1177/1534484305278283.
Torraco, R. J. (2016). Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and present to explore the future. Human Resource Development Review, 15(5), 404–428. doi: 10.1177/1534484316671606.
Venet, A. S. (2021). Equity-centered trauma-informed education. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
Walker, A., James, S., Dillard, D. R., Hoffman, C. Y., Wirth, C., Nelson, A., & Barrington, P. (2021). Taking responsibility to create a trauma and social justice-informed workforce. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 21(9), 71–81.