Trigger warnings and the student experience
| Date | 01 November 2017 |
| Author | Michelle Bentley |
| DOI | 10.1177/0263395716684526 |
| Published date | 01 November 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Learning and Teaching in Politics and International Studies |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0263395716684526
Politics
2017, Vol. 37(4) 470 –485
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0263395716684526
journals.sagepub.com/home/pol
Trigger warnings and the
student experience
Michelle Bentley
University of London, UK
Abstract
The use of trigger warnings (TW) in higher education (HE) is a point of significant contention.
Discussion has centred on academic perspectives. This study turns that around to ask what the
student experiences of TW are, how they are perceived, and what this contributes to the existing
debate. Based on survey and focus group data from two undergraduate modules, this article
demonstrates that students are similarly divided on TW. It also re-assesses the current debate
with respect to positive/negative effects on students, in-class applications of TW, how far students
believe their learning environment should be ‘controlled’, and perceived censorship.
Keywords
academic freedom, censorship, pedagogy, student engagement, trigger warnings
Received: 2nd April 2016; Revised version received: 27th August 2016; Accepted: 11th October 2016
Introduction
The use of trigger warnings (TW) in higher education has sparked an extremely contro-
versial and intense debate. Specifically, this is a debate that has failed to come anywhere
close to resolution or compromise, to the extent that Colleen Flaherty (2015) terms it the
‘never-ending’ discussion. In an attempt to shed new light on this stalemate, this explora-
tory study examines TW from the student perspective. Analyses of TW have previously
ignored how students perceive TW; instead, this has focused exclusively on the issue
from an academic viewpoint. Some will say this is entirely appropriate. Students may not
be the best judges as to what is most beneficial to their learning (Poropat, 2014). Recent
studies on the reliability of student teaching evaluations demonstrate this. They show that
evaluations are biased (Boring et al., 2016; Marcotte, 2014), ignore the value/relevance
of teaching methods (Braga et al., 2014; Stark and Freishtat, 2014), and favour ‘enjoy-
ment not learning’ (Stroebe, 2016). Students are also frequently unaware of what ‘good’
learning comprises. It is maintained here, however, that addressing student opinions on
Corresponding author:
Michelle Bentley, Department of Politics & International Relations, Royal Holloway, University of London,
Egham Hill, Egham TW20 0EX, UK.
Email: Michelle.Bentley@rhul.ac.uk
684526POL0010.1177/0263395716684526PoliticsBentley
research-article2017
Learning and Teaching in Politics and
International Studies
Bentley 471
TW can still make a valid (albeit conditional) contribution. This is in the vein of Harry
Murray’s (2005) analysis on student evaluations, which argues that looking to student
opinion for data on learning effectiveness is important – as long as we then also factor in
limitations on what students understand in relation to pedagogy. Moreover, addressing
new sets of overlooked data can benefit a debate that, otherwise, is getting nowhere.
Whatever the biases inherent to analysing student perception, can this sway the TW argu-
ment one way or another? Can this change current pedagogical understanding, or open up
new avenues of debate that have been ignored? Can this provide new insights and break
the pedagogical impasse?
This article discusses a study of second and third year undergraduate students enrolled
on modules related to general and specialist international security topics at a UK univer-
sity. The study is based on survey and focus group data. The results demonstrate that the
extreme divisions currently characterising the TW debate also split student opinion, and
for the same reasons. The data also highlight important points for consideration in taking
the TW debate forward, including where this challenges existing assumptions concerning
the balance between positive/negative impacts on students, TW design and structure,
which students benefit from TW, how far students believe their learning environment
should be ‘controlled’ via TW, and perceived importance of academic freedom in the
classroom.
Background
TW are an ‘explicit notification’ that the material used in a specific learning environment
is potentially disturbing, upsetting, or offensive (LaBossiere, 2014). Initially aimed at
people suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (where being exposed to certain con-
tent could cause anxiety; Dean, 2014: 8), TW now typically cover anyone who may be
negatively affected by such content: ‘an adverse experience can be as banal as being
disturbed by reading about distressing events’ (Furedi, 2016: 35). TW are understood as
creating the conditions for student choice (Gust, 2016). While TW have been condemned
for restraining students in terms of their learning (discussed in more depth below), others
present these warnings as a point of awareness – one that can then inform a student’s deci-
sion if and how to engage with triggering material as part of their education. TW make
people mindful of triggering content and the effects this could have on their mental and
emotional health, from which they can subsequently control their exposure to it in ways
they are comfortable with (Eisner, 2013: 10). They promote access to learning as opposed
to its avoidance (Kafer, 2016: 2–3). Kate Manne (2015), Assistant Professor of Philosophy
at Cornell University, in defending her use of TW, says this is not to ‘enable – let alone
encourage’ students to disengage from their studies: ‘rather it is to allow those who are
sensitive to these subjects to prepare themselves for reading about them, and better man-
age their reactions’. There is, however, strong debate over whether TW should be used
(Waters, 2014). While on the surface TW would seem beneficial in protecting students’
wellbeing in the classroom, and particularly the wellbeing of vulnerable students, others
argue that the wider implications of TW are actually detrimental to the learning process
(e.g. Barecca, 2016; Filipovic, 2014; ‘Trigger Warnings are Flawed’, 2014; Bloomberg in
Bellware, 2016; Hume, 2016; Scott, 2016). This division focuses on two key concerns:
responsibility for learning and academic freedom.
Learning is often seen as a shared relationship between the university and student (e.g.
Schneider and Macfarlane, 2003). Paddy O’Toole and Nike Prince (2015) discuss the
To continue reading
Request your trial