Chris Stocking (Assistant Professor in English Language Teaching) & Jo Osborne (Lecturer in English for Academic Study)  

Over the past few years, while working on the design of intercultural modules and non-traditional spaces of intercultural learning, we kept running into the same question: how do we ‘teach’ interculturality in a room where everyone present is already an expert in their own cultural experience? The more we sat with it, the more it seemed like the wrong question. What does it take to build a space in which people can genuinely encounter difference; not just discuss it, but sit inside it, be changed by it, and stay in relation to one another throughout? The real challenge wasn’t how to teach students, but how to build a space in which we could all, ourselves included, think and become otherwise, together. 

That question led us to feminist and decolonial pedagogies, and eventually, through co-designing the Intercultural Reflection Series (and the problem we faced in how to ensure safety within a student-owned and student-led space of learning), to a set of eleven principles that now underpin how we facilitate critically reflective intercultural spaces. These principles are not a code of conduct so much as an ethical orientation. They are a way of naming what a genuinely reciprocal, critically honest intercultural encounter asks of everyone in the room. 

Refusing hierarchy, choosing reciprocity 

The first move is a refusal. We reject the idea of knowledge flowing one way, from expert to novice, in favour of a dynamic process in which facilitators and participants together co-construct the emergent culture of learning (Rawal and Stocking, Forthcoming). This owes a debt to feminist pedagogy’s insistence, via bell hooks (1994) and others, that teaching can be a practice of freedom, and that education must actively make room for marginalised voices and experience rather than treating them as supplementary to a ‘core’ curriculum. Practically, this means recognising that multiple epistemologies, histories, experiences, and worlds will occupy any intercultural space at once, and that no single one of them can possibly hold a monopoly on validity. We position ourselves in seminars as co-inquirers rather than the experts in the room: we can offer concepts and frameworks, but we cannot tell a student how to make sense of their own lived experience through them; that sense-making has to be theirs (Osborne, 2026). The facilitator’s expertise lies in guiding the encounter, not in adjudicating whose understanding or framing is more correct. 

In practice, this means we’re not aiming for convergence. We don’t want twenty-five students arriving at the same understanding of, say, what ‘culture’ means. We want divergence, because it’s in the friction between different readings and the conversation around such differences that learning becomes iterative, complex, alive, and genuinely intercultural. We borrow the word ‘conversation’ here from Stuart Hall (2007), who describes how two people arrive at the present by different routes, and how any real exchange between them has to hold that difference rather than resolve it. Conversation, in this sense, becomes a practice of staying present to each other’s differences without needing to flatten them into convenience or assimilate them into our own frames and discourses of cultural difference (Stocking, 2026). 

Power as constraint and as possibility 

Several principles deal directly with power, resisting a simple story. Power is named as something to engage with courageously, by understanding how historical and structural inequalities shape interaction and learning, and by recognising that no space of learning is ever neutral. As in any interculturally informed classroom, being able to sit with contradictions without needing to resolve them is important, and the framing of power is no different. Power, in an intercultural space, is understood not only as an extension of colonial, racial, hegemonic, and imperialistic histories, but also as a source of agency, energy, joy, and transformation, the immanent experiences of which cannot be translated solely through a critical engagement with history’s oppressive, violent categorisations of life, personhood, and community. This dual reading matters pedagogically, because a space that only diagnoses power as oppressive can leave participants feeling stuck inside it. Naming power as also co-generative opens a route towards post-activist oriented critical reflection (Akómoláfé, 2020): the idea that critically reflective learning is incomplete unless it is eventually used to rethink discrimination and advance equity beyond institutionalised logics and discourses of criticality and activism.  

Discomfort is not harm 

Perhaps the principle we return to most is the distinction between discomfort and harm. Critically reflective engagement with complex histories of oppression and privilege will evoke discomfort, and the principles treat this discomfort as a catalyst for growth rather than something to be designed away. But this is held together with an equally firm commitment to community and care, meaning that engaging in an intercultural space entails recognition of the emotional dimensions of reflective learning, and committing to an environment that nurtures intellectual and emotional wellbeing alongside intellectual challenge. Discomfort without care risks becoming harm; care without discomfort risks becoming inert. The principles insist on both, in the same space, at the same time. That’s also why the principles put so much weight on care alongside critique. A space that only challenges people, without holding them, tends to close down rather than open up. This is why alongside the principles on power and discomfort sit others on mutual care and accountability.   

This is where a decolonial sensibility becomes important too. Rather than treating ‘difference’ as something to be resolved, corrected, managed, or explained away, the principles ask participants to hold multiple, sometimes irreconcilable, ways of knowing in view together. This is closer to Donna Haraway’s idea of ‘staying with the trouble’ (2016) than to any drive toward consensus, resisting the urge to smooth over tensions by instead announcing them and tending to them together as they arise. Within an intercultural space, then, tension is not a sign that conversation has gone awry, but an expression that epistemological thresholds are being reached. For us, it’s here, in the ineffable, overwhelming encounter with the limits of one’s own world, that the potential emerges for thresholds to be breached and the experience of self, other, and world reshaped.  

Accountability, imperfection, and the unfinished 

The final principles bring the set back down to earth. They call for accountable, ethical collaboration; constructive dialogue and respectful feedback grounded in active listening; and zero tolerance for discrimination, harassment, or abuse of power, however it may arise. And then, deliberately, the list ends with a caveat; a recognition that the space will never be perfect, because none of us are. That closing principle matters as much as any other. It resists the temptation to present critically reflective intercultural practice as a solved problem, and instead frames it as an ongoing, imperfect, collective commitment towards an im-possible end; one that has to be renewed and renegotiated every time we enter a space to learn together. 

An orientation, not a checklist 

Read together, the eleven principles are best understood as a disposition to be practised: towards reciprocity over authority; towards holding power honestly rather than pretending it isn’t there; towards discomfort as generative rather than something to avoid; and towards care as the condition that makes intercultural learning possible. None of this is comfortable work, and the principles do not pretend otherwise. What they offer instead is a shared basis for staying in the difficulty together, honestly and with care. 

The principles themselves 

The principles emerged from a piece of work Chris was undertaking in 23/24 that explored the intersections between feminist and decolonial pedagogies and intercultural praxis. This mapping drew on the work of several notable feminist scholars (e.g., bell hooks, Audre Lorde, Adrienne Rich, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Carolyn Shrewsbury), decolonial scholars (e.g., Catherine E. Walsh and Walter Mignolo), and intercultural scholars (e.g., Kathryn Sorrells and Adrian Holliday).  

Following an emotional and vulnerable second session of the 24/25 Intercultural Reflection Series, it became clear that a set of guiding principles was needed to support and safeguard the participants in the reflective space. Chris subsequently wrote the following 11 principles, refining them in consultation with Jo and the two Intercultural Ambassadors, Précieux Rajaofera and Victoria Rodriguez Denyer. The principles have, however, continued to evolve, with Principle 7 recently being refocused onto self-accountability. 

1. Transformative and reciprocal learning 
   We reject hierarchical knowledge transmission in favour of a dynamic, reciprocal learning process in which facilitators and participants co-construct knowledge. This approach values lived experiences as integral to critical reflection and collective growth. We recognise that multiple epistemologies (or systems of knowledge and ways of making sense) will occupy this space, and that all have equal value. 

2. Community and care in engagement 
   A critically reflective intercultural space is built on mutual care, empathy, and respect. We recognize the emotional dimensions of reflective learning and commit to fostering an environment that nurtures both intellectual and emotional well-being. 

3. Critical engagement with power and privilege 
   We will engage courageously and compassionately with issues of power and privilege, acknowledging that difficult conversations are necessary for transformation. We strive to understand how historical and structural inequalities shape our interactions and learning. 

4. Discomfort as a catalyst for growth 
   We acknowledge that critically reflective engagement may evoke discomfort as we confront complex histories of oppression and privilege. However, discomfort is distinct from harm, and we commit to supporting each other in navigating these challenges constructively. 

5. Power as both constraint and potential 
   We recognise power not only as a source of domination but also as a means of agency and transformation. We commit to exercising power ethically, working so that it is shared, distributed, and exercised with transparency and accountability. 

6. Inclusive and equitable participation 
   We strive to create an inclusive space where diverse voices are heard and valued. This requires dismantling biases, recognising systemic barriers, and actively working towards equitable participation in all discussions and decision-making processes. 

7. Action-oriented reflection for self-accountability 
   Critical reflection ought to lead to meaningful change in how we see and relate to others. We commit to using the insights gained in this space to notice the ways we may other, stereotype, or hold bias or prejudice (in our language or habits of thought) and to hold ourselves accountable for changing these patterns in ourselves as the basis for more open and equitable relations with others. 

8. Accountable and ethical collaboration 
   We hold ourselves accountable for our individual and collective contributions to this space. Ethical collaboration requires trust, clarity in shared goals, and a commitment to collective success. 

9. Constructive dialogue and respectful feedback 
   We will engage in continuous dialogue, actively seeking and offering feedback that is constructive and respectful. Conflict resolution will be approached through active listening and a commitment to non-violent, respectful communication. 

10. Commitment to integrity and zero tolerance for harm 
    We will uphold the highest ethical standards, calling out and addressing any form of discrimination or harassment. Creating a truly reflective and inclusive space requires unwavering commitment to integrity and the safety of all participants. 

11. Recognition of imperfection 
    We recognise and respect the fact that the reflective space will not be perfect, because we ourselves are not perfect. 

Enacting Sussex 2035 

The intercultural principles outlined above embody the spirit of the University of Sussex’s 2035 strategy, promoting global and civic engagement, human flourishing, and global knowledge equity. They empower students to understand themselves not as passive participants in a global university, but as active contributors to a more equitable, connected, and culturally conscious academic community. They also challenge educators to think closely about how to make genuinely equitable learning communities.  

References 

Akómoláfé, B. (2020) What I mean by postactivism. Available at: https://www.bayoakomolafe.net/post/what-i-mean-by-postactivism (Accessed: 14 July 2026). 

Hall, S. (2007) Living with Difference, Soundings, (37), pp. 148–158. 

Haraway, D. J. (2016) Staying with the trouble. Duke University Press: Durham, NC. 

hooks, b. (1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. Routledge: New York. 

Osborne, J. (2026) Creating an Inclusive Classroom Environment, in Senker, C. (ed.) Inclusive teaching practices: A toolkit for narrowing ethnicity awarding gaps. Sussex: Open Press University of Sussex. 

Rawal, A. and Stocking, C. (Forthcoming) Transformative Learning, in Garnham, W., Overton, S., Taylor, W., and Watson, S. (eds.) Learning Matters: Insights, Experiences and Conversations from the Podcast. Sussex: Open Press University of Sussex.  

Stocking, C. (2026) Critical Reflection, in Senker, C. (ed.) Inclusive teaching practices: A toolkit for narrowing ethnicity awarding gaps. Sussex: Open Press University of Sussex.