Six Facilitation Words to Leave in 2025: Inclusive Facilitation Language for Trauma-Aware, Power-With Learning Spaces

Inclusive facilitation is not just about who is in the room—it is about how the room is held. And language is one of the clearest signals of professional intent, care, and integrity.

As facilitators, educators, and organizational leaders, many of the terms we use today were developed in institutional, predominantly white learning spaces—contexts where certain voices were centered, and others were extracted, minimized, or ignored. Over time, those words became normalized.

We are told they are professional and neutral.

They are not.

This article outlines six common facilitation terms worth retiring—and what to use instead—if you are committed to inclusive facilitation, trauma-aware practice, and power-with learning environments.

---

Quick Scan: The 10-Second Takeaway

• Inclusive facilitation language signals professional integrity, not political correctness

• Trauma-aware and power-with approaches reduce risk, increase engagement, and build trust

• Words shape how people experience authority, safety, and belonging in learning spaces

---

Why Language Matters in Inclusive Facilitation

Language does not merely describe facilitation—it enacts it.

Words communicate:

• Who holds power

• What is expected of participants

• Whether lived experience is welcomed or managed

For facilitators working with diverse teams, communities, or organizations, small language shifts can meaningfully change how people experience participation, authority, and care.

What follows are six facilitation terms that no longer reflect best-in-class professional practice—and the inclusive, trauma-aware alternatives that do.

Six Facilitation Words to Leave Behind (and What to Use Instead)

1. “Harvesting” vs. Integrating

Why “harvesting” falls short:

“Harvesting” frames participant contributions as extractable outputs. For Indigenous, Black, and other racialized communities, this language echoes colonial and extractive histories—whether intended or not.

Use instead: Integrating

• Signals reciprocity rather than extraction

• Reflects shared meaning-making

• Aligns with inclusive facilitation values

Integrating suggests that what people share is woven into a collective tapestry, ensuring their insights remain part of the group’s shared wisdom rather than being "taken."

2. “Icebreaker” vs. Connection Question or Activity

Why “icebreaker” is outdated:

“Icebreaker” assumes emotional coldness, awkwardness, or resistance. It often infantilizes adult learners and makes assumptions about comfort that may not be accurate.

Use instead: Connection questions or connection activities

• Respects adult agency and lived experience

• Invites participation without presumption

• Strengthens relational trust early

Connection questions or connection activities honour the humanity already present. We aren't "breaking" anything; we are building bridges between the people in the room.

3. “Ground Rules” vs. Communication Agreements

Why “ground rules” feel restrictive:

Ground rules imply enforcement, hierarchy, and compliance.

Use instead: Communication agreements (or Social Contracts)

• Emphasizes shared responsibility

• Centers consent and clarity

• Supports power-with group dynamics

This shift alone often changes the tone of an entire session. Communication agreements shift the focus to how we consent to be with one another, emphasizing mutual accountability over enforcement.

4. “Safe Space” vs. Trauma-Aware Learning Space

Why “safe space” is insufficient:

Facilitators cannot ethically guarantee safety—particularly for participants whose identities or histories include harm in institutional or group settings.

Use instead: Trauma-aware learning space

A trauma-aware approach recognizes that well over half of adults have experienced some form of trauma, and that people bring those experiences into every interaction—not necessarily negatively, but always meaningfully.

Trauma-aware facilitation:

• Meets participants where they are

• Requires intentional design and skilled facilitation

• Signals professional competence, not fragility

Framing the room as a trauma-aware learning space places the responsibility on the facilitator to hold the space with professional skill, flexibility, and ethical intention.

5. “Managing the Group” vs. Holding the Space

Why “managing” reinforces power-over:

Participants are not systems to be controlled. This language reflects hierarchical, compliance-based learning models.

Use instead: Holding the space

• Positions the facilitator as a steward, not a controller

• Emphasizes presence, attentiveness, and care

• Aligns with inclusive facilitation ethics

Holding the space positions the facilitator as attentive and relational—accountable to the process rather than controlling the participants.

6. “Best Practices” vs. Context-Responsive Practices

Why “best practices” can be misleading:

Best practices imply universality. They often privilege dominant norms while ignoring cultural, relational, or situational context.

Use instead: Context-responsive practices

• Acknowledges that effectiveness is situational

• Honours lived experience and adaptability

• Reflects professional humility and rigour

Moving from "best practices" to context-responsive practices is one of the most important shifts organizations can make toward inclusive facilitation. It recognizes that what works depends entirely on who is in the room, valuing agility and cultural humility over rigid, one-size-fits-all checklists.

Why This Shift Matters for Your Organization

For organizations, inclusive facilitation language is not theoretical—it is operational.

Shifting toward trauma-aware, power-with facilitation supports:

• Stronger engagement in workshops and training

• Reduced risk in psychologically complex conversations

• Higher trust across diverse teams

• Better outcomes in leadership, learning, and change initiatives

To practice truly inclusive facilitation, we must move from a posture of management to a posture of stewardship, valuing all identities and experiences for the diverse knowledge, understanding, communication and self-leadership styles they bring.

A Note on Expertise as Care

Inclusive facilitation demands more from us—more attention, more expertise, and more genuine care. It is the difference between a meeting that feels like a task and a workshop that feels like a transformation.

Inclusive, trauma-aware facilitation demands:

• Attention to language and impact

• Intention in design and delivery

• Expertise grounded in training and experience

• Genuine care for the people in the room

Language is one of the first indicators clients, staff, and participants use to assess whether a facilitator or organization is skilled, current, and trustworthy.

Join the Conversation

Language evolves as practice evolves.

What facilitation words would you add to this list—and why?

Which terms no longer reflect how you want people to experience your learning spaces?

I invite you to share your reflections and continue the conversation in the comments below.

---

About the Author

Dr. Patlee Creary is a narrative, strategy, and conflict-transformation specialist and the founder of the Reyou Mindfulness Collective. Her work sits at the vital intersection of self-reclamation, mental health, lived experience, and community empowerment. Based in Winnipeg, Dr. Creary facilitates transformative workshops that help individuals and organizations witness their personal and collective stories—empowering them to rebuild identity, grow community, and deepen their social impact.