7 Intention vs impact

Intent refers to what we mean to do, while impact refers to the actual effect our actions have on others. Good intentions do not automatically translate to positive or effective outcomes. Sometimes, despite good intentions, our actions can harm or marginalize others, and understanding this is a fundamental aspect of allyship. To use our position and influence as educators, we need to be aware of the impacts we can influence and control in the classroom setting to ensure we act in a spirit of allyship.

Intention is the purpose or motivation behind an action or statement. It is what someone aims to achieve or communicate. For example, if someone makes a joke, their intention might be to make others laugh and feel happy.

Impact, on the other hand, is the actual effect or outcome of that action or statement on others. This can be different from the intention. For instance, the same joke might unintentionally hurt someone’s feelings or offend them, even though the intention was to bring joy.

While intention reflects the meaning or aim of an action, impact denotes the real-world outcomes of that action. This distinction highlights that good intentions do not inherently guarantee positive or effective results.

Recognizing the difference between intention and impact is essential for fostering genuine allyship. Educators must remain mindful of how their actions can influence outcomes within the classroom, ensuring that their efforts align not only with positive intentions but also with effective and inclusive impacts. 

Classroom examples – understanding intent and impact

Case 1: A teacher may intend to create a welcoming environment by mandating that all students state their pronouns, but this practice can actually be harmful rather than inclusive, depending on how much students want to publicly identify. In this case, it would be more inclusive to invite usage of pronouns. See “The Case Against Mandatory Preferred Gender Pronouns” for more information.

Case 2: A student submits a research paper that uses outdated and non-inclusive language, such as referring to “handicapped people” instead of “persons with disabilities” and using gendered nouns like “chairman” instead of “chairperson.”

If the language is the only aspect of the paper that is not inclusive (i.e., the argument and evidence are not discriminatory), you can assume that the student’s intention is to write a respectful research paper.

Whereas if you consider the impact, the use of this non-inclusive language can alienate and negatively impact readers, particularly those who are women, gender-diverse or persons with disabilities. It may also reflect poorly on the student’s understanding of current best practices in academic writing.