Moral injury, first conceptualised in military psychology, describes the profound distress experienced when individuals perpetrate, witness, or are complicit in actions that violate their deeply held moral values (Litz et al., 2009; Shay, 2010). While originally studied in combat settings, the concept has since been applied to civilian professions, particularly those in caregiving and high-stakes decision-making roles, such as healthcare and education (Boudreau, 2011; Čartolovni et al., 2021). The distinguishing feature of moral injury is its systemic dimension – rather than stemming solely from individual psychological distress, it often arises from institutional structures and policies that create ethical dilemmas and moral dissonance (Simola, 2024). This systemic framing makes moral injury a valuable lens through which to examine institutional harm in edu- cation and other professions.
Moral injury in teaching: the systemic roots of ethical conflict and emotional burnout in education
Moral injury, a concept rooted in military psychology, has gained increasing relevance in professions characterised by high emotional labour and ethical complexity. Initially conceptualised as the distress caused by violating deeply held moral values in combat settings (Litz et al., 2009; Shay, 2010), moral injury has since been applied to caregiving professions, including healthcare and education, where ethical and systemic dilemmas frequently arise (Boudreau, 2011; Williamson et al., 2018). In the teaching profession, these moral conflicts often stem from systemic constraints, conflicting institutional demands, and limited resources that hinder educators from acting in alignment with their ethical and professional responsibilities.
Teacher burnout and attrition have become pressing concerns globally, driven by excessive workloads, systemic pressures, and emotional exhaustion (Maslach & Leiter, 2016; Richards et al., 2018). High-stakes accountability measures, inadequate resources, and diminishing professional autonomy have significantly contributed to teacher stress. In Australia, up to 50% of educators leave the profession within the first five years, citing burnout, administrative burdens, and emotional fatigue (Heffernan et al., 2022). These challenges have been further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which inten- sified workload demands and exposed systemic inequities in resource allocation (Adkins-Cartee et al., 2023).
While burnout and compassion fatigue have been extensively studied, moral injury provides a distinct yet underexplored lens for understanding teacher attrition. Unlike burnout, which results from chronic stress, moral injury is rooted in ethical dilemmas, systemic failures, and perceived betrayals by institutions (Levinson, 2015; Sugrue, 2020). Teachers often encounter “potentially morally injurious experiences” (PMIEs) (Litz et al., 2009), such as being required to enforce zero-tolerance disciplinary policies, prioritising standardised test scores over student well-being, or feeling powerless in the face of inequitable resource distribution.
Moral injury in teaching: the systemic roots of ethical conflict and emotional burnout in education
Although moral injury shares some characteristics with burnout and compassion fatigue, it is a distinct construct with unique implications. Burnout, as defined by Maslach and Leiter (2016), results from prolonged workplace stress and is marked by emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation, and reduced professional efficacy. However, moral injury stems from ethical dissonance and systemic betrayals, rather than simply stress overload. This distinction is important for understanding the different types of emotional and ethical burdens teachers carry in their professional roles.
Compassion fatigue, on the other hand, refers to the emotional exhaustion resulting from prolonged exposure to others’ suffering (Figley, 1995). Teachers working in trauma-affected classrooms are particularly vulnerable to compassion fatigue, as they often provide emotional support to students facing significant adversity (Caringi et al., 2015; Christian-Brandt et al., 2020). However, unlike moral injury, which arises from ethical dilemmas, compassion fatigue stems from the cumulative emotional burden of caregiving. Whereas compassion fatigue emphasises the relational weight of caregiving, moral injury foregrounds the ethical cost of constrained decision-making.
The intersection of these constructs has been documented in educational research. Griffin et al. (2019) suggest that moral injury can intensify burnout and compassion fatigue by exacerbating feelings of guilt, shame, and professional disillusionment. Teachers who experience moral injury frequently report diminished compassion satisfaction – the sense of fulfillment derived from helping others – further contributing to pro- fessional disengagement and attrition (Sugrue, 2020). Understanding these interrelationships offers a more nuanced view of teacher well-being and helps identify distinct intervention points.
Moral injury in teaching: the systemic roots of ethical conflict and emotional burnout in education
Faculty suffer when they feel compromised—what is sometimes called “moral injury.” I referred to this in the opening of the book, when I invoked the Buddhist idea of “right livelihood.” The more that people feel their work is a “calling,” the more painful it is if it can’t be practiced as desired. As Stephen J. Ball writes in his compassionate article “The Teacher’s Soul and the Terrors of Performativity,” many teachers feel torn between their own views and those of the system: “A kind of values schizophrenia is experienced by individual teachers where commitment, judgement and authenticity within practice are sacrificed for impression and performance. Here there is a potential ‘splitting’ between the teachers’ own judgements about ‘good practice’ and students’ ‘needs’ and the rigours of performance.”
