Using research on gender-based violence on campus: experts reflect

Susan - We face resistance when researching. Sometimes you find resistance, and sometimes resistance finds you. Some institutions are generally more open than others to this research, but we see resistance in lots of different places, both overt and subtle.  

Higher education institutions are often very large and function in complex ways. The ethics application is incredibly important here, as this becomes the first building block for your communication with all the involved groups. Having institutional approval makes it easier to get the next institution on board and helps you to find your allies. For example, in our university there is a specific institutional position regarding the quality of the academic experience for students, and this fell within their remit. When I spoke to them, and they were keen, I could then say ‘quality of student academic experience are really keen, so, will you be on board with this?’. You build the confidence to ask tough questions, like: what kind of an institutional reputation would you like to have: would you like to have a reputation for providing the best experience for students? Or would you like to have a reputation of brushing this issue under the carpet? If you ask stark questions, you can put people on the spot. So, start with your ethics and make a solid piece of work that you can defend.  

You can branch out across institutions or national boundaries if you begin with ethical, trauma-informed work carried out with integrity. Along the way, when you encounter difficulties, your allies can help by telling you that that’s expected, and to try again.  

Of course, ethical conduct of the research is absolutely critical. In our past two surveys with students and staff, we sent the survey invitation to everyone and made it clear that you don’t have to have had such an experience to participate. We provided support information at repeated points in the survey, as well as trigger warnings. Mary Koss’ framework never asks, ‘have you been raped or sexually assaulted?’. Rather, asks across a whole set of indicators. Somebody participating in the survey could realise they’ve ticked all those boxes – where then do they go? For this reason, linking to support via the survey is very important. 

Bill – An important consideration, is that the scholarship has an almost exclusive focus on surveying victimisation, so it’s very difficult to get information on perpetration.  

Susan – We asked if ‘based on these descriptions, do you think you’ve perpetrated this?’, and only one participant responded. We went to the university to ask about the processes for perpetrators there. We don’t have an answer, but it’s something to think about.  

Anni - We got hardly any survey responses from asking about perpetration, but that’s the nature of the game as women are more likely to disclose under safe conditions than men are likely to declare. Nonetheless, you do get a bit of a picture of who’s responsible indirectly through the voices of the people you’re talking to. It’s sometimes a student, a PhD student, or a supervisor, or a staff member. This echoes the need for a cross-campus approach, as it can go in any direction: student to staff, student to student or staff to student. We also asked questions about the culture of the university and got amazing results in terms of the prevailing misogyny and attitudes. Through such an approach you don’t reach the perpetrator directly, but you can learn a great deal about the culture in the student communities and among the staff, which can be quite troubling for the institutions. 

In terms of responding to perpetrators, university systems haven’t been very good at doing risk assessments and managing safety. For example, both victim and perpetrator could be  in the same class following a report or a disclosure. Or they’re sitting in the same exam hall. Universities need to speak to the victim and ask how they feel in terms of safety, and they need to manage the risks better to ensure everyone is safe. 

Bill - We're still struggling with those institutional barriers. Part of the conservation needs to be about individual level factors, as well as institutional and systemic level factors. Over the last decade, a good development is that more and more people are adopting an ecological model in terms of thinking about this problem; individual survivors and perpetrators, and the systems that make it possible for perpetrators to do what they do. Men do things that protect other men! If they didn’t do these things, this wouldn’t happen at the scale that it does. But try to go after those factors, and you get some upset administrators. 

Institutions should ask survivors what they want done to their perpetrators. In the American context, most survivors don’t want expulsion; they mostly want a sincere apology. If perpetrators knew that, they might be more willing to engage in restorative justice processes which gives us some hope for a community justice approach to dealing with perpetrators. Part of that is on us to communicate that to our communities. 

Anni - Universities haven’t been very good at dealing with people who’ve been investigated for perpetrating GBV, but other sectors have had to face up to this in high-profile ways and develop systems for accountability. We need to see some cross-fertilisation across different sectors. 

Author Bios: 

Susan Lagdan is a Senior Lecturer in Psychology (Mental Health) at Ulster University and a Fellow of the UK Higher Education Academy. Susan’s research focuses on domestic violence and mental health. 

Anni Donaldson is an Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Glasgow and was Lead of the Equally Safe in Higher Education project. Anni’s research focuses on gender-based violence in Scotland. 

Bill Flack is a Professor of Psychology at the Bucknell University. Bill’s research focuses on understanding and eliminating sexual assault and gender-based violence in higher education spaces.