Prevalence and effect of workplace harassment among female library professionals

Abstract

Workplace harassment is a significant concern across various industries, including academic libraries, where female professionals often encounter unique challenges. This study assesses the prevalence and effect of workplace harassment among female library professionals in Indian academic libraries. 100 female professionals working in college and university libraries across India participated in the survey conducted in May 2024. The study explores the types, contexts, and perpetrators of harassment and its effects on well-being and job performance. Findings reveal a high prevalence of harassment, predominantly perpetrated by colleagues, with significant effects on individuals’ psychological well-being and job satisfaction. While some security measures are in place, perceptions of their effectiveness vary. Recommendations include integrating security measures into policies, enhancing reporting procedures, and providing better support systems for victims. Addressing workplace harassment requires collaborative efforts to foster inclusive and respectful environments, ensuring the safety and dignity of all library professionals.

Keywords

female library professionals workplace mental health organisational culture resource use employee well-being

Introduction

Workplace harassment involves any unwanted behaviour that causes harm to an individual in a professional setting. It is typically defined by negative behaviour directed at a target, adversely affecting the individual's dignity and psychological or physical integrity. Harassment can manifest as verbal or physical actions, and while some definitions require repeated incidents, others, like the Canadian Human Rights Commission's (CHRC) definition, recognise that even a single occurrence can qualify as harassment if it meets the criteria of being offensive or humiliating (Government of Ontario, 2011; Government of Québec, 2002). Furthermore, the individual's subjective experience, such as their perception of the behaviour as harmful, also plays a crucial role in identifying harassment (Claybourn et al., 2014; Saunders et al., 2007).

Sexual harassment is commonly categorised into three primary forms under Fitzgerald's Tripartite Model: unwanted sexual attention, which involves uninvited and unreciprocated sexual advances; sexual coercion (quid pro quo), where such advances are combined with job-related pressures, like threats of dismissal or promises of promotion in exchange for sexual favours; and gender harassment, which includes behaviours that express degrading or hostile attitudes toward a person's sex or gender (Fitzgerald et al., 1995; Fitzgerald and Cortina, 2018; Nielsen et al., 2024).

Workplace harassment poses a significant challenge across various industries, and academic libraries are no exception. Within this context, female library professionals often encounter unique experiences and challenges that warrant closer examination. This study seeks to explore the prevalence and effect of workplace harassment, specifically among female library professionals, shedding light on the nuanced dynamics within this demographic.

As guardians of knowledge and information, library professionals play a crucial role in fostering learning environments conducive to growth and discovery. However, recent discourse has drawn attention to the prevalence of harassment within library settings, raising concerns about its detrimental effects on the well-being and professional efficacy of female staff members. In this light, understanding the scope and consequences of workplace harassment becomes imperative for ensuring the safety and dignity of all library professionals.

Drawing upon a comprehensive survey conducted in May 2024, this study aims to provide a nuanced analysis of workplace harassment experiences among female library professionals. Through demographic data and firsthand accounts, the study elucidates the prevalence of various forms of harassment, including verbal, physical, and online manifestations. Additionally, it explores the context in which these incidents occur and their effect on individuals’ psychological well-being and job performance.

By examining the intersection of gender dynamics and workplace harassment within the context of academic libraries, this study not only contributes to the broader discourse on workplace equity and safety but also offers valuable insights for developing targeted interventions and support mechanisms. Ultimately, by acknowledging and addressing the challenges faced by female library professionals, institutions can work towards fostering inclusive and supportive environments that uphold the principles of equality and dignity for all.

The study objectives are:

To investigate the prevalence and types of harassment experienced by female library professionals in Indian libraries.

To assess the effect of harassment on the well-being and job performance of female library professionals in India.

To evaluate the effectiveness of current security measures and organisational culture in preventing and addressing harassment in Indian libraries.

To explore the reasons for non-reporting of harassment incidents among female library professionals

To evaluate the satisfaction levels of female library professionals regarding the responses to reported incidents of harassment

To gather recommendations and best practices from female library professionals for improving safety, security, and harassment policies in Indian libraries.

Review of literature

Workplace harassment is a common problem affecting many industries worldwide, significantly impacting employee well-being and productivity. According to a national poll of US workers, 41.4% suffer psychological workplace aggressiveness, including harassment, and 13% report it every week. The most common types of hostility described were being yelled at (35%), insulted or called names (24.4%), and receiving indirect threats (12.2%). Employees reported customers or clients as the most common offenders (23.4%), followed by coworkers (15%) and supervisors (13.5%) (Schat et al., 2006).

According to the Namie (2021) workplace bullying institute's survey 2021, 39% of Americans have experienced bullying, 22% have witnessed it, and 73% are aware that it occurs. According to the poll, the majority of bullies (67%) are male and occupy positions higher than their victims (65%). Hispanics (35%) were the most common targets, followed by Whites (30%), Blacks (26%), and Asians (11%). Bergbom and Vartia (2021) discovered that minority communities are more prone to being bullied than majority populations. The survey found that bullying is ubiquitous in hierarchical organisations and occurs at all levels, from top management to middle management, with non-managers being the most common targets (52%). Men are the most common abusers (67%), but women are bullied more frequently than men. Interestingly, female bullies prefer to attack other women (65%). Other research, such as Salin's (2021), found that women in sexual minorities have exceptionally high rates of bullying and incivility.

Libraries are at a higher risk of harassment because of the numerous contacts between staff, colleagues, and the public. This study examines female library professionals in India, specifically the prevalence, forms, effects, and responses to harassment in this group. Given libraries’ critical role in education and information dissemination, providing a safe working environment for library employees is critical.

Librarianship is among the most genderised professions (Olin and Michelle, 2015). While men dominate engineering, carpentry, and agriculture, women dominate nursing, social work, and librarianship (Bladek, 2019; Douglas and Gadsby, 2017). Blackburn (2015) recognises the genderisation of librarianship, stating that ‘men in nontraditional professions such as nursing and librarianship have become easy targets for stereotyping’. The genderisation of librarianship is such that women have a higher representation of figures, yet men dominate leadership roles (Mars, 2018). Hoo et al. (2024) conducted a systematic review on perceived organisational support and employee commitment, revealing a prevalent research trend in recent literature. The study underscores the interplay between perceived organisational support and employee commitment and their implications for turnover intention and performance. Tang et al. (2024) explore work-life balance among female managers in Chinese higher education institutions using a two-round Delphi method. They identify six key factors influencing balance, emphasising family and work-related issues. The study underscores gender disparities and recommends improving support and satisfaction among female managers.

The global gender breakdown in librarianship is approximately 80% women and 20% males (Olin and Michelle, 2015). According to Beck (1991), women have outnumbered men in librarianship since the turn of the century. In the United States, the ratio of males to women in librarianship is approximately 4 to 1 (Nwezeh, 2009). ALA statistics in 2014 revealed that 81% of ALA members were women and 19% were men. The data were constant in 2017 (Kathy and Henke, 2017).

Even though women dominate the profession, literature has established that they face a variety of workplace issues, including bullying (Lin et al., 2018; Salin, 2015), violence, and harassment (Farrell, 2013; Lakshminarayanan and Košir, 2024; Saleem et al., 2021). Anand et al. (2017) explored hurdles to female professional growth, highlighting difficulties such as sexual and mental harassment, workplace discrimination, a lack of family support, and employment uncertainty. The study advised that forming a complaint committee, providing a safe pick-up and drop-off service, and creating an acceptable work atmosphere would make women more productive.

Patel and Dutta (2017) looked into women's issues when working in food processing industries in Gujarat, India. The study's findings highlighted concerns of sexual harassment by male coworkers and mental harassment (jealousy, competitiveness, and competition) inflicted on them by female colleagues. Women were also unaware of the workplace laws and rules that could safeguard them. The authors proposed that working women may be helped by providing transportation, security camera surveillance, childcare facilities, and harassment-prevention regulations.

Jahnke et al. (2019), in their study on the association between persistent work discrimination and/or harassment and women firefighters’ (FFs) physical and mental health, drug misuse, and job efficacy, stress, and satisfaction, indicated that the effect of discrimination and harassment, linked negative physical and mental outcomes, low levels of job satisfaction, and the effect of these events on family/home stress certainly take a substantial toll on women in the fire service, validate and extend prior findings demonstrating there is a need to improve the emotional and physical health of women FFs. Future research should look into the future relationship between discrimination/harassment and poor health outcomes, as well as potential policies/practices to prevent these harmful behaviours. Vartia-Väänänen (2013) investigated Finland's national workplace safety and health rules. They emphasised the importance of providing appropriate rehabilitation chances for persons who have suffered serious health consequences and trauma as a result of bullying. Similarly, Strandmark (2013) emphasised the consequences of workplace bullying in Swedish women and explored the national legislative rules.

Barr-Walker et al. (2021) conducted an anonymous online survey to assess the sexual harassment experiences of academic library personnel at the University of California Libraries System. The study discovered that 54% of respondents had experienced and/or seen sexual harassment at work. Sexual harassment was discovered to be perpetrated by library staff and took several forms. The poll respondents advocated training focused on bringing about cultural change in the workplace and improving managerial support. It was determined that a clear reporting procedure was required for effectively combating sexual harassment at university libraries.

Lázaro-Rodríguez (2021) conducted a comparable study to examine harassment against public library staff, institutional support, and potential solutions. The investigation discovered that acts of harassment were committed by library patrons, coworkers, and superiors. They were primarily directed at women who felt they couldn't report such incidents due to a lack of institutional support. Recommends providing training and education, legal protection for victims, and prioritising punitive action against perpetrators to make libraries a safe place to work.

A survey-based study in Canada focused on patron-perpetrated sexual harassment (PPSH) as a type of gender-based violence (GBV) (Oliphant et al., 2021). It was discovered that PPSH was a frequently encountered problem that was typically dismissed. The study revealed that harassment was common and manifested in various ways. They also included instances of sexualised violence committed both inside and outside the library. The refusal of management to include PPSH in the category of sexual harassment was determined to be a key element in maintaining the status quo. The authors of this study proposed that libraries make naming PPSH and GBV mandatory and commit to supporting all workers’ labour rights. Finally, LIS must acknowledge the distinct features that make library professionals particularly prone to PPSH, such as the profession's emphasis on customer service and universal access (Revitt, 2020).

Further, the research by Liang (2024) and Bekalu and Wudu (2023) indicates the ubiquitous nature of many kinds of harassment. In contrast, Behzadi Fard et al. (2024) highlight the difficulties in reporting and addressing SH. To protect female librarians, complete rules that promote a safe and courteous workplace must be implemented. Regular training, clear reporting mechanisms, and an accountability culture are all part of preventing harassment and supporting victims.

The evaluated literature demonstrates substantial research on harassment and its psychological implications in diverse countries. Several studies have researched the subject and found evidence of all types of workplace harassment, including sexual harassment. However, this is the first study to look into workplace harassment in India's Library and Information Science (LIS) sector. This study intends to create awareness about the working conditions of LIS women in India and to provide a welcoming workplace environment based on equality.

Theoretical framework

The theoretical framework for this study on the effect and prevalence of workplace harassment among female library professionals in India drew from several interconnected theories and concepts, such as gendered organisations theory, social dominance theory, and resource conservation theory.

Acker's (1990) gendered organisations theory proposed that organisations were not gender-neutral but were structured in ways that systematically disadvantaged women. This theory suggested that organisational culture, policies, and practices often reflected and reinforced gender hierarchies, contributing to an environment where harassment was more likely to occur. In the context of libraries, which were predominantly female professions but often had male-dominated leadership, this theory explained the power dynamics that led to higher incidences of harassment against female professionals. The study used the gendered organisations theory to investigate how organisational culture and structures within Indian libraries contributed to the harassment experienced by female library professionals. This involved examining formal and informal policies perpetuating a hostile work environment.

Sidanius and Pratto (2001) developed the social dominance theory, which provided a framework for understanding the power dynamics and social hierarchies that led to workplace harassment. According to this theory, societies were organised into group-based hierarchies in which dominant groups (e.g., males) exercised control over subordinate groups (e.g., females). In the workplace, power dynamics often manifest as harassment, with male coworkers or superiors asserting authority over female employees. This idea was especially relevant for understanding the prevalence of harassment in male-supervised contexts within libraries. The study combined gendered organisation theory and social dominance theory to assess current security measures and organisational cultures, evaluating how effectively these policies addressed power inequalities and safeguarded against harassment.

Hobfoll's (1989) conservation of resources (COR) theory asserted that individuals sought to acquire, maintain, and protect their resources, including personal attributes, conditions, and energy. Workplace harassment resulted in resource loss, affecting individuals’ well-being and job effectiveness. According to COR theory, the stress and psychological strain caused by harassment depleted employees’ resources, leading to reduced job satisfaction, productivity, and mental health. This concept helped explain the negative effects of harassment on female library professionals’ well-being and job performance. The study used COR theory to assess how harassment impacted female librarians’ psychological and emotional resources, examining the relationship between harassment and indicators of job performance, mental health, and job satisfaction.

This theoretical framework combined gendered organisation theory, social dominance theory, and conservation of resources theory, providing a solid foundation for understanding the complex dynamics of workplace harassment among female library professionals in India. Through these theories, the study aimed to shed light on the prevalence, impact, and mitigation of harassment to inform more effective policies and practices to enhance female library professionals’ well-being and career advancement.

Research methodology

Research design

This study employed a quantitative, descriptive research design to explore the prevalence, types, and effects of harassment among female library professionals in India. The research utilised a structured, closed-ended questionnaire to collect data, ensuring comprehensive and specific responses from participants.

Sampling method

The study used a purposive sampling method, targeting female library professionals who have experienced harassment in their workplace. Participants were invited through professional networks on LinkedIn, where the researcher posted an open invitation. Only those who volunteered and had firsthand experience or awareness of harassment filled out the questionnaire. This method ensured that the study focused on respondents with relevant experiences, providing valuable insights into the issue.

Data collection

Data was collected using an online survey distributed via Google Forms. The survey link was shared on LinkedIn and targeted female professionals working in various academic libraries (college and university level) across India. Data collection occurred in May 2024, and the survey was closed after receiving responses from 100 participants. This ensured a manageable and representative sample size for analysis.

The questionnaire included several sections to gather comprehensive data:

Section 1: Demographic Information

Section 2: Prevalence and Types of Harassment

Section 3: Effect of Harassment

Section 4: Security Measures and Organisational Culture

Section 5: Recommendations and Best Practices

Questionnaire design

The closed-ended questionnaire was designed to gather detailed quantitative data on various aspects of harassment experienced by female library professionals. The questions were structured to cover:

Demographic details such as age, position, and years of experience.

Prevalence and types of harassment encountered.

Perpetrators and contexts in which harassment occurred.

Effect of harassment on well-being and job performance.

Effectiveness of current security measures and organisational responses.

Recommendations for improving safety and harassment policies.

The survey included multiple-choice questions with predefined options to ensure clarity and consistency in responses. Percentages were used to analyse the distribution and frequency of responses.

The survey included multiple-choice questions with predefined options to ensure clarity and consistency in responses. However, the research instrument did not undergo checks for reliability and validity, which could impact the findings. Future studies should consider employing a Likert scale to gauge agreement and disagreement with the issues raised, thus enhancing the depth of data collected. This limitation should be acknowledged, and it is suggested that future research expand to include Likert scale measures to assess the nuances of respondents’ experiences better. Percentages were used to analyse the distribution and frequency of responses.

Data analysis

The data collected from the survey were analysed using descriptive statistics. The analysis focused on calculating the percentage distribution of responses for each question, providing a clear picture of the prevalence, types, and effects of harassment and the effectiveness of existing security measures and policies. The results were tabulated and presented in a manner that highlighted key findings and trends.

Limitations

The use of purposive sampling and the voluntary nature of participation might limit the generalisability of the findings to all female library professionals in India. The focus on academic libraries (college and university level) further limits the scope. Future research should consider expanding to include school, public, and special libraries to better understand harassment across different library settings.

Results

The demographic analysis reveals a young, relatively inexperienced workforce in Indian academic libraries, with 70% of respondents under 35 years old and 35% having 4–6 years of experience. Most hold junior or mid-level roles, with 39% as ‘Assistant Librarians’ and only 3% in senior positions like ‘Deputy Librarians’.

The demographic profile points to a workforce that is young and relatively inexperienced. The fact that most staff hold junior or mid-level roles and have fewer years of experience could have implications for both professional development and workplace challenges. Understanding this demographic breakdown is essential, particularly in analysing issues such as workplace harassment, as younger, less experienced employees may have different experiences and perceptions compared to their more seasoned counterparts. Additionally, the limited representation of senior professionals raises questions about career progression and retention in the field (Table 1).

Table 1.

Demographic analysis.

Demographics	Items	Respondents	Percentage
Age (years)	Under 25	36	36
	25–34	34	34
	35–44	15	15
	45–54	9	9
	55 and over	6	6
Position	Library trainee	9	9
	Library assistant	25	25
	Assistant librarian	39	39
	Deputy librarian	3	3
	Librarian/senior librarian/chief librarian/library director	24	24
Years of experience	Less than 1 year	10	10
	1–3 years	17	17
	4–6 years	35	35
	7–10 years	14	14
	11–13 years	11	11
	14–16 years	7	7
	17–20 years	4	4
	More than 20 years	2	2

The analysis indicates a significant prevalence of harassment in library environments, with 74% of respondents reporting personal experiences of harassment, while 26% reported harassment incidents affecting their colleagues. Notably, 0% of respondents indicated an absence of harassment, underscoring the widespread nature of this issue in these settings. This highlights the need for urgent institutional attention and intervention to address the pervasive harassment affecting library professionals (Table 2).

Table 2.

Harassment incidence in library environments: self and colleague-reported experiences.

Harassment experience analysis	Respondents	Percentage
Yes (myself)	74	74
Yes (my colleagues)	26	26
No	0	0

The data highlights that verbal harassment is the most common issue, experienced by 74% of respondents, followed closely by 79% reporting unwanted advances or propositions. Discrimination based on race, gender, or age is a significant problem, affecting 66% of the workforce. Stalking was reported by 41%, and 31% experienced physical harassment (Table 3).

Table 3.

Types of harassment experienced.

Types of harassment experienced	Respondents	Percentage (N = 100)
Verbal harassment (e.g., derogatory remarks, insults, offensive language)	74	74
Physical harassment (e.g., unwanted touching, pushing, hitting)	31	31
Sexual harassment (e.g., sexual advances, inappropriate comments, unwanted touching)	18	18
Online harassment (e.g., cyberbullying, trolling, harassment via email or social media)	7	7
Cyberbullying (e.g., spreading rumours, posting humiliating content online)	2	2
Stalking (e.g., following, surveillance, unwanted attention)	41	41
Discrimination (based on race, gender, age, etc.) (e.g., unequal treatment, prejudice, bias)	66	66
Intimidation (e.g., threats, aggressive behaviour, menacing gestures)	14	14
Threats (e.g., verbal threats of harm, written threats, intimidating behaviour)	3	3
Invasion of privacy (e.g., unauthorised access to personal information, surveillance)	1	1
Unwanted advances or propositions (e.g., unwanted flirting, requests for dates, sexual propositions)	79	79
Offensive gestures or actions (e.g., obscene gestures, lewd behaviour, indecent exposure)	4	4
Bullying (e.g., repeated intimidation, humiliation, exclusion)	9	9
Harassment based on religion or beliefs (e.g., derogatory comments, ridicule, discrimination)	14	14
Harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity (e.g., homophobic or transphobic remarks, discrimination)	2	2
Retaliation for reporting harassment (e.g., reprisals, adverse actions, retaliation by the harasser)	4	4

Although less frequent, sexual harassment affected 18%, while online harassment and cyberbullying were reported by 7% and 2%, respectively. Intimidation, bullying, and harassment based on religion or sexual orientation also persist but at lower levels.

The results reveal a workplace where verbal, discriminatory, and physical harassment are widespread, with various forms of mistreatment impacting professionals in Indian academic libraries. The data underscores the need for comprehensive measures to address both in-person and online harassment, particularly for younger and more vulnerable staff members.

The data shows that colleagues are the most common perpetrators of harassment in library environments, reported by 69% of respondents. Supervisors are the next most frequent source, cited by 29% of respondents, indicating significant internal workplace issues. Library patrons are responsible for 14% of harassment cases, while management from other departments accounts for 9%. Library visitors (non-patrons) are rarely involved, with only 2% of respondents identifying them as perpetrators (Table 4).

Table 4.

Perpetrators of harassment in library environments.

Perpetrators of harassment	Respondents	Percentage (N = 100)
Library patrons	14	14
Colleagues	69	69
Supervisors	29	29
Library visitors (non-patrons)	2	2
Management from other departments	9	9

This distribution highlights that harassment within libraries predominantly stems from internal interactions, particularly among colleagues and supervisors, emphasising the need for stronger internal policies and interventions to foster a safer workplace culture.

Harassment in library environments predominantly occurs in isolated areas such as stacks and study rooms, as reported by 84% of respondents. A significant proportion also experience harassment during regular library hours (71%) and during night shifts (39%). Harassment during staff meetings or training sessions accounts for 21%, and 14% occurs during collaborative projects or group work (Table 5).

Table 5.

Contextual analysis of harassment incidents in library environments.

Contexts of harassment	Respondents	Percentage (N = 100)
During regular library hours	71	71
During library events or programmes	7	7
In isolated areas of the library (e.g., stacks, study rooms)	84	84
Online (e.g., through email, social media)	6	6
During outreach activities (e.g., community events, school visits)	11	11
During staff meetings or training sessions	21	21
During collaborative projects or group work	14	14
In the library parking lot or surrounding area	1	1
In shared spaces outside the library (e.g., cafeteria, break room)	8	8
During professional conferences or workshops	7	7
In off-site locations where library services are provided	5	5
In transit to and from work	19	19
During night shifts (e.g., late evening or overnight hours)	39	39

Harassment in less common contexts includes library parking lots (1%) and online (6%). These findings suggest that harassment is most likely to occur in secluded, less-monitored areas of the library, during both regular operations and after-hours, indicating the need for better surveillance and policies across various contexts, particularly in isolated spaces.

The effects of harassment on well-being are widespread, with 75% of respondents reporting increased stress or anxiety, and 64% experiencing decreased job satisfaction. 48% report both physical health problems and a loss of trust in colleagues or management, while 39% suffer from depression and feelings of shame or guilt. Notably, 54% have lost interest in previously enjoyed activities, and 34% face sleep disturbances (Table 6).

Table 6.

Effects of harassment on well-being.

Effect on well-being	Respondents	Percentage (N = 100)
Increased stress or anxiety (feeling constantly on edge, difficulty relaxing)	75	75
Depression (persistent feelings of sadness, loss of interest in activities)	39	39
Physical health problems (such as high blood pressure, weakened immune system)	48	48
Decreased job satisfaction (loss of enjoyment in work, feeling demotivated)	64	64
Sleep disturbances (difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep)	34	34
Loss of appetite or overeating (changes in eating habits)	28	28
Digestive issues (such as stomach pain and diarrhoea)	8	8
Headaches or migraines (frequent headaches or worsening migraines)	25	25
Substance abuse (alcohol, drugs) (increased reliance on substances to cope)	2	2
Post-traumatic stress symptoms (flashbacks, nightmares)	21	21
Feelings of shame or guilt (believing the harassment is somehow their fault)	39	39
Loss of trust in colleagues or management (feeling betrayed or unsupported)	48	48
effect on personal relationships (strains with family or friends due to emotional toll)	21	21
Decreased self-esteem or confidence (feeling worthless or inadequate)	30	30
Changes in personality or behaviour (becoming withdrawn or irritable)	24	24
Loss of interest in hobbies or activities (lack of enjoyment in previously enjoyed pastimes)	54	54
Financial strain (e.g., medical expenses, legal fees) (added financial burden from seeking help or treatment)	2	2

These impacts highlight the profound emotional, mental, and physical toll harassment takes on individuals, affecting both their personal and professional lives.

The impact of harassment on job performance is significant, with 60% of respondents reporting decreased motivation and 57% experiencing difficulty concentrating. Additionally, 54% noted reduced productivity, while 51% actively avoid tasks related to the source of harassment (Table 7).

Table 7.

Effect of harassment on job performance.

Effect on job performance	Respondents	Percentage (N= 100)
Reduced productivity (less output or slower work pace)	54	54
Increased absenteeism (missing more work days)	40	40
I considered leaving the job (contemplating resigning due to the harassment)	44	44
Difficulty concentrating (unable to focus on tasks)	57	57
Decreased motivation (feeling demotivated or disengaged)	60	60
Poor quality of work (producing subpar work compared to usual standards)	48	48
Missed deadlines (failing to complete tasks or projects on time)	39	39
Decreased creativity or problem-solving ability (struggling to come up with innovative solutions)	35	35
Strained relationships with coworkers (tension or conflict with colleagues)	41	41
Increased conflicts with supervisors or colleagues (more frequent disagreements or arguments)	31	31
Avoidance of specific tasks or responsibilities (avoiding tasks related to the source of harassment)	51	51
Difficulty in making decisions (indecisiveness or hesitation in decision-making)	28	28
Loss of interest in professional development opportunities (lack of enthusiasm for learning or career growth)	18	18
Negative effect on career advancement prospects (harassment hindering opportunities for promotion or advancement)	14	14

40% reported increased absenteeism, and 44% considered leaving their jobs due to the harassment. Furthermore, 48% indicated a decline in the quality of their work, and 39% missed deadlines.

These findings underscore how harassment not only affects individual well-being but also severely hampers workplace effectiveness, collaboration, and career progression.

The assessment of current security measures in libraries reveals a largely critical view among respondents. Only 8% rated the measures as very effective, while 12% found them somewhat effective. A significant portion, 56%, remained neutral, indicating uncertainty about their effectiveness (Table 8).

Table 8.

Assessment of current security measures in library.

Rating of current security measures	Respondents	Percentage
Very effective	8	8
Somewhat effective	12	12
Neutral	56	56
Somewhat ineffective	14	14
Very ineffective	10	10

Conversely, 14% and 10% of respondents rated the measures as somewhat ineffective and very ineffective, respectively. This distribution highlights a general perception that existing security measures may be inadequate, suggesting a need for improvement to enhance safety in library environments.

The survey of existing security measures in library facilities indicates a varied implementation of safety protocols. The harassment reporting system is the most prevalent measure, utilised by 65% of respondents, followed by surveillance cameras (45%) and security personnel (40%) (Table 9).

Table 9.

Existing security measures implemented in library facilities.

Current security measures	Respondents	Percentage (N = 100)
Surveillance cameras	45	45
Security personnel	40	40
Panic buttons	0	0
Harassment reporting system	65	65
Access control systems (e.g., keycards, biometric scanners)	2	2
Emergency communication systems (e.g., intercoms, emergency phones)	41	41
Employee training on security awareness and response protocols	35	35
Cybersecurity measures to protect digital assets and systems	6	6

Other measures show lower adoption rates, with emergency communication systems at 41% and employee training on security awareness at 35%. Notably, panic buttons and access control systems are not utilised, with 0% and 2% implementation, respectively. Cybersecurity measures are also limited, at 6%.

This data suggests that while some essential measures are in place, significant gaps exist, particularly in proactive security features like panic buttons and access control systems, indicating an area for potential enhancement in library safety protocols.

Table 10 highlights critical aspects of training, comfort, and reporting concerning harassment incidents in library environments.

Table 10.

Summary of training, comfort, and reporting related to harassment incidents.

Aspects	Yes (%)	No (%)
Training on harassment handling and personal safety	45	55
Comfort in reporting harassment incidents	71	29
Reporting of harassment incidents	81	81

Training on harassment handling and personal safety shows a relatively low uptake, with only 45% of respondents having received such training, indicating a need for increased educational efforts in this area.

In contrast, a significant majority, 71%, feel comfortable reporting harassment incidents, suggesting that awareness and supportive environments may exist for victims. However, the reporting of harassment incidents is notably high, with 81% of respondents indicating they have reported such incidents, which reflects a proactive approach to addressing harassment.

While there is a high comfort level and reporting rate, the low percentage of training suggests that libraries could benefit from enhancing training programmes to better equip staff for handling harassment situations.

Table 11 outlines key reasons why individuals choose not to report harassment incidents in library settings.

Table 11.

Reasons for non-reporting of harassment incidents in the library.

Reasons for not reporting harassment incidents	Respondents	Percentage (N = 100)
Fear of retaliation	49	49
The belief that nothing would be done	62	62
Not knowing how to report	34	34
The incident was not severe enough	59	59
Concerns about confidentiality or privacy	65	65
Lack of trust in the reporting process or the individuals responsible for handling reports	66	66
Fear of being blamed or not being believed	54	54
Previous negative experiences with reporting harassment	21	21

Belief that nothing would be done (62%) and lack of trust in the reporting process (66%) are the most significant barriers, indicating a pervasive scepticism about the effectiveness and reliability of reporting mechanisms.

Concerns about confidentiality or privacy (65%) further contribute to hesitance, as respondents fear their personal information may be compromised.

Fear of retaliation (49%) and fear of being blamed or not being believed (54%) also play substantial roles in deterring individuals from coming forward.

The belief that an incident was not severe enough to warrant reporting (59%) reflects a normalisation of minor incidents, which may diminish the overall recognition of harassment as a serious issue.

These insights reveal a critical need for libraries to improve trust and transparency in their reporting processes, as well as to foster a culture where all forms of harassment are taken seriously.

Table 12 presents the satisfaction levels of respondents concerning the responses to reported harassment incidents in the library.

Table 12.

Response satisfaction levels regarding reported incidents of harassment in the library.

Satisfaction with response to reported incidents	Respondents	Percentage (N = 19)
Very satisfied	4	21.1
Satisfied	2	10.5
Neutral	5	26.3
Dissatisfied	5	26.3
Very dissatisfied	3	15.8

Dissatisfaction is notable, with 26.3% of respondents feeling dissatisfied and 15.8% very dissatisfied, indicating a significant portion of individuals are unhappy with how their reports were handled.

In contrast, only 21.1% reported being very satisfied, and 10.5% were satisfied, suggesting that positive responses are limited.

Neutral responses (26.3%) reflect ambivalence, showing that some individuals may have had mixed experiences or lack strong feelings about the response quality.

The data highlight a need for improvements in the handling of reported incidents to enhance satisfaction and trust in the response process.

Table 13 outlines respondents’ recommendations for improving security measures in libraries.

Table 13.

Recommendations for enhancing security measures in the library environment.

Recommended security measures for libraries	Respondents	Percentage (N = 100)
More surveillance cameras	82	82
Increased presence of security personnel	69	69
Improved lighting in isolated areas	44	44
More secure entry and exit points	49	49
Enhanced staff training programmes	70	70
Installation of panic buttons at strategic locations	87	87
Deployment of security guards during peak hours or at high-risk times	84	84
Establishment of regular security patrols throughout the library premises	54	54
Introduction of security escorts for staff working alone or during late shifts	61	61
Installation of security mirrors to eliminate blind spots	59	59
Implementation of emergency notification systems for staff and patrons	64	64
Integration of security measures into library policies and procedures	99	99
Collaboration with local law enforcement agencies for enhanced security measures	29	29
Regular risk assessments to identify potential security vulnerabilities	54	54
Implementation of anonymous reporting mechanisms for security concerns	74	74
Provision of self-defence training or workshops for staff members	41	41

Integration of Security Policies: A significant 99% of respondents advocate for the integration of security measures into library policies and procedures, indicating a strong consensus on the importance of formalising security protocols.

Panic Buttons and Security Personnel: The installation of panic buttons at strategic locations is highly favoured by 87%, while 84% recommend deploying security guards during peak hours or high-risk times, reflecting a demand for immediate response capabilities.

Surveillance and Training: There is also robust support for increasing the number of surveillance cameras (82%) and enhancing staff training programmes (70%), emphasising the need for proactive and preventive measures.

Lighting and Access: Improving lighting in isolated areas (44%) and making entry and exit points more secure (49%) are seen as vital for enhancing safety.

Collaborative Measures: While 29% of respondents suggest collaboration with local law enforcement, it appears to be less prioritised compared to other recommendations.

The recommendations point to a strong desire for comprehensive and integrated security enhancements that prioritise staff and patron safety within library environments.

Table 14 summarises respondents’ recommendations for improving harassment policies in libraries.

Table 14.

Proposed reforms for enhancing harassment policies and procedures in the library.

Recommendations for enhancing library harassment policies	Respondents	Percentage (N = 100)
More comprehensive harassment policies	54	54
Clearer reporting procedures	74	74
Better support systems for victims	79	79
Regular staff training and awareness programmes	61	61
Strengthening consequences for perpetrators of harassment	54	54
Implementing zero-tolerance policies for harassment in all forms	94	94
Providing accessible channels for reporting harassment, including online options	64	64
Establishing independent review boards to handle harassment complaints impartially	75	75
Offering legal assistance or guidance to victims of harassment	42	42
Conducting anonymous surveys to gauge the effectiveness of harassment policies and procedures	88	88

Zero-Tolerance Policy: A striking 94% of respondents support implementing zero-tolerance policies for all forms of harassment, highlighting a strong demand for a firm stance against such behaviour.

Regular Surveys and Support: Conducting anonymous surveys to assess the effectiveness of harassment policies garners 88% support, reflecting the importance of feedback mechanisms. Additionally, 79% recommend better support systems for victims, indicating a clear need for victim-centered approaches.

Clear Reporting Procedures: A majority, 74%, call for clearer reporting procedures, which is critical for encouraging reporting and ensuring victims know how to seek help.

Independent Oversight: The establishment of independent review boards to handle complaints is favoured by 75%, emphasising the need for impartiality in addressing harassment cases.

Training and Awareness: Regular staff training and awareness programmes receive 61% support, underscoring the importance of education in preventing harassment.

The recommendations reflect a strong commitment to enhancing harassment policies through comprehensive measures that prioritise victim support, clear procedures, and accountability.

Discussion

Harassment incidence in library environments: self- and colleague-reported experiences

The findings indicate a striking prevalence of harassment, with 74% of respondents reporting personal experiences of harassment, while 26% acknowledged witnessing such experiences among colleagues. This aligns with existing literature highlighting the high incidence of workplace harassment across various sectors, including academic libraries (Barr-Walker et al., 2021; Lázaro-Rodríguez, 2021). The results emphasise the urgent need for libraries to implement effective policies and training programmes to foster a safer work environment.

Types of harassment experienced

The diversity of harassment types reported reveals that verbal harassment (74%) is the most common, followed by discrimination based on race, gender, or age (66%). This aligns with prior studies that document similar trends in workplace bullying and harassment (Namie, 2021; Schat et al., 2006). Notably, the high rate of unwanted advances (79%) underscores a significant issue of sexual harassment in the library sector, mirroring findings from broader studies that show women in traditionally female-dominated professions facing higher levels of harassment (Patel and Dutta, 2017; Salin, 2015).

Perpetrators of harassment in library environments

The data indicates that colleagues are the primary perpetrators of harassment (69%), followed by supervisors (29%). This is consistent with the literature, which often identifies peers and higher-ups as the primary sources of workplace harassment (Farrell, 2013; Liang, 2024). Such dynamics suggest a critical need for organisational interventions that not only address harassment but also promote healthy interpersonal relationships among library staff.

Contextual analysis of harassment incidents in library environments

The results reveal that harassment frequently occurs in isolated areas of libraries (84%), suggesting that the physical environment plays a critical role in harassment incidents. Such findings echo previous research emphasising the importance of situational contexts in understanding workplace harassment (Jahnke et al., 2019). Libraries must consider environmental design improvements, such as better visibility and increased staffing in vulnerable areas, to reduce opportunities for harassment.

Effects of harassment on well-being

The effects of harassment on well-being are profound, with 75% of respondents experiencing increased stress or anxiety. Additionally, 64% reported decreased job satisfaction, which aligns with previous studies demonstrating the detrimental impact of workplace harassment on mental health and job performance (Behzadi Fard et al., 2024; Vartia-Väänänen, 2013). Addressing the psychological effects of harassment is crucial for organisational health, as high levels of stress can lead to significant turnover and decreased productivity.

Effect of harassment on job performance

The findings indicate that harassment significantly undermines job performance, with 54% of respondents reporting reduced productivity and 60% feeling demotivated. These results reflect a well-documented correlation between workplace harassment and diminished work output (Anand et al., 2017; Oliphant et al., 2021). Organisations must take proactive steps to mitigate harassment to safeguard both employee well-being and institutional effectiveness.

Assessment of current security measures in library

The assessment of current security measures reveals a concerning lack of effectiveness, with 56% of respondents rating them as neutral or ineffective. This highlights a significant gap in organisational commitment to safeguarding employees against harassment. Studies have shown that effective security measures are essential for creating a supportive work environment (Tang et al., 2024). Libraries should critically evaluate and enhance their security protocols to ensure staff feel safe and supported.

Existing security measures implemented in library facilities

The data indicates that while a harassment reporting system is in place (65%), many other security measures, such as panic buttons (0%) and cybersecurity measures (6%), are underutilised or nonexistent. This situation is concerning, given that comprehensive security frameworks protect employees from harassment (Hoo et al., 2024). The library must prioritise implementing more robust security measures that align with best practices in the field.

Summary of training, comfort, and reporting related to harassment incidents

The data shows that while 81% of respondents report harassment incidents, only 45% received training on handling harassment. The findings underscore a significant disconnect between the reporting of incidents and the preparedness of staff to address such situations (Nielsen et al., 2024). Regular training and awareness initiatives can empower employees and foster a culture of safety and accountability.

Reasons for non-reporting of harassment incidents in the library

Fear of retaliation (49%) and a belief that nothing would be done (62%) were the predominant reasons for non-reporting. This is consistent with existing literature identifying fear and scepticism about reporting mechanisms as significant barriers to addressing workplace harassment (Revitt, 2020). Libraries must develop transparent and supportive reporting processes to encourage victims to come forward.

Response satisfaction levels regarding reported incidents of harassment in the library

The low satisfaction levels regarding responses to reported incidents (only 21.1% very satisfied) highlight systemic issues within the reporting and response mechanisms. This reflects findings from other studies emphasising the need for effective institutional support systems for victims (Barr-Walker et al., 2021; Lázaro-Rodríguez, 2021). Improving response protocols will be critical for fostering trust in the reporting process.

Recommendations for enhancing security measures in the library environment

Most respondents (94%) advocate implementing zero-tolerance policies for harassment, suggesting a strong desire for cultural change within library environments. Recommendations such as enhanced staff training (70%) and more surveillance (82%) align with best practices identified in the literature for mitigating harassment (Liang, 2024). Libraries must prioritise these recommendations to cultivate a safer, more supportive workplace.

Proposed reforms for enhancing harassment policies and procedures in the library

The data indicates strong support for reforms, with 94% advocating for zero-tolerance policies. This consensus reflects a growing awareness of the necessity for comprehensive harassment policies that are well-communicated and enforced (Farrell, 2013; Saleem et al., 2021). By adopting these reforms, libraries can significantly enhance their workplace culture and provide a safer environment for female professionals.

Conclusion

This study highlights the pervasive harassment experienced by female library professionals in Indian academic libraries. The demographic analysis indicates a young workforce with significant representation in junior and mid-level positions, which may contribute to the dynamics of harassment. The findings reveal that a substantial majority (74%) of respondents have personally experienced harassment, pointing to a critical need for immediate and effective interventions. The types of harassment reported underscore its multifaceted nature, involving not only verbal and physical harassment but also discrimination and retaliation, which significantly impact the well-being and job performance of library professionals. Given these alarming statistics, fostering a supportive and safe work environment that encourages open communication and accountability is essential.

Recommendations

Implement comprehensive harassment policies

Responsibility: Library Management

Establish clear, zero-tolerance harassment policies that are communicated to all staff members to foster a safe working environment.

Enhance training programmes

Responsibility: Human Resources

Develop and mandate regular training sessions on harassment handling and personal safety for all library staff to equip them with the necessary skills to address incidents effectively.

Establish transparent reporting mechanisms

Responsibility: Library Administration

Create and promote accessible reporting channels for harassment incidents, including anonymous options, to ensure staff feel secure when coming forward.

Improve security measures

Responsibility: Security Personnel

Conduct a thorough review of current security measures and implement additional safeguards, such as panic buttons, enhanced surveillance, and increased security personnel during high-risk hours.

Conduct regular surveys

Responsibility: Library Management

Implement anonymous surveys to gauge staff perceptions of safety and the effectiveness of harassment policies, ensuring that the measures taken are responsive to staff needs.

Support victims of harassment

Responsibility: Library Administration

Establish support systems for victims, including counselling services and legal assistance, to help them navigate the aftermath of harassment incidents.

Encourage a culture of trust

Responsibility: Library Leadership

Foster an organisational culture that promotes open dialogue about harassment, encouraging staff to speak up without fear of retaliation or disbelief.

By addressing these recommendations, libraries can work towards creating a safer and more supportive environment for all staff, particularly for female professionals who face higher risks of harassment.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-idv-10.1177_02666669241290241 - Supplemental material for Prevalence and effect of workplace harassment among female library professionals

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-idv-10.1177_02666669241290241 for Prevalence and effect of workplace harassment among female library professionals by Subaveerapandiyan A., Naved Ahmad, Leili Seifi, Lovely M. Annamma and Sunita D. Mane in Information Development

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Naved Ahmad would like to thank AlMaarefa University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia for supporting this research.

Author note

This is a statement to certify that all authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript being submitted. This manuscript has not received prior publication and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.

Author contributions

AS: conceptualisation, methodology, writing – original draft, and investigation. NA: writing – review and editing, data analysis, and data interpretation. LS: writing – review and editing and discussion. LMA: writing – review and editing and resources. SDM: review and editing and investigation.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Subaveerapandiyan A.

Leili Seifi

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

About the authors

Subaveerapandiyan A. is a dedicated researcher and educator in library and information science, focusing on AI literacy, research data management, and research ethics. He holds a Master of Library and Information Science from the Central University of Tamil Nadu and has authored over 40 publications in Scopus-indexed journals. He is a Research Fellow at Shinawatra University, Thailand, and serves in various library management roles. He actively mentors young researchers and is a life member of several professional associations, including the Indian Library Association and the Association for Information Science and Technology.

Naved Ahmad holds a PhD from Aligarh Muslim University, India. He is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Computer Science & Information Systems at AlMaarefa University, where he also serves as the Head of the University Research Support Unit, Coordinator of the Institutional Review Board (IRB), and Coordinator of the University Research Committee. He has 11 years of professional experience, with expertise in information services, research support, and bibliometric studies.

Leili Seifi received her PhD from the University of Mysore in 2012 and completed a post-doctoral fellowship through the Erasmus Mundus program at the University of Warsaw in 2013. She is currently an Assistant Professor at the University of Birjand, Iran, and previously served as Director of the University Library. She has supervised dissertations on public libraries and intangible cultural heritage, conducted over 50 information literacy workshops, and published extensively on digital preservation and standards in national and international journals.

Lovely M. Annamma is a visiting clinical faculty member at Ajman University, UAE, specializing in prosthodontics and TMJ disorders. She holds a PhD in Maxillofacial Prosthodontics and has experience as a clinic manager, research coordinator, and educator. She has taught at various levels, serving as an external and internal reviewer for academic theses. She is a lifelong learner and skilled in clinical practice, with numerous publications in national and international journals.

Sunitta D. Mane is a prominent law librarian at PES Modern Law College, Pune, Maharashtra, India. She earned her PhD in Library and Information Science from Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University and holds an LL.B. degree from PES Modern Law College. She specializes in law library management, ICT in libraries, copyright issues, and disaster management in academic libraries. She has published extensively in various journals and authored books on library science. A life member of the Indian Library Association, she also serves as a PhD research guide at Savitribai Phule Pune University and holds a patent for a smart self-service library automation system.

References

Acker

(1990) Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society 4(2): 139–158.

Anand

Kumar

Mehra

(2017) Working women: Challenges and risks. International Journal of Recent Scientific Research 8(11): 21370–21373.

Barr-Walker

Hoffner

McMunn-Tetangco

, et al. (2021) Sexual harassment at University of California libraries: Understanding the experiences of library staff members. College & Research Libraries 82(2): 237.

Beck

(1991) Reference services: A handmaid’s tale. Library Journal 116(7): 32–37.

Behzadi Fard

Al-Amer

Dehghan

(2024) The scales for assessing attitudes toward sexual harassment disclosure in the workplace: A scoping review. Sexuality Research and Social Policy. Epub ahead of print 13 May 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-024-00977-6.

Bekalu

Wudu

(2023) Prevalence of workplace violence and associated factors against nurses working in public hospitals in northeastern Ethiopia, 2022. SAGE Open Nursing 9: 23779608231171776.

Bergbom

Vartia

(2021) Ethnicity and workplace bullying. In: D’Cruz

Noronha

Caponecchia

, et al. (eds) Dignity and Inclusion at Work. Singapore: Springer, 393–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0218-3_14 (accessed 17 June 2024).

Blackburn

(2015) Gender stereotypes male librarians face today. Library Worklife 12(9): 3.

Bladek

(2019) From women-staffed to women-led: Gender and leadership in academic libraries, 1974-2018. Journal of Library Administration 59(5): 512–531.

10.

Claybourn

Spinner

Malcom

(2014) Workplace harassment: A test of definitional criteria derived from an analysis of research definitions and Canadian social definitions. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 37(6): 589–600.

11.

Douglas

Gadsby

(2017) Gendered labor and library instruction coordinators: The undervaluing of feminized work. In: ACRL Conference, Baltimore, Maryland, 22 March 2017, pp.266–274. ACRL. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/11213/17739 (accessed 17 June 2024).

12.

Farrell

(2013) Sexual harassment in the Indian workplace: An exploratory study in civil society organisations. Madhya Pradesh Journal of Social Sciences 18(1): 1–27.

13.

Fitzgerald

Cortina

(2018) Sexual harassment in work organizations: A view from the 21st century. In: APA Handbook of the Psychology of Women: Perspectives on Women’s Private and Public Lives, Vol. 2. APA handbooks in psychology®. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 215–234.

14.

Fitzgerald

Gelfand

Drasgow

(1995) Measuring sexual harassment: Theoretical and psychometric advances. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 17(4): 425–445.

15.

Government of Ontario (2011) RSO 1990, c O.1 | Occupational Health and Safety Act. CanLII. Available at: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-o1/98866/rso-1990-c-o1.html (accessed 22 September 2024).

16.

Government of Québec (2002) CQLR c N-1.1 | Act respecting labour standards. CanLII. Available at: https://www.canlii.org/en/qc/laws/stat/cqlr-c-n-1.1/99525/cqlr-c-n-1.1.html (accessed 22 September 2024).

17.

Hobfoll

(1989) Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist 44(3): 513–524.

18.

Hoo

Tatt

Teck

(2024) The influence of perceived organizational support on employee commitment: A systematic review. WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics 21: 121–129.

19.

Jahnke

Haddock

Jitnarin

, et al. (2019) The prevalence and health impacts of frequent work discrimination and harassment among women firefighters in the US fire service. BioMed Research International 2019(1): 6740207.

20.

Kathy

Henke

(2017) 2017 ALA demographics study. ALA Office for Research and Statistics. Chicago. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/11213/19804 (accessed 17 June 2024).

21.

Lakshminarayanan

Košir

(2024) Gender violence and sexual harassment against women within academic spaces: Challenges and constraints. Violence and Gender 11(1): 1–13.

22.

Lázaro-Rodríguez

(2021) Lethe and alétheia: A study on cases of sexual harassment towards public library staff in Spain. Profesional de la Información 30(3): 15.

23.

Liang

(2024) Sexual harassment at work: Scoping review of reviews. Psychology Research and Behavior Management 17(null): 1635–1660.

24.

Lin

Y-H

Hsiao

S-TS

Lin

C-F

, et al. (2018) Exploration of the association between workplace bullying and attitudes toward patient safety in female nurses. Hu li za zhi The Journal of Nursing 65(1): 51–60.

25.

Mars

(2018) Gender demographics and perception in librarianship. School of Information Student Research Journal 7(2): 1–16.

26.

Namie

(2021) 2021 WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey Report. United States: Workplace Bullying Institute. Available at: https://workplacebullying.org/2021-wbi-survey/ (accessed 17 June 2024).

27.

Nielsen

MBD

Skov

Grundtvig

, et al. (2024) Workplace sexual harassment: A qualitative study of the self-labelling process among employees in Denmark. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being 19(1): 2324990.

28.

Nwezeh

(2009) Women librarians in Nigerian universities: Their Status, occupational characteristics, and development. E-JASL: The Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship 10(3): 1–11.

29.

Olin

Michelle

(2015) Gendered Expectations for Leadership in Libraries. In the Library with the Lead Pipe 8(11): 521–534.

30.

Oliphant

Allard

Lieu

, et al. (2021) Naming patron-perpetrated sexual harassment in libraries. In: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l’ACSI. Epub ahead of print 31 May 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29173/cais1207.

31.

Patel

Dutta

(2017) Problems and challenges faced by professional working women in food processing companies in gujarat. International Journal for Innovative Research in Multidisciplinary Field 3(2): 210–215.

32.

Revitt

(2020) Women’s work and the library: Ideological shaping of the academic librarian as the alt-academic. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Education 15(1): 22–34.

33.

Saleem

QUA

Ali

Ashiq

, et al. (2021) Workplace harassment in university libraries: A qualitative study of female library and information science (LIS) professionals in Pakistan. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 47(6): 102464.

34.

Salin

(2015) Risk factors of workplace bullying for men and women: The role of the psychosocial and physical work environment. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 56(1): 69–77.

35.

Salin

(2021) Workplace bullying and gender: An overview of empirical findings. In: D’Cruz

Noronha

Caponecchia

, et al. (eds) Dignity and Inclusion at Work. Singapore: Springer, 331–361. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0218-3_12 (accessed 17 June 2024).

36.

Saunders

Huynh

Goodman-Delahunty

(2007) Defining workplace bullying behaviour professional lay definitions of workplace bullying. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 30(4): 340–354.

37.

Schat

ACH

Frone

Kelloway

(2006) Handbook of workplace violence. In: Handbook of Workplace Violence. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., 47–90. Available at: https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/hdbk_workviolence/n4.xml (accessed 17 June 2024).

38.

Sidanius

Pratto

(2001) Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

39.

Strandmark

(2013) Workplace bullying and harassment in Sweden: Mobilizing against Bullying . In: 12, 2013 JILPT Seminar on Workplace Bullying and Harassment. Japan: The Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training, 23–38.

40.

Tang

Wider

, et al. (2024) Influencing factors of work–life balance among female managers in Chinese higher education institutions: A Delphi study. Open Education Studies 6(1): 20220213.

41.

Vartia-Väänänen

(2013) Workplace bullying and harassment in the EU and Finland . In: 12, 2013 JILPT Seminar on Workplace Bullying and Harassment. Japan: The Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training, 1–15.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB