Student stories of resilience after campus sexual assault

Abstract

Undergraduate students who experience campus sexual assault (CSA) are faced with a wide array of potentially detrimental mental health and educational outcomes that may significantly impact their sense of wellbeing. Many researchers have focused on documenting these consequences of CSA, but there is a dearth of research on students’ post-assault experiences. Specifically, there is a lack of scholarship exploring students’ lived experiences of navigating their post-assault lives in their campus environment through the lens of resilience. The purpose of this study was to explore the phenomenon of resilience among undergraduate students who have experienced CSA, through a qualitative phenomenological inquiry. This study used critical conceptual understandings of resilience, including socio-ecological and intersectional feminist theoretical perspectives and social work discourses of resilience, to further complicate how the phenomenon is often described in scholarship. The findings revealed four key themes of the phenomenon to include resilience within the context of agency, coping, connection, and hope. Recommendations and implications across social work research, policy, and practice are presented, specifically those identified by the participants as recommendations for change in addressing CSA and supporting student experiences of resilience.

Keywords

phenomenology social work in higher education resilience campus sexual assault

Sexual assault is a significant concern across college campuses in the United States (U.S.) and remains high despite significant research, advocacy, and policy efforts. In one study of undergraduate students (N = 1671), 22% reported at least one incident of campus sexual assault (CSA), with gender nonconforming students reporting at the highest rate of 38%, followed by women at 28% and men at 12.5% (Mellins et al., 2017). Despite this reporting, and the fact that prevalence rates of CSA reveal variation across groups of students, research has found that CSA is significantly underreported on college campuses (Sinozich and Langton, 2014) and likely higher than what is being reported (De Heer and Jones, 2017).

The current CSA literature has extensively focused on prevalence and individual risk factors (Moylan and Javorka, 2020) and less on student experiences of resiliency. Researchers have identified potential mental health and educational concerns that victim-survivors¹ of CSA may experience, including post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, and panic attacks (Eisenberg et al., 2016), increased substance use (Combs-Lane and Smith, 2002), and challenges with maintaining academics (Jordan et al., 2014). Yet, there is a lack of research on the lived experiences of victim-survivors, including their experiences of resilience, and understanding how students navigate their lives post-assault in the context of their campus environments (Brubaker et al., 2017; Moylan and Javorka, 2020). Given that research continues to demonstrate low reporting rates and low use of formal campus supports, researchers have not fully captured how students choose to navigate their campus environment post-assault. Through exploring the lived experiences of victim-survivors, researchers, practitioners, and policy-makers may learn to better understand students’ experiences and intervene to create safe and inclusive campus communities.

Resilience

Resilience is a concept frequently found throughout social work discourse, with a focus on how individuals and communities overcome adversities and trauma. The concept of resilience has frequently been debated in terms of definitions, measurements, and applications, as well as remains vague and ambiguous at times in the scholarship (see Driessen, 2022 for full review). Some scholars have argued that resilience scholarship is in its third wave, which complicates and problematizes frequently used definitions of resilience as a normative, “bounce back” (Atallah et al., 2019; Bonanno, 2012) phenomenon. Atallah et al. (2019) referred to this third wave as “centering at the margins” (p. 1) and called for a “critical community resilience praxis” (p. 19). They argued that scholars should integrate decolonizing and liberatory frameworks and methods to study resilience, which, “should be conceptualized as an approach to better understanding social suffering and injustices while generating strategies for the promotion of healing and equity with nuanced analysis across patterns of power, social marginalizations, levels, and scales” (p. 19). Park et al. (2020) conducted a critical discourse analysis of resilience within the social work scholarship and asked the question “what does the concept of resilience do within social work (p. 155, emphasis in original)?” Park et al. (2020) encouraged researchers to “reimagine resilience” (p. 167) through applying critical theoretical perspectives and methodologies to interrogate and incorporate acts of resistance and power to the resilience framework. Therefore, for the purposes of this study, resilience was not a phenomenon defined for participants in order to interrogate its meaning and further complicate and engage with how it has been traditionally defined.

Researchers both within the CSA (Campbell et al., 2009; Hirsch and Khan, 2020; Khan et al., 2020; Moylan and Javorka, 2020) and resilience (Liu et al., 2017; Southwick et al., 2014; Ungar, 2012) literature have called for an increase in studying these phenomena from socio-ecological (Bronfenbrenner, 1977) and intersectional feminist theoretical perspectives (Crenshaw, 1989; Collins, 2003; Khan et al., 2020). A socio-ecological perspective approaches a phenomenon from the understanding that it is situated within multiple social contexts, systems, cultures, and times. Similarly, an intersectional feminist theoretical perspective recognizes that the phenomenon must be considered within the contexts of how society socializes relationships, power, sexuality, and gender. In applying these understandings of resilience, the phenomenon of this study is recognized as not being a singular victim-survivor experience or narrative but varies and is complex depending on multiple domains and systems of power across intersecting identities and systems.

CSA and resilience

Most literature on CSA has focused on prevalence and prevention efforts with less research focused on victim-survivors’ lived experiences of resilience and post-assault life in the context of campus environments (Brubaker et al., 2017; Fedina et al., 2018; Graham et al., 2019; Moylan and Javorka, 2020; Perkins and Warner, 2017). Research is limited in studying how students practice agency and respond to CSA, including displays of resilience from ecological and strengths-based perspectives (Germain, 2016; Moylan and Javorka, 2020), which provide a critical opportunity for social work scholarship. In order to increase our understanding of the phenomenon of resilience and how victim-survivors experience it, more qualitative research is needed (Martin, 2016; Moylan and Javorka, 2020; Murphy et al., 2009; Perkins and Warner, 2017; Ullman, 2014; Ungar, 2012; Voth Schrag, 2017), including more research on CSA by social work researchers (see McMahon and Schwartz, 2011; Schwartz et al., 2015; Voth Schrag, 2017).

The values of the social work profession play an important role when analyzing and contextualizing CSA, particularly through a critical social justice lens that recognizes the dignity and worth of the individual, relationships, and the person-in-environment (National Association of Social Workers (NASW), 2021; Swigonski and Raheim, 2011). Social workers are likely to interact with individual clients, families, and communities, including college campuses, that are impacted by CSA, whether in the role of a therapist, advocate, teacher, legislator, or researcher. Social workers also have the commitments and skill-set in listening to client stories, particularly victim-survivors, through a trauma-informed lens that begins with respecting where the client is at (Murphy et al., 2009).

The focus on resilience and the strength of victim-survivors provides the opportunity for a unique analysis of the impact of CSA and how students heal and navigate campus life after an assault. Given the low reporting rates and low use of formal campus supports, research efforts on CSA do not fully capture how students choose to navigate their campus environment post-assault. Listening and learning to victim-survivors creates the potential to support students at the micro level and for entire campus communities to strengthen policies and prevention efforts to develop a safer learning environment. The research question guiding this study was “How might resilience take shape for undergraduate student victim-survivors of CSA as they navigate their post-assault life on campus?”

Method

As qualitative, exploratory research, this study was grounded in an interpretivist paradigm that recognized the multiple, constructed, and holistic nature of realities (Creswell and Poth, 2018; Vagle, 2014). This type of exploratory framework aligns and supports a phenomenological approach for this study, given that victim-survivors may have multiple and varying interpretations and experiences of both CSA and resilience. This study was guided by the methodology of phenomenology, specifically post-intentional phenomenology (Vagle, 2014), which is the study of how phenomena manifest in the world and recognizes that phenomena are constantly evolving and expressed in various ways (Van Manen, 2014). Phenomenology focuses on the lived experiences of individuals within the context of a phenomenon and the meaning-making and interpretation that individuals give to these experiences. Phenomenology also stresses the significant of social, cultural, and situated contexts of the individual in their experience of the phenomenon (Vagle, 2014; Van Manen, 2014). The phenomenon of this study was the resilience that CSA victim-survivors experienced as they navigated their post-assault lives. Therefore, in order to understand and explore how individuals may experience the phenomenon of resilience, which remains ambiguous and challenging to define, phenomenology was identified to obtain a more in-depth and nuanced understanding from participants about their lived experiences that were ever-evolving and adapting.

Data collection

The research study was conducted at a large, urban, public land grant institution in the Midwest, hereafter referred to as the “University.” Prior to any recruitment or data collection activities, I received approval from the University’s Institutional Review Board. I used purposive and snowball sampling for participant recruitment. Qualitative scholars have recommended smaller sample sizes for phenomenological participant selection based on these sampling methods, in order to provide an in-depth access to the phenomenon (Creswell and Poth, 2018).

Recruitment and eligibility

Several University centers and groups work to prevent, address, and support students who are impacted by CSA at this campus. Early on, I collaborated with key University partners, including the sexual violence resource center (SVRC) on campus, along with key student leaders at the University. Prior to beginning this study, I met with campus student leaders, such as the Panhellic sorority President and student government members, and administrative staff, including the Title IX Coordinator, all of whom engage with issues around CSA. These meetings were not only important for relationship building and recruitment efforts but also for increasing my understanding of the University’s policies and practices and remaining as trauma-informed as possible. During each recruitment effort, campus partners and students remained supportive and shared the study’s recruitment flyer with their student listservs and on social media. I also had several meetings with these partners throughout the study’s recruitment efforts, in order to check-in, discuss the study, and get feedback for how to best connect with more students. However, several key factors impacted the smaller sample size for this study and change to using social media as a primary recruitment tool, including the COVID-19 pandemic and changes in student leadership from the spring 2020 to fall 2021 semester.

Utilizing established relationships with these groups, I provided recruitment flyers for electronic distribution (e.g., email listservs, social media) at the discretion of key partners, particularly the SVRC. The goal was for interested participants to learn about the study first from individuals they trusted, whether student leaders or campus advocates. For example, the SVRC spoke about the study in their support groups and shared on their listserv and social media site. Interested participants followed a secure link on the recruitment flyer that directed them to complete a three-item eligibility screener.

To be eligible, an individual had to be currently enrolled at the University as an undergraduate student, between the ages of 18–24 years old, and have experienced CSA as a University undergraduate student. Each eligible person indicated whether they consented to being contacted to complete a one-to-one semi-structured interview. A total of N = 10 students completed the Qualtrics screener, eight of whom were eligible to participate in the study. Of these eight, only six followed through in scheduling an interview, although multiple attempts were made to interview the remaining two eligible participants. In this email, a second Qualtrics link was included for participants to respond to several demographic questions (e.g., race, gender, age, etc.).

Power dynamics and the interview process

As a white, cisgender female social worker, I participated in clear systems of power and privilege in this study. I addressed the power dynamics during the interview process through engaging with several strategies, including collaboration with key campus partners that students may have already been engaging with following a CSA and who helped to inform this study and recruit students. Students, who were recruited through these partners, may have already had some degree of trust in the interview process, knowing that I had built relationships with a campus partner whom they may also have trusted.

Interview process

Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, all interviews occurred via a recorded Zoom session. Prior to the interview, the electronic consent form was reviewed to again explain the purpose, risk, benefits, and compensation of the study. The IRB granted a waiver of written consent which protected participants by eliminating the risk of providing identifiable information. All participants were given a list of community and campus resources that provide support and counseling to victim-survivors. For completing the interview, participants were eligible to enter a drawing for one of two $50 gift cards for Amazon.com.

A total of six participants were interviewed, one interview per person, between April and May 2020. Interviews ranged in length from about 60 to 90 min, with the average interview duration being 72 min. At the time of the interview, participants were in their sophomore (n = 1), junior (n = 2) or senior (n = 2) academic year, with one enrolled as a fifth-year senior. Students’ ages were 20 (n = 3), 21 (n = 1), and 22 (n = 2) years old. Students identified their race as either Asian American (n = 3) or White (n = 3). Five identified their gender as female and one identified as nonbinary. Students’ sexual identities included queer (n = 1), bisexual (n = 4), and heterosexual (n = 1).

Interview content

During the interview process, resilience was not defined for participants to intentionally not influence participants’ conceptualization of resilience, which allowed participants to freely share their own understanding and experiences of resilience. Interview questions focused on resilience included, “What does the word ‘resilience’ mean to you? How would you describe and/or define it?” “In what ways do you identify or describe yourself as being resilience?” and “Tell me about moments following your experience of CSA when you felt resilience?” An in-depth, semi-structured interview protocol guided questions that explored participants’ reporting and disclosure process, navigation of campus life post-assault, and any relevant contextual information relevant. Additional questions were developed through the dialogue between the participant and researcher.

Enhancing rigor

I incorporated several strategies to increase the overall rigor and richness of understanding the data, such as ongoing member checking with participants, peer debriefing with colleagues, and writing and rewriting thick descriptions of the data (Creswell and Poth, 2018). All participants were invited twice to review their interview transcripts, their lived experience descriptions, and the emerging themes of resilience. These reviews occurred electronically through email exchanges after the initial interview and, again, after extensive analysis. Although these measures alone did not guarantee equitable participation in the research process for participants, they moved this inquiry towards more collaboration.

Data analysis

Vagle’s (2014) whole-part-whole process of analysis was used to analyze and deconstruct the data. This analysis included turning to the lived experience of the phenomenon and deeply investigating it, reflecting on the critical themes that emerged from the phenomenon, describing the phenomenon through writing and rewriting, maintaining a strong, oriented relation to the phenomenon, and balancing the research context between its parts and the whole. This type of analysis included completing line-by-line readings of the interview transcripts, lived experience descriptions, revisiting and incorporating scholarship, and extensive field notes. These analytic steps provided the opportunity to explore the phenomenon of resilience in the context of CSA.

All interviews were transcribed near-verbatim through a transcription program, Temi, which identifies as having a 90–95% accuracy rate. I re-read each transcript multiple times to increase my immersion and presence with the data. Then, I conducted a line-by-line reading of the data, which included taking notes and marking excerpts that contained important meanings and initial themes. Next, I identified follow-up questions that emerged to clarify meanings with the participants. These follow-up questions were emailed to the participants, along with initial themes and their interview transcription, for their review to comment or critique and send responses back to me. I then went through a second line-by-line reading of the data to further articulate these themes being developed throughout the previous steps of analysis, participant responses to questions, and my ongoing reflexive process through written, analytic memos.

Results

Four key themes emerged to describe the phenomenon of resilience based on participants’ lived experiences. These included themes of resilience as agency, coping, connection, and hope. All participant names are pseudonyms.

Resilience as agency

Resilience as agency included participants discussing the importance and challenges of the many choices they have had to make during surviving the CSA and navigating campus life post-assault. Issues around practicing and reclaiming their sense of agency affected how participants made sense of how they identified with the CSA, whether they chose to identify as a victim and/or survivor, naming what had happened as an assault or trauma, or the challenges in relation to being a “perfect victim” and the agency that they embodied.

Each participant described the moment(s) of actively not consenting and it was during these moments that they reflected on how they now experienced resilience in having survived their trauma. Participants shared that in reflecting on their trauma, they felt resilience in surviving. Rupi shared, “I completely dissociated…Now that I know there’s nothing that I could have done differently in that situation and there’s nothing, there’s no way I could have been safer.”

Participants identified that these moments of practicing agency through consent and their choices following the CSA supported their experience of resilience even beyond surviving the CSA. Emi noted, I view getting over that [the sexual misconduct hearing’s verdict] as just as important because I feel like I didn’t have control during the assault, but I had control during that process. I could have said no [to the investigation process]… And the fact that I chose to keep going, I think that definitely makes me feel resilient.

Many of the participants described how besides the perpetrator violating their consent, they experienced multiple moments in feeling like their agency were not respected as they made choices about how or if to report or seek help. Dana said, There’s also a lot of questions about that [reporting] still and like stigma towards people if they do report, which is a whole other problem, which I think is really problematic because I didn’t want to … it’s just a whole thing and then really kind of hard on the survivor…because they lose a lot of choice in that.

In regard to mandatory reporting and being contacted by the Title IX Office, Hannah said, “I was a little surprised in hearing from Title IX when it wasn’t necessarily something that I had initiated myself which was a little jarring … it made me less inclined to want to report.”

One of the most prominent ways that agency appeared within the context of resilience was how participants engaged with the labels, and related meanings, of victim and/or survivor. In reflecting on the victim and survivor identities, participants described the victim-blaming, shame, guilt, and stigma that they have had to navigate. For example, Violet said, Sometimes you just want to forget it’s there, but also you don’t want to be defined by what happened to you because it’s not like victim and survivor. It’s based on your experience and what that person did to you. And my life should not be based around the person that did this to me. It should not be based around that experience because I have other experiences and without them I’m still, you know, me, whatever I am.

Resilience as coping

Resilience as coping was evident as participants shared their initial coping activities that included themes of avoidance and isolation and other strategies that participants later identified as not healthy but still supporting their resilience to survive. Many participants shared about the practice of cleansing their bodies, such as showering or intensely scrubbing. Other common initial coping practices included smoking, drinking, or using other substances. Participants described coping within the context of learning how to be okay and how learning to cope had unique facets specific to adapting to their campus environment, whether in the form of safety strategies or adjusting their daily routines on campus.

Participants actively sought ways to avoid social events, campus, loud environments, and even close friends and/or family members. Dana reflected, “I’ve actually really hated being on campus. I don’t want to be on campus. I usually avoid it and didn’t realize it was affecting me and then I would pick more online classes or I would not go to class.” Dana also said, “I worked overnights because I wouldn’t have to interact with people. And I didn’t go places or do anything. I went to work, went to class, went home, walked my dog, but not far because I didn’t want to go.”

Other participants shared how previous mental health challenges, such as anxiety, negative body image, or an eating disorder, resurfaced. Hannah reflected, “I’ve always had some anxiety, even before that happened, I’ve seen a therapist for it. And after that happened, it definitely increased a lot. I became more paranoid when I was walking around…startling really easily.” Participants shared that they learned from these experiences and described both the learning and the struggle that they experienced throughout their post-assault life in developing new coping tools. Violet shared how she used to, “Try and brush it aside as much as I can and keep going. And it obviously really impacted me. I think that was helpful and feeling like it wasn’t something that I had to ignore.” Participants varied in naming different positive coping practices that ranged from music to poetry to exercise to dance to cooking.

Participants emphasized that resilience as coping was learning what worked to support their unique self and healing. Hannah said, “I really believe that with resilience, there’s no one right way to be resilient. It’s about finding what works for you and what’s going to help you.” Emi shared, “The more that I was able to feel okay and do things and get out, it was kind of like, I can do this. I am capable of this.”

Resilience as connection

Resilience as connection appeared as participants described the importance of relationships in their life and the value of being seen and heard. Participants frequently discussed the role of friends and leaning on this support. Participants also named the challenges of navigating relationships with family members, especially parents, and other shifts in boundaries or physical touch with romantic partners.

In describing the impact of positive relationships, Emi shared, “At the time I was like, I just can’t do this anymore. But I was lucky to have people around me that supported me.” Likewise, Hannah said, “My roommates…have been a huge source of support for me, not just with this, but in general. And I feel like if I needed to talk to them about this or anything else, I could.”

Participants described their hesitation, fear, or anxiety of being touched or re-engaging romantically again, along with the struggle of wanting a relationship at times and not knowing if they were ready. Sarah said, “I stopped the whole like seeing anybody process and I most recently just have now entered a relationship…like for a while I didn’t like it when people crowded me or touched me.” Overtime, some participants shared how they re-engaged romantically. Rupi reflected on her current boyfriend, “He asked me for consent and that was the first time that had ever happened to me and made sure that I was alright at all times and gives me a voice and, yeah, it makes me feel empowered.”

Another component of relationships was the struggle of navigating relationships with family members, particularly parents. The tension appeared as both wanting support but recalling moments when they did not receive the support they had hoped for. Hannah stated, I don’t talk to them about this kind of stuff because they’re not super receptive to it. Which has been a struggle in and of itself, but it’s one that I’ve come to terms with I guess. I just know that they’re not somewhere that I rely on for support.

Similarly, Emi said, “I didn’t tell my parents, we weren’t close. I didn’t feel supported . . . they have really negative attitudes towards sex and me having it.” Rupi shared, “I still don’t have support from my mother who blames me for that [CSA] happening. I wasn’t able to go home over the summer …she was just like, ‘I can’t believe you would put us through so much stress. Why would you ever do that?’”

It was within the context of connection that participants reflected on the process of sharing their stories of CSA. Emi said, “Resilience is being able to acknowledge it [CSA] but also share it with the people around.” Sharing their story with others also decreased feelings of shame, guilt, and blame. Hannah said, “Talking about it with someone [who was supportive] was hugely powerful for me. Because it felt like it wasn’t this big secret thing that had happened.” Violet shared, “I’ve been getting a lot more self-confidence from my amazing friends and my support group.” Sarah reflected, “It’s just been a release cause before I tried to keep it contained but I have no shame in it anymore.”

Resilience as hope

Resilience as hope included participants’ belief in both their future and in societal change. Participants frequently used phrases such as “moving forward” and “moving through it.” Emi reflected, “I chose to keep going. I think that definitely makes me feel resilient. Like that’s something I can point to is a thing that I did and like lived and worked through.” Sarah reflected on her personal self-talk of, “You’re doing the best that you can.” Violet referred to plant imagery and said, “When I hear of resilience, I think of plants, like perennial plants, they die in the winter or whatever. Then they grow back in the spring.” She also said, “Palm trees, during hurricanes, they’ll bend over and shake and the stuff will break off of them, but they’re still there.” Participants shared that they could not just go back to a time before the assault. Sarah said, “Well it [CSA] did happen. You can’t go back. It’s not going to fix itself. You have to find a way to work with it, moving forward.” Emi shared, The word resilience means to me that you can experience trauma and at some point be able to recognize it as trauma and not necessarily move on but move forward knowing that it will be a part of you, but that it doesn’t need to define you and it doesn’t mean that your life is fundamentally changed for the worse because of it.

Participants provided examples of the decisions they made to support themselves and their future by remaining in school, finishing their degree, and planning for life after school. Hannah shared that after the CSA, “I ended up shifting my major … I wanted to do something that was more helping other people.” Rupi reflected, “I want to stay in school. I want to see this out. I don’t want my perpetrator to have affected my life or have affected my path in life in that way.”

Participants also reflected on their hope in wanting to be part of this research. Dana said, “It [the interview] might be able to help other people who are in a similar situation.” Sarah said, “I read through everything [interview participation materials] and said, ‘You know, why not turn this experience into something positive for somebody else?’”

Participants had many recommendations for those in power, including calling for stronger support and accountability around consent policies, hook-up culture, drinking, and partying, and broader education and training for all campus members. Emi said, I want them to know that…people who have experienced these things are pretty loud and they’re not afraid to continue advocating. When they get to the stage of I’m a survivor and I care about this and I don’t want this to happen to other people. And the way I can ensure that is by doing this [advocacy] kind of work.

Discussion

Participants demonstrated how critical it is to apply socio-ecological and intersectional feminist perspectives to the phenomenon of resilience following an experience of CSA. Participants consistently reflected how resilience is both an individual experience depending on a variety of factors unique to that victim-survivor, as well as a phenomenon that must include the broader campus community and society. The four key themes that emerged included resilience as agency, coping, connection, and hope. Within agency, participants reflected on the power of their individual choices and intersectional identities. Participants described how they learned what coping activities supported their wellbeing and how the goal of coping was learning how to be okay and not a “perfect victim” within the context of resilience. The experience of resilience following CSA led participants to reflect on the power of relationships. Participants felt supported when they felt seen and heard and unsupported when they received negative reactions to their story. Finally, in their expressions of hope for their individual future and change at the macro level, participants became increasingly involved in student organizations or shifted majors and work. Through their stories participants shared the many nuances to be considered when thinking about the phenomenon of resilience following CSA, including considerations of agency, coping, connection, and hope.

Several studies of CSA also have focused on topics related to critical feminist principles, such as agency and power for student victim-survivors, including a qualitative study (Germain, 2016) and a large, mixed methods study (Hirsch and Khan, 2020). In her qualitative study of undergraduate victim-survivors, Germain (2016) identified among her findings a sense of empowerment that students experienced that increasingly supported their individual well-being along with supporting other students’ healing or raising awareness of CSA. This sense of wanting to use what had happened to support others or raise awareness was also seen by participants through choosing to be part of this study and engage with their resilience. Participants discussed how they hoped that others, whether students in similar positions or campus administrators, could learn from their experiences of resilience. Participation became part of their resilience and resistance to the impact of the CSA.

As a result of realizing the significance of student power and control, Hirsch and Khan (2020) called for the concept of sexual citizenship to be further explored. They argued that students will pursue relationships and be sexually active on campuses. However, students are products of a society that does not support positive and healthy sexual behavior where consent is upheld, rape myths do not exist, and gender hierarchies are not embedded in institutions of higher education. In order to understand, prevent, and support victim-survivors and all students, researchers must explore the power dynamics that create and uphold CSA and created barriers to resilience as well as the power dynamics that victim-survivors engage with and are challenged by post-assault (Hirsch and Khan, 2020).

Participants recognized where they fit into various power dynamics across society and specifically at the University. Their experiences of resilience across enactments of agency, coping, connection, and hope were affected by the multidimensionality of power, which is gendered and reflects dimensions of social inequality. Social work is a profession that also recognizes the importance of each of these aspects of resilience and can play a critical role in preventing and responding to CSA.

Role of social workers

This research has contributed to the call for increased social work efforts across research, practice, and policy pertaining to the prevention and response to CSA (see McMahon and Schwartz, 2011; Schwartz et al., 2015; Voth Schrag, 2017). Social work values play an integral role when analyzing and contextualizing CSA, particularly through the critical social justice lens that recognizes the dignity and worth of the individual, the importance of human relationships, and the person in their environment (NASW, 2021; Swigonski and Raheim, 2011). In advocating for social justice, social workers also have called for the application of socio-ecological and intersectional feminist theoretical perspectives to study issues around sexual violence (Kanenberg, 2013; McMahon and Schwartz, 2011; McPhail, 2003; Swigonski and Raheim, 2011). Swigonski and Raheim (2011) wrote, “Both feminisms and social work are historically constituted and embody both emancipatory purpose and normative content . . . [and] are multifaceted, nuanced, complex, and often contentious” (p. 11).

Given the diversity and breadth of their roles, social workers likely will encounter and engage with victim-survivors of CSA across different micro, mezzo, and macro systems, whether in hospitals, law enforcement, mental health, the classroom, advocacy work, campus administration, or leadership roles. The findings of resilience as agency, coping, connection, and hope may help to inform how social workers see and support victim-survivors in their post-assault healing. Participants referenced the importance and integration of social work values as they called for wanting to be treated with dignity and respect in their practice of agency and the importance of relationships in the practice of connection. Social work also is a profession of hope in its belief of change across the individual and systems-based levels, similar to how participants named the tentative manifestation of hope. Social workers have the ability to apply these values in their work with victim-survivors as they support experiences of resilience and recognize them within their unique campus environment that they have to navigate. Results from my study have the potential to meaningfully contribute to the broad field of social work practitioners, researchers, and policy-makers working to prevent, respond to, and support students and entire campuses healing from sexual assault.

Limitations

Although steps were taken to address the study’s trustworthiness, several key limitations exist. First, a limitation exists within the initial screening tool, specifically the measurement of CSA, which speaks to broader system limitations in studying CSA. This limitation reflects the ongoing debates surrounding the validity and methodological concerns pertaining to how to measure sexual assault (Brubaker et al., 2017). Some qualitative scholars of CSA have also cautioned researchers to be wary of imposing labels onto participants’ experiences and instead to describe the event as an unwanted sexual experience without consent, either attempted or actual (Germain, 2016; Ullman, 2014). Another limitation related to both the measurements of resilience and CSA includes the element of time. Researchers have debated when to measure various outcomes and behaviors given how potentially recent the trauma may be for participants (Steenkamp et al., 2012). In future studies, this element of time should be explored within the context of resilience and post-assault life. Finally, it is important to note that COVID-19 significantly impacted the recruitment efforts, sample size, and interview process (e.g., in-person to Zoom), especially as students and IHEs transitioned to remote learning during the spring of 2020.

Recommendations

Student experiences of resilience, as they navigated post-assault life on campus, were shaped by diverse social and cultural dimensions on and off-campus. These factors of what systems, environments, and contexts students engage with must be considered in future social work scholarship to fully understand the phenomenon of CSA. Applying a socio-ecological theoretical perspective to future studies will continue to create opportunities to understand and include more multifaceted experiences of both CSA itself and life after CSA through the phenomenon of resilience. These perspectives must be applied to the broader societal narratives that shape and impact CSA prior to students attending college.

Participants shared similar reflections in connecting their experiences of CSA and resilience to the broader contexts of how they were raised, socialized, and educated to view their bodies, sexuality, relationships, and college life and culture. In order to prevent and respond to CSA and support student experiences of resilience, we need to have critical conversations about our social work and campus roles as educators, parents, and members of society that shape and engage with these narratives that affect students and IHEs that create and implement policies and practices. Participants hoped that their experiences could help inform research and shape practice, policies, and other student experiences of resilience. IHEs, policy-makers, practitioners, and researchers need to continue to listen and learn from student victim-survivors in order to shift the CSA narratives.

Participants described that their experience of the CSA and resilience post-assault were impacted by specific dynamics that related to their intersectional identities across race, ethnicity, gender, and/or sexuality. Participants expressed a desire for diverse support groups explicitly centered for students who identify as BIPOC or LGBTQIA+. Social workers have a unique opportunity in responding to this need within support groups or individual practices, given the field’s emphasis in power and oppression within an intersectional lens that would play critical roles at university support, counseling, and sexual violence centers. Likewise, participants were fervent in their recommendations for increased training and education for all individuals across the University system, including their student peers, staff, faculty, and administrators, related to both the University’s consent policy and related to the dynamics of CSA and student’s intersecting identities. Participants discussed their experiences of consent and believed most students knew that a University consent policy existed but that this policy did not translate into students having a clear idea of what consent is. In their various positions as advocates, educators, or support staff, including Title IX coordinators, on college campuses, social workers need to emphasize how to translate policy into action that can positively impact campus culture.

Another policy component that participants focused on was mandatory reporting. Although participants shared the positive role of mandatory reporters in helping them in the immediacy of the CSA, they also described their hesitancy of not understanding the potential chain of contact that exists between campus entities. As mandated reports, social workers can emphasize the importance of mandatory reporting in light of safety planning, connecting to resources, and training around concerns related to listen and hold space with students as they share their stories. Future social work research should explore student experiences with different mandatory reporting members on campus to determine student perspectives of various members’ roles in relation to mandatory reporting and what makes an experience with one campus entity positive.

The findings of this study have the potential to inform future research in the areas of CSA and resilience, particularly within the social work scholarship that recognizes and embraces seeing individuals within the micro, mezzo, and macro contexts, their intersectional identities, and critically examines feminist principles around power, oppression, and control. Participants demonstrated the importance of agency, coping, connection, and hope in the context of resilience in navigating their lives following the CSA. Future research needs to explore the ways in which students take up power, agency, and resistance as they navigate campus life. The findings of this study support this area of future research in exploring how students use their individual choices and resilience to support their well-being and hold campuses accountable.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

I want to thank all the victim-survivors of campus sexual assault who took the time to participate in this study. I am grateful for each of their stories. I also want to thank Dr. Lynette M. Renner for her invaluable mentorship and edits.

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship Award.

ORCID iD

Molly C Driessen

Note

References

Atallah

Bacigalupe

Repetto

(2019) Centering at the margins: critical community resilience praxis. Journal of Humanistic Psychology 61: 875–905.

Bonanno

(2012) Uses and abuses of the resilience construct: loss, trauma, and health-related adversities. Social Science & Medicine 74(5): 753–756. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.11.022

Bronfenbrenner

(1977) Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist 32(7): 513–531.

Brubaker

Keegan

Guadalupe-Diaz

, et al. (2017) Measuring and reporting campus sexual assault: privilege and exclusion in what we know and what we do. Sociology Compass 11(12): 1–19.

Campbell

Dworkin

Cabral

(2009) An ecological model of the impact of sexual assault on women’s mental health. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 10(3): 225–246.

Collins

(2003) Some group matters: intersectionality, situated standpoints, and Black feminist thought. In: TommyLott & John

L.P

Pittman (eds). A companion to African-American Philosophy. Wiley Black, 201–228.

Combs-Lane

Smith

(2002) Risk of sexual victimization in college women: the role of behavioral intentions and risk-taking behaviors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 17(2): 165–183.

Crenshaw

(1989) Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum.

Creswell

Poth

(2018) Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. 4th ed. Sage.

10.

De Heer

Jones

(2017) Measuring sexual violence on campus: climate surveys and vulnerable groups. Journal of School Violence 16(2): 207–221.

11.

Driessen

(2022) Resilience and resistance in the campus sexual assault literature. Journal of Critical Thought and Praxis 1(2): 1–22.

12.

Eisenberg

Lust

Hannan

, et al. (2016) Campus sexual violence resources and emotional health of college women who have experienced sexual assault. Violence and Victims 31(2): 274–284.

13.

Fedina

Holmes

Backes

(2018) Campus sexual assault: a systematic review of prevalence research from 2000 to 2015. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 19(1): 76–93. DOI: 10.1177/1524838016631129

14.

Germain

(2016) Campus Sexual Assault. Johns Hopkins University Press.

15.

Graham

Mallinson

Krall

, et al. (2021) Sexual assault, campus resource use, and psychological distress in undergraduate women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36: 10361–10382. DOI: 10.1177/0886260519884689

16.

Hirsch

Khan

(2020) Sexual Citizens: A Landmark Study of Sex, Power, and Assault on Campus. W. W. Norton & Company.

17.

Jordan

Combs

Smith

(2014) An exploration of sexual victimization and academic performance among college women. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 15(3): 191–200.

18.

Kanenberg

(2013) Feminist policy analysis: expanding traditional social work methods. Journal of Teaching in Social Work 33: 129–142. DOI: 10.1080/0884123.2013.772935

19.

Khan

Greene

Mellins

, et al. (2020) The social organization of sexual assault. Annual Review of Criminology 3: 139–163.

20.

Liu

JJW

Reed

Girard

(2017) Advancing resilience: an integrative, multi-system model of resilience. Personality and Individual Differences 111(1): 111–118.

21.

Martin

(2016) The rape prone culture of academic contexts: fraternities and athletics. Gender & Society 30(1): 30–43. DOI: 10.1177/0891243215612708

22.

McMahon

Schwartz

(2011) A review of rape in social work literature: a call to action. Affilia 26(3): 250–263. DOI: 10.1177/0886109911417683

23.

McPhail

(2003) A feminist policy analysis framework: through a gendered lens. The Social Policy Journal 2: 39–61. DOI: 10.1300/J185v02_04

24.

Mellins

Walsh

Sarvet

, et al. (2017) Sexual assault incidents among college undergraduates: Prevalence and factors associated with risk. PLoS ONE 12(11): 1–23.

25.

Moylan

Javorka

(2020) Widening the lens: an ecological review of campus sexual assault. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 21(1): 179–192.

26.

Murphy

Moynihan

Banyard

(2009) Moving within the spiral: the process of surviving. Affilia 24(2): 152–164. DOI: 10.1177/0886109909331702

27.

National Association of Social Workers (2021) Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. Washington, DC: Author. https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English

28.

Park

Crath

Jeffery

(2020) Disciplining the risky subject: a discourse analysis of the concept of resilience in social work literature. Journal of Social Work 20(2): 152–172.

29.

Perkins

Warner

(2017) Sexual Violence response and prevention: studies of campus policies and practices. Journal of School Violence 16(3): 237–242. DOI: 10.1080/15388220.2017.1318569

30.

Schwartz

McMahon

Broadnax

(2015) A review of sexual assault information on college web sites. Health & Social Work 40(4): 275–282. DOI: 10.1093/hsw/hlv064

31.

Sinozich

Langton

(2014) Rape and sexual assault victimization among college-age females, 1995-2013. (Report No. NCJ248471). U.S. Department of Justice, Special Report.

32.

Southwick

Bonanno

Masten

, et al. (2014) Resilience definitions, theory, and challenges: Interdisciplinary perspectives. European Journal of Psychotraumatology 5(1): 1–14.

33.

Steenkamp

Dickstein

Salters-Pedneault

, et al. (2012) Trajectories of PTSD symptoms following sexual assault: is resilience the modal outcome? Journal of Traumatic Stress 25(4): 469–474.

34.

Swigonski

Raheim

(2011) Feminist contributions to understanding women’s lives and the social environment. Affilia 26(1): 10–21. DOI: 10.1177/0886109910392517

35.

Ullman

(2014) Correlates of posttraumatic growth in adult sexual assault victims. Traumatology 20(3): 219–224. DOI: 10.1037/h0099402

36.

Ungar

(2012) Social ecologies and their contribution to resilience. In: Ungar

(ed). The Social Ecology of Resilience: A Handbook of Theory and Practice. Springer, 13–32.

37.

Vagle

(2014) Crafting Phenomenological Research. Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press.

38.

Van Manen

(2014) Phenomenology of Practice: Meaning-Giving Methods in Phenomenological Research and Writing Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press.

39.

Voth Schrag

(2017) Campus based sexual assault and dating violence: a review of study contexts and participants. Affilia 32(1): 67–80. DOI: 10.1177/0886109916644644