Examining the Prevalence and Effects of Gender-based Violence in Academic Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-analyses

Introduction

Gender-based violence (GBV) is a violation of human rights in which individuals face violence because of their gender, gender expression, gender identity, and/or perceived gender (Government of Canada, 2022). Interpersonal GBV in the workplace can manifest in various ways. Some examples include sexual violence, harassment, verbal mistreatment, bullying, coercion, psychological intimidation, inequality, and stalking, which is not only limited to physical violence but also encompasses verbal actions such as words, attempt to degrade, control, humiliate, intimidate, coerce, deprive, threaten, or harm another person (Government of Canada, 2022). These verbal actions are considered subtle or “yellow zone” incidents as the actions are often undetected or misunderstood (Banner et al., 2022). “Yellow zone” behaviors also include one-time events such as sexist comments and bullying (Richards & Rennison, 2022). Since these behaviors are subtle and do not raise to a level of policy violations, they are still harmful behaviors that contribute to unsafe work environments that negatively impact an individual’s experience at work (Banner et al., 2022; Richards & Rennison, 2022).

GBV can take many forms such as cyber, sexual, societal, psychological, emotional, and economic (Government of Canada, 2022). GBV has far-reaching consequences, as individuals’ experiencing sexual violence due to gender are more susceptible to developing concurrent mental and chronic health issues while also facing challenges in their work, compensation, daily activities, and caregiving responsibilities (World Health Organization, 2012). Moreover, victims of domestic violence experience both immediate and enduring psychological, behavioral, tangible, and mental consequences. By way of example, intimate partner violence incurs substantial economic and social burdens on women, their families, and societies, which may include instances of homicide or suicide, bodily injuries, unwanted pregnancies, abortion, and reproductive issues.

Banner et al. (2022) conducted a study in the United States, revealing alarming rates of harassment and inappropriate behavior within academic workplaces (Banner et al., 2022). Forty-three percent of participants reported experiencing workplace incidents of harassment. Specifically, the authors emphasized the occurrence of “yellow zone” incidents, which they define as subtle forms of sexual harassment, such as inappropriate jokes, bullying, derogatory comments, and hostile emails. Banner et al. (2022) found that 42% of participants reported enduring the types of incidents, underscoring the urgent need for institutional intervention to address the pervasive presence of such forms of harassment, particularly within the realm of “yellow zone” behaviors (Banner et al., 2022). In a previous investigation by Moutier et al. (2016) involving university faculty in New York, the study highlighted alarming rates of disruptive behaviors (Moutier et al., 2016). Notably, the research revealed that a concerning 29% of participants had encountered derogatory comments, with 25% experiencing anger outbursts and an equivalent percentage facing hostile communication. The study unveiled that 7% of respondents reported instances of sexual harassment.

These reports of interpersonal GBV go beyond the United States of America. For instance, a study conducted among Nigerian university women found that the prevalence of workplace incivility, bullying, and sexual harassment was 63.8%, 53.5%, and 40.5%, respectively (Agbaje et al., 2021). Additionally, a study among staff at a Swedish university discovered that 24.5% reported having to be exposed to sexual harassment (Agardh et al., 2022). These findings emphasize the need to cultivate a culture of respect in the learning environment as a crucial step in addressing and countering disruptive behavior and gender inequalities.

Gender inequality in the workplace is a multifaceted issue that not only results from GBV but also arises from institutional policies and practices that historically privilege men’s productivity and outputs over women’s (Linos et al., 2020). Structural GBV, characterized by systemic inequalities embedded in social, economic, and institutional frameworks, plays a critical role in perpetuating these disparities (Linos et al., 2020). Policies such as the lack of parental leave and insufficient support for women with children create significant barriers to women’s professional advancement, reinforcing a culture that undervalues their contributions and perpetuates gender inequality (Górska et al., 2021). In academia, opportunities for benevolent sexism are common as traditional, societal gender roles may provoke gendered pay gaps, unpaid labor roles assumed by women, misogynistic attitudes toward women’s work abilities, and limit upward mobility for women in leadership positions. For instance, Linos et al. (2020) highlights that many workplace policies fail to accommodate the needs of women, forcing them to choose between career advancement and personal responsibility. This structural inequity not only hinders women’s career progression but also creates an environment where interpersonal GBV, such as sexual harassment and bullying, can thrive.

Despite these alarming trends, limited research has addressed GBV in work environments within the academic sector, leading to an essential gap in our understanding of its prevalence, impact, and strategies for combating interpersonal GBV. This systematic review aims to fill this void by providing evidence-based insights, informing policy development, and guiding employers and employees on preventing, addressing, and rectifying GBV incidents in multiple work environments within the academic sector. Our study objectives were to examine the prevalence and impact of interpersonal GBV in physical, virtual, and hybrid work environments within the academic sector. We will identify the extent of interpersonal GBV among academics (students, facility, staff within post-secondary institutions) to evaluate the effectiveness of existing policies and interventions. We will also examine the consequences of interpersonal GBV on academics’ well-being and employment. By understanding the experiences of academics and the consequences of interpersonal GBV on employment, our study attempts to inform evidence-based strategies for creating safer and more inclusive work environments in academia.

Methods

Selection Criteria and Eligibility

The study established its criteria for eligibility in advance, following the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes framework, and these criteria were evaluated and endorsed for content validity by the research team members (B.N.K., V.K.C., A.H., & A.B.). Intervention studies were included in the systematic review, but not in the meta-analytics procedures. There was no limitation based on the geography, type of study, or specific target population. Refer to Table 1 listed below for more information regarding the criteria we used for inclusion and exclusion.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Inclusion Criteria and Exclusion Criteria.

Number	Inclusion Criteria
1	Studies that included documented instances or prevalence rates of diverse forms of interpersonal GBV, such as verbal abuse, sexual harassment, bullying, and similar manifestations, as well as GBV interventions in the workplace.
2	Any type of gender discrimination (any situation where a person is denied opportunities or misjudged because of their sex or gender identities).
3	In-person, hybrid or virtual work environment in a post-secondary institution (e.g., college or university).
4	All genders, including 2SLGBTQ+ community (two spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, additional terminologies for sexual, and gender diverse communities).
5	Peer-reviewed journal articles published between January 2013 and February 2023 to reflect current and relevant information in the field.
6	Faculty, staff members, and/or students who were trainees employed at a post-secondary institution, that are of working age of (18–65 years old).
7	Articles reported in English language or has available English language translations.
	Exclusion Criteria
1	Non-peer-reviewed articles.
2	Articles published outside of the specific year range.
3	Unemployed participants.
4	GBV experienced outside of the work environment (i.e., domestic violence, spousal violence, intimate partner violence, violence by live-in partners).

Results

Descriptive Findings

A total of 1,290 records were identified after removing the duplicates. Following title and abstract screening, 1,142 papers were excluded as they did not meet the inclusion criteria, leaving 134 full texts to assess for eligibility. Ultimately, 16 articles were included in this review. Figure 1 displays the full screening process of the studies included.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

PRISMA flowchart.

Our review included a diverse range of studies from both the global South and global North covering various forms of workplace GBV in academia settings, including in-person and online/hybrid work environments. Of the total 16 reported studies on interpersonal GBV in academia, most of the studies are from United States (6, 38%), followed by Canada, France, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Senegal, Australia, South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Brazil with one each. There are seven cross-sectional studies, five qualitative studies, and four mixed methods studies included in this analysis of GBV in academia. There were seven studies that reported prevalence data and one intervention study; the remaining eight studies discussed instances of interpersonal GBV with academia, narratively. Study characteristics of the included studies are summarized in Table 2. Table 3 provides a summary of critical findings. Critical appraisal assessments for the cross-sectional studies are summarized in Supplemental Table 1 (refer to Supplemental Materials), qualitative studies are summarized in Supplemental Table 2 (refer to Supplemental Materials), and mixed methods studies are summarized in Supplemental Table 3 (refer to Supplemental Materials).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Summary of the Included Studies as per the Eligibility Criteria (n = 16).

First Author	Year	Country	Target Population	Study Design	GBV Assessment
Academia
Banner et al.*	(2022)	United States	University staff	Mixed Methods	Adapted #MeToo survey from existing literature; Online training module on perceptions and experiences with GBV.
Barr-walker et al.	(2021)	United States	University library staff	Mixed Methods	Survey on sexual and gender-based harassment perceptions + Institutional Betrayal and Support Questionnaire; Qualitative data: (a) Harassment experiences, (b) Disclosure factors, (c) Campus response, (d) Identity impact on harassment.
Berlingo et al.	(2019)	France	Postgraduate trainees in obstetrics and gynecology at University	Mixed Methods	Adapted survey from existing literature involving career aspirations, priorities, obstacles in academic career, comparison of obstacles based on gender; Qualitative data: Why women capable of academic careers hesitated to proceed with their career.
Conco et al.	(2021)	South Africa	University academic staff	Quantitative	A user-designed survey measuring workplace bullying asked academics if they had ever been bullied as faculty members: never, once, a few times, or often.
de Freitas Oleto and Palhares	(2022)	Brazil	Professors employed at University	Qualitative	User designed questionnaire containing open ended questions to measure heterosexist harassment at some point in their careers.
Górska et al.	(2021)	Poland	Academics working in a University	Qualitative	N/A
Gosse et al.	(2021)	Canada	Scholars and academics in University	Quantitative	Survey asked about factors that contributed to harassment, and events that led to harassment.
Lipton	(2021)	Australia	Academics working in a University	Qualitative	N/A
Martinez et al.	(2017)	United States	Academics working in University	Mixed Methods	Adapted survey from existing literature involving harassment and discrimination; Qualitative data: Open-ended prompts provided to assess motivation to leave former jobs in academia.
Mawere and Seroto	(2022)	Zimbabwe	Students working at University	Qualitative	Standardized interview guide (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2006; McMillan & Schumacher, 2014) was used to assess experiences of sexual harassments by lecturers to students and students to lecturers.
Moutier et al.	(2016)	United States	Health science faculty	Quantitative	User designed survey measuring workplace bullying. Faculty had been asked if they had experienced or observed three or more instances of inappropriate behavior or comments in their unit within the past year.
Muhonen	(2016)	Sweden	University teachers	Quantitative	User designed survey adapted from Ås (1978) to measure gender harassment. “participants were asked if they had during the past 12 months experienced gender harassment at their work place in the form of: (1) encountering sexist or gender harassing language, (2) being made invisible e.g. in meetings, (3) being ridiculed, (4) being discriminated concerning their salary. Respondents rated the four items on a scale ranging from 1 (very rarely/never) to 5 (very often).”
Oksanen et al.	(2022)	Finland	University Research and teaching staff	Quantitative	User designed survey measuring online harassment. Forms of hate include personal insults and violent threats, never to daily.
Sougou et al.	(2022)	Senegal	Health researchers at University	Qualitative	Descriptive, observational, cross-sectional qualitative interviews. Interview guide with open-ended questions was used on barriers relate to sex and gender.
Vargas et al.	(2020)	United States	University Medical school faculty	Quantitative	Sexual harassment measured using Sexual Experiences Questionnaire
Vargas et al.	(2021)	United States	University Medical school faculty and students	Quantitative	User designed survey measuring gender, heterosexist, and sex-based harassment.

Note. GBV = Gender-based violence.

*

Study that Discussed Interventions for GBV.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Summary Table of Critical Findings.

Systematic review	• Types of GBV reported by university staff members include sexual harassment, online harassment, gender discrimination, and gender harassment. • Workplace harassment had a negative impact on workers mental health and job productivity.
Meta-analyses	• Half of the universities’ staff experienced GBV while working at their respective workplace. • Female staff members reported experiencing GBV more often than males.

Cross-sectional studies had an overall rating of moderate-to-high risk of bias, with three ratings for moderate risk of bias and three ratings for high risk of bias. Qualitative studies had an overall rating of low-to-moderate risk of bias, with two ratings for low and two ratings for moderate. Finally, mixed methods studies were rated as having a low-to-moderate risk of bias. Any discrepancies between the two ratings were discussed among the research team to reach a consensus.

Seven out of sixteen articles were chosen for the meta-analysis as they contained enough data to make statistical comparisons. Meta-analyses regarding the prevalence of GBV in academia can be found in Figure 2. The point prevalence rate of GBV among females was 59.3% (95% CI [0.381, 0.805]; I² = 0.99). The point prevalence rate of GBV among males was 44.0% ([0.281, 0.600]; I² = 0.98). The point prevalence rate of GBV in universities was 51.4% ([0.399, 0.630]; I² = 0.99). The point prevalence rate of GBV in 2012 and 2015 was 29% and 15.4%, respectively. The compared point prevalence rate of GBV between 2012 and 2015 was 22.1% ([0.088, 0.355]; I² = 0.96). We were unable to calculate the prevalence rate for 2LGBTQ+ individuals as only one study reported data on GBV experiences.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Gender-based violence meta-analytic results.(a) Gender-based violence, females: At least 30% of the female staff, faculty, and students/learners in the university experienced GBV, with the maximum reaching 81.2%. The pooled prevalence rate indicates that around 60% of female staff experienced GBV.(b) Gender-based violence, males: At least 30% of the male staff, faculty, and students/learners in the university experienced GBV, and the maximum could reach 63.7%. The pooled prevalence rate indicates that around 44% of male staff experienced GBV.

Funnel plots reporting GBV on males from 2012 to 2015 were created in Supplementary Figure 3. Egger’s test for publication bias was not significant for GBV in males (p > .3), females (p > .1), and in university settings (p > .1). However, the asymmetric pattern shown in the funnel plots indicates potential selection bias.

Discussion

The findings presented provide a comprehensive understanding of the prevalence of GBV within academic settings. GBV was reported in university settings, including in-person, hybrid, and virtual environments, and among men, women, and those who identify as 2SLGBTQ+. Seven of the included studies included in our meta-analysis were published between 2012 and 2015. These insights underscore the critical importance of adopting a multifaceted and intersectional approach to address GBV within academia effectively. In our subgroup analyses, we found a higher prevalence of GBV in females compared to males; however, the 95% confidence intervals were overlapping and wide indicating significant heterogeneity in the precision of the estimates for each study included. Furthermore, between study differences in reporting and measurement of instances of GBV, including small sample sizes of study participants, may be potential reasons for the variability in the pooled point prevalence calculated. Therefore, it is not conclusive whether there is a significant difference in interpersonal GBV experienced in academia between female and males.

Academia has continued to be a gendered organization with prominent hegemonic masculine characteristics (Jewkes et al., 2015). The workplace culture in academic continues to promote hypermasculinized behaviors, including competitiveness, stoicism, autocratic leadership, dominance, and a hierarchical access to power based on male (Fernando & Prasad, 2019; Täuber et al., 2022). Even though efforts have been made to promote gender equality and structural change, power dynamics continue to be unequally distributed with social discourses encouraging cultures of silencing, invalidation, and minimization or dismissal of reports of interpersonal GBV at an institutional level (Fernando & Prasad, 2019). Academic institutions are not only shaped by their formal structure, but also by the informal values they project, some of which contribute to the tolerance of sexual harassment and influence, and the way institutions respond to said harassment (Hearn et al., 2022).

The study by Banner et al. (2022) highlights a disturbingly common occurrence of harassment and inappropriate behaviors among academic professionals (Banner et al., 2022). Such experiences, ranging from workplace incidents to “yellow zone” occurrences, bring to the forefront the pressing need for academic institutions to take proactive measures in addressing and preventing GBV. Our findings resonate with those of Jagsi et al. (2023), who revealed alarming rates of sexual harassment, cyber incivility, and poor organizational climate within the academia, particularly among those belonging to minority groups such as women and those from underrepresented groups (e.g., LGBTQ+ status; Jagsi et al., 2023). As such, there is a dire need to cultivate a culture of respect and a sense of security by considering the effectiveness of internal anti-harassment policies within the academic environment. Currently, those who experience GBV are subject to internal scrutiny regarding the legitimacy of their reporting of GBV and conferral of partial responsibility for their victim status. We agree with the previous studies that have suggested there be an external complaint process to review and provide actionable recommendations to re-dress GBV in academic workspaces (Hershcovis et al., 2021; O’Connor et al., 2021; Täuber et al., 2022). This would protect GBV reporting channels by maintaining anonymity and promote appropriate justice for the accused and the victim. Review of anti-GBV and anti-harassment policies by persons from intersectional groups, those with lived experiences, and systematically reducing the involvement of those in hierarchical “power” positions.

The findings also illuminate gender-specific variations in the experiences of GBV. Those who identify as women, as demonstrated by Conco et al. (2021) and Berlingo et al. (2019), are disproportionately affected, facing increased odds of workplace bullying and experiencing identity-based harassment (Berlingo et al., 2019; Conco et al., 2021). Women are typically at a greater risk of experiencing workplace bullying due to being underrepresented in the workforce, particularly in higher position jobs (Araneda-Guirriman et al., 2023). Furthermore, the inherent characteristics of academia, in terms of academic work productivity and career progression, require conformist behavior, to be selected as a “good fit” for a limited number of faculty positions or promotions. This can lead to them feeling more inferior and vulnerable compared to their male counterparts as they may assume unpaid work assignments, have increased pressures to perform, and be forced into stereotypical roles within academia (e.g., support staff, teaching assistants, or non-advancing roles; Rosander et al., 2020). For instance, in an academic context, merely 36% of women make up senior university positions including full professors, deans, and university leaders (Bothwell et al., 2022). Moreover, 2SLGBTQ+ individuals are found to be particularly vulnerable to heterosexist harassment (HH), indicating the need for specialized interventions to ensure their safety and inclusion (Vargas et al., 2021). These findings echo the notion that GBV affects individuals in complex and interconnected ways, necessitating a holistic approach to its prevention and mitigation.

The implications of these findings in relation to research, practices, and policy are summarized in Supplemental Table 4 (see Supplemental Material). The observed prevalence of GBV within academic institutions has far-reaching consequences, affecting the well-being, mental health, and career trajectories of staff and students employed at the university. As noted in some studies, GBV has a negative impact on job satisfaction, mental health symptoms, and safety perceptions, underscoring the urgency of addressing GBV to create conducive academic environments (Conco et al., 2021; Moutier et al., 2016). For instance, a study conducted by Raj et al. (2020) found that individuals with an experience of sexual violence, specifically women, were more vulnerable to symptoms of depression and anxiety. These findings align with Gosse et al. (2021) and Górska et al. (2021), who emphasized the need to broaden workplace safety measures to encompass online environments and challenge gender inequalities within academia (Górska et al., 2021; Gosse et al., 2021).

The findings align with and contribute to a broader discourse on creating inclusive academic environments. The interconnectedness of GBV experiences across different gender identities necessitates an inclusive approach that recognizes and addresses the unique challenges faced by women, individuals from the 2SLGBTQ+ community, and other marginalized groups. Moreover, there have been several incidents across Canadian and American campuses where individuals belonging to the 2SLGBTQ+ community have experienced violent incidents due to their gender. In June of 2023, a violent attack occurred on the Waterloo campus where two students and a professor were injured during a gender studies course (Green, 2023). However, it is not just these severe incidents that are of concern. Less severe forms of violence and harassment, such as benevolent sexism, microaggressions, derogatory comments, or subtle discrimination, also contribute to a prejudicial academic environment. Microaggressions are often unintentional biases that can negatively impact individuals over time. For instance, a woman faculty member in science shared a frequent comment from a male colleague humorously questioning if her recent promotion could be a threat to her husband’s masculinity. These subtle biases can undermine the faculty members’ progress (Haynes-Baratz et al., 2022). The rise of hate-motivated incidents directed at individuals as a part of the 2SLGBTQ+ community highlights an urgent need to develop policies and interventions that protect and support all gender identities on campus. As Berlingo et al. (2019) and Górska et al. (2021) suggest, fostering a culture of respect and dismantling gender-based discrimination are pivotal steps in creating academic environments that promote growth and innovation, reinforcing the urgency of addressing GBV within academia (Berlingo et al., 2019; Górska et al., 2021). The need to address identity-based harassment, enhance workplace safety in online environments, and challenge gender disparities resonates across studies (Conco et al., 2021; Górska et al., 2021; Gosse et al., 2021).

Limitations

There are a few limitations to consider when interpreting the findings of this study. The studies reviewed may be subject to publication bias. This threatens the accuracy of examining the prevalence of GBV across academic settings. To address this concern, we reviewed gray literature and dissertations in addition to reviewing published, peer-reviewed studies. We were also unable to evaluate data reported from collages as the studies used in the review all came from university populations, which potentially reduces the generalizability of our findings. Data used for the meta-analysis were taken from cross-sectional and mixed methods studies, which relied heavily on self-reported measures, and were only published in English. Moreover, we were unable to find articles discussing interventions of GBV, so we cannot provide recommendations on how to mitigate the effects and occurrence of GBV in the workplace. Considering the study’s design limitations, we cannot confirm that the rates identified directly relate to GBV in academic settings. However, results show how GBV is still prevalent in many academic institutions.

Conclusion

This systematic review and meta-analyses study on GBV within academia, focusing on the unique experiences of men, women, and 2SLGBTQ+ individuals, fills a significant gap in existing research. The findings underscore the urgent need for institutions to address various forms of harassment, from verbal to online, and cultivate a culture of respect and equality in academic settings. The impact of GBV on mental health, job satisfaction, and career progression calls for targeted interventions and robust policies. By recognizing and understanding the differential experiences of individuals in academia, this study paves the way for more inclusive and safer academic environments.

In conclusion, the findings discussed emphasize the pressing need for a concerted effort to address GBV within academia. The experiences of men, women, and 2SLGBTQ+ individuals underscore the complexity of this issue and the necessity of a multifaceted and intersectional approach. While these studies offer valuable insights, they also signal the need for further research to deepen our understanding of the dynamics of GBV within academia and to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions across different academic settings and cultural contexts. Only one study evaluated the effects of a GBV training module on improving participants’ knowledge on sexual and gender-based harassment (Banner et al., 2022). Future research should focus on evaluating whether training modules effectively reduce GBV within academia in terms of reducing reporting rates and promoting safer working environments. Likewise, most studies were pooled from the USA, highlighting the need to expand this investigation across other geographical and cultural contexts. Future research should expand their samples to include more 2SLGBTQ+ participants. Ultimately, by collectively advocating for change, academia can work toward safer, more respectful, and inclusive environments for all individuals.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material