When working to promote and implement effective responses to gender-based violence, change agents come across all sorts of resistances… This blog series aims to provide support by reframing arguments commonly encountered and help navigate challenging conversations with clarity, confidence and purpose. Drawing on the principles of strategic framing, this resource provides a better understanding and anticipation of common forms of resistance, as well as evidence-based, values-aligned messaging. 

Minimising gender-based violence as the fault of a few individuals can be a defence mechanism for institutions attempting to protect its reputation.

The UniSAFE project underscores that gender-based violence in higher education is often embedded in academic hierarchies, informal networks and institutional silence. Power imbalances between students and staff, early-career and senior researchers or precarious and tenured staff can create environments where abuse goes unchallenged. Structural inequalities (e.g. gender, race, class, disability, etc.) further compound the risk.

The prevalence of gender-based violence across different settings, actors and types of violence in higher education institutions points to patterns that cannot be explained by a few ‘bad apples.’ Instead, these patterns reveal institutional blind spots, tolerance of the behaviour and a lack of robust safeguards.

“Addressing gender-based violence means more than reacting to incidents;
it means transforming institutional cultures where people look the other way,
where victims/survivors are unsupported and where those in power are shielded.”   

Institutions that focus only on punishing individuals after the fact miss the opportunity to prevent harm in the first place. A systemic approach includes reviewing recruitment and promotion practices, leadership accountability, reporting mechanisms and campus culture.

Systemic problems require systemic solutions. Recognising gender-based violence as an institutional issue enables collective responsibility and targeted, sustainable responses. It also supports a shift from blame to accountability ensuring the focus is not just on individuals, but on the environment that allowed the harm to occur.

• “When harm keeps happening, we must ask: what in our system allows it?”
• “If we treat gender-based violence as an anomaly, we miss the opportunity to prevent it.”
• “Safety doesn’t come from punishment alone; it comes from prevention

Change agents can guide institutions toward recognising patterns rather than dismissing them as isolated incidents. By connecting the dots between individual cases and broader structural dynamics, they help shift the conversation from blame to accountability. They can advocate for institutional audits, crosslevel engagement and culture change strategies that ensure long-term prevention, not just reactive crisis management.

Understanding the Resistance

Framing gender-based violence as the result of a few isolated individuals overlooks the structural, cultural and institutional conditions that enable it. While individual accountability is essential, systemic change is what prevents recurrence. Genderbased violence is sustained by unequal power relations, tolerance for misconduct and organisational cultures that minimise or excuse harm, including by protecting perpetrators.

Too often, institutions respond by shielding those in power, managing disclosures internally, or denying that abuse occurred at all. These cover-ups can result in a culture of silence in which “everyone knew” but no one acted. Such dynamics not only retraumatise victims/survivors but also erode institutional trust and integrity. Focusing solely on individual behaviour obscures the broader responsibility to reform systems, challenge cultures of impunity, and build accountability structures that prevent future harm.

Minimising gender-based violence as the fault of a few individuals can be a defence mechanism protecting the institution’s self-image or avoiding complex conversations about power, culture and responsibility. It also allows stakeholders to distance themselves from the problem, rather than confront the full scope of institutional reform that is needed.

Communicating with different stakeholders

• To leadership: Emphasise that addressing systemic issues protects the institution from reputational, legal, and ethical risks and demonstrates strategic foresight.
• To students and staff: Stress the role of culture and collective responsibility in fostering safe environments.
• To the public: Show that the institution takes their safety seriously not only through individual sanctions, but by transforming harmful structures and cultures.

Find out more about addressing resistances

When working to promote and implement effective responses to gender-based violence, change agents come across all sorts of resistances… This blog series aims to provide support by reframing arguments commonly encountered and help navigate challenging conversations with clarity, confidence and purpose. Drawing on the principles of strategic framing, this resource provides a better understanding and anticipation of common forms of resistance, as well as evidence-based, values-aligned messaging. 

Many institutions believe that addressing gender-based violence would harm their reputation. In reality, the greater reputational risk lies in failing to address gender-based violence, not in confronting it. Cases of gender-based violence that emerge publicly, particularly when mishandled, can lead to significant reputational fallout, legal challenges, and loss of confidence among key stakeholders.

The UniSAFE project highlights that institutional responses perceived as opaque, dismissive or overly protective of perpetrators increase secondary victimisation and escalate reputational damage. Conversely, institutions that show clear protocols, visible leadership commitment and consistent support for victims/survivors are more likely to be seen as trustworthy and progressive. Acknowledging the problem and taking action is a sign of strength, not weakness.

“The cost of transparency is far lower
than the cost of cover-ups.”   

Institutions that lead on transparency and reform set the tone for the sector and attract both internal trust and external recognition. Many award bodies and international rankings increasingly reward progress in diversity, equity and inclusion of which gender-based violence prevention is a core component. Addressing gender-based violence should not be seen as reputational risk management, but as part of the institution’s ethical identity. In a context of heightened public scrutiny and student activism, doing the right thing is also a smart strategy.

• “A responsible institution acts before a scandal forces it to.”
• “Students and staff trust institutions that tell the truth even when it’s difficult.”
• “Being proactive is not only ethical; it’s strategic.”

Change agents can shift the narrative from fear to leadership by framing transparency and proactive engagement as key to institutional credibility. They can prepare leadership to respond confidently to reputational concerns by showing that prevention, not silence, is what builds trust. By connecting action on gender-based violence to values of integrity and long-term reputational strength, they help institutions move from reactive crisis management to strategic, valuesdriven governance.

Understanding the Resistance

Institutions that actively engage with the issue demonstrate integrity, accountability and care qualities that strengthen public trust and institutional credibility. Avoidance, trivialisation, silence or denial, especially in the face of visible cases or media scrutiny, can seriously damage an institution’s standing with students, staff, funders and the broader public. This form of resistance often arises from fear: fear of negative press, legal implications or loss of student applications or donor confidence. In many cases, the concern is not reputational harm itself, but a lack of control over the narrative. Institutions must learn to communicate about gender-based violence in ways that show care, action and commitment, rather than denial or damage control.

Communicating with different stakeholders

• To leadership: Present case studies where transparency improved institutional reputation and where silence led to crises.
• To students and staff: Reassure them that speaking out and taking action are signs of institutional health, not risk.
• To the public: Emphasise the institution’s role as a leader in shaping safe, inclusive academic spaces both locally and globally.

Find out more about addressing resistances

When working to promote and implement effective responses to gender-based violence, change agents come across all sorts of resistances… This blog series aims to provide support by reframing arguments commonly encountered and help navigate challenging conversations with clarity, confidence and purpose. Drawing on the principles of strategic framing, this resource provides a better understanding and anticipation of common forms of resistance, as well as evidence-based, values-aligned messaging. 

A common resistance to addressing gender-based violence is the argument that institutions should focus on real issues like education, not social issues like gender-based violence, but what does academic excellence mean if students and staff do not feel safe?

Data from the UniSAFE project show that gender-based violence in higher education correlates with elevated levels of psychological distress, absenteeism, drop-out and career disruption. Victims/survivors often report withdrawing from classes or supervisory relationships, avoiding academic spaces or delaying research deadlines due to the trauma they experience and avoidance. In many cases, these impacts go unacknowledged, eroding both individual potential and institutional performance. Higher education and research institutions that take proactive steps to address gender-based violence tend to perform better in areas such as student wellbeing, staff retention and international reputation. In contrast, institutions that ignore the issue risk disengagement, reputational damage and legal liability.

When higher education and research institutions treat gender-based violence as a marginal issue, they send a message that safety and dignity are not important. Wellbeing should be seen not only as a moral responsibility, but as a necessary condition for meaningful education.

“There is no academic excellence without safety and inclusion.”   

Rather than viewing gender-based violence as “beyond the scope” of academic work, higher education and research institutions could recognise that preventing gender- based violence is integral to their commitments to wellbeing, equality, integrity and academic success. Student and staff wellbeing is increasingly recognised as a key factor in educational quality and institutional performance. Addressing gender-based violence is part of creating learning and working environments where all members can thrive.

• “Addressing gender-based violence is not a distraction from our mission; it is how we protect it.”
• “A safe and supportive environment is essential for learning, teaching and research to flourish.”
• “Violence is what disrupts education; not the efforts to prevent it.

Change agents can play a vital role in linking the prevention of gender-based violence to institutional values and performance. By framing safety and wellbeing as enablers of academic excellence, not separate from it, they help broaden what is considered a ‘core’ issue. They can engage leadership by connecting this work to strategic objectives like student success, research impact and international competitiveness, reinforcing that inclusion is not optional, but foundational.

Understanding the Resistance

Gender-based violence is not a peripheral or “social” issue, it is an institutional issue that directly affects the core functions of higher education: teaching, research and learning. When students or staff are subjected to harassment, abuse or unsafe environments, their ability to perform, participate and succeed is undermined. Preventing and addressing gender-based violence is essential to upholding academic freedom, excellence and equal access to education. This response may reflect a narrow definition of the university’s mission, or a discomfort with acknowledging institutional shortcomings. It can also stem from a desire to avoid conflict, resource allocation or reputational risk by framing gender-based violence as “external” to academic work.

Communicating with different stakeholders

• To leadership: Emphasise that prevention enhances the university’s academic outcomes and global reputation.

• To faculty/staff: Position gender-based violence as an issue that affects teaching environments, mentoring relationships and student retention.

• To students: Reinforce their right to learn in spaces free from fear, intimidation or harassment and invite their participation in shaping safer campuses.

Find out more about addressing resistances

When working to promote and implement effective responses to gender-based violence, change agents come across all sorts of resistances… This blog series aims to provide support by reframing arguments commonly encountered and help navigate challenging conversations with clarity, confidence and purpose. Drawing on the principles of strategic framing, this resource provides a better understanding and anticipation of common forms of resistance, as well as evidence-based, values-aligned messaging. 

Have you ever come across an institution resisting the need to address gender-based violence because they already have a policy in place? 

UniSAFE’s policy mapping found that although the majority of institutions report having policies addressing gender-based violence, few have comprehensive implementation frameworks. Many lack dedicated staff, victim/survivor support systems, clear reporting lines and consistent monitoring. In some cases, staff and students were unaware that a policy even existed.

Moreover, the presence of a policy does not necessarily shift institutional culture. Victims/survivors may still feel unsafe to report if they believe the policy will not be enforced, if outcomes are unclear, or if retaliation is likely.

“A policy on paper doesn’t stop violence.
Practice, trust and enforcement do.”   

A zero-tolerance policy must be visible, accessible and actively upheld by institutional leadership. Otherwise, it risks creating false reassurance while failing those most at risk. The presence of a policy should be seen as just one piece of the puzzle. Institutions can reframe their messaging to focus on continuous improvement and full-cycle implementation from awareness-raising to outcome tracking.

• “Zero tolerance means zero silence, zero ambiguity and zero impunity.”
• “Having a policy is not the finish line, it’s the start.”
• “Policies must be lived, not just written.”

Change agents can support institutional integrity by pushing for active policy implementation, not just policy existence. This means advocating for adequate resources, clear responsibilities, routine monitoring and training at all levels. They can also facilitate communication strategies that explain what ‘zero tolerance’ looks like in practice, helping bridge the gap between policy language and lived experience. Their role is essential in turning formal commitments into everyday accountability.

Understanding the Resistance

A (zero-tolerance) policy is a necessary starting point, but it is not an end in itself. Policy alone does not equal protection. Without proper implementation, monitoring and a culture that supports disclosure, such policies risk becoming symbolic gestures rather than meaningful safeguards. A zero-tolerance stance must translate into trusted reporting mechanisms, survivor-centred responses, and accountability at every level of the institution. This response often reflects a belief that procedural boxes have been checked and further action is unnecessary. It may also be used to deflect critique or maintain institutional reputation. In some cases, the term ‘zero tolerance’ is adopted for its rhetorical power, without adequate investment in enforcement or follow-through.

Communicating with different stakeholders

• To leadership: Stress that policy effectiveness is a reputational matter, not just policy compliance, and must be demonstrable.

• To faculty/staff: Clarify how the policy applies to their roles and what support they can access when dealing with disclosures.

• To students: Emphasise that the policy is more than words — it protects them, and there are trusted pathways to use it.

Find out more about addressing resistances

When working to promote and implement effective responses to gender-based violence, change agents come across all sorts of resistances… This blog series aims to provide support by reframing arguments commonly encountered and help navigate challenging conversations with clarity, confidence and purpose. Drawing on the principles of strategic framing, this resource provides a better understanding and anticipation of common forms of resistance, as well as evidence-based, values-aligned messaging. 

According to the UniSAFE prevalence survey (2022), only 13% of those who experienced gender-based violence in academic settings formally reported the incident. The most common reasons for not reporting included fear of retaliation, concerns about confidentiality, uncertainty about procedures and the belief that nothing would change. Many respondents also reported normalisation of the behaviour or a lack of awareness about where or how to report. These findings reveal that low reporting is often a systemic issue, not a personal failing. In fact, high reporting levels may be a sign of trust in the system and not of increased incidence.

“If people aren’t reporting, it’s not because nothing is happening, it’s because they may not feel safe or supported enough to come forward.”   

Insight from practice: Institutions should view underreporting as a diagnostic indicator, a sign that policies may exist, but procedures, communication or trust are lacking. The institution can reframe the issue by acknowledging that one of its responsibilities is to remove barriers to reporting, not to wait for cases to surface. This shifts the narrative from passive reception to active responsibility.

• “Silence doesn’t mean safety, it may mean fear.”  

• “It’s not about whether people report, it’s about whether they feel they can.”

• “Encouraging reporting is not about numbers. It’s about building trust.”

Change agents can work across departments to map out where trust breaks down and what prevents people from coming forward. They can push for institutional audits, promote survivor-centred communication and ensure that reporting procedures are transparent, accessible and supported by trained staff. By naming the silence as structural rather than personal, they help reframe low reporting as an institutional signal, not a reason for complacency

Understanding the Resistance

This assumption that “people would report gender-based violence” places the burden of proof on victim/survivors and misunderstands the dynamics of gender-based violence. Reporting is deeply influenced by institutional culture, perceived risks and the accessibility of support systems. In academic environments marked by hierarchical structures, power imbalances and close professional dependencies, the risks of reporting can be perceived as too high. Rather than interpreting silence as absence, institutions must ask: “What are the barriers to speaking up?” Building a safe institution means recognising that trust, not visibility, is the true measure of institutional responsiveness. This belief often stems from a desire to see measurable “proof” before taking action. It may reflect a defensive institutional posture or a narrow view of evidence based solely on formal complaints. Institutions may also fear that increased reports will signal a problem, rather than reflect progress in trust and disclosure.

Communicating with different stakeholders

• To leadership: Emphasise that proactive reporting systems are an asset, not a risk, showing the institution is prepared to respond. 

• To faculty/staff: Encourage them to act as safe points of contact and reassure them that guidance and protocols are in place.

• To students: Communicate that reporting is voluntary, confidential and linked to meaningful support, not punishment or exposure. 

Find out more about addressing resistances

When working to promote and implement effective responses to gender-based violence, change agents come across all sorts of resistances… This blog series aims to provide support by reframing arguments commonly encountered and help navigate challenging conversations with clarity, confidence and purpose. Drawing on the principles of strategic framing, this resource provides a better understanding and anticipation of common forms of resistance, as well as evidence-based, values-aligned messaging. 

The UniSAFE prevalence survey (2022), conducted across 15 European countries and involving over 42,000 respondents, found that 62% of research and academic staff, students and administrative personnel had experienced at least one form of gender-based violence in their academic life. This includes psychological, sexual, economic and physical violence, as well as online harassment. Critically, a large majority of respondents indicated they had never reported the experience, either formally or informally. 

These findings reinforce that gender-based violence is a structural and widespread issue in academia affecting individuals across disciplines, roles and institutional types. Silence or denial tends to reflect institutional blind spots rather than absence.

“We may not see it, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. It means we need to look more closely.” 

Institutions that assume “this doesn’t happen here” risk failing those already affected. Recognising the problem is the first step toward credibility and prevention. Rather than positioning the institution as an exception, a more constructive frame is: “We are committed to uncovering and addressing gender-based violence, whether or not it has been reported yet.” This signals responsibility, care, and readiness for action. It also reframes safety not as a static state but as a continuous process requiring vigilance and engagement. 

• “If no one is reporting, the question isn’t whether gender-based violence exists but whether people feel safe enough to speak.”  

• “A safe institution is one that listens, especially when it’s hard.” 

• “When cases become visible, it reflects victims/survivors’ trust in the system, not an increase in violence.” 

Change agents can help create this shift by encouraging leadership to move from reactive denial to proactive transparency. They can facilitate internal conversations that highlight the gap between visibility and trust, and advocate for tools, such as anonymous surveys or self-assessment frameworks that help surface hidden realities and build institutional readiness.

Understanding the Resistance

Denying the presence of gender-based violence within an institution often reflects a lack of visibility rather than a lack of occurrence. Gender-based violence tends to be underreported in higher education and research institutions due to stigma, fear of retaliation, unclear procedures or mistrust in the institutional response. The absence of reports should not be mistaken for the absence of harm. In fact, silence can be a sign of an unsafe or unresponsive environment. Instead of framing the institution as immune, higher education and research institutions must frame themselves as committed to uncovering and addressing hidden harms. Proactive acknowledgement creates a culture of openness and positions the institution as a leader in safety and accountability.  

This form of resistance often reflects fear of reputational harm, legal risk or institutional disruption. It may also be a mechanism to avoid discomfort or confrontation with cultural norms. Denial can be easier than investigation. Strategic framing helps shift this stance by offering a constructive, future-oriented message: that addressing gender-based violence strengthens the institution, rather than tarnishes it.

Communicating with different stakeholders

• To leadership: Position acknowledgement of gender-based violence as a step toward transparency, compliance and ethical governance. 

• To faculty/staff: Emphasise that recognition does not imply blame, but a shared commitment to care and prevention. 

• To students: Ensure that your messaging communicates concern, safety and trust that the institution is ready to listen and act. 

Find out more about addressing resistances

GenderSAFE has established a Community of Practice (CoP) designed to promote exchange and mutual learning among participants from different universities and research organisations on institutional policy frameworks addressing gender-based violence.

Shifting the burden — (Working) towards victim/survivor-centred policies in current university practices

On 21 February the GenderSAFE CoP gathered for a meeting titled Shifting the burden — (Working) towards victim/survivor-centred policies in current university practices.

The aim of the discussion was to learn about current practices that CoP participants develop, research, or follow to implement victim/survivor-centred policies.

The session featured four insightful lightning talks from CoP members:

• Victoria Pagan (Newcastle University, UK) examined non-disclosure agreements from a victim/survivor-centred perspective.
• Arne Aerts (Ghent University, BE) shared strategies for anti-retaliation policies and protection mechanisms for victims, survivors, and whistleblowers.
• Michaela Krenn (Graz University of Technology, AT) discussed intervention approaches to support victims/survivors.
• Victor Coutolleau (Sciences Po Paris, FR) highlighted the challenges of confidential reporting and designing victim/survivor-centred surveys.

Each talk was followed by a Q&A, allowing for a dynamic exchange where CoP members shared insights and best practices. These discussions are essential to ensuring that institutions, not survivors, carry the burden of addressing gender-based violence.

Institutions must be accountable for their actions to end gender-based violence

1. Openly publishing and communicating information on unacceptable behaviours defined by the Zero-Tolerance Code of Conduct and establishing reporting procedures, both online and at the entry points to the institution, such as the ombudsperson’s office, confidential councillors, contact persons, and the like.

2. Clear reporting procedures with adequate timelines for consecutive steps and measures to secure the rights of all parties, including the provision of clear information to victims on the steps and progress of the reporting and investigation procedures.

3. Assigning responsibility at a senior level for overseeing the reporting mechanisms / procedures.

4. Equipping case managers and investigators with a thorough understanding of gender-based violence and the skills to manage victim-centred, trauma-informed investigations.

5. Establishing clear roles and responsibilities throughout the entire procedure of case management.

6. Putting in place processes to address breaches of institutional policy in the absence of formal complaints (such as sexist, LGBTIQ-phobic or sexual remarks).

7. Clearly defining forms of sanction, tailored to the type of institution (Research Performing Organisation/Research Funding Organisation/other), for breaches of policy, and working with reporting and responding parties to achieve safety, respect, and dignity for all researchers and for preventing recurring breaches.

8. Actively monitoring and evaluating the measures put in place to assess their effectiveness, identify gaps and needs, react to newly emerging issues, and ultimately build confidence in and the sustainability of the system.

9. Introducing mechanisms for inter- and intra-institutional accountability to ensure the non-recurrence of gender-based violence at the individual and systemic levels, including measures to prevent multi-site serial misconduct.

10. Ensuring sufficient resources are put in place to implement the above.

Protecting victims/survivors

Among the 43 researchers interviewed within UniSAFE’s qualitative research, the majority stated that perpetrators in their institution were not sanctioned for their actions. In some cases, these individuals not only escaped accountability, but were even promoted, continuing to be regarded as respected members of the research performing organisation Blazyte et al (2023). Given this, it’s unsurprising that so few students and researchers report cases of gender-based violence, considering their voices will go unheard and their situations unchanged Lipinsky et al. (2022); Humbert et al. (2022). One respondent captured this feeling:

“You hear people say […] you should actually file a complaint about that, […] but it wouldn’t make a difference’. And it would only be hard on me and my career. So, people self-silence […] to protect themselves”. (Associate Professor at the time of the interview, woman, age 40-49) Blazyte et all (2023).

How often do we witness institutions shielding “respected members of the community” against allegations of gender-based violence?  This institutional inaction not only perpetuates harm but also deters others from coming forward.

Reporting gender-based violence requires immense courage. However, the reality for many survivors is that doing so becomes a deeply painful process and in some cases even causing them to relive a traumatic experience.

Institutions have a crucial role to play not only to protect their staff and students, but also to ensure all procedures addressing cases of gender-based violence place the needs and priorities of victims/survivors of violence at the forefront of any response, adopting a victim-centred approach.

What is a victim-centred approach?

The zero-tolerance code of conduct published by the European Commission invites research and academic institutions to adopt a “whole-of-institution, trauma-informed and victim- and survivor-centred approach”.

Adopting a victim-centred approach entails “prioritising listening to the victim(s), avoiding re-traumatisation and systematically focusing on their safety, rights, well-being, expressed needs and choices, thereby giving back as much control to victim(s) as feasible and ensuring the empathetic and sensitive delivery of services and accompaniment in a non-judgmental manner.

How to adopt a victim-centred approach in practice?

Along the lines of the 7P model, a victim-centred and trauma-informed approach should be adopted at all levels of addressing gender-based violence in an institution. The UniSAFE guidelines to develop an institutional protocol provide concrete recommendations in this area. This blog post highlights recommendations particularly related to protection, prosecution, and provision of services, summarised as follows:

Protection

• Protective measures should be designed to avoid (potential) victims and survivors suffering (further) harm, in the form of retaliation, social exclusion or otherwise. To this end, a victim-centred approach should be taken to all protective measures. While such protective measures are decided on a case-by-case basis, it is important for institutions to have a repository of possible measures when dealing with a specific case.

Prosecution

When handling cases of gender-based violence within the institution, investigative actions, disciplinary procedures and sanctions for perpetrators must be mainstreamed with a victim-centred, trauma-informed and gender-responsive approach. The UniSAFE guidelines for developing a protocol provide specific recommendations as for instance:

• Highlight the importance of making the person who filed the complaint feel heard and taken seriously
• Re-traumatisation should be avoided throughout the process – for example, by recording the victim’s testimony and report instead of requiring the person to repeat their story several times in different instances.
• Investigators should be trained on understanding violence against women and gender-based violence (e.g. the role of social norms in perpetuating victim-blaming) and equipped with knowledge in conducting investigations in a gender-responsive and trauma-informed way (e.g. understanding trauma and its impact on the brain, on memory and the reporting of abuse).
• The anonymity of victims/survivors and witnesses should be maintained to the greatest extent possible when reporting on investigations.
• Ensure that the burden of following the correct steps and procedures does not fall solely on the victims/survivors and bystanders. It is the responsibility of the institution to provide clear guidance, support, and resources to facilitate the reporting and investigation process – for example, by appointing a qualified case manager.

Provision of services

• Staff members of the service should be trained and qualified professionals, able to offer support and guidance and respond to the needs of survivors with sensitivity and understanding. It is paramount that their approach is trauma-informed and victim-centred. Any personal information about the service users is to be treated confidentially.

• In a training session, it is important to ensure that participants feel comfortable, respected and supported throughout the training, preventing re-traumatising and triggering of the participants.
  Read through the UniSAFE guide: Creating a safe space for discussion and dialogue in a training session on gender-based violence (online & offline) for further information!