Catalysts and rationales for reporting staff sexual misconduct to UK higher education institutions

The majority of research on reporting of sexual violence and harassment has focused on reasons why women don’t report their experiences rather than examining why they do. This article takes this discussion into the higher education setting, drawing on interviews with 16 students and early career researchers in the UK who considered or attempted to report staff sexual misconduct to their institution and analysing their motivations for doing so. The motivations are broken down into two aspects: the immediate catalysts that triggered the report or disclosure, and the deeper rationales for why interviewees made this decision. Separating catalysts and rationales for reporting in this way allows different levels of decision-making over time to become clearer. Interviewees’ catalysts for reporting included leaving their institution, needing an extension on an assignment, protecting their own physical safety, or being validated by a third party. By contrast, the main rationale that interviewees gave for trying to report staff sexual misconduct was to prevent other women being targeted. Further rationales identified were fighting injustice and reporting for academic or career-related reasons. Higher education institutions’ policies and practices in this area need to take into account these different levels of decision-making around disclosure and reporting.Key messagesThere is much less research examining the reasons why victim-survivors do not report sexual violence and harassment than the reasons why they do report.In this study of students and staff who reported staff sexual misconduct to their university, the main rationale that interviewees gave for trying to report was to prevent other women being targeted.The article argues that separating catalysts for reporting from rationales makes visible different levels of decision-making over time.