Although universities often adopt diversity and inclusion policies, the everyday experience of employees indicates multiple and intersectional forms of discrimination. This article discusses how institutional norms and practices reinforce power structures and stop those experiencing intersectional discrimination from voicing their experiences of gender‐based violence in higher education. We employ the frameworks of “everyday racism” and “network silence” to analyse 12 interviews with racially minoritised women who experienced gender‐based violence in academia and one bystander. Our findings challenge the assumption of universities that gender‐based violence and racial discrimination are marginal concerns. The interviews point to institutional factors that generate, coerce, and support silence. They reveal a paradox combination of dynamics of hypervisibility and invisibility, structural barriers, institutional practices, discriminatory attitudes, stereotypes, and prejudices as factors contributing to silencing, othering, and marginalisation within academia. Women from ethnic minorities and marginalised groups demonstrate both self‐silencing and the deprivation of their agency and voice due to cultural normative expectations. We conclude by exploring alternatives to promote transformational change that considers intersectional and multiple forms of discrimination. We suggest what change agents in higher education institutions can do to hear unheard voices and reduce the long‐standing multiple disadvantages faced by intersectionally marginalised groups.

The implementation of gender equality plans (GEPs) at universities provokes resistance from privileged groups. However, technical universities (TUs) in the European Research Area (ERA) are increasingly committed to developing and implementing GEPs. This study asks how institutionalized forms of resistance to GEPs in TUs interact with contextual factors - specifically, the level of formalization of implementation structures. In our qualitative content analysis of interview data from change agents and decision-makers at four TUs in the ERA, we theorize that implementation structures are crucial contextual factors to structure our data and interpret our findings on forms of resistance. We find that some forms of resistance are unrelated to the level of formalization of implementation structures, others are more prevalent in TUs with low-formalized implementation structures, and still others are predominant in TUs with high-formalized implementation structures. Our findings suggest that although a high level of formalization of implementation structures in TUs is associated with less denial of the existence of gender inequalities, resistance to GEP implementation persists but is more nuanced. We demonstrate that the dynamics between the meaning of gender equality and resistance change with the level of formalization of implementation structures and conclude that these dynamics are reciprocal rather than one-directional. Our findings contribute to theory-building on resistance to organizational change in higher education institutions. As a practical contribution, they can help change agents at TUs to better understand and respond to resistance to the implementation of GEPs.

INTRODUCTION:Assessing the problem of gender-based violence in academia internationally is challenging due to a lack of empirical evidence and differences in how it is measured. The contribution of this article is to reflect on survey measurements and to propose new avenues for future quantitative measurements of gender-based violence, its determinants, and consequences in an academic context. For this purpose, we present the results of a scoping review of ten national and cross-national prevalence studies on gender-based violence. We examined the studies' quantitative operationalisation of (1) sex and gender, (2) prevalence of gender-based violence, (3) socio-demographic determinants from an intersectional perspective, individual and contextual factors, (4) and consequences. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Prevalence studies were identified through a comprehensive search of electronic databases and specialised data repositories. The selection criteria included studies with a focus on gender-based violence, the use of closed-ended survey questions, i.e., in a questionnaire, the potential for applicability in different national contexts, and the specific context of higher education. Eligible sources also described the quantitative operationalisation of the survey measurements. RESULTS:Our work critically reviews previous efforts to measure gender-based violence, its determinants, and consequences in academic contexts. The findings of our assessment show, first, that quantitative gender-related measurements tend to conflate the concepts of sex and gender, and hence their operationalisation in quantitative surveys. Second, there is a strong emphasis on sexual harassment and sexual violence to the detriment of other relevant forms of violence, as well as a rooting of measurement concepts in locally valid but diverse legal definitions of gender-based violence. Third, there is a lack of socio-demographic determinants to provide an intersectional lens, as well as a focus on measurement frameworks that individualise the experiences of gender-based violence. This prevents a conceptualisation of harassment and abuse as a structural problem in the academic sector and ignores that violence is both as a cause and a consequence of unbalanced gendered power relations and inequalities in institutional and societal contexts. Fourth, there is generally a retrospective approach to measuring the consequences of gender-based violence, which may represent a source of potential bias. We reflect on how future survey instruments could address these issues in academic environments. DISCUSSION:Overall, our paper demonstrates how the evidence generated by different conceptualisations and operationalisations of gender-based violence in academia, as well as its determinants and consequences, shapes how we think and talk about the problem. In doing so, this article contributes to the ongoing methodological discussion on the measurement of gender-based violence and provides a rationale for improving its measurement framework in academic environments by taking a feminist-theory informed approach to collecting these data.

The experiences of non-binary people remain underexplored in HRM research. With limited knowledge and evidence, putting in place diversity management policies and practices is challenging. This article advances understandings of the experiences of non-binary people at work by providing empirical evidence from a survey conducted in 15 countries across Europe with nearly 18,000 staff at universities and research organisations, including 173 who identified as non-binary. Results suggest that non-binary people are more likely than other gender identity groups to feel socially excluded and unsafe at work, as well as more likely to be subjected to psychological violence and sexual harassment. The analysis shows that experiences of gender-based violence mediate the relationship between being non-binary and feeling socially excluded, unsafe or unwell at work. By integrating minority stress theory into the study of workplace inequalities, this research deepens the understanding of how systemic stigmatisation operates within gendered and binarist organisations. These findings emphasise the need to integrate considerations of gender-based violence into diversity management interventions and disrupt binary gender norms to ensure inclusion and safety at work. By advancing diversity, equality, and inclusion scholarship, this article provides actionable insights for HRM practitioners to address the unique challenges faced by non-binary employees.

The aim of the article is to discuss how thinking about gender-based violence intersectionally and in context can not only enrich our understanding but also lead to transformative change in organizations. The article argues that to better understand gender-based violence in universities and research institutions, analyses need to be intersectional and contextual. Such approaches go beyond binary understandings of gender and narrow legalistic definitions of gender-based violence. The article reflects on how to operationalize this to derive starting points for intersectional categories to consider and contextual factors to measure at micro-, meso-, and macro-levels. It concludes that a multilevel intersectional analysis leads to more nuanced knowledge on experiences of gender-based violence and is, therefore, better equipped to inform the development of measures to eradicate the problem in an inclusive way.

This paper exposes the role of universities in creating silence around gender-based violence in higher education, drawing on narratives from 39 qualitative interviews with victims/survivors and bystanders about reporting incidents and experiences. In this paper, we extend concept of ‘network silence’ around sexual harassment to other forms of gender-based violence. Our research applies three components of the theoretical model of network silence, namely, self-silencing by victims/survivors, silencing, and not hearing by others, and analyses their contextual manifestations through the reporting experiences of victims/survivors and bystanders. This helps to identify the traits of the informal organisational structures and power dynamics, gendered attitudes, actors, and factors which facilitate silencing. The intersectional approach in our analysis of organisational contextual traits contributes to the research on inequality regimes in universities. The findings suggest that universities are making limited efforts to address silence around gender-based violence. We conclude that shared beliefs among the leadership about the reputation and prestige of the university facilitate the endurance of silence in universities. Our findings indicate reasons why universities fail to create spaces that are safe from gender-based violence.

How did gender mainstreaming and the introduction of sex quotas in management affect the gender equality project in higher education? After 20 years of establishing gender equality structures and monitoring the proportion of women in decision-making, persistent gender inequality in universities confirms a paradoxical situation: while the number of women in decision-making has increased, institutional policies in universities have had minimal effects in eliminating gender inequality. By discussing two main components of gender mainstreaming—the representation of women and its transformative claim—our analysis points to two missing and interlinked factors that help explain the paradox. We argue that ensuring the empowerment of gender structures and building gender competence are prerequisites for overcoming the status quo.