The study committee included established scientists, engineers, health professionals, and legal scholars; a former Congresswoman; university department chairs, deans, and presidents; representation from professional societies; and individuals who conduct research on sexual harassment. Three committee members are members of the National Academy of Engineering and two committee members are members of the National Academy of Medicine. For more information on the committee see the list of committee members (front matter) and their brief bios (p. 211)
For more information, see p. 2 of the report’s Summary and the Consensus Study Report Highlights.
The Statement of Task for this report focused specifically on “the influence of sexual harassment on the career advancement of women in the scientific, technical, and medical workforce.” While the sexual harassment of men does occur (though at significantly lower rates than for women), it was not within the scope of this study.
For more information on this, see the Statement of Task (pp. 17–18), and the research on the characteristics of sexual harassment (pp. 41–42).
This study focused specifically on sexual harassment of women in academia within the fields of science, engineering, and medicine. However, many of the findings around the characteristics of sexual harassment and the characteristics of sexually harassing environments are based on more than 30 years of research on workplace and education settings more generally. As such, some of the research findings can apply beyond the fields of science, engineering, and medicine, and academia. Additionally many of the characteristics of academic environments would be relevant to all fields in academia, not just to science, engineering, and medicine. For more information, see pp. 39–50.
Sexual harassment can take three forms: gender harassment (verbal and nonverbal behaviors that convey hostility, objectification, exclusion, or second-class status about members of one gender); unwanted sexual attention (unwelcome verbal or physical sexual advances, which can include assault); and sexual coercion (when favorable professional or educational treatment is conditioned on sexual activity).
Gender harassment (e.g., behaviors that communicate that women do not belong or do not merit respect) is by far the most common type of sexual harassment. Gender harassment includes verbal and nonverbal behaviors that convey hostility, exclusion, or second-class status about members of one gender. Examples include comments that denigrate women as a group or as individuals in gendered terms, and comments about women that are crude or sexist.
For more information, see pp. 23–29, Figure 2-1, Figure 2-2, and Appendix C.
Both gender harassment and unwanted sexual attention can contribute to a hostile work or education environment. Hostile environment harassment is a legal term referring to sexual harassment that is “severe or pervasive” enough to alter the conditions of employment, interfere with one’s work performance, or impede one’s ability to get an education.
For more information, see pp. 23–29 and Figure 2-1.
In the best meta-analysis of surveys to date, more than 50% of women employees (faculty and staff) in academia experience sexual harassment. Surveys from a university system and a university with multiple campuses show that 20–50% of female students experience sexual harassment from faculty or staff, depending on their stage of education and field.
For more information on the prevalence of sexual harassment, see pp. 56, 67, 276–277 and Figures 3-2, 3-3, D-1, and D-2.
Research shows that women who have multiple marginalities—for instance women of color and sexual and gender minority women—experience certain kinds of harassment at greater rates than other women. This is because the cultural context in which people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds operate can have effects on how they experience sexual harassment. The research shows that sexual harassment experienced by women of color often manifests as both racial and gender discrimination, leading to overall higher rates of harassment in these populations. Interviews commissioned by the committee demonstrate the complexities of this: the respondents noted an inability to disentangle the discrimination and bias as stemming from their gender or their intersecting identities.
The committee noted that more data and research are needed to fully understand the experiences of women in underrepresented and/or vulnerable groups, including women of color, disabled women, immigrant women, sexual and gender minority women, postdoctoral trainees, and others. Because of this lack of research on these populations, the committee noted that it is possible that the recommendations from the report will improve the environment for only straight white women, or that there are greater limits on how well these efforts will work for women of color and sexual and gender minority women.
Sexual and gender minorities encounter harassment that stems from both sexism and heterosexism. Non-binary individuals also experience discrimination based on their gender identity. Research on sexual minorities indicates that this group experiences much higher rates of sexual harassment than heterosexual individuals.
Furthermore, sexual minorities experience sexual harassment differently—ongoing workplace harassment of these groups leads to an alarmingly high proportion of individuals experiencing anxiety, stress, and depression. However, data on the varying experiences of sexual harassment of sexual and gender minorities are sparse.
The committee noted that more data and research are needed to fully understand the experiences of women in underrepresented and/or vulnerable groups, including sexual and gender minorities. Because of this lack of research on these populations, the committee noted that it is possible that the recommendations from the report will improve the environment for only straight white women, or that there are greater limits on how well these efforts will work for women of color and sexual and gender minority women.
Male-dominated environments, where men outnumber women, leadership is male dominated, and/or jobs or occupations are considered atypical for women, have more frequent incidents of sexual harassment. Given that sexual harassment is highest in environments that are male dominated, and that so many of the disciplines in science, engineering, and medicine are male dominated, it is not surprising that it is high.
The best meta-analysis to date compared surveys from workplace sectors and it shows that academic workplaces have higher rates of sexual harassment than government and private-sector workplaces, and only military workplaces have rates of sexual harassment that are higher than academia. Further research would be needed to compare the professions of science, engineering, and medicine with other professions.
This is likely due in part because medicine is a male-dominated environment, meaning in some areas men outnumber women, leadership is male dominated, and/or jobs or occupations are considered atypical for women. And because male-dominated environments are ones where more women experience sexual harassment, this is certainly part of the explanation.
Another explanation may come from the presence in academic medicine of significant power differentials within a hierarchical organization. Research shows that hierarchical work environments like the military—where there is a large power differential between organizational levels and an expectation is not to question those higher up—tend to have higher rates of sexual harassment than organizations that have less power differential between organizational levels, like the private sector and government. Within academic medicine, there are clear hierarchical roles and the training encourages a respect and trust of those at the top of the hierarchy: starting with attending physicians, followed by fellows, residents, and interns, and then medical students at the bottom. The committee notes that misuses of power can increase when hierarchy operates out of habit rather than as something that is constantly reflected on and justified due to experience or expertise. The qualitative interview research commissioned by the committee also provides some additional insight into why academic medicine might have high rates. It showed that the expectations of abusive, grueling conditions in training settings caused several respondents to view sexual harassment as a part of the continuum of what they were expected to endure.
Research on a diverse population of field scientists found that of those that responded, 64% (both men and women) had personally experienced sexual harassment in field sites. A survey of academic field experiences (the SAFE study) identified particular characteristics of sexual harassment at scientific field sites:
For more information, see pp. 62–63.
The committee was able to surface the data on how common sexual harassment is in the broad disciplines of science, engineering, and medicine for students. Within these fields, the University of Texas System survey results for women students showed that 20% of women students in science, more than 25% in engineering, and more than 40% in medicine experience sexual harassment from faculty or staff. Results from a similar survey at Penn State University showed similarly high rates for women in medicine: 50% of women medical students experience sexual harassment from faculty or staff, compared with 33% of undergraduate women and 43% of graduate women.
For more information, see pp. 58–61, 275–280 and Figures 3-2, 3-3, D-1, and D-2.
Conducting climate surveys and surveys to accurately measure the prevalence of sexual harassment is challenging for many reasons, but, fortunately, researchers have addressed many of these challenges. Those wishing to conduct a survey on sexual harassment ought to follow the scientific methods described in the report and the ethical and safety guideline for this type of research. The challenges and rationales for strategies that overcome these challenges are outlined in the following sections of the report: pp. 30–35, 39–41, 48–49 (see Finding 2-5).
Sexual harassment undermines women’s professional and educational attainment and mental and physical health. When women experience sexual harassment in the workplace, the professional outcomes include a decline in job satisfaction, performance, or productivity; an increase in job stress; and withdrawal from the organization and disengagement from their work. When students experience sexual harassment, the educational outcomes include greater truancy, dropping classes, receiving lower grades, or dropping out. Many studies have also documented links between sexually harassing experiences and thoughts and intentions of leaving jobs. The more women are sexually harassed in an environment, the more they think about leaving, and end up leaving as a result of the sexual harassment.
Sexual harassment has adverse effects that also affect bystanders, coworkers, workgroups, and entire organizations. Though it is not currently known exactly how many women leave these fields because of sexual harassment, we do know that 20–50% of women experience sexual harassment in these fields and many of them think of leaving or disengage from their work as a result. Given this and the research on how much it costs to educate, train, and set up labs for researchers, the cumulative effect is a costly loss of talent.
For more information, see Chapter 4.
The 2017 National Academies report Fostering Integrity in Research classifies sexual harassment as a behavior in the category of “other misconduct” that damages research integrity. The Sexual Harassment of Women report provides two passages of text on this topic (see pp. 88–89 and pp. 114–118). These sections cover how Fostering Integrity in Research includes harassment in its definition of other conduct detrimental to research integrity, how the research on sexual harassment reinforces this definition, and how federal agencies have addressed issues that damage the integrity of research.
Though no formal economic analysis has yet to put a specific dollar amount to the cost of women’s attrition from science, engineering, and medicine because of sexual harassment, the economic impact of scientists, engineers, and medical doctors opting to abandon research and practice in fields with high costs of entry is worth noting because colleges and universities invest immense resources in training faculty and students in science, engineering, and medicine. What limited research there is on the economic costs appears in one section of the report (see pp. 89–90). The committee notes that additional research and data collection on the prevalence and impact of sexual harassment in science, engineering, and medicine could facilitate a formal economic analysis of the costs of harassment that would offer important new insight.
The flaws with the legal system are with the interpretation of Title IX and Title VII. The committee points out two issues:
The committee recommends that judges, academic institutions (including faculty, staff, and leaders in academia), and administrative agencies should rely on scientific evidence about the behavior of targets and perpetrators of sexual harassment when assessing both institutional compliance with the law and the merits of individual claims. The committee also recommends that federal judges should take into account demonstrated effectiveness of anti-harassment policies and practices such as trainings, and not just their existence, for use of an affirmative defense against a sexual harassment claim under Title VII.
For more information, see pp. 96–99, 105, 185 (see Recommendation 12).
There is conflicting evidence on the value of mandatory reporting with some evidence indicating that this policy may have negative impacts on targets of sexual harassment because it takes control away from targets and puts it in the hands of a third party that may or may not support the target’s best interests. The committee recommends target-centric institutional response to sexual harassment that empowers, rather than re-victimizes, targets. Some academic institutions have initiated policies to ensure that some people in the academic hierarchy are not mandatory reporters. This gives targets more control over what happens with the information they have revealed. This means that instead of immediately reporting an incident of sexual harassment, the “student-directed” employee is required to provide the target with information about resources and reporting options, and must also honor the target’s wishes about whether to report the incident to the Title IX office.
Systems and policies that support targets of sexual harassment and provide options for informal and formal reporting can reduce the reluctance to report harassment as well as reduce the harm sexual harassment can cause to the target.
Alternative or informal reporting can include reporting channels outside of the usual workplace hierarchy, such as an ombudsperson or “student-directed” employees (rather than mandatory reporters or responsible employees), who can receive reports of harassment, but are not officially part of the human resources or management response to reports of harassment. The advantage of this approach is that they can be confidential and collaborative, and can resolve the conflict without formal reporting, sanctions, or punishments if the target desires that.
Other alternative reporting systems allow targets to record information, either anonymously or not, about the harassment in a manner that targets can access, update, and disclose later if they decide to file a formal complaint. Increasing informal, confidential options is important because if targets feel that the institutional process will not serve them, then this will create a climate that is permissive of sexual harassment and will increase the likelihood that sexual harassment will occur more often.
Another type of informal reporting is the use of restorative justice processes. Unlike mediation, in which two parties are treated neutrally, “all models [of restorative justice] are premised on a responsible person or persons who either voluntarily accept responsibility for the wrongdoing or who have been found responsible through an appropriate fact-finding process.”
For more information see: p. 137-142; 164-165 (finding 5), 182 (recommendation 6).
The committee found that restorative justice is a promising approach for providing an alternative and target-centric approach to addressing sexual harassment in academia, but that further research assessing the effects and values of the following approach is needed to identify best practices. Unlike mediation, in which two parties are treated neutrally, restorative justice relies on the premise that a responsible person or persons either voluntarily accepts responsibility for wrongdoing or has been found responsible through appropriate measures. The approach avoids a disciplinary hearing and punitive action. Instead, the target meets with a facilitator to decide which sort of action they would like taken. These actions can include a request for an apology or an open forum to discuss the situation. Restorative justice is a new process and the research base is not very strong. The committee also notes that it may not be appropriate in all cases of sexual harassment, such as for serial perpetrators.
For more information, see pp. 141–142, 186 (see Recommendation 14).
The committee determined that considerations about reintegrating targets often do not receive enough attention when institutions establish their sexual harassment policies. Once someone has reported sexual harassment, institutions need to consider the kind of support individual targets might need immediately after an incidence and how to help them continue to manage their education and work over the long term. Unfortunately, there is limited work done on this subject so there was not enough data for the committee to identify promising practices for reintegrating targets and notes that more research is needed on how institutions can best serve targets.
For more information, see pp. 142–143.
The committee states that disciplinary decisions should be made in a fair and timely way following an investigative process that is fair to all sides. However, details on processes and guidance for how to fairly and appropriately investigate and adjudicate these issues are not provided in the report because they are complex issues that were beyond the scope of this study.
For more information, see pp. 143–146.
Demonstrating that an institution does not tolerate sexual harassment can reduce the likelihood of sexual harassment; therefore, it is important that institutions demonstrate that intolerance. For the people in an institution to understand that the institution does not tolerate sexual harassment, it must show that it does investigate and then hold perpetrators accountable in a reasonable timeframe.
The committee recommends that academic institutions use annual reports, that provide information on
The committee recommends that the punishment of the harassers should be progressive (i.e., escalating), and “fit the crime.” These escalating disciplinary actions should correspond to the severity and frequency of the misconduct and should be made clear to the campus community. Some examples of escalating disciplinary actions include a sanction letter, agreement for educational training or behavioral modification, restrictions on teaching and/or mentoring, temporary salary reduction, formal entry into a performance review file, monetary restitution to target, denial of tenure or emeritus status, forced administrative leave, separation from college or university, public disclosure of action taken, and reporting to funding agency about violation of sexual harassment policy, among others.
Importantly, the committee noted that the disciplinary actions must be punitive in nature and not considered a benefit for faculty such as reduced teaching load, decreased campus service responsibilities, or leave with pay.
For more information, see pp. 143–145.
It may be tempting to infer that a greater punishment is an important solution to harassment (sometimes termed zero tolerance). Such approaches suggest that sexual harassment is finally being taken seriously. But insofar as the evidence gathered in this report suggests that a wide range of behaviors can have deleterious effects on women’s careers in science, engineering, and medicine, the committee urges academic institutions to consider that a similarly wide range of responses may be appropriate. The committee recommends academic institutions develop policies that include a range of clearly stated, appropriate, and escalating disciplinary consequences for perpetrators found to have violated sexual harassment policy and/or law. The disciplinary actions taken should correspond to the severity and frequency of the harassment. The disciplinary actions should not be something that is often considered a benefit for faculty, such as a reduction in teaching load or time away from campus service responsibilities.
For more information, see pp. 143–145, 165, 181 (see Recommendation 4a).
The committee states that disciplinary decisions should be made in a fair and timely way following an investigative process that is fair to all sides. However, details on processes and guidance for how to fairly and appropriately investigate and adjudicate these issues are not provided in the report because they are complex issues that were beyond the scope of this study.
The committee also recommends academic institutions develop policies that include a range of clearly stated, appropriate, and escalating disciplinary consequences for perpetrators found to have violated sexual harassment policy and/or law. The disciplinary actions should not be something that is often considered a benefit for faculty, such as a reduction in teaching load or time away from campus service responsibilities.
For more information, see pp. 143–146, 165, 181 (see Recommendation 4a).
While sexual harassment training can be useful in improving knowledge of policies and of behaviors that constitute sexual harassment, it has not been demonstrated to prevent sexual harassment or change people’s behaviors or beliefs.
While it is hard to generalize across all training (because there are so many types), most training takes a legal approach, aims to demonstrate compliance with the law, and is not evaluated to examine what effect it is having. Some studies have shown that training may result in a negative effect (or impact). For instance, some research has shown that men who received training were more likely to blame targets of sexual harassment than those men that did not receive training. Other research shows that mandatory non-customized training can activate gender stereotypes and backlash against women.
The committee recommends that training programs should focus on changing behavior, not on changing beliefs.
Academic institutions should utilize training approaches that develop skills among participants to interrupt and intervene when inappropriate behavior occurs. In order for training programs to be most effective, academic institutions should cater their training to specific populations (in academia this should include students/trainees, staff, faculty, and those in leadership) and follow best practices in designing training programs.
For more information, see pp. 110, 131, 150–154, 165–166 (see Recommendations 1d, 1e, and 1f).
The committee determined that leaders at every level within academia will be needed to initiate the recommendations in the report. To succeed in making these changes, all members of the nation’s college campuses—students, faculty, staff, and administrators—will need to assume responsibility for promoting a civil and respectful environment. Some of the recommendations have specific relevance to the department level in academia. The committee recommends that academic institutions should consider mechanisms to diffuse the power between advisors and trainees (i.e., mentoring networks or committee-based advising and departmental funding rather than funding only from a principal investigator) to reduce the risk of and damage from sexual harassment. The committee also recommends that institutions can prevent and address sexual harassment by updating hiring, promotion, and tenure processes so that they reflect the values of diversity, inclusion, and respect; for instance, focusing the evaluation and reward structures on cooperation, respect, and professionalism rather than on solely individual-level performance.
The committee believes that professional societies can be powerful drivers of change because of their ability to educate, train, codify, and reinforce cultural expectations for their respective scientific, engineering, and medical communities. The report recommends that professional societies provide support and guidance for members that have been targets of sexual harassment and work to promote a professional culture of civility and respect.
For more information, see pp. 160–167.
The committee recommends that agencies should hold accountable the perpetrator and the institution by using a range of disciplinary actions that limit the negative effects on other grant personnel who were either the target of the harassing behavior or innocent bystanders.
For more information, see pp. 143–145, 165, 181, 186 (see Recommendations 13c and 4a).
The committee recommends that federal agencies follow the example set by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and require institutions to report to NSF when individuals on grants are found to have violated sexual harassment policies or have been put on administrative leave related to sexual harassment.
The committee also recommends that agencies should hold accountable the perpetrator and the institution by using a range of disciplinary actions that limit the negative effects on other grant personnel who were either the target of the harassing behavior or innocent bystanders.
For more information, see pp. 143–145, 186 (see Recommendation 13c).
Unfortunately, the research is quite limited on the connections between consensual relationships and sexual harassment. As a result, the committee summarized what research there is on the connections and identified a number of research questions that could be helpful in determining whether the connections between sexual harassment and consensual relationships are strong or common enough to merit their own policies.
For more information, see pp.107–110.
At this time, we have not received any inquiries about translating this publication. If anyone is interested in a translation of Sexual Harassment of Women, please contact Barbara Murphy at bmurphy@nas.edu.
The report received widespread media coverage and examples of the media coverage can be found on the study website. The report was also discussed and shared extensively on social media using #ScienceToo. Following the release of the report members of the committee that authored the report and staff from the National Academies have presented the report at over 60 events at universities, colleges, national labs, federal agencies, and professional and scientific societies.
To advance efforts to make the system-wide changes called for in Sexual Harassment of Women, the National Academies have joined with colleges, universities, and research institutions to form an Action Collaborative on Preventing Sexual Harassment in Higher Education. The purpose of the Action Collaborative is to bring together leaders from academic institutions and key stakeholders to work toward targeted, collective action on addressing and preventing sexual harassment across all disciplines and among all people in higher education. The Action Collaborative creates an active space where colleges, universities, and other research and training institutions will identify, research, develop, and implement efforts that move beyond basic legal compliance to evidence-based policies and practices for addressing and preventing all forms of sexual harassment and promoting a campus climate of civility and respect. Each member of the Action Collaborative commits to develop new approaches to address the problem from a preventative orientation; to implement and test new or revised programs, policies, and practices each year; to share the results from these new or revised approaches each year; and to identify and engage a group of additional individuals at the institution who can assist and inform this work (these individuals are expected to include experts, researchers, key stakeholders, and individuals with job responsibilities related to issues of sexual harassment). For more information, see the Action Collaborative on Preventing Sexual Harassment in Higher Education website.
Do you have another question about the report that isn’t answered here? Email your question to SHStudy@nas.edu and we will take it into consideration as we continue to develop this FAQ.
