Keywords

1 Introduction

Two years before the 2017 revival of the #MeToo hashtag in response to pervasive sexual abuse by powerful men in Hollywood, a high-profile astronomy professor, Geoffrey Marcy, faced a call for his resignation from students, early career researchers, and colleagues, even though the University of California at Berkeley did not take disciplinary action after finding him in violation of the university’s policy on sexual harassment.Footnote 1 The list of accusations dated back 15 years, all the way to his prior institution. The American Astronomical Society’s (AAA) Committee on the Status of Women in Astronomy mobilised, wrote statements, and organised a town hall meeting on ‘Harassment in the Astronomical Sciences’ at the 2016 AAA conference, calling for his removal from the academic professional community.

The #MeToo movement ushered in renewed awareness about gender and sexuality-based harassment and violence in colleges and universities in the United States and Europe, and professional associations have been a site of mobilisation and controversy as well. In 2019, a group of early career researchers called for a boycott of the annual meeting of the European Society for the Study of Human Evolution, asking the Society to remove then-president Jean-Jacques Hublin for alleged abuses of power.Footnote 2 Hublin, a French paleoanthropologist, has appointments in Germany and the Netherlands as Professor at the Max Planck Society, Leiden University, and the University of Leipzig. He is also founder and director of the Department of Human Evolution at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Among other allegations, Hublin was accused of making sexual advances to women at conferences and pursuing a sexual relationship with a graduate student (without informing her that he was married).Footnote 3 In an email to The Scientist, Hublin denied the charges, calling them a ‘toxic mix of half-truths, professional rivalry, and conspiracy theory propagated by people who have no clue of their background’. He insisted, ‘I do not and did not engage in any misconduct’, and he stated that the Max Planck Society concluded that the graduate student’s accusation was ‘a purely private issue with no evidence of misconduct’.Footnote 4

As conferences and opportunities for research and collaboration expanded globally (at least prior to the COVID-19 pandemic), so have opportunities for serial perpetrators of sexual harassment to operate across national borders or to take academic positions abroad thereby increasing the risk of uncensored sexual misconduct. Indeed, individuals accused of harassment tend to leave universities before investigations conclude, often moving to the next university with or without their knowledge of the allegations, let alone any findings of wrongdoing or policy violations.

Though it is crucial for national and international institutions to take sexual harassment seriously, naming and recognising sexual harassment as a social problem embedded within organisational and (inter)national contexts is a political struggle in itself. While universities and research institutions have been prime targets for calls to recognise sexual harassment and implement systemwide change, secondary targets such as professional communities must be called on to act when academic institutions fail to investigate or provide sufficient support and/or resolution.

This chapter explores the role that professional associations can play in dealing with and preventing sexual harassment. Sexual harassment as a key organisational problem has gained visibility in professional associations in a variety of ways, most notably when violations occur at conference venues or when those victimised fear encountering their perpetrators in such settings. In the light of formal complaints against faculty or those serving in gatekeeping (leadership) positions (including as conference organisers or an association’s journal editors), the problem becomes more acute as members and leadership alike face ethical dilemmas when those accused of unprofessional behaviour gain professional recognition, or awards and prizes. The key question addressed here is how can professional associations use their own particular spheres of influence to tackle abuses of (gender) power in their midst? And, what key constraints impede them from taking an active role in combatting sexual harassment?

The chapter argues that professional associations are embedded in, and reflect, the deeply gendered and racialised hierarchical structures of academia. As such, professional associations can either perpetuate abuses of power when they actively resist change through the protection of some members against complaints and/or disregard issues raised by more junior members. In doing so, these associations potentially contribute to the exclusion of women from the academy (NAS, 2018). Or, professional associations can take proactive approaches to addressing and resolving sexual harassment through awareness, setting (new) norms, dismantling structures of dependency, supporting change in organisational practices and cultures, and challenging power structures by supporting bystanders and victims of harassment, as well as appropriately sanctioning harassers. In short, professional associations can either support the status quo or play a major role as proactive drivers for change inside their academic communities.

Translating sexual harassment prevention into organisational practices is a challenge fraught with contradictions and potential pitfalls. Using a feminist institutionalist approach, the chapter considers sexual harassment to be profoundly rooted in gendered power within institutions, as a manifestation of (gender ) power differences between individuals (Uggen & Blackstone, 2004), and as an abuse of (gender ) power (MacKinnon, 1976), and a dominance strategy used to undermine women’s power (Tinkler and Zhao, 2020). The departments, universities, and professional associations each perpetuate systemic abuses of power through their formal and informal rules, as well as their silences. How these organisations handle gender equity , sexual self-determination, and sexual harassment offers insight into various facets of gendered power in academia (see Acker, 1990). For professional associations, their influence as organisations is circumscribed due to limited resources (as primarily voluntary membership organisations) and their positioning within academia (as peripheral, with more limited investigative power).

After a brief history of sexual harassment in academia, the chapter summarises organisational factors that fuel harassment and those that help to prevent it. Next, it explores policy approaches and the actions of selected professional associations on the forefront of innovations in gender equity . This chapter analyses documents including organisational statements, policies, and procedures to examine the potential (gendered) impact of varied frameworks, largely implicated by the scope and range of definitions of harassment. Finally, it discusses challenges for professional associations from a feminist institutionalist perspective: including power relationships, intimate relationships, professional events, awards nominations, gatekeeping positions, reporting, and investigations.

2 Sexual Harassment in Academia

The call for academia to act on issues of sexual harassment is hardly a new phenomenon. Many institutions developed organisational practices and policies to prevent harassment, even banning intimate relationships between faculty and students for decades. In the United States, universities (as employers) can be held accountable for preventing harassment under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and for providing equal opportunities for girls and women in education under Title IX (Reynolds, 2019). In the 1970s, feminist (legal) activism from Catharine MacKinnon and Lynn Farley defined sexual harassment as sex discrimination (Siegel, 2003, p. 8; Zippel, 2006), and the Supreme Court affirmed this legal definition in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 US 57 (1986). Thus, when Professor Anita Hill, in 1991, testified against Clarence Thomas at the United States Senate hearing for his confirmation to the Supreme Court, media coverage brought sexual harassment back into the public eye, spurring a third round of adoption or revision of policies on harassment in US universities, along with a mandate to ‘learn’ from their implementation. Since the 1980s many US organisations have institutionalised policies, grievance procedures, and training programmes. Yet, they have not eliminated sexual harassment .

2.1 Prevalence of Sexual Harassment in Academia

Sexual harassment, as one of many types of gender-based violence, has varied features. The National Academies Report (NAS, 2018, p. 18) defines sexual harassment as a form of discrimination that is:

composed of three categories of behaviour: (1) gender harassment (verbal and nonverbal behaviors that convey hostility, objectification, exclusion, or second-class status about members of one gender), (2) unwanted sexual attention (verbal or physical unwelcome sexual advances, which can include assault), and (3) sexual coercion (when favorable professional or educational treatment is conditioned on sexual activity). Harassing behaviour can be either direct (targeted at an individual) or ambient (a general level of sexual harassment in an environment).

While gender harassment is most common, each category relegates women to the margins, and (long-term) harassment of any form can have severe consequences. Furthermore, categories of harassment are interlinked: unwanted sexual attention and sexual coercion are more likely to occur in settings in which gender harassment is rampant, with broad-based perceptions that misconduct will be tolerated or overlooked. In particular, sex-segregated, male-dominated organisations characterised by toxic masculinity fuel a full array of harassing behaviours in addition to other unprofessional, unethical, and uncivil conduct. Thus, gender harassment feeds and breeds sexual harassment and gender-based violence in its many forms (see NAS, 2018).

In academia, institutional factors create a complex hierarchical structure of dependency and gendered subordination with the potential for abuses of positional power in gendered ways. Surveys show that more senior men as well as peers target early career women. Graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and junior faculty confront physical, verbal, and online harassment that can include advances from supervisors or professors seeking to engage in intimate relationships across academic hierarchies. Research indicates that perpetrators who harass graduate students do so repeatedly. In over 300 publicised cases in which graduate students alleged being sexually harassed by faculty, more than half were serial harassment. In addition to verbal harassment, more than half of the cases involved ‘unwelcome physical contact dominated by groping, sexual assault, and domestic abuse-like behaviors’ (Cantalupo & Kidder, 2018, p. 1). The gendered power differential also sets up academic women (particularly women of colour) as targets of counter-power, revealed when students harass graduate students or faculty in myriad ways including online harassment.

The mobilisation around the Black Lives Matter movement with #ShutDownAcademia and #ShutDownSTEM has also highlighted the intersection of gender and racial harassment for women of colour. Indeed, students belonging to under-represented (minority) groups including lesbian, gay, bisexual, gender non-conforming, transgender, queer, intersex, or asexual women, and students of colour experience higher rates of harassment (Boyle & McKinzie, 2018; Clancy et al., 2017).Footnote 5 They also feel less secure to seek support as sexual violence ‘maintains and creates power asymmetries’ (Armstrong et al., 2018). Thus, harassment as one form of abuse of power is fuelled by intersectional inequalities , including gender identities and race—as in the case of Anita Hill—but also sexual orientation, rank in academia, class, and so on, further reproducing an academic culture of sexual harassment based on multiple forms of discrimination.

Harassment is not isolated; it is widespread because it is an institutional, systemic, and cultural problem. The most recent US National Academies of Science (NAS) report (2018) estimates that faculty and staff sexually harass 20–33% of undergraduates, 40–50% of medical students, and 43% of graduate students in the United States. The report also finds that women report more harassment than men, but men represent the overwhelming majority of harassers of both women and men. Sexual harassment occurs throughout academia, and at academic conferences.

A recent survey of the American Political Science Association (APSA) asked members about their experiences at the last three annual meetings, and 11% of women and 3% of men reported experiences of the following kind: ‘unwanted sexual advances or touching, such as unwanted attempts to establish a sexual relationship despite efforts to discourage it, being touched by someone in a way that was uncomfortable, or experiencing bribes or threats associate with sexual advances ’ (Sapiro & Campbell, 2018, p. 197). The authors concluded that while these percentages might seem ‘small’ to some, ‘29 of our members felt they had experienced threats of professional retaliation for not being sexually cooperative, and 44 felt they were being bribed with special professional rewards is, respectively, 29 and 44 people too many’ (Sapiro & Campbell, 2018, p. 197).

Harassment is associated with deleterious outcomes for the careers, mental health, and well-being of those victimised (NAS, 2018). Harassed academics face barriers to career mobility when they feel obliged to avoid one-on-one situations with peers or potential mentors, or change advisors, programmes, departments, or fields of study owing to the fear of (continued) harassment or retaliation (NAS, 2018). Academic leadership is often ill-prepared to take proactive measures, handle complaints, or deal with the aftermath of harassment investigations; a difficulty further complicated by insufficient evidence or disagreements on how to interpret the meaning and impact of certain behaviours. In addition to the personal impact of harassment on reputations, friendships, and futures, it damages the educational and scholarly integrity of departments and professional organisations embroiled in this ubiquitous form of discrimination.

Thus, the eradication of sexual harassment requires transforming academic institutions and their culture to promote a professional learning and working environment that is hostile to harassment in all its forms. Or, as Sapiro (2018) calls it: ‘Professions and organisations need to work to create cultures of communication—bolstered by effective structures of redress—that embody a collective ethic of antisubordination’. In this spirit, we should call upon professional associations to take responsibility for helping to solve the problem of sexual harassment. Because association members are part of academia, professional organisations often mirror the academy in terms of hierarchy and the preservation of unequal, frequently gendered contexts that obscure, breed, and legitimate harassment.

3 Research on Organisational Interventions

Research on harassment in US organisations over the past 30 years provides insight into the forms of harassment that occur and why, and organisational responses that appear to ameliorate the problem and, perhaps more importantly, those that do not. Much of this research points out the failure of institutions to curb harassment, in large part due to symbolic compliance with laws and policies endorsed by the US courts and the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (Edelman, 2016). Rather than addressing the causes of harassment, institutions have adopted policies and reporting procedures and trusted harassment training programmes to solve the problem superficially. Overall, US social science research is far less trusting of symbolic compliance and conventional responses that fail to stop harassment or, on the contrary, that actively reproduce gendered inequalities.

3.1 Reporting Procedures and Policy Statements

US universities repeatedly echo a 30-year-old credence that ‘if you do not report harassment, we cannot do anything about it’. The idea is that the problem of sexual harassment will be solved if people report it, their claims will be investigated, and institutions will take appropriate action. This widespread belief implies that universities, just like other organisations, can and will act to investigate, adjudicate, and protect against retaliation on a case-by-case basis. What’s more, it places the onus for initiating cultural change in the workplace on those victimised by a problem that extends far beyond individual behaviour and actions, and one that places targets of harassment at further risk.

There are no studies about how well universities handle harassment complaints; universities provide this information neither to the public nor to researchers. Very few cases of university harassment end up in court and get publicised (Cantalupo & Kidder, 2018),Footnote 6 and most get no public attention at all (McDonald, 2012). When universities stop the behaviour, impose sanctions, and prevent retaliation, they do not inform campus communities, based on claims about protecting confidentiality (of both harasser and complainants). Keeping the outcomes of investigations quiet does not necessarily protect complainants from retaliation, nor does it engender confidence that universities will take complaints seriously and act appropriately. This lack of visibility fosters distrust among those who might otherwise report harassment.

Overall, victims of harassment and discrimination tend not to report the incidents (Albiston, 2010; Berrey et al., 2017; Bumiller, 1988; Marshall, 2005). Only 6% of graduate students reported harassment they encountered. The low number of official reports compared to actual incidents suggests that victims of harassment do not trust institutions to handle complaints. Additionally, when gender-based discrimination is part of the fabric of one’s social environment, the line of acceptable behaviour can blur. Fewer than 25% of women faculty and graduate and undergraduate students label behaviour formally defined as sexual harassment to be sexual harassment. Finally, reporting may be a last resort for fear of negative consequences. Victims of harassment routinely encounter disbelief, denial, or diminishment of their concerns. They often face negative personal consequences (such as being shunned, blamed, threatened, slighted, ignored, or criticised). And they risk accrual of job disadvantages (such as being fired, having contracts not renewed, or being removed from projects, papers, or grants). The EEOC receives high numbers of retaliation complaints, and while it is easier to ‘win’ such complaints (compared with harassment complaints), reporting puts excess burden on victims of harassment while ignoring their fears. Thus, reporting is a ‘necessary but not sufficient’ condition in addressing harassment allegations.

Without clear data on the outcome of university investigations, some researchers have examined the impact of policies on sexual harassment on gender equity more broadly . Dobbin and Kalev (2019) compared the adoption of various gender equity and diversity measures in US universities. Specifically, they evaluated the association between the adoption of sexual harassment grievance procedures and the percentage of women professors since 1993. Strikingly, it had at best no effect, and at worst a negative effect on the percentage of Hispanic and Asian women professors. They concluded that the grievance procedures led to retaliation, resulting in decreased representation of women in the academy. Clearly, policy statements alone do not reduce harassment. Institutional reporting mechanisms and policies (including penalties) need to address gender harassment more broadly instead of focusing too narrowly on behaviours such as unwanted sexual pursuit and coercion (NAS, 2018, p. 2).

3.2 Training Programmes

US workplaces adopted sexual harassment training programmes largely due to court decisions and human resource initiatives that assert their effectiveness (Edelman, 2016; Tinkler, 2018). Thus, these now ‘classic’ programmes are oriented to fulfilling legal obligations and are often designed by legal experts and human resource personnel. On the one hand, some research demonstrates an association between training-based awareness and increased knowledge of sexual harassment (NAS, 2018), in addition to benefits stemming from the use of training as a symbolic gesture about the issue’s institutional importance. On the other hand, some research finds that training either produces neutral effects (Tinkler, 2018) or, if mandatory, tends to create a ‘blame the faculty’ scenario that ultimately decreases gender equity (Dobbin & Kalev, 2019; Tinkler, 2018). By casting women as victims and men as perpetrators, training can ‘activat[e] traditional gender stereotypes and reinforce negative attitudes about women’ (Tinkler, 2018. p. 8). On the contrary, training programmes that function as bystander programmes in which managers serve as victims’ allies yet have authority and effective intervention tools, do appear to increase the percentage of women in leadership positions (Dobbin & Kalev, 2019).

Higher numbers of women in leadership positions do seem to make a difference to gender equity ; compared with men, women tend to take harassment more seriously (Dobbin & Kalev, 2019). More egalitarian workplace cultures enable women to feel more at ease to speak up and get help before lower level norm violations transform into higher level ones. Other workplaces in the US have experimented with proactive strategies aimed at longer term organisational and cultural change . A unique example involved a restaurant with a colour-coded alert system.Footnote 7 Waiters simply said the word ‘yellow, orange, or red’ to alert management when customers displayed certain levels of harassment. Yellow was for a general creepy vibe, orange for borderline sexual harassment (e.g., ‘Hey, I love your shirt’), and red was either for comments like ‘Hey, you look super sexy in that’ or physical contact. When notified, management acted immediately. This system addressed harassment at the lowest levels of norm violation, prior to their escalation, and incidents decreased over time. In the search for evidence-based models to address and rectify sexual harassment in academia, researchers may inquire how this and similar approaches might translate into different cultural, organisational, and legal settings.

4 Promising Steps and Challenges for Professional Associations

Laws and policies vary globally in how they hold universities, funding agencies, and professional associations accountable for gender-based discrimination. Sexual harassment may violate anti-discrimination policies or other employment or civil service laws. In some cases, students may file suit directly against universities for discrimination; in others, such as in Germany, students may only take legal action if employed by the university (CEWS, 2020). Some countries have established offices, complaint procedures, and training requirements’ whereas others have not done so (ERAC SWG GRI, 2020). Yet when considering the continued high rates of gender harassment in the academy, and that women from racial and ethnic minority groups as well as gender non-conforming people are more likely to be targets of harassment and microaggressions, higher education has clearly fallen short of its equity goals. The US National Academies of Science Report (NAS, 2018) on ‘Sexual Harassment of Women in the Academy’ was in process long before the #MeToo movement gained renewed traction. Similarly, the European Union’s Standing Working Group on Gender in Research and Innovation (ERAC SWG GRI, 2020) found that research on gender-based violence in academia is lacking and continues to be ‘with a few exceptions … an unrecognised and underdeveloped field of knowledge at the national level’.

Harassment has been framed as a violation of ethical norms set by professional associations and enforced by universities and funding agencies. Both the NAS (2018) and ERAC SWG GRI (2020) consider harassment to be a form of research misconduct, affecting the integrity of research. Understood in its broadest terms, the NAS (2018) incorporates intersectional-based discrimination (due to gender, race, ethnicity, or LGBTQ identity) into its understanding of sexual harassment with a proactive approach that integrates issues of microaggression into professional norms and focuses on promoting gender equity and professional behaviour, in addition to addressing unwanted sexual attention and sexual coercion. By identifying evidence-based approaches to norm setting, the NAS framework aims to stop harassment from occurring in the first place. The NAS recommends the formation of taskforces and committees to promote gender equity , revise policies and procedures, and educate leaders at every level (especially with regard to bystander approaches). Finally, the NAS advises leadership to set clear norms for ethical and professional behaviour that send a unified and unequivocal message of zero tolerance for abuse of power of any kind.

Professional associations across many disciplines are in a new phase of reviewing and improving formal and informal policies and procedures to respond to harassed individuals, bystanders, and/or department chairs seeking assistance. Their influence, however, is contingent upon organisational power which varies depending on their size (e.g., the American Geoscience Union (AGU) has 600,000 members, the American Sociological Association (ASA) only 11,500 members, and attendance at annual meetings of the American Political Science Association (APSA) is 7000); financial resources (from conferences, membership fees, and journal subscriptions); and reach (as volunteer-run organisations they do not rely on paid staff to provide membership outreach and services). Even so, international associations are uniquely positioned to address the higher harassment risks associated with worldwide mobility (see ERAC, 2020).

An important limitation is that professional associations are not typically employers. They are responsible for their (usually small) staff, but not necessarily their members, which do not have the same ‘rights’ or obligations as staff. What’s more, professional associations have no jurisdiction in colleges and universities. They cannot officially request information about alleged harassers or those reporting harassment. They are unlikely to be able to protect against retaliation (aside from perhaps writing letters to call for fairness). They have fewer options than their employers to sanction members who are harassers, and most associations consider public shaming to be unethical. Yet professional associations may be called upon to act especially with regard to the ‘pass-the-harasser’ phenomenon, which occurs when universities (or even countries) expect the problem to go away ‘naturally’ when the person accused of harassment leaves the university. This, of course, does not solve the problem of harassment for academic communities, as serial harassment poses a special challenge beyond individual campuses.

Despite these limitations, professional associations can be powerful influencers. Membership-based organisations are responsible for what happens at the meetings they organise and in their day-to-day activities. As such, their organisational practices invigorate the appearance, perceptions, and realities of harassment (constructively or negatively) at association events. White women and minority groups, for example, have reported hostile environments and harassment at professional conferences (Sapiro & Campbell, 2018). In addition to other forms of gender harassment, women report being dismissed or disrespected as colleagues and academic experts, and in discussions. Some men use conference spaces to signal that they are more interested in women as flirtations or random hook-ups than as professional peers. Conference arrangements that foster such environments contribute to confusion about personal and professional boundaries and fuel abuse of power.

Notwithstanding, some professional associations in the US have proactively developed strategies and policies to set clear expectations for conferences. The AGU’s campaign SafeAGU offers support to members who ‘feel harassed, threatened or unsafe’ when participating in AGU meetings. Additionally, each conference participant acknowledges and agrees to AGU ground rules when registering for the conference online. As association membership is a privilege and not a right; professional associations have authority to create norms and expectations for members, including clear articulation about how harassment undermines the goals and values of their organisations and will not be tolerated. Professional associations are legally responsible for incidents that occur at their events and when employees or members act on their behalf, but statutory obligations are murkier for behaviour that occurs among members outside of these parameters. Professional associations have been hesitant to promise investigations beyond behaviour reported at official events, but they still have a role to play.

4.1 Raising Awareness, Setting a Tone

Organisational leaders shape narratives on violence and harassment and when leaders at all levels speak out against sexual harassment, they can change organisational culture (Hart et al., 2018). The American and German Associations of Political Science started an organisation-wide conversation on sexual harassment by surveying their membership about harassment at the APSA conference and at work. Other professional associations communicate policies and knowledge about sexual violence and harassment through email, newsletters, social media, and other communications. The ASA sent communications to its leadership and members setting a tone of respect, dignity, inclusiveness, and fairness, with a clear message that abuses of power in any form will not be condoned. Thirteen sections of the German Society of Music Research distanced themselves in public statements from the celebration of a colleague who had been convicted of four cases of sexual assault. They took exception since extolling him and his work served to downplay the gravity and seriousness of the offences.Footnote 8

The AGU took a leading role in combatting harassment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM ) fields. The association convened a task force, changed the code of ethics to recognise harassment as a violation of research integrity, implemented the SafeAGU programme for conferences, and promised to conduct investigations.Footnote 9 The AGU Ethics and Equity Center (founded in 2019) serves as an information hub providing information and up-to-date resources from legal services to other forms of individual support.

As norm setting organisations, professional associations can also help to train and educate leadership and members at all levels in sexual harassment prevention. Associations have expanded training resources and begun to develop and provide resources to support victims and bystanders of harassment. These include self-defence and bystander training for individuals, departments, and department heads; committees that conduct on-campus visits for departmental reviews; working groups and task forces; conference panels; and town halls to raise awareness of sexual harassment and various forms of abuse of power. The pathbreaking ADVANCEGeo PartnershipFootnote 10 (funded by the US National Science Foundation) develops departmental workshops at colleges and universities to change the climate for white women and minorities in academia.

4.2 Defining Sexual Harassment

Norm setting also includes the establishment and validation of definitions. Professional associations have long treated and defined sexual harassment as unprofessional behaviour and violation of a code of ethics. The APSA defines harassment as ‘a serious form of professional misconduct’. The NAS (2018) report called for academia to address sexual harassment by tackling gender inequities and gender harassment. Yet many organisational statements simply reaffirm common principles that imply equity such as ‘professional and supportive cultures that value diversity and inclusiveness’. The Academy of Management (AOM) (2018) describes its goal as ‘[t]o build a vibrant and supportive community of scholars by markedly expanding opportunities to connect and explore ideas. … AOM seeks to cultivate a culture of mutual respect and inclusion.’

Indeed, policy definitions of harassment vary greatly among professional associations. Most recognise that different types of harassment exist and use the term broadly to encompass any or all of its forms. When organisations go beyond a narrow definition of unwanted behaviour, however, the broadening of the definition sometimes loses even the legal framing of harassment as a form of sex and gender discrimination. The feminist framing of sexual harassment as rooted in (organisational) gender power rarely surfaces. The AOM standards and procedures (2018), for example, ‘mainstream’ harassment to the extent that its policy statement does not include the word ‘gender’ at all.

With few exceptions, professional associations seldom acknowledge the intersection of inequalities in harassment. Both the APSA and LSA broadened existing legal definitions with inclusion of socioeconomic status as a factor associated with harassment. For example, graduate students from working-class backgrounds might not have financial alternatives to working as a research assistant and thus can be more vulnerable to abuses of power. The LSA policy is an outlier in its inclusion of intersectional language when describing harassment as ‘not limited to actual or perceived sex, gender identity, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, age, religion, national origin, citizenship status, criminal record, veteran status, or their intersection’ (LSA Letter 2019, bold added by the author). Furthermore, the incorporation of gender, sexual, and non-sexual forms of harassment creates a clear link between harassment and discrimination that surpasses the scope of legislation which recognises only the most overt and egregious behaviour.

4.3 Framing Sexual Harassment as Research Misconduct

A promising redress within US funding agencies is the framing of sexual harassment under the umbrella of research misconduct. Such framing is a crucial move to hold individuals accountable, not only in regard to funding obligations as individuals act on behalf of funders at professional conferences and beyond, but also in what grantees do on campuses as collaborators, research supervisors, local experts, and so on. The NAS report used misconduct framing to centre harassment in terms of core scientific values and systemic consequences:

when sexual harassment occurs in research environments it can undermine core values of research integrity. The cumulative effect of sexual harassment is significant damage to research integrity and a costly loss of talent in academic sciences, engineering, and medicine. (NAS, 2018, p. 3)

The AGU’s policy (also framing harassment as research misconduct) further reasons that ‘scientific misconduct … includes unethical and biased treatment of people. … These actions violate AGU’s commitment to a safe and professional environment required to learn, conduct, and communicate science.’Footnote 11 The AGU also allows anyone to file a harassment complaint regardless of where the incident occurred or whether the reporting individual was personally affected (e.g., a witness or casual bystander could file a report). And, the National Science Foundation defines research misconduct itself as ‘fabrication, falsification, plagiarism’ that also includes ‘other serious deviations from accepted practices in proposing, carrying out or reporting results from activities funded by NSF’ (45 CFR §689.1[a]).

The NSF policy enabled agency investigations of a range of inappropriate activities. Beginning in 2018, NSF requirements that universities report any (verified or potential) violations of university policies on sexual harassment by senior personnel working on NSF grants were heard loud and clear. Universities now discuss sexual harassment as part of their communication of compliance rules with NSF grant holders. This potentially powerful shift on the part of the NSF incorporates gender equity into existing accountability structures of research integrity and funder oversight. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) also enforced accountability measures when it replaced 14 principal investigators and 14 individuals from peer review due to harassment allegations.Footnote 12 Thus, funding agencies can limit the power of ‘star’ academics whose leverage derives from bringing financial backing from those agencies to their universities and reduce abuse of power in the long run.

Framing harassment in terms of research misconduct situates this form of gender discrimination as a violation of both professional ethics and the core mission of academia—knowledge production. In this way, harassment is understood to be damaging to the integrity of education, research, scholarship, science, and the advancement of disciplines. Treating harassment like any other violation of professional integrity provides a framework for academic institutions to address it with similar authority:

Academic institutions should consider sexual harassment equally important as research misconduct in terms of its effect on the integrity of research, and thus should increase collaboration among offices that oversee the integrity of research (i.e., those that cover ethics, research misconduct, diversity, and harassment issues) and centralize resources, information, and expertise. (NAS, 2018, p. 3)

Universities and funding agencies reference these broader professional standards and codes of ethics to communicate values and norms. It remains unclear how existing mechanisms for handling allegations of such code violations can be specifically applied to harassment. Professional associations have largely found themselves ill prepared to apply existing ethics frameworks (such as those oriented towards plagiarism) to harassment cases that require different kinds of expertise, training, and resources to rectify.

4.4 Reporting

Several professional associations have developed protocols for handling harassment, particularly at conferences. Reporting has important limitations for any organisation, as argued previously, but as discussed here for professional associations in particular.

First, for organisations that rely on reporting procedures for violations of ethical codes, for example, the time limits for filing, prohibition of anonymity, and other restrictions (such as being limited to conferences) are not compatible with incidents of harassment. Second, as harassment often occurs in ‘private’ spaces, it may be difficult to find witnesses or other evidence needed for investigations. Third, the trauma, complicated feelings, self-doubt, and self-blame that often accompany harassment make it difficult for survivors to share their experiences with anyone sometimes for years or decades, let alone to submit a formal report. Fourth, the intensive resources and expertise required to conduct harassment investigations are added barriers for member-based associations to intervene. Fifth, these associations have little (formal) access to what happens at campuses, and universities are under no obligation to ‘report’ the outcomes of investigations. Very few cases go to court and unless universities release the conclusions of their harassment investigations publicly, professional associations are hard pressed to obtain information they would need to act on allegations. Sixth, it is crucial for the points of contact to be trained and prepared to handle allegations and intervene successfully, another potential challenge for organisations with scarce resources.

Recognising the liminal position of professional associations that lack direct member oversight, the NAS is seeking ‘alternative and less formal ways to record information about an incident’ and also advises professional associations to provide greater assistance to members experiencing harassment, including ‘social services, health care, legal, and career/professional’ services ‘regardless of if a formal report is filed’ (2018, p. 7). The Geoscience Union now offers to pay for legal services for members victimised by harassment. Similar to unions, these measures may have to be extended to the accused as well, as the accused are more likely to pursue legal action (Zippel, 2006).

4.5 Dealing with Sexual Harassment: The Ombudsperson Model

Some professional associations have attempted to address harassment within Ombuds systems to provide a neutral, impartial, and confidential environment for members to voice concerns. For instance, a member of the German Political Science Association (DVPW) serves as a confidante for sexual harassment and sexualised violence. The US AOM refers sexual harassment victims to an Ethics Ombuds committee system. Beginning in 2018, APSA assigned two ombudspersons to be present at conferences as well as provide services beyond the meetings: an ombuds-trained APSA member and an ombudsperson from a local campus. The Law Society Association (LSA) created an ombuds system for conferences that consists of at least two ombuds-trained members to ‘assist … confidentially, offer advice about options and how to proceed and if appropriate, may attempt conciliation’.Footnote 13 And, a working group of the Sociologists for Women in Society (SWS) recommended that the association create an ‘ombuds committee’ for members who experience harassment in the context of ‘non-employment issues that may arise between members’. The broad charge of this committee would be to ‘mediate and address disputes, issues, or problems between SWS members. In relation to general issues or specific cases related to alleged violations of the SWS Code of Conduct, the Committee shall gather information and, when deemed appropriate, recommend actions to the SWS Executive Council.’

The confidentiality of the ombuds system may be appealing to victims of harassment who prefer anonymity. However, as mechanisms for addressing harassment, ombuds systems are problematic. First, harassment may fall outside of the ombuds jurisdiction as a neutral entity focused on problem solving and conflict resolution. While harassment is indeed a problem to be solved and individuals may benefit from talking through their concerns and possible options for redress, mediation and conciliation are not necessarily appropriate in harassment cases, and experts warn against such approaches especially for cases of sexual violence. Second, an ombudsperson cannot take sides and is not in a position to talk to or sanction a harasser. An ombudsperson trained in sexual harassment prevention and mitigation may be better positioned to help someone victimised by harassment to think through their experiences and refer them to a skilled professional for assistance.

4.6 Curbing Sexual Harassment Within Nomination and Awards Systems

Selection and nomination procedures for association offices and awards are another function within professional associations that have potential for creating and reinforcing professional norms to reduce sexual harassment. ASA reminds nominators that: ‘All ASA members are expected to meet the commonly held standards of professional ethics and scientific integrity articulated in our Code of Ethics’, and asks explicitly: ‘Do you have any concerns … regarding the nominee satisfying this expectation?’ While this type of directive encourages a level of reflection on the ethical behaviour and integrity of potential awardees and association officers, professional colleagues are more likely to be familiar with their peers’ work than their ‘private’ affairs. Some groups have suggested using self-identification by nominees as a measure to promote ethical selection using a question such as ‘Have you ever been found in violation of university policies?’ But harassing individuals may not be likely to self-disclose to save their reputation or because they do not identify their behaviour as harassment. The SWS reserves the right to revoke or withhold awards of members found in breach of the organisation’s standards

if it determines, in its sole discretion, that a recipient has engaged in conduct that constitutes a substantial departure from SWS’ core mission and/or commitment to transforming the academy through feminist leadership, undermines the credibility and integrity of the award, or violates generally accepted standards of public behaviour.Footnote 14

Such policies have potential force since professional associations extend the privilege or honour of offices and awards to members, but they are not guaranteed or legally binding.

4.7 Preventing Sexual Harassment with a Diffusion of Power

The development of clear guidelines and models for power diffusion in academia is another domain in which professional associations may affect cultural change in ways that make academic settings averse to sexual harassment. The NAS report made a strong recommendation that institutions consider diffusing power that is otherwise concentrated, especially for graduate students. Power diffusion may include: shifting the single-advisor structure of thesis and dissertation committees to more team structures; and rethinking the role of recommendation letters (and whether they are written by current or past intimate partners) in hiring, promotion, and advancement.

Another important and controversial example is discouraging intimate relationships between graduate students and faculty that create power differentials. Even if universities will not take a stance on such relationships, professional associations can set standards urging their members to avoid hiring, writing letters of recommendation, and evaluating their intimate partners in any way. To curb power differentials, faculty may simply recuse themselves.

5 Conclusion

Until recently, professional associations have essentially overlooked sexual harassment within academia and their organisations. Some have gone as far as to protect powerful members against allegations. The subsequent silencing of sexual harassment victims reinforced a culture that is exclusionary to women and those from racial/ethnic and other minority groups. Although professional associations, as membership organisations, are less able than employers to monitor or investigate harassment incidents on campuses, they can exert influence on academic culture and institutions by: (1) shaping narratives on violence and harassment; (2) expanding the definition of sexual harassment to include intersectionality, making a clear link between harassment and discrimination, and considering harassment as a form of research misconduct; and (3) using alternative models for addressing sexual harassment such as revising reporting protocols, using bystander strategies, setting up and training ombudspersons in sexual harassment, revising procedures for nomination and selection of offices and awards, and creating guidelines for power diffusion in academic settings.

In addition, professional associations have the power to set ethical standards and rules for their own organisations. As such, they can withhold the privileges of conference attendance, committee participation, journal involvement, recognition, or even membership from any member in violation of association codes and ethics. Furthermore, professional associations have the capacity to provide resources to members experiencing sexual harassment, such as legal information and social support. Going a step further, these organisations might offer alternative dissertation examiners, colleagues willing to write letters of recommendation, and mentorship for all career stages beyond the graduate phase.

The global COVID-19 pandemic has changed the landscape of sexual harassment in academia (at least in the short term). The risks for physical harassment have decreased as many in-person meetings (including teaching, research collaborations, and conferences) are now virtual. That said, the expanded online environment is likely to increase online harassment for women and those from racial/ethnic and other minority groups who are already at increased risk.

As knowledge production and academia become even more global, professional organisations that operate nationally and internationally may be better positioned to address sexual harassment, particularly if they are able to develop strong standards that protect mobile academics (in a post-pandemic context) and prevent serial harassment (by passing harassers from institution to institution, and country to country). Academic communities such as professional associations that step up to these challenges can be powerful allies in rectifying sexual harassment and promoting an inclusionary academic culture for all.