Dissonant Discourses in Institutional Communications on Sexual Violence

Musselman, Malori; Herrera, Andrea P.; Contreras-Medrano, Diego; Fielding, Dan Michael; Francisco, Nicole A.; Petrucci, Larissa

doi:10.1080/1554477x.2019.1697120

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Including and building upon the above language, the broader discourse of sexual violence is often framed through heteronormativity that frames sexual violence as occurring between men and women, and through hegemonic sexism that frames women as victims and men as perpetrators (Anthony & Cook, 2012;Gunnarsson, 2018;Musselman et al, 2020;Scully, 2009).…”

Section: Sexual Violencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The main focus of their research was to use discourse analysis to understand the ways in which the institution constructed "who is at risk of committing or experiencing sexual violence, and (our main focus here) who is responsible for preventing and responding to it" (Musselman et al, 2020, p. 145). Findings indicated a lack of cohesive language about victims, survivors, and perpetrators of sexual violence, as well as a focus on changing individual behavior as the main path to ending sexual violence, opposed to institutional or structural changes (Musselman et al, 2020).…”

Section: Discourse Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The current research differs from Musselman et al's (2020) in several important ways. where Musselman et al (2020) acknowledges the works of feminist scholars but does not define a feminist framework as a theoretical practice for the study. Finally, Musselman et al (2020) completed a discourse analysis, where this research is adding an additional lens of critical discourse analysis, in order to intentionally analyze power within the discourse.…”

Section: Discourse Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As the literature shows, higher education does not have universal language or universal responses to campus sexual violence and intimate partner violence (Fedina et al, 2018;Halstead et al, 2017;Harris et al, 2020;Karjane et al, 2002;Krause, et al, 2019;Linder et al, 2020;Musselman et al, 2020;Sabina et al, 2017). This research aligns with those findings, recognizing the different discourses presented at Baylor University and the University of Utah.…”

Section: Intimate Partner Violence and Sexual Violence Discoursesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…searched for information by looking at specific webpages (e.g., women's centers), using explicit search terms(Musselman et al, 2020; Simmons & Clay, 2018), or both (Hayes-Smith & Hayes-…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A critical discourse analysis of intimate partner violence and sexual violence discourse on the websites of two institutions of higher education

Schulz¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Sexual Violencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discourse Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discourse Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Intimate Partner Violence and Sexual Violence Discoursesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…searched for information by looking at specific webpages (e.g., women's centers), using explicit search terms(Musselman et al, 2020; Simmons & Clay, 2018), or both (Hayes-Smith & Hayes-…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A critical discourse analysis of intimate partner violence and sexual violence discourse on the websites of two institutions of higher education

Schulz¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Heteronormative Assumptions and Expectations of Sexual Violence: Language and Inclusivity Within Sexual Violence Policy in Australian Universities

Gretgrix

Farmer

2022

Sex Res Soc Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Sexual violence is often positioned as a heterosexual experience, perpetrated by men against women. Research from the USA has revealed university sexual violence policies are typically heteronormatively framed and ignore the sexual victimisation of men and sexuality and gender diverse people (DeLong et al. in Journal of Interpersonal Violence 33:3315–3343, 2018; Enke in Journal of College Student Development 59:479–485, 2016; Worthen & Wallace in Family Relations 66:180–196, 2017). In Australia, there has been little examination of university sexual violence policies in terms of inclusivity and language used in relation to gender, sexuality or the framing of sexual violence. Positioned within a feminist perspective, which seeks to promote equitable consideration of all sexual and gender identities, the current study starts to fill this gap. Methods A summative content analysis of 17 sexual violence policies, collected in December 2020 from ten Australian universities, identified and explored the extent of assumptive concepts in language related to gender, sexuality and inclusivity. Results This preliminary study found that sexual violence policies within Australian universities typically reject traditional gendered narratives of sexual violence and use gender-neutral language that is inclusive of all genders and sexualities. Conclusions This finding provides the foundation for further research which expands the sample and examines the actual experiences of sexuality and gender diverse victim-survivors when navigating university sexual violence policies. Policy Implications University policymakers may draw from this sample of policies when developing or revising their sexual violence policies.

show abstract

The Insidiousness of Institutional Betrayal: An Ecological Systematic Review of Campus Sexual Violence Response Literature

Dufour

2024

Trauma, Violence, & Abuse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, post-secondary institutions have been under increased public and academic scrutiny regarding their ability to prevent and respond to instances of campus sexual violence. Emerging research has explored institutional betrayal (IB), which is a theoretical framework that states that actions and inactions on the part of the institution can cause further harm to survivors of violence. The goals of this review were, using an ecological systems lens, to identify what specific behaviors, policies, responses, and other factors constitute IB or institutional support (IS) as defined by the existing literature. A search of 16 databases across 8 disciplines led to the identification of 100 articles that mentioned either IB or IS verbatim. Factors that can be categorized as IB and IS were identified across nine levels: (1) the individual level, (2) the interpersonal level, (3) within institutional spaces, (4) within institutional procedures, (5) within institutional policies, (6) at the institutional structural level, (7) at the institutional culture level, (8) at a government and public policy level, and (9) within greater societal cultural values and established social norms. IB itself manifests across all levels of the institution and is, in fact, quite insidious—it is largely invisible and deeply rooted in systemic oppression, woven into the structure of institutions of higher education. IB remains a looming, almost inevitable outcome of the structural violence that occurs in post-secondary settings. Yet, IS and the related concept of institutional courage are emerging fields of study that pose important implications for institutional change.

show abstract

Dissonant Discourses in Institutional Communications on Sexual Violence

Cited by 3 publications

References 20 publications

A critical discourse analysis of intimate partner violence and sexual violence discourse on the websites of two institutions of higher education

A critical discourse analysis of intimate partner violence and sexual violence discourse on the websites of two institutions of higher education

Heteronormative Assumptions and Expectations of Sexual Violence: Language and Inclusivity Within Sexual Violence Policy in Australian Universities

The Insidiousness of Institutional Betrayal: An Ecological Systematic Review of Campus Sexual Violence Response Literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About