View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Students' Experienced Harm at Higher Education Institutions: A Qualitative Study

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Students' Experienced Harm at Higher Education Institutions: A Qualitative Study
Language: English
Authors: Amanda Isabel Osuna (ORCID 0000-0002-4753-0143), Kathleen Darcy, Sarah Prior, Travis Olson, Joseph A. Hamm
Source: Innovative Higher Education. 2025 50(3):789-814.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 26
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Student Experience, College Students, Well Being, Trust (Psychology), Risk, Universities, College Environment
DOI: 10.1007/s10755-024-09756-y
ISSN: 0742-5627
1573-1758
Abstract: Student wellbeing is a critical concern within higher education, as universities bear the responsibility of safeguarding students from potential harm arising from institutional decisions and the conduct of students and staff (Smith and Freyd, "Journal of Traumatic Stress" 26:119-124, 2013; Koskina ("Studies in Higher Education," 38, 1020-1036, 2013)). This harm can manifest in different ways, from physical dangers to intangible harm that affect students' identities. The concept of trust plays a significant role in this context, where students must acknowledge that universities might cause harm through their choices. Understanding the interplay between trust and harm is crucial: It is essential to recognize the types of harm universities can control and those that students perceive as relevant when conceptualizing trust in higher education. To address trust and harm, this study builds upon findings from climate surveys conducted at various institutions and investigates the specific harms students have experienced at their universities. The research question guiding this study is: What are the experienced harms of students at higher education institutions (HEIs)? By qualitatively analyzing the experiences of thirty-nine students from a large Midwestern university, this research provides valuable insight into the nature of harm that students encounter in academic environments.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1475110
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFhIrhsLDgPZ0qghZOWhN34AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDFO9osLd057IohZF5wIBEICBm1zo8M6ydK3DhrPeFXqeYS7HRl-EjmxCqJ2oU2PX5C9z6yw2IcGk8iPfextBKJM8S4QICsjtGKovxLR9qgr4WT-4ezdkUsNkDsHqdxnKEeuZd-yiw0Hx7Vh2Wvjor7VvHSgKbpSjxr9g8HDYO3ORUio2RuYeVis80hXLt7kj75ZtikSH2G6j5NgaFOLCBAq5Mnn90US-daZ07k4F
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0186106340;ihe01jun.25;2025Jun25.03:31;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186106340-1">Students' experienced harm at higher education institutions: A qualitative study </title> <p>Student wellbeing is a critical concern within higher education, as universities bear the responsibility of safeguarding students from potential harm arising from institutional decisions and the conduct of students and staff (Smith and Freyd, Journal of Traumatic Stress 26:119–124, 2013; Koskina (Studies in Higher Education, 38, 1020-1036, 2013)). This harm can manifest in different ways, from physical dangers to intangible harm that affect students' identities. The concept of trust plays a significant role in this context, where students must acknowledge that universities might cause harm through their choices. Understanding the interplay between trust and harm is crucial: It is essential to recognize the types of harm universities can control and those that students perceive as relevant when conceptualizing trust in higher education. To address trust and harm, this study builds upon findings from climate surveys conducted at various institutions and investigates the specific harms students have experienced at their universities. The research question guiding this study is: What are the experienced harms of students at higher education institutions (HEIs)? By qualitatively analyzing the experiences of thirty-nine students from a large Midwestern university, this research provides valuable insight into the nature of harm that students encounter in academic environments.</p> <p>Keywords: Harm; Student; Vulnerability; Higher education; Neoliberalism; Education Specialist Studies In Education</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0186106340-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Trust is a fundamental aspect of human society. Trusting relationships bind individuals, communities, and institutions together in an uncertain world. Although trust has been variously conceptualized, it is most often defined as the willingness of one party "to assume risks or be vulnerable" to another (Mayer et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref1">50</reflink>], p. 724) and typically follows the expectation of a positive outcome (Rousseau et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref2">64</reflink>]). Trusting actors suspend their concern about the possibility of harm or betrayal and act as if they were not vulnerable (Möllering, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref3">52</reflink>]). Trust, therefore, sits in the delicate balance between reliance on others and the potential for injury that is inherent in all human interactions.</p> <p>Higher education is a prime example of a context in which the intricate dance of trust and vulnerability to harm is particularly consequential. At its core, all education poses risk. Students necessarily base their learning on others' statements without being able to gather independent evidence (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref4">81</reflink>]). Still, the higher educational context exposes students to a variety of harms that run from embarrassment to assault (Osuna, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref5">57</reflink>]; Prior & de Heer, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref6">60</reflink>]). Cultivating a willingness to accept vulnerability (i.e., trust) is therefore essential for colleges and universities to function. The trust students place in their institutions, faculty, and peers directly influences their academic performance, their likelihood to persist and complete their studies, and their overall satisfaction with the educational experience (Ennen et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref7">21</reflink>]; Huff et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref8">37</reflink>]; Serva & Fuller, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref9">67</reflink>]). Indeed, trust has been linked to academic achievement, retention, and loyalty from K-12 to higher education (Tschannen-Moran, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref10">78</reflink>]; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref11">80</reflink>]). Trust enables the long-term success of colleges and universities, allowing them to achieve their missions of advancing knowledge, and contributing to the public good (Leveille, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref12">45</reflink>]; Tierney, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref13">76</reflink>]).</p> <p>The implications of losing trust within higher education are, therefore, profound. A lack of trust may not only erode students' educational experiences but, if spread sufficiently, undermine the benefits that postsecondary institutions are designed to bestow (Donovan, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref14">20</reflink>]; Schultz, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref15">66</reflink>]). In an increasingly interconnected and diverse world, students' capacity to fully engage with higher education despite their vulnerability to it serves as a keystone, not just for their intellectual development but also for broader social and economic progress (Calderone & Fosnacht, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref16">13</reflink>]). Understanding student trust in higher education—and especially how students come to accept or reject their potential for injury at the hands of their university—is therefore, an important scholarly pursuit and one with the potential to generate generalizable lessons for maintaining the delicate balance between vulnerability and trust across contexts (Lewicki et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref17">47</reflink>]; Lieberwitz, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref18">48</reflink>]).</p> <p>It is, therefore, noteworthy that little research has, to this point, directly considered the specific nature of the vulnerability that students experience in their relationships with their universities. Although considerable work has assumed that students experience vulnerability to harms that range from physical dangers such as COVID-19 (Osuna et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref19">58</reflink>]) or sexual assault (Darcy, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref20">17</reflink>]), scholars have yet to systematically unpack the specific constellation of potential harms that students feel (un)willing to accept when they (do not) trust their HEIs. The present study addresses this gap through a student-centered exploration of harms they have actually experienced. Specifically, we asked currently enrolled students at a large Midwestern university about the harms they experienced at their HEI. We, therefore, move beyond the vulnerabilities that previous research assumes students should feel and capture the harms that students have specifically encountered. We argue that these experienced harms are a key element from which these and other students will draw as they attempt to make sense of the ways in which they are vulnerable in their relationship with the HEI.</p> <p>We next outline our conceptual framing before describing our methods, sharing our findings, and discussing the implications of our study for future research and practice.</p> <hd id="AN0186106340-3">Conceptual Framework</hd> <p>Our conceptual framework centers the complicated web of relationships that give rise to the potential harms that define the student-HEI relationship. Smith and Freyd's ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref21">72</reflink>]) work on the nature of student wellbeing in higher education highlights the potential for harm that stems from organizational decisions and interpersonal dynamics in a complicated and interconnected system. Students must decide which HEI to enroll in, often with little opportunity to personally validate the information that colleges and universities present about themselves (Bonnema & Van der Waldt, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref22">7</reflink>]). In the classroom, students must entrust their HEIs with their intellectual growth and believe that these entities are acting in their best interest (Bankole, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref23">5</reflink>]). On campus, students rely on a variety of services that take responsibility for virtually every element of their lives from nutrition to physical security (Gupta, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref24">28</reflink>]). Students, therefore, rely heavily on a variety of relationships in the higher education context such that it is generally not possible to completely eliminate their potential for experiencing harm. Indeed, it may even be that some level of vulnerability is desirable as it may lead to greater collaboration and self-understanding (Jackson, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref25">39</reflink>]). What is needed, then, is a mechanism for getting to cooperation that can co-exist with that vulnerability. Trust is this mechanism because it allows individuals to remain vulnerable and yet interact as if they were safeguarded from harm (Henry & Möllering, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref26">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>It is important, however, to recognize that trust then feeds back into vulnerability as there is evidence that trust magnifies harm if it is betrayed (Darcy, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref27">17</reflink>]). When we trust, we are motivated to decrease our efforts to monitor and control the other (Mayer et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref28">50</reflink>]). This, in turn, expands our potential vulnerability, creating new vulnerability to betrayal. Extensive research demonstrates that distinct victimization occurs when the potential harm to which the trustor was vulnerable is realized within a trusting relationship (Freyd, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref29">24</reflink>]; Smith & Freyd, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref30">71</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref31">72</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref32">73</reflink>]). This experience can lead to distinct negative outcomes (Milton, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref33">51</reflink>]; Smith & Freyd, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref34">71</reflink>]) and can foster generalized negative expectations for the relationship (Sitkin & Roth, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref35">68</reflink>]). As trust is a question of individual perception, it is a construct that can be used to describe interpersonal relationships along with an individual's relationship to groups or institutions (Fulmer & Gelfand, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref36">25</reflink>]). In each instance, one is choosing to accept vulnerability because of an expectation for positive outcomes.</p> <p>Trusting relationships are, therefore, dynamically related to harm and, especially the perceived potential for experiencing it, that is vulnerability (Hamm & Banner, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref37">29</reflink>]). Individuals use the information at their disposal to make sense of the set of behaviors that can reasonably be expected from their interaction partners and especially, the extent to which they should feel concern about potential injuries (Hamm et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref38">30</reflink>]). In the higher education context, students engage in these same sensemaking processes, but this process is somewhat more challenging given the particularly complex nature of these institutions. Students must make sense of the ways they can experience harm, not only to the institution itself, but also to the variety of faculty, staff, and students nested within it (Kramer, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref39">41</reflink>]; Lewicka, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref40">46</reflink>]). Students are therefore positioned within a web of relationships, each of which carry their own vulnerabilities. Academic units have responsibility for ensuring their students understand their field, campus facilities offices have a responsibility for ensuring safe infrastructure, and university leadership is responsible for managing the policies and procedures that govern the entire university community. There is therefore a wide range of potential injuries that could drive students' experience of vulnerability but, more challengingly, a complicated web of groups and individuals who may be perceived to have responsibility for them.</p> <hd id="AN0186106340-4">An Ecological Perspective of Student Vulnerability</hd> <p>Ecological paradigms, such as those proposed by Bronfenbrenner ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref41">11</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref42">12</reflink>]), provide a method for analyzing the interactions between individuals and their environment and how these interactions influence outcomes. Renn and Arnold ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref43">62</reflink>]) applied Bronfenbrenner's model to higher education to examine student peer cultures, and many scholars have since used it to theorize the development of college students (Chun & Evans, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref44">15</reflink>]; Patton et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref45">59</reflink>]). We use Renn and Arnold's ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref46">62</reflink>]) application of Bronfrenbrenner's work to begin mapping out the web of relationships that both enrich students' postsecondary education and hold the potential for various forms of harm.</p> <p>As depicted in Fig. 1, HEIs are made up of nested layers of micro-, meso-, exo-, and macro-systems that interact with one another (Renn & Arnold, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref47">62</reflink>]). The daily relations students have with their peers, faculty, and staff make up their microsystem, and it is in these relationships that students learn and develop and, simultaneously, face potential interpersonal harms. Students' immediate relationships are, in turn, influenced by the group environments of the mesosystem, such as classrooms and co-curricular organizations. Opportunities for group learning have long been an essential part of effective postsecondary learning, but recognizing and addressing student vulnerability in these settings is a vital aspect of creating a safe and inclusive educational environment (Tschannen-Moran, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref48">79</reflink>]). The exosystem is, then, composed of the university structures (e.g., policies, staffing, governance protocols) that are, in turn, nested within the broader social and policy landscape, called the macrosystem. Harms that arise in the exo- and macrosystems may arise from a lack of action (e.g., a failure to address systemic racism) or choices made by institutional leadership.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 An Ecological Model of Postsecondary Student Experiences</p> <p>Although each of these levels involves its own set of interactions, attention to cross-level dynamics is central to an ecological perspective. As HEI leaders attempt to manage sources of vulnerability found in the macrosystem, such as policy actors hostile to higher education and resource scarcity, these actions may not reduce the potential for harm. Instead, leaders' responses to the macrosystem, like capitulation to legislators (Quinn, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref49">61</reflink>]) or turning tenured faculty lines into contingent positions (Jackson, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref50">39</reflink>]), may simply push vulnerability into other layers within the organization, transforming it from an institutional challenge to an individual problem for faculty, staff, and students. Similarly, HEIs can leverage interactions across levels to decrease the likelihood that students will experience harm and foster trust. For example, institutional level efforts to restore a duty of care to students through restorative justice practices present a powerful exosystem-based approach to harm prevention and/or mitigation. Focused on the wellbeing of those harmed, restorative justice seeks collective restoration instead of punitive measures (Vaandering, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref51">82</reflink>]). Incorporating these policies at the exosystem level therefore represents a top-down approach that places an emphasis on addressing the needs and obligations of those who have suffered harm, with the goal of making them whole again (Allena, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref52">2</reflink>]; de los Ríos et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref53">19</reflink>]). Centering trust within this ecological framework for understanding and addressing vulnerability is a key effort across levels, as it allows institutions to build relationships that are based on respect, support, and a commitment to mitigating harm (Kwan, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref54">42</reflink>]).</p> <p>Student vulnerability is, therefore, a complex and multifaceted aspect of the higher education experience (Huddy, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref55">36</reflink>]). Although the days of <emph>en loco parentis</emph> have passed and a growing proportion of undergraduate students are mature adults, the student role is defined by dependence on HEIs and unequal power relations with university personnel. Individually and collectively, the choices of university staff, faculty, and administrators have a significant impact on students' experiences of college and may—intentionally or not—lead to harm.</p> <hd id="AN0186106340-5">Neoliberalism as Cross-Level Context for Student Vulnerability</hd> <p>Neoliberalism is an ideology that has dominated policymaking worldwide since the 1970s (Harvey, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref56">32</reflink>]). Proponents of neoliberalism argue that collective wellbeing is best advanced through economic competition and the protection of private interests. Under its banner, policymakers across a number of public contexts severely cut public funding, including for higher education. These cuts have forced HEIs to compete with one another for tuition dollars and private funding (Slaughter & Rhoades, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref57">69</reflink>]). This change in operating models has, in turn, had a profound impact on students. At the macrosystem level, the traditional purposes of higher education—democratic citizen formation, the pursuit of truth, and service to local and minoritized communities—have become secondary to HEIs' search for revenue (Museus & LePeau, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref58">54</reflink>]; Slaughter & Rhoades, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref59">69</reflink>]). Economic competition has, in turn, shaped the structure of HEIs and how individuals within these organizations relate to one another (Cox & Sallee, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref60">16</reflink>]). At the exosystem level, HEI offices, programs, and policies are designed primarily to maximize financial returns. Resources and attention have been increasingly diverted from core educational functions to branding efforts necessary to attract students and to communicate that HEIs are aligned with policymakers' economic priorities (Hearn, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref61">34</reflink>]). The imperative to brand and sell higher education creates many opportunities to potentially harm students. For example, HEI leaders often depict their organizations as diverse and inclusive to attract students while neglecting the changes needed to meaningfully address systemic oppression within higher education (Leong, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref62">44</reflink>]).</p> <p>Across the meso- and micro-systems, university personnel are also incentivized to replicate and strengthen the neoliberal logic of competition and individualized responsibility (Museus & LePeau, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref63">54</reflink>]). Neoliberalism leads HEI personnel to see their students primarily as customers who are entitled to well-defined services but not necessarily to an ethic of care and compassion (Saunders, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref64">65</reflink>]). As a result of this customer mentality and in light of constant pressure on their own wellbeing at work, staff and faculty may only fleetingly engage in programs designed to cultivate student safety and wellbeing (Hurtado, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref65">38</reflink>]). Overall, "neoliberal universities are unable to secure the ubiquitous alignment between equity and quality" because HEIs' responses to their own vulnerability within the current socio-political context increase the likelihood that students are socially, psychologically, and/or economically harmed while pursuing higher education (Oleksiyenko & Tierney, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref66">55</reflink>], p. 190).</p> <hd id="AN0186106340-6">The Current Study</hd> <p>Understanding the closely related interplay of trust and vulnerability in a student-university relationship is important, but current research is limited by its assumptions regarding the nature of the harm students actually consider themselves vulnerable to. This is especially important given that universities are institutions made up of a variety of actors, each of which has different roles and responsibilities, and thus different levels of control over different potential injuries to students. Leveraging a conceptual framework that integrates vulnerability, trust, and an ecological perspective, the present study explores the harm that students feel in their relationship with their university through their own words. In an online self-report survey, students from a large Midwestern university were asked to discuss the harms they have experienced at the hands of the various levels that comprise HEIs (i.e., the university, its administration, their college and department, and the faculty, staff, and other students with whom they interact). Thus, the present study bridges theoretical groundwork with real-life student experiences of harm within their HEI to elucidate practical implications for helping HEIs tailor strategies for protecting student vulnerability and preventing harm more effectively.</p> <hd id="AN0186106340-7">Method</hd> <p>Understanding student vulnerability in the HEI context is therefore both critically important and particularly complicated. We add to this conversation by investigating a set of experienced harms reported by students at a large Midwestern university. Thus, we move beyond top-down assumptions regarding the likely vulnerabilities that students feel and consider student-reported injuries as a key element of the sensemaking fabric of higher education.</p> <p>The current sample was acquired through the university Registrar's Office. A sample of 2,000 undergraduate students (500 freshmen, 500 sophomores, 500 juniors, and 500 seniors), 2,000 graduate students, and 2,000 professional students from all majors and departments on campus received an email encouraging them to partake in a larger online survey. The students received three email reminders, one every four days unless the survey was completed. From these original 6,000 potential respondents, 360 students accessed the survey and 177 provided complete responses.</p> <p>Although the survey included other measures, the current manuscript focuses on the qualitative data provided in response to a single question which asked: "If you feel that you have experienced harm caused by your university, please briefly describe the harm. If you have not, please write 'Not Applicable.'" Thus, not all students provided substantive responses, but 39 individuals indicated that they had experienced harm and reported their thoughts about it. Responses varied in length, but participants provided an average of 35 words each. It is also important to note that there was an unintentional error within the survey platform that did not allow students to use punctuation which may have resulted in the brevity of their responses.</p> <p>The race and ethnic makeup of the sample was unsurprising given that the research was conducted at a primarily White institution. Respondents to the experienced harm question mostly self-identified as White (<emph>n</emph> = 27), with only one identifying as Asian, one as Latinx, two as multiracial, and two as "other". The average age of respondents was 25.33 years old and respondents were mostly female (<emph>n</emph> = 25), with eight males and six whose sex was not specified. At the time of data collection, the participants identified as heterosexual (<emph>n</emph> = 22), homosexual (<emph>n</emph> = 2), or other (<emph>n</emph> = 8). Politically respondents were rather mixed with students identifying as Democrat (<emph>n</emph> = 14), Independent (<emph>n</emph> = 6), Republican (<emph>n</emph> = 5), non-political (<emph>n</emph> = 1), or other (<emph>n</emph> = 6). Respondents included professional students (<emph>n</emph> = 14), graduate students (<emph>n</emph> = 12), and undergraduate students (<emph>n</emph> = 6). Thirteen different major academic units were represented as well as various student organizations and affinity groups.</p> <hd id="AN0186106340-8">Analytic Strategy</hd> <p>The analysis of the open-ended survey responses was conducted using an inductive thematic approach (Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref67">8</reflink>]). A thematic analysis allows for shared meanings and experiences to be captured by the researcher who is "systematically identifying, organizing, and offering insight into patterns of meaning (themes) across a data set" (Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref68">9</reflink>], p. 57). Steps include familiarization with the data, initial code generating, theme generating, theme reviewing, theme defining, and final write-up (Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref69">8</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref70">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>We began by reading each open-ended survey response line-by-line to uncover the presence of codes (Auerbach & Silverstein, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref71">4</reflink>]). After familiarization with the data by three of the team members, the open-ended survey responses were coded by a team member and a list of initial codes was generated. Next, two team members met to discuss the codes and generate themes (Auerbach & Silverstein, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref72">4</reflink>]). At this stage, saturation of the data was reached as no new codes emerged and all cases could be explained using the existing themes. Discrepancies in coding were rare and resolved during one-on-one meetings. It was at this point that the codebook was created and maintained throughout the coding process.</p> <p>Next, the entire research team discussed the themes as part of the theme reviewing and defining stages. The final step of analysis involved grouping these themes into meta-themes (Auerbach & Silverstein, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref73">4</reflink>]) which we then organized based on the conceptual framework of the ecological model and present in the narrative below. It is important to note that as with all qualitative work, the analysis of these data was recursive (Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref74">10</reflink>]). The codes were theoretically driven by previously published literature regarding trust, harm, institutional betrayal, and student ecologies. The codes were also data-driven, which allowed the authors to draw meaningful inferences from the data to create the narrative presented here.</p> <hd id="AN0186106340-9">Findings</hd> <p>Our initial research question was: What are the experienced harms of students at HEIs? Exploring this inquiry, we also identified a secondary research question: What are the sources of experienced harms of students at HEIs? To answer the first research question, we categorized harms into two meta-themes: specified harms and non-specified harms. A total of 28 individuals described incidents of specified harms, which referred to incidents they experienced or knew of that were tied to discrete circumstances (e.g., anti-Indigenous racism). In contrast, 12 individuals described non-specified harms, which were more general and not tied to specific incidents (e.g., changes to the curriculum, lack of university responses to harm, educational harm). Some students described both specified and non-specified incidents of harm (<emph>n</emph> = 4). For example, Student 9 described "Failure to protect students from known predators and saying that a clear incident of threatening anti Indigenous racism was not in violation of policies and failure to provide safe and supportive means to report racist professors." This implicated a specified incident (anti-indigenous racism) as well as a non-specified harm (flawed policies; inadequate means to report).</p> <p>The results are presented first by the meta-theme of specified harm, which is organized by themes and the codes within them. Themes and corresponding codes for the second meta-theme of non-specified harms are discussed in a separate subsection. Additionally, three individuals were deemed outliers, fitting into neither the specified nor non-specified harm categories: These experiences are presented last (Fig. 2).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Student Experienced Harm Code Map</p> <hd id="AN0186106340-10">Specified Harm</hd> <p>Within the meta-theme of specified harms, there were two themes: <emph>identity based harm</emph> and <emph>impact of university decisions. Identity based harms</emph> encompassed the codes: relationship violence/sexual misconduct (RSVM), racialized incidents, ability, morality, and general discrimination. The second theme of <emph>impact of university decisions</emph> encompassed COVID-19, emotional harm, payroll issues/fraud, and other.</p> <hd id="AN0186106340-11">Identity Based Harms</hd> <p>Five students identified relationship violence or sexual misconduct (RSVM) as an identity based harm they experienced. As Student 64 said: "I was harmed when our university administrators let [a well-known employee] rape and sexually assault hundreds of women on campus." For others, the harm came from reporting an incident."I reported my abuser and asked for help because my mental health hit rock bottom and I got shitty emails that didn't help me or do anything whatsoever and I received no help and nothing happened to my abuser even with police reports to back the incidents and My mental health is still horrible because I was not able to receive any help from the school" (Student 19).</p> <p>Similarly, for Student 60, there was harm when they were "harassed by a student in class" and the "teacher had to make a judgement [sic] call about it rather than the university." Some pointed to failures in investigations as the source of harm: "They gave up investigating a case of virtual sexual assault" (Student 63). This harm was complicated by feelings that the university prioritized reputation over student safety in response to RSVM. As Student 134 frustratedly explained, "[The University] STILL does not take claims of sexual misconduct seriously it only values its own protection not the protection of women."</p> <p>A total of 4 students described harm that stemmed from racialized incidents. As mentioned, Student 9 reflected on anti-Indigenous racism and serious flaws in the policies to prevent, report, and punish this behavior. Interpersonal harms were also identified by Student 150 stemming from peers. This student experienced "anti black racism and sexual comments and views from colleagues." Identifying a similar experience, Student 94 identified "racist incidents no consequences to perpetrators." Student 175 also experienced an incident of "racial intimidation and harassment" without naming the source. The inaction from the university to respond to these incidents was separately harmful when the university had inadequate (or no) repercussions to those causing racial or identity-based harm on campus.</p> <p>Some students also described harm based on other identity factors, such as ability (<emph>n</emph> = 2), general discrimination (<emph>n</emph> = 1), and morality (<emph>n</emph> = 1). For example, Student 80 shared that "[The University] claims to be handicap accessible and disability friendly but I have not found that to be the case and it has greatly affected my physical wellbeing." Student 135 referred to incidents of "discrimination and ineptitude." Regarding morality, Student 91 described, "My personal experience involved association fallacy like You believe a fetus has moral value therefore youre bigoted and racist is a common sentiment among students especially."</p> <hd id="AN0186106340-12">Impact of University Decisions</hd> <p>Some students pointed to harms that were tied directly to university decisions related to a range of issues. Likely related to the time when the survey was given, a number of students referred to harm stemming from university decision-making around the COVID-19 pandemic (<emph>n</emph> = 7). As Student 12 noted, they were harmed generally by "coronavirus mismanagement." While harms associated with COVID-19 may have been distinct, they often overlapped with financial harms (and vice versa). Only very few students described overt payroll/financial issues (<emph>n</emph> = 3); these payroll/financial harms included direct financial harms, such as "Payroll fraud" (Student 103) or the overall rising cost of tuition.</p> <p>For the students that described harms related to COVID-19 which then caused financial harm, the move from in-person classes to an online format was discussed:"The last minute decision to move online cost me thousands of dollars in rent that I would not otherwise have to pay .... The university has made no concessions to help make life easier for me No one knows when law students will get their FAFSA loan money because the university botched the merge with the larger school I am barely getting by having to ask family for help when this was all avoidable considering we have a doctor president who made the decision to have in person classes when the US was experiencing an uptake in cases and then change his mind the week before class and then the dean said we would still be in person but a day later she actually talked to administration and realized we should be online and she changed her mind." (Student 75)</p> <p>As a result, Student 75 concluded, "The universtiy [sic] has taken a huge toll on my financial and mental health." Additionally, students perceived that the university prioritized profit above the protection of students in relation to the university COVID-19 response. For example, Student 105 lamented: "I was disappointed the university even considered bringing students back on campus for fall for the sake of their tuition dollars over their safety." Each of these examples of financial and COVID-related harm highlight the ways in which university decisions were tied to student harm.</p> <p>Some students described broader harms stemming from distinct incidents in their dealings with university actors that might have harmed them financially or emotionally. These were endorsed as other harms (<emph>n</emph> = 3) or emotional harm (<emph>n</emph> = 2). One student referred to a feeling that the university did not appropriately protect students from third parties: "I have experienced financial harm from the University as it... does not ensure that third party vendors stick to their contracts" (Student 37). Another student felt harmed by decision-making of the university that felt rushed and didn't prioritize student career success. As Student 72 explained, "The change to the [college] curriculum was rushed and not ready for roll out I truly fear for my future career and whether i will have learned what i need to... succeed in my career." As a result, they experienced "added stress and burden" which "has been fatiguing and incredibly frustrating." Similarly impacting their emotional well-being, Student 173 described a troubling incident that resulted in "Emotional Harm From Faculty on Social Media."</p> <hd id="AN0186106340-13">Non-Specified Harm</hd> <p>Unlike the specified harms, these non-specified harms did not refer to an incident, but were tied to university behavior more broadly. Two themes emerged: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref75">1</reflink>) <emph>inadequate institutional response,</emph> which encompassed the codes ignored and silenced and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref76">2</reflink>) <emph>conflicting values,</emph> which encompassed the codes university impacting finances and devalued.</p> <p> <emph>Inadequate institutional response</emph> adds insight to understanding harms surrounding sexual violence when students felt the university ignored them (<emph>n</emph> = 3). Student 19 described that they asked the university for help after experiencing abuse "because my mental health hit rock bottom" but received no response from the university except "shitty emails". As a result, "My mental health is still horrible because I was not able to receive any help from the school." Perhaps even more overt than feeling ignored were the three students who felt silenced by the university (<emph>n</emph> = 3). The survey (sent by internal institutional researchers) was a symbol for feeling silenced by the university. The design of the survey unintentionally limited the use of punctuation, and as Student 160 expressed, "The fact that I typed out how I feel and this survey told me that my response is not a valid textual response speaks volumes."</p> <p>Students also described harm from the university's <emph>conflicting values,</emph> specifically describing feeling devalued as students (<emph>n</emph> = 4). Similarly to some statements from students surrounding specified harm, there were perceptions that the university faced conflicting values related to their profits/reputations versus student safety and well-being. Student 163 explained,"[The University] seems to care a lot about money and its reputation rather than putting the students first and caring for their well being and their experience here I would not say I have been severely harmed by [the University] but it kind of stinks to feel like the school doesn't value student well being as much as they should."</p> <p>In particular, this student questioned whether the employees of the university were actually interested in seeing them graduate on time or if they were incentivized to keep them as students (and collect their tuition dollars) for longer than necessary. "My experience with some advisors here have been negative to the point where I feel like they do not try to help me enroll in classes that will benefit me and keep me on track to graduate on time As a freshman that was a hard experience" (Student 163). Similarly, some students (<emph>n</emph> = 2) suggested numerous non-specified harms had stemmed from financial decisions made by university: "Absurd tuition cost and extremely inflexible and inappropriate expectations" meant that "my entire career and life path have been severely disrupted by the decisions made by the university" (Student 48).</p> <hd id="AN0186106340-14">Outliers</hd> <p>Some students (<emph>n</emph> = 3) stood out as outliers to specified and non-specified harm, not describing a specific incident, but perhaps hinting at the presence of one by stating "I don't feel comfortable answering the question" (Student 29). Student 178 similarly hinted at the presence of some experienced harm but perceived our question as asking about victimhood and shunned this label, stating "I'm not a victim as I refuse to be one." Student 166 didn't perceive that they could have experienced harm yet because they were new to campus, stating "Not Applicable because I am a new student."</p> <hd id="AN0186106340-15">Using the Ecological Model to Explain Sources of Harm</hd> <p>Reflecting the complexity of understanding trust and harm in educational contexts, the different (often multiple) sources of harm were difficult to disentangle in student responses. Using an ecological lens helped us understand the sources of student-described harm and respond to the emergent second research question: What are the sources of experienced harms of students at HEIs? This framework helped highlight the innate overlap between levels or sources of harm within the institution. We drew from existing literature to apply an ecological lens to higher education, supplementing it with work to understand the interpersonal or microlevel harms present within the student relationships described by Renn and Arnold ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref77">62</reflink>]). The levels of the ecological model that were coded were: microsystem (interpersonal, references to classes, activities, friends, roommate); mesosystem (reference to interactions among two or more microsystems, peer culture); exosystem (refers to the environment that has an impact but doesn't contain them, e.g., administration, policies); and macrosystem (references to the totality of microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, e.g., culture, the campus more broadly, campus level variables).</p> <p>Within the ecological model codes, 15 students described harms that stemmed from the microsystem, while slightly fewer described harms stemming from the mesosystem (<emph>n</emph> = 11<emph>)</emph> and exosystem (<emph>n</emph> = 14). The most discussed level of harm within the ecological model was the macrosystem, with more than half of the participants referencing this level of harm (<emph>n</emph> = 24) Table 1.</p> <p>Table 1 Types of Harms and Sources of Harm Using Ecological Model</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Student Number</p></th><th align="left"><p>Specified Harm</p></th><th align="left"><p>Non-Specified Harm</p></th><th align="left"><p>Outlier</p></th><th align="left"><p>Ecological Model</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>9</p></td><td align="left"><p>Racial Incident</p></td><td align="left"><p>Devalued</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Microsystem</p><p>Exosystem</p><p>Macrosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p>COVID</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Exosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>19</p></td><td align="left"><p>RVSM</p></td><td align="left"><p>Ignored</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Microsystem</p><p>Exosystem</p><p>Macrosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>20</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Devalued</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Microsystem</p><p>Mesosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>29</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Outlier</p></td><td align="left"><p>Not Applicable</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>36</p></td><td align="left"><p>Other</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Microsystem</p><p>Mesosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>37</p></td><td align="left"><p>Payroll issues/fraud</p></td><td align="left"><p>University Impacting Finances</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mesosystem</p><p>Macrosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>48</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Devalued</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mesosystem</p><p>Macrosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>60</p></td><td align="left"><p>RVSM</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Microsystem</p><p>Mesosystem</p><p>Macrosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>63</p></td><td align="left"><p>RVSM</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Macrosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>64</p></td><td align="left"><p>RVSM</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Microsystem</p><p>Exosystem</p><p>Macrosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>69</p></td><td align="left"><p>Emotional harm</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Microsystem</p><p>Mesosystem</p><p>Exosystem</p><p>Macrosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>72</p></td><td align="left"><p>Other</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Exosystem</p><p>Macrosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>75</p></td><td align="left"><p>COVID</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Microsystem</p><p>Mesosystem</p><p>Macrosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>80</p></td><td align="left"><p>Ability</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Macrosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>91</p></td><td align="left"><p>Religious</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Macrosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>94</p></td><td align="left"><p>Racial Incident</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Macrosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>95</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Silenced</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Not Applicable</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>100</p></td><td align="left"><p>Other</p></td><td align="left"><p>Ignored</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Microsystem</p><p>Mesosystem</p><p>Macrosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>101</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Silenced</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Microsystem</p><p>Mesosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>103</p></td><td align="left"><p>Payroll issues/fraud</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mesosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>105</p></td><td align="left"><p>COVID</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mesosystem</p><p>Exosystem</p><p>Macrosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>106</p></td><td align="left"><p>COVID</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Exosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>109</p></td><td align="left"><p>Payroll issues/fraud</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Exosystem</p><p>Macrosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>113</p></td><td align="left"><p>COVID</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Exosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>114</p></td><td align="left"><p>COVID</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Macrosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>131</p></td><td align="left"><p>Ability</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Exosystem</p><p>Macrosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>134</p></td><td align="left"><p>RVSM</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Macrosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>135</p></td><td align="left"><p>General discrimination</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Macrosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>138</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>University Impacing Finances</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Exosystem</p><p>Macrosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>150</p></td><td align="left"><p>Racial incident</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Microsystem</p><p>Macrosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>159</p></td><td align="left"><p>COVID</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Exosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>160</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Silenced</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Not Applicable</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>163</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Devalued</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Microsystem</p><p>Macrosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>166</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Outlier</p></td><td align="left"><p>Not Applicable</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>173</p></td><td align="left"><p>Emotional harm</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Microsystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>175</p></td><td align="left"><p>Racial incident</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Microsystem</p><p>Macrosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>177</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Ignored</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Microsystem</p><p>Exosystem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>178</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>Outlier</p></td><td align="left"><p>Not Applicable</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Microsystem based harms arose from other students, faculty, or administrators (e.g., the president, a dean). For example, under the specified harm of COVID, Student 75 described microsystem harms from other students' behavior that threatened their health and relationships by saying "I am additionally surrounded by undergrad students who are partying all the time and therefore I do not feel comfortable seeing my family because this school is going to be diseased [sic] ridden." An example of non-specified, microsystem harm was provided by Student 101, who was "Warned by assistant dean not to report or speak out about serious research misconduct by a VP."</p> <p>Mesosystem related harm implicates multiple micro level actors. For example, Student 100 described harm stemming from "Neglect of student concerns that have been voiced regarding curriculum reinvention." As Student 60 mentioned above, numerous actors helped contribute to this mesosystem harm: "Was harassed by a student in class but university took no action and tried to cancel my complaint and teacher had to make a judgement [sic] call about it rather than the university." This overlapped with the exosystem of administration and policies. These harms implicated miscommunication of policies and/or inherently flawed/harmful policies. Student 177 was harmed by administrative decisions and policies on financial aid when "The law school failed to inform students that they would not be able to receive their loans and many students are now desperately choosing between buying books and buying food."</p> <p>Macrosystem harms stemmed from culture more broadly. For example, student 109 described that "a hostile work environment is the norm." As mentioned above by Student 134, this harm might stem from the perceived culture of the university placing its interests above students. Additionally, misrepresentation of compliance with inclusive rules, policies, or norms was harmful to differently-abled individuals (see Student 80 above). Thus, a larger campus culture could contribute to harm in very different ways.</p> <p>Finally, one student described harm stemming from all levels of the ecological model. Student 69 stated:"Lots of emotional stress as expectations are never clear When questions are asked they are ignored or we are made to feel stupid Ridiculously long hours on clinics isnt there a sixty hr per week rule that is definitely not enforced Scholarships are promised to students then take away A student was slapped by a resident in January of this year."</p> <p>Here, the student describes incidents in the microsystem (the slap); the mesosystem (individuals enforcing rules, ignoring questions); exosystem (the policies around work and scholarships) and macrosystem (the culture of unclear expectations and feeling ignored). The challenges these students face thus likely go beyond isolated incidents, emphasizing the need to address systemic issues ingrained in the overall environment of the HEI.</p> <hd id="AN0186106340-16">Discussion</hd> <p>Although students should be able to expect their vulnerabilities will be protected, they often experience harm while enrolled at HEIs (Smith & Freyd, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref78">73</reflink>]). Students in our sample pointed to specified and non-specified harm caused by the university, encompassing several varied actors, including administrators, faculty, staff, and fellow students. At times, institutional actors failed to protect student vulnerability and caused additional harm beyond the specified harm students had initially experienced. HEIs have historically been trusted institutions within the U.S. (Tierney, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref79">77</reflink>]). By agreeing to live, learn, and work in these settings, students place trust in institutional actors to keep them safe. When institutions fail to protect students or respond appropriately to harmful situations, HEIs betray that trust and students report that these responses cause additional harm (Smith & Freyd, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref80">71</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref81">72</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref82">73</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our participants experienced a wide variety of specified and non-specified harms. Specified harms—again, those that were linked to a specific incident or incidents—included a range of identity based harms, including more overt identity-based harms (e.g., ability, race) but also encompassing RSVM and conceptions of morality. University decisions also were tied to specific incidents. Perhaps tied to when this survey was given, concerns about harms from university response to COVID-19 and financial harms were at the forefront of students' minds. Additionally, a couple of students did not feel comfortable responding to our anonymous survey or did not perceive that harm could be experienced if they were new on campus. Some identified a broader ripple effect of generalized harm on campus that was amplified by institutional action or inaction. This suggests that students could be suspending their decision-making regarding the type of trust they have (or don't have) in their relationship with their HEI (Osuna, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref83">57</reflink>]).</p> <p>Regarding sexual violence, five of our students identified sexual violence and described how the institutional response (or lack thereof) was an additional source of harm. These findings align with and supplement the research on institutional betrayal, which is defined as institutional action or inaction that increases the impact of traumatic experiences (Smith & Freyd, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref84">71</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref85">72</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref86">73</reflink>]). Actions or inactions that contribute to institutional betrayal include: minimizing the severity of harm, neglecting to prevent or address harm, providing inadequate responses to harm, fostering an environment conducive to harm, hindering the reporting of harm, and punishing those who come forward as victims (Smith & Freyd, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref87">72</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref88">73</reflink>]). Our students identified the harms that stemmed from these responses, including feeling discouraged, frustrated, and even severe mental health impacts ("hit rock bottom"). This insufficient response not only directly harms students but also undermines the trust that students traditionally invest in these institutions. This carries practical implications, potentially resulting in a compromised institutional reputation, ultimately negatively impacting the university's brand and potentially threatening enrollment numbers. Even more disturbingly, for decades, research has indicated that campus sexual violence goes largely underreported because victims worry about experiencing additional trauma from reporting their experiences; this is clearly still a salient issue to students (Campbell, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref89">14</reflink>]; Smith & Freyd, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref90">72</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our findings also contribute to the growing literature exploring institutional betrayal outside of sexual violence contexts. For instance, the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic by HEIs has been considered by some to be an example of institutional betrayal (Adams-Clark & Freyd, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref91">1</reflink>]; Osuna et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref92">58</reflink>]). Our students shared experiences of harmful institutional action or inaction surrounding the handling of COVID-19, which often overlapped with financial harms stemming from university decision-making. Supporting research on institutional betrayal, the findings of inadequate reporting options suggest a need for practical changes in the way HEIs handle and facilitate the reporting of incidents.</p> <p>Students also shared how racialized incidents contributed to identity based harms. This is not surprising given that many colleges and universities were founded on ideologies of white supremacy and regularly reinforced notions of racial inferiority as a cornerstone of the academy (Harris, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref93">31</reflink>]; Souto-Manning & Emdin, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref94">75</reflink>]; Valbrun, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref95">83</reflink>]).This history and our findings are consistent with ample research suggesting that HEIs still often fail to respond adequately to instances of racialized violence on campuses (Davis & Harris, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref96">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, some students who described both specified and non-specified harm thought that university decisions that prioritized profits, tuition, or branding might have conflicted with their ability to keep students safe. Much of the way that universities respond to instances of student-experienced harm is motivated by managing their brand (Hashim et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref97">33</reflink>]; Prior & de Heer, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref98">60</reflink>]). Some students perceived that the university valued profit, reputation, or its own safety above student safety. This was expressed by students as specific harms in the COVID-19 and RSVM codes, as well as the non-specified harms in the devalued code. A novel contribution of this study is clear evidence of how neoliberal norms indirectly harm students by normalizing institutional betrayal. Students expected that if HEI leaders had to choose between organizational priorities and protecting their vulnerabilities, students would be harmed. Currently, there is very little discussion of how students perceive academic capitalism and how this perception may lead to a decline in trust, a lack of engagement in college, and generalized distrust of institutions after graduation. Higher education is a unique institution that socializes students and upholds civic and professional norms (Tierney, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref99">76</reflink>]). Although students' distrust in their alma mater may be warranted given the impacts of neoliberalism, academic capitalism robs students and broader society of the expectation that public institutions serve the public good and not just their own interests, further entrenching the inequitable status quo.</p> <hd id="AN0186106340-17">Bridging Theory and Practice</hd> <p>Due to the complexity of these specified and non-specified harms, applying an ecological lens to understand students' multiple sources of harm is a useful tool for HEI leaders seeking to dismantle institutional betrayal. An ecological approach helped us unify discussions of different sources of harm historically discussed in separate kinds of literature, such as feminist approaches to reducing sexual assault (Moylan & Javorka, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref100">53</reflink>]) and cultural competency scholarship (Chun & Evans, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref101">15</reflink>]). Rather than seeing these threats to student vulnerability as discrete challenges, our results show how the harms students experience are interconnected and exacerbated by a neoliberal policy context. This complexity highlights that holistic approaches to analysis and resolution are necessary. As ecological approaches have helped advance the study of student development theory broadly (Renn & Arnold, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref102">62</reflink>]), a generalized ecological harm reduction approach brings together perspectives on student development, organizational change, and national policy. This approach allows for translation and triangulation between different disciplinary and methodological traditions to benefit organizational leaders. However, it is important to recognize that there is no single solution for protecting student vulnerability and preventing harm. HEIs are distinctly unique, and what may be effective for one institution may not necessarily work for another.</p> <p>Our findings emphasize the relevance of the ecological model's multilevel analysis, underscoring the need for a comprehensive understanding of the interconnected factors influencing student experiences. Promoting safety and preventing harm requires a collaborative, multilevel effort involving students, staff, faculty, and administrators. Faculty and staff can foster safety through open dialogue and collaboration with students, mitigating power imbalances that may cause harm (Vaandering, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref103">82</reflink>]). Administrators can treat students seriously, courteously, and keep them well-informed to enhance student loyalty to the institution (Robinson, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref104">63</reflink>]). Institutions can create safe spaces, amplify student voices, respond to student needs, and align system responses to swiftly redress harm (Robinson, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref105">63</reflink>]).</p> <p>Specifically, categorizing harms within the ecological model can help scholars, policymakers, and organizational leaders appreciate the complexity and overlapping nature of harm and develop more comprehensive solutions that protect student vulnerability. For example, research suggests that students of color (Gómez, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref106">27</reflink>]), female students (Smith & Freyd, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref107">73</reflink>]), and LGBTQIIA + students (Smidt et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref108">70</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref109">74</reflink>]) are more susceptible to experiencing institutional betrayal at their HEIs compared to students with different identities. Our results support and build on this research, demonstrating how institutional betrayal manifests at multiple levels involving different actors within the institution that the victim trusted (Smith & Freyd, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref110">72</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref111">73</reflink>]). Four of our students noted that incidents of racism stemmed from multiple university sources, and the broader university responses were so inadequate that they caused them distinct harm. Our finding that harm does not just originate at the microlevel of students' peer cultures or outside the organization in broader society is supported by a documented history of educational institutions betraying minoritized students (Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref112">3</reflink>]; Baugh, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref113">6</reflink>]; Faderman, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref114">22</reflink>]; García et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref115">26</reflink>]; Lomawaima & McCarty, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref116">49</reflink>]; Orfield, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref117">56</reflink>]). These historical instances underscore the dark history of education's treatment of students from marginalized communities (Souto-Manning & Emdin, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref118">75</reflink>]). An early step in HEIs' attempts to build institutional courage must be coming to terms with these historic patterns of injustice and how they still play a role in students' experiences of secondary harm through inadequate handling of student experiences. This is particularly relevant in an era where DEI initiatives in higher education are being defunded or dismantled. Thoughtful and purposeful DEI initiatives should consider both experiences and sources of harm. Perhaps failures of past DEI initiatives, offices, and policies are due to a lack of attention to the different levels of vulnerability identified here.</p> <p>Our results also suggest that vulnerabilities might change during a student's educational experience (e.g., decisions around COVID-19), supporting prior research on vulnerability within trusting institutional relationships (Darcy, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref119">17</reflink>]). HEIs must consider how vulnerabilities not only exist at multiple levels but also change over time (Hamm & Banner, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref120">29</reflink>]). Scholarship and guidance for HEI leaders often treat vulnerability as a static quality that defines only certain groups (Fineman, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref121">23</reflink>]). However, vulnerability is part of human experience. To meet their responsibilities, HEI leaders must explore how vulnerability and harm shift across different student groups. For example, students reported how rapidly changing tuition policies led to their experience of financial harm. An ecologically based approach to exploring harm, like the one developed in this paper, can help HEI decision-makers anticipate and reduce these harms through mapping the dynamic relationships between individuals and broader social, institutional, and environmental factors.</p> <p>As scholars and HEI leaders continue to adopt ecological perspectives on harm reduction, how macrolevel neoliberal policymaking leads to mesolevel practices of academic capitalism that, in turn, have negative consequences for students and broader society will become clearer. Our results build upon theoretical work (Museus and LePeau, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref122">54</reflink>]) and foundational ideas of academic capitalism (Slaughter & Rhoades, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref123">69</reflink>]) to show how students may be directly harmed by decisions that prioritize institutional finances over students' wellbeing. Examples of specified harms include decisions to normalize operations during the COVID pandemic and a dearth of resources to address campus sexual assault (Lederer et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref124">43</reflink>]; Osuna et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref125">58</reflink>]). Perhaps increased transparency in decision-making can help students see the rationales of administrators and HEI leaders and also push those leaders to ensure they are not embracing neoliberal interests at the cost of student safety.</p> <hd id="AN0186106340-18">Limitations</hd> <p>As with all academic research, the present study has several limitations which hinder the applicability of our findings to all HEIs. One important strength lies in the nuanced understanding that is gained by recognizing the significance of not only institutional actions/inactions but also the subjective lens through which these actions/inactions are perceived by students. This approach adds a layer of depth to the analysis, allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of the complexities within the educational environment. However, it also carries a significant limitation in the subjectivity and variability inherent in individual student viewpoints, which may be influenced by personal experiences, biases, or misinterpretations. While these perceptions offer valuable insights, they may not always align with objective realities, posing a challenge in achieving an entirely accurate representation of HEI's practices. Additionally, the qualitative open-ended responses are limited in that students could only share the portion of their experiences they were prepared to type. Interviews with students would have allowed us to gather richer data which could have captured more nuanced language that better represented student experiences at their HEI. Furthermore, the relatively small number of students who reported experiencing harm limits the generalizability of findings to a broader population.</p> <hd id="AN0186106340-19">Conclusion</hd> <p>Our study sheds light on the complex relationships between student wellbeing, institutional decisions, vulnerability, harm, and trust within higher education. As HEIs have the responsibility of safeguarding students from multiple forms of harm, the significance of understanding and fostering student trust becomes important. Our study contributes valuable insights into the specific harms students encounter in academic environments. This research underscores the urgency of comprehending, fostering, and restoring trust to safeguard the wellbeing of students within the higher education landscape.</p> <hd id="AN0186106340-20">Institutional Review Board</hd> <p>This research was deemed exempt from review by Michigan State University. Nonetheless, the research was done in accordance with Michigan State University's research integrity guidelines.</p> <hd id="AN0186106340-21">Consent to Participate</hd> <p>Freely-given, informed consent to participate in the study was obtained from all participants. All participants were 18 years of age or older.</p> <hd id="AN0186106340-22">Conflict of interests</hd> <p>The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.</p> <hd id="AN0186106340-23">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We would like to thank the students who took the time to share their experiences with us and the TRUSST Lab at Michigan State University for their invaluable insights.</p> <hd id="AN0186106340-24">Author Contribution</hd> <p>The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: study conception and design: first, second and fifth author; data collection: first author; analysis and interpretation of results: first, second, and third author; draft manuscript preparation: all authors; writing of manuscript: all authors; figures and tables: first, second, and fourth author. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0186106340-25">Funding</hd> <p>This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.</p> <hd id="AN0186106340-26">Data Availability</hd> <p>Due to the sensitive nature of the research, the data is not available to be shared publicly to maintain participant confidentiality.</p> <hd id="AN0186106340-27">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0186106340-28"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref75" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Adams-Clark AA, Freyd JJ. COVID-19-related institutional betrayal associated with trauma symptoms among undergraduate students. PLoS ONE. 2021; 16; 10: e0258294. 10.1371/journal.pone.0258294</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref52" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Allena TKarp D, Allena T. Restorative conferences: Developing student responsibility by repairing the harm to victims and restoring the university community. Restorative justice on the college campus: Promoting student growth and responsibility and reawakening the spirit of campus community. 2004; C.C. Thomas Publisher: 48-60</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref112" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson JD. The education of Blacks in the South, 1860–1935. 1988; University of North Carolina Press. 10.5149/uncp/9780807842218</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref71" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Auerbach, C, & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis. NYU Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref23" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bankole, R. A. (2011). Student trust in teachers and its relationship to student identification with school, student perceptions of academic press, and achievement (Order No. 3438551). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (847390482). https://doi.org/10.25774/W4-T6HE-9454</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref113" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Baugh, J. (1999). Out of the mouths of slaves: African American language and educational malpractice. University of Texas Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref22" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bonnema J, Van der Waldt DLR. Information and source preferences of a student market in higher education. International Journal of Educational Management. 2008; 22; 4: 314-327. 10.1108/09513540810875653</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref67" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006; 3; 2: 77-101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref68" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis. 2012; American Psychological Association. 10.1037/13620-004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Braun V, Clarke V. (Mis) conceptualising themes, thematic analysis, and other problems with Fugard and Potts' (2015) sample-size tool for thematic analysis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2016; 19; 6: 739-743. 10.1080/13645579.2016.1195588</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). The ecology of cognitive development: Research models and fugitive findings. In R. H. Wozniak & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development in context: Acting and thinking in specific environments (187–249). JAI Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Calderone SM, J. Fosnacht K. Student trust in higher education institutions: How the pandemic influenced undergraduate trust. American Behavioral Scientist. 2023; 67; 13: 1611-1631. 10.1177/00027642221118263</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campbell R. The psychological impact of rape victims' experiences with the legal, medical, and mental health systems. American Psychologist. 2008; 63; 8: 702-717. 10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.702</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chun, E, & Evans, A. (2016). Rethinking cultural competence in higher education: An ecological framework for student development. ASHE Higher Education Report, 42(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.20102</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cox RD, Sallee MW. Neoliberalism across borders: A comparative case study of community colleges' capacity to serve student-parents. The Journal of Higher Education. 2018; 89; 1: 54-80. 10.1080/00221546.2017.1341753</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darcy, K. (2022). Exploring Institutional Sexual Assault, Betrayal, and Trust-Based Harm (Order No. 29328183). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2723548545). https://doi.org/10.25335/4dqm-mz48</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis, S, & Harris, J. C. (2015). But we didn't mean it like that: A critical race analysis of campus responses to racial incidents. Journal of Critical Scholarship on Higher Education and Student Affairs, 2(1), 6. https://ecommons.luc.edu/jcshesa/vol2/iss1/6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de los Ríos, C. V, Martinez, D. C, Musser, A. D, Canady, A, Camangian, P, & Quijada, P. D. (2019). Upending colonial practices: Toward repairing harm in English education. Theory Into Practice, 58(4), 359–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1626615</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Donovan C. Distrust by design? Conceptualizing the role of trust and distrust in the development of Further Education policy and practice in England. Research in Post-Compulsory Education. 2019; 24; 2–3: 185-207. 10.1080/13596748.2019.1596414</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ennen NL, Stark E, Lassiter A. The importance of trust for satisfaction, motivation, and academic performance in student learning groups. Social Psychology of Education. 2015; 18; 3: 615-633. 10.1007/s11218-015-9306-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Faderman, L. (2015). The gay revolution: The story of the struggle. Simon & Schuster.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fineman, M. A. (Ed.). (2010). The vulnerable subject: Anchoring equality in the human condition. In Transcending the Boundaries of Law (0 ed, pp. 177–191). Routledge-Cavendish. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203848531-26</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freyd, J. J. (2003). What is a betrayal trauma? What is betrayal trauma theory?</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fulmer CA, Gelfand MJ. At what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust across multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management. 2012; 38; 4: 1167-1230. 10.1177/0149206312439327</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> García, O, Johnson, S, & Seltzer, K. (2017). The translanguaging classroom: Leveraging student bilingualism for learning. Caslon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gómez, J. M. (2017). Cultural Betrayal Trauma Theory (Order No. 10189674). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global; Psychology Database. (1989131854). https://<ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/cultural-betrayal-trauma-theory/docview/1989131854/se-2">www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/cultural-betrayal-trauma-theory/docview/1989131854/se-2</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gupta K. The structural vulnerability of doctoral students: A political and ethical issue for doctoral programs in Women's/Gender/Sexuality/Feminist Studies. Feminist Studies. 2018; 44; 2: 409-423. 10.1353/fem.2018.0034</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamm, J. A, & Banner, F. (2024). Vulnerability: The active ingredient of trust in public governance. In F. Six, J. A, Hamm, D. Latusek, E. van Zimmeren, & K. Verhoest (Eds.) Handbook on Trust in Public Governance [forthcoming], Edward Elgar Publishing. Preprint available at https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/ce2wy</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamm JA, Möllering G, Darcy K. Integrating focal vulnerability into trust research. Journal of Trust Research. 2024; 14; 2: 237-255. 10.1080/21515581.2024.2375802</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, L. M. (2015). The long, ugly history of racism at American universities. New Republic.https://newrepublic.com/article/121382/forgotten-racist-past-american-universities</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harvey D. A brief history of neoliberalism. 2007; Oxford University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hashim, N. A. B, Abdullateef, A. O, & Sarkindaji, B. D. (2015). The moderating influence of trust on the relationship between institutional image/reputation, perceived value on student loyalty in higher education institution. International Review of Management and Marketing, 5(3), 122–128. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/irmm/issue/32085/355083</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hearn A. The politics of branding in the new university of circulation. International Studies of Management & Organization. 2015; 45; 2: 114-120. 10.1080/00208825.2015.1006007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henry, L. A, & Möllering, G. (2019). Collective corporate social responsibility: The role of trust as an organizing principle. Management Revue, 30(2/3), 173–191. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/26784489">www.jstor.org/stable/26784489</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huddy, S. (2016). Vulnerability in the classroom: How undergraduate business instructors' ability to build trust impacts the student's learning experience (Order No. 10163664). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global; Publicly Available Content Database. (1830782453). https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/etd/723/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huff LC, Cooper J, Jones W. The development and consequences of trust in student project groups. Journal of Marketing Education. 2002; 24; 1: 24-34. 10.1177/0273475302241004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hurtado SS. How neoliberalism shapes the role and responsibility of faculty members for eliminating sexual violence. The Journal of Higher Education. 2021; 92; 4: 522-545. 10.1080/00221546.2020.1816118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jackson L. Reconsidering vulnerability in higher education. Tertiary Education and Management. 2018; 24; 3: 232-241</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koskina A. What does the student psychological contract mean? Evidence from a UK business school. Studies in Higher Education. 2013; 38; 7: 1020-1036. 10.1080/03075079.2011.618945</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kramer RM. Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology. 1999; 50; 1: 569-598. 10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.569</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kwan P. The effect of trust on the relationship between instructional leadership and student outcomes in Hong Kong secondary schools. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. 2016; 25; 1: 111-121. 10.1007/s40299-015-0242-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lederer AM, Hoban MT, Lipson SK, Zhou S, Eisenberg D. More than inconvenienced: The unique needs of US college students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health Education & Behavior. 2021; 48; 1: 14-19. 10.1177/1090198120969372</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leong, N. (2021). Identity capitalists: The powerful insiders who exploit diversity to maintain inequality. Stanford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leveille, D. E. (2006). Accountability in higher education: A public agenda for trust and cultural change. Center for Studies in Higher Education. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/38x683z5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewicka, D. (2022). Building and rebuilding trust in higher education institutions (HEIs). Student's perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 35(6), 887–915.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewicki RJ, McAllister DJ, Bies RJ. Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review. 1998; 23; 3: 438-458. 10.5465/amr.1998.926620</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lieberwitz RL. Vulnerability theory and higher education. Law Teacher. 2021; 55; 1: 5-23. 10.1080/03069400.2021.1872863</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lomawaima, K. T, & McCarty, T. L. (2006). "To remain an Indian": Lessons in democracy from a century of Native American education. Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review. 1995; 20; 3: 709-734. 10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Milton CL. Betrayal and academic relationships. Nursing Science Quarterly. 2011; 24; 3: 206-207. 10.1177/0894318411409438</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Möllering G. The trust/control duality: An integrative perspective on positive expectations of others. International Sociology. 2005; 20; 3: 283-305. 10.1177/0268580905055478</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moylan CA, Javorka M. Widening the lens: An ecological review of campus sexual assault. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 2020; 21; 1: 179-192. 10.1177/1524838018756121</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Museus S, LePeau LKezar A, Posselt J. Navigating neoliberal organizational cultures: Implications for higher education leaders advancing social justice agendas. Higher education administration for social justice and equity. 2019; Routledge: 209-224. 10.4324/9780429435140-13</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oleksiyenko A, Tierney WG. Higher education and human vulnerability: Global failures of corporate design. Tertiary Education Management. 2018; 24; 3: 187-192. 10.1080/13583883.2018.1439094</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orfield, G. (2004). Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation rate crisis. Harvard Education Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Osuna, A. I. (2023). Understanding Vulnerability, Trust, and Distrust in the Student-University Relationship (Order No. 30426473). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2825384495). https://<ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/understanding-vulnerability-trust-distrust/docview/2825384495/se-2?accountid=14762">www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/understanding-vulnerability-trust-distrust/docview/2825384495/se-2?accountid=14762</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Osuna, A. I, Darcy, K, Woessner, Z. W, & Hamm, J. A. (2021). Perceived student vulnerabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. https://<ulink href="http://www.trusstlab.com/resources">www.trusstlab.com/resources</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patton LD, Renn KA, Guido FM, Quaye SJ. Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice. 2016; John Wiley & Sons</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prior, S, & de Heer, B. A. (2022). Campus sexual violence: A state of institutionalized sexual terrorism. Taylor & Francis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quinn, R. (2024). Columbia president accused of dishonest testimony, throwing professors 'under the bus.' Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved on May 28, 2024 from https://<ulink href="http://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academic-freedom/2024/04/19/columbia-president-accused-throwing-profs-under-bus">www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academic-freedom/2024/04/19/columbia-president-accused-throwing-profs-under-bus</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Renn KA, Arnold KD. Reconceptualizing research on college student peer culture. The Journal of Higher Education. 2003; 74; 3: 261-291. 10.1080/00221546.2003.11780847</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson S. Safety and harm in school: Promoting the perspectives of students with intellectual disability. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs. 2018; 18: 48-58. 10.1111/1471-3802.12417</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rousseau DM, Sitkin SB, Burt RS, Camerer C. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review. 1998; 23; 3: 393-404. 10.5465/amr.1998.926617</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saunders DB. Exploring a customer orientation: Free-market logic and college students. The Review of Higher Education. 2014; 37; 2: 197-219. 10.1353/rhe.2014.0013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schultz K. Distrust and educational change: Overcoming barriers to just and lasting reform. 2019; Harvard Education Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Serva, M. A, & Fuller, M. A. (2004). The effects of trustworthiness perceptions on the formation of initial trust: Implications for MIS student teams. Journal of Information Systems Education, 15(4), 383–395. https://<ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/effects-trustworthiness-perceptions-on-formation/docview/200156564/se-2">www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/effects-trustworthiness-perceptions-on-formation/docview/200156564/se-2</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sitkin SB, Roth NL. Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic "remedies" for trust/distrust. Organization Science. 1993; 4; 3: 367-392. 10.1287/orsc.4.3.367</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slaugher S, Rhoades G. Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets. 2009; Johns Hopkins University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smidt, A. M, Adams-Clark, A. A, & Freyd, J. J. (2023). Institutional courage buggers against institutional betrayal, protects employee health, and fosters organizational commitment following workplace sexual harassment. PLoS ONE, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278830</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, C. P, & Freyd, J. J. (2011). Institutional betrayal: Violations of members' trust surrounding incidents of sexual assault. Poster presented at the 28th annual meeting of the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation, Montreal, Canada, November 5–7, 2011.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith CP, Freyd JJ. Dangerous safe havens: Institutional betrayal exacerbates sexual trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 2013; 26; 1: 119-124. 10.1002/jts.21778</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith CP, Freyd JJ. Institutional betrayal. American Psychologist. 2014; 69; 6: 575-587. 10.1037/a0037564</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, C. P, Cunningham, S. A, & Freyd, J. J. (2016). Sexual violence, institutional betrayal, and psychological outcomes for LGB college students. Translational Issues in Psychological Science,2(4), 351.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Souto-Manning M, Emdin C. On the harm inflicted by urban teacher education programs: Learning from the historical trauma experienced by teachers of color. Urban Education. 2020; 58; 6: 1238-1270. 10.1177/0042085920926249</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tierney, W. G. (2006). Trust and the public good: Examining the cultural conditions of academic work. Peter Lang.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tierney, W. G. (2008). Trust and organizational culture in higher education. In Välimaa, J, Ylijoki, OH. (Eds.) Cultural Perspectives on Higher Education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6604-7_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). What's trust got to do with it? The role of faculty and principal trust in fostering student achievement. At the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) Conference Proceedings for Convention.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tschannen-Moran, M. (2014). The interconnectivity of trust in schools. In Van Maele, D, Forsyth, P, Van Houtte, M. (eds) Trust and School Life. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8014-8_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tschannen-Moran M, Hoy W. Trust in schools: A conceptual and empirical analysis. Journal of Educational Administration. 1998; 36; 4: 334. 10.1108/09578239810211518</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tschannen-Moran M, Hoy WK. A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research. 2000; 70; 4: 547-593. 10.3102/00346543070004547</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaandering D. A window on relationships: Reflecting critically on a current restorative justice theory. Restorative Justice. 2013; 1; 3: 311-333. 10.5235/20504721.1.3.311</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valbrun, M. (2020). White supremacist activity on campus hits record high. The Chronicle of Higher Education.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Amanda Isabel Osuna; Kathleen Darcy; Sarah Prior; Travis Olson and Joseph A. Hamm</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Amanda Isabel Osuna, Ph.D. Amanda Isabel Osuna is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Tampa. Her research qualitatively focuses on using vulnerability and trust frameworks to understand victimization experiences and experiences of institutional betrayal. She also focuses on how vulnerabilities might be compounded because of one's intersectional identities which may lead to an increased potential for harm. Her recent studies have been published in Crime & Delinquency and the Journal of Social  Issues.</p> <p>Kathleen Darcy, J.D./Ph.D. Kathleen Darcy is an Assistant Professor in Criminology and Criminal Justice at University of Michigan-Dearborn. Her research is interdisciplinary and primarily examines gender inequity, especially how the law impacts those affected by gender-based violence. Her research focuses on abuse that occurs in institutional settings (e.g., prison, higher education, the military) and looks at trust, vulnerability, and harms experienced by victim/survivors with a goal of improved policy and advocacy. Her work has been published in Feminist Criminology, Pepperdine Law Review, and The Journal of Interpersonal Violence, among others.</p> <p>Sarah Prior, Ph.D. Sarah Prior is an Associate Professor and Undergraduate Program Director in the Sociology Department at Michigan State University. She is also the Director of the Bailey Scholars Program. She teaches courses on sex, gender and sexuality, social inequality, youth studies and sexual violence. Her research agenda focuses on gendered violence, specifically addressing issues of campus sexual violence and campus sexual culture. Her work seeks to center marginalized experiences and challenge structural apparatuses. Her work has appeared in Sociology Compass, The Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Violence against Women, among other journal and book publications.</p> <p>Travis H. Olson Travis Olson is a Doctoral Candidate and IES Fellow studying Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education (HALE) within the Department of Educational Administration at Michigan State University. He previously worked as a Program Manager for The Aspen Institute's College Excellence Program and holds degrees from Ohio State University (MA in Higher Education Administration and Student Affairs) and Loyola University Chicago (BAs in Sociology and Environmental Studies). His research focuses on improving student success and completion efforts, how data is used in higher education governance, and the role of trust and vulnerability in new technology adoption within colleges and universities.</p> <p>Joseph Hamm, Ph.D. Joseph A. Hamm is an Associate Professor in Michigan State University's School of Criminal Justice, Environmental Science and Policy Program (joint appointment), and Department of Political Science (by courtesy). Joe's work contributes to an increasingly interdisciplinary understanding of public trust in a variety of governance actors.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref124"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1475110
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Students' Experienced Harm at Higher Education Institutions: A Qualitative Study
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Amanda+Isabel+Osuna%22">Amanda Isabel Osuna</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4753-0143">0000-0002-4753-0143</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kathleen+Darcy%22">Kathleen Darcy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sarah+Prior%22">Sarah Prior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Travis+Olson%22">Travis Olson</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Joseph+A%2E+Hamm%22">Joseph A. Hamm</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Innovative+Higher+Education%22"><i>Innovative Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 50(3):789-814.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 26
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Experience%22">Student Experience</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Well+Being%22">Well Being</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Trust+%28Psychology%29%22">Trust (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Risk%22">Risk</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Universities%22">Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Environment%22">College Environment</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10755-024-09756-y
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0742-5627<br />1573-1758
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Student wellbeing is a critical concern within higher education, as universities bear the responsibility of safeguarding students from potential harm arising from institutional decisions and the conduct of students and staff (Smith and Freyd, "Journal of Traumatic Stress" 26:119-124, 2013; Koskina ("Studies in Higher Education," 38, 1020-1036, 2013)). This harm can manifest in different ways, from physical dangers to intangible harm that affect students' identities. The concept of trust plays a significant role in this context, where students must acknowledge that universities might cause harm through their choices. Understanding the interplay between trust and harm is crucial: It is essential to recognize the types of harm universities can control and those that students perceive as relevant when conceptualizing trust in higher education. To address trust and harm, this study builds upon findings from climate surveys conducted at various institutions and investigates the specific harms students have experienced at their universities. The research question guiding this study is: What are the experienced harms of students at higher education institutions (HEIs)? By qualitatively analyzing the experiences of thirty-nine students from a large Midwestern university, this research provides valuable insight into the nature of harm that students encounter in academic environments.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1475110
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1475110
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10755-024-09756-y
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 26
        StartPage: 789
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Student Experience
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Well Being
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Trust (Psychology)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Risk
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Universities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Environment
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Students' Experienced Harm at Higher Education Institutions: A Qualitative Study
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Amanda Isabel Osuna
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kathleen Darcy
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sarah Prior
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Travis Olson
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Joseph A. Hamm
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 06
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0742-5627
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1758
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 50
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Innovative Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1