"Realistic and Inclusive": A Qualitative Investigation into Recommendations for Responding to Campus Interpersonal Violence Centering LGBTQ + Voices.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: "Realistic and Inclusive": A Qualitative Investigation into Recommendations for Responding to Campus Interpersonal Violence Centering LGBTQ + Voices.
Authors: Mennicke, Annelise, Bowling, Jessamyn, Post, Abigail, Benson, Kevin, Willard, Jessica, McMillan, Iris F., Yoder, Anna
Source: Journal of Family Violence. Jan2025, Vol. 40 Issue 1, p209-221. 13p.
Subjects: Victims, Research funding, Psychology of LGBTQ+ people, Content analysis, Experience, Students, Surveys, Thematic analysis, School violence, Interpersonal relations
Abstract: Purpose: LGBTQ + college students experience interpersonal violence at disproportionately high rates, underscoring the need for college campuses to provide inclusive violence prevention and intervention services. We sought to examine similarities and differences in barriers to accessing campus-based services and recommendations for campus-based violence prevention and intervention service between LGBTQ + college students compared to cisgender heterosexual college students. Methods: Open-ended responses to the question on an annual campus climate survey were analyzed from 273 victims of sexual or sexuality-based harassment, sexual violence, dating violence, or stalking. Data were coded using a content analysis approach, with each excerpt being coded by two trained researchers. Results: Two major themes emerged: barriers to accessing campus-based resources and recommendations for campus-based resources. Subthemes within barriers included tacit barriers (including off-campus experiences not warranting on-campus responses and dismissal of violence experiences) and explicit barriers (including lack of knowledge about services, reputation of services, and gender). Recommendations for campus-based services included themes of content and outreach, who to train, and additional resources. Many themes were raised by both LGBTQ + students and cisgender heterosexual students, whereas others were unique to either subgroup. Conclusions: Universities should consider these themes when developing prevention and intervention services. This includes engaging in awareness campaigns to advertise services to all types of victims (including men and LGBTQ + individuals), as well as integrating content around intersectionality and fetishization into trainings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Journal of Family Violence is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Description
Abstract:Purpose: LGBTQ + college students experience interpersonal violence at disproportionately high rates, underscoring the need for college campuses to provide inclusive violence prevention and intervention services. We sought to examine similarities and differences in barriers to accessing campus-based services and recommendations for campus-based violence prevention and intervention service between LGBTQ + college students compared to cisgender heterosexual college students. Methods: Open-ended responses to the question on an annual campus climate survey were analyzed from 273 victims of sexual or sexuality-based harassment, sexual violence, dating violence, or stalking. Data were coded using a content analysis approach, with each excerpt being coded by two trained researchers. Results: Two major themes emerged: barriers to accessing campus-based resources and recommendations for campus-based resources. Subthemes within barriers included tacit barriers (including off-campus experiences not warranting on-campus responses and dismissal of violence experiences) and explicit barriers (including lack of knowledge about services, reputation of services, and gender). Recommendations for campus-based services included themes of content and outreach, who to train, and additional resources. Many themes were raised by both LGBTQ + students and cisgender heterosexual students, whereas others were unique to either subgroup. Conclusions: Universities should consider these themes when developing prevention and intervention services. This includes engaging in awareness campaigns to advertise services to all types of victims (including men and LGBTQ + individuals), as well as integrating content around intersectionality and fetishization into trainings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:08857482
DOI:10.1007/s10896-023-00587-7