Streszcz. ang. s. 4-6. Bibliogr. s. 124-126

Combatting gender-based violence is a key area of the EU Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025, which states that the EU needs ‘comprehensive, updated and comparable data for policies … to be effective’, and that ‘the data should be disaggregated by relevant intersectional aspects and indicators such as age, disability status, migrant status and ruralurban residence’. Both these needs are reflected in UniSAFE which delivers data on gender-based violence (GBV) in universities and research organisations in a gender+ perspective. The objective of this report is to establish a European baseline of policies in place to combat GBV at the legal, policy level and the level of research funding organisations (RFO), as a fixed point of reference for future comparisons, by assessing existing laws and policies at the national and RFO levels in 27 countries in the EU. This is accompanied by analyses of four Associated Countries (Iceland, Serbia, Turkey, UK) and two Third Countries (Canada, USA) that were selected for comparison and as examples of existing practices. The analysis focuses specifically on dedicated legal and policy frameworks focused specifically on universities and research organisations, in order to map the special efforts made by national and regional authorities and RFOs to combat GBV at these specific institutions beyond generic anti-discrimination legislation and labour law protections. Building on the 7P theoretical model (Mergaert et al. 2016) adopted in UniSAFE, the analysis applies the constructivist approach to policy analysis that was developed by Carol Lee Bacchi (2008), who concentrates on the construction of policy problems, their representations, and the further implications of these constructions. This approach allows us to consider how a policy issue (in this specific case, GBV) is defined and what is left out – what the silences are in the policy documents (including laws and policies). Moreover, we borrow from Wroblewski’s good practice criteria for policy-making (2018, 31), which was developed to analyse gender equality policies specifically in Research and Innovation (R&I) in the European Research Area. In UniSAFE, these criteria have been adapted to fit the 7P theoretical framework’s comprehensive approach to policy analysis (Strid et al. 2021). The mapping covered the period of the last six years, between 2015 and May 2021, and the policies and laws had to be in force for at least a portion of that period. The mapping was conducted with the support of national researchers who were contracted to perform the task by the project coordinator (European Science Foundation), and it focused on: national and regional laws and national or regional policies adopted by national or regional authorities; policies adopted by RFOs; and other types of initiatives adopted by national authorities and other entities such as umbrella organisations or non-profit non-governmental organisations. The analysis shows there are insufficient policies on GBV in universities and research organisations in the EU, with very few countries having a comprehensive policy mix in place or in development. The results of the mapping of laws, policies, policies adopted by RFOs, and other actions taken by the national authorities or other entities in the EU reveal that there is a marked difference between, on the one hand, the older EU-14 Member States and Third Countries (USA and Canada) and, on the other hand, the new EU-13 Member States and some of the Associated Countries. This applies not only to laws and policies but also to other types of more informal actions. This suggests that other types of actions do not occur in the place of policies to make up for this lack, but rather that the policies in place may encourage and facilitate the development of additional types of actions outside the boundaries of policy. This finding also applies to the coverage of the 7Ps. Specifically, in the EU-13, if policies are in place, the policies give the issue a brief treatment and do not include a comprehensive framework. The policies are most comprehensive where they are dedicated specifically to combatting GBV in the higher education sector (such as the bill of the law in Spain, France, and Ireland). EU RFOs do not have policies in place to address GBV, although preliminary discussions have taken place in recent years (e.g., in the FORGEN Community of Practice funded by the Horizon 2020 project ACT). As regards the terminology used, GBV as a term is used very infrequently and is found in only three EU countries. In terms of the forms of GBV, all four types of regulations – laws, national policies, RFO policies, and other actions by national authorities – most commonly address sexual harassment, while other forms of GBV are addressed to a much lesser extent. Two other forms of GBV that are addressed more frequently are sexual violence and gender harassment, and online violence in the case of policies. The mapped laws and policies in the EU relatively infrequently address intersectionality; when they do, it is gender identity and sexual orientation that are addressed the most, followed by race. Other inequalities are addressed less frequently – religion, age, health and disability, class, and im/migration. This maps onto the vulnerable groups mentioned in the laws and strategies, where non-binary staff and students, ethnic minorities, and staff with disabilities are the ones that are mentioned more frequently – but still by only three national or regional laws in the EU-27. It is interesting to note that the dedicated laws and policies do not address mobility, internationalisation, or early career stages as specifically vulnerable situations that require policy attention. Given the importance of international academic mobility, particularly in the early career stages (doctoral and postdoctoral), which are also more exposed to hierarchical inequality and hence where there is greater vulnerability (Acker & Webber, 2017; Caretta et al., 2018; Linková & Červinková, 2013; Loveday, 2018; Mula et al., 2021; Vohlídalová, 2013), this omission in the laws and policies is striking for EU policy-making. In terms of the 7Ps to combat GBV, Third Countries show more coverage than the EU-14, and this disparity is particularly striking in relation to the laws in place to combat GBV. Among the policies in place in the EU, more attention is given to prevention, and the most comprehensive coverage of the 7Ps is observed in France, Ireland, and Spain. In terms of the other actions by national authorities taken outside the frame of law or policy, they, too, most frequently focus on prevention (26 out of 30 such other actions). Given the importance of data, statistics, and indicators as a basis for evidence-based policymaking, there s very little with which to determine the prevalence of GBV. Furthermore, the laws and policies in the EU only marginally provide for monitoring and evaluation and do not establish many evaluation indicators (Sweden’s stands out in this respect). In terms of the other activities by other entities, three countries in particular report the important role of umbrella organisations in taking action against GBV (Belgium, Lithuania, and United Kingdom), where these activities at the level of umbrella organisations may be more important than national law or policy – this is especially the case of Belgium, and also of Ireland, where a comprehensive policy framework, including reporting from HEIs to a Higher Education Agency, and the wide stakeholder negotiation of the policy may have resulted in a greater uptake of policy. Given the time period covered in the analysis, it was of interest to examine whether the #MeToo movement and the discussions surrounding the Istanbul Convention (which have created major cleavages in some EU countries in recent years) had an effect on universities and research organisations. This was based on the assumption that the student body might mobilise around #MeToo and initiate changes in universities. We also wanted to see whether the polarisation and hate speech directed at gender studies as a field and the attacks against ‘genderism’ negatively affected universities where gender studies are taught. Neither of these was found to play a significant role in the university and research sectors. However, the #MeToo movement was reflected by the media (with a generally positive sentiment) and in individual cases sparked a public debate on the topic and increased awareness, including in higher education. Overall, the Istanbul Convention and the debates surrounding it have not affected universities and research organisations, as the issue is generally seen as external to the sector.