Search Results
This policy paper is a comment piece on recent sexual harassment and abuse scandals in the British Parliament, which also references new UK research on justice and gender-based violence. The author draws on six years working for the British Parliament as a clerk (parliamentary civil servant) to reflect on why the parliamentary culture and management has long ignored sexual harassment, abuse and bullying, often moving victims on rather than challenging (alleged) perpetrators. The paper presents current research being conducted by the universities of Bristol, Cardiff and UWE and national charity Women’s Aid, which is asking ‘What does justice mean to victims of gender-based violence?’ Using emerging findings from interviews with over 250 victims/survivors of gender-based abuse, the paper draws lessons for how the House of Commons authorities should respond to sexual harassment and abuse within Parliament. Vital in any victim-centred response are some key principles. Victims/survivors must: be listened to and taken seriously, be empowered to make their own choices about what happens next, be given a range of options including formal sanctions as well as less formal routes, potentially including specialist ‘transformational mediation’ and, most crucially, all be given access to specialist advocates trained in sexual harassment and abuse.
There has been increased awareness of the unique challenges faced by those researching gender-based violence (GBV) in recent years. While much of the literature has rightly focused on the needs of participants (as victim/survivors), less has been written around the needs of researchers. Yet we know that researching GBV can have both positive and negative impacts on researchers (Nikischer, 2019) and it has recently been recommended that researchers have access to clinical supervision when regularly exposed to traumatic material (Williamson et al, 2020). This article draws on reflections from research carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding the reasons why victims of domestic abuse and/or sexual violence may withdraw from the criminal justice process. The research team were provided with independent clinical supervision by a qualified therapist with expertise in interpersonal abuse throughout the duration of the project. Analysis of the researchers’ reflections suggest that while the move to remote research during the pandemic created opportunities in terms of flexibility there were additional emotional challenges to those experienced pre-pandemic. Importantly, this exploratory article shares reflections on the value of clinical supervision for addressing these challenges and recommends that all GBV researchers have access to this vital resource.
