1. Introduction

2. Literature review and methods

3.1. Findings and critical discussion of survey modules

An overview of the wider findings of the survey is forthcoming.³ Below, we address the modules on stalking and on ‘dating violence’ in turn. For each module, we first critically discuss the appropriateness of the module to the UK context, before outlining the survey findings and discussing them.

3.1.1. Stalking survey questions

While in the UK there is no strict legal definition of 'stalking' (Crown Prosecution Service, 2018), in order to be prosecuted as a criminal offence stalking needs to involve ‘a course of conduct or pattern of behaviour which causes someone to fear that violence will be used against them on at least two occasions, or which causes them serious alarm or distress to the extent it has a substantial adverse effect on their day-to-day activities’ (The Crown Prosecution Service, 2017). Stalking may also overlap with domestic abuse (as defined below), in which people who are in abusive relationships may also be subjected to stalking behaviours from their partners. Legal definitions may not, of course, be appropriate or helpful in a HE context; as Vera-Gray and Kelly note, ‘crime and victimisation surveys and legal frameworks systematically exclude forms of violence and abuse that are more likely to be experienced by women than men’, an issue that stems from using ‘a male as norm understanding of what counts as crime’ (Vera-Gray & Kelly, 2020, p. 268). Nevertheless, legal and socio-cultural understandings sometimes overlap or draw on each other. Indeed, anti-stalking charity The Suzy Lamplugh Trust define stalking ‘a pattern of fixated and obsessive behaviour which is repeated, persistent, intrusive and causes fear of violence or engenders alarm and distress in the victim’ (Suzy Lamplugh Trust, 2021, p. 3). In the discussion below, we therefore draw on points of similarity across both definitions.

The ARC3 module on stalking asks about specific behaviours that constitute stalking, following the US legal framework which aims to avoid ‘vagueness’ and thus tends to specify behaviours (Purcell et al., 2004: 161) rather than drawing on the broader definitions used in the UK. The wording of the ARC3 module therefore reflects this context by focusing on particular behaviours rather than the response of the person targeted, as follows:

Since you enrolled at the University of X, have you been in a situation when someone

• Watched or followed you from a distance, or spied on you with a listening device, camera, or GPS (global positioning system)?
• Approached you or showed up in places, such as your home, workplace, or school when you didn't want them to be there?
• Left strange or potentially threatening items for you to find?
• Sneaked into your home or car and did things to scare you by letting you know they had been there?
• Left you unwanted messages, such as notes, text or voice messages?
• Made unwanted phone calls to you (including hang up calls)?
• Sent you unwanted emails, instant messages, or sent messages through social media apps?
• Left you cards, letters, flowers, or presents when they knew you didn't want them to?
• Made rude or mean comments to you online?
• Spread rumours about you online, whether they were true or not?

Response categories were None; 1-2; 3-5; 6-8; or more than 8 times.

These questions do not fit the more victim-centred definitions used in the UK. Although questions three and four refer to ‘threatening’ items and doing things ‘to scare you’, the module focuses on the intentions and actions of the perpetrator rather than the response of the victim. By contrast, as noted above, in the UK stalking is defined as a pattern of behaviour causing distress, fear or alarm (Crown Prosecution Service, 2018; Suzy Lamplugh Trust, 2021, p. 3).

There were also other difficulties with analysing this module. First, it was not possible to ascertain whether multiple events were carried out by the same person or group of people (therefore constituting a course of conduct). Second, it was not possible to ascertain whether several events occurred within a specific time period. This is important because Purcell et al. found that stalking events that continue for more than a period of two weeks are ‘associated with a more intrusive, threatening and psychologically damaging course of harassment’ (2004: 571) so the period of time as well as number of events is relevant. Finally, these questions could be updated to reflect the increasingly digitally-mediated lives of students.

As a result of these issues, there were some difficult decisions to be made around how to analyse this data. A dichotomous approach of two categories, where one group has never experienced any of these behaviours, and a further group has experienced at least one, would be likely to lead to over-reporting as well as a mismatch with the UK context which requires a ‘course of conduct’. In this study, we dealt with these issues by defining stalking victimisation as anyone who had experienced one stalking event 6-8 times, three stalking events happening 1-2 times, or a combination of one stalking event 1-2 times and one 3-5 times. This means that for someone to be defined as having experienced stalking, they had to have experienced at least three stalking behaviours. However, it is possible that someone experienced three different events, from different people, over three different years, and this would be defined as stalking within this survey, even though this would constitute a ‘pattern of behaviour’ as required by UK definitions. Furthermore, we were not able look at the period of time within which these events happened, which is important for determining whether a pattern of intrusions can be considered as stalking (Purcell et al., 2004a).

3.1.2. Findings on stalking victimization

These limitations should be borne in mind in the reporting of these findings. First of all, we looked at whether people had ever experienced these behaviours since enrolling as a student. Using the threshold described above of experiencing at least three stalking events since enrolling at the university, 16% (119 out of 725) had experienced stalking. The three most common forms of stalking victimisation experienced by students were receiving unwanted emails, instant messages or social media messages (17%), receiving rude/mean online comments (15%), and having been left unwanted notes, texts or voice messages (15%) (see Figure 6), all of which occurred at least one or more times. 12% reported at least one experience or more of being watched, followed, or spied upon from a distance or with listening device/camera or GPS. 12% also reported at least one experience of being approached at home, work or school when they did not wish the person to be there.

Figure 1. Frequency of the different types of stalking experienced by students.

Figure 1. Frequency of the different types of stalking experienced by students.

Both logistic and negative binomial regression were performed to identify factors that a) increased students’ likelihood and frequency of having experienced stalking behaviours (see Table 2). Women were more likely than men to have higher likelihood and frequency of experienced the behaviours described (likelihood: odds ratio (OR) = 1.85,SE = 0.25, p <.05; frequency: incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.53, p < .05 ). Non-binary students were more likely to have experienced stalking compared to men (OR = 4.03, SE = 0.55, p <.05), however, there was no difference in frequency (IRR = 1.88, SE = 0.51, p = .21) of experiencing stalking. International students were less likely to have experienced stalking compared to home students (OR = 0.50, SE = 0.35, p <.05) but there was no difference in frequency of stalking experienced (IRR = 0.76, SE = 0.24, p = .26). Second year (OR = 2.52, SE = 0.27, p <.001), third year (OR = 2.45, SE = 0.29, p <.01) and PhD (OR = 4.31, SE = 0.73, p <.05) students were more likely to have experienced stalking victimisation compared to first years, as well as to have experienced higher incidences of stalking victimisation (Second IRR = 2.29, SE = 0.22, p < .001; Third IRR = 1.80, SE = 0.24, p < .05; PhD IRR = 4.24, SE = 0.48, p < .05). As the survey asked about all experiences since enrolling at this university, some of this increase is likely to be due to second year students having been at university for longer.

3.1.3. Discussion of findings on stalking

In line with existing discussions of cyberstalking and online harassment among young people (Henry et al., 2020; Henry & Powell, 2016), digitally-mediated behaviours such as receiving unwanted messages were the most likely to be reported by respondents. The prevalence, at 16%, sits within the range of prevalence obtained in other studies of students’ experiences of stalking. The Hidden Marks (National Union of Students, 2010) study, which also asked about experiences ‘since enrolling at this institution’, found that 12% of students self-reported as victims of stalking. However, Hidden Marks also included the term ‘repeatedly’ in the question, and referred to behaviours ‘that seemed obsessive or made you afraid or concerned for your safety’ (2010: 15). Therefore, a lower prevalence would be expected as Hidden Marks only included behaviours that engendered fear in the target. By comparison, the ONS (Office for National Statistics, 2020) and McCarry et al. (McCarry et al., 2021) both asked about victimisation experiences only within the last 12 months. These two studies reached very different figures: ONS found that 6.2% of students had experienced stalking, while McCarry et al. found 22.8% of their student sample had experienced stalking. Internationally, the range is even greater. DeKeseredy et al. (2014, p. 28; 2017) found 38% of their sample of over 5000 students had experienced at least one stalking behaviour, while a study of 4268 students at the University of Iowa (Speak Out Iowa, 2021) found that 18.8% of students reported experiencing at least one stalking behaviour that seemed obsessive or made them fearful, and 8.2% of students experienced repeated stalking behaviour.

These differences demonstrate the wide range of methods that are in use for conceptualising and measuring stalking in HE. They also show that asking about repeated behaviours or behaviours that lead to fear make a clear difference to findings. In light of this discussion, we would suggest that this module needs to be significantly adapted to be appropriate for use in UK HEIs in order to fit within the UK context of a ‘pattern of behaviour’ that leads to fear as well as to reflect students’ increased online engagement. First, a set of follow-up questions could ascertain whether the events reported caused ‘alarm or distress’ to the respondent. Surveys in both the UK and in the US already ask about whether events led to fear or distress (McCarry et al., 2021; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998, p. 17). Following such an approach would ensure that the module on stalking would fit definitions used in the UK. Other follow-up questions that could be tested are whether stalking events took place within a specific time period; and whether they were carried out by the same person/group of people (see methods in Purcell et al., 2004, p. 574). Alternatively, the ONS draws on the UK definition of events involving ‘fear, alarm or distress’ as well as repeated behaviours in order to assesses stalking victimisation within six questions (Kantar Public & Office for National Statistics, 2015) and these questions could also be appropriate to HE. Second, questions could be updated to reflect students’ increasingly digitally-based lives. Third, in order to work as a standardised tool across the UK context, we suggest that discussion of shared analysis frameworks around how many intrusions constitute victimisation (Purcell et al., 2004, p. 574).

3.1.4. Dating Violence’ survey questions

As with the discussion of stalking, above, this section first critically assesses the ARC3 survey module questions on ‘dating violence’, before outlining the findings then discussing them. While the term ‘domestic abuse’ is commonly used in the UK, here we use the term ‘dating violence’ in order to reflect the wording of the ARC3 survey. This is because, as with the stalking questions, those on ‘dating violence’ do not translate smoothly to a UK context. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in England uses the following definition of domestic abuse, which is also recommended by Khan, (2021) in their guidance for universities:

Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. The abuse can encompass, but is not limited to, psychological, physical, sexual, financial and emotional. This definition includes so-called 'honour’-based violence, forced marriage, and female genital mutilation (FGM). (Khan, 2021; The Crown Prosecution Service, 2017)

A further type of domestic abuse - ‘controlling, coercive’ behaviour between two people who are ‘personally connected’ – became a criminal offence in 2015. Universities UK, a lobby group for HE in the UK (Universities UK, 2020a, 2020b) also include ‘tech-mediated abuse’ in their definition of domestic abuse. As can be seen from the above definition, domestic abuse encompasses a range of behaviours that are challenging to capture in a short survey module. In the ARC3 module on ‘dating violence’, questions focus on psychological and physical dating violence, as follows:

This section asks about your experiences about behaviour in your relationships since you enrolled at the University of X. This includes any hook-up, boyfriend, girlfriend, husband or wife you have had, including exes, regardless the length of the relationship.

1. Not including joking around, the person threatened to hurt me and I thought I might get really hurt

2. Not including joking around, the person pushed, grabbed, or shook me

3. Not including joking around, the person hit me

4. Not including joking around, the person beat me up

5. Not including joking around, the person stole or destroyed my property

6. Not including joking around, the person can scare me without laying a hand on me

Responses included ‘Never; Once or twice; Sometimes; Often; Many times’

A strength of these questions is that two of them capture fear. This fits in with the UK Crown Prosecution Service’s (2017) guidance on coercive control which states that ‘[the behaviour] must have a 'serious effect' on someone and one way of proving this is that it causes someone to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against them’. However, they could go further in capturing a wider spectrum of coercive and controlling behaviour, including sexual and economic abuse, as covered in the UK CPS definition. Furthermore, half the questions focus on physical violence, which risks perpetuating the notion that abusive relationships are primarily about physical violence, when abusive relationships may rarely or never include physical violence (Johnson, 2008). In addition, as outlined above (Myhill 2015; 2017; Johnson, 2008), there is a risk that by including such a strong focus on physical violence that the gendered patterns of domestic abuse are not captured.

3.1.5. Findings on ‘dating violence’

Dating violence, as defined above, was experienced by a large minority of respondents (see Figure 7). Physical experiences of dating violence included 11% (n = 78) of respondents reporting experiencing at least one experience of being pushed, grabbed or shook by someone they had been in a relationship with during their time at the university; 4% (n = 29) reported one or more experiences of being hit; and 1% (n = 7) reported being physically beaten up one or more times. In relation to psychological experiences of dating violence, in response to the question ‘Not including joking around, the person threatened to hurt me and I thought I might get really hurt’, 16% (n = 118) of respondents reported at least one experience. 8% (n = 57) report being threatened. As Figure 2 shows, ‘psychological’ experiences of dating violence were more common on the whole than physical violence. Some students were subjected to these behaviours repeatedly. This included 2% (n = 15 ) of those who received threats of harm, and 1% (n = 7) of those who were hit.

Female students were much more at risk of dating violence than male students. Overall, a quarter (26%) of students who completed the survey had experienced at least one behaviour associated with dating violence with 15% experiencing some form of physical dating violence and 23% experiencing some form of psychological dating violence. Women were 1.49 times more likely to have experienced dating violence compared to men (See Table 3; OR = 1.49, SE = 0.20, p < .05) and experienced higher frequency of incidents compared to men (IRR = 2.01, SE = 0.24 ,p < .001). Non-binary people were 4 times more likely to have experienced dating violence (OR = 4.08, SE = 0.48, p < .01) and reported higher incidence of dating violence than men (IRR = 2.54, SE = 0.24 ,p < .01). Second year students were more likely to have experienced dating violence compared to first years (OR = 1.67, SE = 0.22, p < .05) although we do not see an effect on higher frequencies incidences (IRR = 1.23, SE = 0.27 ,p = .44). As above this is likely to be due to second year students having been at university for longer. No other effects of year of study or international/home status were found.

3.1.6. Discussion of ‘dating violence’ findings

This study found a higher prevalence of ‘dating violence’ than national data on domestic abuse from the Crime Survey for England and Wales, wherein full time students have been found to be the most likely to experience domestic abuse compared to any other occupation at 7.7% of the population, with women students (11%) more than twice as likely than male students (5%) to be victimised (Khan, 2021, p. 24; Office for National Statistics, 2018). These differences may be due to these questions measuring ‘dating violence’ differently to existing survey tools for domestic abuse in the UK, most notably the CSEW, and due to the CSEW omitting students in university accommodation from its sampling (Tseloni and Tilley, 2016, p.83). Nevertheless, the ARC3 study includes a narrower range of questions than the CSEW, asking solely about physical and psychological violence, rather than other forms of domestic abuse such as financial or sexual abuse (Kantar Public & Office for National Statistics, 2015). There is also a discrepancy in the study whereby 18% of respondents named ‘strangers’ as the perpetrators of ‘dating violence’. This could indicate that respondents have not followed the instruction to discuss ‘experiences about behaviour in your relationships’. Alternatively, respondents could be referring to ‘hook-ups’, as mentioned in the question, where students have had a one-off sexual encounter with a stranger. Either way, these differences in victimisation rates across different studies require further exploration.

A limitation of the ARC3 module on ‘dating violence’ is that it does not capture coercive control, having been devised before coercive control was recognised as a significant aspect of domestic abuse. In the UK coercive control is now criminalised, and work is underway to devise appropriate survey questions to capture it (ONS, 2021). Nevertheless, questions one and six in the module could potentially capture ‘generalized fear’ (Myhill, 2015, p.370) which has been identified as a consequence of coercive control. By contrast, a potential weakness of the ARC3 ‘dating violence’ module is the focus on physical violence. Myhill (2017) suggests that studies that foreground physical violence are likely to obscure gendered patterns of domestic abuse. While this study did find a gendered pattern with women and non-binary people more likely to report having been victimised than men, this may still be under-representing the gendered patterns.

Finally, in terms of specific behaviours that are included, it would make sense to include non-fatal strangulation, which as Edwards and Douglas (Edwards & Douglas, 2021) have outlined, this is both a prevalent, gendered, and highly risky behaviour associated with domestic abuse and is common among students (Herbenick et al., 2021). It has also recently become a crime in the UK.

To summarise, in the current iteration of the ARC3 survey, gendered patterns might be lost as respondents might report physical violence that is ‘situational’ rather than part of an ongoing context of fear and control with (Myhill, 2015; 2017). Some of these issues could be addressed in the analysis, for example by analysing the physical violence questions alongside the psychological violence questions. However, for future surveys, questions that ‘focus on perpetrators’ controlling tactics and behaviors’ (Myhill, 2015: 360) are needed.

4. Conclusions

References

1. Author A et al., 2022.
2. University of Bristol SU. (2021). No means no! Research on consent culture and sexual violence at the University of Bristol. https://nusdigital.s3.amazonaws.com/document/documents/80121/Bristol_SU_No_means_no_report_1__Final_Report__2021.pdf.
3. Brook. (2019). Sexual Violence and Harassment in UK Universities. http://legacy.brook.org.uk/data/Brook_DigIN_summary_report2.pdf.
4. Crown Prosecution Service. (2018, May 23). Stalking and Harassment. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/stalking-and-harassment.
5. DeKeseredy, W., Hall-Sanchez, A., & Nolan, J. (2014). WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY’S CAMPUS QUALITY OF LIFE SURVEY: PRELIMINARY RESULTS. West Virginia University. https://violenceresearch.wvu.edu/files/d/84a017d6-a15d-486c-9a99-d2cfeaef1171/survey-report.pdf.
6. DeKeseredy, W., Hall-Sanchez, A., Nolan, J., & Schwartz, M. (2017). A campus LGBTQ community’s sexual violence and stalking experiences: The contribution of pro-abuse peer support. Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 1(2), 169–185. [CrossRef]
7. Edwards, S. S. M., & Douglas, H. (2021). The Criminalisation of a Dangerous Form of Coercive Control: Non-Fatal Strangulation in England and Wales and Australia Criminalisation and the Contours of Liability: Current Legal Issues and Comparative Reform Solutions. Journal of International and Comparative Law, 8(1), 87–120.
8. Fenton, R., & Jones, C. (2017). An exploratory study on the beliefs about gender-based violence held by incoming undergraduates in England. Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 1(2), 147–167. [CrossRef]
9. Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2003). Physical aggression and control in heterosexual relationships: The effect of sampling. Violence and Victims, 18(2), 181–196. [CrossRef]
10. Henry, N., McGlynn, C., Flynn, A., Johnson, K., Powell, A., & Scott, A. J. (2020). Image-based Sexual Abuse: A Study on the Causes and Consequences of Non-consensual Nude or Sexual Imagery (1st edition). Routledge.
11. Henry, N., & Powell, A. (2016). Technology-Facilitated Sexual Violence: A Literature Review of Empirical Research. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. [CrossRef]
12. Herbenick, D., Fu, T., Patterson, C., Rosenstock Gonzalez, Y. R., Luetke, M., Svetina Valdivia, D., Eastman-Mueller, H., Guerra-Reyes, L., & Rosenberg, M. (2021). Prevalence and characteristics of choking/strangulation during sex: Findings from a probability survey of undergraduate students. Journal of American College Health, 1–15. [CrossRef]
13. Heywood, W., Myers, P., Powell, A., Meikle, G., & Nguyen, D. (2022). Report on the prevalence of sexual harassment and sexual assault among university students in 2021. Social Research Centre. https://assets.website-files.com/61c2583e4730c0d5b054b8ab/623a86e60a6118c69da92d37_2021%20NSSS%20National%20Report.pdf.
14. Holland, K. J., Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Baker, A. L., & Benya, F. F. (2020). Don’t let COVID-19 disrupt campus climate surveys of sexual harassment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(40), 24606–24608. [CrossRef]
15. Imperial College Union. (2022, January). Sexual Misconduct Survey Report 2021. https://www.imperialcollegeunion.org/blogs/deputy-president-welfare/sexual-misconduct-survey-report-2021.
16. Johnson, M. P. (2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Northeastern University Press.
17. Kantar Public, & Office for National Statistics. (2015). 2017-18 Crime Survey for England and Wales Questionnaire (from April 2017). https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/methodologies/crimeandjusticemethodology/201718csewquestionnaire.pdf.
18. Kavishe, A. M., & Naidu, M. (2022). Cyberstalking practices: Asymmetrical power relationships at the University of Dar es Salaam. Journal of Gender Studies, 0(0), 1–11. [CrossRef]
19. Kelly, L. (1988). Surviving Sexual Violence. Polity Press.
20. Khan, R. (2021). Domestic Abuse Policy Guidance for UK Universities (p. 64). HARM network and UCLan. http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/37526/1/Domestic%20Abuse%20Policy%20Guidance%20for%20UK%20Universities%202021.pdf.
21. Lagdon, S., Anyadike-Danes, N., Reynolds, M., & Armour, C. (2022). Unwanted and non-consensual sexual experiences reported by university students in Northern Ireland.
22. MacNeela, P., Dawson, K., O’Rourke, T., Healey-Cullen, S., Burke, L., & Flack, W. F. (2022). Report on the National Survey of Student Experiences of Sexual Violence and Harassment in Irish HEIs. Higher Education Authority. https://assets.gov.ie/214118/d8734a4d-1947-4aad-9fad-995822e91f27.pdf.
23. McCarry, M., Jones, C., & Kossurok, Anke. (2021). Equally Safe on Campus. Research Report. [CrossRef]
24. Monckton-Smith, J. (2021). In Control: Dangerous Relationships and How They End in Murder. Bloomsbury Publishing.
25. Myhill, A. (2015). Measuring Coercive Control: What Can We Learn From National Population Surveys? Violence Against Women, 21(3), 355–375. [CrossRef]
26. Myhill, A. (2017). Measuring domestic violence: Context is everything. Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 1(1), 33–44. [CrossRef]
27. National Union of Students. (2010). Hidden Marks. A study of women students’ experiences of harassment, stalking, violence and sexual assault. National Union of Students. https://www.nus.org.uk/Global/NUS_hidden_marks_report_2nd_edition_web.pdf.
28. Office for National Statistics. (2018). Domestic abuse: Findings from the Crime Survey for England and Wales: Year ending March 2018. UK Government. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/domesticabusefindingsfromthecrimesurveyforenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2018.
29. Office for National Statistics. (2020). Stalking: Findings from the Crime Survey for England and Wales. UK Government. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/stalkingfindingsfromthecrimesurveyforenglandandwales.
30. Office for National Statistics. (2021). Redevelopment of domestic abuse statistics—Office for National Statistics. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/redevelopmentofdomesticabusestatistics/researchupdatenovember2021.
31. Office for Students. (2021, April 19). Statement of expectations (Worldwide). Office for Students. https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/student-wellbeing-and-protection/prevent-and-address-harassment-and-sexual-misconduct/statement-of-expectations/.
32. Purcell, R., Pathé, M., & Mullen, P. (2004a). Editorial: When do repeated intrusions become stalking? The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 15(4), 571–583. [CrossRef]
33. Purcell, R., Pathé, M., & Mullen, P. E. (2004b). Stalking: Defining and prosecuting a new category of offending. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 27(2), 157–169. [CrossRef]
34. Revolt Sexual Assault. (2018). Students’ Experiences of Sexual Violence. https://revoltsexualassault.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Report-Sexual-Violence-at-University-Revolt-Sexual-Assault-The-Student-Room-March-2018.pdf.
35. Speak Out Iowa 2021 Survey Key Findings, Full Report, and Anti-Violence Plan. (2021). University of Iowa. https://speakout.uiowa.edu/sites/speakout.uiowa.edu/files/2021-09/2021-speak-out-survey-report.pdf.
36. Steele, B., Esposti, M. D., Mandeville, P., Hamnett, G., Nye, E., & Humphreys, D. K. (2021). Sexual violence among students attending a higher education institution in the UK (OUR SPACE): A cross-sectional survey. The Lancet, 398, S83. [CrossRef]
37. Suzy Lamplugh Trust. (2021). Unmasking Stalking: A Changing Landscape. https://www.suzylamplugh.org/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=fcfb781a-f614-48c8-adcf-4cfa830c16a7.
38. Swartout, K. M., Flack Jr., W. F., Cook, S. L., Olson, L. N., Smith, P. H., & White, J. W. (2019). Measuring campus sexual misconduct and its context: The Administrator-Researcher Campus Climate Consortium (ARC3) survey. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 11(5), 495–504. [CrossRef]
39. The Crown Prosecution Service. (2017, June 30). Controlling or Coercive Behaviour in an Intimate or Family Relationship. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/controlling-or-coercive-behaviour-intimate-or-family-relationship.
40. Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Stalking in America: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey. National Institute of Justice. https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/stalking-america-findings-national-violence-against-women-survey.
41. Tilley, N., & Tseloni, A. (2016). Choosing and Using Statistical Sources in Criminology: What Can the Crime Survey for England and Wales Tell Us? Legal Information Management, 16(2), 78–90. [CrossRef]
42. Universities UK. (2016). Changing the culture: Report of the Universities UK Taskforce examining violence against women, harassment and hate crime affecting university students. https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/sites/default/files/field/downloads/2021-07/changing-the-culture.pdf.
43. Universities UK. (2020a). Beginning the Conversation: Responding to Domestic Violence and Abuse in Higher Education Communities During Covid-19 Pandemic. Universities UK.
44. Universities UK. (2020b). Continuing the Conversation: Responding to domestic violence and technology mediated abuse in higher education communities during the Covid-19 pandemic. Universities UK.
45. Vera-Gray, F., & Kelly, L. (2020). Contested gendered space: Public sexual harassment and women’s safety work. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 44(4), 265–275. [CrossRef]
46. Walby, S., Towers, J., Olive, P., Francis, B., Strid, S., Balderston, S., Corradi, C., Heiskanen, M., Helweg-Larsen, K., Mergaert, L., Kelly, E., & Stöckl, H. (2017). The concept and measurement of violence Against Women And Men. Policy Press.
47. White, G. (2022). Report for Publication and College Response. Trinity Hall College, Cambridge. https://www.trinhall.cam.ac.uk/report-for-publication-and-college-response/.
48. Women and Equalities Select Committee. (2022, September). Attitudes towards women and girls in educational settings. https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/6b282e4b-1c45-4735-a8ab-749e4a25fc64.
49. Wood, L., Sulley, C., Kammer-Kerwick, M., Follingstad, D., & Busch-Armendariz, N. (2017). Climate Surveys: An Inventory of Understanding Sexual Assault and Other Crimes of Interpersonal Violence at Institutions of Higher Education. Violence Against Women, 23(10), 1249–1267. [CrossRef]