![[ Visit Client Website ]](images/banner.gif)
Schedule:
Sunday, January 24, 2027
Union Station 19 (Hilton San Francisco Union Square)
* noted as presenting author
Background and Purpose
Sexual violence remains a significant concern on college campuses, yet institutional responses often focus on compliance and risk management rather than survivor-defined healing. This study addresses a critical gap and explored how undergraduate victim-survivors conceptualize healing and view institutional roles and responsibilities in supporting or hindering their healing. By centering survivor expertise through participatory action research (PAR) methodology, this study advances policy insights into how higher education institutions can meaningfully support healing and reduce institutional harm.
Methods
This study was part of a larger, mixed methods study to investigate how institutions of higher education in the U.S. can actively engaged in courageous decisions and programs from the perspective of survivors of campus sexual violence. A survey was developed to include measures on institutional courage, justice, and healing, and semi-structured interviews occurred simultaneously to further explore these phenomena. The present study focuses on data collected in interviews with participants (N=20) and the findings that described the phenomenon of healing. Using PAR, this qualitative study was guided by a survivor advisory board that collaborated on research questions, recruitment, and analytic decisions. Twenty survivors of undergraduate campus sexual assault were nationally recruited and participated in semi-structured Zoom interviews. Interviews explored definitions of healing, institutional interactions, and institutional responsibility. Interviews were transcribed, member-checked, and analyzed using iterative inductive and deductive coding. Two principal investigators coded transcripts independently, met regularly to refine codes, and reached consensus. The survivor advisory board reviewed preliminary findings, strengthening the validity and policy relevance of interpretations.
Results
Four primary themes were identified in the data, and each theme included multiple sub-themes. The themes included individual healing definitions and strategies, the role of the institution and survivor healing, and healing barriers. The themes, sub-themes, and exemplary quotes from participants will be presented to define and describe the findings. Survivors emphasized growth, reclaiming autonomy, feeling better over time, cultivating hope and acceptance, and engaging in mental health support. Survivors highlighted the central role of connection, including with peers, advocates, and therapists, in sustaining healing. Participants articulated that institutions profoundly shape healing experiences. They identified mistrust in institutions rooted in prior harm but emphasized that institutions have the capacity and responsibility to support healing through transparent communication, compassionate engagement, trauma-informed flexibility, and continuous investment in prevention and response systems. Survivors also identified barriers to healing, including Title IX processes, mandated reporting requirements, ambiguous procedures, insufficient academic accommodations, and broader campus rape culture.
Conclusions and Implications
Institutions of higher education have an opportunity to create systematic changes based on how survivors describe and define healing. Findings point to critical policy and practice priorities for higher education, such as increasing trauma-informed academic accommodations, transparent and compassionate communication, being proactive instead of reactive, offering continuous investment in prevention and survivor support, and prioritizing campus-wide education aimed at shifting culture. Survivors emphasized their belief that institutions are responsible for creating environments that reduce harm, address institutional failures, and foster conditions in which healing is possible and, ultimately, which leads to creating safer campus communities.
Sexual violence remains a significant concern on college campuses, yet institutional responses often focus on compliance and risk management rather than survivor-defined healing. This study addresses a critical gap and explored how undergraduate victim-survivors conceptualize healing and view institutional roles and responsibilities in supporting or hindering their healing. By centering survivor expertise through participatory action research (PAR) methodology, this study advances policy insights into how higher education institutions can meaningfully support healing and reduce institutional harm.
Methods
This study was part of a larger, mixed methods study to investigate how institutions of higher education in the U.S. can actively engaged in courageous decisions and programs from the perspective of survivors of campus sexual violence. A survey was developed to include measures on institutional courage, justice, and healing, and semi-structured interviews occurred simultaneously to further explore these phenomena. The present study focuses on data collected in interviews with participants (N=20) and the findings that described the phenomenon of healing. Using PAR, this qualitative study was guided by a survivor advisory board that collaborated on research questions, recruitment, and analytic decisions. Twenty survivors of undergraduate campus sexual assault were nationally recruited and participated in semi-structured Zoom interviews. Interviews explored definitions of healing, institutional interactions, and institutional responsibility. Interviews were transcribed, member-checked, and analyzed using iterative inductive and deductive coding. Two principal investigators coded transcripts independently, met regularly to refine codes, and reached consensus. The survivor advisory board reviewed preliminary findings, strengthening the validity and policy relevance of interpretations.
Results
Four primary themes were identified in the data, and each theme included multiple sub-themes. The themes included individual healing definitions and strategies, the role of the institution and survivor healing, and healing barriers. The themes, sub-themes, and exemplary quotes from participants will be presented to define and describe the findings. Survivors emphasized growth, reclaiming autonomy, feeling better over time, cultivating hope and acceptance, and engaging in mental health support. Survivors highlighted the central role of connection, including with peers, advocates, and therapists, in sustaining healing. Participants articulated that institutions profoundly shape healing experiences. They identified mistrust in institutions rooted in prior harm but emphasized that institutions have the capacity and responsibility to support healing through transparent communication, compassionate engagement, trauma-informed flexibility, and continuous investment in prevention and response systems. Survivors also identified barriers to healing, including Title IX processes, mandated reporting requirements, ambiguous procedures, insufficient academic accommodations, and broader campus rape culture.
Conclusions and Implications
Institutions of higher education have an opportunity to create systematic changes based on how survivors describe and define healing. Findings point to critical policy and practice priorities for higher education, such as increasing trauma-informed academic accommodations, transparent and compassionate communication, being proactive instead of reactive, offering continuous investment in prevention and survivor support, and prioritizing campus-wide education aimed at shifting culture. Survivors emphasized their belief that institutions are responsible for creating environments that reduce harm, address institutional failures, and foster conditions in which healing is possible and, ultimately, which leads to creating safer campus communities.