Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Utilizamos tu perfil de LinkedIn y tus datos de actividad para personalizar los anuncios y mostrarte publicidad más relevante. Puedes cambiar tus preferencias de publicidad en cualquier momento.

Workshop Sessions: New training ,models for University staff: What worked for us.

76 visualizaciones

Publicado el

Sharing experiences from Spain: Jokin Azpiazu (UPV/EHU)

Publicado en: Educación
  • Sé el primero en comentar

  • Sé el primero en recomendar esto

Workshop Sessions: New training ,models for University staff: What worked for us.

  1. 1. Sexual Violence in universities: prevention, accompaniment and transformation Main lines of the training model Elaborated by Basque Country University (UPV/EHU) and Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV) Team: Barbara Biglia, Marta Luxan, Mila Amurrio, Sara Cagliero, Ivana Leon, Carla Alsina, Jokin Azpiazu, Ainhoa Narbaiza. Thanks to Edurne Jimenez as well. #usvreact
  2. 2. Sexual Violence in universities: prevention, accompaniment and transformation Session one, part one: how do different forms of sexual violence manifest in university settings? #usvreact
  3. 3. ✔ Fictional cases are used as a starting point to debate on how we perceive and identify sexual violence: different levels of intensity, different expressions, different people at which it is aimed, diverse actors involved. ✔ The work of different groups is put together in a common guided debate where we start to analyse how elements of power act in cases of sexual violence.
  4. 4. Debate about fictional cases, how did we analyse them? Participants analyse them their own way, with a few guiding questions (what happens here, who is involved etc). We organised our analysis based in the following: 1. Type(s) of violence 2. Power elements and gender issues in the case (intersectionally) 3. Legal categorisation 4. Agents involved in the case and their stance
  5. 5. Some questions we could consider when facing a case ✗Which is the impact of gender stereotypes, gendered roles and attitudes in this case? Could we say this is gender-related violence? What form of violence are we facing? ✗Besides gender, what other axis of power are present in the situation? (sexual preference or orientation, age, racialisation, class, ableism, status...) ✗What are the consequences of each agent's stance in the case? Are they perpetuating the violence or are they questioning it and in which way? Are there ambivalences? How do different forms of sexual violence manifest in university settings?
  6. 6. CASE 1: Sandra 1. Type of violence: sexual harassment with extortion 2. Gender and power issues: gender inequality, sexism, working status inequality. Common beliefs about flirting etc. make it more difficult to identify the harassment. We could conclude it is GRV, sexist precisely. 3. Legal categorisation: sexual harassment and extortion (general penal code). Difficult to make use of 2004 GBV law due to this happening outside the couple/ex-couple frame. 4. Agents involved: staff members in the same department, the board, close friends and working mates of both.
  7. 7. List of fictional cases Sandra: sexual harassment in the workplace Jordi: transphobia and rape threat The teacher: LGBTphobia in the classroom by teacher Party: rape Ferran: stalking Laia: sexual harassment Fabia and Pere: sexual violence inside a couple Guillermo: sexual harassment between men Party poster: symbolic sexual violence Natalia and Pantxo: unconsented sharing of sexual images Rocio: verbal sexual harassment Ruben and Ana: unconsented sexual practices Paula: sexual abuse using chemical drugs. Diversity in: Form of expression Level of violence Level of information we get first hand Level of social acceptance of violence Agents involved (individual, institutional…) Acquaintance level of the survivor and the perpetrator
  8. 8. Case2: Natalia and Pantxo 1. Type of violence: unconsented sexting / sharing images 2. Gender and power issues: consent over images, gendered stigma associated with sexual activity and promiscuity, gender based violence. 3. Legal categorisation: (CP, art. 197.7) sharing sexual images without consent. Could make use of the 2004 law for gender based violence since they were a couple. 4. Who's involved? Pantxo's friend, classmates, teachers, board, Natalia's friends...
  9. 9. Sexual Violence in universities: prevention, accompaniment and transformation Session one, part two: understanding, framing and defining sexual violence #usvreact
  10. 10. ✔ Following the debates in the first part, we go deeper in the analysis of structural elements involved in SV and the interaction between them. Concepts such as intersectionality, gender, sexual identity and gender expression are introduced using an understandable language and based on the cases and debates in the first part. ✔ Different definitions of SV used in protocols, legal texts or regulatory documents in universities are discussed in groups to analyse the impact of how we define SV in what we do to tackle it.
  11. 11. }_·_{What do we mean by sexual violence? How do we frame it? What is our frame, actually?
  12. 12. Ideas presented and debated: How do we percieve social life, our part in it, our responsibilities and possibilities? Are we aware of structural framing and conditioning? What do we think about structures, their durability and changeability? What do we know about intersectionality? How do we locate ourselves and the rest of the people in complex power maps? Avoid: Complex, academic language Confrontation with participants due to disagreements Try to: Set understandable examples, close to our everyday experience Understand resistance to a feminist frame
  13. 13. Definition issues: The ways in which we define a situation (in this case, a SV situation) affect what we want to do and can do about it. It affects our alliances and the resources to mobilise. Wide definitions can be difficult to use in everyday life but very specific definitions tend to leave people aside them.
  14. 14. Definition issues: Frame is and must be dynamic as well as solid. Definition is always political and must remain effective and at the same time open to discussion. Example: how have we defined violence Violencia doméstica (domestic violence) Violencia de género (Gender Based Violence) Violencia machista (Gender- related violence ) Violencia sexista (violence against women) ● Private problem ● Happens in domestic setting ● Framed in the straight couple/familiy ● Non-political, generaly uncritical ● Openly used in general conversation nowadays ● Put on table in a great deal after the 2004 law ● Underlines gender issues behind violence ● Has been critisised for leaving aside certain subjects and forms of violence, needs to be expanded ● Critical definition, elaborated by feminist movements mainly ● Underlines gender and other forms of unbalance (trans-systemic) ● Tries to be more inclussive of forms of violence and subjects ● In some places has been adopted by institutions and laws, not always with the best results ● It refers to forms of violence directed towards women by the very fact of “being” women. It includes forms of violence that happen in a wide variety of settings, not only the domestic or couple settings
  15. 15. Our stance: We have been using “Violencia machista” (UPV/EHU), “Violencias de género” (URV). With different hints they could refer to “Gender Related Violence”. Violencia(s) de género / violencia machista (gender-related violence) Violencia Sexista (Violence against women) Violencia Sexual
  16. 16. We share, read and analyse how sexual violence is framed in our universities and other institutions, by comparing protocols, regulations and pathways that contain those definitions. Are the definitions inclusive? Do they include LGBTQIphobia as well as VAW? Do they define intersectionally? Who is included and who is not? How deep do they go? Do they define preventive measures in detail or just mention them?
  17. 17. Protocolo contra la violencia de género ➔ 2011 by Equality Office (2006) ➔ Active since, about to be replaced ➔ GBV framework ➔ Limited scope ➔ For all university population ➔ Pathways don't include international recommendations and findings by literature on disclosure Agreement on harrassment ➔ 2004 by Unions (6) and UPV/EHU ➔ Replaced in 2014 ➔ General frame on harrassment ➔ Gender neutral ➔ Only for those with a contract (T., R., A.) ➔ 2014 version appears to widen the scoope but remains neutral and unespecific about the sources and causes We provide comparative information from the university in which the training is being delivered at the moment. For example:
  18. 18. Sexual Violence in universities: prevention, accompaniment and transformation Session two, part one: how do we react? Perceiving, listening, caring, accompanying and evaluating. #usvreact
  19. 19. ✔ Theatre-forum techniques are used to understand the ways in which we react to SV disclosures in university settings. This helps understand the specificities of university and its structures and the way they conform our reactions. ✔ Exercises of active listening are used to collectively reflect on the ways we listen and interact with survivors and to understand how power relations are involved as well in the process of disclosure and aid. ✔ Through a presentation, we underline the main elements analysed in both exercises and complete them with feminist experts’ advice in how to listen to survivors, develop care and accompany them from a non-paternalist stand and encouraging processes of empowerment and social/environmental change.
  20. 20. ✔ Who started the movement? Little game to break the ice, as well as reflect on what we can and can not see depending on our standpoint ✔ The way I see it... Theatre-forum activity: three people represent a situation in which a possible case of SV may be involved, but not revealed or disclosed. Throw it we think about: campus life, disclosure, workplace culture and present conditions, silence, collective responsibility...
  21. 21. ✔ Active and situated listening In groups of three, we represent a disclosure, in which someone discloses, someone listens and someone is the external observer. Later on we discuss in the big group about the difficulties of active, respectful and situated listening. ✔ #REACTing in spiral, a table with five legs
  22. 22. Perceiving Listening Caring Accompaning ...and evaluating Elements for a (first) response
  23. 23. Appropriate space for talking/listening Trust and security Listen actively without forcing them to say more than they want to Help them think and arrange their ideas Let the survivor propose what they wants to do Look for people who may be sensitive for organising a support network Handle information about resources, networks and specific services and how to access them Do not pressure them to set a formal/legal denounce, but inform about it and remind them about the need to keep things that may be used to prove the incident Always keep a self-reflective attitude to avoid justifying, playing down, normalising or tolerating sexual violence Recommendations
  24. 24. Forcing anyone to explain details, justify themselves or public or legally denounce the incident. Be critical to their conduct or show how “things should have been done” to avoid the attack Be judgamental about their way fo dressing, feeling, behaving or stablishing relationshiops to others Play down their needs, feelings or opinions Paternalism Create risky situations or force the survivor to be involved in them Make use of expressions that may cause cupabilty, weakness or shame on the survivors. Create an illusion that the situation can be easily fixed and offer magical solutions Pass on your own distress to the survivor Act as a rescuer hero and take on your own back the responsibility of tackling the situation without help from others (beware of intimacy here) Try to avoid...
  25. 25. Atención, pregunta: ¿La violencia ocurre siempre entre personas? ¿Cómo nos arreglamos con las cuestiones grupales? ¿Qué pasa cuando hay violencia institucional? Algunas consideraciones respecto al caracter individual de las violencias de género
  26. 26. Sexual Violence in universities: prevention, accompaniment and transformation Session two, part two: tools, services and strategies for a fair first response in university #usvreact
  27. 27. ✔ Real cases are used as a starting point to analyse the potentialities, fragilities and needs of our university in SV cases: how would our university react if this would have happened here? What do we need to improve this response. ✔ Specific contributions are gathered for strategies that range from individual implication to institutional measures. ✔ Finally, we present a series of resources to which we can refer to, both inside the university and in the associative and local-institutional arena.
  28. 28. Real cases analysed ✗Had the university a responsibility towards this case? Should they have to done something? In case something ahs been done, do you think the measures have been appropriate? ✗From what we know about our university pathways, how could this case be solved if it had happened here? ✗What is in your opinion the adecuate resolution to this case?
  29. 29. Had this happened here... ✗How would it be if this case or anyone similar had happened here? ✗Which tools would we count on? ✗What limitations would we find? ✗What is lacking? Limitations and difficulties Points of strength and oportunities Needs Creative Imaginative Not limited to official solutions
  30. 30. Present university resources and local resources map ✗Dirección de Igualdad de la UPV/EHU ✗Comisiones de Igualdad en facultades (no todas) ✗Servicio de Psicología Aplicada ✗Protocolo de acoso
  31. 31. En breve... Estamos preparando algunos materiales para haceros llegar. De momento podéis consultar: o/
  32. 32. ¿Qué aprendizajes y/o reflexiones me llevo de esta formación? ¿Qué más hubiese necesitado? ACTIVIDAD DE CIERRE Herramientas, servicios y estrategias para dar una primera respuesta Recordatorioa →→ Os haremos llegar un cuestionario anónimo para evaluar el curso →→ En cuanto podamos os haremos llegar una pequeña guía con algunos recursos, entre ellos el mapa que se irá completando
  33. 33. Last thoughts, reminders and colective evaluation of training ✗What am I bringing home from this the training? ✗What else would I have needed? Reminders on questionnaires, materials to be sent out, hand-outs...
  34. 34. Thanks!! #usvreact
  35. 35. The USVreact Project (JUST/2014/RDAP/AG/VICT/7401) is co-funded by the European Commission, its publications and communications reflect the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use made of the information contained therein.