Archives

VISION presenting at the Prevention Research 2026 conference

Nine VISION colleagues have had workshop, symposium and individual abstracts accepted at the upcoming Prevention Research 2026 conference in March. The Population Health Improvement UK and the National Institute for Health and Care Research, in partnership with VISION funder, the UK Prevention Research Partnership, organised the event to explore the latest research and collaborative strategies for preventing non-communicable diseases and reducing health inequalities across the UK. This year’s theme is Connecting Research, Policy, and Practice for Health Equity.

VISION research is interdisciplinary and as such, several colleagues collaborated on symposiums and the workshop. We are partnering with Groundswell, Kailo and PHI UK Population Mental Health as well as the Violence, Abuse and Mental Health Network, and High Trees Community Development Trust amongst others.

Individual presentation

Violence across the life course and physical and mental health trajectories in later life

Anastasia Fadeeva, VISION Research Fellow, City St George’s University of London

Symposiums

Lessons Learned from Lived Experience Engagement in Violence and Trauma Research

Sian Oram, Professor at Kings College London and VISION Co-Investigator
Kimberly Cullen, VISION Knowledge Exchange Manager, City St George’s UoL
Alicia Stillman, Violence, Abuse and Mental Health Network at Kings College London
Polina Obolenskaya, VISION Research Fellow, City St George’s UoL
Annie Bunce, VISION Research Fellow, City St George’s UoL

Policy insights from a population understanding of mental health inequalities: using England’s mental health survey series, the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Surveys (APMS)

Presenters include:

Sally McManus, Professor at City St George’s UoL and VISION Co-Deputy Director
Elizabeth Cook, Senior Lecturer at City St George’s UoL and VISION Co-Investigator

Centring the voices of young people – Learning from four participatory, place-based approaches to violence prevention

Presenters include:

Elizabeth Cook, Senior Lecturer at City St George’s UoL and VISION Co-Investigator
Ruth Weir, VISION Senior Research Fellow at City St George’s UoL

Understudied Commercial Drivers of Health: Exploring Industry Practices & Developing a Prevention Research Agenda

Presenters include Sally McManus, Professor at City St George’s UoL and VISION Co-Deputy Director

Workshop

Using Systems Approaches to Connect Communities and Tackle Complexity in Prevention

Workshop leads include Olumide Adisa, VISION Co-Investigator at City St George’s UoL

Workplace violence and gender inequalities: Why the silence persists

Professor Vanessa Gash

By Vanessa Gash

Professor Vanessa Gash was an invited contributor on a recent panel on Barriers to Research on Sex and Gender at City, University, where she presented some of her work funded by VISION on workplace violence.

Workplace violence is often imagined as a rare or extreme event—yet for many employees, it forms part of a daily reality that remains unseen, unreported, and unmanaged. Evidence from recent reviews and representative UK data paints a troubling picture: violence, harassment, and bullying at work are both widespread and systematically minimised, particularly for groups already facing gendered or intersectional disadvantages.

One of the most striking patterns across studies is the silence of victims. Although around 8.3% of working‑age employees report threats, insults, or physical attacks at work, many more choose not to disclose their experiences. Research suggests a persistent “dark figure of crime,” with roughly 60% of crimes generally going unreported, and workplace violence likely exceeding this threshold. Victims often feel ashamed or fear appearing incompetent. At work—where reputational stakes are high and careers depend on social status—these concerns are intensified.

The Sullivan Review sheds further light on the issue by exploring barriers to research within academia itself. Alarmingly, bullying, harassment, and ostracisation emerged as the second most commonly cited barrier, reported by 42% of respondents. The sample was disproportionately composed of colleagues with protected characteristics—women, LGBTQ+ individuals, older staff, and those with disabilities. These groups are historically more vulnerable to exclusionary practices, and their experiences offer insight into how violence and inequality become mutually reinforcing.

A recurring theme across sectors—from nursing to higher education, hospitality, and even commercial kitchens—is managerial normalisation of violence. Studies show that managers may dismiss or downplay workers’ reports, frame violent incidents as interpersonal misunderstandings, or subtly blame victims for “mismanaging” interactions. Such responses erode trust and suppress reporting. Without acknowledgement from leadership, workplace violence becomes embedded in organisational culture, shielded by institutional inertia.

Gender inequalities intersect heavily with these processes. Women and gender‑diverse workers often face disproportionate scrutiny and are more likely to internalise blame for mistreatment. In environments where masculinity norms dominate—whether through expectations of resilience, emotional restraint, or competitiveness—experiences of violence can be viewed as a failure to cope rather than an organisational problem requiring intervention.

The consequences are not merely cultural or professional—they are clinical. Evidence from the UK Household Longitudinal Study indicates that workplace violence is predictive of common mental disorders (CMDs) both at baseline and one year later, suggesting a causal pathway. Mental health harms linger long after individual incidents fade.

To break this cycle, organisations need scientifically designed interventions that include ongoing measurement, enforce accountability, and centre the voices of both workers and management. Most importantly, institutions must confront the gendered dynamics of silence, shame, and managerial denial that allow violence to persist.

For further information, please contact Vanessa at vanessa.gash.1@citystgeorges.ac.uk

Cover photo supplied via Adobe Stock subscription.

Webinar: Risk of sexual violence along migration routes and the implications for current asylum policy in the UK and Europe

Sexual violence along migration routes: A systematic review and synthesis

Thursday 29 January 2026, 2 – 3 pm, online

Email VISION_Management_Team@citystgeorges.ac.uk to register for the Teams link

This event is in the past.

VISION Co-Investigator, Dr Alexandria (Andri) Innes and PhD student Merili Pullerits will outline how sexual violence is a pervasive and structurally embedded feature of undocumented migration journeys. It is often associated with economic status, and economic need or destitution and often expected along the routes. Some migrants who plan to travel without documents take action to prevent unwanted pregnancy before travelling, or seek protection by travelling in mixed sex groups or in couples of convenience.

This review found that some routes situate sexual violence in an intense climate of violence and brutality, and at times sexual violence victimisation is considered to be the only available way to prevent deportation or death. Many irregular migration journeys take place in hostile landscapes where guides such as smugglers and traffickers are the only means of transport, and refusing sexual contact would result in abandonment and death.

The worst forms of sexual violence are brutal and indiscriminate, involve forced witnessing, and forced sex act perpetration on other migrants. It is used against men, women, trans and non-binary migrants, but there are important gendered differences in the portray of sexual violence and the expectation of sexual violence before and during a migration journey.

Finally, Andri and Merili will highlight how sexual violence along migration routes are executed by various types of perpetrators, including organised and systematic perpetration by state agents such as border guards and police, and by smuggling and trafficking gangs. It is also carried out by opportunists who are often migrants travelling the irregular route, or are people who reside along the route and take advantage of the vulnerable populations transiting through.

There is very little, if any, form of accountability for perpetrators and very little protection from violence available to migrants. There is also no protection offered by receiving countries to prevent removal directly into contact with perpetrators along migration routes in locations that are often considered ‘safe third countries.’

To register and receive the Teams link, please contact VISION_Management_Team@citystgeorges.ac.uk

Inequalities in how work and care responsibilities are distributed impact on the gender pay gap

Despite decades of progress, the gender pay gap remains a persistent feature of the UK labour market. Currently women in the UK earn approximately 11% less than men.

VISION researcher and Reader at City St George’s UoL, Vanessa Gash, writes in her article, The gender pay gap looks different depending where you are on the income ladder, for The Conversation, that the gender pay gap is not just because of differences in education or job type, but due to deeper inequalities in how work and care responsibilities are distributed.

Based on a study investigating barriers to equal pay, Vanessa and colleagues examined different predictors of the gender pay gap at the mean and for different income groups. Using the United Kingdom Household Panel Survey (UKHLS), the team provided a detailed analysis of the effects of individual work histories, with up to 40 years of retrospective data to uncover how these inequalities play out across income groups.

Findings

Equal pay policies must be tailored to the needs of different income groups. For wealthier households, policies that support full-time work and chip away at sex segregation may be effective so that women can more readily access better-paid jobs. But for poorer households, the focus should be on improving access to stable and better-paid jobs, while reducing discrimination and supporting flexible work arrangements.
Efforts to close the gender pay gap must avoid pitting the gains of high-earning women against the losses of low-earning men. In an era of rising political populism, this could undermine support for equality.
Promotion of good-quality employment for all and supporting equalised caregiving responsibilities is necessary.

By failing to address the barriers that prevent men and women from participating fully in both paid work and unpaid care work, reductions in the gender pay gap are unlikely any time soon.

For further information: Please contact Vanessa at vanessa.gash@citystgeorges.ac.uk

Photograph from Adobe Photo Stock subscription

Confronting violence against vulnerable groups: Insights from a Pint of Social Sciences

On a balmy May evening, VISION researchers Dr Anastasia Fadeeva and Dr Ladan Hashemi had the pleasure of presenting at Pint of Social Science, an engaging public event held at a local pub. The event, organised by Caroline (Cassie) Sipos, Business Development Manager for the School of Policy and Global Affairs, City St George’s University of London, was part of the broader Pint of Science movement.

This event, one of many on the same night, is an annual global festival bringing academic research into informal, accessible spaces such as pubs or cafes. The environment enables researchers and the public to connect over important social issues, drinks, and conversation.

Anastasia showcased her research on violence against older people, an often-overlooked area of abuse and harm. She spoke about different forms of violence in older age, including physical, emotional, and economic, and discussed the social and structural barriers that allow this violence to remain hidden. Anastasia also shared the findings from the recent study that measured the prevalence of violence in older age and the associations between violence and mental health in later life. The talk concluded with calls for stronger protective measures and greater public awareness to safeguard the dignity and wellbeing of older populations.

Ladan shared the Breaking the Silence campaign, which uses culturally sensitive animations to amplify the voices of women in Iran affected by violence. Grounded in a survey of 453 Iranian women, the campaign highlights the widespread and multifaceted nature of violence against women and girls, and the urgent need for greater awareness and legal reform. Through powerful storytelling, the animations address issues such as coercive control, economic abuse, and technology facilitated abuse, while promoting the role of active bystanders and signposting available support services. The campaign aims to break taboos, raise awareness, and foster dialogue about women’s rights and freedoms in Iran.

The evening provided a lively and welcoming space for thoughtful conversations and personal reflections. The audience was engaged with both talks, asking insightful questions—often the kind that don’t come up in professional or academic settings. Pint of Social Sciences was a reminder of the value of public engagement and the importance of making research accessible beyond academia. Events like this help to build understanding and inspire collective action towards a more just and informed society.

For further information, please contact VISION_Management_Team@citystgeorges.ac.uk

Photographs: Top – Dr Anastasia Fadeeva; Above – Dr Ladan Hashemi

Call for Frontiers in Sociology abstracts: Enhancing data collection and integration to Reduce health harms and inequalities linked to violence

Frontiers in Sociology is currently welcoming submissions of original research for the following research topic: Enhancing Data Collection and Integration to Reduce Health Harms and Inequalities Linked to Violence.

This edition is guest-edited by Dr Estela Capelas Barbosa (University of Bristol and the UKPRP VISION research consortium), Dr Annie Bunce (City St. George’s, UoL and the UKPRP VISION research consortium), and Katie Smith (City St. George’s, UoL / University of Bristol).

Submissions should focus on any of the following:

advancing measurement approaches which emphasise cross-sector harmonisation to better evaluate interventions, address health inequalities, and reduce violence
addressing any form of violence (e.g., physical, non-physical, technology-facilitated) and its impacts on health, social and economic well-being, and marginalised groups, considering intersections of age, gender, ethnicity, disability, and religion

Research using existing datasets or primary data (quantitative or qualitative), cross-sectoral and cross-disciplinary approaches (e.g., sociology, criminology, public health), and lived experience perspectives is encouraged.

Contributions may include conceptual reviews, methodological innovations, empirical studies and systematic reviews on themes such as health inequalities, intervention effectiveness, outcome measurement, data harmonisation, and linkage strategies.

Abstracts are due by 7^th April 2025, and the deadline for manuscripts is 28^th July 2025.

For details of the different article types accepted and associated costs, please follow this link https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sociology/for-authors/publishing-fees.

For more information and to submit an abstract or manuscript, please use the “I’m interested” link below or visit the Research Topic page here https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/67291/enhancing-data-collection-and-integration-to-reduce-health-harms-and-inequalities-linked-to-violence.

This special edition provides an excellent opportunity to advance knowledge in this critical area. Please do reach out and contact us if you have any questions: annie.bunce@city.ac.uk

Photo from Adobe Photo Stock subscription

VISION responds to Parliamentary, government & non-government consultations

Consultation, evidence and inquiry submissions are an important part of our work at VISION. Responding to Parliamentary, government and non-government organisation consultations ensures that a wide range of opinions and voices are factored into the policy decision making process. As our interdisciplinary research addresses violence and how it cuts across health, crime and justice and the life course, we think it is important to take the time to answer any relevant call and to share our insight and findings to support improved policy and practice. We respond as VISION, the Violence & Society Centre, and sometimes in collaboration with others. Below are the links to our published responses and evidence from June 2022.

UK Parliament – Public Accounts Committee – Inquiry: Tackling Violence against Women and Girls (VAWG). Our submission was published in April 2025.
UK Parliament – Women and Equalities Committee – Inquiry: Community Cohesion. Our submission was published in February 2025.
UK Parliament – Call for evidence on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Our submission was published in February 2025.
UK Parliament – Public Accounts Committee – Inquiry: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Government. Our submission was published in January 2025.
UK Parliament – Public Accounts Committee – Inquiry: Tackling Homelessness. Our submission with Dr Natasha Chilman was published in January 2025. See the full report
Home Office – Legislation consultation: Statutory Guidance for the Conduct of Domestic Homicide Reviews. Our submission was published on the VISION website in July 2024.
UK Parliament – Women and Equalities Committee – Inquiry: The rights of older people. Our submission was published in November 2023
UK Parliament – Women and Equalities Committee – Inquiry: The impact of the rising cost of living on women. Our submission was published in November 2023
UK Parliament – Women and Equalities Committee – Inquiry: The escalation of violence against women and girls. Our submission published in September 2023
Home Office – Legislation consultation: Machetes and other bladed articles: proposed legislation (submitted response 06/06/2023). Government response to consultation and summary of public responses was published in August 2023
Welsh Government – Consultation: National action plan to prevent the abuse of older people. Summary of the responses published in April 2023
Race Disparity Unit (RDU) – Consultation: Standards for Ethnicity Data (submitted response 30/08/2022). Following the consultation, a revised version of the data standards was published in April 2023
UK Parliament – The Home Affairs Committee – Call for evidence: Human Trafficking. Our submission was published in March 2023
UN expert – Call for evidence: Violence, abuse and neglect in older people. Our submission was published in February 2023
UK Parliament – The Justice and Home Affairs Committee – Inquiry: Family migration. Our submission was published in September 2022 and a report was published following the inquiry in February 2023
Home Office – Consultation: Controlling or Coercive behaviour Statutory Guidance. Our submission was published in June 2022

For further information, please contact us at VISION_Management_Team@city.ac.uk

Photo by JaRiRiyawat from Adobe Stock downloads (licensed)

The story so far: Co-production in Lambeth

By Elizabeth Cook, Senior Lecturer in Criminology & Sociology at City St George’s, University of London

As the VISION consortium approaches the end of its third year, work continues on consolidating the learning from various large datasets in crime and justice, health, and specialist services.

What we know is that these datasets are structured in different ways, collected by different agencies, and curated for quite different purposes. They represent particular ways of knowing about violence and abuse: they can help to identify patterns (e.g., what determines whether victim-survivors of sexual violence and abuse access support), prevalence (e.g., of workplace bullying and harassment), trends over time, and associations (e.g., between intimate partner violence, suicidality, and self-harm). However, we also know that large datasets struggle to capture the complex, and sometimes messy, realities of violence and abuse experienced by communities, especially those that are marginalised and minoritised.

Peer action research in Lambeth

In Lambeth, working in collaboration with peer researchers has made visible the evidence gaps that emerge at the intersection of multiple systems of inequality, including racism and misogyny.

We are lucky to be partnered with Lambeth Peer Action Collective (LPAC), High Trees and Partisan as part of a peer action research project. The aim of the project is to explore the role that trusted adults and trusted spaces can play in protecting young people from exposure to violence. Currently, there are 11 peer researchers that work as part of the LPAC: a collective of young people and youth organisations campaigning for change in their community. They are supported by High Trees, a Community Development Trust in Tulse Hill, eight partner youth organisations, and Partisan, a Black-led Community Interest Company providing culturally sensitive mental health support.

What has been achieved so far?

The project builds upon research conducted by the previous cohort of LPAC researchers conducted between December 2021 and August 2022. This project identified the impacts of violence on young people in Lambeth and the structural conditions of poverty, housing, education, urban regeneration, and public safety that were experienced unequally across the community.

Developing these findings further, the second cohort of peer researchers have been participating in weekly research training sessions led by High Trees and supported by VISION. The group has been learning everything they need for the next stage: from safeguarding and finances, to developing research questions, critical thinking skills, and how to evaluate research methods. This month, the LPAC researchers are getting ready to put into practice the interview skills that they have been learning each week in preparation for the next stage of the project – recruitment.

There has been amazing progress so far – not only in forming a research question and defining key concepts, but in developing a shared space for researchers to feel like change is possible and to collaborate with others who want the same.

What have we learned?

There are ongoing conversations about how peer action research can work to redress the imbalance between ‘researcher’ and ‘researched.’ These conversations seem even more relevant to research on violence and abuse, where the issue of power is central to both.

So far, the weekly sessions with peer researchers as well as our meetings with High Trees have taught us a lot about how power operates within institutions and the ways that it can be shared if there is a will to share it. This can be reflected in adequate resourcing, decision-making, access, and sharing skills and knowledge. The project has underlined the importance of respect in research: for different forms of expertise, within spaces, and within research relationships. The project has also challenged adult-centric assumptions about what we suppose that young people need to live better lives.

As mentioned previously, this project highlights the evidence gaps that occur at the intersection of multiple inequalities. In doing so, peer action research can also shape how we utilise large datasets, recognising how different social realities are reflected within existing data (or not).

In this sense, this collaboration has also made hyper-visible the question of: what and who is research for? As others have suggested, action research is not so much a methodology, but a way of thinking about research: it is a way of approaching a specific problem through community, participation, and curiosity. It is not necessarily driven by knowing more about something, but by wanting to change something with what you know.

We hope that this research continues in that spirit!

Further information

Do check out the LPAC’s manifesto for change and their previous report!

Photograph is copyrighted to Lambeth Peer Action Collective and not for use.

Un-Siloing Securitization: An intersectional intervention

By Dr Alexandria (Andri) Innes, VISION researcher and Senior Lecturer in International Politics at City, UoL

This research makes a case for shifting how we use and think about securitization theory. Securitization theory conventionally offers some insight into how certain issues are brought under the umbrella of security – normally state security – rather than sitting in normal political debate. When something is securitized more extreme or authoritarian policies that would normally be controversial in liberal democracies can be used. This might include things like removing civil liberties such as freedom of speech or freedom of assembly, or indefinite detention, or even policies that we’re all familiar with from 2020 and 2021, prohibiting freedom of association and freedom of movement in public space.

Securitization theory has focused on process (how something becomes securitized), object (what is securitized), and subject (who is being protected). The latter is generally the state and/or society. The process works through a meaningful speech act suggesting something is a security issue or framing it in security language (think about the war on drugs or the war on terror). The speech act then has to be accepted by an audience, who might be society at large, or the public, but also might be specialist practitioners, policy makers, think tanks, civil society, educators and so on. And the object of securitization is anything where this type of totalising discourse is evident. Examples include health, transnational crime, climate change, religion, humanitarianism, terrorism, particular ethnic identities, and immigration along with plenty of other things.

In this article, I argue that we should consider inequality when deconstructing and attempting to understand the process and practice of securitization. I suggest that racialization, ethnicization, and gendering create structural inequality in the ordering of what we think of as international – a world composed of equal state units. The nation state relies on these processes to function as an identity unit in the way that it does (with passport carrying, rights-bearing citizens and the right to deny rights to people who are not in the correct in-group). I propose that securitization theory might do better at dealing with inequality of we focus on the experience of being securitized, more so than the speech acts that make that securitization happen.

The article functioned more as a review of this sub-paradigm, and turns attention to the way the ‘object’ part tends to be siloed into the relevant thematic areas. So we look to just one securitized object at a time. Here, the article looks instead at three processes of securitization, to show that the siloing means the forms of inequality inherent in the nation state and national security are reproduced rather than reckoned with.

I look at the securitization of health, the securitization of immigration, and the securitization of gender-based violence. I suggest by mapping these objects of securitization together, we can better see the intersectional violence of inequality played out, and make visible the vulnerability, inequality and violence that pre-exists securitization, but is also enhanced, aggravated and at times hidden by it.

For further information please see: Un-siloing securitization: an intersectional intervention | International Politics (springer.com)

Or contact Andri at alexandria.innes @city.ac.uk

Photo from licensed Adobe Stock library

Measuring ethnicity and the implications for violence inequalities

The question of how we measure, categorise, and represent ethnicity poses a growing challenge for identifying and addressing ethnic inequalities. Conceptual critiques and qualitative studies highlight the complexities and challenges of measuring ethnicity, yet there remains a lack of quantitative studies investigating the implications of these complexities for inequalities research.

VISION researchers, Hannah Manzur, Niels Blom, and Estela Capelas Barbosa, address this gap by scrutinizing methodological processes and analysing the implications of measurement and categorisation in the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW), critiquing the UK’s standardised measurement of ethnicity in national survey data and government statistics.

Based on their comparative quantitative analysis of standardised ethnicity categories and regional origins and their evaluation of the CSEW and census’ methodologies, they propose an alternative categorisation of ethnicity, focusing on the ‘Mixed’, ‘Asian’, and ‘Latinx/Hispanic’ ethnic groups.

Using adjusted crosstabulations and logistic regression models, they found variations in ethnic patterns of violence victimisation based on standardised measures and their alternative recategorisation, particularly relating to the distinction between ‘Asian’ sub-groups, the recategorisation of ‘Mixed’ ethnicities, and the inclusion of ‘Latinx/Hispanic’ as a distinctive ethnic group.

Their findings reveal valuable insights into the implications of ethnic categorisation for understanding violence inequalities, with significant implications for further policy and research areas.

For further information please see: Social Sciences | Free Full-Text | (Mis)Representing Ethnicity in UK Government Statistics and Its Implications for Violence Inequalities (mdpi.com)

Photo from licensed Adobe Stock library