Archives

Exploring violence, inequality, and representation

Reflections from a guest lecture

By Hannah Manzur, VISION Research Fellow

At VISION, we work with a wide range of stakeholders engaged in tackling violence and inequalities in society, from police to specialist services to national policymakers. Yet, as well as established professionals, our work also engages with students and young people through placement programmes, participatory action research, and, critically, through teaching new generations of upcoming researchers, practitioners and policymakers.  

I had the pleasure of joining City St George’s Broken Britain module for undergraduate Sociology and Criminology students as a guest lecturer to share my research and experience on a topic that sits at the heart of my research and professional journey: the relationship between violence, inequality, and the social structures that sustain them. Before joining VISION, I worked as a Policy Advisor at the European Parliament, where I saw firsthand how political decisions, data classifications, and institutional blind spots can shape people’s life chances. Combined with my academic research and civil society work, my career journey has taught me the importance of building bridges and learning lessons from across research, policy, and practice spaces to examine social issues from multiple, interlocking perspectives. Those experiences continue to inform how I teach and think about inequalities and their impact on society today. 

Why Concepts Like Marginalisation and Intersectionality Matter 

I opened the session with a warm-up exercise introducing three foundational concepts: social marginalisation, intersectionality, and vulnerabilisation. These ideas help us understand why and how certain groups of people consistently find themselves pushed to the edges of society, excluded from rights, resources, and security.  

In my policy work, these dynamics were impossible to ignore. Decisions that look ‘neutral’ on paper often deepen existing inequalities when viewed through an intersectional lens. Understanding how race, gender, class, sexuality, and migration status interlock isn’t just theoretical—it’s essential for designing policies that do not unintentionally harm the very people they claim to support. By tracing the rich history of intersectionality and how it functions across the individual, interpersonal, and institutional levels of society, students were encouraged to move past surface-level understandings of intersectionality as a buzzword and really engage with the complex ways violence is shaped by intersecting inequalities.  

Everyday Fear and the Unequal Distribution of Safety 

As well as focusing on physical violence, students engaged with wider experiences of violence, including those which directly affected them. One of the most engaging parts of the session involved asking students to reflect on their own relationship with fear and safety: 

  • How often does fear shape your everyday behaviour? 
  • Who feels protected, and by whom? 
  • And whose fears are dismissed or minimised? 

These questions were designed to bring abstract ideas of ‘fear’, ‘security’, and ‘inequality’ to life through student’s experiences navigating the world from their own individual positionalities. Bringing in key insights from my own research at VISION, we discussed the gaps and differences in how violence is understood and experienced from personal and policy perspectives. While working in Brussels, I learned how policymakers often speak about “security” in general terms, yet the lived reality of violence — and fear of violence — is anything but equally shared. Some communities experience over-policing while others receive under-protection; some voices are amplified, others silenced. Understanding this imbalance is crucial for building systems that genuinely keep people safe. 

The Problem of Representation: When Categories Don’t Fit 

From challenging perceptions of violence, we also delved into challenging understanding of ‘inequality’ and how categorising people into distinctive groups can distort our understanding of how different groups experience violence. Official classifications for data collection are often seen as a neutral, technical process. But so much is packed into these decisions. Categorising people, with all their nuance and diversity, into neat separate boxes may be important for creating useful statistics, but it can also create serious problems when these categories don’t reflect people’s lived realities. I displayed some of the categories commonly used in surveys and policy documents and asked students whether these labels reflect their identities or experiences. Students grappled with the contradictions and complexities of capturing inequalities, relating their own frustrations with being put in ‘the wrong box’ and how misrepresentation can carry serious consequences for people’s lived realities being visible and their future life chances. 

This is a conversation that deeply resonates with me. As both a researcher and policy advisory, I often struggled with how overly rigid or simplistic classifications erase nuance, flatten identities, and ultimately limit our ability to recognise and respond to inequality. Data shapes policy—but if the data categories themselves are flawed, so too are the decisions built upon them. Representation is not just symbolic. It determines who is seen, whose experiences are counted, and which forms of violence are acknowledged or ignored. 

Looking Ahead 

My goal in this lecture was not only to share academic insights, but to encourage students to question the systems around them—how they define people, whose realities they prioritise, and how they respond to social harm. Whether in policymaking or research, we cannot address violence and inequality without listening carefully to those who live at their intersections. Drawing on both my policymaking experience and new research findings from my work at VISION, I emphasised the importance of understanding how systems work from multiple perspectives, how cycles of exclusion and harm can feed into one another, and how areas of research, policy, and practice can work together to disrupt these cycles. Engaging with students through this Guest Lecture reminded me of the critical role of teaching in sharing knowledge, changing perspectives, and building critical tools for new generations to see and challenge cycles of inequalities and harm across their future careers and lived experiences.

For further information, please contact Hannah at hannah.manzur.4@citystgeorges.ac.uk

Photographs from Dr Hannah Manzur

Understanding violence: The risks for migrants with rising far-right fascism

 

 

Migrant community insights on building safety

 

By Aya Khedairi, Migrants’ Rights Network

 

“My dear sister. Please do not lose hope. Better days are coming. ”
– A London workshop participant

“To all migrants: The far rights are out there with their intimidating rhetoric to break you down. You must remain strong and keep hope alive. They are targeting your mental health and they want to destroy it. You must remain resolute and courageous.”
– A London workshop participant

“Do not be afraid, and take care of yourself—for example by going for a walk, talking to someone, or reporting it to the police. My advice is to stay strong.”
– A Belfast workshop participant

Note: The above are messages of solidarity that were shared in our workshops, addressed to other migrants who may be struggling, for the purpose of strengthening community safety. 

 

In the last few years, there has been a shift in the way that migrants, including refugees and people seeking asylum, are viewed in the UK.  Rhetoric about migration has become more aggressive which has emboldened racist demonstrations in the streets and attacks on asylum accommodation.  

With the support of the UK Prevention Research Partnership (UKPRP) VISION consortium, my colleagues and I at the Migrants’ Rights Network (MRN) are co-developing a research project with migrants that maps experiences of harm and identifies community-led safety strategies. These insights will form a practical workbook featuring shared knowledge, scenarios, and messages of solidarity to all migrants in the UK. 

Our research is centred on two cities, London and Belfast, working with communities who have experience of the asylum system / no recourse to public funds. In Belfast, we were honoured to partner with Anaka Collective/ Participation and the Practice of Rights (PPR), who have been organising and campaigning alongside people seeking asylum since 2016 on a range of topics, including documenting and supporting community members navigating race hate. We built on the research Anaka is already doing through the Kind Economy project to reach new audiences, and further develop community strategies to stay safe. In London, focus group participants shaped the themes and priorities of a subsequent collective knowledge building workshop. 

Our project builds on and brings together MRN’s narrative work, which actively challenges disinformation about migration, while trying to better understand and document the impact of hostile language on people currently in the immigration system.  

Methodology and grounding 

The scale of multifaceted violence migrants in the UK are facing is significant, ranging from the daily indignity of a hostile immigration system that is designed to exclude and push people into poverty and precarity, ever changing immigration rules and relentless government press releases promising to make people feel less welcome in the UK and threatening to remove people.  These are on top of encounters with institutional racism in schools, healthcare and workplaces, and instances of far right violence. In light of this, we took a flexible approach to the research, inviting focus groups and workshops participants to identify key information and research gaps, and topics they would like to prioritise for collective discussion. 

As has come up through discussions, we framed ‘violence’ holistically to include violent narratives, moments of physical violence, and strain of continuous fear of violence, even when no direct violence occurs. 

In anticipation of the weight of some of the topics that might come up, the first focus group was co-designed and facilitated with a somatics practitioner, with grounding, movement and breathing exercises built into the sessions, and an optional online drop-in session the following week. The guiding principle throughout has been a return to shared experiences, mapping and extending individual and community support structures, and affirming participant agency.

Since December, we have hosted two focus groups discussions and a workshop in London, and two sessions in Belfast, with 96 people with lived experience of the asylum system / no recourse to public funds, many of whom are currently, or have previously, lived in asylum accommodation. The London workshops were conducted in English, while the Belfast workshops were primarily facilitated in Arabic, with interpretation into English. 

Key themes

The key findings affirm what we anticipated – the majority of research participants spoke to the impact of increasingly hostile narratives and moments of violence that impacted on their mental health and the ways this has shaped their behaviours. This ranged from choosing to avoid certain areas, being locked into or unable to return to asylum accommodation due to the presence of far right ‘protesters’, checking the news for incidents before leaving home, getting off the bus early and walking to avoid being associated with asylum accommodation and the ‘disgusted looks’ from other passengers, to no longer reading the news. Many participants felt reporting incidents brought little support, citing slow responses, dismissive attitudes, and limited follow-up from police or security staff.

An additional recurring theme from the workshops was the role of minors in perpetrating hate incidents against migrants, whether in schools or in public space. This complicates the ability for bystanders to intervene, and in several experiences recounted in the workshops led to reported hate incidents being dismissed as ‘teenagers being teenagers’. 

However, the overarching theme that emerged, as surmised by one participant, is that “it’s not a feeling of fear, it’s a feeling of rejection”. Others similarly shared that they don’t feel “relaxed, loved in public”, and requested a group discussion on how “others manage fear, uncertainty, or anger in these contexts… especially when formal support systems feel limited or inaccessible”.  The priority emerging from the workshops is the need for more spaces and resources to be heard, the opportunities to share common experiences and the impact these have had, and to be in community. The impact of hostile narratives on mental wellbeing and community participation is a recurring theme in MRN’s work, and one that should trigger significant reflection, accountability and resourcing from policy makers and institutions, as well as allies and the general public. 

Nevertheless, the tone of our research has remained one of anger, defiance and strength. Participants were quick to identify and decry opportunistic politicians and bad faith actors who seek to use migrants as a ‘political card’, with a strong message to politicians to “not use refugees as a tool to win elections. Do not build your success by destroying others”, messages of solidarity to each other to stay strong, and the sharing of wellbeing practices, from calling friends, journaling, or singing. 

London and Belfast workshops

While London and Belfast differ in political context, migrant workshop participants in both cities face racialised hostility. In London, incidents tended to be sporadic and public-facing, whereas in Belfast they were more concentrated, including repeated attacks on specific properties and migrant-owned businesses. As outlined in Committee on the Administration of Justices’ report 2025 report on ‘Mapping Far Right Activity in Northern Ireland’, “it is well documented that there is a particular problem of the involvement of elements of loyalist paramilitarism in racist violence and intimidation, whether sanctioned by leaders of groups or factions or not, or involving persons with paramilitary connections”. This brings additional complications in challenging far right violence and a pattern of ineffective response by the police and local authorities. 

Despite all the differences, there remain striking parallels in experiences and ways of organising that can be extrapolated nationally.  Belfast offers a key reference for the rest of the UK as a precursor of escalations in far-right violence, as well as a leading example of the necessity and strength of having established community and solidarity structures to call on, decompress and celebrate with. In discussing scenarios, the first point of call was always “call Anaka”, whether to come to the house in moments of violence, support with shopping and school runs, or just to connect. 

This research is a small but essential part of shaping MRN’s ongoing work:

MRN would like to thank the UKPRP VISION consortium for the opportunity to develop this work, and to all the participants for their generous insights and reflections. 

For questions or an interest in connecting, please contact Aya at a.khedairi@migrantsrights.org.uk

This project is supported by the UK Prevention Research Partnership (Violence, Health and Society; MR-VO49879/1).

Photograph from Adobe Stock subscription.

Upcoming webinar – Responding to violence in later life: Evidence, priorities, and opportunities

 

Thursday 14 May 2026, 13:00  – 14:30, online

The VISION research consortium invites you to a free webinar looking at violence and abuse experienced by those in their later years. What is the current evidence of exposure and health outcomes? What should the violence prevention research and policy priorities be for an aging population? And what are the opportunities to improve our knowledge about this issue?

The event will include:

Patterns of violence and discrimination exposure across the life course and their associations  with health in later life, Dr Anastasia Fadeeva, VISION Research Fellow, City St Georges  University of London

  • Dr Fadeeva will share results from her study study whi hused data from wave 11 of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, which included  information about Life History events, such as multiple types of violence and discrimination over the life course. Distinct patterns of violence and discrimination experiences were identified using the Latent Class analysis, followed by analysis of the associations between the profiles of violence experiences and health outcomes.

Listening to Older Survivors: Informing Support and Interventions for Domestic Abuse in Later Life, Dr Vasiliki Orgeta, Associate Professor, University College London

  • Dr Orgeta will present quantitative and qualitative research on psychological trauma and abuse in older women. He will explore their experiences and the perspectives of professionals supporting them, highlighting barriers such as stigma, isolation, and lack of recognition. The findings are informing a psychological advocacy intervention for older women, funded by the NIHR and led by UCL, designed to provide tailored, long-term support that promotes safety, autonomy, and wellbeing.

Later life adversities and their relationship with health outcomes: evidence from Wales, Dr Kat  Ford, Research Fellow, Bangor University and Professor Karen Hughes, Bangor University

Supporting older survivors of Sexual Violence- barriers and good practice, Amanda Warburton, Independent Researcher

  • Amanda will present findings from her MA in Domestic Violence and Sexual Abuse dissertation study which gathered the views of professionals who have supported older survivors of acute sexual Violence. The presentation will cover barriers to seeking support and highlight good practice to enable older survivors on their journey to recovery. 

This webinar will be of interest to stakeholders involved in violence prevention research, policy and practice who work with older people and / or are interested in lifecourse violence and abuse prevention.

Join us at this free webinar on 14 May, 13:00 – 14:30. To book your place and receive the Teams link, please email VISION_Management_Team@citystgeorges.ac.uk

Photograph provided by Age Without Limits image library

Fairness demands transparency

Doctors often speak publicly about injustice, torture, and attacks on healthcare in conflict zones and humanitarian crises. Because doctors’ voices carry significant public trust, their speech is also subject to professional regulation and employer oversight.

In recent years, complaints about doctors’ public comments on international conflicts have increased. Yet complaint volume alone is a poor guide to misconduct. Where repeated complaints trigger escalating scrutiny even when no professional or legal standard has been breached, the regulatory process itself becomes the penalty for doctors.

Doctors’ freedom of speech much be protected from punitive scrunity, a British Medical Journal (BMJ) opinion article written by Rubin Minhas, Nick Maynard, Iain Chalmers, and VISION Director Gene Feder, examines how complaint-driven escalation risks creating “punitive scrutiny”—a situation where investigation and oversight impose a heavy burden of process even in the absence of wrongdoing.

The authors argue that the solution is not weaker regulation but greater transparency. Regulators and employers should publish aggregate indicators on complaint patterns and escalation decisions to demonstrate that scrutiny is driven by evidence rather than complaint pressure.

Ensuring that lawful professional speech is protected from punitive scrutiny is essential both for doctors who speak about humanitarian harms and for maintaining public confidence in professional regulation.

To download the opinion piece: Doctors’ freedom of speech must be protected from punitive scrutiny | The BMJ

Illustration / photograph from Adobe 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.

  1. UK Parliament – International Development Committee – Inquiry: Women, Peace and Security. Our submission was published in March 2026
  2. UK Parliament – Public Bill Committee – Call for evidence: Crime and Policing Bill. Our submission was published in 2025
  3. UK Parliament (Library) – POSTNote – Approved Work: Violence Against Women and Girls in schools and among children & young people. Two VISION reports were referenced in their POSTNote published in August 2025
  4. UK Parliament – Public Accounts Committee – Inquiry: Tackling Violence against Women and Girls (VAWG). Our submission was published in April 2025
  5. UK Parliament – House of Lords Select Committee on Social Mobility Policy – Call for Evidence: Exploring how education and work opportunities can be better integrated to improve social mobility across the UK. Our submission was published in 2025
  6. UK Parliament – Women and Equalities Committee – Inquiry: Community Cohesion. Our submission was published in February 2025
  7. UK Parliament – Call for evidence on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Our submission was published in February 2025
  8. UK Parliament – Public Accounts Committee – Inquiry: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Government. Our submission was published in January 2025
  9. UK Parliament – Public Accounts Committee – Inquiry: Tackling Homelessness. Our submission with Dr Natasha Chilman was published in January 2025. See the full report
  10. Home Office – Legislation consultation: Statutory Guidance for the Conduct of Domestic Homicide Reviews. Our submission was published on the VISION website in July 2024
  11. UK Parliament – Women and Equalities Committee – Inquiry: The rights of older people. Our submission was published in November 2023
  12. UK Parliament  – Women and Equalities Committee – Inquiry: The impact of the rising cost of living on women. Our submission was published in November 2023
  13. UK Parliament – Women and Equalities Committee – Inquiry: The escalation of violence against women and girls. Our submission published in September 2023
  14. 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
  15. Welsh Government – Consultation: National action plan to prevent the abuse of older people. Summary of the responses published in April 2023
  16. 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
  17. UK Parliament – The Home Affairs Committee – Call for evidence: Human Trafficking. Our submission was published in March 2023
  18. UN expert – Call for evidence: Violence, abuse and neglect in older people. Our submission was published in February 2023
  19. 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
  20. 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)

VISION researcher receives funding for secondary data analysis

Dr Annie Bunce, Research Fellow at VISION, received funding from the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy for her application, Exploring resilience, self-empowerment and wellbeing outcomes of women referred to specialist domestic abuse counselling services.

With the support of Dr Estela Capelas Barbosa, VISION co-Deputy Director, and in collaboration with Sarah Davidge, Head of Membership, Research and Evaluation at Women’s Aid, Annie will investigate whether and how receiving counselling from a specialist domestic abuse (DA) support service is associated with change in wellbeing.

She will analyse quantitative data from national DA charity, Women’s Aid, which includes information on various aspects of victim-survivors’ wellbeing at the start, during, and end of accessing services. Data analysis will reveal whether victim-survivors who receive counselling experience greater improvements in their wellbeing than those who receive other community-based services.

Annie will also examine whether counselling may be associated with greater wellbeing gains for some groups than others, and whether change in wellbeing is associated with the type/s of abuse experienced and other services received.

The analysis will show which factors influence the effect of counselling on changes in wellbeing the most, and which wellbeing indicators are most improved following counselling.

Findings will be shared via an academic report, blog, policy briefing, webinar and conference presentations.

The research will help to improve understanding of the relationship between counselling and wellbeing in the context of DA, feed into Women’s Aid’s ongoing work to ensure they are measuring the things most important to victim-survivors when it comes to their wellbeing and promote consistency in measuring wellbeing-related outcomes across DA services more widely.

Please contact Annie at annie.bunce@citystgeorges.ac.uk for further information.

Image from Adobe Stock subscription.

Independent evaluation of Women’s Aid’s ‘Expect Respect’ programme reveals timely learning about effective schools-based health relationship intervention

 

By Dr Annie Bunce

VISION researchers Dr Annie Bunce (City St Georges University of London) and Dr Estela Capelas Barbosa (University of Bristol), alongside Dr Anna Dowrick (University of Oxford) and Dr Meredith Hawking (Queen Mary University of London), recently wrapped up an independent evaluation of Women’s Aid’s school-based educational programme, ‘Expect Respect’. The programme is aimed at children and young people (ages 4 to 18) and school staff and focuses on unhealthy relationships and the gender stereotypes that underpin them. Sessions are tailored to different age groups, with content for older students also addressing domestic abuse. It is designed to be delivered year-on-year nationally. You can find out more about the programme here: Expect Respect – Women’s Aid

The evaluation was conducted between February 2024 and May 2025, utilising mixed methods to assess the impact of the programme. Staff and student survey data from participating schools was analysed quantitatively, to assess the impact of the programme on individual and school-level behavioural outcomes and differences in student outcomes by age, gender, ethnicity or disability. Creative methods including arts-based activities and vignettes were utilised in student focus groups to facilitate engagement and expression. Interview data from staff and focus group data from students was analysed qualitatively to explore the impact of the programme on school culture, and understanding of and attitudes towards gender stereotypes, healthy relationships and domestic abuse (the latter with older students only).

Findings from quantitative analysis showed that Expect Respect generally works in terms of teaching children and young people about gender roles, healthy relationships and domestic abuse, as well as how and where to seek help. For example, we found the programme had a positive impact on understanding of gender roles among children aged 4 to 14, and on understanding of domestic abuse among older students (ages 11-18). Following the Expect Respect session, those aged 11-18 were less likely to view controlling behaviour as acceptable, and over twice as likely to say they knew who they could talk to if they were concerned about a relationship. School staff overwhelmingly reported they had a better understanding of domestic abuse and felt more confident about responding to abuse-related disclosures after the staff training than they had done beforehand, and were very satisfied with the training. Qualitative findings from staff interviews supported these survey results, with staff describing the content of the training as eye-opening and the delivery by Women’s Aid staff excellent.

Qualitative analysis revealed overall consensus with the quantitative findings in terms of the effectiveness of the Expect Respect training, as well as revealing some nuanced findings. For example, while survey results indicated a change in attitudes for most outcomes immediately following the session, qualitative findings suggested that achieving longer-term change would require consolidation of learning via regular sessions. We also found that secondary school students already had a reasonably decent understanding of the differences between healthy and unhealthy relationship behaviours prior to receiving the Expect Respect session, and felt it would have greater impact if there was a shift in emphasis from awareness raising towards practical advice about how to address unhealthy relationships and where to seek help. There was agreement among both staff and students that the programme would likely have more impact if it was more interactive, particularly the session tailored for older students.

Qualitative findings also suggested that boys found it more difficult to engage with the programme than girls, and both staff and students felt the programme was lacking in information about online relationships. Focus group data highlighted that gender stereotypes remain pervasive in young people’s thinking about heterosexual romantic relationships and are used to justify controlling behaviour. Despite this, staff were optimistic about the potential of the programme to positively impact on both students themselves, and school culture more widely, by planting a seed that they were hopeful would lead to longer term impact. Staff interviews also touched on the challenges of trying to model progressive gender stereotypes and healthy relationships to students through the programme when these were not necessarily reflected among adults in school culture. Nevertheless, staff unanimously felt that the Expect Respect sessions had helped them to identify unhealthy behaviour in relationships between students and also encouraged some students to come forward and speak to them about things they were worried about.

Recommendations

Our recommendation focus on the programme content, format and embedding learning, including:

  • Co-produce session content with young people
  • Make sessions more interactive
  • Utilise the power of personal stories and lived experience
  • Explore examples of unhealthy behaviour in friendships, families and romantic relationships
  • Focus on sparking conversations and making sessions memorable
  • Equip young people with skills to challenge unhealthy relationship behaviour, and linking with local support services
  • Continue with year-on-year delivery and provide resources/advice for schools on how to embed Expect Respect messages across the year and build on learning

The full evaluation report can be accessed here: Microsoft Word – ExpectRespect_finalreport_27Jan26

For further information, please contact Annie at annie.bunce@citystgeorges.ac.uk

Cover photo supplied from the evaluation.

Webinar: Exploring Domestic Homicide Review commissioning

 

Exploring Domestic Homicide Review commissioning

This event is in the past.

Tuesday 24 March 2026, 13:00  – 14:30, online

Durham University’s Centre for Research into Violence and Abuse invites you to an online webinar looking at Domestic Homicide Review (DHR) commissioning.

The project team, Dr Elizabeth Cook (VISION Co-Investigator, City St George’s UoL), Dr James Rowlands (Durham University), and Dr Althea Cribb (Durham University) will share findings from a British Academy / Leverhulme Small Grant funded research project into review notification and commissioning decision-making and identify implications for practice and policy. 

The event will include:

This webinar will be of interest to stakeholders involved in reviews, including practitioners, commissioners, senior managers, policy makers, and researchers. Those affected by domestic homicides and abuse-related deaths, including family, are also welcome to join, as are family advocates. 

Join us at this free online webinar on the 24th March between 1300 and 1430 to hear about the findings findings from this project. 

To book your place, click here.

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.

People with mental illness and exposed to assault experience greater mortality

 

Various studies over the years have noted a link between mortality and mental illness, however, the contribution of violence exposure to mortality in people with mental illness remains under-researched. This latest study, The association between violence exposure and general and cause-specific mortality in people using mental health services: cohort study, closes the gap with the finding that people with mental illness, who are exposed to assault, experience greater mortality than those who are not exposed.

The research team led by Dr Nabihah Rafi (Kings College London) included VISION researchers Professor Robert Stewart and Dr Vishal Bhavsar. They examined the association of violence exposure, such as being physically assaulted, with general and cause-specific mortality in a population using mental health services.

Assembling a cohort study using electronic health records from a mental health and substance use treatment provider in south-east London, records were linked to acute medical admission and emergency department presentation data, as well as to a national mortality register with death certificates for deaths registered in England and Wales.

Results indicated that exposure to violence among users of mental health services is associated with increased mortality compared with non-exposed individuals. They may have worse physical health for a range of reasons, such as the metabolic effects of psychiatric treatment, which in turn might influence cause-specific mortality risk (e.g. diabetes-related mortality). Violence exposure, including repeated exposure, might influence mortality risk through a reduced capability to manage existing physical illness, increasing the risk of progression of pre-existing morbidity.

Further findings about the association between those using mental health services and being exposed to violence also suggest:

  1. Psychological stress that could, over time, cause stress to body systems
  2. An increase in unhealthy behaviours, including alcohol use and smoking, which are important drivers of mortality in people with mental illness
  3. An indication with relationship stress, which some evidence suggests may affect mortality risk
  4. An Influence of mortality risk through a reduced capability to manage existing physical illness, increasing the risk of disease progression.

Recommendations

  1. The association between violence exposure and mortality from natural causes in people with mental illness warrants further research attention to understand the contributory pathways, including through shared causes of both violence exposure and mortality.
  2. Strategies to improve the identification and assessment of violence exposure in people with mental illness could improve the quality of care by reducing health inequalities, as well as by uncovering wider healthcare needs in patients exposed to violence.

To cite: Rafi N, Stewart R, Jewell A, Shetty H, Bhavsar V. The association between violence exposure and general and cause-specific mortality in people using mental health services: cohort study. BJPsych Open. 2026 Jan 12;12(1):e35. doi: 10.1192/bjo.2025.10938. PMID: 41521785.

Illustration from Adobe Photo Stock subscription