Archives

Workplace bullying and harassment harms health

    Workplace bullying and harassment (WBH) is bad for people’s health, and this negative health impact can manifest in a variety of ways and be long-lasting.

    Over a decade ago the UK government initiated the Fair Treatment at Work survey, aiming to ‘place the issue of bullying at work on employers’ agendas’, yet there has been no major initiative since.

    Using data from the 2014 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey, VISION researchers Annie Bunce, Ladan Hashemi and Sally McManus, along with Carrie Myers and Charlotte Clark from City St George’s, University of London and Stephen Stansfeld from Queen Mary, University of London, examined the prevalence and nature of WBH among workers in England, and associations with mental health.

    A clear picture of the severity of the problem of WBH in England is painted by four key findings.

    1. One in ten people in paid work reported having experienced WBH in the past year. This is likely to be an underestimate due to underreporting for various reasons;
    2. Those who reported bullying were more likely to be in a financially disadvantaged position;
    3. Over half of people who reported having been bullied at work identified the perpetrator as a line manager; and
    4. Clinically diagnosed common mental disorder was more than twice as likely in employees with experience of WBH compared with those without, and those exposed to WBH were also twice as likely as others in paid work to screen positive for PTSD.

    Taken together these findings demonstrate that WBH is common in UK workplaces, it may be driven and exacerbated by issues of inequality, power and hierarchical organisational structures, and it is associated with depressive and anxiety disorders severe enough to warrant health service intervention and treatment.

    This power dynamic should not be forgotten when addressing issues in the workplace, but the complexity of workplace environments creates challenges for identifying, understanding and addressing bullying. Reports of WBH can coincide with performance concerns from managers, and, whilst behaviours intended as legitimate performance management activities might be misinterpreted as bullying by the employee, it is also possible that HR practitioners attribute managerial bullying behaviours to legitimate performance management practice to exonerate mangers and protect the organisation.

    This links to a recently published piece for The Conversation by Sally McManus and Kat Ford (Bangor University), which sets out how companies can influence and perpetuate violence in society, including via employment practices that conceal the extent of bullying, sexual harassment and other forms of workplace violence (for further information see Six ways companies fuel violence (theconversation.com).

    Also, structural issues in the workplace can create pressure for managers which they then take out on those they manage, managers can be victims of WBH themselves, and organisational culture may perpetuate WBH.

    Given such complex power dynamics, it is recommended that organisations involve employees at all levels in the development of policies, and collaboratively review the implementation and performance of policies regularly to ensure they are working for the people they are intended to protect. Rather than prescribed ‘tick box’ policies and responses, creative methods incorporating employees’ perspectives may more likely lead to meaningful change.

    Crucially, managers and HRs might not be the most approachable people for victims of WBH. For example, other VISION research has found this to be the case for victims of intimate partner violence and abuse (see VISION Policy Series: The impact of intimate partner violence on job loss and time off work in the UK – City Vision).  Therefore, alternative sources of support need to be available within organisations, such as unions and counselling services.

    For further information please see the full paper available at: Prevalence and nature of workplace bullying and harassment and associations with mental health conditions in England: a cross-sectional probability sample survey | BMC Public Health (springer.com)

    Or please contact Dr Annie Bunce at annie.bunce@city.ac.uk

    Illustration licensed by Adobe Photo Stock

    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.

      Companies and commercial processes shape violence

        VISION seeks to highlight the wider contexts in which violence occurs. To tackle the causes of violence and improve violence reduction strategies, governments tend to look to families, communities, schools, health and justice services, and community and voluntary sector organisations for solutions. While these are crucial, a broader and more radical approach is also needed.

        For decades, health researchers have raised awareness of various ‘commercial determinants of health’. Initially, this work focused on industries producing harmful products like tobacco, alcohol, fast food and fossil fuels. However, the approach has expanded to show how a much wider range of companies and industries harm our health through their various practices.

        We applied an existing framework to unpack the specific ways in which companies and commercial processes might shape not only our health – but also the nature and extent of violence in societies. The analysis was carried out by Kat Ford from the Public Health Collaborating Unit at Bangor University, Karen Hughes from Policy and International Health, World Health Organization Collaborating Centre on Investment for Health and Wellbeing, Public Health Wales, and VISION researchers Mark Bellis, Olumide Adisa and Sally McManus.

        A summary of six of the ways in which companies can fuel violence has been published in The Conversation. They include political practices like lobbying against safety legislation, and financial practices like investing in regimes with poor human rights records. The full paper details these and other commercial processes and argues that governments need to consider the role and influence of companies if violence prevention is to be effective.

        Photo by Possessed Photography on Unsplash

        Reflections on producing evidence syntheses on violence and abuse

          The VISION systematic review team, Dr Natalia Lewis, Dr Elizabeth Cook, Dr Jessica Corsi, Dr Sophie Carlisle and Dr Annie Bunce, presented at the London Evidence Syntheses and Research Use Seminars on 17 July 2024. The event was an initiative jointly hosted by the EPPI Centre (at UCL) and the Centre for Evaluation at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM).

          The team presented under the collective theme Producing evidence syntheses on violence and abuse: reflections on the disciplinary variations and practicalities, with the aim of prompting conversation about how systematic review methodologies can be adapted across disciplines. Dr Natalia Lewis (Systematic Review Lead, University of Bristol) introduced the session, describing the emergence of systematic reviews at the top of the ‘hierarchy of evidence’ that is often referenced in evidence-based medicine. Accompanying systematic reviews are a range of reporting standards, tools and guidance stipulating recommended practices for conducting reviews. However, as the team discussed in their presentations, such standardised frameworks and approaches do not provide space for reflection on the process and implications of adapting these methodologies to evidence on violence and abuse.

          The seminar included the following presentations:

          • Dr Elizabeth Cook (City, University of London): Evidence syntheses in a global context: A systematic review of sex/gender disaggregated homicide.
          • Dr Jessica Corsi (City, University of London): Evidence synthesis on legal records: challenges and adaptations.
          • Dr Sophie Carlisle (Health Innovation East Midlands): Evidence synthesis in the context of UK domestic and sexual violence services: Involving professional stakeholders.

          The presentations are available to view and download below.

          Dr Natalia Lewis, Producing evidence syntheses on violence and abuse: reflections on the disciplinary variations and practicalities

          Lewis – IntroductionDownload

          Dr Sophie Carlisle, Evidence synthesis in the context of UK domestic and sexual violence services: involving professional stakeholders

          Carlisle – Involving stakeholdersDownload

          Dr Elizabeth Cook, Evidence synthesis in a global context: A systematic review of sex/gender disaggregated homicide

          Cook – Homicide in a global contextDownload

          Dr Jessica Corsi, Evidence synthesis on legal records: Challenges and adaptations

          Corsi – Evidence synthesis on legal recordsDownload

          The seminar was held in hybrid format. The talks were recorded and are available through the following link: https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Coursesseminars/Previousseminarsandevents/tabid/3317/Default.aspx

          Uncovering ‘hidden’ violence against older people

            By Dr Anastasia Fadeeva, VISION Research Fellow

            Violence against older people is often overlooked. As a society, we often associate violence with young people, gangs, unsafe streets, and ‘knife crime’. However, violence also takes place behind front doors, perpetuated by families and partners, and victims include older people. 

            Some older people may be particularly vulnerable due to poorer physical health, disability, dependence on others, and financial challenges after retirement. Policy rarely addresses the safety of this population, with even health and social care professionals sometimes assuming that violence does not affect older people. For example, doctors may dismiss injuries or depression as inevitable problems related to old age and miss opportunities to identify victims (1). In addition, older people may be less likely to report violence and abuse because they themselves may not recognise it, do not want to accuse family members, or out of fear (2). 

            Given victims of violence often remain invisible to health and social services, police, or charities, the most reliable statistics on violence often come from national surveys such as the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) conducted by the Office for National Statistics. However, for a long time the CSEW self-completion – the part of the interview with the most detail on violence and abuse – excluded those aged 60 or more, and only recently extended to include those over 74. Some national surveys specifically focus on older people, but these ask very little about violence and abuse. Additionally, despite people in care homes or other institutional settings experiencing a higher risk of violence, it can be challenging to collect information from them. Therefore, many surveys only interview people in private households, which excludes many higher-risk groups.

            We need a better grasp of the extent and nature of violence and abuse in older populations. First, reliable figures can improve the allocation of resources and services targeted at the protection of older people. Second, better statistics can identify the risk factors for experiencing violence in later life and the most vulnerable groups.

            In the VISION consortium, we used the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey (APMS 2014) to examine violence in people aged 60 and over in England (3). While we found that older people of minoritised ethnic backgrounds are at higher risk of violence (prevalence of 6.0% versus 1.7% in white people in 12 months prior to the survey), more research needs to be done to distinguish the experiences of different ethnic groups. Our research also showed that loneliness and social isolation were strongly related to violence in later life. Older people may experience social isolation due to limiting health issues or economic situations, and perpetrators can exploit this (4). Moreover, isolation of victims is a tool commonly used by perpetrators, especially in cases of domestic abuse (5).  Knowing about these and other risk factors can help us better spot and protect potential victims.

            Additionally, more needs to be learnt about the consequences of life course exposure to violence for health and well-being in later life. This is still a relatively unexplored area due to limited data and a lack of reporting from older victims and survivors. It is sometimes more difficult to establish the link between violence and health problems because the health impacts are not always immediate but can accumulate or emerge in later life (6). Also, as people develop more illnesses as they age, it is more challenging to distinguish health issues attributable to violence. Therefore we are also using the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) to examine temporal relationships between lifetime violence exposure and health in older age.

            Dr Sophie Carlisle, Evaluation Researcher at Health Innovation East Midlands, and former VISION researcher, also reflects on violence against older people and includes an analysis of our study’s strengths and weaknesses in her 10 December 2024 blog on the Mental Elf website, Violence against older people – linked to poor mental health #16DaysOfActivism2024. Sophie highlighted how the study reported that violence against older people is often perpetrated by an intimate partner and is strongly associated with poor mental health.

            In an inclusive society, every member should be able to lead a life where they feel safe and respected. We are delighted that the CSEW has removed the upper age limit to data collection on domestic abuse, which is one step towards making older victims and survivors heard. Continuous work on uncovering the ‘hidden’ statistics and examining the effects of intersectional characteristics on violence is crucial in making our society more inclusive, equal, and safe for everyone. For example, one VISION study (7) has demonstrated that the risks of repeated victimisation in domestic relationships had opposite trends for men and women as they aged. We are committed to support the Hourglass Manifesto to end the abuse of older people (8), and are willing to provide decision makers with evidence to enable a safer ageing society.

            For further information, please see: Violence against older people and associations with mental health: A national probability sample survey of the general population in England – ScienceDirect

            Or please contact Anastasia at anastasia.fadeeva@city.ac.uk

            Footnotes

            • 1.  SafeLives U. Safe later lives: Older people and domestic abuse, spotlights report. 2016.
            • 2.  Age UK. No Age Limit: the blind spot of older victims and survivors in the Domestic Abuse Bill. 2020.
            • 3.  Fadeeva A, Hashemi L, Cooper C, Stewart R, McManus S. Violence against older people and mental health: a probability sample survey of the general population. forthcoming.
            • 4.  Tung EL, Hawkley LC, Cagney KA, Peek ME. Social isolation, loneliness, and violence exposure in urban adults. Health Affairs. 2019;38(10):1670-8.
            • 5.  Stark E. Coercive control. Violence against women: Current theory and practice in domestic abuse, sexual violence and exploitation. 2013:17-33.
            • 6.  Knight L, Hester M. Domestic violence and mental health in older adults. International review of psychiatry. 2016;28(5):464-74.
            • 7.  Weir R. Differentiating risk: The association between relationship type and risk of repeat victimization of domestic abuse. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice. 2024;18:paae024.
            • 8.  Hourglass. Manifesto A Safer Ageing Society by 2050. 2024.

            Photo from licensed Adobe Stock library

            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

              The next generation of researchers studying violence

                by City criminology undergraduate student, Matilde Sciarrini

                As a Criminology with Data Analytics student, I had the opportunity to complete a work placement at the Violence and Society Centre (VASC), through the Q-step programme, which aims to improve quantitative skills in social science students. My initial interest in VASC and their main research project, the VISION Consortium, stemmed from the desire to better understand the different experiences of victims of violent crimes, and the amount of support they received from their family, friends and social services. 

                The work placement took place one day a week for 10 weeks, during which I was tasked to analyse crime reporting trends, by utilising the Crime Survey for England and Wales. This survey is divided into a non-victim form, which gathers general demographic information about the respondents, such as sex, age and ethnicity; and a victim form, specifically asking about crimes they experienced in the past year.  

                During the first few weeks, I selected the relevant variables, refined by recoding skills, and harmonised the variables from 2001 to 2020. The variables I selected for my analysis included: 

                • Did the police come to know about the matter?  
                • How did they come to know about it?  
                • Can you tell me why you decided to report this crime to the police?  
                • Can you tell me why you decided NOT to report this crime to the police? 
                • Do you think the police treated you fairly?  
                • Were you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way in which you were able to report the matter? 

                I decided to specifically focus on violent and sexual crimes for my analysis. This analysis emphasised the importance of understanding the various reasons for reporting and not reporting violent crimes to the police amongst different groups in society. This would not only help explain the discrepancy between police-recorded crime and the figures from the national victimization survey (Crime Survey for England and Wales), but it would aid in more effectively addressing the victim’s specific socio-cultural needs.    

                My experience at the Centre was insightful and a valuable opportunity to understand the working of a research centre firsthand. I found that VASC was a more sociable environment than what I had anticipated. Everyone I met was open to provide coding guidance throughout the workday. Moreover, a productive degree of teamwork took place at the Centre, with full-staff meetings occurring on a weekly basis and constant communication between colleagues. This high level of teamwork was also present in their work, with multiple coding debates taking place every day. Although I had no previous knowledge of the Stata software, I was given the opportunity to learn and utilise it as part of my code. 

                This placement gave me the opportunity not only to enhance my data analysis skills, but to further learn how to work in an office environment and improve my communication with others. I have come to understand how my criminological knowledge can contribute to research, and how it can shape social policies and affect governmental practices. I thoroughly enjoyed the placement since the very first week, having learned the importance of seeking assistance as well as independently solving problems.

                Finally, I am grateful for the help and support of my line managers at VASC/VISION, who were always open to provide help and feedback about my work and my future career aspirations. I consider myself very fortunate to have had such an amazing opportunity, and I would encourage others to take an interest in the ongoing work at the Centre.   

                Presentations from the 2024 VISION Annual Conference

                  The presentations from the 3rd VISION annual conference are now available for downloading.

                  The event was held at Kings College London, Strand campus, on 11 June. The theme was Violence prevention in research and policy: Bridging silos. Keynote speakers, Dr Claudia Garcia-Moreno (World Health Organisation) and Professor Katrin Hohl (City, UoL) considered the changes needed for effective violence prevention from the perspectives of health and justice. Three symposiums highlighted interdisciplinary research from the VISION consortium and partners on:

                  – Violence against older people: Challenges in research and policy;

                  – Learning across statutory review practices: Origins, ambitions and future directions; and

                  – Responding to experiences and expressions of interpersonal violence in the workplace

                  Approximately 80 academics, central and local government officials, practitioners, and voluntary and community sector organisations attended from a range of health and crime / justice disciplines.

                  All the slides that could be shared are available below. Please feel free to download.

                  Photo caption: Symposium 3, ‘Responding to experiences and expressions of interpersonal violence in the workplace’. From left to right: Chair, Dr Olumide Adisa (University of Suffolk) and Panellists Dr Vanessa Gash (City, UoL), Dr Alison Gregory (Alison Gregory Consulting), Catherine Buglass (Employers’ Initiative on Domestic Abuse) and Dr Niels Blom (City, UoL)

                  Professor Gene Feder, VISION Director – Welcome – 1 download

                  Welcome_VISION-Annual-Conference-2024Download

                  Keynote Speaker, Dr Claudia Garcia-Moreno – Violence against women: From research to policy and action – 1 download

                  Keynote-Speaker-2_Research-to-policy-and-action_2Download

                  Symposium 1 – Violence against older people: Challenges in research and policy – 4 downloads (Hourglass, Office for National Statistics, Public Health Wales & VISION)

                  Symposium-1_Older-people-and-violence_HourglassDownload
                  Symposium-1_Older-people-and-violence_ONSDownload
                  Symposium-1_Older-people-and-violence_PHWDownload
                  Symposium-1_Older-people-and-violence_VISIONDownload

                  Symposium 2 – Learning across statutory review practices: Origins, ambitions and future directions – 1 download

                  Symposium-2_Statutory-Review-Practice_AllDownload

                  Symposium 3 – Responding to experiences and expressions of interpersonal violence in the workplace – 3 downloads (Employers’ Initiative on Domestic Abuse, and 2 from VISION)

                  Symposium-3_Violence-and-the-workplace_VISIONDownload
                  Symposium-3_Violence-and-the-workplace_EIDADownload
                  Symposium-3_Violence-and-the-workplace_VISION-2Download

                  Calling all crime analysts: Share your experiences of using text data in analysis

                    Are you a crime analyst or researcher? If so VISION would really like to hear about your experiences of using text data in your analysis.

                    We developed a short survey that will take approximately 5 minutes to complete. Qualtrics Survey | Crime Analyst Survey

                    This survey is designed to explore your experiences working with free-text data. Your feedback will enable us to evaluate the need for software designed to assist analysts working with large amounts of free text data.

                    Participation is voluntary and all responses will be anonymous. Information will be confidential and will not be shared with any other parties, and will be deleted once it is no longer needed.

                    The deadline to provide feedback using the link above is 30 June 2024.

                    Illustration 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