Addressing Gender-Based Violence through the ERA Policy Framework: A Systemic Solution to Dilemmas and Contestations for Institutions

The consequences of gender-based violence in academic cultures are severe for individuals, the study and work climate, and for the quality of research and education. EU and national policy frameworks are developed since long, guiding academic institutions work on ending violence and abuse in the European Research Area (ERA). In this article, a critique and solution to specific dilemmas and contestations immanent in transforming ERA wide policy development into effective actions on the institutional level are presented. The analysis and policy input builds on extensive knowledge from long-term gender mainstreaming programs in national contexts, thorough experience from working amidst a research political landscape with conflicting academic, political, and bureaucratic paradigms, and research-based knowledge on policy development on gender-based violence. A core contribution from the article is the development of a generic, intermediating, and systemic institutional framework for implementation, acknowledging both the ERA policy developments and the day-to-day challenges on the institutional level, from the viewpoint of succeeding in ending gender-based violence in all ERA institutions. Also, a model for monitoring and evaluation of progress on the institutional level is proposed, accompanied by assessment criteria and a set of well-defined indicators. The proposed institutional framework can serve as an important step forward, in a collaborative effort among ERA stakeholders, and serve as inspiration for global academic institutions and national contexts to foster progress on the endemic of gender-based violence permeating academic communities.


Introduction
One of the main drivers for quality in research and education is to ensure academic communities are free from gender-based violence.This is even more important to acknowledge as gender-based violence is an ongoing endemic in global academic cultures (Bondestam & Lundqvist, 2020a).The current situation in the European Research Area (ERA) is no exception, as described in both research (Anitha & Lewis, 2018;Lipinsky et al, 2022) and recent policy conclusions (Ljubljana Declaration, 2021;Prague Call for Action, 2022;EC, 2024).
The consequences of being exposed to gender-based violence are well documented in decades of research: stress, depression, anxiety, alcohol abuse, lack of motivation, increased tendency to interrupt studies or leave work, deteriorating mental and physical health, lower work performance, negative long-term effects on both study and work groups, as well as impeding participation and perceptions of safety in the study and work environment in general (Barling et al, 1996;Chan et al, 2008;Henning et al, 2017;McDonald, 2012;Selkie et al, 2015;Willness, Steel & Lee, 2007).Specific vulnerable groups, due to intersections of gender, sexual identity, ethnicity, age, and other factors, experience more severe and qualitatively different consequences from facing gender-based violence (D'augelli, 1992;Fedina, Holmes & Backes, 2018;Ong, 2005).
The current state of research-based knowledge on preventive work against gender-based violence, as well as targeted actions on an institutional level, is progressing slowly in the ERA (Bondestam, Lundqvist & Young Hå kansson, 2023a).Several analyses of recent policy developments clearly illustrate a seemingly random progress in most EU Member States, also with examples of both possible and factual setbacks in some national contexts (Bondestam, Lundqvist & Young Hå kansson, 2023b;Fajmonová et al, 2021;SWG GRI, 2020).Further, actual research evidence on preventive methods decreasing the level of prevalence of gender-based violence is scarce (Bondestam & Lundqvist, 2020b;Vladutiu, Martin & Macy, 2011).Several gaps and inconsistencies in the current ERA policy framework are also identified (Prague Call for Action, 2022;Ljubljana Declaration, 2021;EC, 2024) and point at the urgent need to move forward in specific instances of policy.This includes for example acknowledging and fostering reliable survey or administrative data, support structures, and academic sanctions: Reliable survey or administrative data, including indicators and mechanisms for evaluation and monitoring, on the prevalence and consequences of gender-based violence on national and institutional levels in the ERA.In the EU-funded UniSAFE project survey, targeting staff and students and collecting more than 42 000 responses from 15 Member States and 46 research performing organisations, a total of 62 percent reported experiencing some form of gender-based violence (Lipinsky et al, 2022).Likewise, more than half of the responding Swedish female PhD-students in a national survey have experienced some form of sexual harassment since they entered their position (Rudolfsson et al, 2022).In the Irish national survey on sexual violence, six in ten students described experiencing sexualised comments (HEA, 2021).These studies are important and groundbreaking examples of the possibility to develop and implement large-scale survey instruments, although they are cross-sectional one-off studies without further decisions on future systematic use as part of evaluation and monitoring in the ERA or within respective national contexts.
Sustained support structures for victims and survivors of gender-based violence, taking a trauma-informed approach, are still in the making on the institutional level.Although a vast majority of ERA institutions (in this article meaning all research performing organizations, including higher education organizations, in the European Research Area), to a varying degree, have available resources and competencies for basic support, a holistic and systemic approach ensuring full retaliation for victims of gender-based violence is still missing.Regulated financial and work-related mechanisms for compensating victims and survivors are also uncommon throughout ERA institutions, albeit ad hoc solutions are sometimes implemented case-by-case.
Viable academic sanctions, beyond the too often described impediments of formal reporting and legal processes, with actual consequences for perpetrators are scarce and not implemented in a systematic way in the ERA.There is also a lack of measures to hold serial perpetrators accountable.Instead, violent and abusive PIs, supervisors and managers travel academic communities throughout the ERA and beyond, exploiting their power positions through repeated violations of new students, PhDs and post-docs being dependent on their academic and financial status.
These examples illustrate a misrecognized aspect of ERA policy development on gender-based violence, namely the specific dilemmas and contestations immanent in transforming ERA wide policy development into effective actions on the institutional level.This is a problem not fully acknowledged in EU Horizon2020 and Horizon Europe projects targeting the ERA, both in the context of gender-based violence (UniSAFE) and pertaining to gender equality more generally (CASPER, GenderSMART, GEECO, FORGEN, GENDER-Net, INSPIRE, etc).Typically, these projects are designed to develop measures and strategies fostering implementation of core policy values.There are numerous examples of tools, frameworks, guiding documents, templates and other formats supposed to guide institutions when addressing gender-based violence and gender equality in different ways.But do they work as intended?
One way to address this problem is through a critical examination of policy implementation of measures aiming at ending gender-based violence, by using large-scale research reviews as a source of knowledge (Bondestam & Lundqvist, 2020a, 2020b), in which only a handful examples of progress in policy implementation show lasting, evident change in terms of decreasing experiences of different forms of gender-based violence in higher education and research.A prominent example of this is the "Green Dot"-program (Coker et al, 2015(Coker et al, , 2016)), as it clearly benefits from a systematic, long-term implementation on the institutional level.Apart from the research evidence point of view, there are also other reasons as to why the intended effects are not taking place in ERA institutions especially.
One major reason for the lack of progress in this sense is connected to the institutional level, where resources often are scarce, knowledge is lacking, and support and engagement for gender equality (or ending gender-based violence) is seldom a priority among senior management (although often paying lip-service).Further, the targeted efforts are mainly policy development, training, awareness raising, support services and formal reporting mechanisms, all of which are important enough, but do not change the institutional cultures making gender-based violence possible (Bondestam & Lundqvist, 2020b).ERA institutions are ratheractively, passively or as misrecognized forms of organizational resistancesconstantly downplaying the critique and relevance of strengthening research and education through critical transformation of the academic culture, thereby catering for gender inequalities and gender-based violence to thrive (FESTA, 2016;O'Connor, 2014;Rees 1998).
Another core reason is the current "more of the same"-approach to policy implementation, as adopted by EC (European Commission) funding schemes since long.The UniSAFE (https://unisafe-gbv.eu/) project is in a sense an example of this approach, by fostering seemingly "new" tools, such as the development of the 3P and 4P model into a 7P model (see further below), a process ongoing for over two decades, but without any research evidence supporting the successful implementation and use of the models per se.Despite the lack of evidence-based research proving these tools and models decrease the level of prevalence of gender-based violence, the EC continues to fund and support this specific, "ontological" paradigm of policy implementation.
At the same time, it must be acknowledged, the 7P model is no doubt the most condensed, "all-inclusive" idea to date on which aspects to deal with when working against gender-based violence in ERA institutions.But the critique of the current policy implementation narratives in the ERA is still valid, at least as long as the different tools for ending gender-based violence are designed and disseminated as single, project-based "solutions".Instead, when set in a holistic and systemic institutional framework, they will at least render the possibility to be put to work as intended.A mismatch between the logic of the EC policy paradigm and EU-funded research and policy projects on the one hand, and the realities of ERA institutions on the other, is at stake in this article.Indeed, a lingering inability to bridge over systemic differences between the ERA policy framework and the institutional level in national contexts has been identified as a main challenge for progress on ending gender-based violence (Bondestam, Lundqvist & Young Hå kansson, 2023a).

Aim
This critical stance on the lack of contextual prerequisites for ending gender-based violence in ERA institutions, due to an identified translation shortage between different levels of policy implementation, set the core aim of this article: to develop a generic, intermediating and systemic institutional framework for implementation, acknowledging both the ERA policy developments and the day-to-day challenges on the institutional level, from the viewpoint of succeeding in ending gender-based violence in all ERA institutions.As part of this endeavor, a model for monitoring and evaluation of progress on the institutional level is proposed, accompanied by assessment criteria and a set of well-defined indicators.The proposed institutional framework combines extensive knowledge from long-term gender mainstreaming programs in national contexts, thorough experience from working amidst a research political landscape with conflicting academic, political, and bureaucratic paradigms, and research-based knowledge on policy development on gender-based violence.

A Systemic Institutional Framework
A systemic institutional framework concerns the overall organization and structure of all measures and activities aimed at, or which might have positive effects on the ambition of, ending gender-based violence.It involves several areas, academic leaders on different levels, and different stakeholders both within and outside an institution, together claiming a holistic perspective on managing the institutional mechanisms for ending gender-based violence.Thus, an institutional framework goes beyond a single policy addressing for example sexual harassment, as the former should include: (1) both short-and long-term organizational aims and measures (2) long-term decisions for resource allocation and financial support (3) well integrated ideas and concrete measures on, for example, developing safe educational and working conditions for students and staff (4) different prospective ideas on measures for cultural change, especially on transforming academic norms in risk of conflicting with the safety of students and staff The level of engagement among ERA stakeholders on ending gender-based violence will benefit from implementing an institutional framework, although it will entail a challenge in several national contexts where the level of development in terms of gender equality at large in the R&I-system is in its infancy.Additionally, setting up an institutional framework might face several forms of organizational and individual resistances, both passive and active, and it will indeed cost a lot in terms of funding and resources.This, though, must be seen in relation to the enormous costs of ongoing gender-based violence to individuals, work groups, organizations, and the quality of research and education in ERA institutions.Implementing an institutional framework in an ERA institution will also imply a challenge for the institutional culture as such, as the need for an institutional framework point at a huge, often not recognized, problem of gender-based violence.
From a feminist research perspective, ERA institutions can be described as organisations with several characteristics enabling gender-based violence and perpetrator behaviours.As part of an historically male-dominated subdomain in societies, these institutions are still built on asymmetric power relations, multiple hierarchical dependencies, a devastating hyper competition among researchers, destructive and hegemonic academic masculinities as normative ideals for researchers, and at the same time, mainly offer short-term and insecure employments for staff (Atkinson & Standing, 2019;Pé tursdóttir, 2017).This is truly a toxic situation, and thus a context in which the need for a systemic change in policy implementation engagement must be conceived.In other words, the proposed institutional framework only come into full function when simultaneous structural and institutional change is promoted, targeting all aspects of academic cultures and processes enabling perpetrators of gender-based violence.
Experiences and knowledge from different EU-funded projects have informed the choice of examples, criteria, delimitations, and the final design of the systemic institutional framework described in this article.The broader landscape of gender mainstreaming in theory and practice guides the ambition to adapt the institutional framework to the actual challenges and needs experienced by ERA institutions engaged in ending gender-based violence.The institutional framework consists in total of eight key factors, twenty indicators, and seven sub-indicators detailing each P of a generic 7P model.Each key factor is described in more detail in this article, while assessment criteria and evaluation formulas for systematic evaluation and monitoring of strengths are discussed more briefly.The indicators are defined in the Appendix.The institutional framework is thus structured through four different, but interlinked, constituents: (1) Key factors and indicators, building on policy analysis in the UniSAFE project (Fajmonová et al, 2021), are integrated with core elements of implementing gender mainstreaming in higher education and research performing organisations (Swedish Secretariat for Gender Research, 2017).
(2) The 7P model is set as a baseline for structures and measures in the core part of the institutional framework.It consists of Prevalence, Prevention, Protection, Prosecution, Provision of Services, Partnerships and Policies.
(3) Assessment criteria are developed for all indicators in the institutional framework, defining the level of progress on a six-grade scale ranging from "Lack" (0) to "Complete" (5).
(4) An evaluation formula for calculating the current state of progress on ending gender-based violence for individual ERA institutions as well as an overarching ERA monitoring device.

Interlinked Key Factors
Eight key factors are selected for the proposed institutional framework on gender-based violence in ERA institutions.
All key factors and their respective indicators and sub-indicators target core aspects of ending gender-based-violence on the institutional level (except for key factor 1, indicator A, framing the need for a national framework, see Appendix).Key factors share a common ground with Impact Drivers (Mergaert, Cacace & Linková , 2022), in the sense of summing up necessary preconditions for change.Albeit, using key factors in this context serves to point out the translational components of an institutional framework rather than actual drivers for institutional change.This delineation is relevant also from the perspective of viewing ending gender-based violence as an intrinsic part of a broader framework for gender mainstreaming in ERA institutions.In the following section, each key factor and its selected indicators are described and commented on briefly, discussing its core aspects, and pinpointing the specific elements to focus on when performing an evaluation.

National Frameworks
National legislative and policy frameworks, as well as related institutional policy frameworks, are enabling forces driving change on gender equality in ERA institutions.These combined frameworks are also important as a structural foundation for fostering organizational measures for ending gender-based violence.National frameworks are mainly outside the responsibilities and reach of single ERA institutions, but at the same time are necessary to identify and argue for in national contexts, as they form the presuppositions needed for certain institutional measures.For example, specific incentives on institutional policy formation necessarily emanate from national policy making and existing legislation, just as legislative frames set the preconditions for prosecution, as well as institutional case management and other forms of procedural justice within ERA institutions.Some EU Member States and Associated Countries have had legislation in place on several aspects of gender-based violence for decades, whereas others are currently developing and refining relevant national legislation (Huck et al, 2022).The ERA overall policy framework on gender-based violence will be harmonized in a near future, due to both the new Gender Equality Plan (GEP) eligibility criterion for funding under Horizon Europe (EC 2021) and an upcoming ERA Code of Conduct on gender-based violence for all ERA institutions developed under ERA Prio 5 in 2024 (EC, 2024).
The legislative context, and the national policy frameworks, might also have some negative effects, as discussed in research on prevention of gender-based violence and sexual harassment (Bondestam & Lundqvist, 2020b).This concerns the tendency of "humidification" of the understanding of what is at stakeexperiences of violence and abuse risk being transformed into procedural aspects of legal justice, which seldom leads to retaliation for survivors and affirmation of their experiences.Though, as a basic starting point for justifying national legal and procedural context for ending gender-based violence, ensuring a legislative context is a vital and necessary step.

Concepts
A crucial aspect of ending gender-based violence is defining the actual content of what is to be focused on and prioritized.Defining what is meant by gender-based violence is even more important in those national contexts and/or institutions where there are limited or no legislative provisions and experiences of addressing gender-based violence.A vast majority of EU Member States and Associated Countries does have strategies and national action plans targeting gender-based violence on a general level, but in the context of ERA institutions, it is more often sexual harassment which is defined as the main or only relevant concept.Sexual harassment is also delineated in terms of its scope and understood mainly from a legal perspective (Bondestam, Lundqvist & Young Hå kansson, 2023a;Fajmonová et al, 2021;Huck et al, 2022;SWG GRI, 2021).
A differentiated, and well-informed conceptualization of gender-based violence can instead set a broader frame of understanding.It will also add to defining which problems are to be solved and what challenges these problems consist of, which is of importance when developing different institutional measures and activities (Bacchi, 1999(Bacchi, , 2009)).In this specific context, gender-based violence is foremost understood as a manifestation of gendered power inequalities and operationalized in line with the UniSAFE project and existing state-of-the-art research (Strid et al, 2021).An overall definition of GBV aims at capturing "all forms of gender-based violence, violations and abuse, including but not limited to, physical violence, psychological violence, economic and financial violence, sexual violence, sexual harassment, gender harassment […], stalking, organizational violence and harassmentin both online and offline contexts, including emerging forms of violence, experienced as violence, violations and abuse not yet necessarily named or recognized as violence" (Strid et al 2021, p. 13, bold omitted).This definition goes beyond the current and previous scope and praxis in national legislation and policy in EU Member States and Associated Countries, the ERA overall policy framework, as well as the current state of institutional policies in ERA institutions (Bondestam, Lundqvist & Young Hå kansson, 2023a).It claims an understanding of gender-based violence as a risk, and an actual existence, of a broad range of multiple, interacting, physical, psychological, and emotional experiences of violations and abuse embedded in all social interactions.
Naming and addressing multiple forms of discrimination, or framing challenges in terms of gendered inequalities, is a first important step towards conceptualizing gender-based violence further.Gendered inequalities are at the core of the concept of gender-based violence, both as a determinant and consequence of violence and abuse.It opens for an intersectional perspective, i.e., the interconnected, complex ways in which multiple inequalities (age, sex, gender, race/ethnicity, disabilities, nationality, location, religion, sexual orientation, etc.) position people and enable violence and abuse.Intersectionality defined this way is an important and major shift in focus and understanding of the multiple, differentiated ways inequalities coexist and play out in experiences of gender-based violence (Christoffersen, 2021;Collins, 2021;Gangoli & Jones, 2022).Put more to the point, and using commonplace sociological perspectives, it is important to recognize the way sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, and other forms of oppressive norms and behaviors define academic cultures.When considered as processes of normalization and neutralization of violence and abuse (Walby, Armstrong & Strid, 2012), it becomes possible to recognize how norms of this kind are established as almost invisible and intangible structures of oppression creating risks for and potential ongoing, toxic, violent, and abusive study and work environments throughout the ERA.This notion of gender-based violence is a guiding conceptualization for all key factors in the institutional framework.Therefore, it is crucial to always return to it as a basic principle for understanding and evaluating the other key factors.This is especially relevant when evaluating the sub-indicators A1-A7 of the 7P model in key factor 3, not the least as an intersectional notion and understanding of gender-based violence is currently scarce in ERA institutions.This conceptual stance is relevant to acknowledge different vulnerable or marginalized groups and their specific intersectional experiences, and to pursue relevant structural transformative measures for the benefit and safety of all students and staff.

The 7P-model
The 7P model (Strid et al, 2021) was developed within the UniSAFE project (but originally set up beforehand by Mergaert et al, 2016).It adopts a holistic approach to gender-based violence, names key aspects of targeted areas and measures, is developed to visualise the processes of collecting data and analysing and translating findings into operational tools.The 7P model is an extended and revised framework for preventive measures combining the UN 3P approachprevention, protection, prosecution (UN, 2017) -and the Council of Europe Istanbul Convention's 4P approachprevention, protection, prosecution, policies (CoE, 2011, cf. Anitha & Lewis, 2019 for details).In the description of the different Ps below, as well as in the sub-indicators A1-A7 in the Appendix, examples of activities and measures are given to enable an understanding of what each P consist of in practice.
Prevalence is a baseline knowledge needed for all other Ps in the 7P model.Survey and/or administrative data on survivors, bystanders, and perpetrators experiences of different forms of gender-based violence is crucial to develop targeted, relevant, and effective preventive measures and activities.Establishing relevant data implies engaging in several procedural (developing survey logic, engaging staff and students in responding, using research-based knowledge on gender-based violence, etc) and methodological issues (developing validated survey items and scales, ensuring ethics approval and confidentiality, establishing consent among participants, creating a data management plan, etc.).
Prevention is a concept encompassing all measures and activities implemented to promote change in behaviour and attitudes among students and staff.These include for example several forms of educational and training activities, communication efforts, delimited and targeted policy initiatives, setting up codes of conduct, as well as measures addressing academic leadership skills and responsibilities.
Protection is defined in this context as actions aimed at ensuring the safety, and meeting the short-and long-term needs, of potential survivors of gender-based-violence.Establishing functional and transparent reporting processes, and an infrastructure for reporting and supporting survivors, are important measures.Protection also implies tools and resources beyond formal reporting, such as direct measures for survivors, bystanders and perpetrators ensuring their rights in different respects.
Prosecution refers to setting up, communicating, and deciding on both internal disciplinary measures and external legal procedures.This entails expert knowledge on survivors reporting and protocols which clarifies responsibilities and actions for all parts involved in case management processes.Importantly, measures must be set up to guarantee the absence of retaliation and avoiding revictimization of survivors.
Provision of services are important measures supporting survivors of gender-based violence, but can also be relevant for bystanders and perpetrators, different minorities, entire work groups affected, families and other private relations, etc. Counselling services are often necessary in several stages, as are mediation and settlement procedures.Creating an instant readiness to act supportive is crucial, through a diversified set of services ready at hand in a sustained infrastructure with adequate resources, combining expert knowledge and several professions and positions.
Partnerships concerns the engagement of key actors in prevention and provision of services, ranging from national authorities, trade unions, to staff and student associations as well as NGOs (Non-Governmental Organisations).These partners can contribute with expert knowledge, help to mobilise engagement from and in different target groups, and contribute to strengthening external legal procedures and internal disciplinary measures.
Policies in this context are local, institutional strategies set up to fight gender-based violence in a coherent and sustained way.Policies define conceptual aspects, responsibilities, aims, relevant measures and resources, and summarise the activities needed to achieve set goals.

Target Groups
This key factor is often overseen, but important to adhere to, when developing targeted and effective measures ending gender-based violence on the institutional level.Recognizing, acknowledging, and using experiences and knowledge from specific target groups implies a bottom-up-approach to the 7P model and can thus, in alignment with other core incentives, serve to establish resilient academic cultures in the long run.Several key factors in this institutional framework directly or indirectly address different minorities, intersectional experiences of violence and abuse, as well as gendered inequalities more broadly.In a more concrete sense when dealing with the institutional It is important to recognize and mainly advocate a survivor-centered approach, through an intersectional lens, when developing the content and logic of primary, secondary, and tertiary measures targeting gender-based violence (Salter & Gore, 2020;WHO, 2010).Survivors' naming, giving voice to, and in other ways sharing their experiences of violence and abuse must be appreciated, listened to, and acknowledged fully in a safe situation and guided by expert knowledge and experience.It is also important for institutions to develop processes whereby these experiences are made visible and documented, by using ethical protocols and analyzed in depth by expert competencies, and finally transformed into concrete knowledge for targeted measures throughout the 7P model.In this process, past experiences of abuse and (potential risks of) re-traumatization, other identified and potential risks and vulnerabilities, indications of abusive study and workplace cultures, and several other relevant aspects are key features for selecting, advocating, directing, and engaging in relevant preventive and protective activities on different levels.
In the same sense, bystander perspectives and experiences are important to acknowledge in several ways.For example, by not underestimating the need for concrete support and protective actions among student and staff groups of bystanders, who most likely have been affected in different ways by specific incidents or toxic behaviors and cultures (and possibly also have experienced abuse in the past or present).Entire work groups and groups of students are also possibly traumatized and might need support and mediation, but bystanders are also identified in recent research as an important resource for intervention in toxic academic cultures per se, and thus is to be seen as a valuable resource when developing preventive measures (Coker et al, 2015(Coker et al, , 2016;;also, cf Bondestam & Lundqvist, 2020b).To clarify and ensure the legal rights, and support the development of an ethical stance, of perpetrators, but also to offer support and provision of services if needed, are also important as a way of ensuring all parties are acknowledged.
When dealing with the expanded target groups outside of the survivor-bystander-perpetrator triangle, seeking active contact, being as transparent as possible with information, and using directed and sensitive communication are proven measures of relevance.It is also important to offer support and provision of services if possible and within the mandate of the institution.This expanded target group include for instance affected colleagues and students outside the institution, fieldwork residents and conference participants, medical care givers, patients and relatives to patients, customers and business partners, persons in private relations, and so forth.It is thus a broad array of different actors, relations and persons involved directly, indirectly or on the periphery of survivors, bystanders and perpetrators experiences of abuse and violations, and their experiences and knowledge is also crucial for understanding the scope and consequences of gender-based violence in the institution.
Finally, crucial target groups are specific minorities, mobile researchers and students, and other vulnerable groups which are especially at risk of gender-based violence due to a lack of resources, social networks, persistent oppressive norms and values, intersectional challenges faced, as well as other factors.Women of color, non-binary persons, and other minorities and vulnerable groups which are most at risk of severe negative consequences from experiencing gender-based violence emanating from oppressive structures in academic cultures, are core target groups in this key factor.

Resources
The progress and relevance of preventive incentives through the 7P model depends to a large degree on whether there are adequate institutional resources allocated or not.These resources are key aspects of promoting institutional changeas is evident from an analysis on long-term gender mainstreaming initiatives in higher education institutions (Swedish Secretariat for Gender Research, 2017)and thus will have to be organized, sustained, and developed continuously as part of ongoing institutional processes.Resources are, for the purpose of this institutional framework, defined in three different parts; (a) the existence, use and terms of relevant expert competencies, (b) the existence, quality of and active (and mandatory) participation in capacity-building initiatives, and (c) the existence, quality, and use of necessary support material.
Expert competencies cover a broad range of expertise (on gender, gender-based violence, intersectionality, gender mainstreaming, discrimination, academic cultures, and change management, etc) represented by different professions (educators, psychologists, administrators, researchers, etc) from several strands of knowledge (practical, clinical, therapeutical, administrative, scientific).For example, ensuring adequate time, resources, and skills among all those involved in investigating cases of gender-based violence, persons in relevant support functions, managers on different levels, union representatives, other involved stakeholders, and many others is crucial to ensure sustainable conditions enabling a functional support structure.
The organization and development of capacity-building initiatives requires adequate resources, sufficient budget conditions, expert knowledge and skills, and dedicated and competent professionals with an established mandate to manage, develop and deliver targeted activities.Capacity-building initiatives, as defined in this context, mainly concern introduction, training, education, supervision, mentoring, mutual learning activities (and other forms of sharing knowledge) for different target groups.Capacity-building ideally targets all students and staff, albeit it is often difficult to ensure participation of potential bystanders and perpetrators, specific target and vulnerable groups, and other relevant actors and stakeholders.Therefore, the use of targeted, tailored training initiatives is crucial for target groups, just as compulsory introductions, awareness raising initiatives and training sessions might be necessary, to ensure a common ground and understanding of gender-based violence throughout an institution.
Instrumental for continuous preventive work in institutions are knowledgeable, relevant, useful, and accessible support material.Online, offline, interactive, and mutual learning support materials set the common ground for understanding gender-based violence, the relevance and content of the 7P model in all its parts and activating different Ps in an institution.Further, external resources in terms of national support material, research reviews and expert evaluation protocols, information campaigns, etc are important to make available as support material within institutions.Finally, ensuring the quality, revision and development of institutional support material is an important part of intensifying and raising awareness on gender-based violence and preventive measures.This is ideally developed as an integrated part of ongoing institutional processes strengthening the educational and organizational work environment.

Leadership
Academic leaders, both in line and collegial management positions, are key actors for fostering organisational change, ensuring sound working conditions, and using ethical perspectives on social interactions in academic cultures.Academic teachers also deploy an academic leadership in this sense in relation to students.Management on all levels are crucial for adopting and implementing gender mainstreaming and thus also for ending gender-based violence.Academic leaders' engagement in ending gender-based violence throughout the institution, their skills and use of measures, and their proactive stance on creating inclusive academic cultures are vital in this sense.Research results from different institutional contexts illustrate the importance of all management advocating knowledgeable, proactive and preventive academic leadership skills to end gender-based violence (Lee, 2018;Settles et al, 2006).
Engagement in proactive measures on gender-based violence, on all levels of management in an institution, does not come easy or by itself.It is often temporary, arbitrary to some extent, and often due to characteristics among top or senior management individuals.The latter is unfortunately also true for the tendency to advocate gate keeping and fall into active and passive forms of resistance towards gender equality and prevention of gender-based violence.
Further challenges in this respect on an aggregated level touches on the reproduction of laissez faire academic leadership cultures, organisational and transnational resistances, the increase of directed anti-gender campaigns, ongoing hatred and threats towards different minorities, and authoritarian tendencies of undermining core principles of democratic institutions of which ERA institutions are no exception.
Key incentives internal to institutions are to advocate top management decisiveness and endurance in ending gender-based violence and ensuring a solid organisation to uphold a knowledge base for present and future academic leaders on all levels.Further success factors are engaging in implementing the 7P model (cf.key factor 3) and setting evaluation and monitoring schemes in place (cf.key factor 8), but also to ensure relevant support structures for case management on all levels and adequate HR and other expertise supporting academic leaders' development of an inclusive work and study climate.Important key elements for engagement of academic leaders might also, depending on national contexts and other factors, be specified, regular and robust national and/or institutional data on prevalence of gender-based violence among students and staff (cf.key factor 3, sub-indicator A1, in the Appendix), and an ambitious and sufficiently financed and integrated institutional framework on prevention as such (cf.key factor 1, and indicator B in the Appendix).
Academic leaders' skills on preventive measures are yet another crucial aspect of successful output from an institutional framework.This requires academic leaders get continuous access to relevant knowledge perspectives, have allocated time and resources for training and learning, and are able to use necessary expert support on advocating different preventive measures.Further, it is of vital importance to ensure an understanding of both legal requirements on all forms of primary, secondary, and tertiary preventive measures, as well as to provide access to and use of relevant support material on prevention (cf key factor 5, and indicator B in the Appendix).
Finally, academic leaders' proactive stance as such, on ending gender-based violence as both a moral imperative and by implementing concrete measures in their respective areas of responsibility, is a major challenge to achieve.Whether it is possible or not in specific national and institutional contexts are due to complex reasons.It is also to some extent a consequence of the prior aspects described, but also concern a shift in the very understanding of academic leaders' roles and responsibilities.What is at stake is moving away from passive, reactive, and legally justified measures used rarely and without potential of redress for survivors, towards academic leaders continuous, bold, and proactive measures based on critical perspectives on gender-based violence and targeting structural and oppressive conditions making violations and abuse possible.

Information & Communication
Students and staff access to the institutional framework, policies, targeted measures, resources and support material, data on prevalence, service, and support, contact persons, and other aspects is a basic need for progress in ending gender-based violence.Asserting relevant information is available (functional, in several languages, etc), useful (in line with target groups knowledge, skills and needs) and up-to-date (revised and continuously developed in line with research and praxis) for all target groups, and using all relevant online and offline communication platforms, is of course a challenging task for institutions as it has to be organised in a sustained way and will depend on adequate resource allocation, knowledge and skills, and long-term engagement.But any lack of adequate information, even so of minor aspects, can be decisive for whom is knowledgeable and willing to formally report an incident or to seek relevant support, whether engagement in work and student groups is progressing, and to what extent bystander intervention will take place or not.
General information and communication resources and skills are often well developed and effective in ERA institutions, but what might be underdeveloped is prioritising and developing task specific information and communication on gender-based violence.Using the 7P model framework for identifying which factors and measures are crucial to communicate to different target groups is a first key step.Then there is a continuous need for assuring internal transparency of different resources, data on prevalence, support services, and other aspects.Likewise, these aspects are important to consider for ongoing external communication for several reasons: addressing presumptive students and staff on the work done on inclusive academic cultures, informing expanded target groups (cf key factor 5 above) outside of internal communication channels on support services.
Finally, as for all forms of change management procedures, the need for expert knowledge and comprehensive support on gender-based violence and prevention in ongoing information and communication activities is necessary.
Organising institutional knowledge support for information and communication in this sense is often neglected, as this is assumed to be developed and solved through other processes (or not as relevant as other information and communication needs).Thus, aiming for integrating information activities as part of the 7P model is optimal.

Monitoring & Evaluation
The last key factor in the institutional framework concerns the importance of systematic evaluation and monitoring on progress in ending gender-based violence within an institution.Institutional evaluation and monitoring of gender-based violence can consist of several different measures, incentives and the production and use of relevant data and documentation.A starting point is to invent and document to what extent there is available data on all aspects of the 7P model, of which the existence of robust and useful data on prevalence of gender-based violence among students and staff is the most important.Further, it is necessary to establish a sustained, institutional process for monitoring the progress of prevention in all its parts, which includes measuring and documenting the effects and relevance of for example case management procedures, information and training, support service activities, and other relevant aspects.Finally, the evaluation and monitoring system must ensure data and documentation are used for analysis and development of future preventive measures.This latter step in an evaluation and monitoring cycle is perhaps the most important as it is crucial for the understanding of strengths and weaknesses to address in future preventive work.

Assessment Criteria
The assessment criteria are set to capture all stages of engaging in ending gender-based violence in ERA institutions and beyond.Using a six-grade scale with predefined values makes it possible to discern the level of engagement and development throughout all indicators in a comparable way: 0 Lack; 1 Started; 2 Basic; 3 Developed; 4 Advanced; 5 Complete.
When defining the assessment criteria for each indicator, a generic model has been applied to discern the common and necessary steps when implementing gender mainstreaming change processes more broadly.This is expressed as planning, deciding, putting in place and activating, enlarging, developing continuously, and finally integrating in ordinary institutional processes, with some variation depending on the logic and content of different The construction of the assessment criteria as such enables a differentiated evaluation format, depending on the aim, scope, and resources for an ERA institution self-evaluation or an external evaluation.Single or multiple key factor evaluation is made possible using the assessment evaluation formula in diverse ways.If the evaluation targets the organisation of prevention of gender-based violence in an institution, then using all main indicators for the eight key factors is preferred, as is illustrated in figure 1.If the assessment also targets the actual content of prevention of gender-based violence, then sub-indicators A1-A7 should be included as well and thus will contribute to the overall sum for key factor 3. On the other hand, key factor 3 and the sub-indicators A1-A7 can be used as assessment criteria in isolation, when an evaluation is specifically interested in measuring the role and use of the 7P model.A sum of the overall assessment of the 7P model is then possible to calculate by using the following adjusted formula: Figure 3.
Just as for the overall key factors assessment, an illustrative and descriptive summary of an evaluation of the 7P model (as described beforehand and in the Appendix) is possible to depict as follows (in which the value of all sub-indicators is added and divided with the number of sub-indicators assessed, giving a total sum for the overall indicator for the 7P model which is not assessed in its own respect): Overall, the assessment criteria and evaluation formulas, give ERA institutions a possibility to set a specific self-evaluation value, where its individual key factor sums illustrate the actual strengths and weaknesses of the institutional framework.The evaluation can this way serve as a zero measurement and then be used for regular monitoring of progress on the overall preventive framework as well as specific key factors in ERA institutions.For the possible purpose of ERA external monitoring, the assessment criteria and the evaluation formulas can also serve as a monitoring device on national frameworks, as measurement values easily can be calculated by the same generic formula as used above (where the assessment sum value then equals national ERA institutions' assessment values in sum divided with the number of assessed institutions, and so forth).In much the same way, it is possible to do different evaluations (on certain regional, scientific, or institutional clusters) and use single or multi key factor assessments as part of overall ERA evaluation and monitoring.

Concluding Remarks
This article develops an important mediating connection between overall ERA policy developments on gender-based violence and the day-to-day challenges facing implementation of policy on the institutional level.A systemic institutional framework is suggested to promote a "translational" change in ERA institutions, made up of key factors and indicators developed at the intersection of gender mainstreaming experiences, tacit knowledge on the landscape of ERA institutions, and core research-based knowledge and policy development on gender-based violence.
Ending gender-based violence has long been pronounced as an important issue in the overall ERA policy framework.
Figure 1.In a summative, evaluation report of the assessment, either as an ERA institution self-evaluation or as part of ERA external monitoring and evaluation, the use of an illustrative and descriptive overview might be relevant, as suggested below:

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Example of summary of evaluation of the 7P model (Each line in the spider web figure represents a value, with 0 as the centre and then values 1-5 expanding outwards.For the sake of an illustrative figure, it is assumed the sum of all assessed indicators divided by the number of assessed indicators equals integers, which of course seldom is the case.)One important aspect to note is the unequal number of indicators set for different key factors in the proposed assessment criteria.This is due to a research-based preference for certain aspects of ending GBV being put in the foreground in the proposed assessment criteria (cf Bondestam & Lundqvist, 2020a).For this reason, using relevant concepts and knowledge on gender-based violence (key factor 2), developing preventive measures bottom-up by involving target group experiences (key factor 4), ensuring the importance of adequate and available resources (key factor 5), and fostering committed and proactive leadership (key factor 6), are set with more indicators than other key factors.The suggested evaluation formulas are constructed with this uneven distribution of indicators in mind, equalising the number of indicators per key factor by dividing the assessment sum value for indicators with the number of indicators used for single key factors.
Indicators targeting the prevalence of gender-based violence in the EU more generally, based on the Istanbul Convention (CoE, 2011) as well as on other legal and policy frameworks (ILO, 2019; UNHCR, 2020), are continuously reframed by different stakeholders.These range from the 2007 initiative taken by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) to UN Women, the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) and Eurostat.EU GBV indicators developed by Eurostat will establish new data on GBV in the EU27.Implementing other indicators for monitoring and evaluation of ERA institutions dates to the year 2000, when ERA itself was established.Several indicators and data collection mechanisms have been set up gradually over the years, but systematic monitoring of prevalence and consequences of gender-based violence in ERA is still lacking.
It is a key area of the EU Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025.Since 1979, targeted measures and strategies to eradicate all forms of violence against women are set as core principles for almost all Member States, most prominently through the Istanbul Convention.The systematic mission to eradicate gender-based violence more broadly dates back, at least, to the first and second wave of women's liberation movements globally.Still, actual change has barely begun, if at all, in the ERA.The contribution made in this article of a systemic institutional framework is a vital input fostering future engagement and accountability of all ERA institutions.Change is not a structural endeavor driven by policy or politics in the first place, it is each of us taking on a collaborative responsibility to act.Vulnerable groups' experiences, needs and knowledge are known and used for ending gender-based violence Comprehensiveness and use of structures or other incentives for regular evaluation and monitoring of progress on the 7Ps