Gender-based violence against female academics in Chile: organizational vulnerability, underreporting, and...

Few studies have examined, in an integrated way, the intersection of contract stability and rank and their relationship to (non) reporting and labor consequences, particularly in specific contexts, In Gender-based violence (GBV) in higher education. This study examined whether contractual conditions, academic rank, disciplinary unit affiliation, institutional trust, and cultural coping norms are associated with experiences of gender-based violence, reporting of such violence, and perceived impact on academic work among female academics in Chile.

An analytic cross-sectional survey was conducted among female academics at a regional public university in Northern Chile. The final sample included 85 participants selected from a target population of 229 female academics. The questionnaire assessed self-reported GBV experiences during the last 5 years, including psychological, sexual, and physical violence; perpetrator groups; occurrence contexts; help-seeking and formal reporting; perceived effects on university life; knowledge of institutional regulations; and perceptions of organizational culture. Descriptive analyses, Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact tests, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and logistic regression models, including Firth penalized estimation, were used to examine organizationally patterned associations.

The 67% of participants (57/85) reported at least one GBV experience during the last 5 years, with psychological violence being the most frequent form, followed by sexual violence. Psychological violence varied significantly by faculty affiliation (p = 0.003), reaching 84% in Science and 83.3% in Engineering, and by contract type (p = 0.027), with the highest proportion among female academics with temporary contracts (80.5%). Academic staff were the most frequently identified perpetrators, accounting for 64.6 and 73.0% of the psychological and sexual violence mentions, respectively. Only 7% of those who reported experiencing situations of violence formally reported the incidents to the relevant units within the university, whereas 93% did not; the main reasons for not reporting by those who suffered some types of violence were the minimization of the incident (49%) and distrust of bureaucratic processes (22%). In the final logistic regression model, higher odds of reporting GBV were observed in Science (OR = 7.96, p = 0.003), Humanities (OR = 3.77, p = 0.043), and Engineering (OR = 9.88, p = 0.002) compared with Social, Business, and Law Sciences. Temporary contract academics also showed higher odds than fee-based academics (OR = 3.25, p = 0.051).

GBV against female academics is not only an interpersonal problem but also an organizational and occupational issue shaped by disciplinary contexts, employment insecurity, academic hierarchies, and weak institutional trust. The results highlight the need for universities to strengthen reporting mechanisms, guarantee protection regardless of contract status, provide psychosocial and legal support, and implement follow-up systems that ensure due process independent of the victim's faculty or contract type. These measures are particularly relevant for the effective implementation of Chilean Law 21.369 and the advancement of organizational justice in higher education.