College Faculty Experiences With Student Disclosures of Victimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Victimization of college students is widespread, and it is not uncommon for students to disclose these experiences to faculty. Given that how faculty respond to disclosures may have implications for students’ psychosocial and academic outcomes, it is key to know more about disclosures to help faculty prepare a supportive response. This study used data from an online survey of members of two U.S.-based professional scholarly associations for criminal justice and criminology ( N = 637) to look at the nature of student disclosure of victimization and which faculty are more likely to receive such disclosures. Disclosure to faculty was widespread (87% of faculty had received at least one disclosure of victimization from a student), and disclosures were mostly made in person. Over half the time (52.3%), participants thought the disclosure was prompted by an incident in class or another aspect of the course, and more than a quarter of the time (28.8%), the disclosure came from a student in a course that utilized trigger warnings. A faculty member’s individual identities, such as gender or race and ethnicity, did not appear to render them more or less likely to receive student disclosures. However, faculty with victimization experiences who had links to victim services organizations, who were teaching in a Sociology department, or who had been teaching longer were more likely to have received a disclosure. Graduate student instructors were less likely to have received a disclosure, even controlling for years of teaching. This suggests widespread training of college-level instructors in how to respond to a student’s disclosure of victimization may be warranted, at least for faculty teaching courses focusing on criminology and criminal justice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".