The impact of violence normalization on the perpetration of sexual violence against women is well known. What is less known, however, is how survivors of campus sexual violence recognize, internalize, and respond to normalization both within and outside their university institutions. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to (1) explore where survivors of undergraduate sexual violence recognize the normalization of violence against women within their environments, and (2) describe the impact of violence normalization on survivor’s processing of their own sexual violence encounters. Ethnographic narrative interviewing followed by a grounded theory analysis was utilized in a sample of 24 women-identifying individuals who experienced sexual violence as an undergraduate. Normalization was recognized by survivors through the tolerance of sexual aggression, existing within both the university’s hook up culture and larger societal rape culture. Internalized normalization influenced survivors’ abilities to label and make meaning of their campus sexual violence experiences. Moreover, internalization of normalization occurred in different ways, influencing alternative trauma processing pathways. This research fills a critical gap of understanding the impact of internalized normalization on survivor processing. Future research is needed to further explore normalization in this population to understand areas for intervention and pathways for healing.

Sexual violence (SV) is a widespread human rights issue. Survivors of SV often experience profound dehumanization and poor health outcomes when their trauma is not properly addressed, rendering it critical that they are honored and empowered within subsequent processes of healing and seeking justice. With adjudication through the criminal legal system largely underutilized due to retraumatization, scrutiny from law enforcement professionals, and high rates of case closure, restorative justice (RJ) has emerged as a promising option for survivors to repair harm and experience accountability. Little is known, however, regarding the best practices for its use in cases of SV. To meet this need, a scoping review was conducted to identify the best practices for the implementation of RJ after instances of SV experienced in adulthood. Following the search methodology outlined by the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis for scoping reviews, 15 articles met search criteria, including four empirical studies and 11 nonempirical research materials spanning five academic disciplines. Best practices and structures for RJ were subsequently identified, including key phases for appropriate implementation. This review can be used to create increasingly productive RJ processes for SV survivors, which is particularly important for those coming from marginalized communities facing structural inequities, as well as survivors on university campuses. As researchers, we have the power to use science to propel society toward the creation of more efficacious healing spaces for survivors of SV, and optimizing safe RJ processes plays a key role in bringing this to fruition.

Little research has focused on the trauma healing processes of survivors of gender-based violence (GBV) worldwide. Even less research has utilized cross-cultural comparison to understand shared or culturally-distinct healing goals, creating a gap in understanding how to provide adequate, culturally relevant, and trauma-informed care to survivors. The purpose of this study was to cross-culturally compare shared healing influences and themes of the trauma recovery process in samples of Irish and American female survivors of GBV. To gather healing data, an ethnographic narrative interview was used with 19 American and 12 Irish female survivors who self-identified as having experienced GBV. Thematic analysis was used to examine and compare desired healing outcomes, focusing on the definitions, influences, and meanings of healing experiences. Our analysis revealed shared healing objectives of reconnecting to the self, others, and the world. Within reconnecting with the self, shared themes included regaining control and feelings of competency. Within reconnecting to others, shared themes included building and maintaining relationships, living one’s life authentically, and feeling heard and understood. Within reconnecting to the world, shared themes included feelings of serenity, finding fulfillment, and having hope for a brighter future. Although these themes were shared, the way they manifested in each culture was often different. A vital component of the healing dynamic in the Irish sample was survivors’ mothering responsibilities and feelings of unconditional devotion to their children. Conversely, the American sample focused on personal growth and resolving feelings of weakness. This information reveals shared as well as cultural nuances of important healing objectives following GBV. The present study’s results can be used to create culturally sensitive and relevent healing spaces for survivors. These results can also inform intervention and messaging strategies aimed at promoting healing in these populations.

Research is beginning to examine gender-based violence (GBV) survivors’ recovery, but little is known about diverse recovery trajectories or their relationships with other distress and recovery variables. This interdisciplinary, international multisite mixed-method study developed and used the TRR to identify and classify survivors’ trauma pathways. This study describes the phases of the initial development of the preliminary TRR (Phase 1), refines and calibrates the TRR (Phase 2), and then integrates the TRR into quantitative data from four countries (Phase 3). Seven recovery pathways with six domains emerged: normalizing, minimizing, consumed/trapped; shutdown or frozen, surviving, seeking and fighting for integration; finding integration/equanimity. Depression scores were related to most recovery domains, and TRR scores had large effect sizes. At the same time, PTSD was not statistically related to TRR scores, but TRR had a medium effect size. Our study found that the TRR can be implemented in diverse cultural settings and promises a reliable cross-cultural tool. The TRR is a survivor-centered, trauma-informed way to understand different survivorship pathways and how different pathways impact health outcomes. Overall, this rubric provides a foundation for future study on differences in survivor healing and the drivers of these differences. This tool can potentially improve survivor care delivery and our understanding of how to meet best the needs of the survivor populations we intend to serve.