Why Norway falls short in a European survey on violence and harassment

Marcela Linková, Anastasia Bogoslavets and Emmalynn Hansen are behind a European survey carried out as part of the EU project GenderSAFE. They have examined the policy frameworks in place in each country for tackling gender-based violence in higher education and research.

The survey shows that Norway scores particularly poorly in two areas: It lacks a comprehensive and sector-specific national framework for tackling gender-based violence, and has poorly developed mechanisms for evaluating, holding institutions to account and monitoring their work in this field.

The researchers emphasise that Norway’s relatively low ranking in the survey is not down to a lack of effort or the absence of relevant instruments:

“Norway has put in place important legal and policy instruments in this area. The challenge is that they are scattered across various laws, strategies and governing documents, rather than being brought together within a single, comprehensive national framework on gender-based violence in higher education and research.”

Linková, Bogoslavets and Hansen highlight, among other things, the Act relating to Universities and University Colleges, the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Act, the Working Environment Act, the Government’s equality strategy and white papers to the Storting on sexual harassment as key elements of such a framework.

“The key areas for development in Norway lie in strengthening the national coordination of regulations and guidelines in this field, as well as establishing more systematic arrangements for monitoring, evaluation and accountability,” the researchers point out.

Comparing European countries

The GenderSAFE study encompasses countries with significant differences in governance systems, legal traditions and institutional structures. Nevertheless, the researchers believe that such comparisons provide valuable insights into how different countries approach the issue.

“The survey is based on the European zero-tolerance code on gender-based violence, adopted by the ERA Forum in 2024.”

Zero tolerance of gender-based violence, including sexual harassment, became an official policy for the EU’s research and innovation system in 2024. As Marcela Linková has previously pointed out to Kifinfo, this marks a significant breakthrough in the work to establish common European standards for a safer research and education environment.

“This provides a common analytical basis for assessing national frameworks.”

At the same time, Linková, Bogoslavets and Hansen caution against interpreting the results as a conventional ranking of countries. They primarily compare the different political and regulatory approaches adopted by different countries.

“Countries that perform best in the survey, such as Belgium, France, Ireland, the Netherlands and Portugal, tend to have their own sector-specific action plans or policy frameworks for higher education and research, as well as clearer requirements for reporting, evaluation and accountability.”

“In Norway, many of the same elements are present, but they are not as systematically organised and explicitly formulated as national requirements for the sector.”

Few countries follow up

Holding stakeholders to account is the area in which most countries receive low scores in the survey. In this context, the term refers to systems for monitoring and evaluating whether measures are actually being implemented and are having the desired effect.

“Adopting strategies and action plans is relatively straightforward. The biggest challenge is documenting whether the measures actually have the desired effect.”

Many countries have set targets in this area, but not as many evaluate and monitor them, according to the researchers.

“Without evaluation, we don’t know which measures are effective, which challenges remain or what changes should be implemented.”

The researchers highlight key measures, including reporting requirements, evaluations and clear leadership responsibility.

“Accountability is not about control as an end in itself. It’s about developing knowledge, learning and continuous improvement.”

Recommendations for Norway

The researchers identified three priority areas that they believe should receive particular attention from the Norwegian authorities.

Firstly, existing regulations, strategies and governing documents should be better coordinated and made more accessible.

“Norway already has many of the necessary formalities in place, but they are dispersed across a number of documents, regulations and schemes.”

Secondly, expectations regarding the work of these institutions should be more specific, particularly with regard to preventing, reporting and dealing with cases.

Thirdly, there is a need for more systematic arrangements for monitoring, evaluation and accountability. The researchers point out that clear objectives, indicators and reporting procedures are important for ensuring that we understand how the measures are being implemented and what their effects are.

“More systematic use of targets, indicators and evaluations could contribute to the further development of the field,” the researchers say.

No need for new legislation

The researchers do not believe that the solution for Norway necessarily lies in introducing new legislation.

“The most important thing is to clarify how existing laws, regulations and strategies are to be translated into practical action and institutional practice.”

At the same time, they emphasise that stricter national requirements do not necessarily conflict with institutional autonomy.

“The authorities can set out clear minimum requirements, while at the same time giving institutions the flexibility to develop local measures and solutions.”

“The challenge in Norway is not primarily a lack of political or regulatory measures. Rather, it is a question of bringing together, coordinating and systematising the measures within a more holistic and coherent framework,” according to Linková, Bogoslavets and Hansen.

“How can they be integrated into a coherent sector-wide policy to foster a safer and more inclusive academic environment?” they ask.

What do we know about effective measures?

The researchers argue that previous research shows that institutions that succeed in strengthening their work in this area are often characterised by a clear commitment from senior management, systematic prevention efforts, training initiatives, accessible reporting channels and robust support mechanisms.

“Without clear accountability and active management involvement, progress is very slow.”

The researchers emphasise that strong national frameworks are typically characterised by political commitment, clear expectations of the institutions and systems for monitoring, reporting and follow-up.

The summary of the evidence does not provide a basis for determining which measures are most effective in reducing the incidence of harassment and violence.

“We don’t measure impacts or outcomes, but rather whether countries have established frameworks that facilitate action.”

Response from the Ministry of Education and Research

Kifinfo has submitted the GenderSAFE survey, together with a set of questions, to the Ministry of Education and Research, which the Ministry has answered:

“How does the Ministry explain the fact that countries such as Belgium, France and Ireland have made more progress than Norway when it comes to national frameworks to combat gender-based violence in academia?”

“Norway has a clear and unambiguous set of national regulations that require all organisations to prevent and combat sexual harassment and other forms of gender-based harassment – including universities and university colleges.”

As employers and educational institutions, they are obliged to do so under the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Act and the Act relating to Universities and University Colleges, the Ministry states in an email.

“Does the Ministry consider that the current efforts to combat sexual harassment and other forms of gender-based violence at universities and university colleges have been sufficient?”

“The Working Environment Act also places a general responsibility on universities and university colleges, as employers, to ensure a safe and healthy psychosocial working environment. This Act clearly states that employees must not be subjected to harassment, including sexual harassment.”

“How can the Ministry know whether the institutions’ measures are effective when there is no systematic reporting or evaluation?”

“Under the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Act, institutions have a duty to work systematically to promote equality and prevent gender-based discrimination and harassment.”

“Most universities and university colleges are also required to provide an account of their activities. This means that they must report annually on the status of gender equality and on the measures being implemented to fulfil their duty to take action.”

“The researchers believe that Norway already has many of the necessary building blocks in place. Is the problem that the Ministry has not given sufficient priority to coordinating and following up this work?”

“The Ministry expects this work to be given high priority, while each institution is responsible for designing and implementing measures tailored to its own circumstances,” the Ministry of Education and Research writes in an email.

Focus on policy and regulations, rather than practice

Linková, Bogoslavets and Hansen point out that the survey does not measure how the institutions actually operate in practice.

“National frameworks can receive a moderate assessment even when comprehensive and well-functioning local initiatives are in place.”

“The survey focuses on policy, regulations and governance mechanisms, not on the day-to-day practice at individual institutions.”

The researchers point out that one methodological limitation of the study is that the data is based on information reported by national authorities.

“Who provides information to the survey can influence which issues are highlighted. Despite common definitions and close follow-up, there will always be a certain degree of variation in reporting.”

Translated by Totaltekst.