Next Article in Journal
An Australian Perspective on Local Government Investment in Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure
Next Article in Special Issue
Social and Emotional Intelligence as Factors in Terrorist Propaganda: An Analysis of the Way Mass Media Portrays the Behavior of Islamic Terrorist Groups
Previous Article in Journal
Serious Games and Mathematical Fluency: A Study from the Gender Perspective in Primary Education
Previous Article in Special Issue
Barriers to Formal Help-Seeking Behavior by Battered Turkish Women According to Sociodemographic Factors
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 12
10.3390/su13126589
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Systematic Literature Review of Sexual Harassment Studies with Text Mining

by
Amir Karami
1,*,
Melek Yildiz Spinel
2,
C. Nicole White
2,
Kayla Ford
3 and
Suzanne Swan
4
1
School of Information Science, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA
2
Department of Psychology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA
3
Department of Psychology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA
4
Department of Psychology and Women’s & Gender Studies Program, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(12), 6589; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126589
Submission received: 6 May 2021 / Revised: 26 May 2021 / Accepted: 3 June 2021 / Published: 9 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Interpersonal Violence and Sustainable Development Goals)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Sexual harassment has been the topic of thousands of research articles in the 20th and 21st centuries. Several review papers have been developed to synthesize the literature about sexual harassment. While traditional literature review studies provide valuable insights, these studies have some limitations including analyzing a limited number of papers, being time-consuming and labor-intensive, focusing on a few topics, and lacking temporal trend analysis. To address these limitations, this paper employs both computational and qualitative approaches to identify major research topics, explore temporal trends of sexual harassment topics over the past few decades, and point to future possible directions in sexual harassment studies. We collected 5320 research papers published between 1977 and 2020, identified and analyzed sexual harassment topics, and explored the temporal trend of topics. Our findings indicate that sexual harassment in the workplace was the most popular research theme, and sexual harassment was investigated in a wide range of spaces ranging from school to military settings. Our analysis shows that 62.5% of the topics having a significant trend had an increasing (hot) temporal trend that is expected to be studied more in the coming years. This study offers a bird’s eye view to better understand sexual harassment literature with text mining, qualitative, and temporal trend analysis methods. This research could be beneficial to researchers, educators, publishers, and policymakers by providing a broad overview of the sexual harassment field.

1. Introduction

Behaviors that define Sexual Discrimination and Harassment (SDH) are often presented on a continuum, from offensive comments to sexual and physical assault [1]. Non-physical SDH such as sexual remarks (e.g., verbal remarks about the size of women’s breasts) is the most frequently reported SDH [1]. According to a survey, 81% of women and 43% of men experienced sexual harassment during their lifetime in the US [2]. Annually in the US [3], more than 400,000 Americans over the age of 12 are sexually assaulted or raped, 60,000 children are victims of sexual abuse, and 18,900 military members experience unwanted sexual contact. The majority (69%) of sexual assault victims are below the age of 30 [4]. According to a survey, it was estimated that 21.3% of women and 2.6% of men in the US have experienced completed or attempted rape at some point in their lifetime [5]. In terms of locations, 55% of sexual harassment occurs at or near the victim’s home, in an open public space (15%), at or near a relative’s home (12%), in an enclosed public area (10%), and on school property (8%) [3].
SDH has negative physical (e.g., sleeplessness) and mental health (e.g., depression) effects [6]. SDH also has negative financial impacts. The loss of productivity in SDH cases is around USD 22,500 per person, and in 2010, more than 12,000 SDH complaints were resolved at a cost of over USD 48 million [1]. The US Army estimated that turnover accounted for approximately 67% of the aggregated total annual cost of the harassment reported [7]. According to a research study, the rape lifetime cost per victim is USD 122,461, with a population economic burden of nearly USD 3.1 trillion over victims’ lifetimes [8].
There has been an explosion of sexual harassment articles published in the 20th and 21st centuries. Several review papers have been developed over the last few decades to summarize the literature on sexual harassment. Table 1 shows some of the relevant articles and book chapters that have reviewed research on sexual harassment. These papers were obtained after a search of reviews of sexual harassment research (“Sexual harassment” AND “Review”) in Google Scholar, which includes more research papers than other databases such as the Web of Science and Scopus [9]. Sexual harassment research is very extensive and can fall under other larger topics (e.g., interpersonal violence and organizational climate) [1]; thus, we included reviews that explicitly focused on sexual harassment research and included some relevant reviews of other broader topics (e.g., work stress). We obtained some relevant features of these studies, such as the number of reviewed papers and topic(s). For the studies that did not mention the exact number of analyzed papers (N/A), we can assume the maximum number of reviewed papers is equal to the total number of cited references. For example, one study (see Table 1 Ref. [10]) with 68 citations was published in 1991 on sexual harassment at work, but the number of reviewed papers (#reviwed studies) was not mentioned. Therefore, we can assume that the number of reviewed studies should be up to 68. “N/A-68” indicates that the number of reviewed studies was not provided in the study and the number of citations is 68.
There has been extensive research on sexual harassment, as evidenced by the large number of reviews identified in Table 1. Most of the reviews had an emphasis on sexual harassment in the workplace and included the following topics: prevalence and frequency of sexual harassment; the legal history and frameworks of sexual harassment; different theoretical perspectives to explain sexual harassment; summaries of precursors at the individual and organizational level; consequences of experiencing sexual harassment (e.g., physical, psychological, social, and work-related consequences); and coping strategies of victims of sexual harassment. Additionally, there were some reviews on interventions and trainings aimed at decreasing sexual harassment, perceptions and definitions of sexual harassment, bullying and peer sexual harassment in youth, sexual harassment in specific settings (e.g., academia) or among specific populations (e.g., women of color, nurses), and reviews of sexual harassment on the Internet.
Previous research reviews provide valuable understanding of different aspects of research on sexual harassment; however, these articles and chapters have some limitations. First, due to the limitation of traditional literature review papers, a limited sample of all relevant papers, mainly published in top journals, was selected from all possible relevant articles. Second, these papers do not include a temporal trend analysis to study how research topics change during a time frame. Third, the limitation of traditional literature review methods imposes another restriction on investigating a limited number of topics and usually focusing on a single topic, such as prevalence and theories of sexual harassment in the workplace. Fourth, some reviews engaged in macrolevel analyses and attempted to synthesize major topics and theories from the literature on sexual harassment in the workplace; however, these reviews did not encompass all the topics related to sexual harassment (e.g., did not include sexual harassment in youth or sexual harassment outside the workplace). Fifth, the traditional methods are time consuming and cannot be applied on large datasets.
While current literature review studies utilize standard formats such as Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), the current study develops a systematic approach using mixed methods to collect and analyze a large number of studies’ abstracts to address the aforementioned gaps and provide a wider perspective on the sexual harassment literature. This paper employs both computational and qualitative approaches to identify major research topics, explore temporal trends of the topics over the past few decades, and point to future possible directions in sexual harassment studies. This paper addresses the following research questions:
  • What are the main research topics in studies related to sexual harassment?
  • What is the temporal trend of each topic?
This endeavor offers the following contributions. First, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to analyze thousands of sexual harassment manuscripts. Secondly, the proposed data analysis framework is a flexible approach that can be applied to other research fields. Thirdly, the data will be shared, which provides a great opportunity for further investigation and replicating results. Fourth, this paper can shine a light on past and future sexual harassment research by exploring main SDH research topics from 1977 to 2020.

2. Materials and Methods

This section describes our corpus and data analysis methods used in this research. We collected and cleaned data and utilized mixed methods including topic modeling, topic analysis, and temporal trend analysis to investigate sexual harassment literature containing thousands of research studies. Figure 1 shows four steps of this research. The following sections provide more details on each step.

2.1. Data Collection and Cleanings

Google Scholar does not provide an Application Programming Interface (API) for data collection. Therefore, we need to obtain data from relevant research databases offering an API. We collected relevant journal and conference abstracts containing “sexual harassment” in their title or abstract from three large databases, including Web of Science, Scopus, and EBSCO databases [62,63]. After removing duplicate records based on title, abstract, or DOI, we found abstracts published with their title and keywords. Our corpus contains concise information representing a larger picture of sexual harassment research papers that discussed various issues. We choose to analyze title, abstracts, and keywords, instead of full-text papers for several reasons. First, while title, abstracts, and keywords are available for all paper records in a proper format, the full-text format is restricted [64]. Second, title, abstracts, and keywords contain dense, rich information, and most important findings [64]. However, the full-text format has speculative and complex statements [65]. The collected data are available at Supplementary Materials https://github.com/amir-karami/Sexual-Harassment-Literature.

2.2. Topic Modeling

To address the first research question, we utilized topic modeling, which is a semantic analysis method to disclose the hidden semantic structure of papers. Among different topic models, Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) [66] is an effective and efficient model [67]. LDA has been used for different applications such as politics [68], health [69,70], opinion mining [71], and social media analysis [72,73,74,75,76,77]. LDA has also been utilized for reviewing literature of different domains such as social media [78], big data [79], biomedical [80,81], and wearable technology [82]. While LDA has been utilized to analyze SDH experiences in academia [83] and workspace [84], LDA has not been used to review the greater sexual harassment literature.
LDA provides two matrices: P(word|topic) and P(topic|document). The former matrix recognizes semantically related words representing a theme. The latter matrix shows distribution of topics for a document (paper), which assists in finding documents related to each of topics. The outputs of LDA for n documents (papers), m words, and t topics, are two matrices [67]. The first one is the probability of each of the words occurring in each topic or P(Wi|Tk) and the second one is the probability of each of the topics occurring in each document or P(Tk|Dj):
Topics Documents
W o r d s [ P ( W 1 | T 1 ) ⋯ P ( W 1 | T t ) ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ P ( W m | T 1 ) ⋯ P ( W m | T t ) ] & T o p i c s   [ P ( T 1 | D 1 ) ⋯ P ( T t | D n ) ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ P ( T t | D 1 ) ⋯ P ( T t | D n ) ]
P(Wi|Tk) P(Tk|Dj)
The top words in each topic based on the order of P(Wi|Tk) represent the topics. We also used P(Tk|Dj) to find the significance of each topic, ST(Tk). For an effective comparison, each of the STs was normalized by the sum of the weight scores of all topics:
N _ S T ( T k ) = ∑ j = 1 n P ( T k | D j ) ∑ k = 1 t ∑ j = 1 n P ( T k | D j )
If N_ST(Tx) > N_ST(Ty), it means that researchers discussed topic x more than topic y. This normalization has been applied on all papers in all years to find the weight of topics in total, each decade, and each year.

2.3. Topic Analysis

Next, we applied a qualitative approach in four phases to disclose the meaning of topics and their categories: (1) discovering the theme for each topic, (2) detecting meaningful and stable topics, (3) determination of overarching categories, and (4) assessing reliability of coding. We explain each of these phases below.
Phase 1. Discovering the theme of initial topics: To make the determination of the topics, three of the authors coded 40 topics individually. “Coding” in this context means that coders read the top most frequently used words (shown in Appendix A) and most relevant papers’ abstracts for each of the topics provided by LDA, and identified the common theme underlying the papers. To find the top papers for each topic, we sorted P(Tk|Dj) from the highest value to the lowest one. The three coders used consensus coding [85] to agree on the theme for each topic. For consensus coding, the coders first developed themes separately; then they met and compared and contrasted the themes they had each generated, and kept on discussing them until they agreed on the final themes. For example, one topic contained these words: “legal”, “law”, “environment”, “court”, “hostile”, “discrimination”, “decisions”, “rights”, “act”, and “claims”. After each of the coders coded these topic words and its corresponding top papers’ abstracts individually, they came together, discussed it, and reached consensus on coding this topic as “Workplace Legal Cases” (see T14, Appendix A). Consensus coding was used to determine the label and the description of the topic.
Phase 2. Detecting meaningful and stable topics: The next step was to determine the topics that were meaningful, stable, and related to human sexual harassment. To achieve this goal, three types of topics were removed. The first type included topics that contained general words that do not represent a consistent theme. The second group included unstable topics that did not appear in all experiments when we ran LDA three times. The third type were related to animal sexual harassment and behavior. We used the consensus coding method and the results of LDA experiments to refine the topics and agreed on 26 meaningful and stable topics related to human sexual harassment.
Phase 3. Determination of overarching categories: Coders grouped the 26 topics into categories. Coder 1 created the categories, and then the other two coders reviewed the categories. The three coders discussed and reached consensus regarding the grouping and the labels of the categories.
Phase 4. Assessing reliability of coding: Once final coding was completed, we utilized an outside coder (coder 4) who was not involved in the qualitative coding to evaluate our consensus coding. In this way, we could determine if, given the same dataset, another person would reach the same conclusions. The outside coder coded 12 of the 40 topics (30% of the total number of topics), deciding which of the labels those 12 topics fit into. Then, we performed a Cohen’s κ to determine the agreement between our coding reached via consensus (described in Phase 1) and the outside coder. There was good agreement, κ = 0.7270 [86].

2.4. Temporal Trend Analysis

To address the second research question, we applied statistical trend analysis to explore annual changes of the 26 topics. This study utilized a linear trend model based on study temporal changes of topics. This analysis measures the trend of P(T|D) with the R lm function showing the p-value and slope of trends. Based on this analysis, increasing (hot) trends have p-value ≤ 0.05 and slope > 0 and decreasing (cold) trends have p-value ≤ 0.05 and slope < 0. In this analysis, a trend is not meaningful or significant if p-value > 0.05.

3. Results

We collected 5320 research papers written in English and published between 1977 and 2020. Figure 2 shows that the overall frequency and the relative frequency of papers have a significant change (p-value ≤ 0.05) with an increasing trend (slope > 0). The relative frequency is the rate of the frequency of the papers in a year to the total number of papers published between 1977 and 2020.
The number of tokens (a string of contiguous characters between two spaces) and words were 594,922 and 16,916, respectively. To find topics with LDA, we applied coherence analysis on 2 to 50 topics to find the optimum number of topics. Among topic coherence measures, C_V is highly correlated with human ratings [87]. To measure C_V, we used the gensim Python package [88] and found the optimal point at 40. The comparison of the mean and standard deviation of five sets of 4000 iterations was not significant (p-value > 0.05), indicating the robustness of LDA (Figure 3). To apply LDA on our data, we used the Mallet [89] setting at 40 topics with 4000 interactions.
Out of the 40 topics, we removed 14 topics that were not stable, not meaningful, or not related to human sexual harassment. Appendix A shows 26 topics with a clear theme along with their label identified with the qualitative process. For example, the coders found that “students”, “education”, “university”, “college”, “faculty”, and “school” in T2 were related to sexual harassment in education. The order of topics in Appendix A from T1 to T40 is based on the output of LDA. Table 2 shows the definition of the 26 topics, and Appendix A illustrates three related research papers offered by LDA using P(T|D). Figure 3 illustrates the weight of topics. The order of topics in Figure 4 is based on the value of N_ST(Tk) from the highest value to the lowest value. The highest weight is for perceptions of sexual harassment and the lowest weight is for racial/ethnic discrimination.
We explored the temporal trend over years of the 26 topics from 1977 to 2020. We found 10 topics (e.g., professional relationships) without a significant trend (p-value > 0.05) and 16 topics (e.g., higher education) with a significant trend (p-value ≤ 0.05) (Table 3). Out of the 16 topics, six topics had a decreasing (cold) trend and 10 topics had an increasing (hot) trend (Figure 5). Evidenced by the increasing trend of publications in Figure 1, sexual harassment research will likely continue to grow in some aspects and lose momentum in others (Figure 5). Topics that are particularly “hot” include Sex Workers and HIV; Domestic Violence; Military Trauma; Digital Space; Healthcare Services; Effects of Trauma Exposure; and Youth Bullying and Victimization.
The 26 topics can be grouped into 6 broad categories (Table 2). The first category is health outcomes with three topics: T19, T33, and T36. This category represents research on health barriers, trauma exposure, and mental and physical health outcomes. This category includes research on military sexual trauma, which often has severe mental health outcomes for female veterans. All the topics in this category had a significant increasing trend. The second category represents sexual harassment in education with two topics. This category includes T2 (higher education) and T40 (youth bullying and victimization) that were cold and hot topics, respectively.
The third category is workplace, which has the highest number of topics including T6, T13, T16, T20, T21, T26, and T31. This category includes research on workplace stress, violence, gender-based discrimination, sexual harassment, sexual assault, and discrimination. Studies investigated the prevalence and types of hostile SDH, in addition to their impact on work climate and health and psychological outcomes for employees, and relevant policies and training addressing SDH. This theme included research on workplace stress, violence, gender-based discrimination, sexual harassment, sexual assault, and discrimination. The research took place in different countries and included various settings such as the medical field, police, and service professions. Three topics (T6, T13, and T20) did not show a significant trend, but two topics (T21 and T31) had an increasing trend and two topics (T16 and T26) had a decreasing trend.
The fourth category represents experiences of historically oppressed populations, which includes the second largest number of topics with a total of three (T7, T22, and T34). This category includes factors that increase vulnerabilities and impact the well-being of these historically oppressed populations. Other than T7, with an increasing trend, the rest of the topics did not demonstrate a meaningful trend. The fifth category is studies investigating attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions of sexual harassment and attribution of responsibility (T1, T12, T28). Different methods used included experimental approaches, in which participants were presented with different scenarios and surveys to assess various sexual harassment attitudes and behaviors. Some studies assessed how individual and contextual characteristics related to participants’ perceptions of sexual harassment. While T1 and T12 are cold topics, T28 did not have a significant trend.
The sixth category is sexual harassment in the legal field with two topics: T14 with a decreasing trend and T17 without a significant trend. This category contains research and legal policies on sexual harassment in the legal field. The articles include reviews and analyses of sexual harassment legal cases and laws related to workplace sexual harassment.
Each of the following topics represent a separate broad category: Hegemonic Masculinity (T4), Domestic Violence (T18), Digital Space (T23), Prevention and Treatment (T24), Feminism, Media, and Politics (T25), and Coping Reactions (T37). Out of these seven topics, T18, T23, and T25 were hot topics, while the rest of the topics did not show a meaningful trend. It seems that the #MeToo movement has had a major impact on developing more research related to T25 (Feminism, Media, and Politics).
We also measured the average weight of topics per year in each decade (Figure 6). We found that the following top three topics in each decade:
  • 1970s: Hospital Workspace Violence, Hegemonic Masculinity, and Gender Equality in Workspace.
  • 1980s: Workspace Policies, Perceptions of Sexual Harassment, and Gender Equality in Workspace
  • 1990s: Perceptions of Sexual Harassment, Workplace Legal Cases, Workspace Policies
  • 2000s: Perceptions of Sexual Harassment, Hegemonic Masculinity, Youth Bullying and Victimization
  • 2010s: Youth Bullying and Victimization, Hegemonic Masculinity, Workspace Policies
  • 2020: Hegemonic masculinity, feminism, media, and politics, workspace policies.

4. Discussion

This study offers a bird’s eye view to better understand sexual harassment literature with text mining, qualitative, and temporal trend analysis methods. The publication date of articles included in this paper ranges from 1977 to 2020. Future researchers will be able to use the study as an overview of the sexual harassment field and as a starting point for developing new research hypotheses and prevention efforts. Our findings indicate that sexual harassment was studied in different spaces such as the university, school, workplace, home, online space, hospital, and the military. Sexual harassment in the workplace was a particularly popular topic for researchers. Our results also show that sexual harassment research investigated different age groups (e.g., children), sexualities (e.g., LGBT), races/ethnicities (e.g., Latino), and countries (e.g., India). This review could be beneficial to researchers, educators, publishers, and policymakers to better understand the larger picture of issues and research topics and their trends in sexual harassment research.
The large variety of research within the field of sexual harassment shows that the effects of harassment on women and individuals, goes far beyond the traditional workplace [49]. Current studies show that sexual harassment as a form of sexual violence has been included in research under broader labels, such as bullying in middle school and “elder abuse” in nursing homes. Due to the use of broader labels, there is potential for the sexual nature of the violence to be missed, as well as the connection between experiences through various life stages. For example, middle school students can be sexually harassed by peers, and people can experience sexual harassment through the Internet. However, if these topics are only studied under the labels “peer and internet bullying,” then we miss their connection to the sexual harassment literature. Expanding the understanding of sexual harassment beyond the conventional physical workplace is particularly relevant in the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic where millions of people have transitioned to working from home online. Thus, broadly reviewing topics that fall under sexual harassment can help draw connections between areas studied separately in the past, thus providing the field with a better understanding of this phenomenon.
Using traditional review methods to summarize all the research on sexual harassment in the past few decades (over 5000 articles) would entail a colossal endeavor. To the authors’ knowledge, no reviews on sexual harassment have been published that include such a broad scope as the current article. The results are complex but uniquely capture and summarize all research relevant to the term sexual harassment between the years of 1970 and 2020 in the English language. This study offers the following methodological benefits. As mentioned, the approach used here can analyze a large sample of papers. While traditional methods are time-consuming and labor-intensive, this study used an efficient approach. Another advantage of the method used here is that we were able to identify and predict hot and cold research themes. Finally, the research framework is flexible and can be implemented on other research issues. The data presented can help researchers understand the historical changes and trends in research under the umbrella of sexual harassment in various contexts. These changes probably reflect historical and contextual differences in society, as well as within multiple disciplines. The following discussion highlights our study’s critical results within the context of relevant historical and social movements.
In the 1970s, the most popular research topics were hospital workspace violence, hegemonic masculinity, and gender equality in workspace. In the United States context, the legal determinations and definitions of sexual harassment being newly developed in the 1970s, informed by the Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964 case law and policy guidance by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC; [1]). Many of the first legal cases that defined the language and legislation related to sexual harassment in the US took place in the 1960s and 1970s. In 1980, the EEOC defined sexual harassment as “unwelcome sexual advances or verbal or physical sexual conduct that unreasonably interferes with a person’s job or creates an intimidating or offensive work atmosphere” [90]. Thus, from a legal perspective, sexual harassment was first defined in work discrimination, and therefore, most research during the 1970s and 1980shas focused on sexual harassment at work. This trend is evidenced in our results, with the category of Workspace (including Hospital Workplace Violence and Gender Equality in the Workplace) having the largest number of topics.
The third most studied topic of the 1970s, Hegemonic Masculinity, is vast and captures general research on men’s positions of power, including ideologies and practices that uphold the status quo. Sexual harassment has been conceptualized as a phenomenon that mirrors societal-level patterns of dominance and oppression by those in power (often, men) towards those seen as “other” or “less-than” (often, women; [49]). Often, sexual harassment tends to be toward women because they are perceived as others. Similarly, individuals from groups with less power often experience sexual harassment, for example, men who are deemed as not manly enough, LGBTQ individuals, and people with intersecting identities such as women of color [49]. Thus, understanding sexual harassment as a means of maintaining historical power dynamics aligns with research on how hegemonic masculinity is enacted. Furthermore, Hegemonic Masculinity was one of the most popular topics in the last three decades (the 2000s, 2010s, and 2020s). This topic’s trend analysis indicates no significant change (not hot or cold); thus, research in this area has been prevalent and will most likely continue.
Research in the 1980s also focused on workspace topics, including Gender Equality in Workspace, which is evidence of continued interest in understanding sexual harassment in the workplace. A second popular topic was Workspace Policies, indicating a shift from studying and defining what sexual harassment is to a focus on the policies that were being implemented, probably due to legislation in the 1960s and 1970s. Lastly, the most popular topic of the 1980s was Perceptions of Sexual Harassment, which shows an interest in social psychology and other disciplines on understanding attitudes and judgments of situations related to sexual harassment vignettes and scenarios.
The 1990s show a similar trend regarding popular areas of research, with topics again related to the category of Workspace, with the topics of Workplace Legal Cases and Workspace Policies as two of the most popular research topics. Similarly, there was continued interest in research related to people’s attitudes of Perceptions of Sexual Harassment. The televised case of Anita Hill versus Clarence Thomas took place in 1991, and studies indicate that this event changed and influenced how media and US society discussed sexual harassment, with Anita Hill becoming a symbol for sexual harassment [91]. Interestingly, while there was widespread interest in legal and policy aspects of sexual harassment in this decade, these topics have become “cold,” indicating a decrease in research in these areas in more recent decades.
The 2000s had as popular topics Perceptions of Sexual Harassment and Hegemonic Masculinity, which are in line with research in previous decades. However, this decade’s unique area of interest was Youth Bullying and Victimization, with studies focused on youth’s experiences of violence by peers in middle and high school. Scholars state that before the 1990s, few researchers had examined school bullying in the US. Unfortunately, school massacres in the 1990s (e.g., Columbine High School) brought bullying and other forms of violence that youth experience in schools into the spotlight in America, along with research and implementation of anti-bullying policies in the 2000s [92]. The 2010s include similar topics to the previous decades, including Youth Bullying and Victimization, Hegemonic Masculinity, and Workspace Policies.
The most popular topics from 2020 to present continue to be Hegemonic Masculinity and Workspace Policies, thus, evidencing continuity in these research areas. However, Feminism, Media, and Politics is a uniquely new popular topic. This topic includes research on media portrayals of sexual harassment, including the Hill–Thomas hearing, as well as research on the #MeToo movement. The #MeToo movement and the #TimesUp campaign revitalized discussions of sexual harassment in the US and the world. They led to renewed advocacy movements to address sexual harassment, including, as a result of these campaigns, several high-profile cases ending with consequences for harassers (e.g., Harvey Weinstein being fired and then convicted to 23 years in prison for rape and sexual assault; [93,94]). The #MeToo and #TimesUp campaigns highlight how individuals are using new technologies such as social media to connect with other survivors of sexual harassment and share their stories outside of traditional avenues (e.g., media or work organizations), and creating new advocacy strategies. Thus, the topic of Feminism, Media, and Politics shows that researchers are expanding their scholarly work to include contemporary forums and social movements. In addition to this topic, Digital Space also emerged as another new hot topic; thus, showing that research on the intersection between sexual harassment, social media, and the Internet is likely to continue in the field. As mentioned earlier, with the COVID-19 pandemic pushing millions of workers and students to use online spaces to work and study from home, this historic event will also influence and provide new research on these topics. For example, Jeffrey Toobin, a writer for the New Yorker and a political analyst for CNN, “unintentionally” exposed his genitals to his coworkers during a Zoom call [95]. Given our increased dependence on the Internet, we expect to see more research in the 2020s on these topics.
Besides discussing the most popular topics in each decade, it is worth exploring and contextualizing topics that seem to be increasing in popularity in research. The three topics in the Health Outcomes category are hot topics, including Military Trauma, Healthcare Services, and Effects of Trauma Exposure. Previously, researchers had explored the effects of sexual harassment on job-related outcomes, such as poor worker satisfaction. However, the increase in research in this category suggests a shift in the field to conceptualizing sexual harassment as potentially traumatic and an understanding that trauma can impact the physical and mental health of those who experience it [36].
Although the category of Workspace included the highest number of topics, most topics display a cold trend or no change. The only two hot topics in this category include Medical Field Discrimination and Hospital Workplace Violence. Thus, these results evidence a unique and increasing interest in understanding and studying sexual harassment in the medical field.
Domestic Violence is a hot topic that was separate from other categories. While sexual harassment has been conceptualized as gendered and sexual violence at work, domestic violence has been described as violence (physical, sexual, and psychological [96]) between partners, and is usually perceived as a “private” matter. However, while these two forms of violence pertain to different social life spheres, they are both forms of interpersonal violence and there may be a unique connection between the two. Both forms of violence can be understood as displays and attempts by those historically in power (e.g., men compared to women) to maintain control and traditional power dynamics. Our results indicate that research on this topic will most likely continue.
This study provides a macrolevel perspective of sexual harassment research across past few decades; however, it has some limitations. First, the data collection was limited to three databases (Web of Science, Scopus, and EBSCO). As such, it is possible that there were missed topics that may be present in other databases that were not covered by this review. Second, we focused on papers in the English language, so this review may be missing topics that might have been published in other languages. Third, this study is limited to research papers containing “sexual harassment” but does not capture all possible relevant keywords. Fourth, our review covers research studies primarily, but there were other document formats such as book chapters, news pieces, and opinion editorials that might be worth reviewing to gain a deeper understanding of temporal trends in research on sexual harassment. Fifth, due to the limited access to full-text papers and the time burden of reading thousands of papers, this study has analyzed abstracts. Sixth, compared to traditional literature review methods, this paper proposes a breath approach and therefore may miss nuanced findings. Future work could collect data from other databases, study non-English manuscripts, investigate other keywords and subtopics of the topics (e.g., higher education) detected in this research, include other document formats and full-text papers, and analyze topics separately to provide deeper analysis. Research databases can provide platforms for researchers to obtain the full-text format of papers in a proper format for text mining. Each of the topics (e.g., workspace sexual harassment) can be analyzed separately to provide a deeper analysis.
Despite these limitations, this is the first paper to our knowledge to undertake the task of contextualizing over 40 years’ worth of research on sexual harassment. By utilizing a broad approach, we were able to capture topics that may not traditionally be considered sexual harassment simply from paper titles (e.g., bullying). Doing so will allow the field to more critically analyze spaces and populations who are experiencing sexual harassment but may have been excluded from prior literature. Ultimately, better understanding this phenomenon will help to prevent it and hopefully lead to better and safer workplaces, schools, social spaces, etc. where no one has to worry about being sexually harassed.

Supplementary Materials

Data are available at https://github.com/amir-karami/Sexual-Harassment-Literature.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.K.; methodology, A.K., M.Y.S., C.N.W., K.F. and S.S.; software, A.K.; validation, A.K., M.Y.S., and S.S.; formal analysis, A.K.; investigation, A.K., M.Y.S., C.N.W., K.F. and S.S.; resources, A.K.; data curation, A.K.; writing—original draft preparation, A.K., M.Y.S., C.N.W., K.F. and S.S.; writing—review and editing, A.K., M.Y.S., C.N.W., K.F. and S.S.; visualization, A.K.; supervision, A.K. and S.S.; project administration, A.K., M.Y.S., and S.S.; funding acquisition, A.K. and S.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work is partially supported by an Advanced Support for Innovative Research Excellence (ASPIRE) grant (15700-18-47805) from the Office of the Vice President for Research at the University of South Carolina. All opinions, findings, conclusions and recommendations in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agency.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Topics, Labels, and Examples of Research Papers.
Table A1. Topics, Labels, and Examples of Research Papers.
IDLabelResearch ExamplesTopic
T1Sexual Harassing Behaviors[97,98,99]behaviors sexually harassing unwanted offensive potentially language nature form aggressive
T2Higher Education[100,101,102]students education university college faculty school schools teachers academic educational
T4Hegemonic Masculinity[103,104,105]experiences sexuality power gendered ways masculinity culture gay identity argue
T6Professional Relationships[106,107,108]ethics professional relationships ethical practice misconduct moral issues management sexuality
T7Sex Workers and HIV[109,110,111]sex young hiv risk south human africa health workers education
T12Perceptions of Sexual Harassment[112,113,114]perceptions differences victim behavior target effects sex scenarios perpetrator found
T13Workplace Harassment and Romance[115,116,117]workplace organizational work organizations employees power incivility management impact romance
T14Workplace Legal Cases[118,119,120]legal law environment court hostile discrimination decisions rights act claims
T16Gender Equality in Workspace[121,122,123]discrimination sex career role equal leadership development differences employment work
T17Discrimination Laws[124,125,126]states united rights law human countries policy education public employment
T18Domestic Violence[127,128,129]violence partner physical dating abuse intimate assault victims ipv domestic
T19Military Trauma[130,131,132]military veterans assault personnel service mst trauma health war stress
T20Poor Health Outcomes of Employees[133,134,135]workplace occupational bullying workers job health environment stress employment psychosocial
T21Medical Field Discrimination[136,137,138]medical physicians training medicine practice discrimination residents education patients surgery
T22Racial/Ethnic Discrimination[139,140,141]discrimination race white black ethnic african minority diversity group hispanic
T23Digital Space[142,143,144]online internet social media computer video youth pornography web game
T24Prevention and Treatment[145,146,147]training prevention intervention control group program attitudes knowledge programs effective
T25Feminism, Media, and Politics[148,149,150]feminist media political politics movement public activism work social mass
T26Workspace Policies[151,152,153]policy public training organizations procedures prevention response problem reporting awareness
T28Sexist Beliefs and Masculinity [154,155,156]sexism social attitudes sexist identity beliefs hostile stereotypes acceptance psychology
T31Hospital Workplace Violence[157,158,159]violence workplace nurses hospital verbal health patients staff physical care
T33Healthcare Services[160,161,162]health care mental services medical service treatment quality home substance
T34Global Society[163,164,165]social india status cultural public economic countries life rights conditions
T36Effects of Trauma Exposure [166,167,168]disorder symptoms stress mental depression ptsd posttraumatic trauma physical pain
T37Coping Reactions[169,170,171]coping responses negative fear strategies experience social anger self-esteem emotional
T40Youth Bullying and Victimization[172,173,174]school victimization girls bullying students peer boys high secondary middle

References

  1. McDonald, P. Workplace sexual harassment 30 years on: A review of the literature. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2012, 14, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Harassment, S.S. The Facts behind the# MeToo Movement: A National Study on Sexual Harassment and Assault. Available online: http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Full-Report-2018-National-Study-on-Sexual-Harassment-and-Assault.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2021).
  3. Scope of the Problem: Statistics|RAINN. Available online: https://www.rainn.org/statistics/scope-problem (accessed on 13 August 2020).
  4. Victims of Sexual Violence: Statistics|RAINN. Available online: https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence (accessed on 13 August 2020).
  5. Statistics. National Sexual Violence Resource Center [Internet]. Available online: https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics (accessed on 13 August 2020).
  6. Barak, A. Sexual harassment on the Internet. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 2005, 23, 77–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Karami, A.; Swan, S.; Moraes, M.F. Space identification of sexual harassment reports with text mining. Proc. Assoc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 2020, 57, e265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Peterson, C.; DeGue, S.; Florence, C.; Lokey, C.N. Lifetime economic burden of rape among US adults. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2017, 52, 691–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Martín-Martín, A.; Orduna-Malea, E.; Thelwall, M.; López-Cózar, E.D. Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. J. Informetr. 2018, 12, 1160–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Studd, M.V.; Gattiker, U.E. The evolutionary psychology of sexual harassment in organizations. Ethol. Sociobiol. 1991, 12, 249–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Maypole, D.E.; Skaine, R. Sexual harassment in the workplace. Soc. Work 1983, 28, 385–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Maypole, D.E. Sexual harassment at work: A review of research and theory. Affilia 1987, 2, 24–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Fitzgerald, L.F.; Shullman, S.L. Sexual harassment: A research analysis and agenda for the 1990s. J. Vocat. Behav. 1993, 42, 5–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gutek, B.A.; Koss, M.P. Changed women and changed organizations: Consequences of and coping with sexual harassment. J. Vocat. Behav. 1993, 42, 28–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Charney, D.A.; Russell, R.C. An overview of sexual harassment. Am. J. Psychiatry 1994, 151, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Frazier, P.A.; Cochran, C.C.; Olson, A.M. Social science research on lay definitions of sexual harassment. J. Soc. Issues 1995, 51, 21–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Fitzgerald, L.F.; Swan, S.; Fischer, K. Why didn’t she just report him? The psychological and legal implications of women’s responses to sexual harassment. J. Soc. Issues 1995, 51, 117–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Nora, L.M. Sexual harassment in medical education: A review of the literature with comments from the law. Acad. Med. 1996, 71, S113–S118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Andrew, M.J.; Andrew, J.D. Sexual harassment: The law. J. Rehabil. Adm. 1997, 21, 23–42. [Google Scholar]
  20. O’Donohue, W.; Downs, K.; Yeater, E.A. Sexual harassment: A review of the literature. Aggress. Violent Behav. 1998, 3, 111–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Blumenthal, J.A. The reasonable woman standard: A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Law Hum. Behav. 1998, 22, 33–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Welsh, S. Gender and sexual harassment. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1999, 25, 169–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sev’er, A. Sexual harassment: Where we were, where we are and prospects for the new millennium introduction to the special issue. Can. Rev. Sociol./Rev. Can. Sociol. 1999, 36, 469–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Timmerman, G.; Bajema, C. Incidence and Methodology in Sexual Harassment Research in Northwest Europe. Womens Stud. Int. Forum 1999, 22, 673–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sbraga, T.P.; O’donohue, W. Sexual harassment. Annu. Rev. Sex Res. 2000, 11, 258–285. [Google Scholar]
  26. Einarsen, S. Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian approach. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2000, 5, 379–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rotundo, M.; Nguyen, D.-H.; Sackett, P.R. A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Ilies, R.; Hauserman, N.; Schwochau, S.; Stibal, J. Reported incidence rates of work-related sexual harassment in the United States: Using meta-analysis to explain reported rate disparities. Pers. Psychol. 2003, 56, 607–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Banyard, V.L.; Plante, E.G.; Moynihan, M.M. Bystander education: Bringing a broader community perspective to sexual violence prevention. J. Community Psychol. 2004, 32, 61–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Li, Q. Gender and CMC: A review on conflict and harassment. Aust. J. Educ. Technol. 2005, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Gyllensten, K.; Palmer, S. The role of gender in workplace stress: A critical literature review. Health Educ. J. 2005, 64, 271–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Sigal, J. International sexual harassment. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2006, 1087, 356–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Goldzweig, C.L.; Balekian, T.M.; Rolon, C.; Yano, E.M.; Shekelle, P.G. The state of women veterans’ health research: Results of a systematic literature review. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2006, 21, S82–S92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Willness, C.R.; Steel, P.; Lee, K. A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of workplace sexual harassment. Pers. Psychol. 2007, 60, 127–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yagil, D. When the customer is wrong: A review of research on aggression and sexual harassment in service encounters. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2008, 13, 141–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chan, D.K.; Chow, S.Y.; Lam, C.B.; Cheung, S.F. Examining the job-related, psychological, and physical outcomes of workplace sexual harassment: A meta-analytic review. Psychol. Women Q. 2008, 32, 362–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. O’Leary-Kelly, A.M.; Bowes-Sperry, L.; Bates, C.A.; Lean, E.R. Sexual harassment at work: A decade (plus) of progress. J. Manag. 2009, 35, 503–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hunt, C.M.; Davidson, M.J.; Fielden, S.L.; Hoel, H. Reviewing sexual harassment in the workplace—An intervention model. Pers. Rev. 2010, 39, 655–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rose, C.A.; Monda-Amaya, L.E.; Espelage, D.L. Bullying perpetration and victimization in special education: A review of the literature. Remedial Spec. Educ. 2011, 32, 114–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Stockdale, M.S.; Nadler, J.T. Situating sexual harassment in the broader context of interpersonal violence: Research, theory, and policy implications. Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 2012, 6, 148–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pina, A.; Gannon, T.A. An overview of the literature on antecedents, perceptions and behavioural consequences of sexual harassment. J. Sex. Aggress. 2012, 18, 209–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Conroy, N.E. Rethinking adolescent peer sexual harassment: Contributions of feminist theory. J. Sch. Violence 2013, 12, 340–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Okechukwu, C.A.; Souza, K.; Davis, K.D.; De Castro, A.B. Discrimination, harassment, abuse, and bullying in the workplace: Contribution of workplace injustice to occupational health disparities. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2014, 57, 573–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Spector, P.E.; Zhou, Z.E.; Che, X.X. Nurse exposure to physical and nonphysical violence, bullying, and sexual harassment: A quantitative review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2014, 51, 72–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Roehling, M.V.; Huang, J. Sexual harassment training effectiveness: An interdisciplinary review and call for research. J. Organ. Behav. 2018, 39, 134–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Stander, V.A.; Thomsen, C.J. Sexual harassment and assault in the US military: A review of policy and research trends. Mil. Med. 2016, 181, 20–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Thakur, M.B.; Paul, P. Sexual Harassment in Academic Institutions: A Conceptual Review. J. Psychosoc. Res. 2017, 12, 33. [Google Scholar]
  48. Henry, N.; Powell, A. Technology-facilitated sexual violence: A literature review of empirical research. Trauma Violence Abuse 2018, 19, 195–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Fitzgerald, L.F.; Cortina, L.M. Sexual Harassment in Work Organizations: A View from the 21st Century. In APA handbook of the Psychology of Women: Perspectives on Women’s Private and Public Lives; Travis, C.B., White, J.W., Rutherford, A., Williams, W.S., Cook, S.L., Wyche, K.F., Eds.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; pp. 215–234. [Google Scholar]
  50. Klein, L.B.; Martin, S.L. Sexual harassment of college and university students: A systematic review. Trauma Violence Abuse 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Tenbrunsel, A.E.; Rees, M.R.; Diekmann, K.A. Sexual harassment in academia: Ethical climates and bounded ethicality. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2019, 70, 245–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Minnotte, K.L.; Legerski, E.M. Sexual harassment in contemporary workplaces: Contextualizing structural vulnerabilities. Sociol. Compass 2019, 13, e12755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Draucker, C.B. Responses of Nurses and Other Healthcare Workers to Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. OJIN Online J. Issues Nurs. 2019, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ehman, A.C.; Gross, A.M. Sexual cyberbullying: Review, critique, & future directions. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2019, 44, 80–87. [Google Scholar]
  55. Burn, S.M. The psychology of sexual harassment. Teach. Psychol. 2019, 46, 96–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Siuta, R.L.; Bergman, M.E. Sexual harassment in the workplace. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  57. Araujo J de, O.; Souza FM de Proença, R.; Bastos, M.L.; Trajman, A.; Faerstein, E. Prevalence of sexual violence among refugees: A systematic review. Rev. Saude Publica 2019, 53, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Bondestam, F.; Lundqvist, M. Sexual harassment in higher education—A systematic review. Eur. J. High. Educ. 2020, 10, 397–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kahsay, W.G.; Negarandeh, R.; Nayeri, N.D.; Hasanpour, M. Sexual harassment against female nurses: A systematic review. BMC Nurs. 2020, 19, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Ding, H.; Loukaitou-Sideris, A.; Agrawal, A.W. Sexual harassment and assault in transit environments: A review of the English-language literature. J. Plan. Lit. 2020, 35, 267–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Brown, C.S.; Biefeld, S.D.; Elpers, N. A bioecological theory of sexual harassment of girls: Research synthesis and proposed model. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2020, 24, 299–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Methley, A.M.; Campbell, S.; Chew-Graham, C.; McNally, R.; Cheraghi-Sohi, S. PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: A comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2014, 14, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Meho, L.I.; Yang, K. Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2007, 58, 2105–2125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Westergaard, D.; Stærfeldt, H.-H.; Tønsberg, C.; Jensen, L.J.; Brunak, S. A comprehensive and quantitative comparison of text-mining in 15 million full-text articles versus their corresponding abstracts. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2018, 14, e1005962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Fleuren, W.W.; Alkema, W. Application of text mining in the biomedical domain. Methods 2015, 74, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Blei, D.M.; Ng, A.Y.; Jordan, M.I. Latent dirichlet allocation. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2003, 3, 993–1022. [Google Scholar]
  67. Karami, A. Fuzzy Topic Modeling for Medical Corpora. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, MD, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  68. Karami, A.; Bennett, L.S.; He, X. Mining public opinion about economic issues: Twitter and the us presidential election. Int. J. Strateg. Decis. Sci. (IJSDS) 2018, 9, 18–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Karami, A.; Shaw, G. An exploratory study of (#) exercise in the Twittersphere. In Proceedings of the iConference 2019 Proceedings, Washington, DC, USA, 31 March–3 April 2019. [Google Scholar]
  70. Karami, A.; Webb, F. Analyzing health tweets of LGB and transgender individuals. Proc. Assoc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 2020, 57, e264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Karami, A.; Elkouri, A. Political Popularity Analysis in Social Media. In International Conference on Information; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 456–465. [Google Scholar]
  72. Karami, A.; Kadari, R.R.; Panati, L.; Nooli, S.P.; Bheemreddy, H.; Bozorgi, P. Analysis of Geotagging Behavior: Do Geotagged Users Represent the Twitter Population? ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2021, 10, 373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Karami, A.; Lundy, M.; Webb, F.; Turner-McGrievy, G.; McKeever, B.W.; McKeever, R. Identifying and Analyzing Health-Related Themes in Disinformation Shared by Conservative and Liberal Russian Trolls on Twitter. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Money, V.; Karami, A.; Turner-McGrievy, B.; Kharrazi, H. Seasonal characterization of diet discussions on Reddit. Proc. Assoc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 2020, 57, e320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Karami, A.; Anderson, M. Social media and COVID-19, Characterizing anti-quarantine comments on Twitter. Proc. Assoc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 2020, 57, e349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Hemsley, J.; Erickson, I.; Jarrahi, M.H.; Karami, A. Digital nomads, coworking, and other expressions of mobile work on Twitter. First Monday 2020, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Karami, A.; Dahl, A.A.; Shaw, G.; Valappil, S.P.; Turner-McGrievy, G.; Kharrazi, H.; Bozorgi, P. Analysis of Social Media Discussions on (#)Diet by Blue, Red, and Swing States in the U.S. Healthcare 2021, 9, 518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Karami, A.; Lundy, M.; Webb, F.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Twitter and research: A systematic literature review through text mining. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 67698–67717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Mohammadi, E.; Karami, A. Exploring research trends in big data across disciplines: A text mining analysis. J. Inform. Sci. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Karami, A.; Ghasemi, M.; Sen, S.; Moraes, M.F.; Shah, V. Exploring diseases and syndromes in neurology case reports from 1955 to 2017 with text mining. Comput. Biol. Med. 2019, 109, 322–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Karami, A.; Bookstaver, B.; Nolan, M.; Bozorgi, P. Investigating diseases and chemicals in COVID-19 literature with text mining. Int. J. Inf. Manag. Data Insights 2021, 1, 100016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Shin, G.; Jarrahi, M.H.; Fei, Y.; Karami, A.; Gafinowitz, N.; Byun, A.; Lu, X. Wearable Activity Trackers, Accuracy, Adoption, Acceptance and Health Impact: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Biomed. Inform. 2019, 93, 103153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Karami, A.; White, C.N.; Ford, K.; Swan, S.; Spinel, M.Y. Unwanted advances in higher education: Uncovering sexual harassment experiences in academia with text mining. Inf. Process. Manag. 2020, 57, 102167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Karami, A.; Swan, S.C.; White, C.N.; Ford, K. Hidden in plain sight for too long: Using text mining techniques to shine a light on workplace sexism and sexual harassment. Psychol. Violence 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Lim, B.H.; Valdez, C.E.; Lilly, M.M. Making meaning out of interpersonal victimization: The narratives of IPV survivors. Violence Against Women 2015, 21, 1065–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Altman, D.G. Practical Statistics for Medical Research; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  87. Röder, M.; Both, A.; Hinneburg, A. Exploring the space of topic coherence measures. In Proceedings of the Eighth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, Shanghai, China, 2–6 February 2015; pp. 399–408. [Google Scholar]
  88. Rehurek, R.; Sojka, P. Software framework for topic modelling with large corpora. In Proceedings of the LREC 2010 Workshop on New Challenges for NLP Frameworks, Valletta, Malta, 22 May 2010. [Google Scholar]
  89. McCallum, A.K. MALLET: A Machine Learning for Language Toolkit. 2002. Available online: http://mallet.cs.umass.edu/ (accessed on 1 May 2021).
  90. Cortina, L.M.; Berdahl, J.L. Sexual harassment in organizations: A decade of research in review. Handb. Organ. Behav. 2008, 1, 469–497. [Google Scholar]
  91. Black, A.E.; Allen, J.L. Tracing the legacy of Anita Hill: The Thomas/Hill hearings and media coverage of sexual harassment. Gend. Issues 2001, 19, 33–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Allanson, P.B.; Lester, R.R.; Notar, C.E. A history of bullying. Int. J. Educ. Soc. Sci. 2015, 2, 31–36. [Google Scholar]
  93. Chawla, N.; Gabriel, A.S.; O’Leary Kelly, A.; Rosen, C.C. From #MeToo to #TimesUp: Identifying Next Steps in Sexual Harassment Research in the Organizational Sciences; SAGE Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  94. Harvey Weinstein Timeline: How the Scandal Unfolded—BBC News. Available online: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-41594672 (accessed on 18 March 2021).
  95. Elsesser, K. Covid’s Impact On Sexual Harassment. In: Forbes [Internet]. Available online: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2020/12/21/covids-impact-on-sexual-harassment/ (accessed on 18 March 2021).
  96. Smith, S.G.; Basile, K.C.; Gilbert, L.K.; Merrick, M.T.; Patel, N.; Walling, M.; Jain, A. National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010–2012 State Report; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Atlanta, GA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  97. Workman, J.E.; Johnson, K.K. The role of cosmetics in attributions about sexual harassment. Sex Roles 1991, 24, 759–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Gervasio, A.H.; Ruckdeschel, K. College Students’ judgments of verbal sexual harassment 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 22, 190–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Terrance, C.; Logan, A.; Peters, D. Perceptions of peer sexual harassment among high school students. Sex Roles 2004, 51, 479–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Kaplan, O. Awareness instruction for sexual harassment: Findings from an experiential learning process at a higher education institute in Israel. J. Furth. High. Educ. 2006, 30, 213–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Rester, C.H.; Edwards, R. Effects of sex and setting on students’ interpretation of teachers’ excessive use of immediacy. Commun. Educ. 2007, 56, 34–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Lampman, C.; Crew, E.C.; Lowery, S.D.; Tompkins, K. Women faculty distressed: Descriptions and consequences of academic contrapower harassment. NASPA J. Women High. Educ. 2016, 9, 169–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Lee, D. Hegemonic masculinity and male feminisation: The sexual harassment of men at work. J. Gend. Stud. 2000, 9, 141–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Armato, M. Wolves in sheep’s clothing: Men’s enlightened sexism & hegemonic masculinity in academia. Womens Stud. 2013, 42, 578–598. [Google Scholar]
  105. Grazian, D. The girl hunt: Urban nightlife and the performance of masculinity as collective activity. Symb. Interact. 2007, 30, 221–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Hurley, A.E. Challenges in cross-gender mentoring relationships: Psychological intimacy, myths, rumours, innuendoes and sexual harassment. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 1996, 58, 42–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Larrabee, M.J.; Miller, G.M. An examination of sexual intimacy in supervision. Clin. Superv. 1994, 11, 103–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Schneider, J.; Weerakoon, P.; Heard, R. Inappropriate client sexual behaviour in occupational therapy. Occup. Ther. Int. 1999, 6, 176–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Chariyeva, Z.; Colaco, R.; Maman, S. HIV risk perceptions, knowledge and behaviours among female sex workers in two cities in Turkmenistan. Glob. Public Health 2011, 6, 181–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Platt, L.; Grenfell, P.; Bonell, C.; Creighton, S.; Wellings, K.; Parry, J.; Rhodes, T. Risk of sexually transmitted infections and violence among indoor-working female sex workers in London: The effect of migration from Eastern Europe. Sex. Transm. Infect. 2011, 87, 377–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  111. Agha, S.; Chulu Nchima, M. Life-circumstances, working conditions and HIV risk among street and nightclub-based sex workers in Lusaka, Zambia. Cult. Health Sex. 2004, 6, 283–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Menon, S.A.; Kanekar, S. Attitudes Toward Sexual Harassment of Women in India 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 22, 1940–1952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Valentine-French, S.; Radtke, H.L. Attributions of responsibility for an incident of sexual harassment in a university setting. Sex Roles 1989, 21, 545–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Jones, T.S.; Remland, M.S. Sources of variability in perceptions of and responses to sexual harassment. Sex Roles 1992, 27, 121–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Salvaggio, A.N.; Streich, M.; Hopper, J.E.; Pierce, C.A. Why Do Fools Fall in Love (at Work)? Factors Associated With the Incidence of Workplace Romance 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2011, 41, 906–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Mano, R.; Gabriel, Y. Workplace romances in cold and hot organizational climates: The experience of Israel and Taiwan. Hum. Relat. 2006, 59, 7–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Pierce, C.A.; Karl, K.A.; Brey, E.T. Role of workplace romance policies and procedures on job pursuit intentions. J. Manag. Psychol. 2012, 27, 237–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Gutek, B.A.; O’Connor, M.A.; Melancon, R.; Stockdale, M.S.; Geer, T.M.; Done, R.S. The utility of the reasonable woman legal standard in hostile environment sexual harassment cases: A multimethod, multistudy examination. Psychol. Public Policy Law 1999, 5, 596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Kovera, M.B.; Cass, S.A. Compelled mental health examinations, liability decisions, and damage awards in sexual harrassment cases: Issues for jury research. Psychol. Public Policy Law 2002, 8, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Sherwyn, D.; Wagner, P.; Gilman, G. Trying to make sense of sexual harassment law after Oncale, Holman, and Rene. Cornell Hotel Restaur. Adm. Q. 2004, 45, 172–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  121. Fitzsimmons, T.W.; Callan, V.J. Applying a capital perspective to explain continued gender inequality in the C-suite. Leadersh. Q. 2016, 27, 354–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Bergamaschi, M. Equal Opportunities and Collective Bargaining in Italy: The Role of Women. Eur. J. Womens Stud. 1999, 6, 133–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Gutek, B.A.; Cohen, A.G. Sex ratios, sex role spillover, and sex at work: A comparison of men’s and women’s experiences. Hum. Relat. 1987, 40, 97–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Cunningham, G.B.; Benavides-Espinoza, C. A trend analysis of sexual harassment claims: 1992–2006. Psychol. Rep. 2008, 103, 779–782. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  125. Williams, C. Sexual harassment and human rights law in New Zealand. J. Hum. Rights 2003, 2, 573–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Saguy, A. National specificity in an age of globalization: Sexual harassment law in France1. Contemp. Fr. Francoph. Stud. 2004, 8, 425–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Schwab-Reese, L.M.; Peek-Asa, C.; Parker, E. Associations of financial stressors and physical intimate partner violence perpetration. Inj. Epidemiol. 2016, 3, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  128. Vicario-Molina, I.; Orgaz Baz, B.; Fuertes Martín, A.; González Ortega, E.; Martínez Álvarez, J. Dating violence among youth couples: Dyadic analysis of the prevalence and agreement. Span. J. Psychol. 2015, 18, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Phiri-Alleman, W.; Alleman, J.B. Sexual violence in relationships: Implications for multicultural counseling. Fam. J. 2008, 16, 155–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Barth, S.K.; Kimerling, R.E.; Pavao, J.; McCutcheon, S.J.; Batten, S.V.; Dursa, E.; Schneiderman, A.I. Military sexual trauma among recent veterans: Correlates of sexual assault and sexual harassment. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2016, 50, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. LeardMann, C.A.; Pietrucha, A.; Magruder, K.M.; Smith, B.; Murdoch, M.; Jacobson, I.G.; Millennium Cohort Study Team. Combat deployment is associated with sexual harassment or sexual assault in a large, female military cohort. Womens Health Issues 2013, 23, e215–e223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Kang, H.; Dalager, N.; Mahan, C.; Ishii, E. The role of sexual assault on the risk of PTSD among Gulf War veterans. Ann. Epidemiol. 2005, 15, 191–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Keuskamp, D.; Ziersch, A.M.; Baum, F.E.; LaMontagne, A.D. Workplace bullying a risk for permanent employees. Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health 2012, 36, 116–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  134. Niedhammer, I.; Chastang, J.-F.; Sultan-Taïeb, H.; Vermeylen, G.; Parent-Thirion, A. Psychosocial work factors and sickness absence in 31 countries in Europe. Eur. J. Public Health 2013, 23, 622–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  135. Nabe-Nielsen, K.; Grynderup, M.B.; Lange, T.; Andersen, J.H.; Bonde, J.P.; Conway, P.M.; Hansen, A.M. The role of poor sleep in the relation between workplace bullying/unwanted sexual attention and long-term sickness absence. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2016, 89, 967–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Bruce, A.N.; Battista, A.; Plankey, M.W.; Johnson, L.B.; Marshall, M.B. Perceptions of gender-based discrimination during surgical training and practice. Med. Educ. Online 2015, 20, 25923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Haviland, M.G.; Yamagata, H.; Werner, L.S.; Zhang, K.; Dial, T.H.; Sonne, J.L. Student mistreatment in medical school and planning a career in academic medicine. Teach. Learn. Med. 2011, 23, 231–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Nora, L.M.; McLaughlin, M.A.; Fosson, S.E.; Stratton, T.D.; Murphy-Spencer, A.; Fincher, R.-M.E.; Witzke, D.B. Gender discrimination and sexual harassment in medical education: Perspectives gained by a 14-school study. Acad. Med. 2002, 77, 1226–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Bucchianeri, M.M.; Eisenberg, M.E.; Neumark-Sztainer, D. Weightism, racism, classism, and sexism: Shared forms of harassment in adolescents. J. Adolesc. Health 2013, 53, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  140. Bergman, M.E.; Palmieri, P.A.; Drasgow, F.; Ormerod, A.J. Racial and ethnic harassment and discrimination: In the eye of the beholder? J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2007, 12, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  141. Rosenfeld, P.; Newell, C.E.; Le, S. Equal opportunity climate of women and minorities in the Navy: Results from the Navy equal opportunity/sexual harassment (NEOSH) survey. Mil. Psychol. 1998, 10, 69–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Mitchell, K.J.; Wolak, J.; Finkelhor, D. Are blogs putting youth at risk for online sexual solicitation or harassment? Child Abus. Negl. 2008, 32, 277–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Fox, J.; Tang, W.Y. Sexism in online video games: The role of conformity to masculine norms and social dominance orientation. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 33, 314–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Fox, J.; Cruz, C.; Lee, J.Y. Perpetuating online sexism offline: Anonymity, interactivity, and the effects of sexist hashtags on social media. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 52, 436–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Yom, Y.-H.; Eun, L. Effects of a CD-ROM educational program on sexual knowledge and attitude. CIN Comput. Inform. Nurs. 2005, 23, 214–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Zawadzki, M.J.; Danube, C.L.; Shields, S.A. How to talk about gender inequity in the workplace: Using WAGES as an experiential learning tool to reduce reactance and promote self-efficacy. Sex Roles 2012, 67, 605–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  147. Taylor, B.G.; Stein, N.D.; Mumford, E.A.; Woods, D. Shifting boundaries: An experimental evaluation of a dating violence prevention program in middle schools. Prev. Sci. 2013, 14, 64–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Barger, L.C. Backlash: From Nine to Five to The Devil Wears Prada. Womens Stud. 2011, 40, 336–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Asenas, J.; Abram, S. Flattening the past: How news media undermine the political potential of Anita Hill’s story. Fem. Media Stud. 2018, 18, 497–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Sorour, M.K.; Lal Dey, B. Energising the political movements in developing countries: The role of social media. Cap. Cl. 2014, 38, 508–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Reese, L.A.; Lindenberg, K.E. The importance of training on sexual harassment policy outcomes. Rev. Public Pers. Adm. 2003, 23, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Peirce, E.R.; Rosen, B.; Hiller, T.B. Breaking the silence: Creating user-friendly sexual harassment policies. Empl. Responsib. Rights J. 1997, 10, 225–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Reese, L.A.; Lindenberg, K.E. Victimhood” and the Implementation of Sexual Harassment Policy. Rev. Public Pers. Adm. 1997, 17, 37–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. de Oliveira Laux, S.H.; Ksenofontov, I.; Becker, J.C. Explicit but not implicit sexist beliefs predict benevolent and hostile sexist behavior. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2015, 45, 702–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Russell, B.L.; Trigg, K.Y. Tolerance of sexual harassment: An examination of gender differences, ambivalent sexism, social dominance, and gender roles. Sex Roles 2004, 50, 565–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Sakallı-Uğurlu, N.; Salman, S.; Turgut, S. Predictors of Turkish women’s and men’s attitudes toward sexual harassment: Ambivalent sexism, and ambivalence toward men. Sex Roles 2010, 63, 871–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Wada, K.; Suehiro, Y. Violence chain surrounding patient-to-staff violence in Japanese hospitals. Arch. Environ. Occup. Health 2014, 69, 121–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. Wei, C.-Y.; Chiou, S.-T.; Chien, L.-Y.; Huang, N. Workplace violence against nurses–prevalence and association with hospital organizational characteristics and health-promotion efforts: Cross-sectional study. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2016, 56, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Gates, D.M.; Ross, C.S.; McQueen, L. Violence against emergency department workers. J. Emerg. Med. 2006, 31, 331–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  160. Kosenko, K.A.; Nelson, E.A. Identifying and ameliorating lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender health disparities in the criminal justice system. Am. J. Public Health 2018, 108, 970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Huynh-Hohnbaum, A.-L.T.; Damron-Rodriguez, J.; Washington, D.L.; Villa, V.; Harada, N. Exploring the diversity of women veterans’ identity to improve the delivery of veterans’ health services. Affilia 2003, 18, 165–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Haviland, M.J.; Shrestha, A.; Decker, M.R.; Kohrt, B.A.; Kafle, H.M.; Lohani, S.; Surkan, P.J. Barriers to sexual and reproductive health care among widows in Nepal. Int. J. Gynecol. Obstet. 2014, 125, 129–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Nallari, A. “All we want are toilets inside our homes!” The critical role of sanitation in the lives of urban poor adolescent girls in Bengaluru, India. Environ. Urban. 2015, 27, 73–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  164. Shackle, S. Safe Spaces: As the Syrian crisis forces women to fend for themselves, female refugees in Jordan are learning to cope. World Policy J. 2018, 35, 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Alam, K.; Rahman, M.H. Women in natural disasters: A case study from southern coastal region of Bangladesh. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2014, 8, 68–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Curry, J.F.; Aubuchon-Endsley, N.; Brancu, M.; Runnals, J.J.; Workgroup, R.; Workgroup, V.M.-A.M.R.; Fairbank, J.A. Lifetime major depression and comorbid disorders among current-era women veterans. J. Affect. Disord. 2014, 152, 434–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Badour, C.L.; Feldner, M.T.; Babson, K.A.; Blumenthal, H.; Dutton, C.E. Disgust, mental contamination, and posttraumatic stress: Unique relations following sexual versus non-sexual assault. J. Anxiety Disord. 2013, 27, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  168. Elklit, A.; Christiansen, D.M. ASD and PTSD in rape victims. J. Interpers. Violence 2010, 25, 1470–1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Magley, V.J. Coping with sexual harassment: Reconceptualizing women’s resistance. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 83, 930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Schneider, K.T.; Tomaka, J.; Palacios, R. Women’s Cognitive, Affective, and Physiological Reactions to a Male Coworker’s Sexist Behavior 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 31, 1995–2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Diekmann, K.A.; Walker, S.D.S.; Galinsky, A.D.; Tenbrunsel, A.E. Double victimization in the workplace: Why observers condemn passive victims of sexual harassment. Organ. Sci. 2013, 24, 614–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  172. Espelage, D.L.; Basile, K.C.; De La Rue, L.; Hamburger, M.E. Longitudinal associations among bullying, homophobic teasing, and sexual violence perpetration among middle school students. J. Interpers. Violence 2015, 30, 2541–2561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  173. Williams, T.; Connolly, J.; Pepler, D.; Craig, W. Questioning and sexual minority adolescents: High school experiences of bullying, sexual harassment and physical abuse. Can. J. Community Ment. Health 2009, 22, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  174. Espelage, D.L.; Basile, K.C.; Hamburger, M.E. Bullying perpetration and subsequent sexual violence perpetration among middle school students. J. Adolesc. Health 2012, 50, 60–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 13 06589 g001 550
Figure 1. Research Framework.
Figure 1. Research Framework.
Sustainability 13 06589 g001
Sustainability 13 06589 g002 550
Figure 2. The frequency and relative frequency of sexual harassment studies from 1977 to 2020.
Figure 2. The frequency and relative frequency of sexual harassment studies from 1977 to 2020.
Sustainability 13 06589 g002
Sustainability 13 06589 g003 550
Figure 3. Convergence of the log-likelihood for 5 sets of 4000 integration.
Figure 3. Convergence of the log-likelihood for 5 sets of 4000 integration.
Sustainability 13 06589 g003
Sustainability 13 06589 g004 550
Figure 4. Weight of Meaningful and Stable Topics.
Figure 4. Weight of Meaningful and Stable Topics.
Sustainability 13 06589 g004
Sustainability 13 06589 g005 550
Figure 5. Yearly trend of the 16 topics with a significant trend (p-value ≤ 0.05) in Table 3.
Figure 5. Yearly trend of the 16 topics with a significant trend (p-value ≤ 0.05) in Table 3.
Sustainability 13 06589 g005
Sustainability 13 06589 g006 550
Figure 6. The Average Weight of Topics per Year in Each Decade.
Figure 6. The Average Weight of Topics per Year in Each Decade.
Sustainability 13 06589 g006
Table
Table 1. Sexual Harassment Review Papers.
Table 1. Sexual Harassment Review Papers.
YearTime Frame#Reviewed StudiesTopic Ref.
1983N/A28 Sexual harassment at work[11]
1987N/A6Sexual harassment at work[12]
1991N/AN/A-68Sexual harassment at work[10]
1993N/AN/A-81Sexual harassment at work[13]
1993N/AN/A-67Sexual harassment at work[14]
1994N/AN/A-58Sexual harassment at work[15]
1995N/AN/A-46Definitions of sexual harassment[16]
1995N/AN/A-64Sexual harassment at work[17]
1996N/AN/A-54Sexual harassment in medical education[18]
1997N/AN/A-46Sexual harassment at work—legal aspects of sexual harassment[19]
1998N/AN/A-43Sexual harassment at work[20]
19981982–1996111Gender difference in perceptions of sexual harassment[21]
1999N/AN/A-128Sexual harassment at work[22]
1999N/AN/A-124Sexual harassment at work[23]
19991987–199774Sexual harassment at work (Northern and Western countries)[24]
2000N/AN/A-87Sexual harassment at work[25]
2000N/AN/A-96Sexual harassment at work (Scandinavian context)[26]
20011969–199962Gender difference in perceptions of sexual harassment[27]
2003N/A71Sexual harassment at work[28]
2004N/AN/A-84Interventions for sexual harassment at work[29]
2005N/AN/A-135Sexual harassment on the Internet[6]
2005N/AN/A-98Gender and communication incomputer mediated communication (CMC) environments[30]
2005N/AN/A-68Role of gender in workplace stress[31]
2006N/AN/A-30Sexual harassment at work and cross-cultural study of reaction to academic sexual harassment[32]
2006N/A182Women veterans’ health[33]
2007N/A41Sexual harassment at work[34]
2008N/AN/A-73Aggression and sexual harassment in service encounters (sexual harassment at work)[35]
2008N/A49Sexual harassment at work[36]
20091995–2009N/A-151Sexual harassment at work[37]
2010N/AN/A-73Interventions for sexual harassment at work[38]
2011N/AN/A-147Sexual harassment at work[1]
2011N/A32Bullying in special education (Youth)[39]
2012N/AN/A-121Sexual harassment at work[40]
2012N/AN/A-157Sexual harassment at work[41]
2013N/AN/A-35Peer sexual harassment (Youth)[42]
2014N/AN/A-159Workplace injustices and occupational health disparities[43]
2014N/A136Bullying, violence and sexual harassment of nurses[44]
2015N/A60Interventions for sexual harassment at work[45]
2016N/AN/A-73Sexual harassment and assault in the US military[46]
2017N/AN/A-45Sexual harassment in academia[47]
20181995–201811Gender-based nature of technology-facilitated sexual violence (TFSV)[48]
2018N/A60Sexual harassment training[45]
2018N/AN/A-122Sexual harassment at work[49]
20192000–201924Sexual harassment in higher education[50]
2019N/AN/A-43Sexual harassment in academia[51]
2019N/AN/A-105Sexual harassment at work[52]
20192005–201815Sexual harassment of nurses at work[53]
20192003–2019N/A-95Sexual cyberbullying[54]
2019N/AN/A-67Sexual harassment [55]
2019N/AN/A-134Sexual harassment at work[56]
20191990–201760Sexual harassment of refugees[57]
20201966–201730Sexual harassment in higher education[58]
2020N/A20Sexual harassment against female nurses at work[59]
20201980–202071Sexual harassment in transit environments[60]
2020N/AN/A-109Sexual harassment of girls[61]
Table
Table 2. Definition and Categories of Topics.
Table 2. Definition and Categories of Topics.
Category/TopicIDDefinition
Health OutcomesMilitary TraumaT19Research on the effects of sexual trauma in the military. Female veterans report more severe mental health outcomes due to sexual trauma.
Healthcare ServicesT33Research on health issues of sexual harassment, including health outcomes and barriers to accessing health care for different communities such as LGBT veterans, Latina workers, military women, blind people, and homelessness people.
Effects of Trauma Exposure T36Research on the mental and physical effects of experiencing traumatic events.
Sexual Harassment in EducationHigher EducationT2Research on sexual harassment in higher education with several articles focused on medicine. Studies addressed the prevalence of sexual harassment, perceptions of sexual harassment by members of academic institutions, and institutional policies and resources.
Youth Bullying and VictimizationT40 Research on sexual harassment (e.g., bullying) in middle and high schools.
WorkspaceProfessional RelationshipsT6Research on cross-sex friendships and professional relationships. Multiple studies focused on cross-sex mentorship relations at work and in academic settings with many studies finding that these types of relationships could be challenging and lead to negative outcomes.
Workplace Harassment and RomanceT13Research on sexual harassment by coworkers and costumers. Additionally, workplace romance experiences and policies.
Gender Equality in WorkspaceT16Research on equality in the workplace, many articles studied the barriers and challenges (e.g., gender-based discrimination) that women experience in various workspaces.
Poor Health Outcomes of EmployeesT20Association between sexual harassment remarks or physical advances (e.g., bullying) and poor health outcomes of employees.
Medical Field DiscriminationT21Research on training, perceptions, and experiences regarding professionalism among students and members in the medical field. Many studies found that women reported gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment.
Workspace PoliciesT26Research on developing sexual harassment policies in the workplace such as creating user-friendly sexual harassment policies.
Hospital Workplace ViolenceT31Articles studied the types of violence experienced by hospital staff members. Studies found that verbal abuse and threats by patients and patients’ family members were common. Additionally, medical staff experienced sexual harassment by other workers as well as patients.
Historically Oppressed PopulationsSex Workers and HIVT7Research on risk factors (e.g., drug use, sexual harassment/rape) that increase the risk of HIV infection among sex-workers.
Racial/Ethnic DiscriminationT22Research on racial/ethnic and gender discrimination, including sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination. Several articles focused on how the intersection between gender and race/ethnicity increases experiences of oppression and victimization.
Global SocietyT34Research on factors that increase vulnerability of low-income people; many articles focused on women. Studies assessed natural, structural, and environmental factors that increased vulnerability (e.g., natural disasters and social settings). Several articles focused on developing countries.
Attitudes, Beliefs, and PerceptionsSexual Harassing BehaviorsT1Research on individuals’ perceptions and attitudes related to sexual harassment behaviors. Several studies surveyed undergraduate students.
Perceptions of Sexual HarassmentT12Research using vignettes and hypothetical scenarios to study perceptions of sexual harassment and attributions of responsibility. Studies assessed how characteristics of the rater (e.g., gender attitudes), the target of harassment (e.g., attractiveness), and the perpetrator influenced individuals’ perceptions of the scenario.
Sexist Beliefs and Masculinity T28The influence of sexist beliefs and threat to masculinity on aggressive behavior, including tolerance for sexual harassment, self-reported perpetration of sexual harassment, and aggressive behaviors in experimental contexts.
Sexual Harassment in the Legal FieldWorkplace Legal CasesT14Research on workspace sexual harassment within legal cases. Research included studies of factors that influence jurors (e.g., instructing jurors to adopt the rational woman standard) and legal decisions.
Discrimination LawsT17Papers review laws and policies in different countries and regions (e.g., United States, United Kingdom, Australia, European Union) regarding sexual discrimination issues.
Hegemonic MasculinityT4Research on men’s dominant position and sexual harassment in different places such as work, academia, and public spaces.
Domestic ViolenceT18Research studies on topics related to domestic violence such as sexual violence among young couples.
Digital SpaceT23Research on risks of internet use (including phones, apps, cloud, blogs, social networks) with an emphasis on youth.
Prevention and TreatmentT24Research on prevention and treatment of sexual violence and interpersonal violence (such as intimate partner violence and sexual harassment) within workplaces and other settings (e.g., community, schools)
Feminism, Media, and PoliticsT25Research on portrayals in media and politics of sexual harassment. Most articles focused on the Hill–Thomas hearing and the #MeToo movement.
Coping ReactionsT37Research on reactions (e.g., coping strategies) around sexual harassment.
Table
Table 3. Linear Temporal Trend of Meaningful and Stable Topics Related to Human (ns: p-value > 0.05; *: p-value ≤   0.05; R > 0: Positive Slope; R < 0: Negative Slope).
Table 3. Linear Temporal Trend of Meaningful and Stable Topics Related to Human (ns: p-value > 0.05; *: p-value ≤   0.05; R > 0: Positive Slope; R < 0: Negative Slope).
Category/TopicIDSlopep-Value
Health OutcomesMilitary TraumaT19R > 0*
Healthcare ServicesT33R > 0*
Effects of Trauma Exposure T36R > 0*
Sexual Harassment in EducationHigher EducationT2R < 0*
Youth Bullying and VictimizationT40R > 0*
WorkspaceProfessional RelationshipsT6nsns
Workplace Harassment and RomanceT13nsns
Gender Equality in WorkspaceT16R < 0*
Poor Health Outcomes of EmployeesT20nsns
Medical Field DiscriminationT21R > 0*
Workspace PoliciesT26R < 0*
Hospital Workplace ViolenceT31R > 0*
Historically Oppressed PopulationsSex Worker and HIVT7R > 0*
Racial/Ethnic DiscriminationT22nsns
Global SocietyT34nsns
Attitudes, Beliefs, and PerceptionsSexual Harassing BehaviorsT1R < 0*
Perceptions of Sexual HarassmentT12R < 0*
Sexist Beliefs and Masculinity T28nsns
Sexual Harassment in the Legal FieldWorkplace Legal CasesT14R < 0*
Discrimination LawsT17nsns
Hegemonic MasculinityT4nsns
Domestic ViolenceT18R > 0*
Digital SpaceT23R > 0*
Prevention and TreatmentT24nsns
Feminism, Media, and PoliticsT25R > 0*
Coping ReactionsT37nsns
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Karami, A.; Spinel, M.Y.; White, C.N.; Ford, K.; Swan, S. A Systematic Literature Review of Sexual Harassment Studies with Text Mining. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6589. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126589

AMA Style

Karami A, Spinel MY, White CN, Ford K, Swan S. A Systematic Literature Review of Sexual Harassment Studies with Text Mining. Sustainability. 2021; 13(12):6589. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126589

Chicago/Turabian Style

Karami, Amir, Melek Yildiz Spinel, C. Nicole White, Kayla Ford, and Suzanne Swan. 2021. "A Systematic Literature Review of Sexual Harassment Studies with Text Mining" Sustainability 13, no. 12: 6589. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126589

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop