Counteracting deliberate ignorance of academic bullying and harassment

...According to a 2019 synthesis of 70 empirical studies from 20 countries, on average, 25% of faculty self-identify as being bullied and 40–50% report having witnessed bullying within the past year. Women, junior researchers, and members of minority groups are more likely to be bullied and harassed. Moreover, many targets suffer persistent abuse (up to half for 3 years or more; 10–20% for 5 years or more). Yet only a minority of bullying and harassment cases are officially reported, with many targets hesitating to report mistreatment due to fear of retaliation or the belief that their concerns will go unheard...

Deliberate ignorance—defined as the conscious choice not to seek or use information—is known to serve important psychological and social functions, such as regulating emotions or avoiding liability...

...The bystander effect has been demonstrated in many studies: The mere presence of bystanders in critical situations can reduce an individual’s probability of helping. Classic explanations are twofold. First, the more people are present, the lower the experienced sense of personal responsibility. Responsibility diffuses. Second, almost all group members can privately reject a norm to help and, at the same time, believe that almost everyone else accepts it. Ignorance can be pluralistic. Recent research suggests that bystander ignorance may also be deliberate, with people having various psychological motives for turning a blind eye to misconduct. For example, consciously choosing not to seek information—one form of deliberate ignorance—can be a way of regulating one’s emotions and deflecting responsibility. Deliberate ignorance can help to avoid distress and the anticipated guilt for not getting involved. Consciously choosing not to act on relevant information—a second form of deliberate ignorance—may be used as a strategic device to eschew responsibility and to avoid possible harm to oneself...

Psychological motives for deliberate ignorance can depend on the bystander’s status relative to the perpetrator. Strategic motives may be more pronounced in relationships with power asymmetries. For example, junior scientists may anticipate being unfavorably treated by a higher ranked perpetrator and remain deliberately ignorant to protect themselves. Emotion regulation may be a more significant motive when bystanders and perpetrators share a similar rank (e.g., a peer-to-peer relationship between two tenured professors). Witnessing a peer’s unethical behavior can be distressing, and deliberate ignorance can help bystanders to regulate their fear of confrontation with a peer, their guilt for not helping a target, or both.

Perpetrators may choose to ignore the distressing and even traumatizing effects of their behavior on targets in an attempt to escape social or legal accountability. In turn, this can preserve their power and status in academic hierarchies and help them maintain a positive self-image (see Fig. 1). We review policies that address deliberate ignorance in both perpetrators and bystanders and propose corresponding interventions intended to contribute to more ethical environments for all participants in academia...

One important psychological motive for bystanders not approaching targets and inquiring about their wellbeing is to avoid possible harm to themselves. This motive may be particularly pronounced when a perpetrator is more senior. Career progression in academia can depend on a senior scientist’s support, particularly in close-knit fields or disciplines. Whistle-blowers, therefore, need special protection. Beyond legal protections and anonymous reporting systems, a robust whistle-blower protection system includes anti-retaliation policies, optional relocations and fall-back supervision agreements. Further, protection from emotional and mental harm can be supported through the institutional provision of free, anonymous, and independent counseling services. Witnesses who feel protected and have confidence that due process will be followed may be more likely to report unethical practices. This requires a firm stance at the institutional level, with clear and robust consequences for perpetrators (e.g., official reprimands, withdrawal of funding, or even dismissal) being established and enforced...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-023-00044-7