Sex, power and professionals: the nature, extent and administrative justice responses to sexual misconduct and abuse perpetrated by professionals

该项目旨在理论化英国专业人员犯下的性行为不端和虐待行为，并批判性地评估用于调查和制裁此类行为的监管和行政司法机制。本研究采用女性主义的权力关系观，特别关注医生、精神科医生、圣公会和天主教神职人员、警察、法官、律师、军人和政治家。文献审查和流程绘图工作将首先用于将英国与比较管辖区（新西兰；澳大利亚维多利亚州；加拿大安大略省）进行基准比较，并开发数据收集工具。将对法庭数据进行回顾性案例分析，并对监管机构和行业记者进行采访。框架分析、描述性统计和可视化软件的结合将探索权力的社会关系如何运作，并在(A)个人(b)组织专业和(c)社会文化层面与背景和机会交叉，以解释职业滥用。此外，将参照选定的国际基准，评价行政司法机制的效力。在英国，除了卫生部门，目前关于性行为不端和性侵犯的数据很少。如此大规模的数据整理将是英国的第一次；在如此多样化的职业中，国际首创。现有的国际研究是在专业范围内进行的，而不是跨专业进行的；专注于单一领域而非多个领域；而且是从风险管理的角度出发，而不是从对权力和不平等的分析出发。此外，利用行政司法机制来应对性行为不端在很大程度上被忽视，但在#MeToo（我也是）运动和受害者对刑事司法系统信任度较低的时代，这一点至关重要。需要紧急开展工作，了解这种机制在行政上能在多大程度上隔离和免除专业犯罪者，或能提供有效的制裁和威慑。

This project seeks to theorise sexual misconduct and abuse perpetrated by UK professionals and to evaluate critically the regulatory and administrative justice mechanisms used to investigate and sanction such behaviour. This study adopts a feminist relational view of power to focus specifically on doctors, psychiatrists, Anglican and Catholic clergy, police, judges, barristers, military, and politicians. Literature review and process mapping work will first be used to benchmark the UK with comparator jurisdictions (New Zealand; Victoria, Australia; Ontario, Canada) and to develop data collection instruments. Retrospective case analysis of tribunal data and interviews with regulators and trade journalists will be conducted. A combination of framework analysis, descriptive statistics and visualisation software will explore how social relations of power operate and intersect with context and opportunity at the (a) individual (b) organisational-professional and (c) socio-cultural level, to account for professional abuse. Further, and with reference to the selected international benchmarks, the effectiveness of administrative justice mechanisms will be evaluated. In the UK, little current data on sexual misconduct and abuse exists outside the health sector. Collating data on this scale will be a UK first; across such diverse professions, an international first. Extant international studies are conducted within professions rather than across; focused on single sectors rather than multiple; and approached from a risk-management perspective rather than informed by analyses of power and inequality. Furthermore, using administrative justice mechanisms to respond to sexual misconduct is largely overlooked yet critical in an era of #MeToo and low victim trust in the criminal justice system. Urgent work is required to understand how far such mechanisms administratively segregate and exonerate professional perpetrators or can offer effective sanction and deterrence.