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

该项目旨在对英国专业人士犯下的性行为不端和性侵行为进行理论化，并对用于调查和制裁此类行为的监管和行政司法机制进行批判性评估。这项研究采用了女权主义的关系权力观点，特别关注医生、精神病学家、英国国教和天主教神职人员、警察、法官、律师、军人和政客。首先将利用文献审查和流程绘图工作，将英国与比较司法管辖区(新西兰、澳大利亚维多利亚、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溯性案例分析，并采访监管机构和行业记者。结合框架分析、描述性统计和可视化软件，将探索权力社会关系如何在(A)个人(B)组织-专业和(C)社会文化层面与背景和机会运作和交叉，以解释职业虐待的原因。此外，还将参照选定的国际基准，评估行政司法机制的效力。在英国，除了卫生部门之外，几乎没有关于性行为不当和性侵的最新数据。整理这种规模的数据将是英国的第一次；在如此多样化的职业中，也是国际上的第一次。现有的国际研究是在专业内进行的，而不是跨专业进行的；侧重于单一部门而不是多个部门；从风险管理的角度进行研究，而不是通过对权力和不平等的分析来了解情况。此外，在#MeToo和刑事司法系统受害者信任度低的时代，利用行政司法机制对性行为不端行为作出回应在很大程度上被忽视，但至关重要。迫切需要开展工作，以了解这种机制在多大程度上在行政上隔离和免除专业犯罪人的责任，或在多大程度上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.