---
title: "SAFE13 study"
chunk: 2/2
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAFE13_study"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:51:42.006322+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

== SAFE2 ==
In 2017, the qualitative findings of SAFE13 were published. Authored by Nelson, Rutherford, Hinde and Clancy, the study focused on the experiences of 26 interviewees, who were mostly anthropologists or archaeologists (23 of 26 interviewees), women (23 of 26), and white (21 of 26). Some participants described incidents of sexual harassment in multiple fieldwork sites, so fifty-four field contexts are represented in their narratives. Twelve participants recalled working at field sites with clear anti-harassment rules (representing 18 fieldwork sites). These sites had training, explicit conversations, and senior researchers modelled proactive behaviour to redress sexual harassment. Actively enforced anti-harassment policies were associated with positive fieldwork experiences where scientists felt safe, valued and equal. These sites were categorised by the researchers as "green" contexts where best practice was enforced by senior members of the research team. As a result there were fewer negative experiences, and transgressions were acted upon by leaders.
The rest of the participants described ambiguity or lack of clarity about codes of conduct. Even if they had some rules, sexual harassment still took place because were no consequences. Ambiguity led to repercussions for scientists who resisted sexual coercion, such as being alienated from colleagues and being denied professional opportunities. Harassment and negative fieldwork experiences also led to negative letters of employment, strained workplace relationships, career stalling, being forced to move to another site, or leaving their careers. The hostility would be continued into the future in other contexts, such as at conferences. Some participants were discouraged or prevented from taking formal reporting action by administrators. The researchers call ambiguous sites "yellow" contexts because if there was a vague set of rules, they were not consistently applied. "Red" contexts are fieldwork sites where there is both an absence of rules and consequences.
SAFE2 and SAFE13 are recognised as having led to concrete institutional and policy changes in academic science.

== Academic and public impact ==
Prior to its final publication, the evolving findings of the SAFE13 study received media coverage in 2013, with a focus on how sexual harassment creates a "chilly climate" in science. Public discussion of the evolving study's findings explored the negative impact of harassment on junior women researchers. Media articles focused on fear of professional retribution if scientists report sexual harassment. Other science publishers discussed the sense of powerless that both victims and bystanders face as harassment goes unpunished.
After the final report was published, the study became widely cited as evidence that sexual harassment contributes to women leaving science careers. Professional scientific societies publicly responded that, beyond making principal researchers responsible for reporting sexual harassment, institutional responses were additionally required.
The SAFE13 study inspired women scientists in other fields to conduct similar surveys into sexual harassment. It also paved the way for larger institutional surveys on harassment by professional societies. The SAFE13 study is referenced in high-profile cases, to contextualise the institutional dynamics that enable harassment to continue over many years. The study has had a major impact on American astronomy and physics in particular, as these disciplines increasingly grapple with public incidents of harassment.
In 2016, USA Rep. Jackie Speier of California sponsored a bill to compel research institutions to report investigations of harassment as a condition of receiving federal grant money. She cited the SAFE13 study as one piece of evidence informing the bill. She also referred to SAFE13 in media interviews. In February 2018, the USA National Science Foundation (NSF) announced it would require institutions to report whenever a researcher who is funded by their grants has engaged in sexual harassment. The NSF also expects institutions they fund to provide a harassment-free workplace. The NSF Office of Diversity and Inclusion will additionally provide policies and resources to support this aim, and create an anonymous reporting system to receive direct reports of sexual harassment. The NSF is one of various science agencies under pressure by the USA Congress to counter sexual harassment. This represents a major cultural change in scientific science since the SAFE13 study first recommended a review of institutional responses to harassment.
On 27 February 2018, lead researcher of the SAFE13 study, Kathryn (Kate) Clancy, provided testimony to the Subcommittee on Research and Technology Hearing on sexual harassment in science. The hearing identified a need to redress sexual harassment in science as a way to boost opportunities in science. Clancy testified that creating a safe, harassment-free workplace culture was imperative to improving science.
Five years after its preliminary findings were released, the SAFE13 study continues to be referenced in various media articles exploring how victims of sexual harassment are punished when they report harassment. SAFE13 has also been cited as an important resource in responding to the aftermath of the #MeToo movement in 2017, by providing systematic context of sexual harassment.
Since 2013, scientists have consistently used the hashtag #SAFE13 in connection to other research on sexual harassment, as well as to discuss media reports and investigations on sexual harassment in science and academia, and to share personal experiences of harassment in academic science.

== References ==