Do we actually understand what social safety means?

Many ideas, but few definitions

The interviews revealed that staff members certainly have their own ideas about what social safety entails: being true to oneself, feeling included, speaking up, and not fearing mistakes or criticism. However, when asked how these concepts translate into practice, the responses remained somewhat vague. This wasn't due to a lack of interest; in fact, the interviewees were highly motivated to drive change. "But they often have to navigate systems that come with limited time, resources, and, most importantly, a lack of clarity."

Utoft finds this an interesting paradox. "People seem to share a broad sense of what social safety means, but at the same time they define it in very different ways." That makes it difficult to identify the so-called socially unsafe behaviour, because it depends on how the staff member interprets the situation. "But something like racism is not a feeling or a matter of interpretation. Racism is racism," Utoft says.

Social safety and DEI

Before universities introduced social safety as a policy area, many already worked on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, often referred to as DEI. This domain focuses on issues such as ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation. “Our interviews showed that people tend to see social safety and DEI as two different things," Utoft says. According to the interviewees, social safety should primarily focus on behaviours and how people treat each other, while DEI focuses more on identity and equality. "But this approach separates social safety from underlying issues such as discrimination and inequality that are linked with identities."

A new term for old problems?

Utoft questions what additional value the term "social safety" brings to existing policy domains and concepts. She observes that many respondents use social safety as a broad term to encompass issues that DEI initiatives already address, including exclusion, discrimination, racism, sexism, and harassment. "People often resort to the term 'social safety' as a more palatable way to label uncomfortable problems," Utoft explains. "Under the umbrella of social safety, the conversation tends to shift towards discussing something called 'undesirable behaviour' instead."

Utoft points out that this creates a cycle of euphemisms; a recognisable problem is relabelled with an abstract term, which is then further defined using other vague explanations. As a result, behaviours like sexual harassment are no longer referred to as sexual harassment in a straightforward way.

Every university organises it differently

If social safety is a policy issue, who is responsible for it? "That varies quite a lot between universities," Utoft explains. Some universities have a separate department for social safety, although it may be just one person. Others place it within Human Resources or embed it in Integral Safety; a domain that handles a wide variety of safety risks. Utoft argues that these choices affect the way people understand and implement social safety. "Someone who works in HR looks at social safety differently from someone who  also responds in case of a fire on campus or a cyber attack." One university may focus mainly on cultural change and leadership, while another focuses on reporting procedures, integrity or legal frameworks. Why do universities approach the issue in such different ways?

Can you solve a problem if you cannot name it?

Utoft points out that many universities built their approach to social safety individually and in a short period of time. At the same time, people were trying to understand what social safety actually is and how they should organise it. Yet even after two years of research, Utoft has not found a definitive answer. This brings her back to the question that guided her research from the beginning: can you solve a problem if you cannot name it? According to Utoft, this may be the most important challenge for universities. They should not only invest in social safety, but also develop a clearer understanding of what the term actually means. Only when people clearly identify the problem they want to solve can they decide which solutions fit that problem.