Objective: This systematic literature review maps the landscape of higher education and student sexual violence survivors who become involved in sexual violence activism. It was undertaken to understand what drives student sexual violence survivors to become activists, the negative and positive impacts of this activism on the students, how higher education institutions might work with sexual violence activists to foster effective prevention and response, and how activism has been negotiated by and within practice, policy and research. Method: A qualitative evidence synthesis methodology was used to identify research which examines drivers to and consequences of sexual violence activism for student activists. Searches across seven databases were conducted using six keywords combined in various ways, with further inclusion criteria of published in English between 2010 and 2020. Searches of grey literature were also carried out. Results: 28 sources met the inclusion criteria. Thematic analysis, conducted in NVivo, resulted in identification of four themes: survival from harm, community, labour in the personal made public and power between activists and institutions. Conclusions/Recommendations/Limitations: Inadequate institutional response was a key driver of student sexual violence activism. Activism had positive and negative impacts on the activists. Recommendations are that activists, institutions, researchers and policy makers work as coalitions to bring about enduring cultural change. Review limitations were the small number of studies in this field; additionally, they were dominated by US and UK perspectives.

中文翻译：

---

目前对性暴力行动主义对高等教育学生性暴力幸存者的影响有何了解？

目标：这篇系统的文献综述描绘了参与性暴力活动的高等教育和学生性暴力幸存者的情况。其目的是了解是什么促使学生性暴力幸存者成为活动家、这种活动对学生的消极和积极影响、高等教育机构如何与性暴力活动家合作以促进有效的预防和应对，以及活动如何进行谈判通过实践、政策和研究并在其中进行。方法：使用定性证据合成方法来确定研究，以检查学生活动家性暴力活动的驱动因素和后果。以6个关键词以不同方式组合对7个数据库进行检索，进一步纳入2010年至2020年英文发表的文献，并对灰色文献进行检索。结果：28 个来源符合纳入标准。在 NVivo 进行的主题分析确定了四个主题：免受伤害、社区、个人公开的劳动以及活动家和机构之间的权力。结论/建议/局限性：机构反应不足是学生性暴力活动的一个关键驱动因素。激进主义对激进分子有积极和消极的影响。建议活动家、机构、研究人员和政策制定者联合起来，实现持久的文化变革。审查的局限性在于该领域的研究数量较少；此外，它们以美国和英国的观点为主。