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：

---

目前对性暴力活动对高等教育学生性暴力幸存者的影响有什么了解？

目的：本系统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。旨在了解是什么驱使学生性暴力幸存者成为积极分子，这种积极行动对学生的负面和积极影响，高等教育机构如何与性暴力积极分子合作以促进有效的预防和应对，以及积极行动是如何进行谈判的通过和在实践、政策和研究中。方法：使用定性证据综合方法来确定研究，该研究检查学生活动家性暴力活动的驱动因素和后果。使用以各种方式组合的六个关键字对七个数据库进行了搜索，进一步的纳入标准为2010年至2020年期间以英文出版。还进行了灰色文献的搜索。结果： 28 个来源符合纳入标准。在 NVivo 中进行的主题分析确定了四个主题：免受伤害、社区、个人公开劳动以及活动家和机构之间的权力。结论/建议/限制：机构反应不足是学生性暴力活动的主要驱动力。激进主义对激进主义者产生了积极和消极的影响。建议活动家、机构、研究人员和政策制定者作为联盟来实现持久的文化变革。审查限制是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。