Content uploaded by Kate Ester Dawson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kate Ester Dawson on May 04, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Are Consent Workshops Sustainable
and Feasible in Third Level Institutions?
Evidence from Implementing and Extending
the SMART Consent Workshop.
Pádraig MacNeela, Siobhán O’Higgins,
Charlotte McIvor, Chiara Seery, Kate
Dawson, and Neil Delaney
School of Psychology
Institute for Lifecourse & Society
O’Donoghue Centre for Drama,
Theatre, and Performance
NUI Galway
Contents*
Acknowledgements iv
ForewordbyMinisterofStateforHigherEducation v
Background 1
ResearchonConsentAttitudesandBehaviours 5
Experiences of Sexual Harassment 5
3Percentage of Female Students Who Experienced Sexist Hostility/Sexist Gender Harassment
Since Starting College, by College Year. 6
3Percentage of Female Students Who Experienced Sexual Hostility/Crude Gender Harassment
Since Starting College, by College Year. 6
3Percentage of Female Students Who Experienced Sexual Harassment Via Electronic
Communication Since Starting College, by College Year. 7
3Percentage of Female Students Who Experienced Unwanted Sexual Attention Since Starting
College, by College Year. 7
3Percentage of Female Students Who Experienced Sexual Coercion Since Starting College,
by College Year. 8
AttitudestoSexualHealthEducationinSchool 9
6I am satisfied with the sex education I have received in the school system 10
6The sexual health education I have received in school has covered the topics that I am most
interested in 10
6My sexual health education classes left out a lot of crucial and important information 11
6I learned most of what I know about sexual health from my school sexual health education 11
6I am satisfied with the way(s) in which I found out most of
what I know about things having to do with sex 12
6I wish I knew more about sexuality and sexual health 12
AlcoholandConsent:SensitivitytoAlcoholConsumptionLevels 13
3Percentage of Students Selecting ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly Agree’ in Response to Items Concerning Carol. 15
3Percentage of Students Selecting ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly Agree’ in Response to Items Concerning Neil. 16
*The 3 symbol denotes tabulated data while the 6 symbol indicates a graph or chart.
Contents
ImplementationoftheSMARTConsentWorkshopin2017-2018 17
Facilitator Training 17
Workshop Implementation 2017-2018 18
Consent Preparedness 20
3Mean scores on Consent Preparedness items Pre- and Post-Workshop. 20
6I have all the skills I need to deal with sexual consent 21
6I feel well informed about sexual consent 21
6My peers think that sexual consent is an important issue 24
6I would be confident talking about
sexual consent with my peers 24
6People my age would think that talking about consent with a partner is odd 25
6I’d find it diicult to talk about sexual consent with a romantic partner 25
3Mean scores on Consent Preparedness items Pre- and Post-Workshop,
among male and female students. 27
Positive Attitudes to Consent 28
6Asking for sexual consent is in my best interest because it reduces any misinterpretation
that might arise 28
6When initiating sexual activity you should always assume you do not have sexual consent 29
6It is just as necessary to obtain sexual consent for genital fondling as it is for sexual intercourse 29
6Most people that I care about feel that asking for sexual consent is something I should do 30
6Consent should be asked before any kind of sexual behaviour including kissing or petting/shifting 30
Student Feedback on the Workshop Exercises 31
Overview of the 2017-2018 SMART Consent Workshop activities. 31
FutureDirections:FilmsandMedia 33
ConclusionsandRecommendations 37
Recommendations 39
References 41
Are Consent Workshops Sustainable and Feasible in Third Level Institutions?
Evidence from Implementing and Extending the SMART Consent Workshop.
iv
Citeas:MacNeela,P.,O’Higgins,S.,McIvor,C.,Seery,C.,Dawson,K.,andDelaney,N.(2018).
Are Consent Workshops Sustainable and Feasible in Third Level Institutions? Evidence from
Implementing and Extending the SMART Consent Workshop.
Galway: School of Psychology,
NUI Galway.
CopyrightSchoolofPsychology,NUIGalway,2018.
Acknowledgements
We want to acknowledge the time, commitment, and collaboration of the consent leaders at the institu-
tions we have worked with and learned from, most notably:
• Jessica Elder (Queens University Belfast).
• Daniel Caldwell, Anita Mahony (Galway Mayo Institute of Technology).
• Finola McTernan (National College of Art and Design).
• Roberta Harrington, Liz Gabbet, Sarah Gibbons (University of Limerick).
• Sinéad McGrath, Tracey Harrington, Podge Henry, Karen Devine (Dublin City University).
• Megan Reilly, Lorcán Ó Maoileannaigh (NUI Galway Students’ Union).
•
Pat Morgan, John Hannon, Riona Hughes, Lorraine Tansey (NUI Galway Oce of the Vice Presi-
dent for the Student Experience, NUI Galway Student Services, Community Knowledge Initiative).
• Oisín Moloughney (Athlone Institute of Technology Students’ Union).
We also wish to thank:
• Mary Mitchell O’Connor, TD, Minister of State, Department of Education and Skills.
• Síona Cahill, President, Union of Students in Ireland.
• Ruth Coppinger TD.
• Maeve O’Brien, HSE Sexual Health & Crisis Pregnancy Agency.
• Philip McCormack, COSC, Department of Justice and Equality.
• Hildegard Naughton, TD.
• Clíona Saidlear, Executive Director, Rape Crisis Network Ireland.
• Our NUIG workshop facilitation team in 2017-2018, including Siobhán Kavanagh, Chris Place,
Hayley Mulligan, and Michelle Hanlon.
•
Service Learning in Psychology group, including Bertina Bailey, Deirdre Barry, Eilis Carton, Roi-
sin Cooney, Rebecca Gilligan, Hannah Jansen, Roisín O’Malley, Lisa Skilton, Ruairí O’Muineach.
•
Drama, eatre, and Performance group, including Claire Ahearne, Justine Nakase, Megan
O’Connor, Sarah Hoover, Anna Fanning, Catherine Morris, Rena Bryson, John Murphy, Conor
McLaughlin, Aisling Smith, Ciara McEvoy, Tara Spelman, Bridin Joyce, Aoife Delaney Reade,
Alisha Finnerty, Aoife Corry, Alice Cunningham,Jérémie Cyr-Cooke, Elizabeth Flaherty, Michael
Foley, Conor Gormley, Daniel Murray.Film maker Mick Ruane (Bog Dog Films) and crew Fran-
ces Wilde, Ger Conway, Jonny White. Eoin McGrath and the sta at Bite Club, Galway, and Karl
Reinhardt and the sta at Corrib Village, NUI Galway.
v
Foreword by Minister of State for Higher Education
Foreword by Minister of State
for Higher Education
I am pleased to introduce this latest 2017-2018 research conducted by the
SMART Consent research team at NUI Galway and their student and sta
collaborators around the country. is report is the latest instalment in a pro-
gramme of research that began as an exploration of young adults’ understanding
of sexual consent in 2013. at research has now extended to look at the impact
of rolling out sexual consent workshops and facilitator training, and this year’s
survey data is presented on experiences of sexual harassment, sexual health edu-
cation at school, and attitudes to the role of alcohol in sexual decision-making.
Without research of this kind, we do not have the ability to put gures on some of the critical social issues that
feature in our public discourse on sexual health. Seventy percent of the women studied and over half of the
men, reported experiencing some level of sexual hostility by the end of their third level educational experience.
Moreover, 70% of women, and over 60% of men, express dissatisfaction with the sex education they received at
school. Fewer LGBT+ survey respondents than heterosexuals say that their sexual health education at school
covered the topics they were interested in. One-third of young people thought that someone who consumes
28 standard drinks during an evening would be too drunk to give their consent to sex.
is research demonstrates that formal school experiences do not currently prepare most young people well
for managing the sexual decision-making scenarios likely to arise during their time at college. e research
also shows that our youth are exposed to unacceptable sexual harassment and unwanted sexual activity. e
National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) is undertaking a major review of the Relationship
and Sexuality (RSE) curriculum in schools and this will examine the experience and reality of RSE as delivered
in schools and get opinions of students, parents, teachers and principals.
e issue of sexual consent has emerged as a focal point that crystallises our concerns in this area. Consent
covers both the positive and negative components of sexual health. Consent is achieved when two people freely,
willingly and clearly give their continuous agreement to engage in sexual intimacy. Non-consenting experiences
encompass sexual violence, rape, and assault. e emergence of consent as a key issue poses the question to us
- how can we ensure that young adults are supported to achieve positive sexual health, while also challenging
and tackling the unacceptable problem of sexual and gender-based violence?
e SMART Consent team has moved quickly to transform their research ndings into evidence-based activities
grounded in the principles of youth engagement and peer-based learning. Workshop participants themselves say
the workshop is useful and enjoyable. An impressive range of collaborations has been set up around the country,
and there is strong evidence that taking part in the SMART Consent workshop has a positive impact, with 60% of
participants strongly agreeing after the workshop that they have the skills they need to deal with sexual consent.
Finally, the research team is oering exciting future directions for their research in collaborations across academic
disciplines that will reach out to the college community. Workshops and the addition of dynamic interactive lms,
illustrating examples of consent engagement within a workshop environment will reinforce the importance of the
SMART Consent initiative in promoting positive sexual health and addressing the problem of sexual violence.
Mary Mitchell O’Connor, TD
August 2018
vi
Are Consent Workshops Sustainable and Feasible in Third Level Institutions?
Evidence from Implementing and Extending the SMART Consent Workshop.
1
Background
Background
In this report we describe (a) the collaborative eorts undertaken across a number of institutions in the 2017-
2018 academic year to support the sustainability of the SMART Consent initiative, (b) new background research
on sexual consent, and (c) future directions and the extension of consent programming to other formats. is
report is the latest work package in a programme of research and development that began in 2013 with a study
of college students’ understanding of consent. at research was commissioned by Rape Crisis Network Ireland,
published in 2014 as Young People, Alcohol, and Sex: What’s Consent Got to Do With It (MacNeela, Conway,
Kavanagh, Kennedy, & McCarey, 2014). In that study, we established that college students strongly believed
in not doing harm to others and not having sex without consent. At the same time the ndings revealed dier-
ences between individuals in the interpretation of ambiguous factors concerning consent – a reliance on alcohol
in casual sex, varied views on how much alcohol is too much before consent cannot be given, when consent
to earlier intimacy means that consent still applies later in the same encounter, the assumptions prompted by
gender norms and other social expectations, and so on.
We have continued to explore the dual nature of consent since then: a concept that has clear principles reecting
our right to personal integrity, while at the same time it is applied in a way that is contextual and aected by
social beliefs. With the support of funders and supporters such as the Irish Research Council, HSE Sexual Health
& Crisis Pregnancy Programme, NUI Galway Student Projects Fund, the Confederation of Student Services in
Ireland, the PhD in Child & Youth Research at NUIG, and Galway Healthy Cities Project, we have explored the
meaning of sexual consent held by students, how this meaning is applied by students, and the social context in
which consent happens. In particular, this work has involved (a) gathering research evidence on consent through
surveys and qualitative work, (b) developing this evidence into workshop activities underpinned by a positive
sexual health ethos, and (c) exploring how consent workshops can be implemented in third level educational
institutions. is work was summarised most recently in 2017 in a report on the Development, Implementation,
& Evaluation of the SMART Consent Workshop (MacNeela, Breen, Byrnes, O’Higgins, Seery, & Silke, 2017).
e sexual consent approach to promoting sexual health has emerged comparatively recently and is still in the
early stages of development internationally (Muehlenhard et al., 2016). It sits alongside a longer tradition of
work on the extent of sexual violence within the college population and interventions designed to reduce vio-
lence and assault. Considerable progress has been made over the past ve years through the eorts of national
student organisations in the UK and Ireland (e.g., “at’s What She Said” and “Hidden Marks” reports by the
NUS, “Say Something” by the USI), supported by institutional surveys such as e SHAG Report at NUI Gal-
way (Byrnes & MacNeela, 2017) and the “Stand Together” survey at Queens University Belfast. ese surveys
broadly support the long established research nding from the U.S. that approximately 1 in 5 female students
experience sexual assault during their time at college (Muehlenhard et al., 2017).
In our research we use the denition of sexual consent adopted by Hickman and Muehlenhard (1999, p. 259),
that consent refers to “the freely given verbal or nonverbal communication of a feeling of willingness to engage in
sexual activity”. In unpacking this denition during the SMART Consent workshop we consider how intoxication,
unspoken and direct pressure impact on whether consent is actually freely given. We talk about the outward
signals of consent, including direct verbal signals (e.g., asking your partner if they wish to have sex) and indirect
signals (e.g., asking your partner whether you should get a condom); we distinguish nonverbal signals, such as
smiling, from initiating and directive nonverbal signals (such as pushing forward within intimacy until stopped);
describe passive consent (showing agreement by allowing your partner to initiate intimacy), and compare it
with non-consenting situations where your partner does not react, such as fear, intimidation, or intoxication.
2
Are Consent Workshops Sustainable and Feasible in Third Level Institutions?
Evidence from Implementing and Extending the SMART Consent Workshop.
e denition enables us to talk about how being willing to engage in intimacy is not necessarily the same thing
as wanting to engage in intimacy. Further to this, we can ask about what forms of intimacy require consent –
from touching and kissing through to sexual intercourse and other forms of penetration. We also discuss how
consent is applicable to all forms of relationship status and sexual orientations, and the ongoing nature of consent
whereby agreeing to one thing does not imply agreement to other forms of intimacy. e research denition
forms a central part of the SMART Consent workshop, and is consistent with the more recently introduced
legal denition of consent in Ireland (Criminal Law (Sexual Oences) Act 2017, 48.9.1), which states that “A
person consents to a sexual act if he or she freely and voluntarily agrees to engage in that act”, and goes on to
unpack the meaning of agreement with reference to issues such as intoxication and coercion.
We devised the workshop as a vehicle to get across this information, but in a way that is engaging, active, and
meaningful, not as a class or lecture on consent. e SMART Consent workshop is an active, youth-oriented work-
shop that lasts between 50 minutes to two hours depending on the group and opportunity available. It consists of
a series of activities derived from the primary research that we have conducted with thousands of young adults in
Ireland. e workshop raises awareness of consent, establishes clear principles about positive consent, and also
reveals the grey area involved when this model of positive consent is implemented. e SMART acronym clari-
es that consent is relevant to all Sexual orientations / genders, involves a clear state of Mind that is not aected
by intoxication or pressure, that consent refers to all Activities and forms of intimacy, consent is critical not just
to single people but to all regardless of Relationship status, and that positive, active consent involves Talking or
nonverbal behaviour. Consent is about feeling you want to have intimacy, saying it, and showing it.
Moreover, we have designed the workshop on the basis that it can be widely delivered with the right training and
support. We rst piloted the SMART Consent workshop in 2015-16, then manualised it as a standard format
and tested its impact using a Randomised Control Trial methodology in 2016-17. We rst provided facilitator
training to sta and students at TCD in 2016. Now in this report we describe the further development of the
sustainability element of the initiative in 2017-18, which we accomplished by devising a training programme
for facilitators across a number of institutions. is year we have provided training to students and sta at Uni-
versity of Limerick, NUI Galway, GMIT, Dublin City University, Queens University Belfast, and the National
College of Art & Design. e facilitator training enables consent workshops to be embedded as a standard part
of the student experience. Training is supported by the use of a manualised approach to workshop facilitation,
which employs a workshop handbook and standard materials that we have developed since 2015. Over 2,000
students have now taken part in a SMART Consent workshop. We are also extending the workshop messaging
to new formats that can reach students outside workshops. is work includes a collaboration with Dr Charlotte
McIvor to develop short lms on consent that will further support outreach and sustainability.
e workshop begins with the facilitators describing the aims and introducing themselves, followed by a brief
pre-workshop evaluation (with post-workshop evaluation at the end), and agreement of a group contract to
protect participants. e main body of the workshop involves group members in a series of activities, to agree
what consent is (establishing agreement on the positive principles underpinning consent), to decide on whether
consent was present in each of a set of case scenarios / vignettes characterised by complexity (the ‘grey area’ of
consent), to learn more about the social norms gap we have identied (whereby personal attitudes to consent are
more positive than the beliefs held about peers’ views of consent), and to wrap up and consolidate the learning
that has taken place.
During 2017-2018 we have worked with a number of student groups at NUI Galway to further develop our
understanding of sexual consent and the context in which it takes place. In particular, theatre students and psy-
chology students helped us to develop a model to take the SMART Consent programme messaging forward to
develop a whole of campus approach. is model is based on 4 Cs – Condence, Communication, Community,
and Change, with the individual at the centre and their relations with partners, peers, community, and society
Background
3
progressively moving outwards. As we continue to work in this area, it will be important to change social and
community norms as well as informing individuals. Yet knowledge and capacity concerning consent is founded
on individual preparedness.
us, Condence refers to personal preparedness, skills, attitudes, and knowledge concerning consent. Com-
munication moves to the next level of consent negotiation, with a partner, and refers to the pattern of consent
behaviours that couples are aware of and comfortable with. We wish to promote verbal consent in particular,
while acknowledging that non-verbal consent is used by a large majority of young people too. Community
refers to the support of friends in adopting an open attitude to talking about consent and sexual violence. We
have found that there is a considerable social norms gap – that individual attitudes, which are generally positive
toward verbal and non-verbal consent, are not matched by beliefs about peers. Our previous research suggests
that a minority of students believe that their peers are as supportive of positive consent as they are themselves.
is misperception is addressed in the SMART Consent workshop but requires further awareness raising and
myth busting within the community as a whole. Finally, while we adopt a positive sexual health promotion
approach, it is clear that sexual violence and harassment occur commonly, and need to be addressed as clearly
as possible in order to Change the status quo. us, alongside promotion of positive attitudes it is necessary
to challenge sexual violence and be involved in social change.
4
Are Consent Workshops Sustainable and Feasible in Third Level Institutions?
Evidence from Implementing and Extending the SMART Consent Workshop.
5
Research on Consent Attitudes and Behaviours
Research on Consent Attitudes
and Behaviours
Each year we have carried out new research on consent and related issues, with the objectives of generating
material for new workshop activities and to provide insights on the context in which young adults are engaging
with consent. Since our last research report in July 2017 there are new ndings on sexual harassment, assessments
of alcohol and competence to give consent, and attitudes to sexual health education. ese stem from online
surveys carried out by Pádraig MacNeela with students on the PhD in Child & Youth Research programme at
NUI Galway – Kate Dawson, Chiara Seery, and Natasha Daniels. ese ndings are summarised below.
Experiences of Sexual Harassment
Our approach to sexual consent is based on principles of positive sexual health promotion – that sexuality is
integral to personal identity, is a normal part of developmental progression and transition in young adulthood,
which seeks expression within respectful, consensual relationships. Nevertheless, sexual violence, trauma, and
assault commonly occur and have signicant, long-lasting eects. erefore, while it is important to develop
and rene methodologies that support positive sexual health promotion, it is also critical that we continue to
explore non-consensual experiences. In this report we provide information on the occurrence of sexual harass-
ment in colleges, which is taken as an important indicator of campus climate and the culture of acceptance of
gender-based aggression.
We conducted a survey that included the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ), one of the most cited
measures of self-reported sexual harassment (Fitzgerald et al., 1988). It was recently adapted by the developers
of the ARC3 Campus Climate Survey in the U.S. (Wood et al., 2017). ARC3 is the Administrator Researcher
Campus Climate Consortium, a collaborative eort between academics that compiles a number of measures
into one survey package (see http://campusclimate.gsu.edu/). We used this adapted SEQ from the ARC3 survey
tool in a survey of students at one Irish university in late 2016. is was included as one part of a longer online
survey conducted by Pádraig MacNeela and Chiara Seery, previously unreported. e measure comprises 19
items covering ve types of sexual harassment (Sexist Hostility/Sexist Gender Harassment, Items 1-4; Sexual
Hostility/Crude Gender Harassment, items 5-8; Sexual Harassment Via Electronic Communication, items 9-11;
Unwanted Sexual Attention, items 12-15; Sexual Coercion, items 16-19).
A total of 632 undergraduate college students responded to an emailed invitation to take part in an online survey.
is gure comprised 56 male Year 1 students, 41 male Year 2 students, and 109 male students in Year 3 or a
later year of undergraduate study. ere were 118 female students in Year 1, 92 in Year 2, and 211 in Year 3 or a
later year. Five students did not identify with binary orientation. Eighty-four per cent identied as heterosexual,
8% as bisexual, 3% as gay, 1% as lesbian, 1% as asexual, 1% as pansexual, and 2% with other sexual orientations.
Student emails were drawn randomly from a list made available through the college that supported the study.
e email claried that the survey included a number of topics concerning sexual health. e response rate to
the survey was approximately 10%, similar to the response rate to other surveys we have undertaken on sexual
health. Respondents were asked to identify how often they have been in a situation in which someone has
engaged in a particular form of harassing behaviour towards them. e reference gure (‘someone’) implies
anyone – student, sta member, or even an experience outside college. e response options are ‘Never’, ‘Once
or Twice’, ‘Sometimes’, ‘Often’, and ‘Many Times’.
6
Are Consent Workshops Sustainable and Feasible in Third Level Institutions?
Evidence from Implementing and Extending the SMART Consent Workshop.
e prevalence of sexual harassment since starting college was higher among women, and the responses are
presented by form of harassment and by item below. e tables show the percentage of women in First Year,
Second Year, and subsequent undergraduate years (i.e., ird Year onwards) who reported experiencing each
form of harassment at some point since starting college (i.e., not ‘Never’). As expected, the percentage increased
by year in college, due to cumulative exposure to harassment over time. Information is also provided in the text
below on rates of harassment experienced by men.
Percentage of Female Students Who Experienced Sexist Hostility/Sexist Gender Harassment
Since Starting College, by College Year.
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3+
Treated you dierently because of your sex 38 48 63
Displayed, used, or distributed sexist or suggestive materials 36 36 43
Made oensive remarks 42 49 60
Put you down or was condescending to you because of your sex 31 39 50
e items concerning sexist hostility and gender harassment show that, for female students toward the end of the
undergraduate experience (Year 3+), 50% or more have experienced being treated dierently, oensive remarks,
or being put down. Over 40% had been exposed to oensive sexist materials. Already by First Year, over a third
of the women had experienced oensive remarks. Taking the items together, 59% of First Year female students
reported experiencing at least one form of sexist hostility, rising to 63% in Year 2, and 73% among female students
in later years of undergraduate study. For male students, the most commonly experienced item in this category
was exposure to oensive sexist remarks (16% in Year 1, 37% in Year 2, 50% in Year 3+). Nearly one third (32%)
of male students reported some form of sexist hostility in Year 1, rising to 61% in Year 2 and 68% in Year 3+.
Percentage of Female Students Who Experienced Sexual Hostility/Crude Gender Harassment
Since Starting College, by College Year.
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3+
Repeatedly told sexual stories or jokes that were oensive to you 31 41 44
Made unwelcome attempts to draw you into a discussion of sexual matters 28 39 43
Made unwelcome remarks about your appearance, body, or sexual activities 41 49 57
Made gestures or used body language of a sexual nature which
embarrassed or oended you 25 48 51
e next category of harassment concerns sexual hostility and crude gender harassment. By Year 3+, over half
of the women reported that someone had made unwelcome comments about their bodies or sexual activities,
and over half had been exposed to gestures or body language that were embarrassing or oensive. Over 40%
had experienced being drawn into discussion of sexual matters with a similar percentage exposed to oensive
sexual jokes or stories. Taking the items together, 54% of First Year female students reported at least one form
of sexual hostility, rising to 64% in Year 2, and 70% among female students in later years. For male students, the
most commonly experienced item in this category was unwelcome remarks about their appearance, body, or
sexual activities (25% for Year 1 students, 37% for Year 2, and 40% for students in Year 3+). More than one third
of male students in First Year reported some experience of sexual hostility, which increased to 46% among Year
2 male students, and 58% among male students in Year 3+.
7
Research on Consent Attitudes and Behaviours
Percentage of Female Students Who Experienced Sexual Harassment Via Electronic
Communication Since Starting College, by College Year.
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3+
Sent or posted unwelcome sexual comments, jokes, or pictures by text,
email, Facebook or other electronic means 15 27 31
Spread unwelcome sexual rumours about you by text, email, Facebook or
other electronic means 8 15 15
Called you gay or lesbian in a negative way by text, email, Facebook or
other electronic means 485
Sexual harassment via electronic means was less commonly experienced than the preceding two categories of
harassment. e most prevalent harassment type of this kind was being exposed to sexual comments, jokes
or pictures (31% by Year 3+), while over 1 in 8 of the female students in Year 3+ had had unwelcome sexual
rumours spread about them online, and 1 in 20 had negative comments about sexual orientation made to them
electronically. Looking across the items in this category, 20% of First Year female students reported some form
of harassment via electronic means, rising to 30% in Year 2, and 36% in Year 3+. e most commonly experi-
enced form of harassment of this type among male students was being called gay in a negative way via electronic
means (5% in Year 1, 24% in Year 2, 25% in Year 3+). A total of 18% of First Year male students reported some
form of harassment via electronic means, rising to 39% in Year 2 and 38% in Year 3+.
Percentage of Female Students Who Experienced Unwanted Sexual Attention Since Starting
College, by College Year.
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3+
Made unwanted attempts to establish a romantic sexual relationship with
you despite your eorts to discourage it 42 48 56
Continued to ask you for dates, drinks, dinner, etc., even though you said “No” 24 38 37
Touched you in a way that felt uncomfortable 34 45 51
Made unwanted attempts to stroke, fondle, or kiss you 41 47 57
A majority of senior undergraduate female students reported forms of unwanted sexual attention such as being
touched uncomfortably, unwanted attempts to stroke, fondle, or kiss them, and unwanted attempts to establish
a sexual relationship. Over a third had experienced someone continuing to ask them for a date despite having
said ‘no’. More than half (57%) of First Year female students reported some form of unwanted sexual attention,
which increased to 61% among Year 2 female students, and 73% among students in Year 3+. For male students,
the most commonly experienced item of this kind was someone making unwanted attempts to establish a
romantic sexual relationship despite being discouraged (27% in Year 1, 22% in Year 2, 47% by Year 3+). Nearly
one third of male First Year students reported some form of unwanted sexual attention, compared with 49% of
male students in Year 2 and 59% of male students in later years of undergraduate study.
Are Consent Workshops Sustainable and Feasible in Third Level Institutions?
Evidence from Implementing and Extending the SMART Consent Workshop.
8
Percentage of Female Students Who Experienced Sexual Coercion Since Starting College, by
College Year.
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3+
Made you feel like you were being bribed with a reward to engage in sexual
behaviour 14 13 17
Made you feel threatened with some sort of retaliation for not being
sexually cooperative 9 13 22
Treated you badly for refusing to have sex 15 18 27
Implied better treatment if you were sexually cooperative 15 17 13
Finally, in terms of sexual coercion, over 20% of the women in Year 3+ reported feeling threatened with retaliation
for not being sexually cooperative and more than a quarter said someone had treated them badly for refusing
to have sex. Although less common, signicant percentages of women in Year 3+ reported that someone had
implied better treatment if they were sexually cooperative and had made them feel bribed to engaged in sexual
behaviour. Just over a quarter of First Year female students (26%) reported some form of sexual coercion since
coming to college, rising to 31% in Year 2, and 39% in Year 3+. Among men, the most common form of sexual
coercion experienced was being treated badly for refusing to have sex (5% in Year 1, 5% in Year 2, 21% by Year
3+). Nearly one in ten (9%) of male First Year students reported some form of sexual coercion, rising to 17%
in Year 2, and to 30% in Year 3+.
Attitudes to Sexual Health Education in School
9
Attitudes to Sexual Health
Education in School
As part of her PhD research, Kate Dawson recently collaborated with Pádraig MacNeela and Saoirse Nic-
Gabhainn at NUI Galway to survey college students on their perceptions of the sexual health education they
received while at school. Over 2,000 students responded to an email sent out to all students in the college in
Semester 1, 2017-2018. Of the 2,150 students who responded to the items on Sexual Health Education, 51%
were female, 47% male, and 2% did not identify with binary gender categories. A total of 85% described them-
selves as heterosexual, 8% as bisexual, 4% as gay or lesbian, 1% as pansexual, 1% as asexual, and 1% expressed
another sexual orientation. e students were largely studying at undergraduate level (68%) but also included
postgraduate students.
As part of a larger survey concerning pornography, they responded to six items on perceptions of Sexual Health
Education at school adapted from Meany (2009), scored on a ve-point scale (‘Strongly Disagree’, ‘Disagree’,
‘Neither Agree nor Disagree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Strongly Agree’). Overall, there was dissatisfaction with the level of sex-
ual health education received at school. ese responses are explored below by item, exploring perceptions by
gender and also by sexual orientation. In order to assess perceptions according to sexual orientation we grouped
LGB+ respondents together. While we appreciate that this can obscure issues specic to individual orientations,
on the other hand we were able to bring together responses from over 400 participants to provide a signicant
evidence base. is allows us to comment on an important issue, namely how sexual health education at school
is seen by LGB+ students. A further breakdown by orientation is possible but is beyond the scope of this report.
10
Are Consent Workshops Sustainable and Feasible in Third Level Institutions?
Evidence from Implementing and Extending the SMART Consent Workshop.
A majority of both male (63%) and female (71%) respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the sex education they
received in the school system. Only 15% of females and 20% of males agreed that they were satised. A similar
proportion of heterosexual respondents agreed they were satised (18%) compared with LGB+ students (15%).
I am satised with the sex education I
have received in the school system
Strongly
disagree Disagree Neither agree
nor disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Female 36.8 34.4 13.6 12.5 2.6
Male 34.2 28.5 17 17 3.4
A similar evaluation of sexual health education at school was apparent in the next item, as 67% of males (and
68% of females) disagreed with the idea that sexual health education at school covered the topics they were
interested in. More LGB+ students disagreed (75%) than heterosexuals (66%).
The sexual health education I have received in school
has covered the topics that I am most interested in
Strongly
disagree Disagree Neither agree
nor disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Female 33.1 34.6 17.3 12.7 2.3
Male 32 35.3 16.4 14 2.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
11
Attitudes to Sexual Health Education in School
Two-thirds of males (and three-quarters of females) agreed that the sexual health education classes they had at
school left out crucial and important information. Among heterosexuals, 70% agreed that crucial information
was left out, while 77% of LGB+ students felt that crucial information was left out.
My sexual health education classes left out a
lot of crucial and important information
Strongly
disagree Disagree Neither agree
nor disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Female 3.8 10.1 10.1 36.5 39.4
Male 5.4 13.2 15.8 36.9 28.7
e next item asked about the contribution made by education at school to the respondents’ knowledge of
sexual health. Only one in ten females (and one in eight males) agreed that they had learned most of what they
know about sexual health from school-based education. Similar percentages of heterosexual respondents (12%)
and LGB+ students (14%) agreed they had learned most of what they knew from school.
I learned most of what I know about sexual health
from my school sexual health education
Strongly
disagree Disagree Neither agree
nor disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Female 43.4 34.9 10.6 9.1 2
Male 45.8 28.6 12.6 10.9 2.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0
10
20
30
40
50
12
Are Consent Workshops Sustainable and Feasible in Third Level Institutions?
Evidence from Implementing and Extending the SMART Consent Workshop.
Related to this, we asked whether respondents were satised with how they found out about things to do with
sex. Despite the issues raised about schools-based sex education, many of the respondents had managed to
educate themselves. Just over half of the males (52%) were satised with how they found out about things to do
with sex, indicating that non-school based education (perhaps information they had gathered themselves, from
parents, or through peers) had a signicant impact. Less than half (42%) of the females in the sample agreed
that they were satised. Less than half of the heterosexual respondents (47%) agreed that they were satised,
similar to LGB+ students (44%).
I am satised with the way(s) in which I found out most of
what I know about things having to do with sex
Strongly
disagree Disagree Neither agree
nor disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Female 7.6 25.6 24.3 36.1 6.3
Male 6.5 16.8 25 43.5 8.2
Finally, we asked whether respondents wished that they knew more about sexuality and sexual health. A majority
of females agreed that they wanted to know more (58%), compared with 44% of males. Just under half (49%) of
heterosexuals agreed they wanted to know more, compared with 61% of LGB+ students, the largest dierence
between the two groups across these items on Sexual Health Education.
I wish I knew more about sexuality and sexual health
Strongly
disagree Disagree Neither agree
nor disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Female 4.2 16.6 21.7 38.9 18.5
Male 7.4 19.6 28.9 34.5 9.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
13
Alcohol and Consent: Sensitivity to Alcohol Consumption Levels
Alcohol and Consent: Sensitivity to
Alcohol Consumption Levels
One of the key issues that arises in the study of sexual consent is the role of alcohol in compromising the capacity
of an individual to give consent, and whether this impact on alcohol on capacity is understood and acknowledged
in the community as a whole. As noted earlier, this implicates the ‘freely given’ nature of consent. If a person is
intoxicated then they will not be able to make an informed, considered choice about whether to agree to have
intimacy with another person. We carried out research several years ago on a case study involving a man and
woman who had sex after drinking heavily. e responses of students who read this case demonstrated that,
if someone is so intoxicated that they are physically passed out, then it would normally be regarded as rape to
have sex with that person (MacNeela et al., 2014). Yet if the level of intoxication was similar to that involved
in ‘blacking out’, rather than ‘passing out’, there were diverse opinions among the students who took part in
our study as to whether the woman involved still had the capacity to give consent to sex, and what level of
responsibility the man had in the situation. is case study helped to give rise to the concept of the ‘grey area’,
in which beliefs held about gender roles, social norms, and alcohol consumption complicate and contextualise
the judgements of the students who we have worked with. While the clear principles of consent were apparent
when talking about consent in general, complications arose when contextual factors converged to obscure the
application of the principles.
Building on this earlier work, we carried out an online survey of 753 students attending one college in Semester
1, 2017-2018. Two-thirds of the students identied as female, 34% as male, and 0.5% did not identify with either
gender category. e sample was distinctive in that more than half were in Year 3 or later (31% in Year 3 of
undergraduate studies, 24% in Year 4 or subsequent year of study), while 31% were in Year 2 and 14% in Year 1.
Eighty-four per cent identied as heterosexual, 8% as bisexual, 3% as gay, 1% as lesbian, 2% as asexual, and 2%
as pansexual. Using a similar methodology to that described previously, we emailed an invitation to a sample
of undergraduate students to take part in an online survey of sexual health attitudes. Approximately 15% of the
students completed the survey. We used a ltering strategy to ensure that one group of students read a version
of a consent vignette in which the man (Neil) and woman (Carol) were depicted as consuming approximately
14 standard drinks over the course of an evening, while another group of students read a vignette that diered
from the rst only in the level of alcohol consumed – approximately 28 standard drinks. Just over half read the
‘heavy’ drinking version (52%) and 48% read the ‘moderate’ drinking version.
Are Consent Workshops Sustainable and Feasible in Third Level Institutions?
Evidence from Implementing and Extending the SMART Consent Workshop.
Neil and Carol were depicted as being acquaintances who meet up on a night out following
exams.Atthenightclubtheybeginirtingwitheachotheranddecidetogohometogether.
They get along well and enjoy each other’s company. At the end of the night they have sex.
The consent behaviours depicted in the vignette are nonverbal (engaging in kissing and
touching,nonverbalsignalsofwantingtohavesex)andanindirectverbalsignalbyCarolin
which she asks Neil to put on a condom. The level of discussion and clarity about consent
could be clearer, but without the addition of the alcohol to the vignette it could well appear
to be a consensual hook up, although one in which Neil has a key initiating role.
We were interested in differences associated with reading the ‘heavy’ drinking version of
thevignette(28standarddrinks)comparedwiththevignettedepicting‘moderate’(butstill
binge)levelsofalcoholconsumption.The‘moderate’versionofthevignetteisdepicted
below. Textual differences with the ‘heavy’ drinking version of the vignette are indicated in
bold and parentheses.
Neil is a 21 year-old third year student. One night he was out in a nightclub celebrating the
end of the exams with male friends. He and his friends had been celebrating in the pub and
drinking since 6PM [1PM]. By midnight he had had the equivalent of about 5 [10]pints of
beer, when he bumped into Carol, also 21, who is in one of his classes at college. She had also
been out celebrating with her friends since the early afternoon.
She had been drinking vodka (the equivalent of 4 pints [8pints]of beer altogether). They
started talking at the bar. Neil bought Carol a drink. They got on well together and there had
been some irting before in college. He knew that he and Carol lived in the same student
accommodation, so he offered to share a taxi with her when the nightclub closed, back to
the apartment complex. Neil started kissing Carol and touching her. She moved his hands
lower on her body. They took a break and had one more drink [threeroundsofdrinks]before
the nightclub ended.
In the taxi on the way home at 3AM Carol closed her eyes and dozed off for a few minutes.
When they got to Carol’s apartment, Neil woke Carol up and they went into his at. He made
her tea and put on some music. They were having a good time laughing and joking together.
He took out a bottle of whiskey and they each had one shot [afewgenerousshots]. Both at
this stage were a bit unsteady [andslurringtheirwords], they talked for another while and
shared a bottle of Coke [Neil spilled the tea all over the table and Carol nearly fell off her chair
gettinguptogotothebathroom].Then they went to his couch and started kissing again.
Soon they had each removed their clothes. Through his actions, Neil made it clear he wanted
to have sex with Carol. She asked him to put on a condom rst. He did so and they had sex.
14
15
Alcohol and Consent: Sensitivity to Alcohol Consumption Levels
After reading one version of the vignette only, participants were asked to respond to the vignette through 14
quantitative items that map on to the dimensions of the Muehlenhard and Hickman (1999) denition of consent
outlined above. Questions were rated on a ve-point scale of agreement (‘Strongly Disagree’, ‘Disagree’, ‘Neu-
tral’, ‘Agree’, and ‘Strongly Agree’). Questions were presented in relation to Carol and to Neil – e.g., ‘Neil gave
sucient verbal signs of his consent to sex’ and also ‘Carol gave sucient verbal signs of her consent to sex’.
e tables below illustrate the percentage of students who chose ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly Agree’ as the response
option following each item. e questions were presented in random order originally but are grouped together
below based on gender of the vignette characters. us, nearly three quarters of respondents who read the
‘moderate’ drinking version of the vignette saw Carol as freely agreeing to have sex with Neil. A similar percent-
age agreed that Carol gave her consent to have sex with Neil. A majority agreed that Carol had given sucient
verbal signs of consent and felt a willingness to have sex. More than six in ten of students who read this version
of the vignette did agree that Carol could regret this event the next day, implying some concern over the cir-
cumstances in which the hook up took place, but just 20% of this group of respondents agreed that Carol was
too drunk to be able to give consent.
Turning to the students who read the ‘heavy’ drinking version of the same story, there are only small dierences
with responses to the ‘moderate’ drinking version in perceptions of Carol freely giving her agreement to have
sex, her willingness, whether she gave sucient verbal signs of consent, and her consent overall. Dierences
were somewhat more evident in ratings of potential regret, and whereas 20% saw her as too drunk to give con-
sent in the ‘moderate’ drinking version, 33% saw her as too drunk to consent in the ‘heavy’ drinking version.
Nevertheless, two-thirds did not agree with the idea that she was too drunk despite having had 28 standard
drinks that evening.
Percentage of Students Selecting ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly Agree’ in Response to Items Concerning Carol.
Moderate
Drinking
Heavy
Drinking
Carolfreely agreed to have sex with Neil, without undue pressure. 74 70
I think Carolfelt a willingness to have sex with Neil. 64 65
Carolcould regret this event the next day. 63 70
Carolgave suicient verbal signs of her consent to sex. 53 52
Carolwas too drunk to give consent to sex. 20 33
Overall, Carolgave her consent to have sex with Neil. 72 69
ere were some similarities in levels of agreement with the same items applied to perceptions of Neil. Com-
pared with ratings of Carol, a similar percentage of students who read the ‘moderate’ drinking version of the
story rated Neil as freely agreeing to have sex, willing to have sex, giving sucient verbal consent, and in terms
of whether he gave consent overall. Compared with their ratings of Carol, fewer students in the ‘moderate’
drinking condition agreed that Neil could regret the event the next day and that he was too drunk to give con-
sent. Ratings of agreement followed a similar trend among students in the ‘heavy’ drinking condition. ere
was little dierence by vignette type in ratings of Neil’s free agreement, willingness, verbal consent, or consent
overall. e ‘heavy’ drinking vignette did attract higher levels of agreement that Neil could regret the event the
next day (66% compared with 54% of students who read the ‘moderate’ drinking vignette), and the percentage
of students who agreed that he was too drunk to give consent increased to 30% (compared with 14%).
16
Are Consent Workshops Sustainable and Feasible in Third Level Institutions?
Evidence from Implementing and Extending the SMART Consent Workshop.
Despite the dierences in perceptions of regret and of being too drunk to give consent, overall the students did
not see the ‘moderate’ and ‘heavy’ drinking vignette versions as very dierent from one another. Even when 28
standard drinks were consumed, 67% of students did not agree that Carol was too drunk to give consent, and
70% of students did not see Neil as unable to give consent.
Percentage of Students Selecting ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly Agree’ in Response to Items Concerning Neil.
Moderate
Drinking
Heavy
Drinking
Neilfreely agreed to have sex with Carol, without undue pressure. 79 81
I think Neilfelt a willingness to have sex with Carol. 61 63
Neilcould regret this event the next day. 54 66
Neilgave suicient verbal signs of his consent to sex. 51 50
Neilwas too drunk to give consent to sex. 14 30
It would have been ok for Neilto ask Caroldirectly if she wanted to have sex. 85 84
Overall, Neilgave his consent to have sex with Carol. 77 75
Two other items were included in the list of questions following the Neil and Carol vignette. One item asked
whether ‘ere was enough two-way communication about the intimacy that took place between them’. ere
was a dierence in the percentage of students who agreed that there was enough two-way communication, with
61% of students who read the ‘moderate’ drinking vignette agreeing that there was enough communication and
just under half (48%) of students who read the ‘heavy’ drinking vignette agreeing. Finally, an item was included
to identify whether students felt it would be acceptable for Neil to ask Carol directly whether she wanted to
have sex (as he had used nonverbal signals). A large majority of students agreed it would have been ok to do so,
and this did not dier according to the vignette type they had read (85% of students who read the ‘moderate’
drinking scenario agreed, compared with 84% of students who read the ‘heavy’ drinking scenario).
It is important to note that the students who responded to the vignette did see the ‘heavy’ drinking scenario
dierently. Comparing mean scores on the items, there were signicant dierences in ratings depending on
the vignette type read in relation to the items concerning regret, perceptions of drunkenness, and two-way
communication. Yet we had expected that increasing the alcohol consumption to 28 standard drinks would
have prompted much larger dierences. e majority of consent ratings did not dier signicantly depending
on the level of alcohol consumed by the story characters. is extended even to the items referring to overall
levels of consent.
ese ndings suggest that it is urgent to achieve enhanced awareness among young adults in college of the
impact of drinking on the capacity to give consent. e story characters in the ‘heavy’ drinking version of the
vignette had a high level of drinking in objective terms (i.e., standard drinks), but also displayed the behavioural
signals that people associate with drunkenness, such as being unsteady, slurring words, and lack of coordination.
ese signals were not sucient to convey impaired capacity, even though both Neil and Carol were both quite
drunk. e lack of apparent force or coercion in the scenario seems to have put it into the category of consensual
drunk sex, yet the recognition among over half of the students that regret could occur the next day does suggest
the potential to raise awareness that capacity to give consent is severely impacted by alcohol consumption.
17
ImplementationoftheSMARTConsentWorkshopin2017-2018
Implementation of the SMART
Consent Workshop in 2017-2018
Our previous report describes two case examples of workshop implementation that took place in the academic
year 2016-2017 (MacNeela et al., 2017). ese took place through (a) a First Year orientation programme that
made use of college residences to recruit participants and support workshops, and (b) inclusion of the workshop
as a session in an existing extracurricular evening programme. is year’s report expands coverage to workshops
that took place in four institutions. It is not our intention to compare attitudes and perceptions between insti-
tutions, so we simply identify the four institutions as Dublin City University, Queens University Belfast, NUI
Galway, and the National College of Art and Design, and do not make further sub-group comparisons of the
completed evaluation sheets received from each institution. is is a sub-set of the SMART Consent workshops
that took place during the year, accounting for 761 students, and reects the number of evaluation sheets that
we received back and had the opportunity to process. Workshops also took place in three other institutions
during the year, with over 1,000 students taking part in workshops during the year as a whole. Since piloting
rst took place in 2015 over 2,000 students have taken part in a workshop.
In three of the four institutions reported on here, the workshops took place during First Year orientation or early in
Semester 1 for First Year students. is was the rst year these institutions had organised SMART Consent workshops.
In the remaining institution the workshops took place as a session in the same extracurricular programme that hosted
the SMART Consent workshop in 2016-2017. e eort to include workshops in orientation and extracurricular
programmes reects the priority of mainstreaming workshops within the student experience. Although there is
controversy associated with whether this makes workshop participation ‘mandatory’, it is clear that including work-
shops within existing programmes and projects helps to normalise the experience and increase participation rates.
e strategy for introducing the SMART Consent workshop to third level institutions in 2017-2018 was based
on collaboration with institutional stakeholders. e typical format for this involves a core group of individuals
who lead the way in establishing a committee structure to identify opportunities to host workshops, to lead the
implementation of facilitator training, and to manage the coordination of the workshops that take place. e
mix of people involved in this work has varied between institutions, but typically involves Students’ Unions
(e.g., VP for Equality, Welfare) as well as other students, Student Services sta (e.g., from student counselling,
health unit, orientation programme), and academics with a commitment to the topic of sexual violence and
equality. is year, the workshop organisation was primarily led by academics and researchers at one of the
institutions, by the local Students’ Union at another institution, by Student Services sta at a third institution,
and by a mixed group of all three stakeholders at the last college.
Facilitator Training
In order for workshops to take place in an institution it is essential to have a pool of workshop facilitators
who have received appropriate training and ongoing support. We oered training at six institutions between
September 2017 and April 2018, to groups ranging in size from 20-35. Over 120 people were trained as facil-
itators during the year. Training took place in collaboration with the local consent workshop organisers, who
managed the recruitment process, coordination of the training day, and follow up opportunities for practice
prior to workshops taking place.
Training was supported by two core trainers (Dr Pádraig MacNeela, Dr Siobhán O’Higgins) and three other
trainers (Kate Dawson, Siobhan Kavanagh, Neil Delaney). e training objectives are to demonstrate the activ-
ities that make up the workshop content, to promote the ethos of positive sexual health and student discussion
18
Are Consent Workshops Sustainable and Feasible in Third Level Institutions?
Evidence from Implementing and Extending the SMART Consent Workshop.
that underpins the workshop, to raise awareness of the incidence of sexual violence, to provide the opportunity
to gain the facilitation experience, and to meet individual facilitator needs. Follow up work will ensure that
facilitator pairs meet prior to workshops and identify how they will distribute the tasks involved in delivering a
successful workshop. Ideally, there is at least one student included in the facilitator pair, and if necessary there
can be three facilitators while familiarity and experience is gained with the workshop content.
WorkshopImplementation2017-2018
e model we have developed this year is to make available a facilitator training programme as a support to
an institutionally-managed consent workshop implementation programme. We suggest that this model oers
signicant advantages with respect to sustainability and successful outreach to the student population. e
implementation of the resulting workshops in 2017-2018 oers an important test of the feasibility of this
approach, which places full responsibility for coordination and leadership with the stakeholders supporting
consent workshops at each institution. In discussing the outcome of workshops this year we concentrate on
analysing the Pre- / Post-Workshop evaluation questionnaire. is comprises a two page document, with one
page completed Pre-Workshop and the second page Post-Workshop before leaving.
is report is based on Pre-Workshop / Post-Workshop evaluation questionnaires from 761 students at four
of the institutions where SMART Consent workshops were held (A=106; B=183; C=298; D=174). e ques-
tionnaire includes (a) Demographic questions, (b) Consent Preparedness questions, (c) Positive Attitude to
Consent questions, and (d) Workshop activity evaluation questions (in the Post-Workshop questionnaire only).
Demographic information was recorded on age, gender, and relationship status. In terms of gender, 32.6% were
male, 66.8% female, and 0.5% did not identify with either gender. e gender composition diered by institu-
tion; the percentage of male participants varied from 20-43%, partly due to the prole of students attending
the college and to self-selection.
A small percentage of students were under 18 (3.6%), 83% were aged 18-21, and 13% were aged over 21 (the
majority of these in their 20s, with the age range extending up to 56 years of age). Year in college was not recorded,
but the majority were in their rst year; in three of the institutions the target group was Year 1 and in one of
the institutions the target group was an extracurricular training programme and so the participants ranged
across academic years. ere were 19% of students who reported being in a relationship for more than a year,
11% in a relationship of less than one year, and 70% who reported being single. Depending on the institution,
the percentage of students not in a relationship ranged from 65-76%.
e Consent Preparedness measure included in the evaluation was devised by the research team in 2016. It
contains six items based on perceptions of self-ecacy (e.g., ‘I have all the skills I need to deal with sexual
consent’) and personal ability to talk about sexual consent (e.g., ‘I’d nd it dicult to talk about sexual consent
with a romantic partner’, ‘I would be condent talking about sexual consent with my peers’). Two of the items
are phrased so that higher scores indicate less preparedness and four items are phrased so higher scores mean
more preparedness. e items are rated on a 1-5 disagreement / agreement scale. A reliability analysis was
conducted to assess the items (Cronbach’s alpha=.656).
One sub-scale from Humphreys and Brousseau’s (2010) Sexual Consent Scale – Revised was included in the
evaluation questionnaire, the ‘Positive Attitude toward Consent’ sub-scale. It comprises 11 items and in the
source article was rated on a 7-point scale of agreement. Five of the items focus specically on attitudes toward
verbalising sexual consent (e.g., ‘I feel that verbally asking for sexual consent should occur before proceeding
with any sexual activity’). Six items focus on obtaining consent before any sexual activity or intimacy (e.g., ‘I
feel that sexual consent should always be obtained before the start of any sexual activity’). Ten of the items are
phrased so that agreement indicates a positive attitude, while one of the items is reverse scored (‘Not asking
for sexual consent some of the time is okay’).
19
ImplementationoftheSMARTConsentWorkshopin2017-2018
20
Are Consent Workshops Sustainable and Feasible in Third Level Institutions?
Evidence from Implementing and Extending the SMART Consent Workshop.
Two revisions were made to the original format of the sub-scale. e original items led o with phrasing such
as ‘I feel that ...’ or ‘I believe that’. For brevity the phrasing was simplied (e.g., ‘I feel that sexual consent should
always be obtained before the start of any sexual activity’ became ‘Sexual consent should always be obtained
before the start of any sexual activity’). For consistency with the Consent Preparedness measure, a 1-5 scale of
agreement was used for the revised Positive Attitude sub-scale (from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”).
On the Post-Workshop form the participants were asked to rate the Usefulness of each of the activities included
in the SMART Consent workshop, on a 5-point scale from ‘not useful’ to ‘very useful’ (i.e., ‘relevant, interest-
ing, impact’). ey were also asked to rate their overall impression of the workshop (‘overall, I had a positive
experience’, on a 1-5 disagreement / agreement scale).
Two small text boxes were included on Page 2 for any other comments (‘what worked best about the workshop’,
‘any suggestions / problems’).
Consent Preparedness
e Consent Preparedness questions answered by the students comprise six questions scored on a 1-5 scale
pre-workshop and post-workshop (minimum score 6, maximum score 30). Two items assess personal feelings of
self-ecacy, two items refer to condence talking about consent with peers, and two items describe talking about
consent with a partner. Taken together, these comprise a measure of consent preparedness. e mean scores
for each item are presented below. Comparing responses from Pre- to Post-Workshop using a paired samples
t-test, there was a statistically signicant change in responses to each item (p values ranged from .000 to .006).
Mean scores on Consent Preparedness items Pre- and Post-Workshop.
Pre-Workshop
Post-
Workshop
I have all the skills I need to deal with sexual consent 3.9 4.5
I feel well informed about sexual consent 3.9 4.7
My peers think that sexual consent is an important issue 4.1 4.3
I would be confident talking about sexual consent with my peers 3.8 4.2
People my age would think that talking about consent with a partner is odd 2.7 2.6
I’d find it diicult to talk about sexual consent with a romantic partner 2.2 2.0
e largest changes on Consent Preparedness items occurred on the two items concerning self-ecacy – ‘I have
all the skills I need to deal with sexual consent’, ‘I feel well informed about sexual consent’ – with an average
change of 0.68 on the 5-point scale. Scores on the two items relevant to preparedness talking about consent with
peers changed slightly less, with an average change of 0.33 (‘My peers think that sexual consent is an important
issue’, ‘I would be condent talking about sexual consent with my peers’). e scores on the items concerning
partners changed least (average of 0.14), but still to a signicant extent (‘People my age would think that talking
about consent with a partner is odd’, ‘I’d nd it dicult to talk about consent with a sexual partner’). It is also
noteworthy that these two items were reverse scored and so had a dierent format.
When combined into a scale total (with the two negatively phased items reverse scored), the total Consent
Preparedness score Pre-Workshop was 22.8, which increased Post-Workshop to 25.1. is change was highly
signicant on the paired samples t-test analysis. e maximum possible across the six items is 30.0. Further
analysis of responses to these items is presented below by considering the distribution of agreement levels
within each question.
21
ImplementationoftheSMARTConsentWorkshopin2017-2018
On the item ‘I have all the skills I need to deal with sexual consent’, 6% of students opted for a Disagree option
Pre-Workshop (i.e., a score of 1 or 2 – ‘Strongly Disagree’ or ‘Disagree’) and 2% chose this option Post-Work-
shop. e remaining students who chose the ‘Neutral’, ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly Agree’ options are depicted below.
Pre-Workshop, nearly one quarter opted for the ‘Neutral’ option, 42% for ‘Agree’ and 28% for ‘Strongly Agree’.
Post-Workshop, these gures changed signicantly – the percentage selecting ‘Neutral’ was down to 8%, ‘Agree’
was chosen by 30%, and ‘Strongly Agree’ by 60%.
I have all the skills I need to deal with sexual consent
Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Pre-Workshop 24.7 41.6 28
Post-Workshop 7.5 30.3 60.3
e next self-ecacy item is ‘I feel well informed about sexual consent’, which displays a similar pattern to the
previous item. e percentage of students who chose ‘Strongly Disagree’ or ‘Disagree’ went down from 9% to
1%. e percentage choosing the ‘Neutral’ response option declined from 23% to 4%. Nearly 40% chose the
‘Agree’ option Pre-Workshop, which went down to 23% Post-Workshop, but the percentage choosing ‘Strongly
Agree’ increased from 29% Pre-Workshop to 71% Post-Workshop.
I feel well informed about sexual consent
Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Pre-Workshop 22.8 39.3 29.1
Post-Workshop 4.1 23.4 71.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
22
Are Consent Workshops Sustainable and Feasible in Third Level Institutions?
Evidence from Implementing and Extending the SMART Consent Workshop.
23
Foreword by Minister of State for Higher Education
24
Are Consent Workshops Sustainable and Feasible in Third Level Institutions?
Evidence from Implementing and Extending the SMART Consent Workshop.
e next two items concern preparedness to talk with peers about consent. e rst of these items is ‘My peers
think that sexual consent is an important issue’. Following the Workshop, the percentage of students who chose
a Disagree option went down from 6% to 3%. Post-Workshop, the percentage of students who were ‘Neutral’
on this item declined (20% to 11%), while the percentage who ‘Agreed’ increased (34% to 38%) as did those who
‘Strongly Agreed’ (41% to 49%).
My peers think that sexual consent is an important issue
Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Pre-Workshop 19.8 33.8 40.6
Post-Workshop 10.9 38.2 48.5
A similar pattern is seen in the next peer-related item, ‘I would be condent talking about sexual consent with
my peers’. e percentage of students opting for the ‘Strongly Disagree’ or ‘Disagree’ option went down follow-
ing the Workshop (from 14% to 4%), there was also a decline in the percentage selecting the ‘Neutral’ option
(24% to 15%), while the percentage who ‘Agreed’ increased from 31% to 36% and those who ‘Strongly Agreed’
went from 32% to 45%.
I would be condent talking about
sexual consent with my peers
Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Pre-Workshop 24.3 30.5 31.7
Post-Workshop 15 36.4 44.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
25
ImplementationoftheSMARTConsentWorkshopin2017-2018
e nal two items concern condence talking to a partner. Both of these items were phrased negatively, so that
higher scores indicate less condence – hence the focus here is on the percentage who ‘Disagree’ or ‘Strongly
Disagree’ with these items. e rst of these is ‘People my age would think that talking about consent with
a partner is odd’. In this case, there was little change in the percentage who agreed or strongly agreed, 24%
Pre-Workshop and 21% Post-Workshop. is was also reected in the percentage who chose the ‘Neutral’ option
(31% Pre-Workshop, 29% Post-Workshop), the ‘Disagree’ option (33% Pre-Workshop, 34% Post-Workshop),
and the ‘Strongly Disagree’ option (12% Pre-Workshop, 16% Post-Workshop).
People my age would think that talking
about consent with a partner is odd
Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
Pre-Workshop 31.1 33.4 11.5
Post-Workshop 29 33.7 16.2
e second item relevant to partners is ‘I’d nd it dicult to talk about sexual consent with a romantic partner’.
e percentage of students who ‘Agreed’ or ‘Strongly Agreed’ with this item remained the same from Pre- to
Post-Workshop (12%). ere were some changes in the other response options, with the percentage choosing
the ‘Neutral’ category declining from 23% to 15%, while those who ‘Disagreed’ increased from 32% to 34% and
those who ‘Strongly Disagreed’ went from 34% to 39%.
I’d nd it difcult to talk about sexual
consent with a romantic partner
Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
Pre-Workshop 22.7 31.7 33.8
Post-Workshop 14.8 34.4 39
0
10
20
30
40
0
10
20
30
40
50
26
Are Consent Workshops Sustainable and Feasible in Third Level Institutions?
Evidence from Implementing and Extending the SMART Consent Workshop.
27
ImplementationoftheSMARTConsentWorkshopin2017-2018
We looked at dierences in scores on this item by relationship status. e percentage of students in a relationship
who ‘Strongly Disagreed’ with the idea that it is dicult to talk with sexual consent with a romantic partner was
lower than for single students (52% of students in a relationship Pre-Workshop, 56% Post-Workshop; compared
with 26% of single students Pre-Workshop, 32% Post-Workshop). is illustrates that condence talking about
consent with a partner is lower among students who are not in a relationship and would therefore envision
talking with a casual partner rather than a steady sexual partner.
Taken together, scores on the Consent Preparedness measure suggest a signicant positive change from Pre- to
Post-Workshop. An analysis of scores per item reveals important trends. Participation in the workshop was
particularly associated with enhanced personal condence and self-ecacy. ere were signicant changes in
preparedness to talk with peers and sexual partners too, although these changes were less striking. e per-
centage of students who agreed (i.e., ‘Agreed’ and ‘Strongly Agreed’) with the idea that they would be condent
talking with peers about consent increased from 62% to 81%. Similarly, the percentage of students who said they
disagreed (i.e., ‘Disagree’, ‘Strongly Disagree’) with the idea that they would nd it dicult to talk about consent
with a sexual partner went from 65% to 73%. While these are signicant positive changes, the percentage who
‘Strongly Agreed’ with the idea that they had all the skills they needed to manage consent went from 28% to 60%.
We analysed Consent Preparedness scores as a function of gender to examine whether there was a gender-spe-
cic impact of taking part in the workshop. ere were too few students who reported a non-binary gender
identication to include them in this analysis. e table below demonstrates that male and female responses
to Consent Preparedness items Pre-Workshop were largely comparable. Scores on the same items Post-Work-
shop reveal that changes tended to be slightly greater among female participants. us, scores on the item ‘I
have all the skills I need to deal with sexual consent’ changed by 0.63 points for women and 0.50 points for
men. is trend can be seen among the other items on this scale. is is reected in the summed scores on the
Consent Preparedness scale, which show that male students had a mean score of 22.8 Pre-Workshop and 24.7
Post-Workshop (a change of 1.9), while female students’ scores changed from a mean of 22.7 Pre-Workshop
to 25.3 Post-Workshop (a change of 2.6). Nevertheless, the changes were signicant for both men and women.
Mean scores on Consent Preparedness items Pre- and Post-Workshop, among male and
female students.
Male Female
Pre-
Workshop
Post-
Workshop
Pre-
Workshop
Post-
Workshop
I have all the skills I need to deal with sexual
consent 4.0 4.5 3.9 4.5
I feel well informed about sexual consent 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.4
My peers think that sexual consent is an
important issue 3.9 4.6 3.8 4.7
I would be confident talking about sexual
consent with my peers 3.7 4.1 3.8 4.3
People my age would think that talking about
consent with a partner is odd 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.6
I’d find it diicult to talk about sexual consent
with a romantic partner 2.2 2.0 2.2 2.0
28
Are Consent Workshops Sustainable and Feasible in Third Level Institutions?
Evidence from Implementing and Extending the SMART Consent Workshop.
Positive Attitudes to Consent
e workshop participants completed the 11 items taken from the Humphreys and Brousseau (2010) Positive
Attitude to sexual consent sub-scale, Pre-Workshop and Post-Workshop. e 11 items are normally compiled
together for a total score. e content of the items refers to two issues, namely:
•
Attitudes toward verbalising sexual consent (ve items, e.g., ‘I feel that verbally asking for sexual consent
should occur before proceeding with any sexual activity’), and
•
Obtaining consent before any sexual activity or intimacy (six items, e.g., ‘I feel that sexual consent should
always be obtained before the start of any sexual activity’).
e Pre-Workshop mean score on the scale across the participants as a whole was 46.1 out of a maximum of
55.0. is indicates a highly positive attitude to consent. e Post-Workshop mean score showed a signicant
change to a mean score of 47.4. Female workshop participants’ scores on the Positive Attitude scale started out
slightly higher than male participants scores Pre-Workshop (mean score of 46.5 for females compared with
45.0 for males), but changed to the same extent as male participants Post-Workshop (a mean score of 48.1 for
females after the workshop compared with 46.4 for males after it). e change in Positive Attitude scores was
statistically signicant for the students as a whole, for men and for women separately. e scale of the change
was lower than for the Consent Preparedness scale, suggesting that the workshop had a bigger impact on per-
sonal preparedness to engage with consent than on positive attitudes. Nevertheless, the students already had a
positive attitude to consent coming into the workshop – for example, the mean scores recorded are higher than
Humphreys & Brousseau (2010) recorded in their original research on the measure with Canadian students.
Some attention is also given here to individual items, to identify which aspects of positive attitudes changed
most following workshop participation. Responses to ve of the 11 items exhibited a dierence of 10% or more
in the percentage of students choosing the ‘Strongly Agree’ option between Pre- and Post-Workshop responses.
e rst of these was ‘Asking for sexual consent is in my best interest because it reduces any misinterpreta-
tion that might arise’. Very few students chose the ‘Strongly Disagree’ or ‘Disagree’ options for this item (2%
Pre-Workshop, 1% Post-Workshop). After the workshop 71% of students ‘Strongly Agreed’ with this item,
compared with 61% before the workshop.
Asking for sexual consent is in my best interest because
it reduces any misinterpretation that might arise
Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Pre-Workshop 11.6 25.5 60.7
Post-Workshop 6.7 20.5 71.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
29
ImplementationoftheSMARTConsentWorkshopin2017-2018
e percentage of students who ‘Strongly Agreed’ with the item ‘When initiating sexual activity you should
always assume you do not have sexual consent’ increased from 33% before the workshop to 47% afterwards,
with the main change involving a lower percentage who opted for the ‘Neutral’ response option. e percentage
of students who selected the ‘Strongly Disagree’ or ‘Disagree’ option for this item was unchanged (12% before
the workshop, 10% after it).
When initiating sexual activity you should always
assume you do not have sexual consent
Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Pre-Workshop 24.7 30.6 32.9
Post-Workshop 14.8 31.4 46.5
Very few students disagreed with the item ‘It is just as necessary to obtain sexual consent for genital fondling
as it is for sexual intercourse’ (2% Pre-Workshop, 1% Post-Workshop). e major change in responses to this
item was a reduction in students choosing the ‘Neutral’ and ‘Agree’ options and an increase in the percentage
who chose ‘Strongly Agree’ (from 55% to 66%).
It is just as necessary to obtain sexual consent for
genital fondling as it is for sexual intercourse
Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Pre-Workshop 14.5 29.1 54.5
Post-Workshop 8.2 24.5 66.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
30
Are Consent Workshops Sustainable and Feasible in Third Level Institutions?
Evidence from Implementing and Extending the SMART Consent Workshop.
Similar, very few students disagreed with the item ‘Most people that I care about feel that asking for sexual
consent is something I should do’ (5% before and 3% after the workshop). e percentage who chose the ‘Neu-
tral’ option went down from 26% to 17% and the percentage who chose the ‘Strongly Agree’ option increased
from 34% to 46%.
Most people that I care about feel that asking
for sexual consent is something I should do
Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Pre-Workshop 26.4 33.9 34.3
Post-Workshop 16.9 33.9 46
Finally, the percentage who disagreed with the item ‘Consent should be asked before any kind of sexual behaviour
including kissing or petting/shifting’ was slightly higher (14% before the workshop, 8% after it). e percentage
who ‘Strongly Agreed’ went from 29% to 39%.
Consent should be asked before any kind of sexual
behaviour including kissing or petting/shifting
Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Pre-Workshop 29.1 28 29.3
Post-Workshop 22 31.1 39.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
31
ImplementationoftheSMARTConsentWorkshopin2017-2018
Student Feedback on the Workshop Exercises
e workshop participants were asked to rate each of the SMART Consent Workshop Activities on a 1-5 scale
in terms of how useful they found them – the Activities are summarised in the table below. ere were some
dierences in the activities included due to dierences in the evaluation form between institutions and in the
activities included. e table displays the core SMART Consent activities used during the academic year 2017-
2018.
All of the activities received a mean rating of at least 4.00 out of 5.00, suggesting that the workshop compo-
nents were seen as acceptable and useful. Four of the Activities received a mean rating of 4.25-4.50 - Activity
1: Group-generated denitions of consent, 4.26; Activity 2: Facilitator-led discussion of research denition of
consent, 4.48; Activity 3: Vignette 1, Martin and Aoife, 4.38; Activity 5: Vignette 3, Claire and Jim, 4.37). ree
Activities received a mean rating of 4.00-4.24 - Activity 4: Vignette 2, Joe and Ciaran, 4.19; Activity 6: Social
norms exploration, 4.08; and Activity 7: Wrap up and key messages, 4.23). e overall evaluation item, ‘Overall,
I had a positive experience’, received a mean rating of 4.52 out of 5.00.
Overviewofthe2017-2018SMARTConsentWorkshopactivities.
SMART Consent Workshop
Activity 1: What is Sexual Consent? Post It exercise that establishes the group members have positive,
shared beliefs about what consent is
Activity 2: Definition of Consent. Facilitator introduces oicial definitions of consent and discusses with
group – there is a lot of overlap with their own definition
Activity 3: Vignette 1: Martin & Aoife. First of three vignettes that illustrate the ‘grey area’ of consent – is a
smile enough of a signal to communicate sexual consent?
Activity 4:
Vignette 2: Joe & Ciaran. Same sex scenario illustrates that consent applies to all sexual
orientations. Ciaran models saying ‘no’ when he is not comfortable. When Ciaran asked Joe
back to his flat, was this a green light for sexual intimacy?
Activity 5: Vignette 3: Jim & Claire. Illustrates that consent applies to both genders – Claire tries to
persuade Jim to have sex when he doesn’t want to. He does have sex with her, is it consenting?
Activity 6:
Social norms, ‘rope task’. We often imagine that other people are less accepting of consent
(especially verbal consent) than they actually are. Participants choose point on rope stretched
across the room to identify what they believe their peers would say. Our survey data is used to
show what peers actually think.
Activity 7:
Wrap up – Key messages. SMART Consent – applies to all Sexual activities, depends on state
of Mind and freedom from pressure, relates to all forms of sexual Activity, all Relationships and
orientations, and involves Talking or nonverbal consent.
32
Are Consent Workshops Sustainable and Feasible in Third Level Institutions?
Evidence from Implementing and Extending the SMART Consent Workshop.
33
Future Directions: Films and Media
Future Directions: Films and Media
e report title describes not only the implementation of the SMART Consent workshop but the extension of
the workshop programming or messaging as well. It is clear that social norms, campus climate and culture are
driving forces behind consent practices and need to be engaged outside of, as well as within workshops. Indi-
vidually, students are supportive of verbal consent, both on a personal level for themselves and in advocating
it for others. Nevertheless, reservations arise about actually using clear verbal consent in close personal rela-
tionships, given the lack of support for development of related skills in school. is has a practical implication
such as the nding we published in 2017 that over 30% of single students feel it would be dicult to say they
do not wish to take part in a sexual activity (MacNeela et al., 2017). We have also established that, while there
are very positive personal attitudes to consent, beliefs about peers norms are less supportive of active, ongoing
consent. e SMART Consent workshop impacts especially on self-ecacy, but concerns still remain in terms
of perceptions of peer and partner attitudes that might impede communication in practice. In the parlance of
the model we have developed with our student collaborators, the level of condence and preparedness can be
addressed more readily than the levels of communication and community, in order to achieve the change we
seek. e workshop is an important step, but needs to be supported by an ongoing and more wide ranging set
of strategies. us, we are exploring how we can use media forms to engage students outside of workshops.
e key methodology described here is that devised by Charlotte McIvor and her students at the O’Donoghue
Centre for Drama, eatre, and Performance.
Charlotte McIvor convened a group of theatre and drama students in Semester 2, 2017-2018. ey met over
the course of the semester on a voluntary basis. Ranging from rst year to PhD level, they took part in work-
shops once a week throughout the semester with the aim of creating a multi-media sexual consent awareness
campaign. ey envisioned this campaign using the tools of theatre, lm and social media to amplify the core
messages of NUI Galway’s SMART Consent Initiative, increase student participation in these workshops, and
develop materials that can be used around the country. is voluntary group also liaised with nal-year Psy-
chology students taking part in a service learning module on sexual consent in order to gain feedback on their
creative ideas from a social sciences, research-led perspective.
is group worked together primarily using the tools of what theatremakers refer to as a devised or collective
creation process. When working in this way, groups brainstorm ideas through an open process focused usu-
ally on a chosen theme or themes (in this case, sexual consent). is gives all suggestions for material from
participants equal esteem in the creative development process. e group then workshop original writing
and performance material they develop singly or collaboratively, oering critical feedback to one another and
revising drafts of each other’s creative work. e group then take shared ownership over the creative work that
results rather than it being given oversight by a single vision or authorial voice. In this particular process, the
participants contributed ideas based on their own personal experiences regarding the theme of sexual consent
but also worked directly with the SMART Consent research materials and wider literature in this area.
e collaboration between Psychology and eatre Studies was rst driven by the RCNI report published in
2014. is rst resulted in a new play created with NUI Galway drama students, 100 Shades of Grey, which
they performed on campus in 2014, 2015 and 2016 in support of SHAG Week (Sexual Health Awareness and
Guidance Week) as well as rst-year orientation week. On the back of this play’s success, in summer 2016,
McIvor and another group of student collaborators made a connection with the Manuela Riedo Foundation and
the Galway Rape Crisis Centre who asked them to make a short lm, Lucy’s House Party, which become part
of the curriculum for the groundbreaking Tusla-led secondary school transition year programmme on sexual
consent, the Manuela Programme.
34
Are Consent Workshops Sustainable and Feasible in Third Level Institutions?
Evidence from Implementing and Extending the SMART Consent Workshop.
e collaboration in 2018 arose out directly of this previous phase of practice-as-research to use the tools of
theatremaking to move beyond the theatre. McIvor observed in a 2017 article on 100 Shades of Grey’s devel-
opment that:
As the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report Not Anymore details, the most eective
sexual assault prevention should be “comprehensive,” “socio-culturally relevant” and “utilise varied teaching
methods,” meaning theatre should be only one part of a bigger picture (“Not Anymore”). eatre projects
such as 100 Shades of Grey therefore are usefully considered as part of a wider arsenal of approaches to
sexual assault prevention on university campuses and in the community.”
is newly constituted group’s ambition to develop a more broad-based campaign will use multiple types of
media to spread SMART Consent messaging to the wider community. e Psychology and Drama students
agreed that a longitudinal rollout of sexual consent messaging should take place to keep the topic relevant as
an idea and conversation topic over the course of an academic year. ey also agreed that it is essential to use
lightness and humour to make the message appealing. Early in the semester, the idea of a multi-phase campaign
grounded in a recognisable logo and tagline began to shape the range of materials the drama group worked
on taking from concepts to nal product. Psychology and Drama students both suggested that key messages
around sexual consent should be pushed out in a variety of mediums and formats over time such as through
short videos, informational posters, social media competitions, buttons, and original Instagram and Snapchat
image/video content in order to sustain student engagement and investment in the theme.
“Galway Gets It: Consent=OMFG (Ongoing, Mutual and Freely-Given)” is ultimately the key tagline that was
settled on to cement the campaign’s central goal of embedding a memorable and succinct understanding of
sexual consent in the NUI Galway study body. is tagline emerged out of original group brainstorming but
also represented an attempt to distill the essence of the SMART Consent Workshop research that consent is
dynamic, ongoing, founded on mutual understanding, and that, following Hickman & Muehlenhard, that it must
be “freely given” (not while under the inuence or physical or psychological duress). is project is far from the
rst to use an acronym to convey the practical meaning of consent. is group’s use of double entendre and
humour is reected in other consent acronyms such as Columbia University’s “Consent is Bae (Before Anything
Else)” or Planned Parenthood’s “FRIES (Freely Given, Reversible, Informed, Enthusiastic” and the group was
also conscious of it needing to be easily adaptable as a Twitter hashtag and able to t on a button.
e major focus of the drama group’s work became the scripting and production of a series of short lms which
allow the viewer to pursue multiple endings within each storyline. e viewer is central in directing the outcome
of each story as it develops by intervening at key decision points. By engaging with these lms, viewers will get
a chance to explore decision-making within sexual encounters. By emphasising choice and the possibility of
positive outcomes to each sexual encounter being within the viewer’s control, these short lms communicate
that broaderchange to sexual normscan bewithin our individual control and have pleasurable results for all
involved. is multiple ending approach also aims to appeal to stakeholders particularly who may be involved
in online or gaming cultures and be open to exploring this topic in a similar format which emphasises viewer
decision making over directed messaging.
35
Future Directions: Films and Media
ese four short lms also showcase a range of sexual orientations and types of sexual encounters (hook-ups
to intimacy withinlong-term relationships):
•
Tom and Julie: A great night out and two friends from college are thinking of taking their
relationship a bit further. Is it their moment?
•
Kieran and Jake: They’re a match on Grindr but what happens when they meet in person.
Is there really only one way this night can end?
•
John and Becky: A long-term couple aren’t having sex anymore, college is too stressful. Are
guys really always up for it or is there something else going on?
•
Siobhan and Mary: It’s closing time. A drink after work might become something more. But
when your crush is your boss, what’s the next move?
By choosing this inclusive approach to storytelling across the four lms, the creators challenge gender ste-
reotypes, make diverse sexual orientations visible, and acknowledge the broad range of sexualintimacies that
individuals may choose to engage in. Varying types of sexual encounters will necessitate dierent skill sets for
navigating thegrey areas of consent that may arise, and the short lms make it possible for viewers to engage
with a range of nuances across the four storylines. e decision points that each character faces (and whose
outcomes viewers control) highlight these nuances of sexual consent that need to be negotiated actively between
partners: expression of passive versus active consent, the obstacle of not having established shared communi-
cation patterns that newer partners may face with each other, and the role of factors such as alcohol, drug use
or dierential power relationships on an individual’s ability to give consent.
Each storyline and its multiple possible outcomes was also crafted with MacNeela et al.’s (2014, 2017) body
of research concerning Irish student attitudes towards consent as a guide, in order to target common areas of
misperception or frustration expressed across multiple surveys. To this end, viewers also get to see research
statistics at the end of each part of the short lms before they make their choice about where to take the story
next. e purpose of this device is not to direct the viewer’s choice towards the “best” choice but rather to give
them access to peer perceptions and attitudes regarding the choice they are faced with through the character.
36
Are Consent Workshops Sustainable and Feasible in Third Level Institutions?
Evidence from Implementing and Extending the SMART Consent Workshop.
37
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
e SMART Consent initiative is based on supporting students to conrm the key principles of sexual consent
(“the freely given verbal or nonverbal communication of a feeling of willingness to engage in sexual activity”,
Hickman & Muehlenhard, 1999, p. 259) and to explore how these principles can be applied in the complexity
and context of intimacy and sexual relations. e SMART acronym is intended to demonstrate that, in addition
to being freely given, willing, and conveyed clearly, consent is relevant across all sexual orientations, gender
identities, and relationship statuses, and is applicable to all forms of intimacy. We also summarise our position
on consent through the ‘feeling it, saying it, showing it’ tagline, which is complemented by the OMFG mnemonic
to be introduced later this year – ongoing, mutual, and freely given.
We feel that ongoing developments to consent messaging ought to occur, informed by collaboration and inclusion
of a wide range of stakeholders, including students. Hence we are highlighting social norms and ecology more
strongly by directing attention to the 4 Cs of condence, communication, community, and change, a model
that grew from collaborative work with students. e continuous development of the initiative is also seen in
collaborations between psychology and theatre studies, which will yield a signicant new lm resource for
community outreach. e openness of the SMART Consent initiative is demonstrated in the impact that our
collaborations with institutional projects have had on our approach – we have learned greatly from the groups
of sta and students we have worked with around the country – in how they have devised facilitator recruitment
strategies, found niches in college life that will support workshop implementation, coordinated and supported
workshops to take place, and sought to embed consent as a feature of the work they do to support students.
ese eorts are only relevant to the extent that they are feasible to implement on a sustainable basis, and lead to
positive outcomes. e commitment of local teams in each of the six institutions that provided SMART Consent
workshops has demonstrated that it is possible to deliver high quality workshops on a wide scale. Facilitator
training and workshop support appears to have been successful in addressing the developmental needs of these
institutional teams. ere are encouraging signs that consent workshops will be provided in more institutions in
2018-2019; the colleges we collaborated with in the past year have expressed interest in continuing to develop
this work, and new initiatives are planned. ese include the introduction of consent workshops as part of ori-
entation to student accommodation at NUI Galway, which will be led by NUIG Students’ Union; introduction
of consent workshops at the University of Ulster; scaling up of 2018 pilot initiatives at DCU, GMIT, and UL to
reach larger numbers of students; and continuation of successful strategies at QUB and the National College
of Art & Design. Students and sta at several other institutions are also considering piloting of workshops.
e long term sustainability and scaling up of this work in institutions around the country will depend on full
integration with college policies, protocols, and with appropriate access to resourcing and recognition of the
eort and expertise involved. In turn, work needs to be carried out to support national standards and recog-
nition of best practice.
Our continued commitment to supporting positive sexual health is seen in an extensive programme of work
completed in 2017-2018. is work can be grouped under three primary headings – (a) gathering data through
large online surveys, (b) supporting consent workshops through facilitator training at a range of colleges, and
(c) expanding the repertoire of sexual consent awareness and education strategies by developing new media
resources. ese headings reect the strategic priorities we identify in how enhanced positive sexual health
and reductions in sexual violence can be supported – through an information gathering observatory on sexual
health, a unit dedicated to supporting action on sexual consent, and support for social change on campuses by
engaging students at multiple levels, on an ongoing basis throughout the year.
38
Are Consent Workshops Sustainable and Feasible in Third Level Institutions?
Evidence from Implementing and Extending the SMART Consent Workshop.
First, with regard to the information gathering that builds a more complete picture of consent, sexual violence,
and contextual factors, within the past year we identied that:
e majority of students experience sexual harassment during the time they are at college. By the time they
are in Year 3+ of college, a majority of female students report experiencing sexist hostility, sexual hostility, and
unwanted sexual attention since they started college; over a third report being harassed via electronic means
and experiencing sexual coercion. While the prevalence of such experiences among male students is not quite
as high, a majority of male students at an equivalent point in the college also experience sexist hostility, sexual
hostility, and unwanted sexual attention, and a third report harassment via electronic means and sexual coercion.
When reecting on the sexual health education they had at school, small minorities of students agreed that it
was adequate or contributed to how they learned about sex. One in eight females, and one in ve men, report
being satised with the sex education they received at school. Sexual health education was seen as leaving
out crucial information. Although both genders saw schools-based sex education as inadequate, women were
particularly likely to be dissatised. Similar experiences were reported on most of the sexual health education
items by LGB+ students and heterosexuals, although LGB+ students were more likely to say they wished they
knew more about sexuality and sexual health, and less likely to say that school sex education had covered the
topics they were interested in.
Students do not appear to be as sensitive as they ought to be to the impact of heavy drinking on the capacity to
give consent. One-third of students saw a female character as too drunk to give consent after they read about
a hook up scenario in which heavy drinking took place (28 standard drinks). is was a higher percentage than
the 20% who saw the same female character as too drunk to give consent when she was depicted as consuming
14 standard drinks. But the scale of the dierence was less than expected. Moreover, there were no signicant
dierences in other ratings, notably whether she gave her consent to have sex. e same pattern of responses
was evident in ratings of whether the male character in the same story was able to give consent when he was
involved in heavy drinking or moderate drinking.
Secondly, with the goal of exploring the sustainability of consent workshops across colleges, we implemented
a successful programme of facilitator training in six institutions. In analysing the Pre- and Post-Workshop
evaluation sheets completed by 761 students in four of these institutions, we identied signicant positive
changes in Consent Preparedness and Positive Attitudes to Consent. e greatest change was in respect of the
components of consent preparedness that relate to the condence components of our 4 Cs model. We also
found that the consent activities that comprise the SMART Consent workshop were rated very positively, with
each activity receiving a mean rating of 4.0 or more (out of 5.0). is is encouraging evidence that facilitators,
supported by our training programme and workshop materials, can have a signicant positive impact on the
students they engage with.
Finally, collaboration with more than 20 students enabled Charlotte McIvor to devise four lms on sexual consent
that will allow consent messaging to be disseminated outside of workshops, for implementation in 2018-2019.
is approach addresses the communication and community components of the 4 Cs model in particular. e
development of short consent lms that put the viewer at the centre of sexual decision-making will be one
strategy in a broader approach to change campus culture. e use of taglines such as ‘Galway Gets It’ (which
can be adapted to other colleges) and the provocative OMFG acronym will be trialed over the next year.
39
Conclusions and Recommendations
Recommendations
e goals of the SMART Consent programme in 2017-2018 were to develop a successful model of implemen-
tation based on training facilitators. Having demonstrated that it is possible to have a signicant impact on
attitudes to consent within a short time frame of a workshop lasting only one to 1.5 hours, we recommend that
this strategy is continued and expanded with the support of additional resources. ese resources should be
directed to supporting the need for ongoing research, the development of engaging activities, and strength-
ening a network and community of practice in this area. Funding should be provided to support (a) a research
observatory on consent, (b) an action-oriented unit oriented to supporting sexual health practice, and (c) to
promote outreach using innovative media strategies.
In considering sustainability, we recommend that there is a sharing of best practice, strategic collaboration, and
agreement of standards for consent and sexual health education between institutions, agencies, and national
initiatives. e success of the SMART Consent initiative is founded on collaboration across a range of stake-
holders and colleges. ere are other initiatives and projects that are addressing sexual violence and consent,
notably at TCD, UCC, and QUB, which incorporate a range of strategies – including bystander intervention
programmes and consent workshops. e ESHTE project led by the National Women’s Council of Ireland is
another important programme of work that is targeting sexual violence and harassment. Rape Crisis Network
Ireland and a number of Rape Crisis Centres such as GRCC and DRCC are active in providing disclosure train-
ing, raising awareness of consent, and contributing to policy development. e Union of Students in Ireland,
the Confederation of Student Services in Ireland, and the Irish Student Health Association are key players in
shaping the agenda for sexual health initiatives in third level institutions. At Government level, the Department
of Education & Skills and the Department of Justice & Equality have a critical role in shaping policy, along with
agencies such as the HEA and HSE Sexual Health & Crisis Pregnancy Programme. Besides input on a top-down
basis it is essential to recognise the energy, imagination, commitment and credibility of those students and sta
who are championing positive consent within our colleges.
40
Are Consent Workshops Sustainable and Feasible in Third Level Institutions?
Evidence from Implementing and Extending the SMART Consent Workshop.
41
References
References
Fitzgerald, L. F., Shullman, S. L., Bailey, N., Richards, M., Swecker, J., Gold, Y., ... & Weitzman, L.
(1988). e incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and the workplace. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 32, 152-75.
Hickman, S. E., & Muehlenhard , C. L. (1999). “By the semi-mystical appearance of a condom”: How
young women and men communicate sexual consent in heterosexual situations. Journal of Sex
Research, 36, 258-272.
Humphreys, T. P., & Brousseau, M. M. (2010). e Sexual Consent Scale – Revised: Development,
reliability, and preliminary validity. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 420-428.
MacNeela, P., Breen, J., Byrnes, E., O’Higgins, S., Seery, C., & Silke, C. (2017). Development,
implementation and evaluation of the SMART Consent workshop on sexual consent for third level
students. Galway: School of Psychology, NUI Galway.
MacNeela, P., Conway, T., Kavanagh, S., Kennedy, L. A., & McCarey, J. (2014). Young people, alcohol,
and sex: What’s consent got to do it? Exploring how attitudes to alcohol impact on judgements about
consent to sexual activity: A qualitative study of university students. Dublin: Rape Crisis Network
Ireland.
McIvor, C. (2017). Exploring and sharing strategies for staging armative sexual consent: 100 Shades
of Grey and beyond. eatre Topics, 27, 145-146.
Meany, G. J. (2009). Satisfaction with sexual health education among recent graduates of Ontario
high schools. eses and Dissertations (Comprehensive). Paper 962, Laurier University, Canada,
downloaded from http://scholars.wlu.ca/etd/962/, March 2017.
Muehlenhard, C. L., Humphreys, T. P., Jozkowski, K. N., & Peterson, Z. D. (2016). e complexities of
sexual consent among college students: A conceptual and empirical review. Journal of Sex Research,
53, 457-487.
Muehlenhard, C. L., Peterson, Z. D., Jozkowski, K. N., & Humphreys, T. P. (2017). Evaluating the one-
in-ve statistics: Women’s risk of sexual assault while in college. Journal of Sex Research, 54, 549-76.
Wood, L., Sulley, C., Kammer-Kerwick, M., Follingstad, D., & Busch-Armendariz, N. (2017). Climate
surveys: an inventory of understanding sexual assault and other crimes of interpersonal violence at
institutions of higher education. Violence Against Women, 23, 1249-67.
